Movie Review--Matriarch

"I... had a feeling that you were in pain somehow.  Are you?"

--Celia, Matriarch

"Queen of rot and rebirth, take your daughter."

--Celia, Matriarch

Family strife, death, and slow burn supernatural drama are the focus of Matriarch, another well-executed Hulu exclusive 2022 horror film alongside Prey and Hellraiser.  In contrast with her roles in The VVitch and Prometheus, Katie Dickie plays a total villain here who merges the cruelty of an emotionally abusive parent with elements of a pseudo-pagan leader, though saying this does not give away almost anything about the true nature of the plot.  Jemima Rooper is not the most mainstream actress in American cinema and streaming, but she is great as a protagonist with plenty of inner conflict and feistiness.  Together, these actresses build the narrative backbone for a story that is about both parents and children and, in a very, very general sense, theism and paganism.

Production Values

A handful of recurring kinds of imagery, some masterful shots, and fantastic acting are the heart of the production quality in Matriarch.  With its imagery, the film slowly hints at and presents things that make parts of the ending clearer as it nears, though a great deal is still left uncertain by the final frame.  The way that water and darkness are used is especially central.  As the slow burn continues, there are moments of silent acting and passionate dialogue on the part of the main characters while the visual identity establishes itself.  Laura, played by Jemima Rooper, absolutely kills it as a woman so torn apart that even she seems to be confused about many of her own beliefs and motives, which are challenged as the film progresses.  As a sometimes apathetic, existentially aimless person crippled by her family background, Rooper is wonderful.  Matching her talent is Katie Dickie's sinister mother figure.  Playing an outright antagonist instead of her more culturally visible roles, she has to oscillate between bouts of aggressive domineering, quieter manipulation, and a more welcoming facade.  Katie Dickie shines in every scene she is in.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

A man walks naked into a swamp, leaving a letter behind with his clothes.  He is soon pulled under the water.  Laura is introduced later on as she passes her free time abusing alcohol and drugs to the point of almost dying from an overdose, but a stream of dark liquid appears and travels into her open mouth as she is on the floor.  Suffering from serious emotional wounds due to what is implied to be a horrific childhood, she quits her job out of distress and soon revisits her estranged mother.  Once Laura arrives, her mom tries repeatedly to get her to drink water she provides, and evidence comes to light that she has the town as a whole in her manipulative grip.

Intellectual Content

Matriarch is masterful at showing how someone might have or want a child so that they can have someone be dependent on them and in turn make them feel validated as a person.  Celia says she just wanted adoration, and yet she does not deserve it, instead looking to egoism and a pagan power she can misrepresent to her neighbors to control them.  Even after Laura leaves her, Celia uses her influence to set herself up as an almost messianic presence, to have sex with practically all the men of the town (and her fault is the promiscuity, not in being promiscuous while happening to be a woman), and to eventually set Laura up to be sacrificed upon her return; not once is she truly hinted at being anything more than, as Laura would say, an abusive "bitch" of a mother.  A person has to be a fool to let their upbringing and its aftermath deter them from alignment with reason, so there is still no excuse for Laura's hedonistic, irrationalistic philosophy and lifestyle when we first see her, but the damage parents can do to their children only with words is not shied away from.

Celia's darkness runs even deeper than this, though, as she was involved in how the people of the area turned, sometimes unknowingly, to a pagan entity away from the Christian Yahweh because she offered healing and restoration of the body, but at the cost of decay that can only be held at bay by repeatedly drinking her "milk."  This entity's healing power that Celia treats as her own is what attracts the character Abi away from the implied Christianity of her father, who assumes that the sudden disappearance of her cancer is the work of God and not of a pagan being.  Silent as God might be, not that direct speech from God could actually be known with absolute certainty to be from God (and not that even talking to a person right in front of you proves that they are there), the nature spirit gives only to take away painfully, with every one of the townspeople coming to seemingly regret their new philosophical practice implemented by Celia.

Conclusion

Ambiguity and revelation are present at the end of Matriarch, which evolves into somewhat of a Lovecraftian tale, albeit a pagan version of one.  More than its progressively intensifying horror tone, it offers a stellar onscreen portrayal of a dysfunctional family that does not even slightly shy away from how much emotional devastation just one selfish parent can cause--even if he or she is never physically abusive.  This oppressive family relationship yields to more and more desperation on the part of many characters until the finale very naturally springs out of the seeds down in earlier scenes.  2022 was a good year for Hulu's high profile streaming-distributed horror films.  Matriarch stands very nicely alongside Prey and Hellraiser even though it is not quite at the same level of intensity in some ways.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  The most graphic scene is one where a woman repeatedly pummels someone's head with a shotgun until it splits apart.

 2.  Profanity:  "Fuck," "shit," and "bitch" are used.

 3.  Nudity:  In the first scene, a naked man is seen in shadows from behind, but his penis is seen briefly between his legs on the other side.  Female breasts are directly shown later on more than once.

 4.  Sexuality:  More than once, two women kiss with the possibility of having sex afterward.  After a special "service," a group of people begin breaking off into pairs to openly have sex in the room.

An Example Of Scientific Hearsay

The unverifiability of hearsay and the extreme epistemological restrictions of the senses would be exemplified in a situation where two doctors came forth, each one holding a bottle of medicine that they claim is a cure for some condition or an amplifier of health.  Each one says the other's creation is poisonous, lethal to humans.  Aside from the grand fact that there is no way for even a scientist with human limitations to know that any amount of intentional, careful sensory testing shows them something beyond their own subjective mental experiences (which might have nothing to do with external objects), there is absolutely no way to know that either is being honest or dishonest, no matter what they say about their own work or that of the other figure.

Could you tell by merely observing the bottle?  Only a fool believes that any words or markings on the side are by logical necessity an accurate description of the contents.  They could be deceptive or negligently placed, not that words are anything more than mental and social constructs used to convey ideas.  Even if they are not, it does not logically follow from the presence of any linguistic title or statement that the medicine is as presented, so it would be impossible to know from the words.  Could you know by looking at one of the supposed medicines in your hand?  One could never know ahead of time which is poison or which is medicine, or, indeed, if either of them is poison or medicine at all rather than just a neutral capsule or pill.  Of course, if you consumed one and it turned out to be deadly, it would be too late.

This scenario is not about medical paranoia or a particular kind of skepticism that only scientists and scientific epistemology is rightly subject to.  Yes, there is no way to prove the legitimacy of one's sensory perceptions beyond that they are being subjectively experienced, with the sole exception that it is possible to know that physical substance of some kind exists.  Yes, hearsay is nothing more than unverifiable words no matter who the words originate from.  One cannot know historical events or laws of nature beyond the veil of rationalistic skepticism from assertions.  Whatever sources they came from are themselves hearsay or subjectively perceived.  This is not unique to medicine or poison, or to a particular supposed causal relationship or scientist's claims.

In the hypothetical situation, there is not necessarily any danger at all in the actual contents of either product, but this scenario illustrates just how scathing and inescapable, for human limitations, the inability to prove hearsay truly is.  It is logically possible for someone to lie, and it is logically possible for someone to be sincere in their mere assumptions, and the scientists, unless they lack basic human restrictions, would be unable to transcend them through sensory investigation, memories of events, or verbal claims.  The scientists could not know if what they are saying is true, but they, like everyone else, can know that literally anything can be true about their alleged medicine as long as it does not contradict logical axioms.  An outside party woud only be further removed from their direct experiences creating the product, as hopelessly subjective as those experiences are.

People like the scientists or their audience might believe that they can know something on the basis of assumptions, but they would either be believing in a verifiable thing (like strictly logical truths or introspective states) without looking to the actual proof or they would be believing in something that their epistemological limitations have locked away from them.  Whether a pill will have a certain effect is not a matter of inherent logical necessity like the truth of axioms is, for there are many different possible cause and effect outcomes of taking the medicine that are or could have been true, and the laws of nature could change suddenly and selectively as it is.  There are multiple reasons why one cannot know what will happen from any sort of consumption or if any spokesperson for a product or scientific discovery is correct, unless they, too, acknowledge their perceptions as not guaranteeing the truth of scientific or historical phenomena.

Ignoring these facts is not something unique to plenty of scientists, as being a scientist does not mean a person is dishonest or irrationalistic (or the inverse), but being a scientist neither exempts someone from being unable to ultimately verify the hearsay of others or from being unable to prove to someone else that their sensory experiences are accurate.  Evidence, which is tied to perception and seeming probability, is accessible through words and sensory observation, yet never does this evidence reach the status of logical proof.  There can be evidence that a product works as promised, but even a user who does not make assumptions one way or another has metaphysical and epistemological risk in using it--but it is all hearsay that is unverifiable in this way, not just of the scientific kind.

