|
Grex > Cinema > #60: *<*<*<*<*< AT THE MOVIES >*>*>*>*>* |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 306 responses total. |
anderyn
|
|
response 175 of 306:
| 
Feb 27 18:57 UTC 2004 |
I've read Stephen King. Mostly the short stories, things like "Stand by Me"
and the recent "From a Buick 8" although I've also read some more graphic
books. (I have also read Dean Koontz, and some other horror writers. Depends
on how graphic and how desperate I am for something to read. :-) I do draw
the line at most splatterpunk, although I'm quite fond of early horror writers
such as Lovecraft, Machen, and the like.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 176 of 306:
|
Feb 27 19:00 UTC 2004 |
I find that his graphicness is over-done, and I skip it, for the most part.
What I *like* about King is the lyrical evocation of a place and time, which
he does do well, when he's not trying to horrify one. I havne't read "Salem's
Lot", "The Shining", or "The Stand" of his famous ones. I have read "Carrie"
and "Cujo". Maybe "Christine". I know there's another one with the guy in the
coma who comes out of it able to read minds, that one wasn't too horrible,
eihter.
|
krj
|
|
response 177 of 306:
|
Feb 27 19:37 UTC 2004 |
Rane in resp:157 :: on a film representation of a mass Roman
reprisal crucifixion, it's been done; the end of SPARTACUS.
On the comparison between the violence in PASSION vs. the violence in
LORD OF THE RINGS: RINGS is mostly combat; PASSION is entirely
torture, from the accounts I have read. I suppose I'm perverse
in finding that representations of fighting can be exhilirating --
I can get really obsessive over James Bond films, for example --
but torture scenes in movies range from making me very uncomfortable
to making me stop watching, and movies themed around executions are
just flat out not watched.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 178 of 306:
|
Feb 27 20:08 UTC 2004 |
Now that you mention it, I do recall a film with a very long line of
crucifixtions shown. The Sparctacus crucifixion massacre was just one
of many. That one was 71 BC.
|
bru
|
|
response 179 of 306:
|
Feb 27 22:52 UTC 2004 |
I have heard Mel Gibsons father state that he thought teh jews were mostly
forced out of europe, not gassed.
I have heard Mel Gibson say he does not as his father does, and denounce the
nazi atrocities.
Nothing in the movie suggests anti-semetism. Criticism of the movie began
before the script was even written. Now some of the hollywood elite are ready
to crucify Gibson for filming and releasing this movie, even talking about
banning him or blacklisting him.
This from people who gave an award to a known rapist.
|
tod
|
|
response 180 of 306:
|
Feb 27 23:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 181 of 306:
|
Feb 27 23:19 UTC 2004 |
Twila - the Stephen King book you're thinking of is "The Dead Zone". I have
the same problem that you do, that scenes get stuck in my head for months
and sometimes years, so I have learned (the hard way) to avoid really
violent movies. Especially documentaries and docudramas about violent
things that actually happened.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 182 of 306:
|
Feb 28 01:23 UTC 2004 |
Yes that's very true. Thanks for the name of the book,
|
krj
|
|
response 183 of 306:
|
Feb 28 05:47 UTC 2004 |
Wow, there are sure a lot of articles about PASSION on the web.
Christopher Hitchens' very hostile review in Slate led me to a bit
of information about Sister Anne Emmerich, whose work Gibson seems
to draw heavily on in the movie. Beliefnet.com has a compilation
of "extra-biblical" scenes in the movie and discusses the apparent
sources; this site seems fairly neutral.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14097_1.html
|
rcurl
|
|
response 184 of 306:
|
Feb 28 07:23 UTC 2004 |
Why is it only Christians that claim the movie is not antisemitic, and all
Jewish comentators claim it is antisemitic. Don't you think one should
take the victims more seriously than the perpetrators?
|
twenex
|
|
response 185 of 306:
|
Feb 28 13:27 UTC 2004 |
What a novel idea!
|
tpryan
|
|
response 186 of 306:
|
Feb 28 14:12 UTC 2004 |
Sorry, have to skip over 81 responses in 3 days.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 187 of 306:
|
Feb 28 14:36 UTC 2004 |
I'd really like to hear from some other people who've seen it. Has anyone else
on Grex seen it? (Thanks, Ken, for posting the beliefnet url. I found it
yesterday but hadn't managed to capture the url for posting.)
