What made it scary is how surreal it made reality. Yeah, some of those images man...like that old woman. Truly frightening. But this movie/documentary (whatever it was) was amazing, just the imagery...great.
sharei really dont think scary is the word, i think haunting would be more suitable. yeah, alot of those images were gripping.
shareDelightfully demented.
share Demented? Scary? It all rang true to me, I am from Arkansas and I have been all over this country. I do not fit into any stereotypical southern but I am a southerner all the same. Those are very accurate images. But not all of us are crazy religious freaks. There are those like me who have never been to church in their life. There are plenty of 'normal' people everywhere. Soccer moms, jocks, educated people, poets, etc.
I found this film very amusing at times, loved the music and I just love to hear those old fellas tell those stories. It happens all the time here, crazy backward ass stories about nonsense. You can't help but listen.
Hmm...but I am still moving to NYC depsite my love for the south.
I agree. I think it put you right in the south. Probably the closest you could come to being in the South without leaving your couch.
A truly fantastic movie.
Like he said at the beginning, just drive 10 miles or so off the interstate in the middle of the south and you'll see what he's talking about. You won't see it at the exits.
shareYeah, I also agree with this. I didn't find the movie to be stereotypical in any way, it all seemed very real and the film was - at least I think so - very sensitive in how it depicted the people that was portrayed.
shareIt's obvious from your post that you have never been to the South.
shareThe only scary part for me was the woman with the shakes who was doing the christian radio show. She was fragile and paper-like as well as frightening, all at the same time. Talk about putting the fear of God into you.
Everything else, I've seen with my own eyes at some point in my life.
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
yeah, Mrytle. She was creepy.
shareThis film wasn't "scary"! What a silly thing to say. I mean, if you've never left the suburbs your whole life, I can see how this might be a bit startling, but it's a beautiful film, not scary or disturbing. Grotesque, but endearing.
(Now, Jesus Camp - THAT'S a scary and disturbing documentary...)
I wouldn't say this movie or Jesus Camp was scary. Actually, don't you see some similarities in the two in so far as religion/God is appropriated into a fairly clear mold (i.e. a pretty clear divide between sacred and secular) and in a somewhat hostile manner (e.g. fundamentalism)?
shareyes, I see what you mean, but the approach of the two films is entirely different. the creators of Jesus Camp are clearly trying to point out how messed-up this particular manifestation of Christianity is, and they are doing so by employing certain conventions (e.g. no narration or commentary) that lead the viewer to accept their point-of-view as unbiased and unfiltered. But Wrong-Eyed Jesus is completely different: Jim White provides narration and commentary from a first-person perspective, and through his role as "guide," the filmmaker (NOT White) discloses his sympathies with his subject. The JC documentarians are hostile toward their subject, and want us to be alarmed by their beliefs and practices; the WEJ documentarian wants us to see the the beauty in the grotesquerie of his subject, or AT LEAST find it unique and fascinating and in no way "scary" or insidious.
I definitely think the two films have something in common, though, and beg to be placed into dialogue (as you and I are doing right now!) - but I feel like WEJ comes out as the far more "fair" and therefore successful or well-executed *documentary*.
thanks for chiming in, btw. These are both great films for discussion.
peace.
"fair" because Jim White was an insider of sort, having lived in the South?
So a successful documentary is "fair"? Or how about, a successful documentary is one that leaves the viewer with more room for an interpretation in the film's conclusion, rather than less room?
Yeah, I see the differences in the approach of each film, but I wouldn't argue that there wasn't a degree of displaying "how messed-up this particular manifestation of Christianity is" with the WEJ film. One difference between WEJ and Jesus Camp with regard to its description of Christianity is the regional component. With JC, the region of the camp (South Dakota) factors very little into the minds of the viewers, whereas with WEJ, the Southern region is basically WHY the religion is expressed in such a way in that part of the country -- the cultural expression of a religion (e.g. overtones of violence). In other words, Christianity is just one part of the whole package we consider the South, though it is a very large part, and as a result, WEJ used that fact to help shed light on the nature of this physical region through a spiritual lense. With JC, the fact that the entire film right from the get go was about one of the two topics Americans are told not to discuss in polite company (politics and religion) bolstered its contentious product of portraying a more pejorative view of its subject.
Put a different way, Jesus Camp was more controversial because it dealt with a more touchy subject that people have a variety of experiences with, positive or negative. In that sense, the nature of the movie was almost to stir up controversy. With Searching for the Wrong Eyed Jesus, the subject of the film was to document not a touchy subject, but more so a physical place, whether it includes touchy subjects or not. And since the American South is a more rigid place in terms of its physical geography and such (for example, we can picture where it is located), this afforded the filmmaker greater flexibility in creating a film where viewers can walk away with a more open mind.
Make sense?