Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
 
The time now is Thu Nov 14, 2024 9:33 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)
View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates
When you are not ARG'ing or playing Halo 2...
View previous topicView next topic
Page 3 of 8 [106 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Author Message
urthstripe
Entrenched


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 1113
Location: Atlanta, GA

From IMDB.com

"I have the perfect idea for a film. Underneath my bed mattress, there is a stain that if you squint just right, it kinda looks like an arrow pointing to the bathroom the other side of the hall. In the bathroom there is a can of Gillette shaving cream that if you read the label, it is noted that their office is located in Boston. Go to Boston and you will quickly be reminded by everyone you bump into that the Red Sox won the World Series for the first time in almost a hundred years. They beat the St. Louis Cardinals, so our adventure would take us to the famous Gateway Arch in Missouri. Now if you consider that the Red Sox beat the Cardinals winning four straight games, it would suggest that if you stand at the Arch when the clock strikes four, then the shadow it casts will lead you to a buried treasure. Except, don't expect to find the treasure right away. While digging through underground power lines and water pipes, you will then find a chamber that hasn't been opened for hundreds of years. When you enter the chamber, you will use the Gillette shaving can and a World Series ticket to make a key that opens to another room that has a ladder that leads back to my bedroom. The final chapter will contain all the excitement as I find a five dollar bill under my bed that I obviously have no idea how it ever got there or how long it has lay in its darkened quarters."


Laughing
_________________
In this life, there are nothing but possibilities.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:04 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

hmm... did someone just see National Treasure?

Laughing

edit: blah, krystyn's post right before the last one already mentioned National Treasure... man I'm slow... Razz
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com


PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:12 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Scarr
Decorated


Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 154
Location: Las Vegas

DreamOfTheRood wrote:
Well, I don't know about y'all, but right now, I'd rather be making out




OKay this was glassed over but before we started agrguing about Jesus, Micheal Moore, and stains on your mattress...



But who wouldn't want to be making out now? Embarassed

edit: i can't make the Cursing quote thing to work Sad


(I fixed it - you had bbcode disabled, yo. - krystyn)

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:24 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Mazian
Unfettered

Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 529
Location: San Francisco, CA

krystyn wrote:
The writing for Da Vinci Code may have been crap, but when you're on a cruise, and there's a loud contest happening on the Lido deck where drunk bikini-clad girls have to try and make animals out of beach towels ... it's good reading.

.
.
.



I know I'm in trouble for saying this, but someone has to:

"I think that's a matter of perspective." Razz
_________________
Corporal Conrad Mazian (E4), Marine Second Squad, Apocalypso
Are you original? I recommend Search to find out.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:10 pm
 View user's profile Yahoo Messenger
 Back to top 
krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice


Joined: 26 Sep 2002
Posts: 3651
Location: Is not Chicago

I sets 'em up, so's someone else can take 'em down.

Very Happy

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:18 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
water10
Unfettered


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 712
Location: EvadeEvadeEvade

Mazian wrote:
krystyn wrote:
The writing for Da Vinci Code may have been crap, but when you're on a cruise, and there's a loud contest happening on the Lido deck where drunk bikini-clad girls have to try and make animals out of beach towels ... it's good reading.

.
.
.



I know I'm in trouble for saying this, but someone has to:

"I think that's a matter of perspective." Razz

I can't believe it took so long for somebody to post this! I'm sure more guys thought about it, but decided not to post anything ... Wink
_________________
You’d better not mess with Major Tom!

Gamertag: Waters100


PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:12 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

thebruce wrote:
Phaedra wrote:
I'm mostly over it. But I still will not watch The Passion. For one thing, I don't like snuff films.

ooooooooo... 'snuff film' is about as accurate as saying The Passion was filled with anti-semitism Wink


Yeah, "snuff film" was hyperbole...sort of. One of the most frequent criticisms I heard from people who had seen the movie was that the level of the violence, and the loving attention paid to each lash, seemed almost pornographic. But those were people who didn't like it.

But "about as accurate as saying The Passion was filled with anti-semitism"...

Followed by a wink...

Oooh. Bait.

Okay. <chomp chomp>

You say that as if the idea isn't even plausible.

Warning: current-events-related polemic ahead that touches on political and religious issues. Probably not for the faint of heart.

Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Granted, I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on the contents of the movie itself (although any movie that claims to be an accurate portrayal of 1st century history while taking its cues from a 19th-century antisemitic nun is not exactly starting from a position of ethical purity) but I will say that Mel Gibson's marketing strategy made me physically ill.

A few days later, a friend describes driving past a local church, and observing, upon their marquis, blazoned in letters bold for all to see: The Jews killed Jesus.

Coincidence? Nah. Right under it was the date and time of their church outing to see ... can you guess? ... that's right: The Passion.

Bill O'Reilly was a passionate defender of the movie. Recently, on the air, he told a Jewish caller that if they didn't like the way things were going, they could move to Israel. I.e., shut up or get out -- your role (and presumably the role of minorities in general) in public discourse should be silent -- we're a Christian country, and you reside here at our sufferance.

Similar sentiments were expressed by columnists in the Boston Herald, MSNBC, the Seattle Times, Fox News, and the Washington Times, most of whom have regular contributors who mocked the fears of the Jewish community that The Passion might encourage a climate more tolerant of antisemitism. Shortly thereafter, said contributors felt comfortable voicing antisemitic (or at least borderline antisemitic) comments that would not have been acceptable five years ago.

Coincidence? Well, correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causality, but on the other hand, I remember a Spanish proverb: Dime con quien tu andas, y te dire quien tu eres. (Loosely: Tell me with whom you associate, and I'll tell you who you are.) Mel Gibson's father is a public, on-the-record Holocaust denier and yet Mel has stated, in interviews regarding The Passion that "[his] father has never lied to [him]."

Gee. I feel better.

So, the son of a Holocaust denier claims his father never lied to him. Then, he goes and makes a movie which revives a dramatic form the performances of which, for centuries, were usually followed by pogroms. An art form synonymous in Jewish history with antisemitic violence. Then, he adds to his movie elements taken from the visions of a 19th-century antisemitic nun, and claims the whole thing is completely historically accurate.

When the Jewish community and a sizeable contingent of Christian clergy express concerns...claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit, he...let's see...

(a) demonstrates compassion by gently reassuring them that his movie is not intended to provoke antisemitism and provides a public statement asserting to his viewers that Jews bear no more responsibility for Jesus' death than anyone else and his movie should not be taken to espouse any such view
(b) demonstrates humility by explaining that this is just one man's interpretation of an art form, but that it is not intended to provoke prejudice or hatred
(c) demonstrates love and attempts to bring about greater interreligious peace by promoting interfaith discussion groups about how we can heal the historical damage done to the Christian-Jewish relationship by the idea that Jews are Christ-killers, bearing special responsibility for Jesus' death
(d) mocks the (legitmate, from what I've heard from -yes- Christian friends) concerns that the movie is antisemitic and may fan the currently growing flames of antisemitism in Europe and the constant ones in the Middle East, then revives yet another antisemitic canard (this time the old "Jewish Conspiracy" warhorse) by suggesting that there are forces out to get him and stop this movie from being made, and that if there's antisemitism there, well, it's G-d speaking, because his version was totally accurate -- the Holy Spirit was speaking through him!

Yep. It was D.

I don't get it: why would evangelical Christians or Catholics (or anyone, for that matter) want this guy as a poster child? His behavior during his interview with Diane Sawyer appeared a bit..unhinged.

Different symbols mean different things to different people. A while ago a religious studies department did a survey of people's reactions to various religious symbols. The emotions most Christians reported upon being shown a cross were love, awe, and reverence. The emotions most frequently reported by Jews were fear and unease.

Passion plays for many Christians, I assume, evoke associations and historical memories of Good Friday, of a dramatic, immediate and highly personal experience of Jesus' suffering and death.

Passion plays for many Jews, if they evoke anything at all, evoke historical memories of pogroms. I'm not looking for a pity party, here. Please don't apologize as everyone started doing in the theology thread -- I'm not trying to invoke the Sanctity of Victimhood. I'm just stating that your symbols are not everyone's symbols, your history is not everyone's history, and your reactions are not the only legitimate ones.

So I guess what it comes down to is this: I don't care if you liked the movie. It was a moving, religious experience for you? Good. I'm glad. But please don't discount the possibility that this movie (legitimately) represents something very different for others.

If that movie brought you closer to G-d, good for Mel, even if I do hope he slips up one of these days and says something actionable and slanderous and gets sued for everything he's worth (yay America!!!).

But if the movie made you more likely to mock, belittle, or even automatically dismiss the concerns, anxiety and even pain of others, I have to wonder whether there could have been anything holy about it at all.