"David Did Not Ascend To Heaven"

Even if there was conscious experience in Sheol/Hades rather than its Biblical unconsciousness (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10, Psalm 88:10-12), according to the Bible, absolutely no one is in hell right now.  Hades is thrown into hell, the lake of fire, after the wicked are resurrected to conscious experience and bodily life to be annihilated (Revelation 20:13-15, Matthew 10:28, 2 Peter 2:6).  Until the first general resurrection of the dead (Revelation 20:4-6), which might only apply to the righteous/saved who perished during the reign of the beast of Revelation 13, servants of God and Christ are also not in heaven.  It is ambiguous within Revelation itself if all the righteous are resurrected together in the restoration of Revelation 20:4-6 or if the others return to life along with the wicked for judgment before God's throne in Revelation 20:11-15.  What is not as shrouded is what the Bible teaches about the intermediate fate of those who have committed to Yahweh or Christ in rationality, repentance, or righteousness.  Did the unconsciousness after death before resurrection end prematurely for those devoted to God and the morality rooted in him?

As Peter says, "David did not ascend to heaven" (Acts 2:34).  The context is one where the death and physical burial of David has already been addressed in Peter's speech (2:29).  While alone it could point to David having not ascended to heaven merely before he received the revelation that "the Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'" (2:34-35), as opposed to him having not gone to heaven after death, the Old Testament and Jesus both teach that this had not occurred.  The collective dead were and are unconscious or nonexistent (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10), the righteous and the wicked alike (Job 3:11-19).  While it would be logically possible for God's people to be roused from this state to be at his side while the unrighteous "sleep" in death until their resurrection, this does not have to be the case for Paul's doctrine that death brings Christians to Christ's presence (Philippians 1:23-24) to also be true: for those being resurrected, an enormous amount of time passing in a dreamless sleep or while phenomenologically nonexistent would not seem like more than one swift moment.

Jesus also affirms that at least by the time of his ministry, not even the righteous had moved from the unconscious condition of the dead in Sheol to be in heaven (John 3:13).  "'No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man'" are the words he uses only three verses before his much more famous statement in John 3:16.  If true, this would logically necessitate that not even the prophet Elijah was actually brought to heaven in the sense of New Jerusalem or to God's most direct presence as some Christians might think.  Certainly, this would require that David, like other figures ultimately aligned with God in righteousness or repentance despite their faults, was not in a paradise with Yahweh at that time.  If this continued, as the overlapping teachings of soul unconsciousness and the resurrection of the dead (Daniel 12:2) address, then David was still not in heaven by the time Jesus had resurrected and ascended.

No, he was not.  As Job says, the Biblical teaching is that not even the righteous would have an afterlife until "the heavens are no more" (Job 14:11-15).  People die, they are at "rest" in the sense of having no conscious experience, including pain (again, Job 3:11-19), and then God will rouse them "from their sleep" (14:12) to renew their bodies and restore consciousness to them (14:14-15, and also see Daniel 12:2).  Though the Old Testament does not specify that it would occur in a lake of fire, the consciousness of the wicked is already said in Ezekiel 18:4 to be rescinded a second time as just punishment--in a second death (Revelation 20:15).  The righteous alone inherit the eternal life that is not intrinsic to humanity, but to God (1 Timothy 6:15-16) and by extension to all beings God allows or wants to partake in this state along with him (Romans 2:6-8).  It is justice and not mercy that makes eventual nonexistence the cosmic penalty for sin (Romans 6:23), and during the wait for the various resurrections of the dead, there is not an experience of hell or heaven, or even experience at all in Sheol.

Participating In Democracy

No one can participate in democracy without in some way sharing the anti-rationalistic errors of the masses.  The core tenets of democracy are metaphysical, epistemological, and moral: the desires of the majority reveal or dictate reality, or they should at least be submitted to even if they do not.  Anyone who is a genuine philosophical believer in democracy and not just an opportunist hoping to deceive "the people" must believe in these things in some way.  Maybe they are rational in other areas of their worldview.  Perhaps they participate in democracy at the hypocritical expense of living out the rest of their worldview.  Regardless of what moral obligations might exist, supporting a candidate who says they will disregard or oppose even one of the slightest obligations (though democracy is false already for the more fundamental reason of disregarding the intrinsic nature of logical truths and how they do not depend on social approval) is himself or herself at fault for their abuse of leadership.

Lesser evil or not, whoever votes for a candidate with any ideological and moral flaws whatsoever which they revealed ahead of the election is at the very least treating democracy as if it is a valid philosophy (a logical impossibility since truth is not determined by social agreement), and at worst they are intentionally tolerating or actively supporting the candidate's idiocy and injustice.  Not only would no rationalist ever think that it is even possible for voting to be either an expression of rationalism or a moral right, but they would also never practice utilitarianism.  Relativism, egoism, emotionalism, utilitarianism, or general irrationalism are the only reasons a person would ever think that consensus makes something true, knowable, or morally good--or to tolerate this falsity in any way.

It is not as if the only alternatives to democracy are hereditary monarchies or egoistic autocracies.  This is the other side to why some people submit to the folly of democracy.  In the grip of sheer stupidity, social conditioning, or emotional appeal, a certain kind of person is motivated by a fear of any alternative because they think that the worst version of other forms of government is inevitable, or perhaps that there is no such thing as a non-democratic government that is not inherently, wholly tyrannical.  Someone might not like monarchy, for example, and there is nothing about this political system that is obligatory even in the Biblical worldview that permits it in a specific form.  All the agreement, emotion, and assumptions in the world still cannot make what is logically necessary false.

It of course does not logically follow that all governments besides democracies, whether they are pure or republics (in a republic, people still elect leaders, but the leaders then make policy decisions themselves), are oppressive or installed with personal gain in mind.  Since there is no such thing as a pro-democracy thinker who is not in the jaws of assumptions, contradictions, and emotionalism, it would not matter anyway; if all other governments besides democracies were inherently irrationalistic and unjust, then it would only follow that all forms of government are at a minimum asinine and/or morally invalid.

Whether it is spurred on by uninfluenced subjective preference with no rationalistic restraint or by culturally manipulated love of the "common people," democracy's proponents betray reason to the extent that they embrace any of this.  Democracy cannot be valid because reality is not a matter of voting, consensus, or personal opinion, no matter how much fools wish otherwise.  There is also the inconvenient fact that whoever endorses even one of the more rational, morally upright candidates is still participating in an irrationalistic social construct and is in one way or another enabling them to be secure even in their slight fallacies and evils.  While people can reach a state of perfect rationalism and holistic, unrelenting devotion to morality, no politician I have ever heard of across the entire historical record is in that category.  Democracy would still be erroneous by default even if there was a perfect candidate.

The Compatibility Of Profits And Livable Compensation

There is only way a company or employer can trample on someone that they cannot be subjected to outside of a job: compensation.  Slander, deception, racism, sexism, ageism, sexual assault, physical cruelty, and neglect can all be practiced outside of a workplace context, but only in the context of a job of some sort is someone paid for effort (or alleged effort).  While many people might not realize that compensation in its various forms is the only way a company can mistreat someone that cannot be found outside of the workplace, it is not difficult to realize the truth that work is about exchanging labor for pay.  There is no other default reason to work and to have someone professionally endeavor on one's behalf without paying the adequately is irrationality and oppression.

Businesses do not cripple their ability to amass profit simply because they pay their employees more than the smallest amount they can legally or pragmatically get away with.  Yes, there might be some situations where they do not make as much profit, as a higher amount of their revenue is directed towards employee compensation, but worker motivation, workplace appeal, and perhaps even positive reputation can be better secured through this, all of which at least does not hinder a company and in fact makes it easier for people to want to work there or do business with the organization.  Employees who are not overwhelmed by financial despair and the many other kinds of problems that can stem from this (medical, emotional, and social problems, for instance) are of course more likely to want to perform well, recommend their company to workers and consumers, and not have any need or desire to fight with their company management.

All of this, of course, removes unnecessary obstacles to corporate profits that would be deserved if the working environment was not set up to treat employees well.  Oppressive companies would not have quite as many moral, legal, or general social problems to deal with if they did not trample on employees or consumers.  Pragmatic successes and conveniences are meaningless and even evil if they come about by immoral means, not that people driven by greed care about reason and morality--or not enough to stop yielding to the stupidity, arrogance, and pointlessness of greed.  While pragmatism that is contrary to morality is irrational and evil, many people are irrationalists and will only believe or do whatever is subjectively appealing or persuasive in the moment.

