MovieChat Forums > The Grey (2012) Discussion > An atheistic and misleading movie

An atheistic and misleading movie

posted 7 months ago by Carlo (62)
14 replies | jump to latest

So I just watched The Grey yesterday and in a first moment it looked like it had all the charateristics of the classical survival movie. After the crash and after the survivors of the disasters stars wandering into the wilderness of Alaska, you realize that this movie is not about survival in extreme circumstances. It's about man and nature. The movie wants to convey the idea that there is no God and the entire script is bent to stick to this belief. Apart the more or less realistic behaviour of the wolves - there are different thoughts about it - the main character of this movie, Ottwak, played by Liam Neeson states that there's no God and that you shouldn't rely on the idea of an afterlife. The script wants to lead us to the false idea that we're alone and no one will come to rescue us. Look how the story itself rolls. No helipcoters are searching the area of the crash. How's that possible? Didn't the pilots launch a may day signal before the plane started to fall? And what about cell phones? No one seems to have them. Quite unrealistic. The story, IMHO, is not realistic because it's twisted to drag us towards an ending where everybody dies and where God is a sort of sadistic watcher who enjoys seeing mankind suffering. Look at the rage of Ottwak towards the end of the story. He nastily insults God and at the ending when he quotes that poem "live and die in this day", a sort of Nietzsche's message emerges.

“Once more into the fray, into the last good fight I'll ever know. Live and die on this day, live and die on this day.”

Nietzsche elaborated a philosophy completely opposed to Christianity. In his idea, the "overman" must research the meaning of life here on Earth and not above, in Heaven. In his famous book, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Zarathustra warns people against believing in the concept of afterlife. It's an exaltation of the materialistic dimension over the spiritual one. Nothing matters, but here and now on this Earth. Beware of this atheistic philosophy. It's the product of modern philosophy, which is founded upon lies and anti-God nonsense. And this is what exactly this movie is about. It's about a lie.

[–] bek (663) 4 months ago

I thought the wolves were pretty unrealistic. However, imagine you saw a newspaper headline that a group of people's plane had crashed, and some initially survived only to die before rescue. Would you have batted an eye? Seems like a fairly realistic premise to me. People die needlessly every day without God coming to the rescue.

[–] Carlo (62) 3 months ago

Of course, but the movie wants to convey the false idea that bad things or tragedies happen because there's no God. Hence that poem about living and dying on this day, like there's no other life than this one. You have to live it without considering morals and God, according to this nietzschean movie. Even the rant of Neeson at the end of the movie just shows the hatred towards God by the the people who wrote the script. This is why I consider this movie as atheistic propaganda to stay away from.

[–] bek (663) 3 months ago

I think you're overthinking the movie, likely through the lens of religion, which is always a risky endeavor. Maybe there is no God, but that's irrelevant, anyway. The actual poem he's reciting is by British poet Dylan Thomas. It speaks to the idea of facing one's fears and persevering in the face of overwhelming odds. It's not about God.

[–] Carlo (62) 3 months ago

I'm not overthinking anything. The character played by Neeson deeply hates God and he doesn't even hide it. The final scene where he cries out against God calling him a clown or a crooker is the essence of this movie, which is quite nihilist and atheistic. The poem was chosen, in my opinion, because it sums up well the atheistic stance of the movie. There's no God, so you just to live your life in a carpe diem way, so to speak.

[–] Octo (213) 2 months ago

His "pleading" with god was an act of desperation.
Maybe he was a believer once, but perhaps god, in his eyes, killed his wife hence the anger and doubt.
And it's not like he was wrong...god if he exists stands idly by when people are in desperate need for help.
In the end you can only help yourself, or rely on other people, none which remained in his situation.
The cell phone comment is silly, cell phones doesn't magically connect to satellites or anything, there is no coverage in the middle of the wilderness. They also commented on how long it would take for a search party to find them, and that's if they were on course.
You claiming the "false idea that we're alone" is of course an unknown. Weather you are convinced in a god or not has no affect on that being the case. As far as anyone knows there is no afterlife, our minds are a product of our brains and brains decompose after death.

[–] BKB (6215) 3 months ago

I've seen it quite a few times and I still walk away feeling they should've stuck with the plane wreckage during a storm like that and at least out of the wind and the wolves instead of basically trekking to their death is sort of how all this ended??? No one made it out of this movie alive for sure!!

[–] thingmakersback (1200) 3 months ago

You should probably support the film as it shows the decisions of a man - who is not really an atheist, but actually angry at God - leading to inevitable death.

I am an atheist and I don't hate the film. It is a story of a man who does what is probably the wrong thing, but who nevertheless does not give up even in the face of overwhelming odds. He's a hero in ancient Greek sense; tragically flawed but with admirable qualities as well. As I see it, God has nothing to do with the events of the film, or any other events for that matter, and the protagonist's rage at God is as pointless as another characters devoted belief.

[–] BKB (6215) 2 months ago

No, what lead to their death was not staying with the wreckage of the plane for safety, at least to stay out of the wind and the blizzard and also, you would've thought they would've had an Emergency beacon to send a signal where the plane went down at?? Most likely, I'm over thinking it now, but they really should've shown the 2 fight at the end instead of cutting away to the credits

[–] Seperatrix (1089) 2 months ago

"The movie wants to convey the idea that there is no God and the entire script is bent to stick to this belief."

