170 new of 306 responses total.
Ignore tod, bru - he's just picking a fight, and it's not worth your time to type the text. He's not going to pay attention anyway.
I am not glad that I saw the movie, since it's not a movie to be glad about. But it was very worthwhile. I am a wuss about movie(or other) violence, but that is not what I'll recall about this movie. It's about a lot more than that.
This response has been erased.
Okay, hwere can I get a copy? And is there an English translation? (I don't read Hebrew.)
(It's the last chapter of the last (5th) book of the Five Books of Moses (Torah). Mr. tod only made it sound as if it would be difficult to locate in English.)
Hey Twila, didn't you like the LOTR movies? Does that kind of violence bother you? Or is just more realistic type movies that bother you? (I'm not judging, just curious)
This response has been erased.
That being the 5th book.
Yes, I did like the LOTR movies. But it's very clearly fantasy. I can deal with a certain amount of violence if it's clearly not real (orcs don't exist, same with the skeletons in Pirates of the Caribbean).
Orcs don't exist?? Seriously, though: The violence in LOTR wasn't that explicit. Certainly not in comparison to, say, a Terminator movie.
"Passion" is also mostly fantasy, although of such long standing that it has become institutionalized. The real difference is that the fans of LOTR fantasy can more or less take it or leave it, knowing it is fantasy, but the fans of "Passion" are unable to comprehend that it is fantasy, and hence get very much put out when its unreality is pointed out.
Witness Protection Program.
Rane, give it a rest, would you? It's obvious this is important to people. We all know how you feel about it. You don't need to tell us at every opportunity.
Why not? I do it! ;-P
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)?
He is just proving the facts we all know about the liberal left. That they have no tolerance for anyone who doe not believe as they believe and will take every opportunity to attack.
Ahem. WHO is promoting the Federal Marriage Amendment, bruce?
"He is just proving the facts we all know about the radical right. That they have no tolerance for anyone who doe not believe as they believe and will take every opportunity to attack." It is so pathetic when bru tries to attack whole groups with single broadsides. His words just reflect upon himself.
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.
Even is Jesus was not the Messiah, wasn't he an actual historical figure?
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
#162 slipped.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
> WHO is promoting the Federal Marriage Amendment I'm glad to see that the World Health Organization is up to some good. ;-) Re: the violence in the LOTR, theoretically one should be affected by it just as much as in a movie such as Gladiator, because these were living beings, men against men, men / elves / dwarves against orcs, etc. during time of sword fighting and archery, really brutal stuff. The mind can say "but it's all in a fantasy world", but that isn't quite correct, from the standpoint that it's not Super Mario World.
Granted that his father seems to hold some appalling beliefs, but how is the son responsible for his father's opinions?
Re: #168 - I was affected by some of the scenes in LOTR. Usually the ones with characters I'd "got to know", like the deaths of Boromir and Theoden, or Arwen's distress at having to choose between obeying her father and her love for Aragorn.
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.
You better not read / watch Stephen King, then! :-)
Stephen King is overrated.
Not the violence he depicts...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
Yes that's very true. Thanks for the name of the book,
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
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?
What a novel idea!
Sorry, have to skip over 81 responses in 3 days.
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.
I will see it (on DVD).
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.
The Middle East isn't known for frowning on anti-Semitism.
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.
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.
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.
Now you're just substituting your own bias for Rane's.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. MacNally, I'm not sure whether you're too fond of playing Devil's Advocate, or whether you just like to sling mud.
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?
I haven't heard that any principles of chemical engineering, or practitioners of them, were shown in the film. You seemed to have responded with a knee=jerk reflex to my mentioning "Hitler". I only cited that as a case where some Christians opposed his behavior (few in Germany, though).
Roger Ebert says "Passion of the Christ" is the most violent movie he's ever seen. Wow.
Well, it would be hard for there to have been Norwegians or welshmen or Chinese people at the Crucifixion. As far as I know, the only people documented as living in Jerusalem at the time would have been Jewish or Roman, possibly Greek. The only people therefore who COULD possibly have witnessed it were rather limited. It's kind of stupid to blame Gibson for sticking to the actual deomographics of the area at the time period and to say that it's antisemitic.
You still don't understand. Simply because it is alleged to have taken place in a Jewish community, with Jewish witnesses, the Jews are implicated. History shows this clearly. It is an unfortunate, irrational, and bigoted response, but its what people do. The alleged incident has ever after been used to create anti-semitic environments, even if unjustly. THIS makes the flaunting of the alleged incident antisemitic.
