Not if you're a chud. It's a movie that celebrates adolescent sexuality and female emancipation. The family (a conservative institution designed to oppress) is the enemy, not the free woman in the woods.
Looks pretty free to me. That's the point the film is making. Sacrifice the old, restrictive bonds of penance and painful subsistence to forge a new future of freedom and pleasure.
its pretty interesting how our worldviews can completely alter how we interpret things. she sold her soul to the devil, which means temporary pleasure followed soon by everlasting agony. setting aside the religious/spiritual side of this, even on earth we can see this principle play out in addiction or vice. people who have no convictions or self-control will choose temporary pleasure over and over again, even though it ultimately leads to agony, depression, pain, suffering. this is what the girl did in the movie, she was sick of things being difficult, tired of suffering, so she chose temporary pleasure that will result in a suffering infinitely worse than what she was experiencing before. it was a horrible, stupid choice, and she's inevitably going to regret it, as we all do when we sacrifice long-term happiness for short-term pleasure.
There is no free butter. She was literally naked going into the satanic, uncivilized wilderness whereas previously she had a modest but pious lifestyle made vulnerable by her father's pride.
Even discounting the 1)religious (eternal damnation) and 2)social-historical aspects (being even more of an outcast and destined to perish or subsist as a persecuted beast), it's safe to say she made a terrible choice.
It is entirely and quite obviously about that-- their banishment at the beginning clearly addresses the father's excessive pride and zealotry.
Afterwards, this same isolation throws them into a downward spiral of inappropriate sexual desire from the father and the brother towards Anya's character and deprivation, both of which made worse by their isolation and lack of social support. The temptation comes from this 2 sources: sexual repression and too much toil to produce food that would have been more available had they not fallen into an isolationist pitfall.
The banishment is a commentary on religious certitude as a prelude to fascistic tendencies. The sexual repression is a byproduct of that same religiosity. Had they been allowed to express their sexual desires freely, their deaths wouldn't have been necessary. As such, they exist as paternalistic barriers to freedom, in the same way the council that banished them is a paternalistic, fascistic force.
its pretty interesting how our worldviews can completely alter how we interpret things. she sold her soul to the devil, which means temporary pleasure followed soon by everlasting agony. setting aside the religious/spiritual side of this, even on earth we can see this principle play out in addiction or vice. people who have no convictions or self-control will choose temporary pleasure over and over again, even though it ultimately leads to agony, depression, pain, suffering. this is what the girl did in the movie, she was sick of things being difficult, tired of suffering, so she chose temporary pleasure that will result in a suffering infinitely worse than what she was experiencing before. it was a horrible, stupid choice, and she's inevitably going to regret it, as we all do when we sacrifice long-term happiness for short-term pleasure.
There is no free butter. She was literally naked going into the satanic, uncivilized wilderness whereas previously she had a modest but pious lifestyle made vulnerable by her father's pride.
Even discounting the 1)religious (eternal damnation) and 2)social-historical aspects (being even more of an outcast and destined to perish or subsist as a persecuted beast), it's safe to say she made a terrible choice.
She survived because she allowed herself to be emancipated. The mother symbolizes inept femininity, willing subservience, hence the delusion of a suckling babe. Thomasin is shackled to her family (religious dogma). By freeing herself, she symbolizes the potential freedom of all women. It's a call to action. >Be more. Do more. Your family is a hindrance and is a known evil, cast them aside for an uncertain future that will allow you independence.
>The banishment is a commentary on religious certitude as a prelude to fascistic tendencies.
There were puritan standards in the settlement but nothing "fascist"--a concept you clearly do not understand. In fact, it's the father who berates the authorities for not being rigorous enough.
Whatever lead the family to be proscribed is predicated in his own extreme views despite the fact that
1-his wife had just had a baby and they needed all the material support they could get instead of building a sustainable lifestyle from scratch
2-his daughter was a post-puberty woman who should be around suitors and get married
3-his other son was at an age where sexual desire was a given, hence his ogling his sister and fallen for the witch's trap. He too should have been in a social milieu where work was complemented by social activities with people outside his family >Had they been allowed to express their sexual desires freely
That's a patently delusional/autistic expectation in the historical context of the movie. >She survived because she allowed herself to be emancipated.