Irregardless, if it is morally obligatory to pay workers livable wages or better, but never anything less than this, then it does not matter if a company will no longer be profitable or as successful as it could be if more revenue was kept from employees.  What is morally good and required is not always the same as what is easy or convenient, but it would be morally required all the same.  It is just that there is nothing about paying employees well that automatically excludes profits, even massive profits, because there is no contradiction on a conceptual or pragmatic level to pursuing both.  Companies need profit to be worth the investment; employees need livable wages or salaries to be treated justly by employers.  Both need something from the other, and both could treat the other with hypocrisy, selfishness, and malice.

There is less an employee can do, however, to prevent himself or herself from being underpaid or exploited in other ways than an employer can do about a vile employee.  Some who have or crave power might even just want the illusion of actually being over a person as if they were a deity whose whims are the measure of justice.  Indeed, so many workplace norms would disappear if companies were not managed in such a way as to be about satisfying the egos of fools with power as much or more as they are about profit.  In fact, egoism is sometimes at odds with the goal of making profits as it is, for egoistic satisfaction or delusion can so easily drive away employees, blind someone to the flaws of a business style, or convince someone to embrace lies.  Even though profits and treating employees well, with just compensation being a major component of this, selfishness can sabotage the effectiveness of a company in grasping both.

Male Emotionality

It does not follow from being male that someone has no emotions or only experiences emotions relating to sexuality or aggression.  Men are capable of experiencing a much wider spectrum of layered, intense, and deeply personal emotions than just any one or two kinds of feelings, and no one has to be a man to realize this because it is a logical truth, accessible to everyone who understands what gender and emotions are.  A woman might harbor limited, shallow emotions, not that this means she has a shallow intellect or moral character, or she might have much more serpentine, deep emotions than this; either is logically possible.  The same is true of a man.  The emotions a person feels are an individualistic matter that can be influenced by cultural pressures, though if more people at last stopped caring about social norms, it would be far easier for them to break the hold of this conditioning over them.

On a broad cultural level, even now, many men and women alike (in America) pressure men specifically to hide, ignore, trivialize, or misunderstand their capacity for emotion.  In select circumstances or if it is a very specific type of emotion, namely the two aforementioned ones, expressing feelings is arbitrarily "permitted" for men.  A true rationalistic egalitarian is capable of knowing that not only is this gravely irrational and damaging, but it is linked with more severe sexism against men such as the lenience towards violence against men and the neglect of men as full people, which is in turn accompanied in some way by sexism against women as well, for the two are to some extent inseparably intertwined.  Men deserve to understand, experience, and cherish their capacity for emotion just as much as women.  Why are these such unpopular truths?

Other than people who randomly believe in this on the basis of sheer personal assumptions, an invalid basis for believing in anything whatsoever, there are only two kinds of people who would believe or at least encourage these stereotypes about male emotionality being limited, immature, or unimportant.  They either believe or support one or all of these things because their society is vocal about embracing this error, or they believe or endorse it because they think that regardless of its truth, it makes it culturally inviting to prioritize women over men.  The first literally just believes or at least feigns support because they are too irrationalistic to think that truth is higher than or could deviate from societal ideologies.  The second thinks that liberating men from sexism excludes doing the same for women, and is thus still a deluded fool who does not look to reason and, if they are men, direct introspective experience (which can still only be grasped thanks to reason).  An irrationalistic society typically changes for the better slowly, if at all, so the prominence of this sexist worldview is not something that is likely to fully disappear except over time.

It is also an important truth that the denial or dismissal of men's emotions is not the most foundational or predominant form of sexism against men, as some people like to pretend, nor is it the thing from which all other kinds of sexist social pressures for men stem from.  People being too stupid to realize that men have or can have much more extensive, complex, precise emotions besides sexual feelings and anger/hatred is objectively not as damaging or irrational as people believing that men cannot be raped (especially by women), that they are expendable, and so on, though the idea is still untrue by default and a highly degrading, hurtful one.  Male emotionality is not nonexistent or extremely limited because someone believes or hopes it is, and as more people, men and women, stop pretending otherwise, all of society will reap the benefits of avoiding assumptions and welcoming the truth.

Movie Review--Nope

"What's a bad miracle?  Do they got a word for that?"

--OJ Haywood Jr., Nope

From showing Nahum 3:6 at the start to the slow burn horror to a genuinely unique plot reveal, Nope has a lot of ambition behind it.  Jordan Peele's previous film Us was so excellent that it was always unlikely for Nope to match or surpass it in spite of this.  Indeed, this latest offering from the director is not as focused or as philosophically penetrating as Us, but when the second out of the three movies he directed was so wonderfully executed, falling short of Us is by no means damning for Nope.  What Peele has crafted here is more of a slow burn drama than an explicit horror movie for most of its runtime.  Mystery, discovery, and suspense are the primary components, and without delving into specifics until the intellectual content section, I will say that the most horror-oriented parts actually are red herrings or seemingly self-aware acknowledgment of genre tropes only used to separate Nope from more conventional horror storytelling.

Production Values

Nope does not need an incredibly diverse set of locations or a relentless, obvious CGI extraterrestrial to have a distinct aesthetic identity.  Mostly taking place in the same handful of areas, the film has some great wide shots of the sky at night and during the day, with the final sequence of the movie having a heightened visual uniqueness--but if I was to clarify why, I would be spoiling a major detail!  It is up to Daniel Kaluuya (Black Panther, Get Out), Keke Palmer (Scream), Steven Yeun (The Walking Dead, Invincible), and Brandon Perea to carry the story amidst the superb cinematography, balancing the mixture of comedy and drama that never progresses to the point of conflicting tones.  Kaluuya plays his character OJ as a reserved person with a sarcastic sense of humor that occasionally slips out in stressful situations, while Palmer plays his sister in a much more outwardly expressive way that lets the pair have a close sibling relationship despite their significant personality differences.  Steven Yeun has a far more limited role, but his character is an important way to explore the themes of the film, albeit one that could have been leaned into more heavily, and Perea's Angel brings a mixture of humor and sincerity that makes him a great secondary protagonist.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

OJ Haywood Jr. sees his father, a horse handler for film projects, suddenly struck by objects falling from the sky, an event eventually followed by strange electrical power outages on the property.  OJ and his sister Emerald grow suspicious that a UFO is stalking the area, and they attempt to film the extraterrestrial so they can gain money and renown.  Joined by a willing Fry's Electronics employee who sets up a new camera system at the ranch, they find that a specific cloud has not moved in months.  This UFO proves difficult to get footage of, leading the Haywood siblings to eventually try very unconventional measures to hopefully get photographic or video evidence of the alien presence.

Intellectual Content

By far the most clever choice made in setting up the story is making the UFO not a spacecraft, although it certainly looks like one at first, but a giant, living being that eats and hides as it pleases.  It is at least far closer to being Lovecraftian than plenty of other alien creatures in cinema that are stupidly exaggerated as highly Lovecraftian, including the xenomorph of the Alien franchise (that anyone would ever think that an extraterrestrial animal is similar to Cthulhu or the deity Azathoth is pathetic, not that the xenomorph has no other philosophical themes associated with it), especially in its final form at the end of the movie.  Despite its size, OJ decides to treat it like he might other animals and refuse to engage in behavior he expects it to interpret as hostile or challenging.  He refrains from looking directly at it and hopes to use this to his advantage in visually documenting the creature.  Between the real nature of the alien and how OJ handles it, the frequent role of horses in the story, and periodic flashbacks to a day when a chimpanzee attacked its human costars while filming a sitcom, the clear philosophical focus of Nope is how humans treat animals.  Some are shown as not caring enough to take basic precautions, and others strive to have a peace, even an illusory peace, with the entity.

However, the entire subplot with the chimpanzee killing humans is only loosely related to the broader themes of how humans interact with animas and could have been fully removed without hurting the film on any level.  This is not all that could have been better developed.  The Bible verse displayed at the very beginning, Nahum 3:6, is not integrated into the story particularly well.  In context, the verse is about God's hostile reaction to the sins of Nineveh in which he promises to inflict punishment on a city compared to a prostitute and sorceress who is responsible for unjust deaths and enslavements.  In the film, the only thing that is loosely but specifically connected to the concept behind the verse, in which God comparing his coming judgment to pelting the personified Nineveh with filth and treat it with contempt, would be the UFO pelting the ground with objects like keys that it does not consume.  Lastly, while simply having a character of a particular race do something blatantly stupid is not racist in itself as long as the intention is not racist (though constantly having characters in cinema fall into erroneous stereotypes based on their race is still racist), there is one scene in particular where a white character is so hell-bent on a pointless and reckless goal that the idiocy of their motivation is comedic.  There is a trope, perhaps not as mainstream as the asinine storytelling trend of killing black characters first in horror movies (which films like the original Predator avoid), or presenting white characters as foolish because they are white.  No one is stupid or impulsive because their skin is white, black, or any other shade, but it seems as if Peele might be stereotyping white people as people who eagerly or cluelessly sprint towards danger, which, if that is the case, is itself stupid and hypocritical in light of his emphasis on racism in Get Out.

