(As an off-topic, I watched the subtitles edited by Father Sweet from Renren Film and Television, and I couldn’t help but sigh, subtitles, what happened to you.)
I randomly downloaded the subtitles of a commercially available DVD. After loading, I found that they were exactly the same (the first 19 minutes or so), so I had to give up and use almost zero Japanese hearing.
I shouldn't have complained, the subtitle production is a voluntary labor, and it's a bit unkind to say that the food in the pot is not delicious, but watching that scene is indeed speechless, the subtitle shows Islam, but the hostess is holding it. It's the New Testament. . .
Not to mention the translation of bible verses
2. Religion seems to be a theme of this film. I originally thought that the director was a master of reflection in 9 paragraphs, and wanted to explore it in a storytelling way. . . Some Japanese directors and screenwriters are indeed very good, and the front is indeed very similar. It kind of scare me, Japan has eaten Dostoevsky so deeply? ! The words and deeds (understanding) of the priest and his son about sin are almost the driving force of the previous part of the plot. If this film is to explore love (the relationship with sin), this introduction (although the plot is almost a pure possibility) ) is really good.
I have seen many priests doing evil, and there are a lot of people who ridicule and deconstruct religious themes. Incredible) After reading it, I realized that it has nothing to do with the subtitles, the religious theme of this film is a postmodern gimmick, and the postmodern has a profound meaning, but this film is obviously not.
I have also been thinking about what is going on with faith. Many people think that priests do evil, and many religious believers have shady secrets. It seems to be a good excuse for criticism. It is similar to the current people who say that this monk eats meat and that monk opens up. BMW. . . There's not much to say about such remarks in this age of unbelief in the divine, where lay people judge family members as if they have a harder moral high ground. The question is what do you believe? Is it someone (religious leader)? Or your own interests? If it is these two and not a divine beyond this world. . . Of course, nothing can be said. There are so many people who believe in it. If they make such judgments, they will lose their love. But the question has to be raised clearly.
Back to the priest, when he was seduced by Xun, sin had already started on him (he didn't even realize it), the priest's celibacy, confession and repentance all proved that this is a branch of Catholicism in Japan (I said that there is no such thing as that) Meaning) lived in secret with someone, and after breaking up, returned to the church and ignored his son, and then forced his son to repent. . . (If there is no such purely possible plot, the development of the son's character is almost impossible. Of course, there is the possibility of a beast father who tries to abuse the heroine. I can't deny the existence of this priest who is almost out of the ordinary, let alone such a postmodern The film is also based on real events. The son's selective erection is obviously a symbol that cannot exist in reality.) If the confession of sin is understood as a matter of others (rather than myself), I am quite skeptical at this level. meaning of salvation. "Can we remain in our sins that grace may abound? Certainly not!" (Romans 6:1-2). Do sinners have the authority to forgive sins on earth? If it is said that believing in original sin can be washed away (baptism), perhaps the priest's exacting demands on his son still have a purpose. He hopes that his son will be converted into the faith, but he has gone the wrong way and instead awakened the sinful nature of his son.
Looking back, Christianity is not a good-natured theory. If it is said that the son was originally kind, but he went astray because of his father, I am afraid this understanding is still in "self-righteousness". However, the previous part of the film does indeed constitute the original sin. Doctrine reflections and shocks, although not fundamental.
People are all sinners. Although there are so many saints, sanctification is only hope and encouragement. It does not mean that belief itself can make "everyone be Yao and Shun." However, how the son took the road of sin, I am afraid it cannot be explained by deconstruction - perverts are also people, this is another bright spot in the voice of this film, why there are so many people who look distorted, fetish, secret photography Even the heroine begins to think that she is a comrade. In the final analysis, it is the sin and corruption of the world. There is no tragedy of two fathers and no family. If there is a normal and appropriate release of adolescence, I am afraid that the two children will not be so distorted. However, the theological topic of sin is not suitable for discussion here. It is only pointed out here that the film does not constitute a fundamental reflection and impact, because the understanding of sin is inherently formal and superficial (worldly understanding).