Re #210: Ebert also gives "Passion" 4 stars. He thinks highly of it. But he points out that the film's "R" likely reflects some ratings politics -- had the victim of the violence been anyone but who it was, it would have received an "NC-17", in Ebert's view. Personally, I don't plan to see the movie. Possible anti-Semitism aside, there's the fact that (a) it sounds like the violence is of a kind for which I have low tolerance, and (b) what it celebrates is so far outside my own belief system as to be insufficient to overcome (a).
It's like Titanic with all this buzz and the gigantic box office. It's an "event sociological" (Truffaut's character Lacombe in "Close Encounters"). You have to go see it or else you'll be left all alone with your excuses for not going. Sad but true. ;-) If the lines ever go away we might go see it. It's possible to make great art out of almost any material. God knows (sorry) there's been enough great art produced out of this particular topic, including some rather grisly stuff. Remember the crucifixion painting with the twisted spasming hands and body by some Northern Renaissance painter (Grunewald?). I'd be surprised if Mel Gibson has done anything that enduring, but I guess stranger things have happened.
I'm holding out for something based on fact instead of fiction. Maybe, "The Rosary Rapes: 10,000 Children God Forgot but Priests Found Memorable".
Indeed. Whether and how soon it gets made is, again, a matter of politics.
I would define refusal to accept the notion of "anti-Semitism" and denial of the Holocaust as hallmarks of fundamentalist Christianity.
You've *got* to be kidding...
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.
So. How many synagogues did the arsonists hit last weekend?
Even William Safire thinks it's anti-semitic and dangerous.
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.
_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.
I wonder if that's the same Shackleton-expedition film I saw in IMAX format in Seattle a few years ago..
tell us all "why" it is anti-semetic.
Did you not notice how all the Jews had huge noses and wallets?
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.).
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.
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.)
http://url.rexroof.com/, newb
http://url.rexroof.com/515
Thanks!
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
"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?
This response has been erased.
If it could, the GOP would be the party *least* interested in lessening America's dependence on foreign oil and ruining Alaska.
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.
this is the MOVIE REVIEW item...can we move the religious discussion drift to a new item? what movies have you seen lately?
Unfortunately, none. The current crop of movies doesn't look interesting to me.
I kniow what he was talking about Joe. But I spent 8 years in a Christian SChool during that period. While not catholic, I did grow up in a catholic neighborhood. I always found the catholics reatehr demented in their attitude, what with being able to commit sins and then go to confession and be absolved. But I never heard any schools or churches in our area that blamed Jews for the death of Jesus during that period, either before or after.
We saw "The Triplets of Belleville" at the Michigan Theater tonight. It was weird.
I didn't know that Belleville had anything interesting enough going on to make a movie about. Well, maybe the Strawberry Festival... ;-)
Right, the Belleville I know is *so* dull that only Michelangelo Antonioni would consider making a movie about it.
This response has been erased.
A passion play is a re-encatment of the Christ story. There is a village in southern Germany called Oberamergau, which, through some twist of fate, was spared being hit by the plague in the 1300s. Ever since, in thanks to God, they enact a big huge passion play every year. It's a big tourist attraction, I gather. The movie "Triplets of Belleville" doesn't specify where Belleville is, but it's certainly on the seacoast, and it has a statue that looks like a short, fat version of the Statue of Liberty in the harbor. So draw your own conclusions.
The airport in belleville sucks compared to the one in Trenton
Passion plays originated in mediaeval times, not in the 1930s.
Sorry have to skip over 55 responses in 3 days.
This response has been erased.
(They're an older tradition than that, but Tod's right about how they were used.)
This response has been erased.
>Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children > in ritual sacrifice; the blood of pure Christians was needed by Jews to > make matzoh. This seems like a ridiculous and archaic rumor, but it's been published in the Arab press within the past few years. So this crap isn't dead.
if there's anywhere this crap ain't dead, it's in what the (comedic ) Prince Regent (in Blackadder) called "Jolly Arab Land".
This response has been erased.
