You must log in or register to comment.


SysOp wrote

@28:40 I would also emphasize that metaphor does not require authorial intent. In the storytelling of Muhammad, the Quran, the author of the story truly believes much of what he is telling. And audiences can project upon such metaphorical story elements from their own mind, even when they contradict other parts of the story or other well-known (competing/conflicting) stories. The crisis of a society comes when people forget that metaphors are dynamic, shape shifting, and instead declare them factual and declare certain interpretations of them as believers and other interpretations as non-believers. In contrast, when progression of understanding and expansion of tolerance are the central concern (the highest concern) - one would declare such story elements as dynamic, flexible, fascinatingly complex. Inclusive of multiple interpretations, and even future ideas and thoughts, instead of a closed and rigid system of segregating interpretations into group factions.


SysOp wrote (edited )

@2:38 - the narrative that audiences liked it, critics did not, I think is generally true if you look at a key point you emphasized. Expensive action scene after high-budget action scene. The violence is titillating. There are people who like the film just because of the energy, violence, action. Same probably goes for the customs, artwork, etc.

The story - and it's themes as they relate to other stories and the world at large - that's something I don't find consumptive audiences put much concern into other than expanding on the elements they liked (fight scenes, technology levels of fighting in one group vs. another, etc).