Top 20 films of the 1990's POLL

[Lepidopterous]

1. Life is Beautiful - 20
2. Pulp Fiction - 19
3. Ghost in the Shell - 18
4. Schindler’s List - 17
5. Princess Mononoke - 16
6. The Lion King - 15
7. Children of Heaven - 14
8. Chungking Express - 13
9. The Truman Show - 12
10. Reservoir Dogs - 11
11. Perfect Blue - 10
12. The Matrix - 9
13. The Double Life of Veronique - 8
14. Fight Club - 7
15. Saving Private Ryan - 6
16. The Silence of the Lambs - 5
17. Leon: The Professional - 4
18. The Sixth Sense - 3
19. Titanic - 2
20. Three Colors: Red - 1

[Grethiwha]

Originally Posted by Hucksta G

I'd give it a 7, I liked it but yeah wouldn't make my list, either.

It was my first WKW film, and that's about my reaction. I quite liked it, but not that much. Fallen Angels on the other hand...
I also especially love 2046; that one makes me want to revisit the whole 'trilogy' – all great movies, subtly connected.
A wonderful director if you're receptive to the moods he builds in his films. His films are all about mood, I feel like. You may yet come around on him.

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Believe it. I just saw it, and I didn't think much of it at all. I don't think it even merits honorable mention for my list.

Believe me. That was exactly how I felt when I first watched it. But some films just need more attention to really get into their underlying currents. Like the first time around, I thought Faye Wong just danced around the whole film, now she is one of the few characters in film who I can relate myself to the most. It's hard to describe why but as Wong Kar Wai himself put it in In the Mood for Love, "You notice things if you pay attention".

But thats later. I don't think it takes more then one viewing to just be lost in Wong Kar Wai's sheer poetry. The kinetic opening shots, the evocative locations and the noir-like aura of the city were really a sight to behold. The first film that came to my mind to have had the similar feeling is indeed, Blade Runner. And it always had the feeling that so much was happening outside the frame. He created a whole world of his own in the film. Though his characters do take time to relate to, I think the biggest character, that is the city itself, easily grabs the audience. And frankly combining this poetry with the sheer grit and realism of his characters was truly groundbreaking. Though to each his own I guess. To me Chungking Express is huge.

[Hucksta G]

Originally Posted by Grethiwha

It was my first WKW film, and that's about my reaction. I quite liked it, but not that much. Fallen Angels on the other hand...

Exactly my experience too, I need to see Chunking Express again, but loved Fallen Angels.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Scholer

Believe me. That was exactly how I felt when I first watched it. But some films just need more attention to really get into their underlying currents. Like the first time around, I thought Faye Wong just danced around the whole film, now she is one of the few characters in film who I can relate myself to the most. It's hard to describe why but as Wong Kar Wai himself put it in In the Mood for Love, "You notice things if you pay attention".

But thats later. I don't think it takes more then one viewing to just be lost in Wong Kar Wai's sheer poetry. The kinetic opening shots, the evocative locations and the noir-like aura of the city were really a sight to behold. The first film that came to my mind to have had the similar feeling is indeed, Blade Runner. And it always had the feeling that so much was happening outside the frame. He created a whole world of his own in the film. Though his characters do take time to relate to, I think the biggest character, that is the city itself, easily grabs the audience. And frankly combining this poetry with the sheer grit and realism of his characters was truly groundbreaking. Though to each his own I guess. To me Chungking Express is huge.

Man, you always say that. You always say "you need to watch it again".
I don't need to keep watching it over and over until I like it, it doesn't work like that. I don't have a problem "paying attention", I don't need to see a movie half a dozen times to notice detail or appreciate subtlety. I 'connected' with it just fine, and didn't especially enjoy the experience.
You know, it IS possible to thoroughly understand something and still not like it. Right? I mean, you DO understand that when someone doesn't share your opinion, it isn't evidence of their ignorance, don't you?

I'm supposed to be amazed at Wong's visual stylings, and yet all I could do was cringe whenever he went to that blurry stutter-frame photography, which is almost always obviously used to conceal badly-executed footage. The rest of the time, he's good but occasionally over-does it.
I wasn't especially impressed by the effort to capture the living, breathing, feel of 1994 Hong Kong, most other HK films I've seen accomplished that just as well or better, I "feel" just as much of the life and beating heart of Hong Kong in any given Woo cop film, this film didn't stand out in that regard the way everbody keeps telling me it does.

