/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11653489]

>To be a good Christian, you must kill Christ.

What

[Anonymous No.11653493]

Jodorowsky is a brainlet

[Anonymous No.11653518]

>>11653493
Jodo is the most based man living. Read his books shitlord.

[Anonymous No.11653531]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Jodorowsky is not a good Christian.

[Anonymous No.11653537]

>To be a good Christian, you must kill Christ.
You must be a Jew to be a Christian because it's a Jewish religion

[Anonymous No.11653540]

>>11653489
Without knowing anything about the context, quote, or writer, I am going to agree.
To be a Christian you have to believe Jesus died for your sins. Or, to be a good Christian, you must acknowledged you've sinned, therefore inadvertently killing Christ.

[Anonymous No.11653768]

>>11653531
He's Jewish

[Anonymous No.11653798]

>>11653493
unironically this.

>>11653489
>what
he's purposely conflating Christ with a trickster/tester god, which exists to be defeated. he should know better, but he doesn't because he's an obsolete old europoor brainlet. disrespecting Christ and upsetting the establishment is what the cool kids did in his day. like Duchamp omg lol "fountain". or Serrano's whoa rofl Piss Christ. it's edgy nonsense that rich midwit fedoras appreciate.

[Anonymous No.11653802]

>>11653518
I dig him as an artist, but lost when he started doing his magical healing nonsense, both his symbolic acts ("your impotence is caused by your relationship with your mother, get cured by jerking off in her photo at her grave") and the actual charlatan "i'll cut you open with my hands to remove a tumor you have" nonsense

[Anonymous No.11653815]

>>11653489
boomer Jodorowsky LARPing as Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor

nothing to see here...move along

[ري كظ R Y · Q V S S !KNDY.F27NY No.11653886]

>>11653489

TYPICAL INSTANCE OF JEWISH ANTICHRISTIAN SOPHISTRY.

THAT DID NOT NECESSITATE A THREAD.

[Anonymous No.11653958]

>>11653798
You're a brainlet. Eat shit and die.

Rewatch The Holy Mountain, if you think it's just edgy nonsense you have no place here.

[Anonymous No.11653970]

Bunuel did everything Jodo did better and decades earlier

[Anonymous No.11653972]

>>11653958
It's not edgy nonsense, but it's only strongpoints are anti-commercialism and the ending. Aside from that it's just an enjoyable farcical comedy, if you legit take it serious, you're probably very stupid and way too contemptous of others.

[Anonymous No.11653996]

>>11653970
In what movie did Bunuel let explode a couple of lizards that are dressed like mayans?

[Anonymous No.11654043]

>>11653958
In fact, my man, I was specifically thinking of the holy mountain while writing my post. I watched it when you were in diapers. Jodorowsky's artistic vision is absolute cringe. Not because it is jarring or rebellious or brilliant, but precisely because it is so try-hard and tame. Learn something about art before recommending shit artists.

[Anonymous No.11654260]

>>11653958
Based and Cringepilled.

[Anonymous No.11654269]

>>11654043
>upsetting the establishment
So, you're telling me. That The Holy Mountain's criticism of Christ and Christianity. The one based upon Christianity as cudgel of colonial Europe against the New World. You know when all the toads killed all the lizards. That part. That was indistinguishable from Duchamp and Serrano. The surreality of the simulated image of one man being turned into a massified object consumed mindlessly through time and space. That was a urinal.

I'm absolutely certain you have no idea what you are talking about. Either that, or you're a wh*toid Christlet who can't take legitimate criticism of your sand religion. Yes, how awful that someone decry the stamping out of an entire culture and way of life. Absolutely no different than Duchamp.

You are garbage.

>>11653972
>it's just an enjoyable farcical comedy
Surest way to know someone didn't understand something.

[Anonymous No.11654330]

>>11654269
>I'm absolutely certain you have no idea what you are talking about. Either that, or you're a wh*toid Christlet who can't take legitimate criticism of your sand religion.
Yes, I am comparing Jodorowsky's vision to shit-tier "art." He is edge personified. And no I am not ignorant of the conquest, I am a product of it. I cried for the Aztecs, yes, when I learned what deLanda did to my ancestors.

>You are garbage.
You will never be able to take this back. You have permanently injured someone's feelings and made the world a meaner, lower place.

[Anonymous No.11654380]

>>11654330
Edge personified how?

