PDA

View Full Version : The Hypocrites @ Hollywood



Dolfan02
03-07-2004, 08:20 PM
“PASSION OF THE CHRIST” CRITICS TRY SOMETHING NEW

“Having failed to tag the movie as anti-Semitic, those who hate everything about Mel’s masterpiece are trying to convince the public not to see it because it’s too violent. Alas, there is a New Puritanism in the land. Violence has now joined cigarettes as the new taboo.


“But as it turns out, violence, like cholesterol, can be both good and bad. Consider New York Daily News reporter Jami Bernard. She voted the super-violent flick, ‘Gladiator,’ best picture for the year 2000. But she brands Mel’s film, ‘a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club.’ Yet she is a big fan of the Marquis de Sade—the pervert who wrote the book on S&M—and that is why she liked ‘Quills.’ Peter Rainer also condemns Mel’s movie for delving into ‘the realm of sadomasochism.’ Yet he commended Spielberg for the ‘gentleness’ he brought to ‘Saving Private Ryan.’


“Richard Corliss of Time thinks the only people who will be drawn to ‘The Passion’ are those ‘who can stand to be grossed out as they are edified.’ Yet he calls the ‘body halvings, decapitations, [and] unhandings’ of ‘Gladiator’ a ‘pleasure that we get to watch.’ Newsweek’s David Ansen says Mel’s film will ‘inspire nightmares,’ though he hails as ‘a must-see’ movie a flick about incest (‘The Dreamers’). David Denby of the New Yorker cites ‘The Passion’ as being so violent it ‘falls into the danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate.’ This is the same guy who said of ‘Schindler’s List’ that ‘the violence neither exaggerated nor minimized.’


“The New Puritans will not win this one. The public does not share their deep-seated aversion to religion nor their phony pacifism.”


[i]-comments from Catholic League president William Donohue on how film critics of “The Passion” are reacting to the movie.

Kamikaze
03-08-2004, 08:34 AM
I would expect those who dub the Passion a masterpiece are also standing behind Janet Jackson's boob too.


Having not seen the movie, I could not say whether or not it is anti-Semetic. One thing I do know is that perhaps some have an axe to grind with Mel. Yet, it seems to me that massive amounts of violence are more acceptable than seeing a single boob on live TV. Personally, I have no problem with either, but I'd rather expose a child to the act of love...or even lust, than the murder and brutality that doesn't seem to faze anyone anymore.

Dolfan02
03-09-2004, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I would expect those who dub the Passion a masterpiece are also standing behind Janet Jackson's boob too.


Having not seen the movie, I could not say whether or not it is anti-Semetic. One thing I do know is that perhaps some have an axe to grind with Mel. Yet, it seems to me that massive amounts of violence are more acceptable than seeing a single boob on live TV. Personally, I have no problem with either, but I'd rather expose a child to the act of love...or even lust, than the murder and brutality that doesn't seem to faze anyone anymore.

With all due respect... I can't possibly conceive why you mention Janet Jackson and her boob into this discussion, and I'm not sure which violence you speak of.

Kamikaze
03-09-2004, 04:20 AM
With all due respect...ahh screw it. Dealing with you is akin to bashing my head against a concrete wall.

themole
04-04-2004, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Kamikaze
With all due respect...ahh screw it. Dealing with you is akin to bashing my head against a concrete wall.

Practice makes perfect!!!! :evil:

PhinPhan1227
04-05-2004, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I would expect those who dub the Passion a masterpiece are also standing behind Janet Jackson's boob too.


Having not seen the movie, I could not say whether or not it is anti-Semetic. One thing I do know is that perhaps some have an axe to grind with Mel. Yet, it seems to me that massive amounts of violence are more acceptable than seeing a single boob on live TV. Personally, I have no problem with either, but I'd rather expose a child to the act of love...or even lust, than the murder and brutality that doesn't seem to faze anyone anymore.

Depends on the violence and the age of the child. I wouldn't take a child under 12 regardless of their actual maturity, and even then I'd have to consider the individual child. If the kid was mature, I'd take him to see Passion because the movie is about sacrifice, not gratuitous violence. The key is making sure the child understands that fact. Take away the lesson of the film and it's just an S&M flick set in the 1st Century. Personally, I'd be less concerned about an educated viewing of The Passion by a child than an uneducated viewing of Freddy vs Jason by a child. Same thing with sex/nudity. I have no problem with a film that portrays sex/nudity so long as there is a purpose to it. Honestly, I'd be more concerned letting a 12 year old girl watch an average Brittany Spears video.

t2thejz
04-28-2004, 05:32 PM
The whole Passion of the Christ controversy is a joke. Half of the crap out there is 20 times more violent. What are some people so worried about? No one is forcing anyone to see it.