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

Yes, let's all codify Scrat's desire to have the last word, and to determine what the issues worthy of discussion may be.

Especially in the film category where he is obviously a fish out of water. Gasp.

Sometimes this crowd really is a hoot.

We aim to please, Boss . . .

That's a riot LW, although at least--unlike Setanta--I've been trying to discuss A FILM. Thankfully, at least OB seems a little more interested in the topic than attack. I got out of two responses from him what I failed to get from God knows how many previous attempts. While I know this won't be received in the way it's intended, I'm going to suggest that you lighten up a bit. Not every question someone asks is a threat.

Hilarious indeed--the contention that in attempting to smear LW with a charge of prejudice against a christian theme in film in general, Mel Gibson in particular and this specific film most particularly was an attempt to discuss this film.

Jeez ... if Andy Rooney thought the film would be "a couple of laughs", I can just imagine the delight he'd take in this discussion.

I haven't seen the flick yet myself, though that is a situation which by tomorrow will no longer pertain. My chief concern, having read and heard so much about it, here, there, and damned near everywhere, is that I may be disappointed to find that most of what has been written and said about it will fail to have any relevance to the film. In fact, I strongly suspect such will prove the case.

Let's pretend that's exactly what I had in mind. Are you saying that a discussion of the reasons for his opinions on the film--which might validate or invalidate same--have no place here? And more to the point, if they are not, how much less appropriate are your unsolicited off-topic critiques of me? Or did you think I was somehow involved with creating the film, and that made me fair game? :wink:

Your attempt was to invalidate my opinion on the film based on some imagined hidden agenda. I don't seek to influence anyone to see the film or not see the film. If you would like a list of Biblical films I consider to be of high quality and a list of those I consider to be of low quality, you might ask. I don't think that would influence you to watch them or not watch them. I have no idea what your movie-going or movie renting habits are or what your favorite films are but I might have more of a clue of what the Hell you're talking about if I did.

Ah, what marvelous string of specious statements from authority. Your attempt to paint LW as a hypocrit who objects to the violence of this film, but not of others, unless he proves to you that he has objected to the violence of other films, certainly is not germaine to a discussion of the theme of this thread, which is that the film sparks concern by the Anti-defamation League. To the extent that you show up for the purpose of attempting to ridicule and malign other members, and no other purpose, but otherwise do not participate in the society of these fora, i will continue to ridicule the content of your posts.

I am still highly amused by and admiring of Hazlitt's à propos description of your teapot tempest attempts to dominate theads as employing a "tack hammer" method. That was priceless.

The film is also an example of a low art trying to imitate a high art. If you want to see Caravaggio paintings, go to a museum. This is just a pale imitation. At least Kubrick in "Barry Lyndon" created his own cinematic imagery that was unconscious of doing anything more than recreating the period.

Just an aside to LW ... I think Barry Lyndon well may be one of, if not singularly, the most underappreciated films of all time.

But then I should say I think Elvira Madigan and The Duelists are pretty high on the Underappreciated List, too.

Those films did receive some critical acclaim but, of course, also have their detractors. They did not do well at the box office. Kubrick's innovations in "Barry Lyndon "are phenomenal, the first scenes on film shot entirely in candlelight! The storytelling has depth and rings intellectually true. Caleb Deschanel has some impressive credentials and Gibson was wise to have chosen him. When I stated that his film has no style and little substance it was in spite of Deschanel's exquisite cinematography. Gibson insists on undermining his artistry in several places in the film. The lighting, sets, music and costuming are also first rate. Then why does this film have no real guts for many people (despite their being sprayed all over the lens)? I submit that you should be the judge, timber -- I approached the film strictly on its artistic merits whether it was about Jesus or about the Marquis De Sade. It doesn't matter. "Passion" ultimately only proves you can clothe horror and bloody gore in a polished, good looking wrap but many can't get by the horrifying anguish of the vision rather than the transcending anguish of the Christ. Bill Maher (not my favorite film critic ) and others who want to laud him for daring to try is really a moot point. The film is artistically vacant. It's a shallow Classics Illustrated version with a lot of splatter and horror.

Here's a really long alternative title for Passion:


"The Passion of Mad Max Who Hired Someone Else to Play Jesus In Order to Divert the Pretense That Is Nevertheless Present in the Final Product"

On the bright side, The Life of Bryan is being re-released on good Friday.

He's not the messiah
He's a very naughty lethal weapon!

No, in reality, my intent was to determine whether or not to give your opinion weight and how much. (See the difference?)

You don't mean because I judged the film on an artistic level that that you might not drag yourself to the cineplex to see it? You can't "interview" all the critics who hated the movie in order to determine whether they had a bias towards the material so they might not convince you to stay home either. Of course, you could wait for the DVD and have a Passion Party, serving Passion Fruit Juice and Popetato Chips.

I just love all the hype about independent art films anyway -- the independents have become as big as the old dinosaur mogul run movie studios. They are still capable of producing the same mediocrity as the old studio system has produced.

The unfortunate fact that defines movie making is that it is a collaborative effort and the self-styled auteur is sometimes full of ****.

LW - I mean that I was curious about what value your opinion deserved. I was questioning the motives behind your opinions (as many do mine), but rather than claiming to know them, I tried to enlist your help in testing them. Sorry if that was a problem for you.

So often in these discussions, people pretend to know why someone else thinks what he or she thinks. When I respond in support of a certain Bush administration policy, someone invariably pops up to tell me that I mindlessly support anything Bush does, rather than asking me why I support that policy. It was the latter I was trying to do with you, and I assume you see it's value over the former.

I see someone is playing at hacking in the site -- all the avatars are now a cute little leaping mouse! (I also had a floating arrow which seems to have dissapeared).


Anyway, if any of you are interested in how fast and loose Gibson has interpreted history, the Bible and archaeology, here's a comprehensive article:

http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10243&source=ereport