It is too sad to realize this phenomenal picture failed not only the cashier test, but even more so it passed the public opinion. Not getting the utmost attention it deserves.
I want to put aside the esoteric symbolism used in this film
[names of people and buildings, diamonds, cards, fashion, past-present-and future],
and focus on the common sense that so easily passed the audience.
THE CLOCK IS NO GOOD TO ANYONE.
THE POOR DIE AND THE RICH DON’T LIVE.
I am pretty sure the movie speaks for himself and stands to prove a simple but somehow long forgotten fact. The base for all humanhood , that all religions of this world sum up to in just this one sentence-
“And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Now, another notice Post Scriptum, Is that the title itself is a phonetic word play on “INTIMACY” that should relate us more to the compassion of humans than to the physical closeness we sometimes know more often.
“And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark—the name of the beast or the number of its name.
Here is a call for wisdom: Let the one who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and that number is six hundred sixty-six.”
The fact that the public doesn’t see itself clearly in the mirror is more due to the fact that we continually live in a sort of DARWINIAN CAPITALISM, as framed by the characters of the movie themselves.
There is a standing confrontation of two ideas expressed In their words :
One is the collectivist-globalist “For a few to be immortal many must die“.
And the other is the controversial “No one should be immortal if even one person has to die“.
Our dream is to achieve immortality, but at what cost will such a dream come true?
One should acknowledge themselves with the tales of Sodom and Gomorrah.
“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.”
from “What Was the Real Sin of Sodom?”
To me, it is clear that the real sin of Sodom is radical inhospitality, [!NOT SEXUAL PERVERSION!] or turning one’s back upon the strangers and the neediest in our midst. Rather than welcoming traveling sojourners into their homes and feeding them, the men of Sodom wanted to gang rape them and exert their power over them. (In fact, gang rape is precisely what happens to the unnamed concubine in Judges 19, which is the parallel story to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hebrew Bible.)
It should be no surprise that radical inhospitality was a sin of the first-order magnitude in the Ancient Near East. Taking care of the sojourner or traveler in the midst of a hostile desert environment often meant the difference between life and death. According to ancient Jewish texts, such as the Babylonian Talmud and the Genesis Rabba, the inhabitants of Sodom were infamous for their cruelty and their failure to support the poor and the needy in their midst, as well as their failure to practice charity and justice. Extra-biblical stories included the Sodomites’ physical torture of travelers as well as their burning of a young woman who had dared to share food with a family that was starving of hunger. This is in stark contrast to Lot’s radical hospitality, or the radical hospitality of Abraham and Sarah to the three disguised angels who visit them in Genesis 18, the chapter that immediately precedes the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative.”
And the next one I remembered from my childhood, which I engraved in mind mind with chills shivering down my spine as I heard it in the first time and the next.
WHAT WAS WRONG WITH SODOM
…An unfortunate beggar once wandered into Sodom and began going from door to door, begging for alms. To his surprise, every householder greeted him warmly and gave him a coin.
Overjoyed, he rushed to the nearest store, hoping to purchase some food, his first meal in days. But the shopkeeper turned him away. The same thing repeated itself wherever the man proffered his coins. Eventually the poor man expired from hunger. The clever Sodomites, who knew that this would happen, came running to retrieve their coins, upon which they had each thoughtfully marked their names.
And another one:
The Sodomites were not much nicer to their own. In fact, the Midrash tells two tales of moral women who dared extend a helping hand to beggars and were put to death:
Two maidens of Sodom met at the well, where they had both gone to drink and fill up their water jugs. One girl asked her friend, “Why is your face so pale?” Her friend answered, “We have nothing to eat at home, and are dying of starvation.” Her compassionate friend filled her own jug with flour, and exchanged it for her friend’s jug of water. When the Sodomites found out about her act, they burnt her to death.
A second tale:
It was announced in Sodom, “Whoever will give bread to a poor person will be burnt at the stake.”
Plotit, the daughter of Lot, who was married to a prominent Sodomite, once saw a poor man who was so hungry that he was unable to stand. She felt sorry for him. From then on, she made sure to pass him every day on her way to the well, and she would feed him some food that she had stashed in her water jug.
People wondered how the man managed to live. Upon investigation, they discovered her act and prepared to burn her. Before she died, she turned to G‑d and cried, “Master of the world, carry out justice on my behalf!” Her cries pierced the heavens, and at that moment G‑d said, “I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached Me.”
The ancient Judaic teachings, Mishna (Bava Metzia, Mem-Daled / Bet), state that money is to be considered a currency- just a metric system.
Therefore, it couldn’t possibly be “raised” or “lowered”. It is a single unit of measure.
The reason? “For the currency is in the hands of the ruler. Be it his will, he orders the issuing of a new set of money.
Somehow reminds of a resource-based economy as opposed to Feudalism.