Posted on 01/11/2009 8:39:37 AM PST by GonzoII
egad! That'll teach me not to skip my morning coffee! (Totally embarrassed.)
I have written that and other "Carmel Days" stories over the 20 years of my published column. I 'retired' this year but went out with a bang by once again winning First Place, as op-ed columnist, by my state's Press Association. (Gotta admit, although I do not miss "deadline!" I still have story ideas that intrude into my thoughts - with no where to go...except here in FR, sometimes. ;o)
Haven't seen the movie but I'd probably agree with you if I had!
I liked Eastwood as Rowdy Yates, and he is an appealing personality. I've never liked his movies though. "Unforgiven" and "In the Line of Fire" wern't terrible, but I found them disappointing.
That flick he did a couple of years ago about the girl boxer totally turned me off. I didn't go see it but my daughter did, and she confirmed it was all-around lousy, even if one agreed with Eastwood's premise.
Especially the ‘aging’ of the “BLACK WIDOWS” motorcycle gang.
Yeah, they were great. Except for that screeching skeleton he had for a love interest.
"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will chew on Philo Beddoe's ass for my last supper!"
I'm fond of Bronco Billy, only for the fact that, aside from the horrible story and acting, it was filmed in my home town and the local area. That, and a friend of the family had a bit part in it.
“Turn the other cheek” to the degree that you like or that satifies your God fearing nature, Evil will ALWAYS force you to choose to succumb to it or destroy it.
And God knows always what is in your heart.
Totally understood!
I still have story ideas that intrude into my thoughts - with no where to go...except here in FR, sometimes. ;o)
That's what makes FR great!
On balance, he's been a Gift. The Dirty Harry flicks are as tops today as when they first came out (excepting Sudden Impact,IMO). His 70s and 80s Westerns were, for me, a core ingredient of the quintessential American soul, and I'm a proud American. I was away from the U.S. for several months once when I was young, and when I returned there were only two things I craved from the pit of my gut: a hamburger and High Plains Drifter.
“Turning the other check is ..” ~ Born to Conserve
That admonishment must be understood within the context of what it meant in ancient culture. The meaning is __just the opposite__ of a “pacifist” response.
Just the opposite.
Luke 6:27-8 and Matthew 5:39-41 —
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
“[Some interpret] these commands as directives to tolerate injustice and be a doormat, and say “such precepts require the obliteration of one’s capacity to distinguish the good from the evil.” [323] Taken in their social context, these commands require no such things. “Resist not evil” is a well-known Jewish proverb (Ps. 37:1, 8; Prov. 24:19) and actually means, do not compete with evildoers by trying to outdo them in terms of getting back at them.
Three examples for the teaching follow: Turn the other cheek; if someone sues you for your cloak, also give them your tunic; if you are forced to go one mile, go two. All three of these things refer to what amount to inconvenient, but nevertheless perfectly legal, impositions on the person. The “slap on the cheek” is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange.
It is not, as many Skeptics have supposed, a license to allow yourself to get beat up. The cloak/tunic bit must be recognized in terms of the ancient Jewish customary process of making good pledge on one’s debts by handing over a valuable item as collateral; for most people in this time, items of clothing were the only thing suitable. In essence, the teaching is to provide surety of repayment of a justly-decided debt, even to those who are enemies.
Finally, the double-mileage command refers in context to the legal right a Roman soldier had to make any person carry their belongings for up to one mile. As you might imagine, this was not a popular requirement in the neighborhood of Palestine, but it was the law, and the teaching again is in essence, do it, and do it without complaint, even though the Roman is your enemy. And if you need to know why, consider that your resultant testimony as a member of God’s kingdom (for the Sermon on the Mount is composed of instructions for just that set) is far, far more important than a few mild inconveniences or insults to your person...not that [some] would agree, having no recognition of the kingdom in the first place. Nevertheless, [some] analysis is completely oblivious to both the context and the intent of the teaching. ..” http://tektonics.org/qt/smithg01.html
<>
“Let’s begin with Scripture, and some observational notes from the sociological well of Malina and Rohrbaugh’s Social Science Commentary on the Synoptics.
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Science-Commentary-Synoptic-Gospels-Malina/dp/0800634918 Now a favored argument of skeptics against “un-Christian” behavior of ridicule is to place such behavior against admonitions to “turn the other cheek.” Is it proper to do so?” http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html
I had a friend back in college who wrote an entire term paper on the Medieval "futile" system. He got an A-minus. The prof deducted a few points for spelling, but told him his ideas pretty much worked with either spelling... /g
Time and again, his anti-hero guy is insulted, called names, derided, etcetera, by both the people he's trying to help and the villains. The legendary Eastwood sneer comes from the very action of turning that cheek. He gets insulted all the time! Insults never make him draw.
Where he comes in as a violent warrior is not based on insults, but on defending against attack ... perhaps a bit preventatively at times, but -- it seems to me that pure revenge or lust for insult are out of the picture and Eastwood's Man with No Name is more driven by a grim determination. Justice is always dealt, and you go home feeling satisfied.
“Futile” system — that’s priceless!
All these reviews touch very lightly on the truly awful language that is pervasive throughout this otherwise fine film. I think that EAstwood went way over the top with this. I want to know when — or who — gave permission for Eastwood and Hollywood to debase our culture?
I remember when these words would not even have been heard in private, let alone in a vehicle of “mass entertainment”. The language was debasing, sexist, raciest, and threatening and I think it spoiled the intent of the movie.
Otherwise, the acting is good, the pathos is moving,the theme is thought provoking, and the humor is great. The constant barrage of bad words ruined it for me.
That is necessary for the plot. But, do not be deterred, there is a black gang too. Something for everybody! s/off
LOVE the story (no matter how you spell his name!) ;)
To me.. any age.. Because the characters are quite real..
Kids should be helped to deal with "reality".. I think..
Some movies display reality without being real..
Accompanied by an adult that can deal with reality himself..
Could be a beneficial lesson for kids..
Who is your stepfather, if you don’t mind revealing ?
The movie was great. I loved it.
I'm sorry to hear that.
And to think Red, you could have sat between us.
Life’s saddest words, it might have been.
I don’t think those come in cashmere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.