And here you change your rhetoric. Your first post was about him "disrespecting Christ" and "upsetting the establishment". As if it came from nowhere and was meaningless, no different from Duchamp LARPing as a modern Diogenes going "here is art!". You say his vision is shit-tier, you give no reasons, you simply make assertions based on nothing. There's no reason for me to assume you actually have some kind of argument until you lay it out.

So, baseless assertions and acerbic personality, "disrespecting" and "upsetting" meaninglessly, these are things that much more reflect you than Jodorowsky. Seems like pretty classic projection on your part. No idea what has you like this, again, given that you've made zero statements of substance.

Wanna actually lay out your opinion, or are you just going to remain within the void of aimless critique?

[Anonymous No.11654410]

>>11654380
Nah family. You opened with "Eat shit and die." and closed with "You are garbage." Are you going to continue on this way until old age takes you? Wow. What a life. Truly, I salute you and Jodorowsky for your vision and good taste.

And I don't particularly care about "disrespecting Christ." Christ does not need Jodorowsky. What upset me about Jodorowsky is that he treats something complicated as if it were something simple. Like you're doing. My comments are not meaningless, you just refuse to see meaning in them. Anyway, I'm out.

[Anonymous No.11654458]

>>11654410
You opened with substanceless and acerbic pseud arguments, backpeddle, and refuse to make a single statement of substance. Go ahead and take the coward's way out, the drive-by sophist is pretty common on here and I doubt you'll be missed.

Maybe if you made a single move towards even the spectre of an actual opinion, people lurking the thread would have some kind of reason to agree with you. But as it stands, you've made zero statements of meaning. You accuse me of treating something complicated as simple, yet you lack even simplicity. There isn't even an attempt at artifice. Not even trying to defend the moronic comparison to Duchamp, which is sensible given that only a pseud would say such a thing in the first place.

Bitching out of an argument on 4chan because of mean words is also pretty hilarious. Whatever it takes to protect your ego.

[Anonymous No.11654476]

>>11654458
Yes, you have won! You are... the VICTOR! I shouldn't be surprised you defend bad art. It's all about appearances to you. Take your victory lap.

[Anonymous No.11654489]

>>11654476
What happened to being out, anon.

[Anonymous No.11654542]

>>11654489
I'm out of the argument, not out of the thread. You really can't read, can you?

[Anonymous No.11654561]

>>11653489
>I literally raped her!
what did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.11654564]

>>11653996
in what movie DIDN'T he

[Anonymous No.11654575]

>>11654269
>nun shaped exactly like Fountain
did you have this pic for this exact purpose or is that just a coincidence?

[Anonymous No.11654582]

>>11654269
>The surreality of the simulated image of one man being turned into a massified object consumed mindlessly through time and space.
what scene was that? I've seen Holy Mountain three times and don't remember this

[Anonymous No.11654583]

>>11654542
>He says, still arguing
>without substance, mind you
I honestly can't help but smile. I'm not innocent, but at least I'm not dancing to the tune of my own insecurity. Take a step back and a moment to reflect on how you got here.

Then maybe compose actual opinions for yourself. Optional though, baby steps and all. Might I interest you in starting with the Greeks?

[Anonymous No.11654609]

>>11654583
>look mom i posted it again

[Anonymous No.11654766]

>>11654582
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv268m85ZHM

This is how I read the scene where The Fool is cast by the LARPing legionnaires. His image is replicated en masse, a shadow of The Fool himself, a shadow of a shadow of Christ. The fat legionnaires represent a mind-numbed Christianity for-profit, the kind you see in Latin America more than the West (though obviously there's Burger Christ Culture and all that), again selling on image more than anything else. The violence of The Fool against them is one of sheer terror and rage, but is obviously an allusion to the Cleansing of the Temple. When he eats one of the replicas, this is a reference to the Eucharist, again showing the absurdity and surreality at play -- not just in the eating of the flesh of a man, of Christ, but also in the eating of an image of Christ, regardless of transubstantiation. There's an interplay of meaning between the theological reading, and the personal one for The Fool (as I personally don't believe The Fool is aware of much of the theological implications).