Hey Starsky and Hutch is opening tomorrow, with Ben Stiller as Starsky and Owen Wilson as Hutch-- TV Land is even having a Starsky and Hutch marathon tonight. That was one of the campier tv shows of the mid/late seventies. The movie is getting good revies, and yes, Paul Michael Glaser and David Soul-- the REAL Starsky and Hutch-- get cameos
Okay I finally saw The Passion of the Christ today at the multiplex (Starsky and Hutch was sold out, so I figured what the hell) The movie is well made and the special effects and makeup were great. That sure looked like a REAL scourging to me. Jim Caviezel also puts in an oscar-worthy performance as Jesus-- I read that he suffered hypothermia, a dislocated shoulder and a lung infection during filming, and after seeing the movie I can believe it. I am worried about what the reaction will be to this film. The punishment that Jesus endured and the crucifixion is so violent and so vivid and so intense in this movie that I think some people could get worked up seeing it to a point where they go looking to make acts of vengeance. I guess Mel Gibson's point in emphasizing and making as explicit as possible the scourging and torture of Jesus was to make Christians watching it feel the proper (in the catholic view, of which Gibson is a catholic) sense of guilt. But some people won't feel guilt. They'll feel anger. This is the sort of film that Hitler, had it been made in the thirties, could have used to stir up support for the Holocaust. I am not sure therefore that it was necessary for Gibson to so explicitly show the way Jesus was beaten. Viewers are smart enough to get the point without being beaten over the head with it. Did we really need to watch Jesus violently whipped, with the flesh coming off his back in chunks, for twenty minutes? It was gratuitous, the sort of excess that is meant to incite. I'd rather have seen more flashback scenes with Jesus and the Disciples, and more development of the other characters, like Judas and Mary Magdalene. I also think that both the Romans and the Jews come off looking really badly here. There were good Romans and good Jews, but the sense you are given here is that the Romans were clueless thugs, and the Jewish rabbis were conceited and arrogant. And when you see the ground shaking after Jesus dies, and the rabbis who pronounced judgement and the romans who carried it out suddenly are wide eyed with the fear of God and run terrified for cover, the sense you are given is that they are getting what they deserved. That they deserved vengeance. In spite of what Jesus repeatedly says of, "forgive them, they know not what they do", the movie shows them in such a bad light that they are the bad guys and you want the ground to open up and swallow them. I heard a couple of people in the back applaud when the black crow shows up and pecks out the eyes of the guy on the cross next to Jesus who had been dissing him. He was getting his. Vengeance not compassion. This is the problem I have with the movie-- instead of concentrating more on who Jesus was and what he was teaching, this movie mostly wants to show in gory detail his beating, torture and death in order to incite emotions. I didn't like this movie for the same reason I don't like hard porn movies-- they show "the act" in too much detail and for too long at the expense of character development and story telling.
Last week there was a picture in the paper of a class of kids from a local catholic high school marching down the sidewalk in their uniforms, on a school sponsored field trip to see the movie. This movie was so violent, so gratuitous, that it really should have carried an NC-17 rating. I find it ironic that many of the same church leaders who scream about tv and movies being too violent, and wouldn't want their kids going to the next Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street movie, let them see this. This was more violent, and had more bloodshed than any movie I ever saw Jason or Freddy Krueger in!
This response has been erased.
I suggest that those folks who are getting their panties in a bunch over this piece of fiction should go see Judgement at Nuremberg, Shoah, or Schindler's List. Then we can have a real talk about religious hate crimes depicted on film.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to maje, Mary.
(Um, "make".)
"This is the sort of film that Hitler,
had it been made in the thirties,
could have used to stir up support
for the Holocaust."
I appreciate Richard's remark, it helped
me understand why some people think the
film is anti-Semetic.
you could also use it to stir up anti-italian (roman) sentiments. Or anti Caucasian sentiments. Take your pick. The same could be said about J.C. Superstar. Or Quo Vadis. Or the Robe. If you want propaganda, pick a film and put your spin on it. Eall it to the people you want to influence, adn off you go.
Roger-rabbit is anti-authority!
I agree that the whipping scene was far too much. But something that you may have missed, Richard, in all the spectacle, was the emphasis Gibson put on Jesus' own willingness to be there. It was His choice. He knew it would happen and chose to allow it. So there's no vengeance to be taken since He could have stopped it at any time.
Stockholm syndrome.
This response has been erased.
I wonder how many people left the theatre with tears in their eyes . . . this was what Gibson was trying to do, right? Give everyone a sense of the sacrifice that was made . . .
This response has been erased.
re #263: Who banned it? From what?
Yeah, you can get it online. Kinda boring, though.
This response has been erased.
