N.C. Parents Angered by Gay Prince Book

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
He took artistic license with Satan (which I thought worked as a plot device) and a few flashbacks like Jesus making a table when he was younger...but that is certainly a possible scenario and not controversial. Just artistic license to flesh out the story a little.

Rob

He added violent moments that appear nowhere in the Gospels.

- Jake

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yea - but not an overwhelming amout IMO. But he did add. I am unsure if he has actually said his movie was 100% based on the Gospels.

I didn't take the script and match it word for word but from memory he is pretty close except for a few artistic devices which were at the very least plausible in the context of the story and not radical religious statements...

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
He added violent moments that appear nowhere in the Gospels.

- Jake

True...but I don't think there was anything gratuitous...Gibson stated that he was trying to show the suffering that the man went through while staying consistent with what we know about Roman torture and execution practices at the time.

Rob

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally posted by Rob67
He took artistic license with Satan

Oh yeah, all that hacked tripe. But I was referring specifically to the portrayl of 'Jews' in the movie ('Jews' being just about everyone in the movie except the sadistic flailers).

If you want to discuss the merit of Mel's 'artistic' license, we'll need another 20 pages of thread. Or maybe we all agree: bleugh!
Please don;'t tell me I'm the only one who laughed at that stupid old-lookingbaby. "Oooh, I'm scared". What the hell was the point of it?! Nothing!

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Exactly, that's what we're saying. It's ethnicity, not race.

- Jake

Webster's defines Race as: a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics.

That sounds right.....

But, whatever....you understand what I mean...race, ethnicity.

[DownOnRodeo]

I came into this thread to see where the Gay Prince discussion was going and I end up getting all excited about discussing The Passion.

Only on The Ledge.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by DownOnRodeo
Ah, give me a far eastern philosophy any day.

(Joe - who lives in the Far East )

Hey - you live in a land down under - yea yea

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
He added violent moments that appear nowhere in the Gospels.

- Jake

True - but most of those violent moments were at the hands of the Romans in the movie

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
No argument, but, for example, I don't think Ghenghis Khan was motivated primarily by religion. Same with Hitler. Same with many of the practitioners of female infanticide, though certainly others were.

- Jake

I think these two guys thought of themselves as Gods. Interestingly, wasn't Hitler an athesist?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I think these two guys thought of themselves as Gods. Interestingly, wasn't Hitler an athesist?

I think he may have been Christian although he didn't promote it much. He hated Catholics.

Nationalism was his thing.

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Firstly, he shouldn't use the psychotic ramblings of an anti-semitic nun in a movie that is marketed as being factual.

Secondly, the quotes from his father are quite telling. When the bastard says that the Holocaust never happened or was exaggerated, you have to wonder what kind of household Gibson was brought up in. Then it makes you wonder why certain negative elements are included in his snuff film. And gibson himself has always been viewed as an extremist.

Thirdly, Gibson has recently said that his next movie will be one about the Jewish religion, and that he will write and direct it. If I was Jewish, I'd be offended and insulted.

Did you see the film? If not, then it would be impossible to have an intelligent discussion on it because you wouldn't have had the advantage of commenting on the film itself, only press and negative assaults on Gibson's character that have surrounded the opening of the film.

Lastly, you're right about Buddha and no one giving two ****s in this country, but that wouldn't be the case elsewhere in the world. There aren't that many practicing buddhists in this country, so it wouldn't get the press coverage that a film about Jews and Christ would get. but in other parts of the world, it would be quite a controversy if Buddha was portrayed in a negative light. Try to look past the US of A for a minute, doll.

Now this paragraph is just silly. My point was that if it was anyone OTHER THAN Christ, no one would have cared. For someone who gets offended rather easily, diss, you have a knack for throwing out the occasional zinger that could be deemed offensive. I mean, if I was emotionally invested in this conversation for anything other then amusement then I might be offended by the last line. FYI, I am well traveled and have a degree in British history....I would like to think that I have looked beyond our wonderful borders once or twice. We just see the world differently. I happen to think that this is the greatest country in the world and am proud to call myself a citizen. We have our flaws, sure, but we are not the evil in the world and we are definitly not what's wrong with it....

Cheers.....doll!!!!

Rob

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67


Did you see the film? If not, then it would be impossible to have an intelligent discussion on it because you wouldn't have had the advantage of commenting on the film itself, only press and negative assaults on Gibson's character that have surrounded the opening of the film.

I was given a bootleg video and watched parts, but not all of it, no. I'm not interested in watching a religious extremist's interpretation of the anti-semitic ramblings of a psychotic nun from the nineteenth century. I'm also not interested in watching a snuff and torture film, either; it's not my cup of tea. However, what I did see of it not only seemed quite negative, but it also seemed very heavy-handed. Slow motion shots at just the right moment, melodramatic music cues, the works. I thought Monica Belluci was laughable, too.

As for the negative assaults jibe, it is well documented and admitted by Gibson that he based a large part of the film on the "visions" of Ann Emmerich, a nun whose sanity was questionable and whose disdain for the Jews is also well-documented. Don't take the movie at face value, read about it, bud. There are also quite a lot of articles that compare the film to the actual Bible text and the errors are HUGE. Mel Gibson didn't just take artistic license with the use of Satan, he took artistic license with the Bible.

