|
Grex > Cinema > #60: *<*<*<*<*< AT THE MOVIES >*>*>*>*>* |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 306 responses total. |
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?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 200 of 306:
|
Feb 29 20:34 UTC 2004 |
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).
|
aruba
|
|
response 201 of 306:
|
Feb 29 22:40 UTC 2004 |
Roger Ebert says "Passion of the Christ" is the most violent movie he's ever
seen. Wow.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 202 of 306:
|
Feb 29 23:59 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 203 of 306:
|
Mar 1 06:46 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 204 of 306:
|
Mar 1 11:17 UTC 2004 |
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).
|
md
|
|
response 205 of 306:
|
Mar 1 12:06 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
mary
|
|
response 206 of 306:
|
Mar 1 12:36 UTC 2004 |
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".
|
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.
|