Conclusion

Not as artistically and thematically deep as Us but still a competent film in its own right, Nope does manage to introduce a rather original plot element and stand on its performances and cinematography well before this revelation comes to light.  Here, the themes are clearer than they were in the last movie Jordan Peele directed before it, but there are also parts of the film that are less essential than they could have been, such as those pertaining to Steven Yeun's character.  A strong directorial vision shines through all the same and elevates Nope to a unique place in the horror and science fiction genres.  People hoping for the same strangeness and experimentation in Get Out and Us will find them here, just not always to the same extent.  When Nope is the lesser of three films, though, that means that the other two of Peele's directorial titles are rather masterful.  A less incredible but very strong film is still a strong way to follow his earlier movies.

Content:

 1.  VIolence:  Blood is shown in scenes such as where a chimpanzee has attacked humans and is even shown raining down from the sky.

 2.  Profanity:  "Fuck" and "shit" are used throughout.

Demonology In The Old Testament

There are only scarce references to demons in the entire Old Testament, and the references that are present are usually more vague than those in the New Testament, which themselves provide fewer details than many Christians seem to realize.  The singular demon about which the general Bible elaborates upon the most is Satan, though even he, as I have written of before, is never fully equated with the angelic being that turns against God as recounted in Ezekiel 28:11-19.  Without ever calling this being Lucifer, Satan, or the devil, Ezekiel 28 says that the "king of Tyre" was created directly by God (28:15) and morally perfect, walking in Eden (28:13) as a guardian cherub (28:14), until arrogance seized its heart (28:17)--this chapter speaks of both a human king (28:1-10) before introducing a separate lament for the king of Tyre that goes far beyond descriptions of a human ruler.  Not even Ezekiel 28 indicates if this unnamed cherub that betrayed God is the Satan Jesus speaks of in the New Testament, but either way, Satan is the demonic entity that the Bible divulges the most details about, as he is a malevolent spiritual being that seeks to oppose Yahweh.

While Ezekiel calling the real king of Tyre a fallen cherub does not specify if this is Satan, this is one of the most direct references to demonic beings in the entire Old Testament.  Like soteriology, demonology is one of the few philosophical subcategories explored more thoroughly in the New Testament; for the most core issues, like foundational metaphysics, moral obligations, and the personal nature of Yahweh, the Old Testament goes into much greater detail than the New Testament.  Demonology happens to be one of the subjects where this difference in emphasis is inverted.  There are other mentions of demons in passing, just nothing with the same prolonged attention as that in Ezekiel 28.  For example, the "evil spirit" of 1 Samuel 16 that tormented King Saul could be a demonic spirit, though 1 Samuel 16:14 does say this spirit was from God, and thus, since God's nature is what makes something just or unjust, a just God would not send a demon as punishment.  Either God only permitted this evil spirit to act, rather than endorse it, or the word evil is a very major mistranslation more typical of the King James Version of the Bible, which uses the word evil to refer to something destructive even when moral evil is not in view.

A more direct reference to demons by that name, though, comes in Deuteronomy 32:17, where Moses briefly mentions sacrifices to demons shortly after condemning idols.  Were demons supposed to have presented themselves as if they were pre-Christian pagan pseudo-deities that might have inspired idols?  The passage does not say, and in fact it immediately focuses on how God has been betrayed and angered by devotion to worthless idols.  Nothing of the standard ideas associated with Christian demonology, rightly or wrongly, are in Deuteronomy 32:17.  This verse does not even clarify if the particular demons mentioned here are fallen angelic spirits, fictions believed in by sinful people (sacrificing to a demon does not mean that demon exists, only that someone is acting as if it does, after all), or mere idols that dishonor God's incorporeal nature (Deuteronomy 4:15-19).  It could refer to any of these things even if the word is used elsewhere to speak of actual spiritual entities who have defied God.

There are potential indirect ways the Old Testament addresses demons, however.  As early as Exodus 22:18, it is taught that those who practice sorcery deserve to be executed, and the obligation is not to kill people who claim to be sorcerers or sorceresses or who say they wish to practice sorcery: it is to kill actual sorceresses and sorcerers.  Perhaps, since the Bible does not in any way suggest that such people are charlatans and insists the opposite, going so far as to feature a story of Saul visiting the Witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28 and having her literally summon the spirit of the prophet Samuel, the sorcerers/sorceresses of the Bible are given supernatural abilities by demons.  It is just never stated one way or the other.  The word demon is not even used next to most of the verses about sorcery.  Even if the sorcery prescribed execution in Mosaic Law is specifically demonic in nature, there is no extensive clarity given.

Demonology is in no way an utterly primary part of Christian theology, and many of the popular ideas culturally associated with Christian demonology, such as crucifixes having some power over immaterial demons, are nowhere to be found in either the Old Testament or New Testament.  The scattered references to demons or possible demonic activity are often not particularly precise, though some exact details are indeed affirmed (such as that fallen angels exist as exemplified by the guardian cherub of Ezekiel 28).  They nonetheless do hint at some of the more explicit demonology in the New Testament and are fully consistent with it.  The only case where the Old Testament sheds more light on demonology is when it speaks of the demonic king of Tyre having stood in Eden and turned from a servant of Yahweh into a selfish being.  The New Testament does not even confirm if Satan is this same fallen angel despite almost everyone assuming the opposite.

The Nature Of Destruction

All destruction involves the total loss of something.  What does this mean?  Does destroying the roof of a car but not the rest of it destroy the entire vehicle?  No, but the  roof of the car no longer possesses its former shape, appearance, or its very existence on a macroscopic scale depending on what was done to it.  In certain ways, even slight destruction always entails the loss of one quality or another.  It is impossible for this to be any other way.  Otherwise, nothing would be destroyed.  Nothing would have or could have been changed.  There would be no difference between an untouched, intact item and its marred counterpart.

A good reputation being destroyed literally requires the nonexistence of the former positive reputation (though reputation is only a pragmatically useful illusion or irrelevance that many people actually take seriously while not recognizing it for mere hearsay).  Peace in a relationship being destroyed means it has been lost, that it was annihilated by some event, mental or physical.  When a business has its financial viability destroyed, to the extent that its economic flourishing ended or reversed, its profitability was destroyed.  The word destroyed might not always be the term widely used in some contexts, but it is applicable because the concept behind the word is relevant.

Even the partial destruction of something, the perishing of just one of its aspects, really involves the total loss or annihilation of that element.  How, then, could people be destroyed in hell while never actually reaching a state of nonexistence of the mind?  The mind is the self, and the Bible clearly says it will be destroyed along with the body in hell (Matthew 10:28).  It more plainly says that the soul will die (Ezekiel 18:4) and that death is the deserved and looming fate contrasting with eternal life (Romans 6:23, John 3:16), and still so many Christians and non-Christians, in their and assumptions and cultural conditioning, think that it teaches a hell of eternal conscious torment!

Words mean whatever is intended by them, yes, but destroy as even evangelicals use it refers to the process/act of eradicating something.  Just like no one rationally thinks the concept of death is that of being tortured forever, not that the word itself matters, no one can rationally believe that the nature of destruction is that of remaining in existence forever.  A thing that is being even slowly destroyed would at some point by logical necessity cease to exist, for every being or object is finite in this regard.  One could not eternally destroy a person without eventually rendering them nonexistent.  The Bible does not say this, but this is an independent, logically necessary truth that the real Biblical doctrine of hell is entirely consistent with.

Arguments From Silence

A lack of observational evidence for extraterrestrial life is not evidence against it.  There might be no actual alien life of any kind in existence, microbial or macroscopic, yet even aside from the inherent epistemological limitations of a non-omniscient being's senses, one might not have access to direct or indirect evidence of alien organisms.  It would be idiotic for a person to believe they can or cannot know the truth of this issue other than possibilities, probabilities, and what logically does and does not follow from these.  Likewise, perceiving that someone has a happy or neutral facial expression does not mean they are not upset (they might be).  It means if one cannot tell if they really are happy.

These are things which do not logically follow from something.  Though all logical fallacies are in some way a non sequitur, the name, not that the name matters rather than the truth itself, of a subcategory of non sequiturs is called the appeal to ignorance.  This is when someone mistakenly thinks an absence establishes something that is not  necessarily true and does not actually follow.  The idea that aliens cannot or do not exist because of a lack of evidence for them (though the difference between logical proof/truths and sensory evidence is relevant to this topic) is this kind of fallacy.  With the concepts mentioned, suggested, or not mentioned in texts like the Bible, a variation of this is the argument from silence.

