Posted on by Splendid Writings

4 Responses (65 words each)

4 Responses (65 words each)

Antipathy towards the body

Horror scholar Darryl Jones has written that The Exorcist displays “a profound antipathy towards the body that has been deeply ingrained in Christian belief and practice”. The religion especially Christianity considers any words and behaviours that relates to sexuality are all taboo. They have a profound antipathy towards body, especially woman’s body, because they think sexual relationship, behaviour, and temptation against most important Christian values such as chastity and sacred.

In the movie ‘Exorcist’, Regan’s body had been taken by devil and it was represented as Regan’s words towards a priest. Before Regan was normal, she was demonstrated as a pure and innocent child. After Regan’s body was taken, she turns into dark and sexually corrupted. This move directly shows strong contrast and clearly demonstrated how Exorcist “a profound antipathy towards the body that has been deeply ingrained in Christian belief and practice”.

In our society, we call sexually attractive woman as ‘dangerous woman’. The first movie we watched in this course ‘Saved!‘, the troublem makers were represented as sexually open kids. As well as, when main character was pregnant, she started to hang out with a friend who is a trouble maker. It is general perception that bad and corrupted peoples are deeply relate to sexuality.

 

 

Women as sexual instruments of the devil

 

I think a lot of the antipathy toward the body stems from the Christian idea that the body acts as a temple; it should be kept pure and holy in order to honour and worship God. This has a way of elevating sex from a base animal urge, to an act that should only be committed in service to God. So in the holy union of two people in marriage, sex is for the purpose of expressing God’s love and procreation. Engaging in lustful, biologically driven sex outside of marriage then becomes a perversion and is sinful – the work of the devil. One form of sex is life giving and spiritual, the other is a corruption and evil. Furthermore, going back to the Garden of Eden, it is often women who are portrayed as susceptible to the whispering serpents (devils and demons).

 

The Witch (2015) comes to mind with the character of Thomasin, another pubescent girl. In this case she is not possessed by a demon but is thought to be a witch and I see both as representations of the devil at work. Another is The Crucible (1996), which also deals with witchcraft as the character of Abigail Williams lustfully draws a married man into a sinful act.

Art is meant to “go too far” sometimes

I do not believe it is possible for art to “go too far”. The only time that I would consider art going too far would be if the art tried to portray itself as completely, historically factual when it was in fact wrong. Otherwise, the whole point of art is for the artist to be able to express themselves and their vision however they desire.

I believe this because some pieces of art are meant to be over the top and/or very dramatic. This is because that is the norm in that art form (i.e. comedies, musicals, etc.), or that is how the artist intends to capture the audience’s attention. In modern culture, there are tremendous amounts of art in the world. The pieces of art that tend to be discussed and seen the most are the ones that are so over the top/dramatic that it shocks people and opens dialogue on the subject. As well, sometimes the best way for artists to ensure that the audience remembers their art and/or the message that the artist was sending is to make the art memorable because it “went too far” in a normal context.

Due to this opinion, I do not believe that there are any lines that need to be drawn. The only lines that would need to be drawn occur when something is portrayed as historically accurate when it is in fact not. That is a very easy line to judge whether someone has crossed it or not, because it is a yes or no question.

 

 

What is too far and who draws the lines?

 

I do not believe it is possible for art to “go to far.” An artist’s only responsibility is to his/her own vision and they should be free to express that in most any form that takes (with the exception of inciting hate/violence). The lines do not need to be drawn by the artist, but rather, they will be drawn through the reception and critique of the art, in this case the film. This discussion gets into whether art is a reflection of society or shapes society and can best be thought of as a problem of censorship.

 

A film like Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004), received much criticism as it was seen to be an anti-Semitic movie. In this case, part of the concern was that it could “shape” society by inciting anti-Semitism. Or, as we have looked at in this course, Life of Brian (1979) was perceived by many to be blasphemous. It was thought by some to at once reflect and encourage an anti-religious trend in society. Should either of these films have been banned or censored for “going too far”?

 

I think films are a product of the times in which they are produced, and that context needs to be kept in mind. For example, a film made today that extolled the virtues of Nazism or one that portrayed all Muslims as evil would most certainly be met with harsh criticism and would not be widely shown. The social and cultural context of today would draw the lines, but that does not mean the lines should be imposed on the filmmaker.

 

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

Related posts:

