Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

There are intolerant people and zealots of all kinds out there. Many are not religious at all. If the 20th century taught us anything it is that religion is no special precursor to intolerance and persecution of others. Atheistic or merely "racial" intolerance can be just as murderous and onerous as the religious variety. Sometimes it can take innocuous forms, such as extra effort to critize artistic expressionms of religious themes, while leaving others unmolested.

0 Replies

I'd be rather interested, and amused, to see your catalogue of atheistically inspired atrocities, O'George . . .

0 Replies

Unmolested -- now there's a word that has unfortuante connotations!

Wrong -- we are daily experiencing what is happening in Iraq unless one is an insensitive dolt. We are not witness to what happened at the Crucifixion and only have the very few words of the Biblt to go on. To compare an event of over 2,000 years ago to what is taking place in the news today is laughable. Attempting to essentially review a movie one has seen is equally laughable. Your comparison is laughable.

0 Replies

Wrong - We are daily experiencing the DISCUSSION of what is happening in Iraq, unless we are there. Likewise, I am experiencing and commenting on the DISCUSSION of Gibson's film.

But please, tell one of our wounded how you are daily "experiencing" the war. Please, please do. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I'd be rather interested, and amused, to see your catalogue of atheistically inspired atrocities, O'George . . .

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot for starters.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Wrong -- we are daily experiencing what is happening in Iraq unless one is an insensitive dolt. We are not witness to what happened at the Crucifixion and only have the very few words of the Biblt to go on. To compare an event of over 2,000 years ago to what is taking place in the news today is laughable. Attempting to essentially review a movie one has seen is equally laughable. Your comparison is laughable.

I didn't make any such comparison. Don't see the connection you have in mind. What has Iraq to do with either the subject or my post which you are criticizing?

0 Replies

That's correct, georgeob1, making a comparison such as that has a weak connection and an attempt to devalue what one knows about the war in Iraq by suggesting that you have to be shot at or wounded is disingenous sophistry. Besides, where have I defended or criticized the war in Iraq based on experiences I do not have? Is there some policy about making religious films per se that I have missed? A movie is not a war in Iraq and again, attempting to review a movie one hasn't even seen is ludicrous.

0 Replies

Lightwizard,

I'm not looking for a fight or an argument (after all we do like many of the same films.). In addition, I'm not taking exception to the several artistic flaws which you have found and enumerated in the film: and it is well I don't, as I haven't yet seen it.

I do, however, find it odd that these artistic deficiencies, though no worse than other equivalent material that has sadly become all too ubiquitous in modern culture (and often with no rationalization whatever), have generated such a storm of protest and comment, while other far worse and less justified (or rationalized) are left alone. That suggest to me that factors other than those cited are involved in the motivation for it. No one here has even acknowledged that possibility, much less addressed the issue.

0 Replies

LW - You are here telling me that I shouldn't express opinions about a movie I haven't experienced. I asked you to defend that notion when applied to the war. You then tried to argue--LAUGHABLY--that you have "experienced" it because it is in the news and being discussed (which, of course, is also the case with the movie) and I called you on it.

You're now arguing in circles trying to do anything but just acknowledge that it's perfectly normal to discuss the furor surrounding an event which we have not personally experienced. That makes the sophistry all yours.

I'd love to discover that you are honest enough and possessed of sufficient integrity to acknowledge it when you've been shown your position lacks merit. So far, you're showing me exactly the opposite is true.

0 Replies

You apprantly believe you haven't experienced the war other than from the news unless you are presently dodging bullets yourself. Same thing applies there -- offering opinions on something you haven't experienced yourself. You certainly cannot have come close to experiencing what happened over 2000 years ago and only have the heresay of what is written in the Bible. One of the important parts of the discussion is if Gibson stayed completey faithful to the heresay. He didn't even do that and you cannot affirm this without seeing the movie. We can argue all day about whose postion has merit but until you've seen the movie, I've discounted everything you've said about it just as much as I would discount almost everything said about the war in Iraq without firsthand observations. If you believe all the journalist are not telling the truth than it's easy to take that one step further and belive Gibson is not telling the truth.

0 Replies

Then all history is heresay. Does that make renditions based on the historical record necessarily less valid than acknowledged fiction such as Lew Wallace's Ben Hur?

The self-serving unreliability of most journalists (left and right) is beyond doubt. I haven't been to Iraq, but I have experienced war up close and, as well, the contemporaneous images of it sold by journalists. Not much to inspire confidence there.

I have no opinion about Gibson's historical accuracy (or lack thereof). I remain suspicious about the the intensity of the reactions to the film. They do not ring true.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Then all history is heresay. Does that make renditions based on the historical record necessarily less valid than acknowledged fiction such as Lew Wallace's Ben Hur?

Indeed, all history is hearsay (or, if you wish, heresy).

Quote:

The self-serving unreliability of most journalists (left and right) is beyond doubt. I haven't been to Iraq, but I have experienced war up close and, as well, the contemporaneous images of it sold by journalists. Not much to inspire confidence there.

Blah blah, bluster bluster, etc...

Quote:

I have no opinion about Gibson's historical accuracy (or lack thereof). I remain suspicious about the the intensity of the reactions to the film. They do not ring true.

Y'know, some of us who criticize it for its extensive violence, actually liked the film. But you would have known that had you bothered to actually read the thread. Instead, you fall into your usual trap of mouthing a bunch of patronizing trash and proving your own silliness. But what else could one expect?

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

... you fall into your usual trap of mouthing a bunch of patronizing trash and proving your own silliness. But what else could one expect?

We define ourselves here by the arguments we make.

0 Replies

Cada um responde de acordo com o seu nível intelectual.

0 Replies

Even alluding to the Bible as actual history is not convincing. I can give some leniency to most historians even when they don't bother to hide their biases and often making editorial comments which shade the history to their own satisfaction. However, the faith of those who laud the film and that the film has unassailable integrity is an indication of the flawed rationale about the movie and Gibson's intent. I do read comments about war that are way off base because they are founded in journalistic and pundit commentary and not according to personal experience. However, there's more credence to making comments on the reporting than making comments about a movie based on borrowed opinion without having seen the film itself.

0 Replies

I do agree. That's why I do not argue with your view of the artistic deficiencies you found. Instead I am merely perplexed by the intensity of the commentary here relative to the silence concerning things far worse from an artistic perspective - at least if I take your commentary as a reference (and I do so willingly).

0 Replies

I doubt that any Christian who has just seen the film will show up at my front door to do a good deed other than thrust the latest issue of The Watchtower through the screen door. Of course, it's somewhat supposition of Gibson's intent but he has made statements that he wanted the film to "renew" a person's commitment to their religion. Aha! He didn't mean every religion. He meant his antique verson of Catholicism -- he feels he was saved (by what is elusive) and...the impression that there's an indoctrination within the film is just too obvious to ignore.

0 Replies

Unfortunately, there is no current DVD or VHS of "Peter the Great." You might try half.com or ebay.com. I'd like to have the DVD as I'm sure the picture and sound is better.

0 Replies

Here it is on half.com:

http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=2022076&domain_id=1877&meta_id=3

Good deal, too. The production design of the series I might add is also superior to "Passion."

0 Replies

Thanks,

If I get lucky, I'll let you know.

0 Replies

Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know