If Jesus hadn't been killed per God's plan, if he had been spared by those Jews, would God have been disappointed that plan A didn't go as planned? I mean, he knew from before Jesus' conception that this innocent man, his "son", had to be brutally killed so that He could forgive mankind for being sinful. No brutal murder, no forgiveness. Not the kind of god I'd respect but that's the beauty of religion, you get to choose what works for you. Without God's help Jesus wouldn't have been on that cross, the Jew's wouldn't be the fall guys, and Mel Gibson would be doing what he does best, looking sexy. Religion is a hoot.
Yeah, God is forgiving like that. That's why he smote Sodom and Gomorrah, brought down the Tower of Babel, prevented people from communicating from one another, subjected *his own Son* to (supposedly) "the greatest crime in history"; drowned everything but one specimen of each animal (what about plants?) and will "forgive" every sinner on judgement day by subjecting them to eternal damnation and torture. Maybe the "torture" envisaged will consist of being subjected to homophobic, xenophobic, and Thatcherite rants /ad infinitum/.
either that or we will have to sit chained to computer terminalsreading your posts.
Or yours... Sorry, two specimens of each animal.
Indeed. :)
God said "thou shalt not commit adultery", and then went and impregnated a woman to whom he was NOT married, and in fact an underage woman at that. God was guilty of statutory rape and adultery if you want to be technical about it. But He seems like a complex individual so He'd probably come up with a perfectly plausible explanation for the hypocrisy if you asked Him :)
Mystic River D Sean Penn's acting deserved some sort of award, but the best acting in the world isn't going to help a poor screen play. Other actors acted up a storm of fidgeting, gritting teeth, wringing hands. I don't see how tighter editing could have improved it. Penn, Robbins and Bacon were boyhood friends, until the abduction of Robbins' character by a pair of molesters rather much ends the innocence of youth for all three. Years later, the three are reunited by the murder of Penn's nineteen-year old daughter. Bacon, a detective, is the hub between Penn and Robbins as the investigation plods along. It's a whodunnit: I canna say much more. Look for an uncredited performance by Eli Wallach. I paid matinee prices for this and felt royally ripped off. Eastwood the director is now on my shit list. Nothing would be lost from this film by renting it. Waiting for it to play on TNT for free would give the view the added bonus of frequent bathroom breaks.
The Price of Milk - B This was a rental. Novel character behavior makes this movie watchable. Eccentric behavior can be overdone and ruin a film, but you gotta love the screen's first agoraphobic dog. This is light, romandic comedy, filmed in New Zealand. After a farmer, Rob, asks Lucinda to marry him, she takes her friend's advice to test his commitment by doing something to outrage him. The initial attempt merely baffles him and she doesn't feel that she has yet put him to the test. When she finally suceeds, it is by selling his herd of dairy cows. The loss puts him in a depression that Lucinda's friend would gladly take advantage of.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Bunch of fictional 19th century characters team up together to save the world from mystery evil force. Better than you would expect from the premise, not as good as you would expect if you heard it was better than you would expect. How long can Sean Connery keep on doing this?
Uncredited Eli Wallach:
In 'The Producers' as they are auditioning
the Hitler wanna-bes, it turns into a
hysterical montage and one of them looks
like a crazed Eli Wallach. I've never
been able to verify this.
This reminds me that I wanted to mention that THE PRODUCERS (the original film) will be screened at the Michigan Theater as part of their comedy classics series, at the end of the month.
re: "#272 (richard): God said "thou shalt not commit adultery", and then went and impregnated a woman to whom he was NOT married," Herr richard, Does this mean that you are also opposed physicians who perform in vitro fertilization? auf wiedersehen
I saw Hildalgo on Sunday. It wasnt as bad as the reviews made it sound. But I am not saying it was good either. If it werent for the eye candy, I would have only barely liked it. But, it was a fairly decent action movie that a person who really likes that genre would probably like. The horse was cool. The plot was...lacking. But there were lots of fun scenes with people being chased on horsies. There were also a few funny lines here and there. Granted, nothing knee slapping funny but I found myself chuckling now and then. Personally, this is one I would recommend for a video rental. Dont waste your money seeing it first run unless, like me, you think Viggo Mortensen is worth watching just all on his own for 2 hours.
I want to see it for Viggo and the horsie. :-) I like simple action movies and it looks like it's a good popcorn flick. That's what I hope for in the spring, anyhow, a good popcorn flick that will be enjoyable.
This response has been erased.