Okay, everyone. It's safe. You can come out now. Smile
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind


PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:25 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
urthstripe
Entrenched


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 1113
Location: Atlanta, GA

The movie was very realistic, very well done, and very powerful emotionally.

I was never under the impression, nor was the impression imposed upon me by this film, that "the Jews killed Jesus".

It is the individual churches, and certainly not the faith of Christianity as a whole, that believe "the Jews killed Jesus".

Also, I've never heard or seen anything that showed that Mel Gibson condoned the use of any anti-Semitism as an advertisement. Honestly, I don't really care who the director is as a person and what he did. People don't go around investigating into whether Steven Spielberg is "unhinged".

The only reason this movie got so much coverage was because it was about Jesus. Religion, unfortunately, and even Christianity has become a taboo subject in this country. Many non-Christians see Christianity as a dangerous force, others see it as harmless. All they care is that Christianity leaves them alone. A movie like this brought what they wanted to stay away from into the mainstream. Their reaction is to, ironically enough, make a buzz about it, causing even more interest.

But, the film's subject aside, the film itself was very good. Any snuff film accusations were unfounded. Due to all the word that it was a "snuff film", I actually expected MORE blood then there was.

And accusations on the film's pornographic betrayal of every blow is also unfounded. It's purpose, in which it suceeded, was to allow the viewer to "feel" the pain that Jesus went through. Obviously, any critics who don't really give a darn about Jesus or this movie would think that it was unneccesarily focusing on the suffering.

This movie is definitely not really to be enjoyed. If you don't feel strongly about it's subject, Jesus, YOU WILL NOT LIKE IT. After watching this movie, you just feel so worn out. If you are Christian, you like this feeling, because it shows you the things that Jesus had to go for us.
If you are not, you don't like the feeling because you are now all worn out and disgusted by a movie whose subject you don't really care about. It's quite simple. Any other movie, if you don't care what it's about, YOU WON'T LIKE IT.

Ok, it's 2 in the morning. I'm spent.
_________________
In this life, there are nothing but possibilities.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:06 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
hmrpita
Unfettered


Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 629
Location: East of the Ocean, West of the Bay, Close to many faults

urthstripe wrote:
This movie is definitely not really to be enjoyed. If you don't feel strongly about it's subject, Jesus, YOU WILL NOT LIKE IT. After watching this movie, you just feel so worn out. If you are Christian, you like this feeling, because it shows you the things that Jesus had to go for us.
If you are not, you don't like the feeling because you are now all worn out and disgusted by a movie whose subject you don't really care about. It's quite simple. Any other movie, if you don't care what it's about, YOU WON'T LIKE IT.

I beg to differ. I don't care about surfing one whit, yet I liked "Riding Giants" a lot, and it is entirely about is surfing.




Also, I'm unspoiling a line of Phaedra's, because I liked it and it spoils nothing:
Phaedra wrote:
I'm just stating that your symbols are not everyone's symbols, your history is not everyone's history, and your reactions are not the only legitimate ones.

_________________
As is your sort of mind,
So is your sort of search;
You will find what you desire.
--Robert Browning


PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:26 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

hmm... I could do a point by point reply, but I won't Smile I've tortured enough people with enormously long posts on controversial topics, and I don't want to raise another red flag in this thread... so I'll just summarize.
And spoiler it, hopefully emphasizing and reiterating Phaedra's warning:
current-events-related polemic ahead that touches on political and religious issues. Probably not for the faint of heart.
Wink

Spoiler (Rollover to View):

urthstripe made a good post...
The Passion isn't enti-semetist, because the entire movie puts everyone in the position of being able to do something, weeping in sorrow, or screaming for blood. It's now "all jews wanted Jesus dead", it's - some jews hated Jesus, some jews loved Jesus, some Romans hated Jesus, some didn't care, many onlookers - both jew and gentile, both hurled rocks at him, OR wept and cried out for his freedom. Not one type of person was responsible for his death. On the contrary, Jesus was quoted himself as emphasizing that it was of his own free will that he gave up his life. If you don't believe that he was able to save himself, then they are words of a mad-man, and it is in the end someone's fault he's dead. But if you do believe he could have saved himself, then his death is his own choice, his own purpose, and the fact that there are people today who post banners blaming Jews for the death of Jesus is a testament to the unbelief they have that Jesus really was the Son of God.