She literally sold her soul (and implicitly her body) to the devil for some butter. There was no "emancipation" whatsoever in her return to an uncertain, animalistic state of nature
This prescriptivism is exactly the sort of fash rhetoric the film implicity condemns. The city upon a hill protestant purges didn't preclude hypersexual urges. That's why reformers like Anne Hutchinson were able to find followers (the inner light is erotic). Also, premarital sex was the norm (Bundling). As for the sold soul, you can't sell what doesn't belong to you.
holy shit shut the frick up you turbohomosexual
If you can't engage with film, why even post here?
10 months ago
Anonymous
excuse me good sir but you seem to be lost, r*ddit is actually back the way you came
10 months ago
Anonymous
>reddit
10 months ago
Anonymous
>The city upon a hill protestant purges didn't preclude hypersexual urges.
They controlled them well enough. It's not that hard to realize that such urges would be better addressed in communal living, not to mention the tensions cause by the lack of material needs/community support (which would include facilitated barter and/or employment that wouldn't force the father to try to live off the land under harsh conditions).
As for sexual practices, the rule for puritans was keeping it housed under the sanctity of marriage. Bundling has nothing to do with penetration or orgasm. Accordingly, the Christian concept of soul entails active looking for its salvation, which is the individual's responsibility after baptism-- and Thomasin was likely to be well aware of that despite being illiterate.
Only a Foucault-poisoned individual would see anything but utter perdition-- even in strictly secular terms-- stemming from her decision to join the witches.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Reject predestination, anon. It's a film about primitivism succeeding against the rigidity of civilization and religious interdicts. You don't need to be a Foucauldian to see what Eggers intended. I do like this conversation, though. Thanks for responding like a real person instead of the disaffected.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>predestination
The movie's about free will. It feature the Dionysian path as the one the main character follows, but it leaves out the obvious: such path exacts an enormous price. In this sense, it's similar to Midsommar in that it fools some viewers into thinking it's a "liberating" alternative to both women when it's anything but.
Thanks, same here
You get to see her fat ass at the end
not worth the small view you get
That was a body double
How do you know?
every petite beautiful white girl like anya should have a fat ass and no one will ever be able to convince me of otherwise.
As a fat ass enjoyer, petite tight ones are great as well.
It’s all grass is greener my friend. Make sure you try them all
if you have insomnia
Not if you're a chud. It's a movie that celebrates adolescent sexuality and female emancipation. The family (a conservative institution designed to oppress) is the enemy, not the free woman in the woods.
The emancipated woman is raped, robbed, used, beaten and disgarded by the devyl
Looks pretty free to me. That's the point the film is making. Sacrifice the old, restrictive bonds of penance and painful subsistence to forge a new future of freedom and pleasure.
its pretty interesting how our worldviews can completely alter how we interpret things. she sold her soul to the devil, which means temporary pleasure followed soon by everlasting agony. setting aside the religious/spiritual side of this, even on earth we can see this principle play out in addiction or vice. people who have no convictions or self-control will choose temporary pleasure over and over again, even though it ultimately leads to agony, depression, pain, suffering. this is what the girl did in the movie, she was sick of things being difficult, tired of suffering, so she chose temporary pleasure that will result in a suffering infinitely worse than what she was experiencing before. it was a horrible, stupid choice, and she's inevitably going to regret it, as we all do when we sacrifice long-term happiness for short-term pleasure.
There is no free butter. She was literally naked going into the satanic, uncivilized wilderness whereas previously she had a modest but pious lifestyle made vulnerable by her father's pride.
Even discounting the 1)religious (eternal damnation) and 2)social-historical aspects (being even more of an outcast and destined to perish or subsist as a persecuted beast), it's safe to say she made a terrible choice.
those free european pagan traditions are actually older than the sand religion
>that thigh gap
New fetish unlocked.
homie how the frick have you avoided thigh gaps your entire life.
He's brown
Kino, great take on witches that is actually very scary
>the devil was black
dropped.
>the devil was GOAT
picked up
Yes it's a great movie and a cautionary lesson about extremism being a sin and a self-destructive choice
It's not about that at all.