The movie is a piece of ****, that's my opinion. I don't have to watch all two hours and seven minutes of beatings, torture, and death to come up with that conclusion, either. If you want to talk about good entertainment, let's talk about the look on Gibson's face when he gets completely snubbed at the Oscar nomination announcements. That'll put a smile on my face.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally posted by dissention
I was given a bootleg video and watched parts, but not all of it, no. I'm not interested in watching a religious extremist's interpretation of the anti-semitic ramblings of a psychotic nun from the nineteenth century. I'm also not interested in watching a snuff and torture film, either; it's not my cup of tea. However, what I did see of it not only seemed quite negative, but it also seemed very heavy-handed. Slow motion shots at just the right moment, melodramatic music cues, the works. I thought Monica Belluci was laughable, too.

As for the negative assaults jibe, it is well documented and admitted by Gibson that he based a large part of the film on the "visions" of Ann Emmerich, a nun whose sanity was questionable and whose disdain for the Jews is also well-documented. Don't take the movie at face value, read about it, bud. There are also quite a lot of articles that compare the film to the actual Bible text and the errors are HUGE. Mel Gibson didn't just take artistic license with the use of Satan, he took artistic license with the Bible.

The movie is a piece of ****, that's my opinion. I don't have to watch all two hours and seven minutes of beatings, torture, and death to come up with that conclusion, either. If you want to talk about good entertainment, let's talk about the look on Gibson's face when he gets completely snubbed at the Oscar nomination announcements. That'll put a smile on my face.

I'm with Rob...how can you argue so passionatly (pardon the pun ) about a movie that you, yourself, admit you don't even want to watch the whole way through?

The movie is made from an old-school Catholic perspective...pre-Vat II here....I think he did a good job...and it is not a snuff film. He portrayed a powerful time in the Christian history (with a big-time Catholic spin) and with today's technology was able to make it "realistic" Previous films that depicted the passion have been flamed for violence...and they are extra mild (due to lack of tech) compared to this one!

I also don't think that Mel was going for the Oscar nod. I do think he made this film out of his own love and intensity for his faith and religion...putting up a crap-load of his own money was one way I think he showed that.

So who cares if this film is, in your opinion, a piece of ****? There are people everywhere who disagree and had an amazing and powerful experience while or after watching it.

I don't take the film at face value..thinking "oh yes...that's exactly how it must've happened..." But then I don't take the Bible literally either...so whatever....

I find this whole debate interesting...and really had nothing new to add...just thought I'd toss in my $0.02

Wow...could we BE any farther off topic lol

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
That's the saddest thing of all, Deanna. These parents have a wonderful opportunity to instill in their daughter an openness, understanding, and acceptance for other walks of life.

Instead, they'd rather perpetuate their own narrow-mindedness and misguided "values."

They're also blowing their chance to teach their daughter that it's Ok to be yourself, whether other people "agree" with it or not.

Ok... I'm coming into this discussion very late but I feel the need to make a comment. I'm making this as a mother myself and how I would feel if my young children came home with this book.

Recently my 7 year old daughter started asking me questions about how babies are made. All perfectly normal I know and I knew the time had come to sit down with her and explain the facts of life in a way she would understand and giving as much information as I felt she needed to know at this time. She came home from school saying her friend had told her that Mum and Dad have a special cuddle. She figured there was more to it than that and questioned further. My plan was to sit down with her at the weekend and talk to her about it. This was taken out of my hands when a day later she came home with a book from the school library explaining exactly how babies are made. I have to say I was a little annoyed as I felt it was up to me as a parent to talk to her about this and I might have done it slightly differently to how it was explained in this book. After reading the book with her she was most disgusted by the whole thing and hasn't mentioned it since!! I have always tried to be very honest with her and when she asks questions I will try to explain things to her openly. But I felt this had been totally taken out of my hands and that pissed me off. Personally I have nothing against gay people - each to their own as far as I'm concerned. But I would not be happy about her coming home with a book like the one mentioned in this thread. I'm not saying this as a christian or anything like that.. I'm saying this as a mother. There will come a time when she will be told about gay relationships.. I certainly won't hide it from her as it is a way of life for a lot of people. I just don't feel that it is something she needs to know about YET. I feel strongly that children need to be children and there are certain things that do not need to be on their minds at such a young age. Life is hard enough as you get older and some things can certainly wait. If tomorrow she came to me and said she saw two men kissing in the street and questioned why then I would explain it to her. But at age 7 (and I believe the child in question was younger??) I don't think I need to explain it to her just yet and wouldn't want it forced upon me by her bringing a book home from school.

I hope I don't piss anyone off with my comments.. this is just how I feel as a mother. Children should be children.

Pip

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew

Instead, they'd rather perpetuate their own narrow-mindedness and misguided "values."

I hope you don't class me like that Johnny, after reading my above comment. I am certainly not narrow minded but I just feel that children seem to have to grow up far too quickly nowadays, and life is complicated enough. When asked the question I will explain the best I can. Until then I'm not going to confuse the issue.

Pip