"Justification" by faith does not mean that a person is righteous by faith, but that we put on the new garment of Christ, and our sins are forgiven and our sins are covered. The act of becoming a new man is probably in vain. There is no sin that can be forgiven verbally, and in the day of judgment, even the believer will face it alone.
Is it not the manifestation of this corruption that develops human desires into the porn industry of the economic zone and the laws and rulers of the earth who tolerate it? Otherwise, why would the male protagonist take the road of candid photography (because the road already exists there)? It's like saying that smoking can kill you. All advertisements must be placed on cigarette packs, but why can't you eradicate (anti-human?) cigarettes? High taxes are one aspect, and the weakness of the human body will inevitably fall into it. . . Tobacco can be banned, but what cannot be banned is the person who has fallen into the water and the desires that are aroused.
In the end, confession or faith should not be imposed on others. This is what the film can tell.
3. However, in the latter part of the film, it does refer to the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians several times. It can be considered that the director (or screenwriter) intends to use "love" to respond to the pretense of sin in the previous part. The subtitles in these places are true The difficulty in understanding the plot cannot be cited, because it is impossible to see how the transition is made from the subtitles themselves. The male protagonist went to chase the fleeing female protagonist. During the fight between the two on the beach, the female protagonist held him back, and it was this verse that was announced loudly. Why do you want to read this, I don't know the whole story based on the subtitles. But Quan understands it like this - the heroine said, you claim to love me, so do you know what love is? Then open the dam to release the flood. . . It seems that the heroine escaped because she felt the cult nature of Zero Cult, but she couldn't find a way out in her understanding, but the "kidnapping" of the hero didn't seem to be much better. There is a special discussion in St. Aquinas's "Theology of Charity" (the Taiwanese translation is now available for download), and this is obviously not an answer to how sinners can love and what is love in sin in terms of doctrinal and theological understanding. .
The male protagonist's search for Maria and how to find it are really not blasphemous or blasphemous. The child is young and ignorant (look at Kim Ki-duk's Samaritan girl, the girl who thinks that sex can wash away a man's sin>
I am more honest, but there are also principles. The comment is not to elevate oneself but to move towards a better understanding and thinking, so where the film goes, good or bad, it is here. The film (text) itself cannot carry "over-interpretation".
To say that Sin City or something is very philosophical, I am afraid that the philosophies that are written only show how shallow my understanding of the philosophies is. The end of the film fully proves that it is not about reflecting on Christianity (there is no real entry nor talk about reflection or dialogue, postmodern deconstruction, games only), erection as a symbol of revived love, to be honest, makes Freud even sweat. . . The vulgar libido argument doesn't matter, if love is on Libby's multiple levels and finally understood by the male protagonist chasing the car and smashing the window of the two people holding hands, it is concluded that "this kind of pure love transcends any false religion. (Cult) love" This conclusion really finds it ridiculous. There are many fans and believers in this understanding, and there is not much to say.
4. It is worth reflecting on the cult, and many details show that the use of confession rituals, for example, to achieve control over people's consciousness. Derived from the actual Catholic religious form, it is undeniable and worth thinking about. Including a certain Falun Gong will also absorb Christian things.
I didn’t know it in China, but I found out that there are so many “heretics” when I came out. . . Unbelievers are often unable to distinguish between Catholic Protestant Manichaeism and other witnesses, and they are all labeled as cults, and they are all condemned as brainwashing and harming others, but perhaps it is people who have no basic knowledge or standpoint. Only when you really stand up will you not go astray.
Why is being a priest pulled into the Church of Zero? Falling under his own sins, he can only blindly accept (without reflection) traditions about his beliefs, and he does not truly stand in Jesus Christ. If belief itself excludes reflection or claims to eliminate rationality, it is probably not far from a cult.
"In the past there were false prophets among the people, and there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring their own swift destruction." (2 Peter 2: 1) Before Jesus, there were many people who rose up and claimed to be the Messiah, and the disciples were gathered and scattered for no more than a hundred years.
Dare to be eloquent and edifying, may this small comment really inspire brothers and sisters to discern. (transcoding finishing)
View more about Love Exposure reviews