If "grit and realism" is the phrase you want to use for dull ordinary stories about neurotic urbanites, then so be it. The only character that I didn't think a complete schmuck, was poor Tony Leung. To each their own, but I don't think there's anything the least bit beautiful about an unsuspecting broken-hearted man falling into the infatuated dreams of a barking-mad woman. Here this poor guy is, making slow but steady progress recovering from a breakup, when some lunatic comes and rips her way through his life. Then, he ends up squandering a year waiting to hear from this woman who is clearly bat-s**t crazy and will bring nothing but misery into his life. That's not charming, that's dismally sad, and not at all unfamiliar.

Also, please refrain from the blasphemy of comparing this film to the frame-by-frame perfection that is Blade Runner. Come to think of it, I'm also quite confused by your claim that the influence of this movie is necessary for the existence of Pulp Fiction -- what are you talking about? How is this film anything like Pulp Fiction? What, because it consists of two short films connected only by a split second at the same food counter? Come on! Whos leg are to trying to pull?

[Kevin Holly]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Man, you always say that. You always say "you need to watch it again".
I don't need to keep watching it over and over until I like it, it doesn't work like that. I don't have a problem "paying attention", I don't need to see a movie half a dozen times to notice detail or appreciate subtlety. I 'connected' with it just fine, and didn't especially enjoy the experience.
You know, it IS possible to thoroughly understand something and still not like it. Right? I mean, you DO understand that when someone doesn't share your opinion, it isn't evidence of their ignorance, don't you?

I disagree with almost everything you have ever said, but this paragraph is gilded.

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Man, you always say that. You always say "you need to watch it again".
I don't need to keep watching it over and over until I like it, it doesn't work like that. I don't have a problem "paying attention", I don't need to see a movie half a dozen times to notice detail or appreciate subtlety. I 'connected' with it just fine, and didn't especially enjoy the experience.
You know, it IS possible to thoroughly understand something and still not like it. Right? I mean, you DO understand that when someone doesn't share your opinion, it isn't evidence of their ignorance, don't you?

I'm supposed to be amazed at Wong's visual stylings, and yet all I could do was cringe whenever he went to that blurry stutter-frame photography, which is almost always obviously used to conceal badly-executed footage. The rest of the time, he's good but occasionally over-does it.
I wasn't especially impressed by the effort to capture the living, breathing, feel of 1994 Hong Kong, most other HK films I've seen accomplished that just as well or better, I "feel" just as much of the life and beating heart of Hong Kong in any given Woo cop film, this film didn't stand out in that regard the way everbody keeps telling me it does.

If "grit and realism" is the phrase you want to use for dull ordinary stories about neurotic urbanites, then so be it. The only character that I didn't think a complete schmuck, was poor Tony Leung. To each their own, but I don't think there's anything the least bit beautiful about an unsuspecting broken-hearted man falling into the infatuated dreams of a barking-mad woman. Here this poor guy is, making slow but steady progress recovering from a breakup, when some lunatic comes and rips her way through his life. Then, he ends up squandering a year waiting to hear from this woman who is clearly bat-s**t crazy and will bring nothing but misery into his life. That's not charming, that's dismally sad, and not at all unfamiliar.

Also, please refrain from the blasphemy of comparing this film to the frame-by-frame perfection that is Blade Runner. Come to think of it, I'm also quite confused by your claim that the influence of this movie is necessary for the existence of Pulp Fiction -- what are you talking about? How is this film anything like Pulp Fiction? What, because it consists of two short films connected only by a split second at the same food counter? Come on! Whos leg are to trying to pull?

Firstly, film isn't exactly a medium of understanding. It is more like a medium of feeling. The enjoying the experience is not exactly something that always happens the first time around. Often you can understand everything about a film but still not be engrossed enough to enjoy the experience.

And as you yourself said, this is actually a film about neurotic urbanites. But the point is aren't we neurotic urbanites too, not to say that necessarily we are all in the same lovelorn state, but even we feel very similarly lost for many other reasons. Its often hard to cope up with new changes and for very different reasons even we end up in neurotic conditions like the characters in the film. And the way he showed 4 completely different people in this same state is just cinematic mastery, in the city no one cares about each other but they all face the same problems. A gangster, 2 different police officers and a lost dreamer are all in search of something to live another day for. Though it is about 4 very romantic people, it is also about everyone in a way. And capturing these feelings in such a profoundly cinematic way is not everybody's piece of cake.