Anyways, the terrified screaming as The Fool awakes has always stuck with me. Surrounded by these images, of Christ to us the viewer, but to him of himself, though they become indistinguishable ofc. The idea being that these are to be sold, but then one must think of all the images of Christ exactly like this throughout the world. In a sense, this scene represents the sheer volume of Christ-images on the planet, throughout space (across the world) and time (across history). So, the Christ-image is one that is massified, consumed like any other product, sold by the fat and stupid. And it is not even the image of Christ, but the image of a fictional man representing Christ, a fictional man whose image may exist in the form of a lowly drunkard like The Fool.

There's a lot more one could legitimately read into these scenes. The rest of the movie as well. An archetypal critique of capitalism and mindless ideology, a rebuke of eschatological belief systems, etc. Jodorowsky's films have the logic of dreams, which is of course open for interpretation, but there is substance behind the images. The images in themselves are staggering, but the substance moreso.

Personally, I think the film is masterful. I once watched it having dropped acid as the film began. The build up escalates perfectly with the film (relatively certain it was intended), once you are inside the Alchemist's tower you peak. Jodorowsky dreams reality for you. I've never had an experience quite like it ever since.

>>11654575
Yeah no that's my Duchamp Nun. Gotta break it out whenever anyone references Fountain.

[Anonymous No.11654903]

This is what Alan Watts also said.

, but they also say to get to the highest level of religion you have to kill the Buddha.
Supposing a clergyman got up one day in the pulpit and said, "Every time you say Jesus Christ, you have to wash out your mouth." Or, "If you meet God the Father, kill Him. If you meet God the Son, kill Him. If you meet God the Holy Spirit, kill It. If you meet St. Augustine, kill him. Kill them all right away." This is simply translating into Christian terms what a Buddhist teacher said in about the year A.D. 800.

[Anonymous No.11655519]

>>11654380
>>11654766
*snap*

[Anonymous No.11656919]

>anime avatar
>gets mouth absolutely shredded by obvious b8
honestly jannies should nuke this thread

[Anonymous No.11656939]

>>11654903
The principle is the same, honestly (assuming you give as little credence to the evangelical denominations of Christianity as possible)

Jesus already came, Buddha already came, their sustained presence in religious tradition and institutions validate any promises of redemption for future generations. It takes very little time to understand this from the respective texts.

[Anonymous No.11656944]

>>11653540
>Or, to be a good Christian, you must acknowledged you've sinned, therefore inadvertently killing Christ.

i actually understand this now

[Anonymous No.11656971]

>>11653493
Deadass. Holy Mountain is fun, but its auteur is a boring mysticist. He's also a rapist.

[Anonymous No.11657000]

>>11656971
>jew
>degenerate rapist
color me shocked

[Anonymous No.11657121]

>>11654766
i appreciate your thought out post. what do you make of the ending?

[Anonymous No.11657145]

>>11653493
He's one of the last true poets and artists, if not the last of a kind.

[Anonymous No.11657154]

Jodo is right, though. Judas was the only one to see through the lies of the Demiurge's Messiah and thus release him from his fleshly prison by nailing the body of the Archons to the cross.

See Carlo Suares: http://www.psyche.com/psyche/suares/jesus_and_judas.html

[Anonymous No.11657291]

>>11656919
>you end up huffing and puffing in anger
>"all according to keikaku, this was merely bait you fool, set by I, masterful genius, anon!"
Still laughable

[Anonymous No.11657316]

>>11653886
WHY ARE YOU YELLING?

[Anonymous No.11657389]

>>11654766
>abuses of the Church are bad
>PLOT TWIST!!!
>man, the eternal sinner... is bad!
>Christ is good, but actually organizing that goodness is bad
>reference the holy fool movement (2deep4u)
wow that jodorowsky sure could spin a yarn boy howdy yup i'm impressed alright lookit me how smart i am to pick up on all this.

jodorowsky is still a brainlet and so are you. his and your criticism of the church are facile, unoriginal, and most importantly ineffective.

[Anonymous No.11657524]

>>11657389
Art is not a 1-to-1 argument. The whole point is the transformative nature of art, of film. It's not "it's bad", you child, it's bringing to light the absurdity of reality. When you see the absurd, the terrifying, it takes the place of reality momentarily.

It's not simple moralizing. It's about a man's likeness or the idea of his likeness, manufactured en masse for thousands of years. The replicas in the warehouse are out of context, piled up like potatoes. The vastness is eerie, The Fool screams in terror and we hold here. If your first thought is "WELL AKSHUALLY", then you don't appreciate or understand art -- go read some Christopher Hitchens essays or something instead.

