←back to thread

A24's Empire of Auteurs

(www.newyorker.com)
75 points prismatic | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pyuser583 ◴[] No.45079555[source]
This article makes me like the company a lot less. Never had that reaction to a puff piece before.

I mean satanic parties? Not because some of their employees are satanists, but because they like the look?

They know they’re going to miff some people, and one of them is me.

I don’t care what religion their employees are. But when they’re endorsing one religious group to piss off another?

I don’t have to like it, and I don’t. Plenty of movies coming out. Plenty I haven’t seen that came out years and decades ago.

If they weren’t in such a competitive market, i probably wouldn’t care. But they’re so easy to avoid, why not?

replies(8): >>45079593 #>>45079610 #>>45079712 #>>45079763 #>>45079765 #>>45079786 #>>45079876 #>>45080107 #
ViktorRay ◴[] No.45079593[source]
What do you think about Monty Python and their religious mockery then?

Is it the religious mockery that bothers you or something else?

Religion should not be off limits to mockery, satire, etc

replies(1): >>45079667 #
pyuser583 ◴[] No.45079667[source]
Depends on how well it’s done. Monty Python’s religious mockery varies a lot. Some is quirky and insightful, but much is just dumb.

It’s a bit of an unfair question to ask, because the Pythons are competing with A Clockwork Orange, not to mention Oscar Wilde, Alexander Pope, and Chaucer. English religious mockery is a crowded market - even Thomas More took part.

But this wasn’t even religious mockery. They weren’t actually mocking anybody directly.

They were doing it very indirectly by supporting a group that is by itself is perfectly legitimate, but goes out of its way to offend others by its practices. But it doesn’t seem the group actually did anything offensive.

They supposed to be edgy by their mere presence.

It’s religious mockery by proxy, which isn’t funny or insightful. From the description, it doesn’t seem anybody was laughing. Certainly not the audience (us).

replies(1): >>45079708 #
vlovich123 ◴[] No.45079708[source]
You’re being pretty confidently dismissive about the religious validity of Satanists for someone claiming religious offense.

The Satan of the Bible isn’t that dissimilar from Heaphestus - a divine being that gave humanity something the gods reserved for themselves so we could better our lot in life ourselves. Just because Christians decided to make him an evil figure, doesn’t mean everyone else has to agree, especially since Satan is responsible for punishing the evil souls sent to Hell which seems like a righteous mission.

replies(4): >>45079771 #>>45079778 #>>45079783 #>>45079814 #
yahoozoo ◴[] No.45079771[source]
> Just because Christians decided to make him an evil figure

The Old Testament predates Christianity.

> especially since Satan is responsible for punishing the evil souls sent to Hell which seems like a righteous mission

The Bible doesn’t say anything about Satan’s responsibilities. You’re probably referring to fanfic works, such as Milton or Dante.

replies(2): >>45079804 #>>45079840 #
1. bryanrasmussen ◴[] No.45079804[source]
The Bible does seem to imply some responsibilities of Satan however, mainly to tempt people to deny God in some way.