Saturday, March 28, 2009

Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchcock attended a strict Jesuit school from age eleven to almost fourteen. He later recalled that the school placed particular emphasis on fear, realism, and reason as key traits of religion. Whatever Hitchcock may have said about the role of religion in his life and work, that education remained a lifelong influence. As McGilligan writes: “The fear, the realism mixed with fancy, the reasoning power and discipline of ordered thinking—these were the cornerstones of his art” (McGilligan 24). Not only that, but they helped shape his view of the world.

The mind behind Alfred Hitchcock’s body of work is preoccupied, even obsessed, with questions of goodness and evil, innocence and guilt. Screenwriter Arthur Laurents, who worked with Hitchcock on the 1948 film Rope, observed that it was “obvious to anyone worked with him that he had a strong sense of sin” (quoted by David Sterritt in the essay “The Destruction that Wasteth at Noonday: Hitchcock’s Atheology”). Rope itself is an excellent example of this, with its tale of two young men who are inspired to commit murder by their former housemaster’s Nietzschean philosophies about superior beings and their right to act as they please. Gina R. Dalfonzo



The article where I got this quote is a good read. Go check it out

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

the naked truth of indirect apologetics - a sneaky shifty thief pretending to be a gardener.

what is indirect apologetics anyway, it means apologetic rhetoric gone underground.

It is, while at the pretense of talking abt art, poems, music, n at the same time smuggling apologetic rhetoric warped under the colourful gift paper made by themes. - a dishonest act.


it is a tactic of ducking under the rabbit hole in the face of robust examination of theology in the face of reason. taking cover - yes. hide under the carpet- yes, put you head in the sand- yes.

in any event where the facts prove too "inconvenient" to debate - hide, dodge. run away.

becos in the face of reason apologetics face great difficulties, n they know that, so? sun zi says: if u cannot win, to avoid defeat, run away, avoid combat, hide.



although i regard most half baked apologetics as hilarious, they do exhibit some passion-albeit blind, and are at least honest -though not intellectually honest always, but more honest that you.

you are the one who pretend not to try to convert a person, pretend u r more interested in building a relationship, u support the use of a dishonest strategy - smuggling your overtures under the table, u are trying to MAKE USE of a person's friendship, take advantage of a person's trust in you to foward your hidden agenda behind his back, what is this kind of behaviour?

the behaviour of a cheat, a manipulator, a betrayer. it's like drugging the drinks of your friends in a pub.

your ARE the exact opposite of whatever you claim yourself to be.


for u claim [The relationships that I build must be authentic not manipulative. There is nothing worse than someone building a relationship only for the conquest of converting someone.]

u cannot have a relationship where the ultimate aim is to convert n yet it not being manipulative in the first place, for the actions of the indirect overtures are all calculated to attempt to influence and manipulate what they think.

this is typical religious behaviour, blindness in the face of self contradiction, trying to establish supposed moral high ground by sprouting nice sounding hot air while harbouring other intentions.

you are an example of the hypocrisy in religion, your actions simply says that u r willing to advance the agenda of evangelism at ANY COST, even at the cost of abandoning any kind you guidance thats in the very scriptures you swear your allegiance to.

even at the cost of abandoning basic honesty.

Cure of Ars said...

Please see Rules of Engagement for Indirect Approach...

http://cureofars.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_cureofars_archive.html

Anonymous said...

i have read that long b4 i have even made my first comment here.

in fact i know those rules of engagement better than u do, but, it does not mean u r going to get any concessions from me.

whether u wish u read my comments or whether u wish to reply is also none of my business.

you are not obliged to respond, just as i am not obliged to give a shit abt your rules.