'Letters From the Big Man' is a good movie for Pagans [Bigfoot Film]
 |
| "Letters From the Big Man" |
Paganism is a religion of nature, in other words Pagans revere Nature. Pagans see the divine as immanent in the whole of life and the universe; in every tree, plant, animal and object, man and woman and in the dark side of life as much as in the light. Pagans live their lives attuned to the cycles of Nature, the seasons, life and death.
Read what this Pagan thought after watching the new Bigfoot movie: "Letters From the Big Man"
Letters From the Big Man is one of the most Pagan movies that I have ever seen, not set in the Dark Ages. Starring the eminently watchable Lily Rabe (Jill Clayburgh’s daughter, and an actress who recently earned raves on Broadway playing Portia opposite Al Pacino’s Shylock in The Merchant of Venice), as a woman in search of a fresh start, the film is ostensibly about the developing relationship between this woman and the Yoda-like Sasquatch whom she meets and with whom she bonds. That exciting storyline, however, seems merely an excuse to feature fantastically lush nature-photography of the sort that will delight and move any Pagan heart, presenting the forested world as a temple-space of restoration and contemplation (if Thoreau had been a film-maker, this is what his work might have have been like).
Although occupied of course with the challenges facing the wild, from logging to the exploitation of woodlands in the getting of “forest products” (watch for ’70s actress Karen Black as an environmental activist), this is the kind of movie that loses focus as it introduces “characters” and “plot,” and instead is most gripping in its scenes of Rabe within the natural world, and its depiction of the growing awareness between her and the Sasquatch-exemplar of the woodlands, the living representation of the wild.
What is the movie about? That is expressed best in a flash-back scene, where Rabe’s character watches a production of The Tempest, explaining it as a play about “nature and magic, magic and nature”; this is a film for any Pagan who, like the woman in the movie, responds to the question, “Where do you call home?” with the answer, “The forest- I call the forest home.” Any Pagan who, as the Sasquatch urges, desires to “open their heart” to the majesty of the natural world- this is a movie for you.
[via culture.pagannewswirecollective.com]
Man, I really really know I'm going to love this one.
ReplyDeleteYou probably like ear wax as well.
DeleteWhy couldn't a bigfoot costume like the one used in this movie not have been created in 1967?
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't my airbags in my '67 Volkswagen deploy in that accident? CUZ THEY DIDN"T HAVE THAT TECHNOLOGY IN 1967, NUMBNUTS!
DeleteOver watch the original Star Trek from 1966 to 1968? The monsters on that series represent the level of costume making skill and technology that existed in 1967. Even to this day, no one has been able to create a costume to mirror the PGF creature.
ReplyDeleteWhen does it come out?
ReplyDeletesoon, probably directly to the dollar store on dvd is my guess...
DeleteGood question. Why would it not be possible in 1967 to create a costume like this? I don't see anything that would not be reproducable in 1967 by someone with skill as a costumer maker.
ReplyDeleteThe 1968 Planet of the Apes movie had more advanced costumes/make-up than the 1960s Star Trek TV show.
ReplyDeleteThe materials weren't available. John Chambers, Oscar winning costume designer for the 1968 movie, “Planet of the Apes” stated “If this is a suit, it is the finest ever devised for it was beyond our capability in the 1960s. Every hair would have had to have been individually attached to the model for this to do what it does in that film.”
ReplyDelete1. Peter Brooke, costume designer for the “Jim Henson Creature Shop:, John Chambers, Academy Award winner for “Planet of the Apes” whose efforts took 4 professional designers 3 months to create and 4 hours each day to apply to the actors involved, performed an analysis of the creature in the PGF.
a. They concluded there are three notable features in the film:
1) Arm Length
2)Firm musculature underneath
3) Hair adheres to body beneath it
b. Peter Brooke – “Such costumes did not exist in the 1960s
1) The fur adheres to to the form and contours of the body.
2) Today we make such suits of four-way stretch fur fabric but that did not exist until the 1980s. the era of the PGF did not have fur that could be form fitted.
Experts know what they are talking about.
I think the girl in the movie is a hotty. If I was a bigfoot, I would be in love with her too. Also, the PG film depicts a female. The sasquatch in this movie is a male. I think the idea of this hotty girl with a female satchmo is pretty hot too! Maybe they will have a sequel!
