It's easy to start spinning everything to fit a premise once we fix a certain premise in our minds.
For you, perhaps, but not me. I’m not even certain of my godless marriage theory, it's just something that occurred to me recently, and has more validity the more I watch and think about the film.
If the film was filled with Christian imagery then I would not have even come up with the theory, so you’re wrong there too.
At this point I would need clarification on what you mean by "marriage vows." Alice probably didn't know she had within her any temptation that would incite her to leave her husband and child until she saw "the man." Sometimes we find out things about ourselves as we travel through life. Marriage vows don't whitewash us from things within that we haven't discovered yet. That is fanciful thinking. Well that, and hardly desirable.
Christian marriage vows demand that you stay together until death. People ignore them now and follow their fuck-urges, shredding families. I suspect Kubrick is criticising this in his godless New York.
Married people will always face temptation, your marriage vows dictate that you must transcend it and remain faithful. Alice ultimately did this, but she didn’t need to tell Bill and unleash his infidelity Odyssey, and her solution to ‘fuck’ as soon as possible is wrongheaded. What they need to do is understand and renew their marriage vows.
But I think it's important to give Bill credit.
The film is all the better for not having Bill and Alice cross the line into infidelity, but straddle it. Obviously Bill was in two minds about crossing the line with Domino and the phonecall jolts him back. Overall I think Bill is a decent guy with a bitch wife and some weird friends.
I actually see the film as part comedy. The earlier Steve Martin script shines through, with Bill - a decent fellow for the most part - being tossed from pillar to post by his bitch wife, sex-mad friend, and crazy Russian costume shop pervert. Alan Cummings’ ultra-camp Concierge is flat out hilarious.
reply
share
Seperatrix (1090)
5 months ago
"For you, perhaps, but not me. I’m not even certain of my godless marriage theory, it's just something that occurred to me recently, and has more validity the more I watch and think about the film."
No worries. You seem to take offense at my general statement that "It's easy to start spinning everything to fit a premise once we fix a certain premise in our minds." All I was saying is that we're all subject to bias at times and that's ok -- as long we're aware of our biases so that it doesn't blind us to potential problems with our thoughts and interpretations, hypothesis and investigations, etc.
I think I get it though. You had thoughts on this film . . "something occurred to you" . . so you post to defend your position (you obviously have one), but you're not biased in the least.
"Christian marriage vows demand that you stay together until death. People ignore them now . . " and "Married people will always face temptation, your marriage vows dictate that you must transcend it and remain faithful."
But Bill and Alice did remain faithful and they did resist temptation. And they did remain together. That was my counterpoint to the idea that they violated their "marriage vows." If you're suggesting that her sharing a secret with her husband was a violation, that she should have withheld truth from him for the sake of maintaining a harmonious marriage then that's an entirely different discussion. In any case, I find it a stretch that her revealed secret was a violation of marriage vows.
"I actually see the film as part comedy."
Cummings is amusing certainly. I don't get the comedy vibe but I can see how some might.
reply
share
Melton (2342)
5 months ago
I didn’t take offence to what you said, I just said that it didn’t apply to me.
I don’t even have a position, just a theory which I’m chewing over and posting here to stress-test. You’re correct when you say that I’m not biased.
I didn’t say that Bill and Alice ‘violated their marriage vows’, you’re making counterpoints to points I never made. Pay attention.
While Christian marriage vows don’t directly prohibit forcing your spouse to listen to detailed sexual fantasies you have about other people, telling them you’d be happy to abandon them and your child for a fuck, rubbing their nose in your profound desire to be unfaithful… it’s not really entering into the spirit of things. It’s not going to do your marriage any favours (and indeed it tempts Bill to start being unfaithful).
You both need to understand that you will be tempted, but that ultimately you will remain faithful and honour the vows you have made before God. Of course, if you don’t believe in God, like Bill and Alice, then you’re in a very precarious situation, which is what the film is about.
reply
share
Seperatrix (1090)
5 months ago
" . . . telling them you’d be happy to abandon them and your child for a fuck, rubbing their nose in your profound desire to be unfaithful… it’s not really entering into the spirit of things."