An example of a fallacious Biblical argument that depends on silence about a matter would be the notion that if God was to appear to one in the present day, it would be in the form of a burning bush.  The Bible does not say God would not appear in this manner again, yet it does not even hint at it.  It could be the case.  It just would not have to be (when it comes to strictly logical necessity or even the teachings of the Bible themselves without what would or would not follow necessarily).  It would not logically follow that God would ever do the same as he did with Moses again.  Another such argument would be the idea that if Job was materially blessed for his righteousness, then anyone else who obeys God will also receive great wealth.  What one person was given in this life for his genuine moral excellence does not necessitate that anyone else, much less everyone else, would receive the same from God.

Yet another example would be the idea, a very popular one at that, that any moral concept not repeated in the New Testament is no longer obligatory.  This does not follow and it even contradicts the Bible, as God's nature does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17).  Morality is where this can get especially important.  In the context of a religious philosophy where God has directly or indirectly condemned some things but not others, silence absolutely is confirmation that something is not immoral on that worldview, at least as far as the specific doctrines in the text go.  It just has nothing to do with silence in the New Testament, as with arson (Exodus 22:6) or general torture (Deuteronomy 25:1-3).  With Christianity, since the Bible itself explicitly and even repeatedly addresses how adding or subtracting from divine commands, which reflect God's morally perfect nature and thus cannot be incomplete or unjust, is grievous, legalism is unbiblical.

The Bible says it contains all one needs to hear or ascertain what is and is not morally mandatory, neutral, and evil according to holistic Christianity (Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7, 2 Peter 1:3, Matthew 15:3-9), so the Bible being totally silent on an issue does require that a thing is not sinful according to its own framework.  If it does not directly address a moral subject as with loving God (Deuteronomy 6:5) or not withholding the wages of a worker (Deuteronomy 24:14-15), and if it does not follow by necessity that the permittance or condemnation of one thing requires that of another (such as alcohol abuse being equivalent to drug abuse of other kinds although the latter is not mentioned in Mosaic Law), then something is objectively, clearly nonsinful in Christian philosophy.  To think otherwise is to give in to the fallacious, arrogant illusion of adding to the divine moral nature.

The Bible is also not really silent on what some imagine.  Everything it says about monetary transactions, loans, interest (such as not charging interest to people of one's own country in Deuteronomy 23:19-20), and so on would apply to contemporary banking.  Everything it says about sexual immorality would apply to modern dating, which it does not mention, and everything it does not condemn would be permissible in dating today, as it was at all other times.  In saying to not endanger your neighbor's life (Leviticus 19:16), the Bible does not have to mention vehicle safety to by necessity address car use indirectly in this way.  At the same time, what it does not say about, for instance, sexual immorality, such as not condemning masturbation, is absolutely confirmation on the Christian worldview that such a thing is neither mandatory nor evil, and thus can be done in any way which does not involve actual sin--even some ways that might shock or offend the typical Christian [1].

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/masturbating-to-mental-imagery.html

Political Fixation On Statistics

Conservatives and liberals love to cite statistics that they subjectively find persuasive or that they expect to have an impact on other people, as if they can actually prove that those statistics are accurate, and as if any accurate statistics supersede the necessary truths of logic that are directly knowable and absolutely certain in themselves.  To dwell on "statistical probabilities" is folly because there are necessary truths (the laws of logic and what follows from them) and probabilistic, contingent, happenstance variables, the latter of which are not true by default like logical truths and are not even verifiable by beings with human limitations.  No matter what, they are ultimately irrelevant to the metaphysical, moral, and epistemological nature of something.

How many people choose to use guns in one way or another, for better or for worse, is always irrelevant to the actual nature of guns themselves, as well as the nature of moral obligation.  The nature of weaponry, including firearms of all kinds, is what it is no matter how it is misperceived or acted upon by any number of people.  As such, it does not matter how many people safely use guns they own or if they avoid using firearms for the likes of robbery or murder; guns are morally permissible or not apart from how they are wielded by individuals or the masses.  It also does not matter how many people might use guns to intentionally harm others or themselves, brimming with malice; guns, again, are morally permissible or not regardless of how they are used.

How many people drive cars, drive them recklessly, or wind up in vehicle-based accidents has nothing to do with whether it is obligatory, permissible, or evil to drive a car.  The number of people who drink alcohol or specifically sink into alcoholism has nothing to do with whether drinking, selling, or making alcohol is immoral.  Is the thing itself evil?  If so, then it does not matter how carefully one could use it.  It would be evil to do so either way.  If not, then it does not matter how dangerous one can be with it.  It would be permissible to possess or use it.  Statistics are irrelevant to logically necessary truths and the metaphysical nature of a thing, just as they are also unverifiable except in cases of direct perception (and even then, only the perception itself is known), such as if five out of seven people standing in front of a person are Hispanic.

There is absolutely no way to know if hearsay about how many people use guns or vehicles or alcohol in a certain way is true.  If so, it only reflects the arbitrary, shifting actions of various individuals and not the nature of those objects or activities anyway.  Statistics are not relevant to the morality of gun ownership.  To focus on guns again, firearms are not positive or evil because of statistics, whether they are true or false (though they must be assumed either way if a person believes them).  The conservatives and liberals who believe or cite them are only making assumptions, and when bringing them up as if they have metaphysical or epistemological authority, they are merely repeating rhetorical talking points from news sources instead of just looking to the laws of logic and relevant concepts.  They are strangers to philosophical accuracy.

The Appeal Of Horror

If fear is an emotion that feels threatening or alarming, why would someone want to have it stirred within them as they consume entertainment, something that is a source of respite from the trials of daily life?  While it is not impossible whatsoever for people to have highly nuanced or even conflicting desires, feelings, and worldviews, this would be an example of the former: of nuance rather than contradictory goals.  As it undergoes a major renaissance that started years ago, the horror genre thrives because it is possible to enjoy fear, or to enjoy things that can inspire fear even if one is not ever frightened by these stories.

The appeal of horror might seem even more unrelatable for some people if they consider subgenres like cosmic horror, erotic horror, body horror, and more.  Cosmic horror is about how physically and metaphysically small, vulnerable, and fragile humans are when faced with grand details about the nature of reality, as well as whether there is such a thing as human rights and moral significance at all.  Erotic horror is about how sexual imagery or acts can be repulsive, nonconsensual, or abnormal in ways that show how something pleasurable can also be linked with terror, or it could be about the uniqueness and paradox of how horror and sexual pleasure, curiosity, or themes themselves could be integrated together.  Body horror is about bizarre, often graphic distortions of the human body or about the strange combinations of physical forms that are indeed logically possible.

To a certain kind of person, these things would truly be horrifying, or at least hold on appeal.  What, then, is the appeal of horror?  First of all, enjoyment is subjective, even if there are things that have objective significance or value.  The desires of a person ultimately reduce down to a desire or set of desires that hold up the others, so there is at the foundation of longing, whatever desire might have this status for a given person, something that an individual wants because they want it.  There is no desire below this.  It is possible for someone to simply enjoy and desire horror because they want it, and this would be subjective.  However, there are many intellectual and artistic reasons why someone might appreciate or adore the horror genre.

Some of these reasons are very similar to why people might enjoy other genres.  They might hope to think about unusual situations, to encounter deep themes and characters, and to savor the artistic executing stories (especially with the greater potential of visual media like films and video games).  More specifically to horror, as opposed to the reasons that could apply to any genre, someone might even find pleasure in the complexity of loving that which is frightening or that is meant to be somewhat darkly atmospheric.  Horror is, like other kinds of art, able to stimulate emotion, prompt thought, and, most importantly, explore logical truths and possibilities in a specific metaphysical and epistemological context.

Even though it might not be alluring to everyone, horror is uniquely able to explore everything from general supernaturalism to epistemology to ethics to mortality to the deeply personal nature of perception and fear.  This is something that any kind of philosophically inclined person, even if they are not rationalistic and have not discovered that everything is inherently, thoroughly philosophical as it is, can understand and appreciate even if they do not personally like the horror genre.  They can all still realize that horror shares some similarities with other genres simply because each one is art, though they do not seek or crave the same kind of experiences in art that someone else does.

Another Man's Wife

Fools who choose not to look past language to pure logical necessity and the concepts behind language hinder themselves, though they might think they are intelligent.  If men and women are equal as Genesis 1:26-27 teaches, and if a married woman having sex with a man outside her marriage is sinful when men can do the same thing in the inverse, it could only follow that if the gender equality of Genesis 1 really is true, then the obligations for adultery and general sexual ethics are the exact same for men and women.  The phrase "Do not have sex with another man's wife" or the variations of this phrasing in Biblical verses like Leviticus 18:20 are nonetheless taken by some to mean that the Bible really does mean this in a sexist way.