ReplyDeleteI think a scene with a couple of male squatches smacking their Jack Links would be cool. And it could explain their low population numbers and elusiveness. They are hiding deep in the forested closet. Like an 8 foot tall, hairy, smelly, bipedal brokeback mountain.
ReplyDeleteSick freak
DeleteHa-Ha-Ha-Ha, He-He-He-He! Priceless. I too agree. Two big ol' male satchmo tearin the wrappers off of their Jack Links and gobblin em up would probably win an Oscar and immediatly receive world wide recognition from all of the popular whacko movie stars out there. Afterward, the government would look into a serious long term study of the satchmo so they could find a way to label the satchmo with some type of learning disibility or psychosis from being picked on as a little satchmo. Then, the government could, "put em on a check" and protect em too. Within a few years we would have satcho coming out of the deep woods closets from all parts of North America. Thus, the end of a decades long mystery.
ReplyDeleteThe comments regarding 1960s costume technology are interesting. My only question is, if it was impossible to create such a costume in the 1960s as the 1960s costume experts are quoted as stating, why does ANYONE still question the validity of the Patterson footage and in turn the reality of sasquatch? If it is absolutely irrefutable that a costume could not have been created in 1967, then isn't that proof that bigfoot exists? There are only two possibilities: 1) It was possible to build a costume in 1967 and that is what was done and what Patterson filmed 2) Bigfoot is real.
ReplyDeleteI would watch this movie.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like it got a good review from a Pagan,so that's good with me.
Wow,lots of lame trolls out.They should go put on their racecar jammies and go to bed.
Pagans suck
DeleteGood points about the costume. If there is no way at all, absolutely none, that a realistic costume similar to the one in this movie could have been made in 1967, then bigfoot has to be real. The undeniable fact that no costume could have been made in 1967 is 100% proof of bigfoot's existence. Bigfoot is real.
ReplyDeleteThe host of a low budget locally produced late night TV horror show recently aired the Legend of Boggy Creek on his local show. Based on his comments made during a break in the show, he obviously knew very little about bigfoot and the Patterson film other than saying something offhand about it being the most well known bigfoot film (he didn't know the name of the film or where it was shot). During the same break in the programming, the host mentioned that he "met a guy named Phillip Morris at a convention." Apparently, Morris is very well known in costume making circles (the TV show host wears a costume). He said that Morris told him (in the course of a one on one conversation) that he "sent the guy who made the bigfoot film one of his gorilla suits." Why would Morris say this to a guy that he never met before in a one on one conversation at a convention if it was a lie? Nobody else knew, and he had nothing to gain from making such a comment to a guy he just met. From what I read online since hearing this on my local TV channel, Morris's company provided expensive, state of the art gorilla costumes to Hollwood movie makers and for television show use. If it is true that Morris did in fact mail Patterson one of his professional gorilla suits, then can it not be assumed that "Patty" in the famous clip is a modified gorilla suit? Why would Patterson purchase a pricey suit and not use it? Especially since he tried to make a bigfoot film with an Indian tracker character before the famous 1967 film (and wrote a bigfoot book before the 1967 filming). With everything about Patterson and his background, it seems more likely that the subject in the famous clip is the result of a very well done modified gorilla suit. After all, it seems very hard to believe that Patterson would travel all the way to northern California from Washington state for the express purpose of filming a bigfoot, and he just happens to stumble on one and film it. Given his fascination with bigfoot before the filming and given that he was broke, I can't objectively discard the idea from my mind that the most likely origin of the creature in the film is the result of a carefully crafted, well done, modified gorilla suit.
ReplyDeleteWell, if you think the PG film is the depiction of a "Gorilla suit", You then are extremely misinformed. At the time that was made there were NO Gorilla suits that could show the muscle details that are shown in the film.Why would Morris say this?, Really? Why would Rick Dyers say that he had killed a Bigfoot, put it into a freezer and then invite media to "witness" the defrosting at which time they were aware that they had been hoaxed. Why?, Because some people seek attention and then they get more than they asked for. BTW, Patterson was already in Bluff Creek with Bob Gimlin looking into the TRACKS that had been reported in the press. Lastly, on his death bed, he still swore that the film is not fake and was corroborated by Bob, Everywhere else in our world that would be enough in court to put a person away for life, but not good enough for you.
DeleteI wouldnt wipe my ass with this film if it were the last piece of toilet paper on earth.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but you don't ever wipe your ass, that's why you smell like shit!
Delete