I would posit that there wasn't offered "entering" into things, as in their marriage. It came about when Bill provoked her, while she was stoned, and she course corrected him on his misperception about his surety about himself, herself, and women in general.
" . . if you don’t believe in God, like Bill and Alice, then you’re in a very precarious situation, which is what the film is about."
The film is a warning about atheism?
Now THERE'S a revelation . . . .
I am an atheist myself, and am married. Not to cause offense, but the notion that I don't take my marriage vows seriously and put myself in a "very precarious situation" strikes me as amusing. I mean, can an atheist even make vows before a god they don't believe in?
But, you may be right, perhaps that's what Kubrick intended to say, his message if you will. I don't see it personally, but thanks for the chat.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
That notion is interesting. I would offer that an atheist could make vows before a god that they do not believe in, just as a Christian (or other religious person) could make vows before a god that might not exist.
Either the God exists or It does not.
If the God exists, then the vow is sacred, and will be held by the Deity. If the god does not exist, the vow is - to some extent - absurd. Which means that, either the vow should be treated with utmost care - given that Divine blessing or wrath might be hinging on its breaking or fulfillment - or the vow is essentially meaningless.
However... I am not saying that an atheist should not keep promises or that their promises are necessarily ridiculous... that's a whole other thing. I am only saying that swearing before a god is either True or False, and the fallout of the vow comes to those values.
It could be argued that the belief itself is the catalyst of "meaning". Ie, if you believe in the God, you take the vow and marriage seriously. But then, simply "believing" in the relationship should do that for the atheist, yes?
reply
share
Seperatrix (1090)
5 months ago
"But then, simply "believing" in the relationship should do that for the atheist, yes?"
Oh I definitely agree. I think the vow should be between those getting married. Promises they make to one another which they vow to adhere. This necessarily entails ethics/morality and in the minds of many these cannot be attained without a deity. The latter of which I disagree.
Believing in the relationship to the point that you are ready to commit and make promises to one another.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
I'm religious, but I don't think that a human needs to believe in God to be ethical or moral. I mean, this is evident by the large number of atheists who don't just run around stealing and killing people - not to mention the number of religious people who do.
There is a question as to what morality means in a universe without an underlying purpose or meaning, but it's a complex musing. Is morality just absurd in a meaningless universe? It might just be a philosopher's masturbation, but I do contemplate what it means every now and again.
But the bottom line is that I would not say somebody is immoral inherently due to a lack of belief, nor would I say somebody is being moral if they were acting purely out of a lust for reward (or fear of punishment) that a lot of religious people profess to. For myself, I try to guide my actions to the "good" without thinking that this will get me anything; being a moral person *is* the reward, so to speak. Or, perhaps more accurately, I think that being a moral person is almost a non-option, and reward doesn't even enter into it.
reply
share
Seperatrix (1090)
5 months ago
" . . this is evident by the large number of atheists who don't just run around stealing and killing people . . . "
A point I myself have made to others on more than one occasion.
"I try to guide my actions to the "good" without thinking that this will get me anything; being a moral person *is* the reward . . "
We have moral worth to ourselves and that’s what matters. Now that’s subjective, but the assessment is contingent upon us agreeing that we’re going to care about well-being.
Once we agree on that, that’s all we need to be able to make non subjective assessments of actions, and hence what is moral and what isn't. To the extent we obey these non subjective assessments determines how moral we are. At least that's how I see it.
As far as purpose is concerned, you didn't ask, but I think a purpose is created by a mind thinking in a goal-directed way, with purposes usually being overarching goals or "constant background goals". They only exist insofar as we're talking about a mind thinking about something that way, and those minds only occur in individuals. So purposes only exist insofar as a given individual has a purpose in mind, and that will vary of course from person-to-person, even if there is often common overlap.
