Well, that's where the rubber meets the road, isn't it?
Ray did all the narration of 'The King of Kings', for instance.... and he has done short stories about Christ... 'The Man', for instance... or the Christ figure in 'The Martian Chronicles'... or wriiten about Christ in some of his poetry....
Maybe Ray is not up to seeing it last week...and maybe next week he will be, or the week after that. I know Ray saw at least portions of Mel Gibson's, 'The Patriot'...and THAT was brutal in many scenes...and without redemption as an integral part, as well...
Bradbury has certainly used Christ in a lot of his work. The question of course is, "What does he think of Christ when he uses him in his writings?" This is one of the things I've been fascinated by in Bradbury's writing. His use of metaphors means he uses symbols to say what he wants those symbols to say -- not necessarily what others want them to say.
The Patriot was definitely brutal, as was Braveheart. No argument there. And, as I said, I thought Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was amazing. But then, I think I have some understanding of and sympathy toward what Gibson was trying to portray in the film. The brutality, for me, is in context. That doesn't minimize the nature of the brutality, but it does give it some meaning.
It wasn't a claim, it was a guess. No need to back that up, is there?
So...you thought I wasn't going to make any comment on '''The Passion of the Christ''' on Good Friday?
Check this out: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0409/p01s02-wome.html
Okay...when is the last time you heard a movie re-claim it's no. 1 spot as this one has? Also, its about ready to surpass '''Lord of the Rings''' in box office receipts.
...does anyone know exactly what Mel Gibson's arrangement is presently with the upcoming production of '''Fahrenheit 451'''?
[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 04-11-2004).]
Okay, I saw it, but am wondering whether to withhold detailed comment until I read the 100-and-some-odd postings here and the 600-and-some-odd at another site I frequent, to check that I don't needlessly repeat what others may not only have said, but possibly more completely or in better detail than I would.
The acting was superb, the photography exquisite, and much was done to bring religious imagery depicted through the mediums of painting, stained glass, and statuary to life on film. I related to it as a direct cinematic interpretation of religious art rather than copying or influenced by earlier films--and, yes, I have "King of Kings" on tape somewhere. To give the artists credit, I thought it was just as well they didn't have cameras and newsreels back then--think of all the creative interpretation which would have been lost through the literalness of film!
I think Ray would really appreciate "The Passion of the Christ" on an artistic level, he has hardly shied away from violence in his own work, and certainly he would be moved by the emotional human aspects of the film. What has been said about this film striking Christians in a completely different way than non-Christians is absolutely right, and that can be further broken down by Christian denominations and individual Christians themselves. (Not unlike showing a well-done American patriotic movie to audiences from other places and ultimately other times vs. contemporary American audiences, taking into account different regions, age groups, and political beliefs.)
One thing that kept coming up in my mind during this film was a point on which it seems Ray and I far, FAR diverge! He concerns himself primarily with a story's emotional flow and impact and not so much on accuracy of details. I am a nitpicker! In dealing with a story based on historical events or set in historical times, I constantly question, is this exactly how things happened? If we cannot know exactly how they happened, how close can we make this given what is known or possible to know? Pretty much how even with a modern story the writer must ask, how would this happen in real life, given the known workings of things? The more little details are ignored, the more suspension of disbelief suffers. If you're as good as Shakespeare or Ray Bradbury, you may be able to get away with most of it most of the time...the rest of us have to watch ourselves.
Without having seen "Braveheart" or "The Patriot" in their entirety, but having read what others said of them, I can say they share positive and negative aspects in common with "The Passion of the Christ" and that "Fahrenheit 451" need not be as concerned with the negative aspects as were these first three and can benefit from the positive ones. If Gibson is involved with F451 I believe him capable of making an extremely impactful piece of cinema which should inspire viewers to take a first look or look afresh or anew at the book. In the case of a work of fiction such as F451 I would prefer seeing a sublimely artistic film varying in places from the source than an absolutely true-to-the book film lacking artistic life. (I think we all got enough doses of that on "Ray Bradbury Theater," if you follow my line of thought where that goes.) In the same way I found "The Passion of the Christ" somewhat more inspiring than your traditional sword and sandals epic without accepting every aspect literally as gospel.
This... probably the last update on
...box office receipts, should anyone out there been wondering:
It's pulled to just $6 million behind the 6th biggest movie of all time, '''Lord of the Rings, Return of the King'''
'Passion' comes in at $370 million, and 'Return of the King' at $376 million.
'''The Passion''' has gone over the 1/2 billion $dollar mark 'world wide' release receipts.
Look forward to see what Mel Gibson's 'Icon Productions' handles Ray's '''Fahrenheit 451'''. By the way, Moore, in some interview I read, claims he used 'Fahrenheit' in his movie title, to pay homage to Ray's anti-censorship novel, 'Fahrenheit 451'. Anyone else out there read or hear that one?
"Homage" to RB: sounds like moorespin to me!
Moorespin, a good term. How is it homage when Ray's made it clear he didn't want him to use the title? Homage would have been to respect the author's wishes, rather than capitalize on them over his objections.
Mr. Dark: "Capitalize" a fine word, also$$
Will Michael Moore definitely be using the "Fahrenheit 9/11" title when the film opens in the United States, or is Bradbury still trying to not let that happen?
[This message has been edited by Yestermorrow (edited 05-25-2004).]
So Moore won at Cannes, huh? Yeah, that might actually MEAN something if Cannes wasn't held in a country that automatically hates America to begin with...I mean, OF COURSE the French are going to like it!!
There is absolutely no way...that Moore will NOT use 'Fahrenheit' in the title of his film, especially since he said he used it to pay homage to Ray's book, which is about censorship....
France hates America, eh? Moore did it all for money, eh? Nice little assertions. Would you like Freedom Fries with your Freedom Wine? Or maybe a Victory Cigarette? (the world is still laughing...)
[This message has been edited by Translator (edited 05-26-2004).]
I, for one, don't think Moore did it for the money (although if he makes money, that's fine with me). I think he is an ideologue who uses his films as a basis for his platform. He's not the only one. And I see nothing wrong with it, except that my own impression of his films are that they manipulate evidence and are pretty one-sided.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12|