Mormonism and Snakes on a Plane
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:09 pm
Has anyone seen the movie Snakes on a Plane? I just watched it last night for the first time. It was on HBO for free, so I thought I’d give it 15 minutes and decide from there. I wasn’t very enthusiastic about it; I have to question the wisdom (or, at the very least, the artistic worth) of naming a movie after its premise, but whatever.
I ended up watching the whole thing, and two things struck me about it:
1) It’s gratuitous nature. Why does every victim have to be bitten somewhere particularly nasty? Does it have to be in the eye, the breast, the penis or the tongue? Sure, there were a few arm, leg and shoulder bites, but these were in the minority. I’m not overly critical of this; they are trying to make an impact as movie makers. It was just so over the top, however, that I think it distracts the viewer from becoming immersed in the story by constantly reminding them they’re watching a movie.
2) It’s a premise-centric movie (so much so that the title is named after it, as I said). In other words, it appears as though the writer(s) came up with this premise first, and then everything else in the story is introduced as a means to justify that premise. For example, in order to make a movie about snakes on a plane, the first problem you have to solve is, “Why are there snakes on a plane?” They solve this by suggesting it was a way for a murdering psychopath to eliminate a witness who was to testify against him. But that begs at least a hundred follow-up questions (and creates far more story problems than it solves): Why this method of murder? How could he arrange this in what appears to be a very short time frame? If they have the means to sneak a huge, disguised, self-exploding crate of snakes (designed to not actually hurt the snakes in the explosion; just to release them), why not sneak something on that’s more subtle, like a dude with say, I vial of poison? Etc… Etc… Etc…
It’s the second point I want to talk about.
Is this a good way to make a movie? Perhaps, if all you’re trying to do is entertain for a couple of hours, but I think the most effective movies and books are ones that begin with a premise, but do not let the premise dictate the details at the expense of realism, or plausibility. The premise is somewhat flexible in order to accommodate authenticity.
To me, this is exactly what Mormonism has become. You have this premise, and everything said about the church and its doctrine must conform to this central premise. The business of apologetics is the business of premise conforming.
It seems to me that when they wrote Snakes on a Plane, what they really did was come up with a premise and spent the rest of their time acting as bad premise apologists. Watching this movie was a little like reading a post by DCP, except the movie was more entertaining.
EDIT: by the way, I understand that without the premise, you don't have a movie. Just like the church; without the premise, you have no religion. There are good movies and bad movies... perhaps it's the same with religion. If so, Mormonism is a bad one, at least from an artistic point of view.
I ended up watching the whole thing, and two things struck me about it:
1) It’s gratuitous nature. Why does every victim have to be bitten somewhere particularly nasty? Does it have to be in the eye, the breast, the penis or the tongue? Sure, there were a few arm, leg and shoulder bites, but these were in the minority. I’m not overly critical of this; they are trying to make an impact as movie makers. It was just so over the top, however, that I think it distracts the viewer from becoming immersed in the story by constantly reminding them they’re watching a movie.
2) It’s a premise-centric movie (so much so that the title is named after it, as I said). In other words, it appears as though the writer(s) came up with this premise first, and then everything else in the story is introduced as a means to justify that premise. For example, in order to make a movie about snakes on a plane, the first problem you have to solve is, “Why are there snakes on a plane?” They solve this by suggesting it was a way for a murdering psychopath to eliminate a witness who was to testify against him. But that begs at least a hundred follow-up questions (and creates far more story problems than it solves): Why this method of murder? How could he arrange this in what appears to be a very short time frame? If they have the means to sneak a huge, disguised, self-exploding crate of snakes (designed to not actually hurt the snakes in the explosion; just to release them), why not sneak something on that’s more subtle, like a dude with say, I vial of poison? Etc… Etc… Etc…
It’s the second point I want to talk about.
Is this a good way to make a movie? Perhaps, if all you’re trying to do is entertain for a couple of hours, but I think the most effective movies and books are ones that begin with a premise, but do not let the premise dictate the details at the expense of realism, or plausibility. The premise is somewhat flexible in order to accommodate authenticity.
To me, this is exactly what Mormonism has become. You have this premise, and everything said about the church and its doctrine must conform to this central premise. The business of apologetics is the business of premise conforming.
It seems to me that when they wrote Snakes on a Plane, what they really did was come up with a premise and spent the rest of their time acting as bad premise apologists. Watching this movie was a little like reading a post by DCP, except the movie was more entertaining.
EDIT: by the way, I understand that without the premise, you don't have a movie. Just like the church; without the premise, you have no religion. There are good movies and bad movies... perhaps it's the same with religion. If so, Mormonism is a bad one, at least from an artistic point of view.