The problem, I was thinking, is that people are pre-judging the movie without
seeing it. Which is a problem with a lot of movies, actually. I'm sure that
the "Last Temptation of Christ" was labelled blasphemous by people who had
not seen the movie or read the book because they'd heard that it was, or that
it included scenes that they assumed were played in one way or another. It's
the same now. If Todd saw the movie, and then said it was anti-semitic, with
reference to the pices that made him say so (in particular the supposed covert
anti-semiticism that people have spoken of , but which I haven't seen any
details about), I would certainly have a better basis for re-thinking why I
didn't see that in the movie. Because, as it stands now, I have seen the movie
and I didn't see the elements that people are alleging are in there. Personal
experience trumps allegations every time.
|
twenex
|
|
response 188 of 306:
|
Feb 28 14:53 UTC 2004 |
I will see it (on DVD).
|
bru
|
|
response 189 of 306:
|
Feb 28 20:44 UTC 2004 |
it has been approved for viewing thruought the mideast, passing all their
censor boards, and has even been sold out in the 1st four movie houses to
schedule it.
Approved in Isreal as well, by the way.
|
twenex
|
|
response 190 of 306:
|
Feb 28 20:45 UTC 2004 |
The Middle East isn't known for frowning on anti-Semitism.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 191 of 306:
|
Feb 28 21:15 UTC 2004 |
Re #187: I understand that you are a Christian. From the commentary coming
from various quanters it seem very clear that Christians are blind to
anti-semitism.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 192 of 306:
|
Feb 28 21:40 UTC 2004 |
re #191: I find Rane's unqualified accusation of Christian tolerance
of anti-Semitism to be both bigoted and offensive. Furthermore it's
exactly the kind of reasoning he would never accept if Christians
were not the target of the accusation -- he'd bend over backwards to
give virtually any other group the benefit of the doubt. As such it
says a great deal about Rane and his painfully obvious biases than it
does about either Christians, Jews, or the alleged anti-Semitism of
Gibson's film.
|
twenex
|
|
response 193 of 306:
|
Feb 28 23:09 UTC 2004 |
I agree, in parts. "Fundie Christians" would probably be a better and more
accurate target of Rane's accusations of blindness to anti-semitism. Moreover,
his tarring of all Christians with the same brush is akin to the tarring of
all Brits, etc.. with it.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 194 of 306:
|
Feb 29 02:20 UTC 2004 |
Now you're just substituting your own bias for Rane's.
|
klg
|
|
response 195 of 306:
|
Feb 29 05:07 UTC 2004 |
re: "#184 (rcurl): Why is it only Christians that claim the movie is
not antisemitic, and all Jewish comentators claim it is antisemitic."
Once again, Mr. rcurl, your sweeping, shoot from the lip, generali-
zations are easily proven inaccurate. Two prominent Jewish commenta-
tors who claim that the movie is not anti-semitic are: Michael Medved
and Rabbi Daniel Lapin.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 196 of 306:
|
Feb 29 06:50 UTC 2004 |
Took the 10-year-old to see Miracle. I certainly didn't think it was anything
great, though it did occasionally bring on nastalgia. I'm sure it is probably
more "new" for people who weren't alive and able to remember 1980. A few
trivial hockey observances:
1) The players were calling the coach by his first name Herb, rather than the
customary "Coach Brookes". I'm assuming that was deliberate because it was
accuracte.
2) For one of the Russian goals it showed the referee skating to the scorer's
window and saying "Goal so-and-so, with assist to #25". Referees do not
concern themselves with who will be credited with assists - that is the job
of the official scorer.
3) For each goal, it showed the entire bench skating out onto the ice to
congratulate the scorer (USA). I know of know level of organized hockey where
that is allowed, so I'm concluding that was done for some overblown dramatic
effect.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 197 of 306:
|
Feb 29 07:26 UTC 2004 |
Re #192: I pointed out that Christians appear to be blind to
anti-semitism, not that they are tolerant of it. There is a big
difference. Perhaps if they could see it, they would do more about. This
was certainly true when Hitler was overtly practicing anti-semitism. But
apparently most Christians do not see the depiction of just Jews being
spectators during the alleged murder of Jesus is capable of creating
negative stereotypes in the minds of fervant acolytes of Jesus.
|
twenex
|
|
response 198 of 306:
|
Feb 29 13:55 UTC 2004 |
Mr. MacNally, I'm not sure whether you're too fond of playing Devil's
Advocate, or whether you just like to sling mud.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 199 of 306:
|
Feb 29 19:00 UTC 2004 |
re #198: Unless you're going to play definitional games so that
a "fundamentalist Christian" is any Christian you so define, how
is the statement "Christians are blind to anti-semitism" more
ignorant than "fundamentalist Christians are blind to anti-semitism"
(your suggested alternative) except that the first statement
incorporates a larger group?
re #197:
> But apparently most Christians do not see..
See how much difference there is between writing "Christians do not see"
and "Most Christians do not see"?
The appeal to the emotional power of mentioning Hitler is such a tired
cliche at this point I wonder that you don't blush to use it, especially
since it really doesn't support your original unqualified assertion.
By your logic since I haven't heard any high-profile Chemical Engineering
professors denouncing Gibson's film, wouldn't I be just as justified in
making the claim that Chemical Engineering professors (no "some" or "most"
necessary. yeee-ha!) are blind to anti-semitism?
|