Good chat!
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
I'm agreeing with almost everything you're saying, but there are some mind-thorns that come into play around the edges. For example, as you say, if moral worth comes only from within, then it's possible for it to be subjective to the point where it makes no logical, objective sense to condemn a psychopath's "morality" other than the fact that it's inconvenient to the person being hurt by the psychopath.
The problem is that we either can't make non-subjective assessments of actions, or at least, our assessments are always suspect and able to be subjected to the will of others. For instance: how do we know what a non-subjective moral point is?
Justification for morality is difficult in a system of thought where we are all relying on our own selves as the gold standard of ethical value.
PS
Agreed! Great talk!
reply
share
Seperatrix (1090)
5 months ago
" . . . if moral worth comes only from within, then it's possible for it to be subjective to the point where it makes no logical, objective sense to condemn a psychopath's "morality" other than the fact that it's inconvenient to the person being hurt by the psychopath"
Just to be clear, I believe the foundations of morality do begin with the subjective, that yes, most of us are concerned with our well being. That is virtually a universal commonality. Once society (society determines what is right and wrong after all) in the aggregate have that common mindset, then objective assessments can be made to determine what morality is, i.e., what is right or wrong.
As for a psychopath, well, they'd be condemned by either a godless society that agreed that our well being is the foundation for morality or whether a very religious society that believes there is a god(s) somewhere who officially condemns the wiles of the psychopath.
It sounds like where we differ is that you are of the persuasion that there must be an external law giver to make he determination for us, whereas I believe it comes from "within" -- that again, as an aggregate most of us agree that we value our own well being then we go from there.
Alas, this is the stuff that will be debated from all angles to the end of time!
Cheers!
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
It becomes a bit of an ourouborus at some point, yes, just going around and around. "Where does morality come from?" We all seem to know, we just don't necessarily agree on why it is that we do.
I would push back that society determines what is right and wrong. I believe that there is the concept of true goodness out there. If it were not objective and were determined simply by common law, we would have to agree that, for instance, the practice of sati was perfectly moral given that the society in which it originated believed it to be so.
It's not that I believe there must be an external law-giver to tell us what is moral, it's more that I'm arguing that either...
a) There must be an objective morality, not pliable to the whims of social decree or human fallacy.
or
b) Any attempt to say, "This is moral, because I say it causes less harm than that other thing," is ultimately not really morality, but a subjective assertion that reveals itself to be a fantasy. It reduces morality to a kind of collective delusion that we all have to believe in for it to be effective.
Don't misunderstand me! Even in option "B" I'm not saying we cannot arrive at independent morality, just that it would be a sort of collective agreement like digital currency.
reply
share
Seperatrix (1090)
5 months ago
If your position is to claim that objective morals only exist if you don’t begin with some sort of subjective foundation, then you’re talking about something
different than what I maintain, I think we can at least agree on that. But I ask . . .
Is morality based on well-being or on some kind of god?
All of the objections to secular morality that religions think they solve they don’t solve.
When you think about it, what you’re doing when you say “it’s just my opinion” as a resolution is all I have is an opinion while your opinion is rooted in god and “you don’t have to show that god is real or god exists that’s just the way it is”
I don’t see how morality is not subjective whether there’s a god or not. A god does not solve the problem. Because at most what you’ve done is say “this is this god’s opinion”
You can’t appeal to “god’s nature” without demonstrating that a god exists, and besides, if god’s nature was to turn around and say ‘kill your child’ or ‘kill the Midianites’ or anything else it doesn’t make it morally correct. Either something is right or wrong because god says so or god says so because it’s already right or wrong. If the first is true then whatever god says becomes moral and there’s no moral standing beyond capriciousness beyond god’s opinion which still makes it subjective and if god only says something is moral because it’s his character to say that things are moral then his character can be discovered irrespective of whether he exists or says so.