And no, I rarely feel the beating heart of Hong Kong in a John Woo film. At least not like the way on a Wong Kar Wai film.

And I love Blade Runner too and it is because I liked Blade Runner that I like Chungking Express, its not the other way round.

[Foggy]

How long are we off getting the results?

[Zippyfan]

My List:

Leon The Professional (20)
The Shawshank Redemption (19)
Jurassic Park (18)
Batman Returns (17)
Pulp Fiction (16)
Jumanji (15)
Army of darkness (14)
Goldeneye (13)
Forrest Gump (12)
Terminator 2 (11)
Goodfellas (10)
Schindler’s List (9)
The Matrix (8)
Gattaca (7)
Saving Private Ryan (6)
Titanic (5)
Fight Club (4)
Demolition Man (3)
Mars Attacks (2)
Aladdin (1)

[thebutcherboy]

1. SÁTÁNTANGÓ (Béla Tarr)- 20pts.
2. THE PUPPETMASTER (Hou Hsiao-hsien)- 19pts.
3. UNDERGROUND (Emir Kusturica)- 18pts.
4. A MOMENT OF INNOCENCE (Mohsen Makhmalbaf)- 17pts.
5. MOTHER AND SON (Aleksandr Sokurov)- 16pts.
6. GUMMO (Harmony Korine)- 15pts.
7. HISTOIRE(S) DU CINÉMA (Jean-Luc Godard)- 14pts.
8. THE WIND WILL CARRY US (Abbas Kiarostami)- 13pts.
9. SICILIA! (Jean-Marie Straub & Danièle Huillet)- 12pts.
10. OUTER SPACE (Peter Tscherkassky)- 11pts.
11. NOUVELLE VAGUE (Jean-Luc Godard)- 10pts.
12. THE IDIOTS (Lars von Trier)- 9pts.
13. THE LAST BOLSHEVIK (Chris Marker)- 8pts.
14. ABRAHAM'S VALLEY (Manoel de Oliveira)- 7pts.
15. HYÈNES (Djibril Diop Mambéty)- 6pts.
16. QUINCE TREE OF THE SUN (Victor Erice)- 5pts.
17. VAN GOGH (Maurice Pialat)- 4pts.
18. LES AMANTS DU PONT-NEUF (Leos Carax)- 3pts.
19. JU DOU (Zhang Yimou)- 2pts.
20. SAFE (Todd Haynes)- 1pt.

[comperic2003]

My List (point value assigned in parentheses):

1. Pulp Fiction (20)
2. Terminator 2: Judgement Day (19)
3. GoldenEye (18)
4. Heat (17)
5. Election (16)
6. Fargo (15)
7. Toy Story 2 (14)
8. The Iron Giant (13)
9. Toy Story (12)
10. Total Recall (11)
11. Rushmore (10)
12. The Matrix (9)
13. Magnolia (8)
14. Sling Blade (7)
15. Supercop (6)
16. The Big Lebowski (5)
17. Eyes Wide Shut (4)
18. Office Space (3)
19. The Silence of the Lambs (2)
20. Goodfellas (1)

[Scarriere]

1. Goodfellas
2. Bugsy
3. Shawshank Redemption
4. L.A. Confidential
5. Good Will Hunting
6. Schindler’s List
7. The Last of the Mohicans
8. Saving Private Ryan
9. Pulp Fiction
10. Forrest Gump
11. Braveheart
12. Titanic
13. The Crow
14. The Matrix
15. Terminator 2
16. Heat
17. Jurassic Park
18. Leon
19. True Romance
20. Fight Club

That was very tough and I may not be satisfied with the ranking.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

1. Pulp Fiction (20)
2. Boogie Nights
3. Goodfellas
4. Casino
5. The Crow
6. Leaving Las Vegas
7. The Silence of the Lambs
8. The Matrix
9. 12 Monkeys
10. Eyes Wide Shut
11. Saving Private Ryan
12. Jackie Brown
13. Heat
14. The Big Lebowski
15. American History X
16. Tombstone
17. Crimson Tide
18. Apollo 13
19. Schindler’s List
20. Being John Malkovich (1)

Maybe too late, but I made a change.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Foggy

How long are we off getting the results?