>>11657121
Personally I've not been certain on the ending. The final trek up the Holy Mountain is at times dehumanizing for the party. They have to let go of so much, following The Alchemist. Part of me wonders if we're supposed to take a step back and criticize him and his process in the same way as we criticize the party in their original lives.

As well, the prostitute and the chimp follow behind the party without guidance. They take the path to enlightenment and salvation with independence, and I think we shouldn't take that lightly, there's a nobility in that. The Fool leaves with the prostitute: has he failed? Unlike the rest of the party, he did not come from power and money, instead learning self-fulfillment and going off to live a healthy life with a strong woman. His end-game is not some kind of total enlightenment, reaching the summit of The Holy Mountain, so does the rest of the party still hold some negative ego for going to the lengths they do? For following a man they barely know to the ends of the earth at risk of their own health and sanity? The grittiness of the final segment of the film is juxtaposed with the colorful insanity of the rest, yet does this make it more 'real', have they truly ascended? The astrological captains of industry reach the top of the mountain, taking their seat as though they were on Mt. Olympus.

The point is moot once the 4th wall is broken, which can be interpreted in so a number of ways. Do we see Jodorowsky and the actors now? Or is this some kind of Gnostic statement on the illusory nature of reality, entrapped in one's own narrative, or in the narrative of others? Perhaps a little of both. Regardless, we must leave The Holy Mountain and find 'reality', but I don't believe the film gives answers on how to do that or what that means. Do we endlessly strive to threat of death to find enlightenment? Do we settle down?

The film is certainly the kind that leaves one with more questions than answers. We can have our inclinations, but at the end, the film rebukes itself. Personally, I think it's a rebuke against prophets and dogma, that we have failed in our quest for The Holy Mountain if we hold up too high "The Holy Mountain (1973)".

[Anonymous No.11657569]

>>11657524
>your read is not the same as mine and therefore i am right and maybe Hitchens is more your speed
nice deflection, blowhard. you missed the fact that jodorowsky's work in the holy mountain is ham-fisted and inane. it is student tier.

[Anonymous No.11657604]

>>11657569
Try concocting an argument. Perhaps I could run you through a quick primer on rhetoric? You may find it useful! At a bare minimum, you could try crafting a post that goes beyond surface accusations, anon.

I'd suggest putting that copy of Schopenhauer down btw, I don't think you're quite ready for it yet. Have you tried cleaning your room? Perhaps the smell is impacting your ability to write.

[Anonymous No.11657642]

>>11657604
gimme that primmer son

[Anonymous No.11657699]

>>11653489
Sounds like something a jew would say.

[Anonymous No.11657705]

>Jodorowsky
>Born to Jewish-Ukrainian parents in Chile
Born to jew.

[Anonymous No.11657706]

>>11653489
To be Muslim u must kill Allah

[Anonymous No.11657743]

>>11653493
this, although the quote isn't terrible

[Anonymous No.11657755]

>>11657642
First let's take a look at some of anon's statements.

>A: "jodorowsky is still a brainlet and so are you. his and your criticism of the church are facile, unoriginal, and most importantly ineffective"
>B: "you missed the fact that jodorowsky's work in the holy mountain is ham-fisted and inane. it is student tier."

Now, what's wrong here? Well, when constructing an argument, a few things are important: the thesis, premises, and evidence. These are hierarchical. The thesis is built upon premises, which is built upon evidence—lack one of these, and you don't have a proper argument. So, let's take a look at anon's posts!

The "thesis" in A is 'jodorowsky is a brainlet', arguably this thesis extends to B as well. So let's take this: jodorowksy is a brainlet. How does anon lay out his argument? Classic 5 paragraph essay style! A bit high school, but it's something. 'His and your criticism of the church are a) facile, b) unoriginal, and c) most importantly ineffective', here we have 3 premises to support the thesis 'jodorowsky is a brainlet'.

Now, let's take a look at B. Has anon advanced his argument? He states Jodorowsky is: a) ham-fisted, b) inane, and c) student tier. As we can see, no advancement has occurred. No evidence is given in support of his argument, instead he merely repeats rather vague suppositions to support the thesis. This an argument does not make.

