I don't think that Timothy is insane, by any means whatsoever. I think that people find it easy to label and judge him as crazy because his passion is unorthodox and largely unrelatable. However, Picasso was very passionate about art, and no one thought of it in a negative or condescending fashion.
I think that Timothy definitely had a drive in his life that was selfless. I don't know whether it was necessarily "moral" or "immoral" but I also think that its all irrelevant predicament. Timothy was doing what he was doing for his personal joy as well as for the betterment of the conditions of the animals. Timothy stated, "Thank you so much for these animals, for giving me a life – I had no life. Now I have a life." I think this reflects on the fact that he was living for a purpose larger than himself. Thus, I think that his decision was moral on an individual level.
This idea of a purposeful life is also supported by the fact that he never shot his girlfriend on film. By trying not to present his personal life as truly connected with his goal of helping animals, it is obvious that his intent was to try and continue to portray an individual, pure approach to his life in nature. If his intent is to keep his message powerful, then he must sincerely care about his work.
This does not sound like the work of a crazy or immoral man to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm surprised that you think Timothy tried 'not to present his personal life as truly connected with his goal of helping animals', Gabe -- it seemed like he talked about himself quite a bit in his films. (Of course, once again, we may never know what his intentions were with any particular piece of film.)
ReplyDelete