Won't have a reliable answer for that question until sunday.

Edit: OK, I've done enough work to make a reliable assessment. We have 108 lists, even more than last time, and I still have a ways to go. I will only get to "pick at it" during the week, (we're really busy at my workplace with a new manager), I won't have enough time to sit down and work it through to the finish until next saturday, Feb 1.

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Nope, I'm from the suburbs. Nor do I feel stifled, trapped by or need to escape from my environment. In fact, throughout my entire life, my surroundings have been more or less idyllic.



Did you just quote the mini-review from the back of the package?

Oh well, at least now you're talking in terms that are explainable by a simple difference of opinion; not like that illogical rant about how Raging Bull (which doesn't even qualify as Tragic Literature) is more of a tragedy than Ran, (which is designed to epitomize Tragic Literature).

Then your really lucky.

Frankly I don't even have to say that I never read the back review as they are pretentious or stupid. Frankly it was a rude way of classing my reply. Anyway

And Raging Bull? I still say out loud that it is a Greek Tragedy told in a very grand manner. Ran had the potential for greatness, but for some reason it ended up with Nakadai's over acting garbage and the ultra colourful make up and cinematography which I hated. And the most jarring fact is that it was Kurosawa. Raging Bull was a perfectly made film and had an impact which lasted in me for a long time. And your stupid argument that the "guy is a complete a**hole" doesn't even make any sense as most tragedies involve people with even worse vices. LaMotta was just an ungrateful wretch, Hidetora killed thousands of people. So even in common sense it is clear whose downfall is more tragic.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Scholer

in the city no one cares about each other but they all face the same problems. A gangster, 2 different police officers and a lost dreamer are all in search of something to live another day for. Though it is about 4 very romantic people, it is also about everyone in a way.

I'm pretty sure that's a quote from the mini-review on the back of the package.

"Romantic" and "lost dreamer" are very charitable words for someone who is cleary a psycho. Stalking somebody, secretly using and rummaging their home while they are at work, drugging their liquor, and flooding their place to "punish" them for seeing someone, is not romantic, it is psychotic. If a girl did that stuff to me, I would prosecute without hesitation, that nut would be going to jail. She's lucky he's not an American cop, or she could have gotten her head blown off, hiding in his closets like that.

Originally Posted by Scholer

And Raging Bull? I still say out loud that it is a Greek Tragedy told in a very grand manner

Saying something "out loud" doesn't make it so. You need to better educate yourself on the definition of the term "Greek Tragedy" before you go embarrassing yourself with beligerrent tantrums.

Originally Posted by Scholer

And your stupid argument that the "guy is a complete a**hole" doesn't even make any sense as most tragedies involve people with even worse vices.

That was never the argument. Not that he's a "complete a-hole", but that he's just a generic a-hole. I'm not trying to disqualify him by his vices, I'm disqualifying him by his ordinary mediocrity, he doesn't classify as a tragic figure, he is never on a pedestal of greatness such that he could even have a downfall. You admit it yourself right here:

Originally Posted by Scholer

LaMotta was just an ungrateful wretch, Hidetora killed thousands of people.

Being "just an ungrateful wretch" doesn't classify one as a tragic figure. You really don't understand, being "less of a jerk" doesn't make someone "more of a tragic figure". Tragic figures are supposed to be jerks, (you know, tragic flaws, Hubris, etc.), but they must be magnificent jerks. Tragic literature is founded on the concept that when the individual/personal life of a Great One, a lord, general, king, or other leader or "master" goes into chaos, they take the whole rest of the world to hell along with them because of their power and status. (The Japanese have a single word for that concept, which is "ran"). The real Tragedy lies in the extent of the collateral damage of their Downfall, not in their own personal loss. Your attempt to disqualify Hidetora is non-sequitur: you are trying to use his Tragic Flaw as evidence that he is not a Tragic Figure, which makes no logical sense at all, you are doing precisely the thing which you were just incorrectly accusing me of doing.

Originally Posted by Scholer

So even in common sense it is clear whose downfall is more tragic.