So, in fairness, let's take a look at what may be called his "evidence":

>abuses of the Church are bad
>PLOT TWIST!!!
>man, the eternal sinner... is bad!
>Christ is good, but actually organizing that goodness is bad
>reference the holy fool movement (2deep4u)

Is this evidence, though? Placing it in the context of the dialogue, this is instead a mocking retort of my previous argument, reducing my post through classic strawmanning. This has nothing to do with the argument anon has set up for himself: 'jodorowsky is a brainlet'. It is an attack on my argument, rather than a bolstering of his own.

How can anon fix this? By adding something we might call 'substance' to his argument. For example:

"Jodorowsky is a brainlet.

His work is unoriginal. We can see this because [thing very similar to The Holy Mountain] exists, and [explanation for how 'Jesus look-alike screams at a room full of his own copies while lying on a pile of potatoes' is an incredibly common trope in modern media]. It's student tier because [example of student films indistinguishable from The Holy Mountain]."

Something more like this would be approaching an argument. As it stands, anon makes statements without any depth. Honestly, I'd ask him to improve his premises as well, but, again, baby steps. We don't take off the training wheels and send a child up on a motorcycle.

[Anonymous No.11657772]

>>11653958
ZOOM

[Anonymous No.11657780]

>>11657772
BACK

[Anonymous No.11657797]

>majority of anons ITT are saying jodorowsky is a brainlet
>cartoon girl avatarposter still thinks he is correct
Read OP's question again.
>"To be a good Christian, you must kill Christ."
a quote from El Topo, which also sucked goat dicks.

Anyway. This has been a shit thread so far thanks to pedantanon, but I'll give it a shot OP. Jodorowsky is Jewish. This is not an automatic knock against him, but it does speak to how he misunderstands the Christ figure. Judaism rejected Christ from the jump, the Israelites though he was a false prophet. They're still waiting on a messiah, supposedly, but really theirs is a dead religion. It has no theological foundation like Christianity, it's still just the old tribal chronicle and creation myth with some rules the majority of which nobody obeys.

Jodorowsky's sentiment, if taken seriously, is that to be Christian is to betray Christ: to fill the role of Judas Iscariot, mythologically speaking. This is a backwards understanding. Man's sin against God IS INEVITABLE. We do not become Judas Iscariot. We are already him. Rather we are saved BY CHRIST. He suffered greatly and died for us, willingly. The ministry that arose afterward very quickly adopted the view that we should act as Christ did. Sacrifice ourselves for each other, and for our faith in Christ's teachings.

Jodorowsky does not understand this. His statement, if taken at face value and ostensibly it is sincere, admits as much. Christ was not killed by Christians. He was killed by Romans and Jews.

Pedantanon, your posts have been entertaining but please stop. You can enjoy the film, but there's no denying: it is shit.

[Anonymous No.11657838]

>>11657797
>His statement, if taken at face value and ostensibly it is sincere
>He thinks characters are mouthpeices for the author
you know el topo is based more on eastern religion than western, right? the movie is more about Buddhism than Christianity

[Anonymous No.11657861]

>no anime girl this time

[Anonymous No.11657866]

>>11657797
First of all, the quote is not from El Topo. It is from an interview with Jodorowsky.

You seem to be essentially arguing that critiques against Christianity are inherently wrong if you look at it from a Christian perspective, and that "true" understanding of the Christ figure exists within your personal interpretation of the Christian interpretation of Christ (which of course is itself far from monolithic). A shadow of a shadow of a Christ-image massified and shunted downwards from high atop the Holy Mountain that is The Vatican or The Bible itself or whatever else. This goes along pretty well with the critique from the film on Christianity and religion/dogma in general, so I won't go over it again, and instead redirect you to previous posts on the subject.

Not only this, you accuse Jodorowsky of misunderstanding when you yourself misunderstand what he meant. "To be Christian is to betray Christ: to fill the role of Judas Iscariot" is a fun interpretation, but it is just that.

Here's another quote on the same subject in the same interview: "Live books; don't adore them. Kill Christ so
you can have Him within you." As this anon >>11654903 said, this is a Buddhist idea. This idea is tied heavily to most of Jodorowsky's films, which tend to be about individual vision, and collective as a group of fully realized individuals rather than as a unity under dogma (similar to the Jungian ideal of individuation). Again, I'll point to previous posts, on the rebuke of dogma.