If this is intended to say what some claim in their idiocy, then men are able to have multiple wives, as is plain from Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:9-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17) but women are not (the later part is the error).  A second husband who has sex with his wife would be having sex with another man's wife, and according to such an idea, this makes sex within polyandrous marriage adultery, as if it logically follows from this phrasing that it would not be speaking of a man having sex with a woman whom he is not married to and whom is also married to another man, and as if the same would not be true by necessity for women going the other direction.  Some even think that this phrasing entails that married men can have sex with women outside their marriage as long as they are not another man's wife!

However, the purely logical ramifications of the language here actually refute this sexist interpretation, which someone who holds to it might think is either morally good or bad.  If the phrase "another man's wife" or "your neighbor's wife" did mean that polyamorous marriage is permissible for men but not for women, which Genesis 1:26-27 and Deuteronomy 4:2 already contradict, then married women would of course not be allowed to have sex under any circumstances with any man besides their sole husband.  They would be supposedly to have only one husband at a time.  It would be true, if this was the case, that a woman should not have sex with another woman's husband, since any other woman's husband would by necessity be within the category of men besides her sole husband.

Linguistically, thus, the phrase "Do not have sex with another woman's husband" would be equally true of women's moral obligations when married.  According to the aforementioned heretical and irrationalistic interpretation of verses like Deuteronomy 22:22, then the phrases "A man should not have sex with another man's wife" and "A woman should not have sex with another woman's husband" would be true simultaneously.  Then the stupidity of looking to language rather than reason and concepts should become obvious: the phrases are identical except for the inversion of the gendered words, and yet someone would have to hold that the first means one thing and the second means something that is not logically equivalent in order to adhere to the sexist interpretation of the former phrase!  According to their own misconception, it would then have to be the case that men should not have multiple wives simultaneously, for the wives would be having sex with another man's wife!  Since polygamy is Biblically nonsinful on its own, the same would have to be true of polyandry if men and women bear God's image.

Identical wording in an identical context would mean that if someone is rational, they would mean the same things by the same wording.  Yet, to be consistent with the sexist misconception about adultery being just men having sex with separately married women, someone would have to believe that the concept articulated by the phrase when it is altered for women and other women's husbands is also correct while meaning different things by the same syntax.  Though they think the wording regarding one has a different meaning, the concepts would be articulated the same way, so not only could one not tell from the language itself that the sexist interpretation is what is meant even if this was the case, but the blatant equivalence of the inverted phrase shows that this is invalid anyway.  The concept they assume the first phrase to mean would mandate that the second phrase is also true, but the interchangeability of the language in each case shows that the language cannot actually support their notion of a gender-specific obligation.

Separate from the logical falsity of sexist moral obligations independent of whether the Bible is true--something good or evil that can be done by both men and women is good or evil for both of them--and separate from the other reasons the Bible teaches 1) that women can of course have multiple husbands and 2) that men can of course commit adultery against their wives [1], this issue with the wording when the genders are switched shows that there is nothing about the words themselves that would require the sexist meaning.  Anyone who believes otherwise fails to grasp reason and Biblical morality because they are too goddamn stupid to acknowledge what does and does not follow logically in itself apart from the construct of language, how the Bible plainly  permits polyandry and condemns extramarital sex of married men according to the real teachings of the Torah, and how language does not mean or have to mean what they have simply assumed.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/10/do-not-commit-adultery.html

Movie Review--Under The Skin

"You've very nice hands.  You've beautiful hands."

--The alien, Under the Skin

On the level of the characters, Scarlett Johansson carries most of Under the Skin alone as an alien who deceives human men into being trapped for seeming use as food, with most other characters dying or not staying around for more than a handful of scenes.  Some of the secondary characters nevertheless make for quite the examples of human individuality and even suffering as the predatory extraterrestrial begins to identify with humanity.  Indeed, if it was not for the sinister, abusive actions of the creature, some of her moments with the men she selects would be sweet in another context--a deformed man she compliments pinches himself when a woman shows interest in him, for instance, despite sexual interest being irrelevant to why we humans need to notice and interact with each other.  Under the Skin subtly emphasizes both how women and men are pressured to alienate, dehumanize, and misunderstand each other by longstanding cultural traditions that only exist because of irrationalists; sexism does not oppress just one gender (fucking conservatives and liberals need to face extreme scorn for denying this in their respective ways).  It also offers a portrayal of everyday humans from the perspective of a malevolent outsider who starts to see humanity for the emotional capacity that cannot be seen by looking at the body.  Empathy, though it has absolutely nothing to do with whether morality exists or what particular moral obligations probably exist, is what this movie comes to concentrate on.

Production Values

Populated with minimal effects and even sparse dialogue, Under the Skin is plainly centered on the initial emotional distance between the alien and her human, male prey that gives way to a desire to be like the humans she has victimized.  The scenes of totally black or white surroundings only contrasted by the alien and the men she targets make the sexualized encounters very distinctly non-sensual, and most of the runtime is devoted to long periods of silence while the extraterrestrial picks men or reflects on her worldview and motivations.  There are many wordless scenes.  In these moments, Scarlett Johansson shows her strengths as an actress who needs nothing more than blank expressions or glances at other people to establish so much about her character.  The way Johansson's face shifts to showing not a hint of the smile and predatory interest she showed only moments before cements this, but she handles a pivotal decision where she outwardly expresses regret over her actions rather wonderfully.  What is at first a largely expressionless face is eventually replaced with an awe, curiosity, and sometimes fear as her character experiences life more and more as if she is human.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

An alien being recites English sounds and words, immersed in a white light.  It soon removes the clothing of a dead/dying woman so that it can wear them.  This creature drives around Scotland in hopes of finding men it--why it specifically wants or needs men for this purpose is never revealed, but they are implied to be used as meat for an offworld species.  She occasionally finds herself in a situation where she is being treated like prey by men, but she gathers enough human subjects to perhaps begin to sympathize with them even before a fateful encounter with a deformed man, whom she rescues from the dark processing "room" or dimension that she puts her victims in.  After this, she has an existential crisis and desperately tries to act more and more as if she, too, is a human.

Intellectual Content

Irrationalists have misunderstood Under the Skin to be about how the societal encouragement to sexually objectify women, but it is not at all as much about this as it is about how many men are conditioned by complementarian societies to be emotionally vulnerable or isolated.  Hell, the movie is literally about an alien woman targeting men specifically, a glaringly sexist goal, and somehow the secondary themes about sexism against women are mistaken for the main point!  Some of the men the alien speaks with do not actually act as if they are singularly focused on her subjective sex appeal, if they find her sexy in the first place--and no, not every man will find every woman sexually attractive even if they are physically beautiful, not that sexual attraction is itself objectification regardless of someone's gender.  Other men express sexual interest in her without themselves being predatory, while a group of other men in one scene attacks her vehicle, perhaps hoping to rape her (the man at the end was trying to rape her).  Men are no more monolithic than women, which is not at all.  Humans, including men and women, are not stereotypes, but individual people.

Even how various male characters pursue, enjoy, or silently endure isolation, a factor the alien searches for in her victims, reflects individuality.  One of the first men the alien speaks to says he loves living alone--isolation is not necessarily going to be coveted or feared by everyone.  Later on, a man with a deformed face lets his silence elaborate for him after he says that he only goes to the supermarket at night because people are "ignorant," as he puts it.  Both his words and his reluctance to speak say all that they need to about his own different experience with isolation.  The alien probes about his life, saying that he has beautiful hands, perhaps the first time he had ever had a woman say something kind or admiring about his body.  It is this man whom the alien releases from her den as she enters an existential crisis about her nature and that of humans.  Very little is shown about the aliens beyond their impersonation of humans, but they at least have the capacity for developing empathy.

Conclusion

Its few words and its unique imagery make Under the Skin a bizarre and bold look into different aspects of humankind, defying gender stereotypes while exploring the potential for empathy to have an unexpected power.  Rarely do movies rely on the absence of dialogue to communicate more than the words of the characters do, and an abnormally large amount of human nature is explored through this restraint.  Like Eternals, Prometheus, and other such existential science fiction films, Under the Skin is more about dwelling on deep issues than it is about bringing attention to the exact necessary truths of logic that dictate those issues and celebrating the precise details that can be proven about them.  When done right, of course, this kind of approach in entertainment is still a grand thing, for it still focuses on matters of substance.  Scarlett Johansson is to a large extent a key part of why this movie pulls this off.  An actress capable of letting her expressions tell more than her words is just what the role needed.  Johansson delivered.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  The relatively sparse, fairly tame violence is more limited to a few blows every now and then. though the removal of a man's internal organs is shown as he is suspended in a breathable liquid.