I don't know your religious persuasion, and I won't pry. But I do understand where you're coming from, as I was once a Fundamentalist Christian and the morality argument was a mainstay for me back in the day.
Cheers!
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
I suppose I would ask three questions in response to the assertion that morality should be based on well-being. The first is: who's well-being? That is to say, if you're on something of a utilitarian argument that greater "goods" point the way to moral behaviour, I could ask which person's well-being is paramount, because sooner or later we get into circumstances where we must prioritize.
The second question: how is it that, relying only upon subjective standards, we can say something is "good". If you're a sadist, for instance, torturing other people is enjoyable. You might say it's "good," although the other people certainly won't think so. When you appeal that something is true - there are good moral actions - you are suggesting that there is some kind of standard, whether originated from deity or simply floating in the fabric of existence.
Finally, I might ask - although this is almost pure intellectual exercise - why being moral matters? If we agree that there is an objective morality (let's say inherent to the universe - we don't need to bring God in just yet) then we can search for that morality. If we say that it's all subjective, well one person's moral code isn't better than another, is it? How could we make the assertion, for example, that honour killing is a miserable practice when the proponent of such an act would argue (subjectively) that honour is more important than life under certain situations.
Notably, up until now, I have not appealed to "god's nature." I would ultimately get around to God, but for now, I'm just asserting that morality being subjective degenerates into absurdity.
Are you familiar with C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity? He's much better and putting forward these ideas. Chapter 1's first few paragraphs discuss something of what I'm after here.
Pry away: I'm Christian (Protestant) although I don't slot neatly into any given denominational category or other. I'm trying not to argue from that POV, though, but more generally.
reply
share
Seperatrix (1090)
5 months ago
At this point I become awkwardly aware that our conversation has highjacked the OP's thread and would sheepishly suggest we scoot over to the Philosophy board and continue the chat. Then I thought, there's probably several chat like this taking place already over there and I wouldn't really have anything new to contribute!
Who's well-being? Our own, which necessarily dovetails into the well-being of others. But once we recognize that we prioritize our own, we can see that our well-being is best preserved in valuing the same in others as well.
Nothing about my view on morality is tied to what any hidden absolute has to dictate on such matters, it is an appeal to the fact that we are physical beings in a physical universe and the laws of the universe that dictate the consequences of our actions are going to be the thing that determine whether or not something is beneficial or harmful to us, this is a process that we continually go around discovering and the only thing you have to do is for you and I to agree that we would like to live in a better world and then work through the processes of trying to figure out what that better world looks like and how best to go there. So it’s not about somebody said something, it’s the exact opposite of that. Religions tend to be about somebody said something – you know like when god proclaims this is moral or whatever – and that doesn’t hold any sway for me.
Yes, I have read Lewis book and see it as quite fallacy laden. Though back in the day it was a mainstay for me and I'd frequently share the book with others.
I appreciate the civil discussion. Hard to find on this board at times. Cheers!
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
I feel like we're on our own tangent and that's okay. I don't particularly mind when threads I've started go spiralling off into other conversation as long as it's civil or interesting. After all, OP can continue the original conversation on the other areas of this thread.
On a practical level, I agree with you almost entirely. It's incumbent on society to negotiate the "rules" (and here I'd dip somewhere into Hobbes' Leviathan), but there is a core principal which I think must exist for any of it to make sense.
It's easy to say that beneficial vs. harmful is the goal, but we can observe everywhere that this conversation is largely subjective. The most disturbing one I can think of is with age of consent. Most places have an age of consent, but they differ from place to place. Several countries don't have them (last time I checked). What is disturbing here is that we seem to agree that there is such a thing as statutory rape, we just can't agree when it occurs. If a place with an AoC (not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) of 16 got it "wrong," then there might be a large number of people who are committing heinous acts. Some countries say it shouldn't exist at all.
Another example which I already cited was honour killings. Perfectly reasonable to some subset of humanity. They would say that honour killing is beneficial. I would not.
