Don't be frightened. These are just moral lessons explored in written form. Wisdom that may apply.
"She looked on him with horror, as she saw that he had the button, and she had his liberty quarter. But it made no difference. It did not help to escape accountability. She believed too much the gypsy who said that she couldn't make things all right for her. Because there's always a way that God provides to make things all right. But to trade morality like coin, and paths like exchange was the true unpardonable sin." --Final thoughts of movie.
Read that as you will.
The main character made a lot of corrupt assumption about human nature that she never questioned throughout the movie.
When she was forced to make a tough decision about taking someone else's house from this gypsy woman her decision was in her power. To take the woman's house, or to give her a extension.
But what is a tough decision. It would have been to stand up to the bank and assume her own morality.
She chose instead to try and get ahead.
Her job wasn't on the line, but she wanted what wasn't meant for her.
She lived more for being a saving grace and helping others, as shown later in the film when it looked apparent that someone else would get their own house for a new married couple.
A comparative analysis might be to the movie "Girl, Interrupted."
When Angelina Jolie showed her ability to blow smoke in someone else's face, and her inability to do the same.
Jolie's character was on a path that behavior would have provided no loss, an acceptance of who she was and what she had to do. That's where that kind of strength comes from. Position and acceptance, being in a corner and understanding that corner.
Wynona Ryder had a different corner. A personal journey that she couldn't escape from either. This is what some would call blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because different corners bring out a more pronounced virtue. Angelina's virtue was a war like protective spirit, and Wynona's was a kindness and accepting and loving spirit. Both learn the same lessons of integrity and strength. Humility is accepting one without necessarily letting the envy of another keep me from appreciating mine.
(I'd been cornered in moral dilemmas that put me in a corner to have that kind of commitment. And there are some here who think they were in that corner but really weren't. Or maybe they were, but wanted to believe they were in a different corner.)
While her read on the bank manager ethic of efficiency as a condition for promotion, she may had been wrong about why they hired her. She was a kind loving face that gave a good impression on guests, that attracted responsible clients. But she lost sight of that and envied the money and position of another.
The virtue of strength and ruthlessness is the quality she preferred. And perhaps God wanted her to have that quality too, which is why she gave in to temptation and violated the gypsy.
She was brought into a world of cruelty that would have required a kind of cunning and ruthless wisdom to manifest in order for her to survive. Instead she tried to buy her way out.
Solomon once said of Wisdom that Wisdom is attracted to a pure heart of love and innocence.
She lost wisdom because she didn't appreciate the love and humility that she had that coveted something greater.
And I sense some would like to think that would have described me, but lack the understanding that my life began before I met them. Envy of my path is a dangerous sin, if you act on it. I had brought some to highest love in moments of pure love and ecstasy. This innocence caused them envy to want to be like that with me forever. When my path had to go down a darker road, this caused envy and resentment and anger because my path brought me away from what they envied and coveted. But then my innocence stayed in place and brought praise, and some success by some standards, it seemed to produce a similar state of envy. This envy is dangerous and an Achilles heel of the divine feminine. The part of the divine feminine that envies the path of Achilles. That wants to absorb it, or otherwise try to "own" it.
Not that the feminine has no such sense of righteousness and potential, but envy of male expression of the divine masculine wanted to emulate that expression that brings glory and admiration, but not the core ethical reason for that expression, which is to be firm and stand guard to protect innocent lives and be a guardian of righteousness.
Envying the strength and invulnerability of Achilles is more than just about attempting to escape humility and compassion.
This part is the sexism of that movie "drag to heck."
It is a man's perspective of a woman not staying in her place.
The movie implied a perfectly ordered male world in which a woman gave in to temptation, ate a forbidden fruit and suffered spiritual death.
But is that the only reason that a woman would have wanted that sense of invulnerability?
It's easy to imagine that seeking money and not being kind or loving would be a sin. On the surface, if it were that simple, it would be.
But history had shown that it wasn't.
Men have a spiritual responsibility to protect their offspring and defend the home, their strength being a God given gift designed to build and preserve the home and to protect the innocent.
But men had often done the opposite. Historically men had betrayed their women and children in favor of status and recognition. And used rape and intimidation to keep women in check once they had failed morally.
And so what does the "chair" actually represent, then? When men had failed to protect her, and ate their food and mocked her, spiritually, it would imply that the chair was already empty. That protective and guarding presence was not being fulfilled.
Her divine anger would have been aroused, and chose to abandon heaven and security to hold the bank accountable.
But she didnt let go of her more sane identity and attempted to avoid her deeper call, instead of accepting it. Sanity could have been preserved. And so it wasn't her sanity so much that her problem was, but she had insisted that the world mirror her sanity while undermining the "sane" world's privileged standing that represented male failure at upholding righteousness to defend the home.
Rather than accepting that role of defense against male failure at defending the home, she tried to mirror male sin of abandoning the home in favor of status and gain.
That her mission was to hold men accountable, not to participate. At least not to the extent that she abandoned her responsibilities of accountability and defense.
To hold her goodness as hostage until her equal in male energy found that place of equal repentance that found his innocence in joining her away from safety to bring them both back to redemption with only the intent to protect their home and loved ones, and not for the glory of being the "rescuer" but because that was his only path forward.
There's a lot of moral ambiguity in the film.
It's also representative of the failure of the scapegoat spiritual ideology.
People have an innate desire to live a fulfilling life.
To point the finger at someone they imagine to be worse to distract them from their own sin doesn't change anything.
THey'd still be losers no matter if the best of them lost.
If a scapegoat ideology had ever played out today, it would just curse the masses into realizing how stupid and ethically failed they were and they'd curse themselves for their failure and there would be no relief.
Edited by samowens84 (10/18/19 08:29 AM)