A generic paranoid jerk with delusions of grandeur slowly turning into an older, fatter version of the same jerk, does not even remotely qualify as a "Tragic Downfall", nor does him spending time in jail. You are clearly failing to understand the difference between Pathos and Tragedy: LaMotta's end is not tragic, it is pathetic.

The senseless death of thousands, and the total political and administrative chaos that descends upon the land in Ran, is by far and in obvious common sense, a much bigger tragedy than some thug losing the handle of control over the brother and wife that he abuses, then getting old and fat, and landing in jail. That's not tragedy at all, that's belated and inadequate justice.

Another key Tragic element missing from Raging Bull is the Epiphany, the point in the story where the Tragic Figure comes to an understanding of their "wrongness", accepts blame for the chaos, and resigns themselves to their fate. This then ultimately leads to the Tragic Figure paying for their sins with their life, something Hidetora does and LaMotta does not.

Finally, I shall appeal to consensus: Ran is essentially an adaptation of King Lear. King Lear is widely regarded as the greatest work of Tragic Literature, or at least one of the greatest. To say that Ran is not Tragedy, is to imply that King Lear is also not Tragedy. I think most everyone would agree that it would be ridiculous to suggest that King Lear is not Tragedy.

Doesn't this argument belong in the 1980s thread? Oops, I guess that's on me, I started it. It seems that calling me stupid was the right button to push to get me to take the trouble to refute one of your rants.

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

I'm pretty sure that's a quote from the mini-review on the back of the package.

"Romantic" and "lost dreamer" are very charitable words for someone who is cleary a psycho. Stalking somebody, secretly using and rummaging their home while they are at work, drugging their liquor, and flooding their place to "punish" them for seeing someone, is not romantic, it is psychotic. If a girl did that stuff to me, I would prosecute without hesitation, that nut would be going to jail. She's lucky he's not an American cop, or she could have gotten her head blown off, hiding in his closets like that.




Saying something "out loud" doesn't make it so. You need to better educate yourself on the definition of the term "Greek Tragedy" before you go embarrassing yourself with beligerrent tantrums.




That was never the argument. Not that he's a "complete a-hole", but that he's just a generic a-hole. I'm not trying to disqualify him by his vices, I'm disqualifying him by his ordinary mediocrity, he doesn't classify as a tragic figure, he is never on a pedestal of greatness such that he could even have a downfall. You admit it yourself right here:



Being "just an ungrateful wretch" doesn't classify one as a tragic figure. You really don't understand, being "less of a jerk" doesn't make someone "more of a tragic figure". Tragic figures are supposed to be jerks, (you know, tragic flaws, Hubris, etc.), but they must be magnificent jerks. Tragic literature is founded on the concept that when the individual/personal life of a Great One, a lord, general, king, or other leader or "master" goes into chaos, they take the whole rest of the world to hell along with them because of their power and status. (The Japanese have a single word for that concept, which is "ran"). The real Tragedy lies in the extent of the collateral damage of their Downfall, not in their own personal loss. Your attempt to disqualify Hidetora is non-sequitur: you are trying to use his Tragic Flaw as evidence that he is not a Tragic Figure, which makes no logical sense at all, you are doing precisely the thing which you were just incorrectly accusing me of doing.




A generic paranoid jerk with delusions of grandeur slowly turning into an older, fatter version of the same jerk, does not even remotely qualify as a "Tragic Downfall", nor does him spending time in jail. You are clearly failing to understand the difference between Pathos and Tragedy: LaMotta's end is not tragic, it is pathetic.

The senseless death of thousands, and the total political and administrative chaos that descends upon the land in Ran, is by far and in obvious common sense, a much bigger tragedy than some thug losing the handle of control over the brother and wife that he abuses, then getting old and fat, and landing in jail. That's not tragedy at all, that's belated and inadequate justice.

Doesn't this argument belong in the 1980s thread? Oops, I guess that's on me, I started it. It seems that calling me stupid was the right button to push to get me to take the trouble to refute one of your rants.

So Oedipus Rex was not a Greek Tragedy? How many thousands tore their eyes out in in this quintessential example of Greek Tragedy? And was Agamemnon really shown as a "great one" by Aeschylus? No. They were only "percieved great ones" who were essentially there for the Gods to show other "thousands" how futile human life was. Their tragedies were already pre defined. Ran was a Shakespearen Tragedy, based on King Lear where this concept was countered with the different concept that human beings are ultimately themselves responsible for their downfalls. King Lear was pretty much the opposite of a Greek Tragedy, unlike Macbeth which echoed Greek Tragedy. So your classing of Ran as Greek Tragedy is essentially wrong.