So if you drive by a church that throws stones at who they believe to have killed Jesus, you wouldn't be unjustified in believing that they do no truly understand or know God or who Jesus really was.

Gibson's portrayal of Jesus was quite unveiled and uncensored. Not in an effort to appeal to the bloodlust in today's culture, but to give a real depiction of the kind of torture and pain that happened in those days, to not sugar-coat the suffering Jesus went through, and send up another golden-age style Bible epic... this movie wasn't about simply telling a feel-good story, it was about opening our eyes to reality. With Gibson's Catholic background, I noticed quite a lot of imagery that was Catholic inspired, and the movie was treated with respect and neutrality - in the sense that with a little bit of artistic license, they took the gospels, and depicted the last 24 hours of Jesus' life in a way that would effectively reach today's culture.

Gratuitous? no. Gratuitous would have been tearing off a limb, having blood spurt unrealistically from wounds, having visible sprays of blood in people's faces.
Gorey? yes. How often do we see a whip visibly strike and lascerate open flesh? Even in most of today's horror flicks that kind of reality is displayed either with an obvious sense of unrealism or with just-in-time camera cuts.
But what other movie will have you leave with that rot in your throat of how gruesome, painful, and ridiculous the punishment of those times was?

And, as far as fact goes, as a movie based on a true story, it's foundation is in documented history. The themes, cultures, environments, all based on documented history. Additional documented history, Biblical history, is also prevalent.

Quote:
The emotions most Christians reported upon being shown a cross were love, awe, and reverence. The emotions most frequently reported by Jews were fear and unease.


Again, it's a differing of beliefs. For Christians, seeing the cross wasn't a love of the pain Jesus went through, but a love for the fact Jesus went through that pain, and moreso for the fact that he's no longer dead. Plus, the indirect love (through the cross) for everyone else echoing the love Jesus had for everyone else. A true Christian has that love, because that's the Christian belief, based on the Bible.

But just as you said 'most Christians', you also said 'most Jews' - another evidence showing that it's got nothing to do with your culture, your upbringing, who you are in this world. Just as there are Christians who have their own agendas by interpreting Jesus' actions unbiblically, or even picking and choosing parts of the Bible to believe, there are Jews who aren't afraid or uneasy when seeing the cross, there are those born Jew who may or may not still follow the same belief, the same culture... just as there are hindus and mormons, and islam... everyone on their own has a choice as to what they wish to believe. The belief of one person cannot dictate what a belief is about. A Christian who hates Jews cannot be used to defend a hatred for Christians assuming Christianity hates Jews.

Gibson's movie does not hate Jews. It points the finger at everyone. But there's nothing anyone could have done to stop Jesus from dying on the cross. It's both everyone's fault, and no one's fault, because it was his own choice.

Phaedra, I respect you and I love you as a friend. Someone who has seen the Passion might say the complete opposite. So who's actions better define Christianity? Who's actions specify what The Passion was trying to say? *shrug* doesn't matter. Why? Becuase what one leaves from The Passion feeling is entirely based on what one enters The Passion expecting, or hoping, to see. The Passion does not hate, but if one only sees 'the Jews' killing Jesus, they have a blind eye to precisely what the movie was try to tell people.


Quote:
(a) demonstrates compassion by gently reassuring them that his movie is not intended to provoke antisemitism and provides a public statement asserting to his viewers that Jews bear no more responsibility for Jesus' death than anyone else and his movie should not be taken to espouse any such view

Again, if someone leaves hating Jews, it's not because of the movie, it's because of choosing what points to take away from the movie. This is not the movie's fault.

Quote:
(b) demonstrates humility by explaining that this is just one man's interpretation of an art form, but that it is not intended to provoke prejudice or hatred

Again, many artful masterpieces were painted depicting nude females. Are they to slandered because they are pornography if someone today ... well, you know...? What someone leaves from the movie with, if quite obviously opposite the intent of the movie, is not the movie's fault, but the fault of the biased moviegoer.

Quote:
(c) demonstrates love and attempts to bring about greater interreligious peace by promoting interfaith discussion groups about how we can heal the historical damage done to the Christian-Jewish relationship by the idea that Jews are Christ-killers, bearing special responsibility for Jesus' death

Don't get the problem with this... although it shouldn't stop with just Christian-Jewish background, everyone should be able to talk and try to heal historical damage that doesn't necessarily have any connection to today outside of the misguided fanatics of any belief system.