 2.  Profanity:  Words like "fuck" and "shite" are used sparingly. 

 3.  Nudity:  Full frontal male and female nudity is seen in both sexual and nonsexual contexts.  Unlike most movies, Under the Skin does not hide genitalia, showing even an erect penis more than once.

 4.  Sexuality:  Multiple men are shown following the alien as she lures them to their doom, both she and her victims removing clothing in a sexual context or walking fully naked.

"Do Not Commit Adultery"

In the last five years, I have actually encountered people who think the Bible teaches that extramarital sex is permissible for married men as long as they do not engage in something like sex with another man's wife, bestiality, incest, and so on.  Some have treated this as a positive thing and others who think the Bible teaches this regard it as immoral and oppressive.  Now, this matter is related in various ways to far more logical truths and Biblical passages than many would likely realize.  To fully address this idiocy, one must look beyond any single passage, though some are enough to fully refute aspects of this more complementarian-style sexual doctrine that is foreign to the Bible.  In all equivalent situations, first of all, the same rights and obligations would be binding on both men and women in light of their metaphysical equality as put forth in the creation narrative (Genesis 1:26-27), and God is said to be no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11), to be just (Deuteronomy 4:5-8), and to not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17), so anything in Mosaic Law, if Yahweh is the true deity, would not contradict Genesis 1:26-27.  Aside from this, the Bible already gives examples of how the wording of a man being disallowed from having sex with a particular woman, such as another man's wife, is not about gender--compare Leviticus 18:6 with the way the examples that follow are written, as will be explored soon.

The command to not commit adultery in Exodus 20:14 and its restatement in Deuteronomy 5:18 is not directly addressed to just men or just women.  Like the prohibition of murder one verse prior in each case and the prescription of honoring one's mother and father two verses prior (again, in both cases), this is simply put forth as something that is to be avoided by all people.  Does this mean that adultery is still a married woman and a man other than her husband having sex, and this specific sexual encounter is sinful for both participants, whereas a married man can have sex with other unmarried women as some think the wording of Deuteronomy 22:22 teaches?  Anyone who believes in a sexist intention for these verses, in one direction or another, is either assuming the Bible teaches something they ultimately read of in outside documents (which, even if accurately describing the way ancient Israelites lived, still does not clarify what is prescribed/condemned here) or is the kind of fool who would think that the language of Leviticus 18's and 20's sexual prohibitions would literally only apply to men having specific kinds of sex with mothers, sisters, and so on.

As if Leviticus 18:6 does not already say that no one is to have sex with their close family members and the following cases are not just examples of this addressed to men--meaning the same/inverse would be sinful for women--the wording of the verses (in addition to logical equivalence) makes it clear that sexual matters are not permissible or evil based upon gender, with adultery being among the miscellaneous examples listed (18:20, 20:10).  A woman could not have sex with a man during her period (18:19) any more than a man could not have sex with any woman during her period.  There is nothing about the language of it being immoral for men to marry their sisters, for instance, that means it is specifically the brother marrying the sister (20:17) that makes this alone is evil.  After all, even if it was "only" prohibited in this direction, women who marry their brothers and have sex with them would still be making their brothers sin, so it would still by necessity be immoral for them to initiate as opposed to a brother.  One of these things being immoral entails the other and anything else is a contradiction!  Leviticus 18:6 addressing all people and then following instances being written about a man not performing a specific sexual act already means that there is Biblical clarity in the text itself, as opposed to solely necessitated by logical equivalence, that wording a sexual command to make it seem addressed to men does not actually mean that the same act is not prohibited/permitted for women.

With a far more important issue of sexual ethics than adultery or incest, it is not just this logical equivalence and the text not actually excluding gender equality here that clarifies this.  What of the case law in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 dealing with rape?  As if the fact that rape is likened to murder, which is always immoral and always deserves death (Exodus 20:13, 21:12), would not already apply to male and female victims or perpetrators, Genesis 1:26-27 also, of course, applies here.  Can women rape?  Can men be raped?  Can women who are not married or engaged be raped?  The same reason why the deed is evil when done to an engaged woman in the case law would then have to be the case in all other instances of rape.  It is possible for men to cheat on their wives sexually and women to rape men.  The obligations to avoid such behaviors, thus, would have to be the same (irregardless of whether the Bible is true if such obligations exist at all) for men and women, and the Bible does not deny any of this.  "Do not commit adultery" from the Ten Commandments, twice repeated, and the far broader applicability of the case law in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 than the exact example provided--especially in light of Genesis 1:26-27 and how Leviticus 18 and 20 cannot just be about only men being unable to have sex with the precise women prohibited there--apply to both men and women.

Beyond just the wording of a man not having sex with another man's wife in verses like Deuteronomy 22:22, Matthew 5:28 mentions men lusting after women and thus committing adultery of the mind, but does not use the inverse language, not that women cannot lust or that this would not be sinful for them.  This is a reworded, more contextually narrow version of the command to not covet (Exodus 20:17), since the words for covet in Hebrew and Greek are identical, so it cannot be talking about unmarried people; an unmarried or unengaged person cannot be lusted after, and sexual attraction and acting on it, such as through masturbation, is permitted, obviously, for both genders (Deuteronomy 4:2).  Mentioning a man having sex with another man's wife or lusting after a separately married woman, though, in no way requires that the statement is only addressing this exact gender arrangement instead of extramarital infidelity or lust themselves, irrespective of gender.

If the language used in reference to adultery did entail a sexist stance on adultery, as some positively or negatively believe, then the same would have to be true of lust.  Lust would be condemned for men but not for women since that is the exact wording.  However, if married men are Biblically permitted to have sex with women they are not married to as long as they are not someone else's wife (or their sister or so on) and men, allegedly unlike women, are allowed to have multiple spouses at once, then lust would in fact be worse for women on this type of sexist, complementarian moral framework.  It would not follow if this idiocy was what the Bible taught that it is only men lusting after only women that would be immoral and not the other way around, as would be the case if the example of a male lusting after a women meant what such people would have to believe in order to be consistent.  It would actually be worse for women to lust because they have no legitimate way to act on any sexual attraction to multiple men at once through polyamory or besides something such as masturbation (Deuteronomy 4:2 would still make this permissible either way)!  For both men and women, lust would be necessarily immoral, but this position entails that men would be able to take multiple wives, but not the other way around.  However, people who think the exact language of Deuteronomy 22:22 or Matthew 5:28 prescribes gender-specific obligations would be hypocrites if they either denied or acknowledged this ramification of their own notions!

The obligation would still be the same, ironically, just like the obligation to not have casual sex would be the same for men and women even if it was "only" immoral for women--the men would be helping the women participate in a sinful thing, which would still make them guilty!  This is not very difficult to realize.  Still, this kind of person is also at least likely sympathetic to other hypocritical, irrationalistic ideas, such as that of the Bible only condemning male homosexual behaviors since they are mentioned in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  For all the aforementioned reasons, the immorality of homosexual actions would absolutely be the case for both men and women, but Romans 1:26-27 specifically touches upon lesbianism, though one does not need this passage to discover the previously mentioned points.  If a woman can commit homosexual acts, and such acts are morally wrong for a man, then the same would have to be true of a woman's because homosexual activities are the issue. God does not change between the testaments (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17).  

Thus, as if Romans 1 is needed to realize any of these other points about the Biblical morality of female homosexual behaviors, lesbian actions would have been immoral for the entirety of Biblical history, not just the New Testament period, since Mosaic Law on its own and with the Genesis account of creation is not strictly about the exact scenarios listed, some of which happen to feature men or women in particular ways.  Again, references to males does not necessitate that women are free to do what men are not and vice versa!  If this was the case, the gender neutrality of other translations aside, then the laws in Exodus 21:12-14 would also mean, according to this non sequitur stance on such verses, that men sin by murdering men, but men can murder women and women can murder either men or women without sin (though Exodus 20:13 refutes this independently, it would still not be the Biblical doctrine on murder otherwise!).  After all, after Exodus 21:12, which speaks of a man being murdered, the following verses refer to a male perpetrator.  The same would be true of Exodus 21:18-19 with its addressing of non-lethal, nonsexual assault with no permanent injuries, as well as once again with various references to adultery in Mosaic Law.  What stupidity this is!  All of this is incompatible with both men and women bearing God's image and how the text never actually says that these obligations are gender-specific, even while providing numerous, miscellaneous examples of ways they are not.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

A Truth About Perceivability And Sensory Experience

It is not only logically true that mere perception of the senses does not mean that what is perceived exists beyond the mind.  It is also logically necessary that not seeing something does not itself mean it does not exist, and this could be true of material things as well as all sorts of logically possible supernatural beings or phenomena that do not exist by necessity, as the laws of logic themselves (though they are immaterial, inherent truths, not a divine or otherwise nonphysical being) and the uncaused cause do.  This receives wider recognition when it comes to supernaturalism, though many people do not realize that there are far more immaterial things with either absolutely certain existence or logical possibility than just God, angels, or demons.  When it comes to physical objects and phenomena, this is partially denied or overlooked even by some people whose irrationalism drives them to the contradictions of sensory empiricism or scientism.

