Grasstains,

No need to be coy. Are you trying to say that an anti-Christian movie would be met with protests from Christians? Well, why on earth wouldn't they protest? No one likes to be presented in a negative light. Especially about an episode that's far in the past and has little to do with the present. But then it wouldn't be the first time Christians have been presented in a negative light in a movie.

I haven't seen "The Passion" yet but I understand it's not anti-Semitic; as a Christian, I know the Gospels aren't anti-Semitic, either. So, while some may object to the movie, I believe they're mistaken. Certainly, that's their right.

Pete

[This message has been edited by pterran (edited 02-26-2004).]

Hello,
there is a difference between negative light and factual light. Of course, nothing will ever be shown in the "right" light, for there are too many points of views out there, but there are stages of objectivity that can be reached if one really tries.
Cheers,
Translator

you know what i have to say to the whole thing? if you are that closeminded that you cannot handle a trailer of a "too christian" movie then you should not be at the movies, some people are so agravating!

What's so disturbing about people who are so wrong who think they are so right is that I have to laugh to keep from shuddering.

Now I know why those Romero zombie movies are so effective. I don't want to be bitten by someone infected with their brand of ignorance.

JRS:


I'm a little confused. Exactly what was your Christian friend disgusted about?


[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 02-26-2004).]

James Robert Smith,

From the tone of some of recent posts, I'd make a guess that you might have some difficulty in getting people to buy/read the anthology you're editing.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Pete

Not censorship, just a reminder . . . it's a Ray Bradbury site.

Wow! Fail to visit a string for awhile and - just, wow!

Nard, enjoy Saturday night.

My Review of:
The Passion of the Christ...
...having seen it this very afternoon...
________________________________

With this movie, there are really two audiences: believers, and non believers.
Christian, and secular.

I know i could spend a few pages reviewing this movie, because there are many things about it that bother me, and many things that are truly wonderful. But I will be brief. I skip some stones, by mentioning overall points.

First...this movie portrays truth in a way rare on screen. We consider the classics because...they reveal truth. Call them timeless prose, or artistic masterpieces, or whatever terminology you wish to address it as, but "truth"...is what counts.

Secondly, this movie will be a critical step because of who made it...not some little known film-maker, whose piece of artistry lies on some university or library cinema shelf studied by a few and seen by none... Further, its subject is 2,000 plus years of historic significance.

This movie only 'scratches the surface' of the story of Christ's 'Passion'. His Passion It is so layered and deep and profound and without exhaustion, that it never is without new discoveries.

Again, I say it again...it is this very amazing discovery I find in the prose of Ray Bradbury. I find the face of Christ in some of Ray's prose, but the author of such words ...sees differently.

This movie will change movies to come, in new discovery of truth and how it is portrayed. If anything, go see it as an event in moviemaking...

Finis

Nard,

I haven't seen the film yet but I'm planning on seeing it this weekend. What strikes me odd is the review upon review saying this is a glorifying of violence instead of a religous experience. As an example the New York Times' A.O. Scott wrote:

� "The Passion of the Christ is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it."

A really stupid yet prevalent idea of religion today is that things of the spirit is a walk though the park. No hurtful things can possibly arise from spirituality, can they? Meditation, singing birds, and healing crystals, right? Bull. Things of the spirit are the most violent and ugly, the most beautiful and pleasant. It is disgraceful to see how the world has tamed the idea of the spirit to suit their own peace of mind and to ease their own guilty feelings. And to think of the Son of God prefering to baptise not with water but with fire! How crude!

And these very same critics laud the violence to be found in Quentin Tarantino's movies.

Interesting point, too, about spirituality being "easy." Becoming a Christian was, for me, anything but easy. And it continues to be difficult, which makes it so rewarding.

I wonder if Ray will see this movie. Didn't he write the narration for one of the religious epics in the early 60s?

Ought Not:

Many important interviewers are secular, that is to say, non-believers. They will get stuck on the violence....which isn't violence in one sense, to the believer. ("By His stripes ...you were healed...") A profound believer will weep on each lash of the whip knowing his eternal wrong was absorbed, and finally nailed to the cross. A profound believer will cry and tears will flow down your face when you are reminded with these cinematic images. They bring the truth of Christ, the sin bearer, to the fore-front of consciousness. These people that go around yimming and yamming about who killed Christ, and the violence, are all walking around lost in the lobby.

The true activity is in the printed words of scripture in your new testament. The Gibson film is a retelling in modern high techno wizardry, images painted on a screen and bringing us to tears.

Oh, so much left out...for another movie, another time. For instance, when Christ died on the cross, the graves opened up and people came back to life and went home to their family. Now put THAT on film, will you. And when Christ died, there is a lot of things he did in those 3 days in the grave, including showing himself to the atheists in a 'border of hell'. Now film THAT, will you.

PS:
If Ray attends the closing night of his play, this Saturday, I will surely ask him if he intends to see the movie, or perhaps he has already. If he has, his mini-review, if I can catch him for a minute or two...

Right, Pete. I've tried to watch some of Tarantino's movies but they are not my sort of thing. Filled with nonsensical violence and profanity. The same thing with Fight Club or A Clockwork Orange. Now, I'm not saying not to make these films just that they are lauded by the same critics who are looking a little hypocritical here.

Great googaly moogaly!

Hello,
I have to jump in. Despite my sincerest wishes, I must, for I cannot hold back when someone is maligning (though in a very non maligniant sort of way, which redeems the person) some of the greatest movies in history. Both Clockwork and Fight Club are really the empitome of moviemaking. They have increadible ideas behind them, use shock tactics to skew the perception of the viewer, and turn around to ask the movie watcher what is really good and what is bad. Actually, this is a gross simplification, but I will not go deep into the reviews of these movies as if I did, like I did for my theses, I would go on for dozens of pages. Better turn your wrath against brainless movies that exibit violence to no purpose at all, Ought Not; the holywood junk that comes out every day is the true evil of the cinematic medium. I am ready, if anyone really wants to, to have a serious debate about the Kubric movie and Fight Club.
Cheers,
Translator

[This message has been edited by Translator (edited 02-27-2004).]