response 151 of 306:

Feb 27 03:53 UTC 2004

Yes, why not? The "other side" isn't shy about shoving their stuff in
everyone's face - consider the movie itself! Why should I be less forward
(though no match for Gibson)?

response 153 of 306:

Feb 27 04:50 UTC 2004

Ahem. WHO is promoting the Federal Marriage Amendment, bruce?

response 155 of 306:

Feb 27 14:02 UTC 2004

Rane, there is a difference to me about whether the violence is clearly not
real (as in vs. orcs, or aliens, although the Alien/Terminator movies were
on the too much edge for me) and violence very clearly perpetrated upon a
person, whether or not that person is "real" or not. I was expecting to be
ill and repulsed and have nightmares. I didn't have that reaction to this
movie, possibly because I do believe that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour, so
it had a very different feel to it than normal movie violence. I may or may
not explain that further when I have time.

response 157 of 306:

Feb 27 16:17 UTC 2004

The historical record does establish that *something* happened, but not
what. There are no contemporary substantiated records of the events
recounted in the bible: only some identifiable historical names and places.
There are no written accounts until ca 50 years after the purported events,
and then these are contradictory. The implication is that a legend was being
created for the purposes of groups including the writers.

It is a historical fact that crucifixtion was a favorite reprisal against
enemies. Thousands of people were crucified in single events, with roads
lined with the victims. It was a bloody era for hundreds of years. Perhaps
someone will make a movie of that. 

response 159 of 306:

Feb 27 16:36 UTC 2004

I've heard this was a belief held by his father, and that he has repudiated
it.

I hope so. I've always found him to be amiable whenever I've seen him
interviewed. But it's amazing how effective appearing to be amiable is at
hiding suspect behaviours and beliefs.

response 161 of 306:

Feb 27 16:43 UTC 2004

Gibson said in an interview in the March 2004 Reader's Digest, when asked
about the Holocaust: "Friends and friend's parents have numbers on their arms.
My Spanish teacher was at <a camp>." I got the impression that he admitted
that there were camps and people died, Jews among them, but that he felt that
WWII was a tragedy on more levels than that. That other people were also
killed (Russians, gypsies, etc.). Since this is historically accurate in that
other people WERE killed, and that other groups were targetted for
extermination (gypsies and gays among them), I am not sure if he was weaseling
out (as some might say) or expanding his definition to include more than just
Jews being killed. 

response 163 of 306:

Feb 27 16:47 UTC 2004

I'd accept his definition as portrayed by twila, with reservations that he
should (have) acknowledged that the Holocaust in particular, and Nazism in
general, DID have a particularly anti-Semitic and pro-ethno-genicidal element.

response 165 of 306:

Feb 27 16:51 UTC 2004

Todd, in re 160 -- I don't think Gibson made the movie for anyone but himself.
He had a crisis of faith about twelve yeaers ago, according to several
interviews, and he nearly committed suicide, and he was only brought out of
it by returning to the faith and by recommitting himself to God. So out of
that recommittment and his own faith, he made this movie. Whether or not you
agree with the specifics of what he believes, it doesn't make him less
sincere. I certainly didn't find the portrayal to be anti-Semitic. It was very
clear that Jesus was freely submitting to this death, and that while he feared
it, it was his course and his own choice. While Caiaphas and other Sanhedrin
members wanted him dead/silenced, and some of the Temple Guard were violent
and abusive and some people were bought/influenced by mob mentality, it was
very clear that it was not every Jew or even a majority of them who wanted
this to happen. Many other characters (Joseph of Arimathea, and two others
in the Sanhedrin were appalled at Caiaphas's actions; some Temple Guards were
aghast at their comrades; many on the route to the crucifixion protested) were
shown as being against this course of action. It was not a monolithic
presentation that "Jews are bad, it's their fault". As I said, it was more
anti-soldier, who were nearly all presented as brutal drunken louts who
enjoyed having someone in their power and revelled in their ability to hit
and kick and lord it over other people -- IF I thought it was anti-anyone.

response 167 of 306:

Feb 27 18:00 UTC 2004

RE#152 Bruce I'm probably more left (liberal) than Rane, yet I don't attack
you at every opportunity.  I already have a full time job.

response 169 of 306:

Feb 27 18:23 UTC 2004

  Granted that his father seems to hold some appalling beliefs, 
  but how is the son responsible for his father's opinions?

response 171 of 306:

Feb 27 18:47 UTC 2004

Oh, that was affecting. I still cry whenever I read about Theoden King's
death. (But that's in the book, the affect. Not in the movie so much.)

I draw a strict line in my own mind and reactions between violence that's to
a person (beatings, fights, etc.) and the results (dimly seen, usually) of
sword fights, etc. I was perfectly fine with the violence in the Last Samurai,
for example, although there were shootings and beheadings and blood sloshing
around, because it wasn't "real". Someone being shot in modern life, someone
being hit and kicked anytime, that is REAL. That makes me cringe. I know it's
weird, but it's my own reaction. I also can't watch any sexual violence on
the screen (I'll never watch Rob Roy, or parts of Braveheart, for example,
because there are rapes implied. I can never watch the first two Mad Max
movies for those reasons. I have left the room, shuddering, when those movies
came on tv.)

Of course, I am much more affected by books than by movies, usually. I can
keep the descriptions in my head for YEARS of squicky things and still react
to them. One reason that I self-censor my reading to things that aren't
uber-violent or sexually violent or deal with graphic child abuse. 

response 173 of 306:

Feb 27 18:54 UTC 2004

Stephen King is overrated.