Can anyone remember a movie where there was something like a conversation or interview with an older black gentleman, a musician maybe, and every so often he would say: Can you dig it? I knew that you could. Searching the web indicates that John Travolta's character Tony Manero supposedly said that in Saturday Night Fever, but that's not what I'm looking for...
sounds like a role Scatman Crothers would've played..
I saw Hidalgo on Saturday, and really appreciated the way the that the Native Americans were portrayed.
SCHINDLER'S LIST-- Steven Spielberg's holocaust masterpiece, just released on DVD finally and I watched it earlier this evening. This is quite an emotional experience to watch, even a second or third time. This movie has a lot of meaning for me, because I'm half german and while my german grandfather served in the american army in world war II, I also had relatives who were in the german army at the same time. It is hard not to cry at times watching it. The story of Oskar Schindler, a nazi aristocrat who opens a factory in Poland with the idea of getting rich off of slave jewish labor, and instead ends up saving all the jews he hires to work for him. Wonderfully acted, with Liam Neeson as Schindler and Ben Kingsley as his bookkeeper. The slowly developing friendship between the two of them is at the center of the movie. This is a great movie, well worth having the widescreen edition now on DVD as a keepsake. The DVD has in the bonus section testimonies from Holocaust survivors, many of which are as moving if not more so than the movie itself. These testimonies are part of the Shoah project. Steven Spielberg gave all of his profits from the movie and many millions more than that, to personally help fund the Shoah project which was formed to record the testimonies of as many Holocaust survivors as possible. I'm not sure if it was some sort of weird coincidence or not that this movie came out on DVD right when "The Passion of the Christ" was released. Who knows. But I personally think that everyone should see "Schindler's List". It is a DVD worth being part of anyone's collection
Note-- as I typed that, I'm still watching survivors testimony in the bonus section of the dvd. this is pretty overwhelming stuff. one of these days I hope to buy the Shoah dvd set, which is also out (just a bit overpriced in my opinion)
This response has been erased.
resp:235, resp:239 :: Belleville's an odd town, isn't it? Clearly a lot of New York in it, and the signs are in English, but the gangsters drive modified Citroens... TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE we found absolutely delightful, but it's not going to be for everyone. There is almost no dialog in it, and there's a lot of almost-surrealism. It's (mostly) old fashioned, hand drawn animation, mostly produced in Canada and France, with some BBC help, and there were some other countries there in the credits. Not as much of a musical as I thought it would be; to talk about what the movie is really about might spoil half the fun of trying to figure out where the story is going. The characterization of the dog, Bruno, is one of the best animated animals ever.
!useruseruser a ^K!useruseruser b ^L!useruseruser c !useruseruser d
WHOA!
Wow! That didn't turn out good.
I suppose it should be mentioned, as TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE is an animated film: it's not a movie for small children. There are a few scenes which some might deem unsuitable for kids, but more to the point -- I don't think children under the age of 12 or so would follow the story.
I really liked Triplets of Belleville. I loved the dog's dreams the best. I especially liked the one with the train going around the rim of the food bowl :) I also liked that the French Mafia's slogan was "In Vino Veritas" I think that is going to be my slogan :)
Leslie pointed out that the dog dreams in black and white, as dogs' vision only works in black and white. At least, we think we know that.
This response has been erased.
Dogs dream in Smell-o-vision: They're dogs, for goodness sakes.
"STarsky and Hutch" was a great popcorn movie. We had a great time at it. "Starsky's bored now!! Starsky's bored now!!"
dawn of the dead. see it.
I must agree with Anthony. The current Dawn of the Dead is worth seeing, even at normal prices.
I agree! It's incredible. The humor, the gore, the filiming. Awesome.
Interesting. I'd dismissed "Dawn of the Dead" as Yet Another Unnecessary Remake, but it's been getting some good reviews and endorsement here from people who have seen it. Maybe I'll catch it sometime.
This response has been erased.
re #285 Schindler's list
"This film is very empty, for not only does it
portray the germans as 'evil, lop-sided,
devil workshippers' but it shows the jew as
being 'promising, alluring, good guys'. If one
it to question morality, then do so, but don't
give us the black vc white issue found in this
film. Spielberg, immature since day one as
director, tell us what to think, he strips away
our humanity by overdosing us on excessive
amonts of guilt and sentimentality. In effect,
the film lacks any moral basis except to
denounce all evil men and with that, we learn
absolutely nothing"
Bunk.
My critic serves as reflection.
Bunk is to sleep.
Ben Kingsley was brilliant.
You have several choices: