all dead - Lost Horizon (1937) Discussion

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mikecarrie01 20 years ago

Not only are very few remakes as good as the original but it shows the lack of imagination and creativity in Hollywood. (We've already seen that story and it was good, give us something new to get excited about!)

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phil-loughborough 20 years ago

no, i haven't read the book, but surely that is not needed in order to wonder (just wonder) if the film-makers although bounded by the book also wondered if they realy died in the crash.
i don't live in a cave, but i am polite.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phil-loughborough 20 years ago

no,sorry, you're both missing my point again and lapsing into offensiveness, again.
obviously both the book and the film absolutely showed no-one died.
but --- the sugestion i was raising was that i felt there was a sub-text on the nature of paradise/heaven, and that clearly they did not and in fact could not have died, i feel the subject was raised

reply

[–] telegonus 20 years ago

I understand the point you raise and think it's an interesting idea, though as another poster pointed out, it's quite clear from Colman's return that indeed Shangri-La was not heaven. In a manner of speaking the passengers did sort of die (I emphasize "sort of"), but only in a metaphorical sense. I can see from that way the film was made that someone might think that the characters had died and gone to heaven, especially in the light of director Frank Capra's other films (It's a Wonderful Shangri-La?).

reply

[–] phil-loughborough 20 years ago

welcome to a very old thread

i'm glad you see the "sort of " point.
i had a great deal of abuse fom people telling me to watch the film and "see" that they didn't die
obviouly not

but i still contend that tere is a subtextual discussion about the nature of paradise/utopia .... or even "heaven" going on

You see, in the end, our truest opinions are not the ones we have never changed...

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Black_Dahlia 20 years ago

Wow, Laura, normally I would chastise someone for such a harsh and unwarranted response, but I can see some merit to a post such as this. Please come to the Lost (2004) television series message board ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411008/board/threads/ ) and wield your Luciferian skills in the "puragatory theory" threads. Hundreds of active posters wil laud you.

reply

[–] mikecarrie01 20 years ago

But how could that be when Conway was found by some Chinese and then was seen by many others later as he tried to make his way back? At least that's how the movie related it, I haven't read the book yet.

reply

[–] phil-loughborough 20 years ago

what i am saying is that i feel a subject is beeing discussed, namely the nature of "heaven" without it being explisitly in the film.
the same way that ronald coleman and his brother were in some ways the opposing aspects of the same person.

.....but obviously not explicitly in the film or the book

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phil-loughborough 20 years ago

sorry, but you better hit that ignore button again.
i stand by my oppinions and quite clearly you stand by yours, wouldn't the world be a worse place if everybody saw things the same.
personaly, and again this is only my oppinion, i feel a piece of art is not simply to be read as a coded message from the artist to the viewer, but that there is often a sub-concious sub-text. hey, surely art critisism is a whole industry built on this ( if it wasn't, then why not just ask the artist what he meant and then believe him).

just leaving the whole issue of art, the film, if it is possible to understand any individual "truth" in a piece of art or not. what i find most interesting is the fact that not only do you seem to take so much pleasure in telling me i'm "wrong", but that clearly any disagreement seriously upsets you.

relax, it's only a film.

reply

[–] markpopham 20 years ago

Wow, Laura, that is one randomly vitriolic response to a query that was not only innocent but actually quite interesting. Phil, I previously had not considered the film in those terms, but that is certainly a very valid and interesting way to do so; if, in fact, they were "dead" (not literally dead! Calm down, I know, I saw the movie!), what does this tell us of "utopia" (considering that the word itself literally means "no place")? Does this say that utopia is not only unattainable on Earth, but, if it were, we wouldn't necessarily want it, as humans? Or, rather, is it attainable, but we are the only people keeping us from realizing it?
A very interesting point, Phil. And Laura, for one who apparently respects the Dalai Lama a great deal, and has in fact had the extreme pleasure of spending time with him, I find your dismissal of differing viewpoints very disheartening. Perhaps reconsider what His Holiness would do before referring to people as "illiterate trogdolytes."

reply

[–] rose-84 20 years ago

It is rather distressing to read this discussion of a great film about a world in which people learn to live at peace with each other, and observe that the commentary descend into name-calling and denigrating comments. I share your love for this film, but feel that you do it an injustice by calling people morons and dumbasses simply because they ask a question or disagree with you.

This is a haunting film that has spoken to many generations. I watched it on TV for the first time at age 12, and was so moved and overwhelmed, I couldn't even eat dinner afterwards. My own children, who are teen-agers, have seen it, and are fascinated by how much it speaks to our own time, and how much of the future was predicted.

reply

[–] sidewind69-195-268787 12 years ago

this is a beautiful time we live in and no mater where we go in life we can meet people in their time their own time knew as we do , remembered the future

reply

[–] anotherspaceboy 20 years ago

(ignoring flaming and proceeding with the actual post) i think phil-loughborough has an interesting point, though i don't see why conway being "rescued" and subsequently finding his way back can't be read as part of the afterlife. A temptation for his expiring mind in its last moments, or perhaps some approximation of purgatory, or a deviation on the path to enlightenment: however one chooses to view his and the others' journeys, i think viewing the film that way works and pushes the questions the film raises about personal ideas of paradise to the fore.

reply

[–] skywalker1008 20 years ago

I've seen Lost Horizon, and I am very fascinated by it. I had never thought that the protagonists in the film had died, and that what you saw in the film was "Heaven" or an afterlife, and not a utopia on earth. But, this is a very interesting notion.

I'm reading the book right now, and so far, there is no indication that the intent was that these were "ghosts" or a view of an afterlife. But if you view the film, I suppose one can draw that conclusion.

The Ronald Colman character is the most intriguing of them all. He has real character and an aloofness from life, but always trying to do the right thing, even if it means self sacrifice.

Lost Horizon is really a great flick.

reply

[–] rjneb2 20 years ago

Whatever next? The Lost Horizon messageboard, home to intense flaming. Surely, this should be the LAST place where that sort of thing goes on, considering that the theme of the novel and film is about being kind to your fellow men.

Oh well, says it all, I guess.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Swearengen 20 years ago

"But what should I expect from the troglodytes on these boards. You're all illiterate morons."

You are an Elitist and proud of it I bet.

reply

[–] phil-loughborough 20 years ago

eh?

You see, in the end, our truest opinions are not the ones we have never changed...

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phil-loughborough 19 years ago

no
the point i'm trying to make is that while the film is obviously set in a literal earth, i feel that the nature of paradise (usually assumed to be heavenly)is being discussed.
You see, in the end, our truest opinions are not the ones we have never changed...

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phil-loughborough 19 years ago

a long time ago , in a galaxy far away......
i just suggested the idea that, whilst quite obviously nobody died, there might be a subtext on the nature of paradise/heaven etc.
just suggesting this seens to really upset a lot of people who told me at great lenght in abusive terms that i did not understand the film.
hey, everyones got an oppinion, you might disagree with me, you might not understand my point, but i stand by my right to air it

please, do reply if you can be bothered, but i fully understand if you can't

You see, in the end, our truest opinions are not the ones we have never changed...

reply

[–] redwoods168 19 years ago

I watched this movie last night for the first time, and have mixed feelings toward it. So I'm glad to see some discussions here. I find the "all dead" idea quite interesting--it's an idea I hadn't thought of. Here are some random thoughts:

The idea of heaven/paradise is just like the idea of utopia (and of Shangri La), because they are all the product of human imagination. They are all constructs of the human mind for those who see life as suffering and misery. When people are in pain, they think up ways to escape from reality. Imagining a better version of life can fill this need to escape, or at least to alleviate the pain.

This film is an intriguing study of the concept of utopia, and by association, a study of heaven, or any other better-than-the current-life place people envision. One clear message from this movie is that utopia is merely an escape. This is clearly shown by the opening scenes where people try to escape from the warring place. And the plane is the vessel that carry them from one kingdom to another, from one existance to another, from one realm to the other. The association with air, and flight, and altitude not only suggest the flight of the imagination but also add a spiritual dimension as well.

Another message I get from this film is that paradise is a perception, and a state of mind. For instance, Shangri La is paradise for Sandra, and she has no desire to leave; but for Maria, it's pure hell from where she tries to escape many times (irony here that one tries to escape from somewhere another person tries to escape to). But for Lovey and Barney, they go through a process of change in their perception, so they eventually fall in love with the place that they initially hated.

While this is a fairly good movie, I can't help noticing the many errors it contains about the Chinese culture. Obviously this film is made by people who knew very little about the East except some superficial information. To adequately portray another culture/nation/people is no easy task, and is often extremely tricky. One can easily make a fool of himself. But I suppose people all have their limitations, and no one can know everything, so I try not to be too critical.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Invariable Self 17 years ago

I think that is an interesting suggestion phil. However I don't think it is possible to prove something like that either way. If everything that happens after the crash is just part of a death-dream etc, this would seem to deflate the film's message that everyone should find their own "real" Shangri-La.

I.S. Oxford

"The books have nothing to say!"
-- Fahrenheit 451

reply

[–] CocksureBurns 11 years ago

Maybe we're all dead right now, reading this thread.
And maybe we're just a little too high, or low on sleep...

But dead, all dead, indeed.

reply

[–] m.p. 9 years ago

That was certainly my *first* thought: that they all died in the plane crash, not just the pilot. However as the movie progressed, I realized that wasn't the case. They went to great lengths to explain how all the books, furniture, etc. was brought in.

But then it got supernatural again because residents were cured of physical ailments and had much longer lifespans. If this was a real physical place, why would people experience rapid aging if they left? Resumed aging, maybe.

Then I thought maybe it had all been a product of Conway's mind; it's mentioned that when he was first found he was suffering from amnesia; is the "memory" of Shangri-La really just a product of his subconscious? We know that he longed for some kind of tranquil version of the world and not the one facing him back home.

reply

[–] telegonus 9 years ago

There are as many different ways of interpreting films are there are people to watch them. Dead, then reborn? Alien abduction? Psychotic episode (but a good one)?

I love Lost Horizon for what it is,--a rather high minded pipe dream of the sort good English Christian gentlemen were prone to eighty to a hundred years ago. As such, it's a pleasure to watch and think about. I don't take it too seriously, but then I don't dismiss it, either.

The world is probably a better place for James Hilton's having written the novel Lost Horizon and Frank Capra having made a movie adaptation of it.

reply