I don't know if that is the film's goal or not, but let's say it is . . so what? If a film was written that supported your own personal religious beliefs I suspect you'd have no problem. But if this film runs counter to your own set of beliefs it's a big deal. You'll just have to accept the fact that some works of fiction will reflect your beliefs and some won't. Is it all that difficult?

"The script wants to lead us to the false idea that we're alone and no one will come to rescue us."

I really don't know what you're talking about here. First of all, perhaps god doesn't exist. That IS a possibility you know. But let's say that we know that something we would otherwise called god did exist, where is the rescue on a daily basis? I've read that, on average, 2 people die every second globally. So whether you've survived a plane crash and have to fight off wolves or are just going for a jog and then keel over from a stroke -- where is the rescue? With or without a god there is nothing there to save us (beyond occasional medical intervention).

"The story, IMHO, is not realistic because it's twisted to drag us towards an ending where everybody dies and where God is a sort of sadistic watcher who enjoys seeing mankind suffering."

Again, if god does exist then this god watches people all the time die without intervention. If the film's intention is as you say, where is the "unrealistic" part? If we go with the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good God, then we have to ask if this being is not sadistic. Every few seconds a child is molested, murdered or otherwise abused on this planet, often with no one around but the child and the perpetrator . . . and god. A god that does nothing to prevent the abuse. So you tell me . . .

[–] Carlo (62) 2 months ago

Well, what can I say? This is exacly the exteriorization, so to speak, of the satanic philosophy. Let's break it down.

"I really don't know what you're talking about here. First of all, perhaps god doesn't exist. That IS a possibility you know. But let's say that we know that something we would otherwise called god did exist, where is the rescue on a daily basis? I've read that, on average, 2 people die every second globally. So whether you've survived a plane crash and have to fight off wolves or are just going for a jog and then keep over from a stroke -- where is the rescue? With or without a god there is nothing there to save us (beyond occasional medical intervention)."

It's not a "possibility". It's a fact, acknowledged by some serious and real scientists. Take, for instance, the complexity of an atom or the composition of the universe, air, water, you name it. You can find there the design of a superior intelligence. Things didn't create by themselves like you probably think..Car accidents? Disasters and strokes? We are all mortals and if you want to understand Christianity you should get familiar with the concept of original sin and free will. By the way, is God supposed only to be God when you're in trouble? What about mankind that doesn't even think or care about Him in daily life? I replied to your last point, which is a repetition, in this post.

[–] Seperatrix (1089) 2 months ago

I said: "First of all, perhaps god doesn't exist. That IS a possibility you know."

You say: "It's not a "possibility". It's a fact, acknowledged by some serious and real scientists."

You, without realizing it, just agreed with the statement that god may not exist, going so far as to label it fact.

Anyway . . .

The intelligent design argument is flawed through and through. A casual search on YouTube will take you plenty of people who will dismantle it for you. You won't even have to crack open a book and read. Just listen. I'm not going into it here. You might as well believe the Earth is flat as appeal to that absurdly flawed -- and failed -- argument.

And I didn't use "car accidents, etc." as an example . . . I said: "Every few seconds a child is molested, murdered or otherwise abused on this planet, often with no one around but the child and the perpetrator . . . and god. A god that does nothing to prevent the abuse."

Now taking the above into consideration, if a god exists, the continual abuse of children with god watching is the FACT here (as you insist this god exists). As I said it happens all the time and has happened continuously through the ages. Unfortunately it's happening somewhere in the world as I type out these sentences. Any god who has the power to stop such an assault and refuses, just casually observes such atrocities, is not a god worth believing in, worshiping, or wasting time over.

[–] Kendricks (2085) 2 months ago

"The story, IMHO, is not realistic because it's twisted to drag us towards an ending where everybody dies and where God is a sort of sadistic watcher who enjoys seeing mankind suffering."

Is OP taking the piss, or is he just "one of these" guys?
Holy moly, wake up and have a look around. If God is real he is EXACTLY that, a sadistic watcher who enjoys seeing mankind suffer.

[–] RipRoss (353) 2 months ago

I think he's a smoothbrain trying to act like he's smart.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8563) 2 months ago

Interesting review. I saw part of this movie. I did not finish it, or perhaps I fell asleep and did not rewind and watch the parts I missed.

In a way I have an affinity for how you see movies, that is, in a way that conveys stories about morality, stuggle, justice, the way they used to make movies. Today's movies are often immoral orgies of violence or stupidity.

Still, I think if one is going to produce a movie, it must have a story, and that story should aim to be inclusive of everyone so that anyone can relate to it and get something out of it. That said, religion specifics should be left out of it. Whatever one's beliefs about God, I think most people realize that whatever God is, it is not following their lives and deciding what lesson you must learn in whatever moment, or throwing the dice to make life seem random.

To our consciousnesses, it is true that nothing matters but the material - the material is where all our ideas and models of the universe come from. Trying to train people to fantastize about the same supernatural metaphysics by various tricks older people have passed down through the ages to brainwash us should be viewed as part of the problem, but that also does not refute the idea of god or a spiritual dimention to the universe.