The reason I brought up Lewis' book is because of his opening argument. I'll boil it down until it is unfortunately tasteless - and my apologies to Lewis' prose - but it's something like, when one person says, "That's not fair!" and another argues that he had the right to do "that" anyway, he is typically arguing an exception, not that there isn't a standard. Lewis goes on to say that this abstract ideal morality is sometimes called the "law of nature," but whatever it is, we at least seem to behave as though it exists. We aren't typically saying, "subjectively, this should be moral," but rather, "objectively, this is moral."
Even your own argument hinges on the idea that we can find the beneficial over the problematic, but I have given two examples (and can give many, many others) where a lack of seeking to an objective truth yields disturbing results. We have no basis on which to claim, "honour killing is wrong," because there is no "gold standard". Now, I don't say these rules need to come from on-high, but rather that there must be something more true than just opinion.
You almost imply this yourself when you say that it's an ongoing process which we are constantly getting better at. Well, better than what? If there is nothing on which to measure our progress, how can you say we are making progress at all?
reply
share
Seperatrix (1090)
5 months ago
"What is disturbing here is that we seem to agree that there is such a thing as statutory rape, we just can't agree when it occurs . . . there might be a large number of people who are committing heinous acts. Some countries say it shouldn't exist at all."
Certainly, and there was a time when women were married at very young ages during those times so of course there would be no religious objection to girls as young as 12 having sexual intercourse. Society changes, cultures differ, this is not a one-size-fits-all-for-all-times morality. Other than if we agree at the base level that statutory rape is wrong (and the vast majority of us do I might add).
Incidentally, I am surprised that there are not any Bible verses against pedophilia, especially concerning young men, given the popularity of such arrangements in other cultures at the time.
But then I came to understand that underlying paradigm of a Christian worldview is moral relativism. But I digress . .
Sure, we can disagree on "that's not fair" but Lewis does nothing to remedy this. Whether there is an absolute hovering about for us to point toward and make an appeal or not.
If there is no absolute. Will that stop people from killing? No. If there IS an absolute will that stop people from killing? No. So at the end of the day the debate is almost a trivial non sequitur for philosophers to enjoy.
A child is told not to touch a hot stove, if they ignore the warning they soon discover why they'd better not. It affects their well-being. That there might be a child out there wired differently that enjoys the pain is an outlier and doesn't really affect the rest of us.
"If there is nothing on which to measure our progress, how can you say we are making progress at all?"
Again, our well-being. And yes, whether or not our well-being is being preserved, improved upon or what have you, it should be fairly evident.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
Yes, and religion has had a disappointing track record with discerning absolute morality. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.
I'm curious why you think Christianity's underlying paradigm is moral relativism...
Although, I should also clarify that I don't think along the lines of Kant. I'm not saying there are clear-cut, easy rules like, "Never lie," which precludes the opportunity to (the classic example) hide Jews in the basement against the Nazis, or (depending on interpretation) use deadpan humour to tell jokes (which might be seen as "lies" and therefore unacceptable).
So, depending on how liberally one interpreted moral relativism, it could apply even with a set of objective moral principals, given that those principals might be very specific to certain situations.
You're right: to some extent, this is academic, and drilling around on ideas like this is why I am enjoying this conversation in-particular and philosophy in-general. But I do think it affects certain standards.
Take freedom of speech, for instance. If one believed in "god-given rights" (even if not actually coming from a god), FoS might be something you believe in to the absolute core, arguing that freedom is unimpeachable. If you don't believe in objective standards, you might say, "Well, FoS is nice, but it's moral to take it away if we hurt somebody's feelings," and create laws about name-calling. But, if we accept that "say anything" is not the same thing as having freedom, we might also come up with, say, libel and slander laws.
Here's a well-being focused question: if you abandon ethical standards in medical experimentation, you can make progress a lot faster because you have no limits to what you can do. It follows, then, that unbridled experiments can (or likely will) lead to better medicine, faster. If we get things like vaccinations and cures for cancer faster, we save exponentially more lives in the long-run. Well-being as true-north might allow this.
It might also recommend eugenics.
Finally, if you can reasonably measure well-being, and you are confident that this is an easy application, isn't that an objective standard that you are appealing to?
reply
share
Seperatrix (1090)
5 months ago
"Here's a well-being focused question: if you abandon ethical standards in medical experimentation . . "
I'm not sure I see a question here but I think I know what you're going for. When I say the subjective determination that we are (most of us) concerned for our well being and if we can agree on that, then we can make objective evaluations, I'm not suggesting that it's easy or clear cut. But then, nothing is easy and clear cut even if one points to their respective religion, as is evidenced by the varying interpretations and arguments that people with faith have over what is right and what is wrong.
I don't know if one can "reasonably measure" well being, other than it's a basic and inherent property that we possess or we wouldn't have made it this far.
Let’s try thinking about this topic from a slightly different perspective . . .
Let’s say you and everyone else in the world instantly became aware that the universe was absent any sort of absolute moral law giver. Where would that leave us?
Answer: in the same world we inhabit now. With individuals, cultures and societies muddling through what is acceptable and unacceptable and often not agreeing with one another.
When we remove god as an explanation it enables us to do the heavy lifting and investigate to figure things out for ourselves. That’s how we, collectively, advance. By not taking the easy way out as it were.
People figured out that they didn’t like being killed (murdered) or having their stuff taken from them (thievery) long before these ideas were codified into religious beliefs.
It’s in that sort of beginning I think we can continue to examine in an effort to explore how we came to be the way we are.
I quite enjoyed your post, not to mention the conversation. I doubt I'll satisfy your philosophical curiosity on this topic. Though perhaps someone far more adept than I can offer something more interesting. But, this is very enjoyable!
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
Ha! I took so long writing out the premise that I forgot the question. The question was whether or not it was justified to perform no-holds-barred experiments on human beings if you knew it would yield faster scientific and medical advances. Philippa Foot might have something to add here... If you want to pontificate on that, go for it, but I appreciate your answer as-given.
And, to be clear, I wouldn't say it's clear or a simple thing to establish, either, even with philosophy, religion, or any other wisdom.
However, I think as clear as it has come happens to have been articulated within a religious framework. When we consider the Golden Rule, it points to (essentially) what you're saying: establish well-being among one's fellow man. It says it simply and clearly, and while (as we are agreeing) the execution of that philosophy is not always a simple matter, it does provide a good true north.
I think that we are largely in concord as to how to proceed as a species and in the moral dimension, it's just that I believe there is an inherent truth to the universe that locks everything in, and you believe that it is a process developed through human interaction.
I'm trying to phrase both worldviews fairly; I hope you will correct me if you feel misrepresented.
For me, it's important to search for the bigger truths of the universe and try and find the answers, even if they are unattainable, or ultimately absent. I think the search is worth it, and the journey is often the destination. While I might suspect that answer lies within Christianity, I can respect those who seek it elsewhere or do not believe in the existence of a fundamental nature of universal law at all.
reply
share
Seperatrix (1090)
5 months ago
" . . . it's just that I believe there is an inherent truth to the universe that locks everything in, and you believe that it is a process developed through human interaction."
And perhaps the inherent truth is that we are part of the universe, the process, that is to say the process of how we arrived here. To that end, as beings that inhabit the physical universe and have the capacity for raw physical pain (as do most animals in the animal kingdom) as well as pain that comes through a life lived in and around others, these ideas of right and wrong as they relate to well being arrive naturally. Then as well become aware enough to label things right or wrong, we run into the problems with the epistemology of it all.
No, I think you summarized my viewpoint accurately and it's a pleasure hearing your take as well.
Btw, I did watch The Ninth Gate last night. I will begin a thread on that message board later today and we can continue this, or any other conversation, there.