You are reading Buddhism applied to Christianity so totally within the realms of your own theology that you are arguing with phantoms of your own creation. Building up strawmen and knocking them down.

Reminiscent of this scene from The Holy Mountain: https://youtu.be/h86uye11eD8?t=2m56s

Taking a lateral step into a theological argument to literally 'conquer' "The Holy Mountain (1973)", declaring yourself a champion. Yet, from bottom to top, you cannot do. You refuse to interact with the material itself. Ironic that you are exactly the kind of person the film hopes the viewer will stray from being.

[Anonymous No.11657942]

>>11657866
all of this to say "i'm right and you're wrong". WEW. how small is your penis exactly.

And the saying goes: if you find Buddha on the road, kill him. I understand if it's Jodorowsky simply switching Christ for Buddha, but they are not comparable figures and I refer you to what I said much earlier: he treats the complex as something simple. He's a dummy.

Oh but you say it's artistic license! It's allowable because We're Fighting Dogma Here. I say that's a weak cop-out. He is NOT arguing with the dogma or (more correctly) the catechism of the Church. He is knocking down his own strawman recreation of it. He does not engage the topic intelligently, it's ham-fisted and inane as I said before. If he were worth a damn Jodorowsky would have made us seriously consider the Church in a new light. Instead he reveals his brainlessness.

>Here's another quote on the same subject in the same interview: "Live books; don't adore them. Kill Christ so you can have Him within you."
NOLI ME TANGERE. Do not cling to Me. Christ said as much. These pseudointellectual quotes miss the point, however. It doesn't make sense to say that you must kill Christ. That's an idiotic Nietzschean thought. What you mean to say is one must kill the attachment set by idolators and dogmatists who value images and policy more than His commands, which were very clear. This I could agree with. Jodorowsky's text is unclear, however. "Have Christ within you"? I'm assuming he means a personal, mystical relationship separate from the Church (which he obviously has issues with). That's fair, but he's hardly a deep thinker and should keep his inanity to himself.

Try reading some actual theology, you big fake.

[Anonymous No.11658447]

>>11657524
>As well, the prostitute and the chimp follow behind the party without guidance. They take the path to enlightenment and salvation with independence, and I think we shouldn't take that lightly, there's a nobility in that. The Fool leaves with the prostitute: has he failed? Unlike the rest of the party, he did not come from power and money, instead learning self-fulfillment and going off to live a healthy life with a strong woman.
kinda reminds me of father sergius

[Anonymous No.11658468]

>>11657797
>Jodorowsky's sentiment, if taken seriously, is that to be Christian is to betray Christ: to fill the role of Judas Iscariot, mythologically speaking. This is a backwards understanding. Man's sin against God IS INEVITABLE. We do not become Judas Iscariot. We are already him. Rather we are saved BY CHRIST. He suffered greatly and died for us, willingly. The ministry that arose afterward very quickly adopted the view that we should act as Christ did. Sacrifice ourselves for each other, and for our faith in Christ's teachings.

lml thats the most basic reading of the statement you could possibly give. please go back to playing video games.

[Anonymous No.11658540]

I have never been able to tell whether Jodorowsky really believes in all the stuff he spouts, or whether he just thinks it's funny that so many people buy into it.

There are scenes in The Holy Mountain that have meaning, but some of it is clearly nonsense.

The scene that >>11657866 mentions, and especially the ending https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agw27HhB4H4 seem like a rejection of the kind of mysticism/imitation of meaning that Jodorowsky has spent his entire career producing. So I don't understand.

The Incal was good.

[Anonymous No.11658667]

>>11657942
Despite being a girl I have an above average penis, thank you very much.

Let me lay out why I think your post is disingenuous.

First, you do not engage with the whole of the argument, nor the whole of Jodorowsky's sentiment, nor the substance of his work; instead you shave off everything until contextless, bite-size pieces remain which you can then easily knock down. Strawmen.

"I'm right and you're wrong". This is not interacting with my points at all, and any argument can be boiled down like this; essentially, for disagreeing with you, I am already incorrect and of small penis (again, incorrect, I have a sizable wiener for a girl). You spend the whole time steeped in Christian Theological argument over minute fragments of an hours long interview regarding a film you've likely never seen (given you thought the quote was from the film): in short, you are arguing with the shadow of the shadow of Jodorowsky.