Quote:
(d) mocks the (legitmate, from what I've heard from -yes- Christian friends) concerns that the movie is antisemitic and may fan the currently growing flames of antisemitism in Europe and the constant ones in the Middle East, then revives yet another antisemitic canard (this time the old "Jewish Conspiracy" warhorse) by suggesting that there are forces out to get him and stop this movie from being made, and that if there's antisemitism there, well, it's G-d speaking, because his version was totally accurate -- the Holy Spirit was speaking through him!

Well, that's his own statement. Even as a Christian, I won't choose to believe him or disbelieve him. I have no evidence to support either claim. All I have is a very good movie, not to be taken as canon, depicting the death (and all be it, 30 second resurrection) of Jesus. What may or may not have happened on the set is not something I can say or believe either way. I would have loved to have been there to witness what may or may not have happened (but wouldn't we all?). And yes, it's a legitimate fear that a movie like this would open doors for anti-semitism, bigotry, hatred... because it brings to light controversial issues today's culture is dealing with. Any controversial movie will do the same thing. But the movie's entire purpose is to point a way out of that hell-hole. It's not taking a side in the debate, it's telling people to realize they are debating, and not accepting. Even then, it's not 'the movie' that's doing that, because the entire movie is taken from the Bible. It's Biblical, not Gibson-ish, stating that anti-semitism is wrong.

Quote:
I'm just stating that your symbols are not everyone's symbols, your history is not everyone's history, and your reactions are not the only legitimate ones.

No reactions can be legitimate. They are entirely subjective. The only legitimacy is in the accuracy of a claim. The movie is based on the claim that the Bible is accurate history. If you don't believe the claim to be true, then you can leave the movie feeling whatever you wish. But hopefully with an in finding out how accurate the movie / the Bible really is. My reactions may not be legitimate, but they are mine. Based on my belief, my claim that the Bible is a true historical document, I can claim that the actions of those who call themselves Christians (ie believing the Bible is accurate and all that Jesus what trying to accomplish) yet choose to hate a group of people due to an unfounded supposition that contradicts the very belief they claim to hold, prove they can't be Christians by that definition.

Quote:
So I guess what it comes down to is this: I don't care if you liked the movie. It was a moving, religious experience for you? Good. I'm glad. But please don't discount the possibility that this movie (legitimately) represents something very different for others.

I don't discount that. But I can discount that the interpretation people leave the movie from, if contrary to the entire purpose of the movie, is legitimate. The movie says "It was Jesus' choice!", and someone leaves saying "the Jews did it!" - I simply can't understand it, and I cannot blame the movie for that person's hatred.

Quote:
But if the movie made you more likely to mock, belittle, or even automatically dismiss the concerns, anxiety and even pain of others, I have to wonder whether there could have been anything holy about it at all.

In that case, no one should do anything if anyone can possibly get the wrong point... no more parody, no more caricature, no more sarcasm, well in the end, no more court houses, no more law, no more truth even. Because anyone can come away from something having chosen what parts to hear, what parts to believe, choosing what to think, nothing in this world is safe from misdirection.

If the movie made you more likely to mock, belittle, or even automatically dismiss the concerns, anxiety and even pain of others, I have to wonder why the person actually went to see the movie. Or, I'd have to hope that someone out there will be able to help them understand the movie if they couldn't grasp it themselves.


bah, I did a mostly point by point again... *sigh* well I hope people don't leave this post thinking there's anything but love Smile

Yet, we are now quite, onve again, off topic ... Exclamation Embarassed

*thebruce fears this thread might end up locked like the theology thread even though it was left in good heart... Smile
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com


PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:58 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

*sigh*
Some day, I'm going to have to watch 'The Passion', just so I can talk about it knowledgeably. The standard retort to criticism of 'The Last Temptation of Christ' was always, "Have you seen it, yet?" I just don't want to pay anyone for the privilege. What about you, Phaedra? Are you going to break down and watch the whole thing?

I guess I could look online. At one point, 'The Passion' was the single-most pirated movie in the history of P2P. I'm pretty sure there's something ironic about that fact, but I don't want to start another argument.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:38 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
The Watcher
Unfettered


Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 493

krystyn wrote:
The writing for Da Vinci Code may have been crap, but when you're on a cruise, and there's a loud contest happening on the Lido deck where drunk bikini-clad girls have to try and make animals out of beach towels ... it's good reading.


That was eerily relevant. I just came back from a cruise, and there was a stupid contest on the Lido deck.

Yeah, I blew through 3 books on that cruise.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:11 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

Going to respond to one section of points now, maybe more later.

thebruce, I think you're missing the point, here:

thebruce wrote:

Quote:
(a) demonstrates compassion by gently reassuring them that his movie is not intended to provoke antisemitism and provides a public statement asserting to his viewers that Jews bear no more responsibility for Jesus' death than anyone else and his movie should not be taken to espouse any such view

Again, if someone leaves hating Jews, it's not because of the movie, it's because of choosing what points to take away from the movie. This is not the movie's fault.


But when you make a movie that reopens old wounds, when you revive a somewhat faded art form that has historically been associated with persecution, you have a responsibility to make sure that your version is severed from those historical ties. You have a responsibility, when you stick your movie out there for public consumption, to make statements that make it clear that that sort of prejudice is wrong, and unacceptable to you.

Gibson did exactly the opposite. And sure, as a marketing strategy, it was brilliant, even if it was ethically revolting: The Movie That The Jews Don't Want You To See.

Quote:
Quote:
(b) demonstrates humility by explaining that this is just one man's interpretation of an art form, but that it is not intended to provoke prejudice or hatred

Again, many artful masterpieces were painted depicting nude females. Are they to slandered because they are pornography if someone today ... well, you know...? What someone leaves from the movie with, if quite obviously opposite the intent of the movie, is not the movie's fault, but the fault of the biased moviegoer.


Portraying a nude female is *very* different from portraying a group of people, historically persecuted, tortured and killed for a crime they did not commit, as a bloodthirsty mob calling out for that same crime.

Argh! Which wasn't a *crime,* by the way, it was a Roman-sanctioned *execution*! By, you know, the Romans! It's understandable why a Roman Catholic would want to play down that aspect, but still...!

Quote:
Quote:
(c) demonstrates love and attempts to bring about greater interreligious peace by promoting interfaith discussion groups about how we can heal the historical damage done to the Christian-Jewish relationship by the idea that Jews are Christ-killers, bearing special responsibility for Jesus' death

Don't get the problem with this... although it shouldn't stop with just Christian-Jewish background, everyone should be able to talk and try to heal historical damage that doesn't necessarily have any connection to today outside of the misguided fanatics of any belief system.


"Don't get the problem" with what?

You understand that a-c were what he *didn't* do, right?

And "doesn't necessarily have any connection to today outside of the misguided fanatics of any belief system"?

I see it as very relevant to today, and it will remain relevant until there is no danger of any major outbreak of antisemitic sentiment happening again.

We're not there yet.

We're not there when I'm at my (non-Jewish) relatives' house, and their neighbor comes over to chat, and starts bashing his Jewish boss. Now, if your boss is a jerk, you have the right to bash him, regardless of his ethnicity or religion. But that's different from what he did -- for him, the boss was a jerk because he was Jewish.

We're not there when, during a game of Monopoly, a non-Jewish player, asking a non-Jewish player for mercy, says, "Oh come on -- take off your yarmulke and give me a break."

We're not there when an Israeli singer (who, incidentally, is a pro-Palestinian peace activist) gets attacked onstage by people claiming she's a Zionist, oppressive, something-or-other.

We're not there when, on MSNBC, a representative of the Catholic League says, and I quote: "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

We're not there when synagogues in California are defaced with Nazi symbols.

We're not there when antisemitism in Europe is on the rise.

We're not there when textbooks in Arab schools present absurd antisemitic fantasies as historical fact.

We're not there when Jews in various countries still live under the threat of violence.

Do you hear my frustration, here?

WE'RE NOT THERE.

Just like we're not there with any other sort of prejudice or racism.

And until we are There, until we have reached a place where antisemitic, or anti-black, or anti-Hmong, or anti-anyone else stereotypes and canards are considered *so* ridiculous that upon hearing them, we can stare at the speaker like they're an alien, until we burst out laughing, because we have passed the point where we need no longer fear that they can do harm to anyone...

...until we are There, people who produce art that can be used to fan the flames of prejudice have a responsibility to speak out against that prejudice.

They don't bear responsibility for the way other people use their art, but they *do* bear responsibility for how they react to that prejudice when confronted with it.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm just stating that your symbols are not everyone's symbols, your history is not everyone's history, and your reactions are not the only legitimate ones.

No reactions can be legitimate. They are entirely subjective.


I'm not talking about *factual* legitimacy, I'm talking about *emotional* legitimacy.

You're confusing "legitimacy" with "objectivity." They're not the same.

If you hit me, and I get angry, that's a legitimate emotional reaction (as in, it's not absurd or out-of-place). If I get frightened, that's also a legitimate reaction. If I develop a fear of cranberries, that's not.

Quote:
The movie is based on the claim that the Bible is accurate history.


EXACTLY!

Which is precisely why it had a responsibility to either make sure its portrayals were as accurate as possible (for example, sticking to the gospels, rather than incorporating the hallucinations of an antisemitic nun and presenting said hallucinations as actual historical events), or stop presenting itself as historical fact.

My comment about the inaccuracy of the Aramaic was made lightly, but it's symptomatic.

Gibson makes a fuss about the "accuracy" of the movie, then gets details verifiably wrong.

We're not talking about things that are a matter of faith, here. Whether the movie presents a factual portrayal of events is a matter of faith, since none (or very little) is historically verifiable.

But some things *are* a matter of verifiable fact -- like, say, the word for "messiah" in Aramaic. And he gets them wrong.

Quote:
Quote:
But if the movie made you more likely to mock, belittle, or even automatically dismiss the concerns, anxiety and even pain of others, I have to wonder whether there could have been anything holy about it at all.


In that case, no one should do anything if anyone can possibly get the wrong point... no more parody, no more caricature, no more sarcasm, well in the end, no more court houses, no more law, no more truth even. Because anyone can come away from something having chosen what parts to hear, what parts to believe, choosing what to think, nothing in this world is safe from misdirection.


The problem with slippery-slope arguments is that they don't generally happen that way in real life.

C'mon, thebruce.

Be serious. There's a difference between material that plays with stereotypes that have been used in the past to justify torturing and killing people, and your average parody, law or anything else.

People who are producing material that plays on inflammatory material like that have a responsibility to be careful with what they do.

Quote:
bah, I did a mostly point by point again... *sigh* well I hope people don't leave this post thinking there's anything but love Smile


I know that, thebruce. I know.

I'm not trying to tell you to burn your Passion DVD. If you liked the movie that's all well and good.

But I reiterate that the anxiety sparked by this movie was not the result of paranoia, or having it in for Mel Gibson, or hating the fact that a Christian movie was doing well, or anything else along those lines. So it's frustrating when Christians wave off Jewish concerns with a shrug -- "ah, you're just misinterpreting it!" Maybe people have misinterpreted the movie. But I don't think the same can be said about the reaction the movie caused and its effect on interfaith relations. And that's what I care about.

My whole point, here, was to try to say, look, your viewpoint is valid -- I'm not saying that the movie shouldn't have been a *positive* experience for some people. But please remember that your reaction is not the only valid one, and that there's history here that remains relevant to today, so please attempt to have some empathy for those for whom this movie represents an unwelcome intrusion of unpleasant history.

Because, ultimately, shouldn't love lead to greater empathy and understanding, even when it doesn't lead to agreement?
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind


PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:21 pm
Last edited by Phaedra on Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

gkrohne wrote:
*sigh*
Some day, I'm going to have to watch 'The Passion', just so I can talk about it knowledgeably. The standard retort to criticism of 'The Last Temptation of Christ' was always, "Have you seen it, yet?" I just don't want to pay anyone for the privilege. What about you, Phaedra? Are you going to break down and watch the whole thing?


Nope. I hated Braveheart (except the scene where they charge toward one another and then crack up and hug). I don't like torture scenes -- even Alias has made me have to leave the room at some points. I did consider seeing it, because I don't often get a chance to listen to spoken Aramaic (generally, one's Aramaic encounters are in written form) but after hearing about the violence, I decided to pass.

Frankly, I'm not that interested in the contents of the movie itself -- I'm interested in how it was perceived and received -- I'm interested in other people's reactions. I'm interested (in a negative sense, granted) in how it was promoted.

As far as the actual contents, I'm not interested enough to sit through the torture.
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind


PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:26 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
ThaJinx
Unfettered


Joined: 24 Oct 2004
Posts: 430

Phaedra wrote:
Because, ultimately, shouldn't love lead to greater empathy and understanding, even when it doesn't lead to agreement?
Beautifully said.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:34 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 3 of 8 [106 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group