I've seen how these threads become narrower and narrower as the posts multiply and I don't want to our conversation to become squeezed into oblivion!
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
It is very possible that that is the only inherent truth out there. I would be blinding myself if I didn't at least accept that I could be wrong on that point. We have guesses, but truly know nothing, of the truths of the cosmos.
I'll head over to The Ninth Gate's message boards and see you over there!
reply
share
Melton (2342)
5 months ago
Did you have a Christian marriage despite being an atheist? Is your wife (?) an atheist too?
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
Can I offer that, while having fantasies about other people and being tempted - as Alice tells Bill - is far from ideal, it is a reality that Alice is going through. Bill goes through the same stresses as a result of hearing Alice's story.
So, the assertion that this is not a good, Christian marriage... I know that this behaviour is not Grade-A, but I might suggest that choosing to confide in your partner is. Saying, "Hey, this is what I'm struggling with right now," reveals one's flaws. That can be dangerous, but maybe it's a risk that married couples should take together.
Alice telling Bill about these issues doesn't preclude a great marriage, it only reveals a problem she's having that is currently preventing the marriage from achieving top potential.
I would argue that Bill's response is, while understandable (he is only human, as are we all) perhaps unwise and/or immature.
Of course, none of this is about the major themes of the movie or the grotesque Wonderland Bill enters as a result, but a God-filled marriage doesn't mean that weakness cannot be confronted, does it?
reply
share
Melton (2342)
5 months ago
Yeah temptation will come, of course, but you acknowledge it and transcend it. You tell God and maybe tell your partner.
A good Christian marriage does not involve sadistically rubbing your spouse’s nose in a sexual fantasy in which your fuck-needs were so hot you were willing to abandon them and your child… because you’re pissed off and stoned and want to make them jealous as hell.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
5 months ago
Oh, for sure. Bill and Alice do not have a good relationship at the start of the film. However, I would argue that, given the circumstances they are in, Alice hiding this or keeping it secret might be a worse point of continuation than opening up.
reply
share
Melton (2342)
11 days ago
The flaw in Bill and Alice’s marriage appears to be its godlessness.
They’re not truly married under god, and so Alice is unequipped to process her temptation, and instead actually uses it to skewer her husband, damaging their relationship even further.
This is not how a healthy Christian marriage works.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
10 days ago
If Bill and Alice were grounded in a sincere pursuit of Christian spirituality, yes, I agree that they would have been more stable in their marriage.
But, of course, if they were then we wouldn't have much of a movie.
reply
share
Melton (2342)
10 days ago
Oh I’m sure the godlessness of their marriage is a crucial aspect of the film. Kubrick is commenting on a lack of Christian spirituality.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
10 days ago
Does he explore Christianity in other films of his? Are you sure Eyes Wide Shut is specifically addressing Christianity?
reply
share
Melton (2342)
10 days ago
Kubrick is examining modern Western marriage, and the religion of the West is predominantly Christianity. We see Christmas trees and lights everywhere in the film, but it’s hollowed out of any spirituality. There are no Nativity’s on display, for example.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9367)
9 days ago
The Christmas thing makes sense.
I do wonder if Kubrick is hinting at the Pagan solstice holidays which were celebrated at the same time of year. After all, Bill is about to head off into a place that has a lot in common with Pagan ritual - masks and cloaks (druidic?), an emphasis on sex, and possibly even a blood sacrifice (the girl at the party).
Of course, somebody needing to die for Bill's transgression might just as easily be a Christianity thing... I might need to rewatch the movie.
reply
share
Melton (2342)
9 days ago
I think the absence of Christian spirituality but presence of Pagan rituals (with a perversely reversed Orthodox mass chant) and an occasional Ishtar fertility symbol are all pointing to a world devoid of true Christianty.
Christmas trees devoid of Christianity, marriages devoid of God, religions built on carnal lust to pleasure people of worldly power. Kubrick is pointing to our spiritual void.
reply
share