It is entirely and quite obviously about that-- their banishment at the beginning clearly addresses the father's excessive pride and zealotry.
Afterwards, this same isolation throws them into a downward spiral of inappropriate sexual desire from the father and the brother towards Anya's character and deprivation, both of which made worse by their isolation and lack of social support. The temptation comes from this 2 sources: sexual repression and too much toil to produce food that would have been more available had they not fallen into an isolationist pitfall.
The banishment is a commentary on religious certitude as a prelude to fascistic tendencies. The sexual repression is a byproduct of that same religiosity. Had they been allowed to express their sexual desires freely, their deaths wouldn't have been necessary. As such, they exist as paternalistic barriers to freedom, in the same way the council that banished them is a paternalistic, fascistic force.
She survived because she allowed herself to be emancipated. The mother symbolizes inept femininity, willing subservience, hence the delusion of a suckling babe. Thomasin is shackled to her family (religious dogma). By freeing herself, she symbolizes the potential freedom of all women. It's a call to action.
>Be more. Do more. Your family is a hindrance and is a known evil, cast them aside for an uncertain future that will allow you independence.
>religious certitude as a prelude to fascistic tendencies.
YAWN
Still true.
you will never be a woman
I am what I eat.
>The banishment is a commentary on religious certitude as a prelude to fascistic tendencies.
There were puritan standards in the settlement but nothing "fascist"--a concept you clearly do not understand. In fact, it's the father who berates the authorities for not being rigorous enough.
Whatever lead the family to be proscribed is predicated in his own extreme views despite the fact that
1-his wife had just had a baby and they needed all the material support they could get instead of building a sustainable lifestyle from scratch
2-his daughter was a post-puberty woman who should be around suitors and get married
3-his other son was at an age where sexual desire was a given, hence his ogling his sister and fallen for the witch's trap. He too should have been in a social milieu where work was complemented by social activities with people outside his family
>Had they been allowed to express their sexual desires freely
That's a patently delusional/autistic expectation in the historical context of the movie.
>She survived because she allowed herself to be emancipated.
She literally sold her soul (and implicitly her body) to the devil for some butter. There was no "emancipation" whatsoever in her return to an uncertain, animalistic state of nature
This prescriptivism is exactly the sort of fash rhetoric the film implicity condemns. The city upon a hill protestant purges didn't preclude hypersexual urges. That's why reformers like Anne Hutchinson were able to find followers (the inner light is erotic). Also, premarital sex was the norm (Bundling). As for the sold soul, you can't sell what doesn't belong to you.
If you can't engage with film, why even post here?
excuse me good sir but you seem to be lost, r*ddit is actually back the way you came
>reddit
>The city upon a hill protestant purges didn't preclude hypersexual urges.
They controlled them well enough. It's not that hard to realize that such urges would be better addressed in communal living, not to mention the tensions cause by the lack of material needs/community support (which would include facilitated barter and/or employment that wouldn't force the father to try to live off the land under harsh conditions).
As for sexual practices, the rule for puritans was keeping it housed under the sanctity of marriage. Bundling has nothing to do with penetration or orgasm. Accordingly, the Christian concept of soul entails active looking for its salvation, which is the individual's responsibility after baptism-- and Thomasin was likely to be well aware of that despite being illiterate.
Only a Foucault-poisoned individual would see anything but utter perdition-- even in strictly secular terms-- stemming from her decision to join the witches.
Reject predestination, anon. It's a film about primitivism succeeding against the rigidity of civilization and religious interdicts. You don't need to be a Foucauldian to see what Eggers intended. I do like this conversation, though. Thanks for responding like a real person instead of the disaffected.
>predestination
The movie's about free will. It feature the Dionysian path as the one the main character follows, but it leaves out the obvious: such path exacts an enormous price. In this sense, it's similar to Midsommar in that it fools some viewers into thinking it's a "liberating" alternative to both women when it's anything but.
Thanks, same here
holy shit shut the frick up you turbohomosexual
Who up wonkin they willy
Nosferatu will flop
Stop spamming Eggers threads
do wypipo really trade they soul for butter?
Why do people still call it 'the vvitch'. Its literally called just witch with a 'w'. Everywhere.
for me, it's the Bbitch
yes, its medievil alien kino
No.