In contemporary scientific paradigms, there are already many physical things that are reportedly suggested to exist according to varying degrees of sensory evidence which falls short of logical proof.  Subatomic particles, if they exist as they do according to what is always ultimately hearsay, would only be directly perceivable to a being at a scale much, much smaller than that of human macroscopic life as it is now.  If one exists, a multiverse spanning dimensions with their own potentially differing laws of physics (the laws of logic by necessity would be intrinsically true and fixed in all universes, and even if no universes existed at all) could be perceived, just not by a being with mental and sensory experiences that are limited to one universe.  It is logically possible for dark matter, too, to be observed, but by a being with very different epistemological limitations than humans or with no epistemological limitations at all.

In none of these cases, like with any other sensory experiences, does seeing or hearing things mean there actually is something physical outside of one's immaterial consciousness that is being seen or that generates the sound (which is itself nonphysical even if it is carried by vibrations in matter).  That something like dark matter cannot be directly observed means that there is even less or more indirect evidence for its alleged existence, and when it comes to microscopic objects or creatures, the fact that one is either encountering hearsay from others or is using technology that itself cannot be verified to show the material world as it is adds more layers of epistemological uncertainty.  The absence of a perception still does not require that a material thing is nonexistent.

One cannot know from the senses anything except that some sort of physical matter exists (as proven here [1], though this is more foundationally knowable by reason and is far harder to discover than many people who makes assumptions would imagine) and that one is perceiving a variety of seeming stimuli originating from outside one's mind.  The mind can perceive whether or not there is matter or external sound or energy.  Its existence is self-evident in light of logical necessity, though not as fundamental as logical axioms: no being could doubt or deny or even passively "ignore" its own conscious existence unless it already existed as a consciousness to do so.  What one sees with one's eyes is in no way verifiable through this experience because there is no logical necessity in it actually existing materially beyond one's perceptions.  How much more is something beyond the knowability of a being who cannot even see the material structures or realms they might imagine!

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html

The Individual Consumer's Environmental Impact

Many individual consumers are just a miniscule drop in the ocean when it comes to preserving the environment, especially in the sense of mitigating anthropogenic climate change.  It is not that they have absolutely no ways they can contribute or express a concern for the environment.  It is that they have little to no overall impact on the world's health on their own.  Only in masses can consumers have a more direct influence on such things, and even then, while philosophical emotionalism or apathy might stop some consumers from caring, they would not be as "responsible" as the corporations that recklessly spew emissions while only focusing on financial growth for the next quarter, that lie about their environmentalist measures [1], or that do not take sustainability measures sooner rather than later.

There are ways individuals can in some fractional way help.  This could include turning off lights when not in use rather than leaving them on and gratuitously using more energy.  They might walk or bike short distances instead of driving cars to reduce their carbon "footprint."  It could mean using bar soaps instead of bottled ones, with their plastic packaging.  It could entail taking care of one's physical belongings so that they do not need to be replaced as frequently, or intentionally purchasing items that are supposed to be made from recyclable materials so they can be reused.  Green products like the latter might still be expensive enough to deter some people who would otherwise choose them.  Financial accessibility is a part of making "green" options more attainable, commonplace, and desired.

Yes, consumeristic purchasing of unnecessary items and the improper discarding of them does not help the environment, but it is only as a collective, as in at an national or organizational level, that many people would truly have the power to quell destructive emissions or counteract them.  The general way that certain societies, which are constituted by individuals and yet have a far greater environmental impact than one average consumer alone, are structured would have to change to stabilize net emissions.  A country with primary reliance on fossil fuels would need to supplement some of that energy usage with renewable energy sources which do not release more carbon into the atmosphere.  A community that gleefully indulges in overfishing needs to shift their diet to an extent.  A company that does nothing to offset the carbon dioxide it releases needs to take advantage of carbon sinks.

A standard consumer's efforts in America to minimize waste will not clear the air pollution in China, prevent corporate stupidity like Apple shipping phones and chargers separately to "help the environment" (which is indeed worse than shipping them together), or remove the plastic already in the ocean.  Others who do not care about sustainability for humanity's sake or for nature's will likely not be promoted to adjust their worldview.  He or she could nonetheless make choices that marginally produce less waste (such as less plastic to bury or put in the seas), buy products strategically to involve less shipping and thus smaller overall emissions, and so on.  They will still have a minimal impact left to themself.  More than the habits of one typical person need to change to thoroughly benefit the environment, but there is not nothing at all that one can do as a single person to contribute.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2022/09/environmentalism-in-name-only.html

Song Of Songs Is Erotic Media

Simply by featuring Song of Songs, the Bible already affirms outside of Mosaic Law or the moral doctrines of Jesus that erotic media is not contrary to God's moral nature.  This form of sexual expression obviously is also not condemned elsewhere, where the obvious boundary between what is permissible and evil is whatever God does not condemn, because it is not a deviation from his nature (Deuteronomy 4:2, Matthew 15:3-9).  Song of Songs is plainly erotic literature that is presented as if to make sexuality, when not misused through sin, seem appealing and existentially fulfilling.  Ask Christians, however, and you will very likely hear the claim that all erotic media is sinful.  Where the hell does the Bible state or imply that sexually explicit media, including that intended particularly to facilitate sexual pleasure, is universally, objectively evil?

It does not.  Lust is sinful, yes, but this is only the coveting of someone else's partner (Exodus 20:17, Matthew 5:28), the desire to specifically have their partner by taking them away for oneself.  Someone who is single could not be lusted after since they do not "belong" to anyone relationally (Song of Songs 2:16).  In reality, a much more probable motivation for the general hostility to erotic media in the church is that many people might be deeply uncomfortable or upset with the idea of their partner finding nonsinful sexual joy in anything other than them.  They try to "justify" this theologically by believing that the sin of lust is extramarital sexual attraction, or sometimes any kind of sexual attraction if you are single!  The Greek word actually denotes coveting.

Sexual feelings directed towards someone do not mean one wishes to commit a defined sexual sin or wants to break apart a legitimate marital relationship for personal gain.  If lust is not sexual attraction and anything not condemned by God directly or indirectly is nonsinful, then the creation or enjoyment of erotic media cannot be immoral on Biblical standards, not unless it is made or used to glorify actual sexual sin, none of which are dictated by the potentially conflicting, shifting social constructs of cultural norms or the meaningless subjectivity of conscience. It would be astonishing how much the typical person is willing to believe some sexual thoughts/feelings/acts are good or evil just because their irrelevant sense of morality, which of course is likely at odds with the exact, varying consciences of many other people, flares up somehow!

The other truths about sexuality and Biblical ethics aside, perhaps someone thinks Song of Songs is not immoral because it is literature, but anything like a publicly uploaded video of a husband and wife sexually enjoying each other is evil.  How could it possibly be relevant that the material in Song of Songs is not visual?  Visual material being sinful as opposed to the written kind, which could easily be used in conjunction with mental imagery anyway, is an arbitrary distinction that does not change the fact that all forms of this are erotic media and that the Bible clearly is not opposed to this or erotic media of the visual category.  Sexuality is not sinful (Genesis 1:31) and sexual expression is only Biblically vile in specific cases.  With or without masturbation, with or without a spouse, sexual media that is not created to glorify sexual sin or used for gratification at the endorsement/trivialization of sexual sin is absolutely nonsinful according to Biblical standards.

Song of Songs is one of many possible ways to celebrate these facts.  It is no surprise in the context of church history that many Christians tend to ignore or forget about Song of Songs, never dare to discover the real ramifications of the Bible containing genuine erotic literature, or pretend like the book is some incredibly absent (as far as anything in the Bible actually says or necessitates) allegory for the love of Christ for the church!  Prudery, attachment to tradition and assumptions, and insecurity over a spouse/partner being free to act on sexual attractions in certain ways are the things that would really lead someone to think the Bible is ever against erotic media itself.  People might straw man this position as if there is no erotic media that is sinful, but that is obviously not Biblically the case.  Erotic media is nonsinful except that of certain select kinds promoting sexual immorality, Song of Songs being an example of the former.