Distilled into three sentences: very roughly.
I love creating beauty, bringing smiles to people, and having fierce debates -- Hope is my watch cry and one of my dearest possessions. Of all the exhilarating satisfactions in my life, possibly the greatest I've found is delivering a well written speech, that I've designed to testify beautifully and boldly of truths bursting from my heart, to a captivated audience. I'm fascinated by the laws of God and man and plan to one day be a great scholar of Law.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Some Thoughts About Newsies
This is some stuff I jotted down after Watching Newsies for the first time last year.
Anyone want to watch it with me again and discuss all this?!
Some questions I had after watching the movie
Did they do it the right way? This one is probably the hardest question to answer, but it's easily broken down into smaller parts:
Was what they were fighting for really a right, or was it a privilege?
It depends on your definition of a right. one that I really like - that comes either from the University of Casey's Brain, or from something he read - is that which everyone else has a moral obligation to let you have - but they don't have to give it to you, just not infringe on your having it. Their was definitely a wrong that was committed against them, they were being treated unjustly, and they were being oppressed. Justice may arguably be considered a right - everyone has a moral obligation to let you have it - but they don't necessarily have to give it to you, just not infringe on your having it. (Government comes in when someone is unjustly preventing you from having it, but in my opinion it is more our obligation to secure our rights than our government -- the government is more of a last resort than a first line of defense. That's one thing I loved about this movie; the Newsies, a group of kids, didn't need the governments help, intervention, or bailouts - at least until the very end of the movie - they fixed their problems themselves) So in a sense, it may have actually been a right they were fighting for.
Did they follow the principles/steps for war and divorce laid forward by God?
Perhaps not to the fullest extent...the movie isn't overly clear as to the measures taken for reconciliation, but I think there was at least some attempt. And they weren't actually taking a life, so perhaps they were justified. As for divorce (or separating yourself from another entity) I think they also followed the Principles fairly well. I think it was elder Maxwell who said that divorce is justified when the relationship has chronically endangered and degraded the human dignity of one of the parties, and all attempts at fixing the problem have been made. The founders acknowledged this principle, too, in the declaration of independence, their writ of divorcement from England. "All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpation pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and institute new guards for their future security." They did have a condition of chronic abuses and usurpations designed to oppress themDid they really effect change? How would it have changed if they had been educated?
How would it have changed if they understood the full historical impact of the ideas they were fighting for?
How does it compare to the Founding Revolution?
What could they have don't better or differently? How are the principles applicable today? What cycles did it follow/break? where does it fit into the rest of the known cycles?
I love that they were able to do it on their own, without governmental help, intervention, or bailouts.
Interesting that it still had to have a catalyst
David's character development: It's awesome how he came out of himself, discovered a cause he was passionate about, and was willing to speak up for and fight for. I loved how through most of the movie he was the voice for what was morally right, it was awesome! In the beginning his character was an integriful character. "My father taught me to tell the truth." His choice to rescue Jack did not diminish his character, I don't think. I think it was among the best of the actions he could take. It was very sad to see him gradually become coarse, and lose his refinement, especially at the end when he gave in to selling papers dishonestly: it broke my heart. "Headlines don't sell Pape's, newsies sell pape's!" it is interesting to note, however, the way his gradual decline into coarseness plays on the heart. I really like him from the beginning, and as much as it made me sad to see him digress in character, part of me, a very strong part of me, was ever more, and more attracted to him for it. His clothes were nice and handsome at the beginning, but all through the movie they got rougher and rougher till at the end he was just wearing an old, stained t-shirt. Through this process I went from really liking him as a person, to really liking him as an object of affection; he went from a young man I would definitely consider marrying, to a guy I would love to have a serious relationship with; he went from handsome and comely, to hot and sexy;- and, as much as I hate too use the word, he was hot! And it didn't have to be that way, he still could have maintained his refinement and character, and helped to bring others up to his level instead of slipping to theirs, and glorifying it.
Anyone want to watch it with me again and discuss all this?!
Some questions I had after watching the movie
Did they do it the right way? This one is probably the hardest question to answer, but it's easily broken down into smaller parts:
Was what they were fighting for really a right, or was it a privilege?
It depends on your definition of a right. one that I really like - that comes either from the University of Casey's Brain, or from something he read - is that which everyone else has a moral obligation to let you have - but they don't have to give it to you, just not infringe on your having it. Their was definitely a wrong that was committed against them, they were being treated unjustly, and they were being oppressed. Justice may arguably be considered a right - everyone has a moral obligation to let you have it - but they don't necessarily have to give it to you, just not infringe on your having it. (Government comes in when someone is unjustly preventing you from having it, but in my opinion it is more our obligation to secure our rights than our government -- the government is more of a last resort than a first line of defense. That's one thing I loved about this movie; the Newsies, a group of kids, didn't need the governments help, intervention, or bailouts - at least until the very end of the movie - they fixed their problems themselves) So in a sense, it may have actually been a right they were fighting for.
Did they follow the principles/steps for war and divorce laid forward by God?
Perhaps not to the fullest extent...the movie isn't overly clear as to the measures taken for reconciliation, but I think there was at least some attempt. And they weren't actually taking a life, so perhaps they were justified. As for divorce (or separating yourself from another entity) I think they also followed the Principles fairly well. I think it was elder Maxwell who said that divorce is justified when the relationship has chronically endangered and degraded the human dignity of one of the parties, and all attempts at fixing the problem have been made. The founders acknowledged this principle, too, in the declaration of independence, their writ of divorcement from England. "All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpation pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and institute new guards for their future security." They did have a condition of chronic abuses and usurpations designed to oppress themDid they really effect change? How would it have changed if they had been educated?
How would it have changed if they understood the full historical impact of the ideas they were fighting for?
How does it compare to the Founding Revolution?
What could they have don't better or differently? How are the principles applicable today? What cycles did it follow/break? where does it fit into the rest of the known cycles?
I love that they were able to do it on their own, without governmental help, intervention, or bailouts.
Interesting that it still had to have a catalyst
David's character development: It's awesome how he came out of himself, discovered a cause he was passionate about, and was willing to speak up for and fight for. I loved how through most of the movie he was the voice for what was morally right, it was awesome! In the beginning his character was an integriful character. "My father taught me to tell the truth." His choice to rescue Jack did not diminish his character, I don't think. I think it was among the best of the actions he could take. It was very sad to see him gradually become coarse, and lose his refinement, especially at the end when he gave in to selling papers dishonestly: it broke my heart. "Headlines don't sell Pape's, newsies sell pape's!" it is interesting to note, however, the way his gradual decline into coarseness plays on the heart. I really like him from the beginning, and as much as it made me sad to see him digress in character, part of me, a very strong part of me, was ever more, and more attracted to him for it. His clothes were nice and handsome at the beginning, but all through the movie they got rougher and rougher till at the end he was just wearing an old, stained t-shirt. Through this process I went from really liking him as a person, to really liking him as an object of affection; he went from a young man I would definitely consider marrying, to a guy I would love to have a serious relationship with; he went from handsome and comely, to hot and sexy;- and, as much as I hate too use the word, he was hot! And it didn't have to be that way, he still could have maintained his refinement and character, and helped to bring others up to his level instead of slipping to theirs, and glorifying it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)