  1. Choose a movie, book or t.v. show that involves some type of psychological disorder. Pretend that you are a clinical psychologist, and the character in the movie has come in to your office. There is one central character in the movie that has symptom
  2. communication and leadership theories
  3. communication and leadership theories
  4. 4 Replies to below posts ( ~60 words each) Question 1 Discussion A common theme in late modern North America is the supposed conflict between the rational and the religious—as though the latter is, by definition, somehow non-rational. Where do you see this conflict in The Exorcist? Can you think of other current examples? Q1-1:Rational Religion? Without a doubt, there is an overwhelming push in modern society to understand everything. It seems that the rational conclusion must be true, and the promotion of rational thought will naturally be the end result. Religion is partially involved with the unknown and unknowable. It seems that we live in a world where God cannot be experimentally verified; this devalues traditional rational approaches. In The Exorcist, initially “rational” and scientific explanations are made. Chris first turns to her gods; that is, doctors and psychiatrists. But eventually, their dogmatic insistence on medically explained brain damage (even after it is not medically evidenced) so dramatically fails to correspond to the reality that Chris abandons her conventional “rationality” and turns to a spiritual solution. The Exorcist is a very interesting example of the rational/non-rational dichotomy, as it firmly establishes the nature, source, and reality of the possession. Typical horror/thriller films will overlay spiritual factors but suggest or imply alternate explanations. Films like It, The Ring and It Follows have supernatural forces, but either presents them as alternate lifeforms or leave room for a natural explanation. The Exorcist clearly ties religion to the film; Pazuzu is tied to Babylonian religion and is clearly affected by Christian icons. This implies rational consistency, albeit in a different direction then traditionally taken. Oddly enough, the title is The Exorcist, not The Exorcism, making Father Karras the implied main character, and in him we see doubts about faith ultimately being reconciled with his self-sacrifice. Fundamentally his doubts stem from the rational conflicting with the perceived non-rational and cumulating in a literal leap of faith. Q1-2:Rational vs Religious I would agree that a very common theme in society as of late is the idea that a choice must be made between science and religion… and that those on the religious side are non-rational. A strong example of this in the movie The Exorcist was when Regan’s mom took Regan to go receive medical treatment because she knew something was very wrong with Regan at that time. The doctors spent their time looking for solely “rational” explanations that pertained to the science they had spent years studying and practicing, because that was what was deemed as the only rational explanations to them. The doctors seemed dismissive of things that Regan’s mom was saying and were trying to fit everything that was happening/had happened into their “box of rational”. Part of this was because religion, demons, etc., used to be a lot more widely believed in past centuries. However, in the past few centuries, there has been the increasingly popular idea of being “enlightened” with rational thoughts and science as opposed to religion. This led the doctors to give Regan a diagnosis of a brain disorder because they believed that everything that had been happening had to do with Regan’s brain having issues instead of external factors. Even though Regan’s mom felt there was something else going on that could not be explained in “rational” terms in the opinion of society, the doctors would not entertain such a possibility, because they deemed it non-rational. One very common example of this conflict in North American society are debates of evolution versus creation. These debates tend to be held between a scientist and a religious leader, respectively. The scientists tend to be portrayed as the person making all the “rational” arguments because they seem to be backed up by science and the science community. Then, the religious leader tends to be the one making the more extreme, more out-there arguments. They are portrayed as non-rational, or at least not as rational as the scientist. This has been my experience with these debates in popular culture, at least. Since this is a debate that is relevant in North American society, I believe it is a good example of the rational versus the religious conflict. Question 2 Discussion Supernatural Evil and Religious Fanaticism In The Exorcist, it is clear that the movie depicts the sociophobic fear of supernatural evil through the demonic possession of Regan. But I think the most powerful fear used in the film is that religion will be useless and ineffective at the very moment we need it most; that God will not or cannot save us. This movie spends a great deal of time slowly showing us how all scientific explanations have been thoroughly explored and therefore brings us to possession as the only “logical” conclusion. If this is actually true, to what place other than the church could any of us turn? It becomes our last hope and the chance that it might fail is terrifyingly portrayed in the movie’s dramatic final scenes. While horror is not a genre I have much experience with, I can think of a couple of examples that resonate with me. In The Rite (2011), there is an interesting twist on the fear of supernatural evil, in that it is a priest himself (Father Lucas played by Anthony Hopkins) who becomes possessed. To me this layers in an added element of fear; if even a priest can be possessed, what hope can there be for the rest of us? The Wicker Man (1973), is a great example of the fear of religious fanaticism as it shows “the willingness of people to carry out unspeakable acts in the name of their god” (Cowan, Religion and Cinema Horror, p. 63). It is interesting because not only does the main character have to face the terror of a fanatical cult, but God does not save him! Sgt. Howie is ultimately burned alive due to an irrational belief of the cult that this will save their future crops. There is something very scary about being confronted by a zealot mob with which you cannot reason. This movie also has elements of the fear of the flesh as there are many displays of nudity, public copulation and the sexualization of young girls. This is horrifying to the devout Christian Sgt. Howie. I think the movie is a good example of the anarchy that is the feared (and only?) outcome of religious fanaticism. Sociophobics of ‘Hereditary’ and ‘Midsommar’ One of my favorite horror movies is ‘hereditary’ (2018). The second film I will briefly discuss is more of a physiological thriller, but the element of supernatural evil is present. In hereditary, there are clear sociophobics of death and supernatural evil. One of the main characters dies early in the film in a very uncommon but possible death. She gets beheaded when she sticks her head out of a car window and hits a telephone pole. The randomness of death put me on edge while watching the film because I suddenly became more cautious of my surroundings. This kind of depiction of death in an unusual sense made me more observant and temporarily paranoid about the everyday things I do that could lead to death as uncommon as that one. One interesting thing that the film does in order to raise this fear of ‘supernatural evil’, is to make the protagonist’s efforts pointless. Although several characters in the movie try to fight the entity and prevent more tragedy, supernatural evil prevails and ultimately ends up accomplishing its own goal. This same kind of sociophobic is used in the film ‘Midsommar’ (2019), where the supernatural powers of a cult overpower the protagonist, eventually leading her in to become one of their members. This kind of power shift from the known to the unknown is the root of our supernatural fears. The audience becomes convinced that if this reality the film is depicting is real, that they personally have no power in it. This leads to the question if we are afraid of the unknown or just the unknown being more powerful than we can control?