Second, you refuse to engage on common ground, and instead try to slyly turn everything into a battle on a field wherein fighting at all means you have already won. An artist must be understood as an artist, his statements understood through the lens of his art, and you've deigned to make assertions of the "shit" quality of his art, yet you make no connections between the man's art and his ideas.

You snatch the tiniest fragment—all you can under your meager power—from the domain of Art, scurry away to your theological pen, then say "look, I have conquered 'The Holy Mountain': I am a champion!". Somehow we are to believe that because you can conquer a lone sentence with the Power of G-d at your back, far and away from the substance of Jodorowsky's vision, that this speaks on the whole of the man and the whole of his filmography.

Third, you judge Jodorowsky for not being a "deep thinker", for being "inane", seemingly because his works are not 17 hour long dissertations on the intricacies of transubstantiation. This is a dire misunderstanding of art and the power of art, that its meaning does not come from logic and rhetoric but from image and emotion. I am trying to give my read on what scenes 'mean', but what they 'mean' is not what they ARE. The scene in itself is the argument, the art is the statement, the text is its own subtext, and to misunderstand this is to misunderstand art on a fundamental level.

Not only this, but you paradoxically denounce Jodorowsky for this 'simplicity' while yourself bashing the "idolators and dogmatists" of The Faith who complexify Christ. Those who don't follow the 'clear commands' of Christ. Clear commands doled out in parables, through a life's work simple enough to be understood by thieves and prostitutes. Christ was not a Neo-Platonist wizard, he did not speak in citations and heady references to obscure thinkers, the sermon on the mount was not a bout of oratorical showboating. Substance was of importance, not appearance.

The Holy Mountain is hilariously relevant here.

[Anonymous No.11658697]

>>11658667
>Despite being a girl I have an above average penis, thank you very much.

[Anonymous No.11658718]

>>11658667
>you will never have a big penis trap /lit/ gf
I didn't realize this site could make me even more depressed...

[Anonymous No.11658731]

>>11658667
Please use a tripcode so I can filter you in the future

[Anonymous No.11659018]

>>11657797
This is brainlet Augustinianism

[Anonymous No.11659028]

>>11657780
CAMERA

[Anonymous No.11659051]

Is it safe to talk about stuff now? Anyone watch any of his non El Topo/Holy Mountain movies? Read his books?

[Anonymous No.11659698]

>>11653540
there's also the word vs the law. one must remember the christ is the word made flesh. worshipping christ in himself elevates the flesh above the word, which is idolatry. the trinity is truly a mystery in every sense

[Anonymous No.11659793]

>>11658667
Haha, what a fraud you are. All of your paragraphs are purposeful misrepresentations of what I have said. And that last paragraph... pure fabulation, and contradictory. How could I be upset with jodorowsky for complexifying christ while also saying jodorowskys treatment of His message is a simplification?

I get it. You like to hear yourself post. Fine. I'm now really done talking to your windbag ass. Have the last post and enjoy your victory lap. Congratulations, you're insufferable.

[Anonymous No.11659888]

>>11659793
>How could I be upset with jodorowsky for complexifying christ
Reading comprehension is important, anon. I was juxtaposing the 'simplicity' of Jodorowsky with the complexity of theologians you call "idolators and dogmatists".

You tried your best, but your best wasn't good enough. Accusing me of the very things you yourself have done, and have continued to do. Perhaps one day you can step outside yourself, just a little. Baby steps.

[Anonymous No.11659940]

>>11659051
I felt that his two latest movies were fantastic, Dance of Reality and Poetry without End. They were beyond fanciful, I would almost consider them to be children's films if not for the subject matter and nudity throughout. check out some interviews with his son, Brontis

[Anonymous No.11660329]

>>11659940
I've really wanted to watch Dance of Reality for a while now! Intrigued by what he's working on right now as well, Psychomagic. Sounds like he's basically putting some poor/lucky souls through the Jodorowosky Experience. Some Esoteric Jungianism stuff; instead of focusing on the patient's dreams, you turn their life into a dream. Sounds nuts.

Brontis struck me as absurdly normal in Jodorowsky's Dune and the few other times I've seen him speak in random YouTube videos. I cannot imagine what having Jodorowsky as your father would do to you, especially given the whole "I'm gonna try and raise you like a super soldier" thing he had to briefly undergo.