Violet & Daisy Movie Downplays Assisted Suicide Wacky Wednesday

***Spoilers Alert!*** The Sopranos: The Next Generation

Image source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mbartyzel/6151510963/sizes/l

Violet & Daisy Movie Downplays Assisted Suicide

In all of the vi'lence displayed
It can make a crowd quite dismayed.
So when mercy's implied
In assisting to die,
It's hard to sort out when it's played.

Instead all the vi'lence congeals,
In my view, on that act which reveals
How they all do connect.
Vi'lence: all to reject.
Direct killing itself, stop its wheels.

vi'lence = violence

Hanna Movie Shows Human Commodity

***Spoilers Alert!*** The movie Hanna (2011) was quite disturbing. Hanna was quite literally made into a human killing machine.

Image source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/canburak/5746918145/sizes/l

What was even more disturbing is that Hanna and many other in-utero children were genetically mutated to become human killers for (probably) the military. What is more, they were selected from babies that were going to be aborted in abortion-killing-chambers.

Catholic social justice starts with the belief that all humans from their conception (pre-, post-, and in-utero) have inherit worth. From this, no human can be made into a commodity for any reason.

Hanna's genetic manipulators (including her "father") knew this, but they did it anyway. It was clear in the movie that Hanna was to be terminated to keep their dealings secret.

If they knew genetic manipulation for creating human commodities was wrong, why did they do it? Did they think preborn humans were less valuable?

How I Live Now Part II

In the last post, Daisy's encounter with beauty was discussed (comes out in the video below in one "somehow" moment 3:25). ***Spoilers Alert*** In this post, the scene where Eddie and the children push Daisy into the water will be examined.

Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirror_of_erised/9627821236/meta/

The pushing-into-the-water scene seemed to be the point when Daisy changed. She was so hesitant to let go of all the weight she put on herself. It was the act of being plunged that seemed to drown all that weight. She was free.

This is much like baptism through water where the Holy Spirit does the pushing and the changing in the sacrament. The Holy Spirit takes all of our sins and baggage away so we can be free.

How I Live Now Part I

I just watched How I Live Now with Saoirse Ronan. ***Spoilers Alert!*** This movie could be a Christian allegory. I seem to be seeing a lot of movies recently through the eyes of faith. I wonder if it's because I'm doing more of these movie/music/TV commentaries?

Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirror_of_erised/9624589945/meta/

The first thing that stuck out was how Ronan's (main) character Daisy, the "I" in How I Live Now, turned from a punk to a lady when she was first introduced to her future love interest.

This reminds me of how people respond to beauty. When we are faced with beauty, we tend to be more open to reflect on the beauty itself and the amount of it in ourselves. When Daisy saw him, she knew that she needed to shape up.

When have you thought the most about Christianity? Was it from a piece of art or music? How did it change you or your outlook?

The Host Part III

In the last post on The Host with Saoirse Ronan, the concept of the soul was introduced. In this post, I would like to look at another aspect of the soul, freewill.



***Spoilers Alert!*** There was a whole bunch of will assertion in this movie, especially in Saoirse Ronan's characters (two persons together for most of the movie).

But first, backing up further to see the larger view, the alien race that took over Earth was pushing their agenda to keep the native people from destroying themselves and their environment (as was mentioned in the first post). Unlike the Ender's Game movie, the reason for the takeover was not for land or resources, but to essentially save the planet by inserting an alien world government and populace (that sure sounds familiar).

This scenario of the movie seems forced. Why would a peaceful alien species who values non-violence forcefully take over people against their own will? Do they see themselves as the doing the right thing (good means and ends) or simply the necessary thing (good ends matter only, not means)? Do they really believe in free will?

This last question seemed to be a shock to the aliens. There was never reported to be a human that still asserted his or her (free) will after becoming a host. This is why Saoirse Ronan's alien character was alarmed and kept secret (for most of the movie) the fact that her host was asserting herself.

Perhaps the aliens did not believe in free will. I've argued before that if there is no free will (no God), there is no morality. If they did not believe, the alien actions would not have to be justified, since it's just those whom blind processes (nature) determine are stronger who get to decide (determinism). However, the hosts did assert their freewill, therefore, there are good and bad means (means matter).

The aliens who became friends with the humans realized that there was a right-and-wrong that the humans had at least a grasp of. This realization was attractive to them.

This attractiveness seemed to be ultimately an attractiveness towards God.

The Host Part I

The Host is a relatively new movie with Saoirse Ronan that was written by the same person as the Twilight series (I found this out just now). I never watched any of Twilight, but this Host movie was creepy.

It was creepy because it reminded me of a reverse demon possession.



Usually, in the Bible and in movies, when people are possessed by a demon, they try to destroy their host. For example, "Lord [Jesus], have pity on my son, for he is a [possessed] lunatic and suffers severely; often he falls into fire, and often into water." (Here's another example (Legion).)



There was a reversal of this tendency in The Host. The alien "souls" who were possessing the humans were stopping them from being violent to other humans and the Earth.

Why is this a bad thing? (Why don't you tell me in the comments below?) Perhaps it is because taking away someone's freewill is against God's prime directive (God's will).

(Speaking of prime directive, the Trill on Star Trek (Dax et al.; Dr. Beverly's Trill) had hosts who freely submitted to being used as hosts. So, the same objection can't really be raised in that case.)