While I'm not sure I've glommed onto the difference between "not get the movie" and "[not] glommed to what the film is doing," I obviously came across as testier than I intended to or objectively was, so I apologize for that.
Testy? Please. I took your comment as a straightforward rejoinder from a man who had been poked, albeit gently, in a provocative way. (Christian has been the testy one in this thread, not you.
) So, no worries.
To hopefully clarify, I wasn't specifically distinguishing between "not getting the movie" and "not getting [or 'glomming to'] what the movie is doing" -- at least, not directly, although indirectly you could say that it comes down to that.
What I meant was what elicited my comment about being "not sure" that you glommed to [what] the movie [was doing] was not
that you called the film "the greatest coffee-table book ever" -- that's
a characterization that doesn't immediately raise red flags as far as getting the film goes -- but rather
that you criticized it as "a Passion allegory at one and same time too in the background and then too closely following (was there ANY place in Christendom that crucified heretics? I REALLY doubt it)." That
criticism makes me think you may have simply misunderstood what the film is doing -- at least, if I understand you
My take is that we are not meant to see the Christ figure as a contemporary of Bruegel's whose death happens to bear a literalistic resemblance to the Passion of Christ. We are not in Bruegel's Flanders per se, but in the Flandery-Passiony world of the painting -- or rather that world transposed into the cinema's dimensions of time and space; a cinematic interpretation of Bruegel's inner world as represented in the painting, with Bruegel himself as a character.
Did you read my review? It may clarify my perceptions here.
Edited by SDG, 25 October 2011 - 04:09 PM.