Emily Inman is a Nashville based poet, writer, singer, and songwriter. She has a Bachelors dual degree in English & World Literatures, and Philosophy & Religious Studies.
In the world, there are two kinds of pain: the natural, everyday pain that is emotional, physical, and mental, which effects our everyday lives. The second pain, and the focus of this paper, is the moral evil, the pain of magnitude—pain which wipes out significant numbers of the population, without any evidence of divine intervention. The greatest example is the Holocaust. In Elie Wiesel’s 'Night', a record of the ordeals he endured at the Nazi death camp Auschwitz, one gets a true sense of the evil which flourished in the Nazi death camps. In response to the terror of Auschwitz, Richard Rubenstein in his 'After Auschwitz', details the theological responses to the Holocaust and death of God theology. The problem of pain continues to compromise religion. However, there are ways to reconcile faith, with the presence of evil in our world. To the harsh reality of pain, C.S. Lewis will present his theodicy in his 'The Problem of Pain'. The topic question is, is religion a human need to overcome suffering? How do these theologians attempt to understand the problem of pain and suffering with the concept of an all good and loving God? What conclusions do they make?
This is being replayed present tense with Assad's Genocide in Syria. And where are the actions, not just empty PC rhetoric, of the great theologians of our times? Did any learn anything? Did anyone really mean Never Again at all? https://freesyriantranslators.net/2012/09/28/michel-kilo-to-pope-benedict-xvi-extend-your-hand-in-the-name-of-god-the-most-gracious-the-most-merciful/
– AriOrange8 years ago
Serendipity is defined in the 2001 film as a "fortunate accident". The film then progresses to give different philosophical inferences and destiny and fate are constantly mentioned and reflected upon. Which philosophers/theologians have mentioned destiny and fate, specifically, and how can that be related to this film? Suggestions of philosophers and theologians could be Stoic Philosophy, Epicurus, Aquinas, Anselm, Luther and the doctrine of predestination, etc. Does the idea of destiny and fate impede or fulfill our lives, especially with respect to love?
Will this be about the film or the philosophical term? The first option sounds interesting. The second option sounds a little out of the scope of The Artifice. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Deconstruct and draw parallels between the representation of the labyrinth in Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth (2006) and Jim Henson's The Labyrinth (1986). What is the labyrinth an allegory for? What does the journey imply for the time periods that the films are set in? What do the creatures represent that the main character encounters?
Perhaps examining the original labyrinth of Daedalus would be helpful. – JDJankowski9 years ago
Labyrinths in history are a symbol of confusion. Situations in our lives can leave us feeling lost in a proverbial maze. The trick to the symbol is there is a way out of any labyrinth, albeit a hard one to discover. – ACMoore9 years ago
I'm sure a twenty-paged paper could cover this well. I'll just say, they are ancient references. They are strangely earthy symbols of mythology. They are symbols of whatever you want (in these two, deceit is a big theme).
But don't be frustrated by the endless dead-ends. Just be like the labyrinth-jumpers of The Cat Returns and run over the walls instead. – IndiLeigh9 years ago
The central ambiguity in Pan's Labyrinth is whether the protagonist's experiences are real or are fantasies caused by her mind's attempt to process trauma. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago
I agree with IndiLeigh--a twenty page paper on this would be glorious. In my perception, the labyrinth acts as setting for a type of escapism for the protagonists in both films. They are allowed to stray from their realities - the harsh one of Ofelia's and the perceived harsh one of Sarah's - into a world where they yield power and control that they otherwise don't feel they have. Ofelia must navigate a violent and oppressive world to find acceptance and wonder and safety, and Sarah must navigate herself to gain a mature understanding of real vs. fantasy and why each are important to her world. – kyn199 years ago
Do an in depth investigation of the adaptations of Frankenstein to film. How has the monster been adapted from the novel into modern day? What does the monster say about society or about humanity in general? Or better yet, what inferences can be made in the relationship between Frankenstein and the monster, and the consequences of our desires to be like God/creators? This should make connections between the original Mary Shelley work, the various film adaptations, and possibly the recent Frankenstein film.
Most have worked off the iconography of the 1930s film for the sake of style and historically established recognition (think of all the cartoons that use the monster, and the movie "Van Helsing.") While only a few films, tv movies, and mini-series have represented the monster and the doctor in a more traditional sense, and a more "realistic" sense, with a creature made from stitched skin, mismatched organs, and slightly dead tissue, rather than a green man with a flat top and bolts in his neck. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Since insight into her own psychological connections are the genesis of Mary Shelley's story, it shouldn't be difficult to find contemporary connections to today's world, where so many of us have lost our moral compasses and robots will soon rule. When she was trying so hard to think of a ghost story to offer to the group, including Polidori, Byron, and P. Shelley, in that rainy summer in 1816, it took her many nights before she realized she had the vision already haunting her in her head. – awestcot9 years ago
Just a tip: the most recent adapter of Shelley's work called the original novel "dull as dishwater." – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
Perhaps a look at the movie Young Frankenstein would be a useful contribution. – JDJankowski9 years ago
I love the idea. One thing that always struck me was, in the novel, the monster talked, while the majority of film adaptations he does not talk.
Another point that could be explored, one of the themes of the novel is the contrast between Victor and the creation, in other words it seemed ironic that Victor was monstrous and the monster was human in quality. I don't recall this being illuminated in any of the movies.
I read the novel with the expectations of a good classic horror, richly surprised that it was quite a philosophical novel about what it means to be human. Frankenstein is never portrayed as a 'thinker' film, but always a 'monster movie'. Hope this gives some possible directions. – DrTestani9 years ago
Often up for debate is the length to which artists should take their creative liberties and change source material. Much more often do we see people groan that "they changed too much" from the book rather than cheer over entertaining additions or the omission of bores. However, it seems only a rather small community is devoted to the notion of a true-to-the-pages Frankenstein adaptation, likely due in part to the difficult reading level of the book and the pure hold on popular culture grasped by the 1931 film adaptation. At this point, to omit the hunchbacked Igor in place of the dear friend Henry Clerval, or to morph the dim-witted grunts of the monster into the articulate glibness of the original, or even to insist that the monster itself is not named Frankenstein is simply a path-dependency problem. Modern society is far too used to that which they already know for a truly loyal adaptation to be made and to be profitable. – draketj989 years ago
While most adaptations of Frankenstein have been unfaithful to the text, there are so many works that have been influenced by the novel. Ex Machina (2015) has been one such example and worth analyzing. – Moonrattle9 years ago
Deconstruct the representation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and its psychological implications. What does this say about the internal battle between moral and physical desires, between duty and desire, between Id and Ego? How do social conventions repress wicked desires in the novel and film? Finally, a more broad question, does Dr. Jekyll represent humankind?
Sorry, no tides are available. Please update the filter.
You are entitled to your feelings and your opinion. I am a Christian, therefore my intentions are certainly not to “degrade” Jesus. My intentions are the opposite, in fact: I am acknowledging the power of the Christ figure. What I have done is demonstrate the power that the messianic figure still has on humanity and popular culture. And humans have done this with messianic figures throughout our history in art, writings, etc. Now it is done through film.
I would not call it a trouble to read those works. I think a lot of what they write transcends time, and they communicate to the reader many universal themes such as love, art and beauty, etc.
You are entitled to your feelings and your opinion. I am a Christian, therefore my intentions are certainly not to “degrade” Jesus. My intentions are the opposite, in fact: I am acknowledging the power of the Christ figure. What I have done is demonstrate the power that the messianic figure still has on humanity and popular culture. And humans have done this with messianic figures throughout our history in art, writings, etc. Now it is done through film.