|
Grex > Cinema > #60: *<*<*<*<*< AT THE MOVIES >*>*>*>*>* |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 306 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 207 of 306:
| 
Mar 1 13:06 UTC 2004 |
Indeed. Whether and how soon it gets made is, again, a matter of politics.
|
twenex
|
|
response 208 of 306:
|
Mar 1 15:09 UTC 2004 |
I would define refusal to accept the notion of "anti-Semitism" and denial of
the Holocaust as hallmarks of fundamentalist Christianity.
|
remmers
|
|
response 209 of 306:
|
Mar 1 17:28 UTC 2004 |
You've *got* to be kidding...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 210 of 306:
|
Mar 1 17:31 UTC 2004 |
re #206: Happy you. Until the movie you really want comes out you
can rent the recent film about the Magdalene Sisters and have your
very own smug-fest.
|
klg
|
|
response 211 of 306:
|
Mar 1 17:48 UTC 2004 |
So. How many synagogues did the arsonists hit last weekend?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 212 of 306:
|
Mar 1 23:03 UTC 2004 |
Even William Safire thinks it's anti-semitic and dangerous.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 213 of 306:
|
Mar 2 01:11 UTC 2004 |
I even think it could not have gotten into the theaters at all except for
the "Jesus" cover. Once that button is pushed a whole bunch of people go
into mental lock-step like zombies.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 214 of 306:
|
Mar 2 01:34 UTC 2004 |
_Matchstick Men_ (DVD, 2003): a little flim-flam caper goes awry - or does
it? In any case, WE were the one's flim-flammed. I was tempted to watch
it again to see if I could catch the trick.
_The Endurance_ (DVD, 2000): The story of Sir Ernest Shackleton's
ill-fated 1914 expedition to Antarctic, which foundered in the Weddel Sea
ice pack, leading to a 635-day self-rescue marathon. The film is mostly a
narration of the photographs taken by the ship's photographer, with
supplemental current on-site views and partial reenactments. Shackleton's
27 crew members all survived. It is nearly unbelievable story of personal
courage and leadership.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 215 of 306:
|
Mar 2 02:38 UTC 2004 |
I wonder if that's the same Shackleton-expedition film I saw in IMAX
format in Seattle a few years ago..
|
bru
|
|
response 216 of 306:
|
Mar 2 03:06 UTC 2004 |
tell us all "why" it is anti-semetic.
|
rational
|
|
response 217 of 306:
|
Mar 2 03:08 UTC 2004 |
Did you not notice how all the Jews had huge noses and wallets?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 218 of 306:
|
Mar 2 06:50 UTC 2004 |
Besides that....it is anti-semitic because of the centuries of blame by
Christians of the Jews for the alleged crucifixion. You can't turn around
that centuries old tradition overnight - and I bet the thought is still
harbored by a lot of Christians, especially fundmentalists. Anti-semitic
acts are still frequent (burning of synagogues, graffitti on tombstones
and buildings, etc.).
|
md
|
|
response 219 of 306:
|
Mar 2 12:33 UTC 2004 |
I've seen the swastika graffiti. There was an incident in my home town
once: a brand-new modernistic synogogue - an architectural masterpiece,
set in a beautiful wooded area - was covered with swastikas in the
night. Turned out to be a bunch of rich drunken frat boys, but I don't
doubt the Christians of Rane's colorful imagination - whipped up to a
vandalous frenzy by watching Mel Gibson's movie - are capable of it,
too.
"Frequent burning of synagogues" is another matter. I don't recall
hearing about synagogues burning down even once in a while, much
less "frequently." Anyway, I'm afraid the most likely perps in any
future such arson and vandalism, especially where I live, won't be
fundie Christians.
|
remmers
|
|
response 220 of 306:
|
Mar 2 12:37 UTC 2004 |
Re #212, #216: Safire's column on "The Passion" can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/opinion/01SAFI.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEdi
tor
ials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fWilliam%20Safire
(Sorry about the long URL.)
|
rational
|
|
response 221 of 306:
|
Mar 2 12:55 UTC 2004 |
http://url.rexroof.com/, newb
|
remmers
|
|
response 222 of 306:
|
Mar 2 13:19 UTC 2004 |
http://url.rexroof.com/515
|
rational
|
|
response 223 of 306:
|
Mar 2 13:56 UTC 2004 |
Thanks!
|
bru
|
|
response 224 of 306:
|
Mar 2 15:09 UTC 2004 |
In 1965's historic Second Vatican Council, during the papacy of Paul VI, the
church decided that while some Jewish leaders and their followers had pressed
for the death of Jesus, "still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged
against all Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of
today."
That was a sea change in the doctrinal interpretation of the Gospels, and the
beginning of major interfaith progress
William Safire
I don't kniow what planet Safire lives on, but my church never taught that
jews were responsible for the death of Christ. Of course I am not Catholic,
and we were taught the pope was full of hooey.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 225 of 306:
|
Mar 2 16:25 UTC 2004 |
Safire expressed more eloquently than I have my sense that this movie is a
piece of the same anti-semitic "tradition" of the classic passion plays.
It is also an example of "religious excess" - carrying aspects of
religious mythology way too far as a means of emphasis. But here these
seeming "traditionalists" go too far. They are the ones that complain that
violence depicted in movies creates a society more tolerant of violence.
How can they applaud this extreme excess of violence?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 226 of 306:
|
Mar 2 18:37 UTC 2004 |
> Once that button ["Jesus"] is pushed a whole bunch of people go
> into mental lock-step like zombies.
Really, rcurl, such caustic generalizations don't become you.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 227 of 306:
|
Mar 2 20:04 UTC 2004 |
Well, I did feel that I had perhaps gone too far with that one. But
there is a variety of religious fanaticism that obscures peoples'
senses of proportion (is that a kinder way of saying the same thing?).
I think Passion dips into that kind of fanaticism.
|
twenex
|
|
response 228 of 306:
|
Mar 2 23:58 UTC 2004 |
"the pope [is] full of hooey". Well, someone once said that 95% of everthing
is crap, which I suppose means that (a) most of us are capable of a lot hooey;
(b) moany of us are full of hooey; (c) a small proportion of us are
responsible for a disporportionate amount of hooey. I wonder which bru agrees
with?
|
tod
|
|
response 229 of 306:
|
Mar 3 00:02 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 230 of 306:
|
Mar 3 00:12 UTC 2004 |
If it could, the GOP would be the party *least* interested in lessening
America's dependence on foreign oil and ruining Alaska.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 231 of 306:
|
Mar 3 02:29 UTC 2004 |
Re #224: Safire is talking about Catholic doctrine before Vatican II. He
lives on the same planet you do, but he's better read, apparently.
|