And LaMotta is clearly a "great one" as his defeat to Sugar Ray was not only a personal defeat but a defeat for the thousands of Italian Americans who considered him an icon. And his personal problems ruined not only his image but that of Italian Americans in general. So even your definition of Greek Tragedy applies to Raging Bull. But Greek Tragedy is not confined to this definition of a great one facing his eventual downfall and "thousands suffering" as a result.

The point is that the whole concept of Greek tragedy is that there is no great one". It is others way of looking at someone as a "great one" that makes them a "great one". And the Gods make it apparent to the audience by giving the heroes tragic tragic outcomes. In Raging Bull Scorcese adds a different edge to the basic concept of Greek Tragedy, that is a Catholic edge. LaMotta's downfall does only show that human life is futile but that even human futility is fair. In Raging Bull the superficiality of the"great one" is not only a layer, it is apparent. This is clearly an influence from Bresson.

And pathos!! Pathos essentially defines the tragic feeling when a character is in a tragic state partially or mostly because of his situation or because of others' actions. And this word is far from Scorcese and his larger than life treatment of fairly ordinary characters. This is Scorcese's signature style, elevating ordinary characters to the level of Greek Heroes. The thing is this can go on and on. You are most probably against this plain fact as you love Greek Tragedies but hate LaMotta as a person. But it is clear that LaMotta's downfall is a tragedy and a very Greek one.

And is it so hard to see that the prison scene actually echoes Antigone's live burial at the cave? It is easy to see that Scorcese is clearly well versed in Greek Tragedy and somehow they are carried onto all his films. The main reason why Raging Bull is a landmark is because a "a complete a**hole" is elevated to the same level as a Greek Hero. And seeing that after 30 years I felt that and many I know felt that and many even voted for the film in the 80's thread clearly shows that Scorcese was successful.

But I do agree that this is getting too far. And this is the 90's thread after all. And no hard feelings though, it is always joy to have these positively restrained arguments .

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Another key Tragic element missing from Raging Bull is the Epiphany, the point in the story where the Tragic Figure comes to an understanding of their "wrongness", accepts blame for the chaos, and resigns themselves to their fate. This then ultimately leads to the Tragic Figure paying for their sins with their life, something Hidetora does and LaMotta does not.

Was the prison scene not an epiphany!!!!! Was he just ranting "Why!!!! Why!!!!" to the wall

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Scholer

Was the prison scene not an epiphany!!!!! Was he just ranting "Why!!!! Why!!!!" to the wall

He was rejecting responsibility to the bitter end, it was the opposite of an epiphany. On a similar note, I reject the hilarious semantics of your response, those reaches would make Inspector Gadget jealous: (a boxer who never takes the champion title is a 'great one' but Agamemnon Lord of the Civilized World isn't? Really?). It's especially humorous when you try to superimpose contemporary moral values onto medieval Japan and ancient Greece. This argument ceased to be "positively restrained" the moment you called me stupid for suggesting that there is a difference between a Tragic Figure and a simple villain.

P.S.: I hate to stoop back down to your level, but I never called Ran or King Lear Greek Tragedy, I called them Tragic Literature. I really don't appreciate the attempt to discredit me with a deliberate misquote; you keep doing that and it's not cool. Notwithstanding, you are quite wrong about the difference between Greek tragedy and Shakespearean tragedy. It has nothing to with the illusory nature of greatness or the futility of life, that applies to both. The essential distinction between the two lies in the definition and nature of Sin. In Greek tragedy, Sin means offending the gods (something as trivial as forgetting to perform a ritual, or as defiant as attempting to thwart the fulfillment of prophecy); Shakespearean tragedy is more humanistic, and defines Sin as injustice against your fellow man. In Greek literature, the gods don't care if you are "good" or "evil", the gods favor The Bold and punish those who offend them. In Shakespeare, injustice causes universal chaos and suffering. In both, a debt of blood must be paid before resolution, death and mortality are essential. There is no death or killing in Raging Bull, it is not Tragic literature.

[Gerby]

And the winner by technical knockout....mjbethancourt