Rocky

Of course no one thought it would be a walk in the park. But really, film critics together with used car salesmen? Perhaps some film critics pander to the movie makers with empty flattery, but thoughtful, intelligent criticism is nowhere near that category. And the guy doing the item for the Arizona Republic obviously has been to church, Sunday School, and knows the story. He also has some of the educational background to be able to relate the movie to what I am interested in knowing about it. As to why you want to see the movie, I think that's wonderful. And nothing I have to say should be taken as attempting to discourage you from that experience. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

btw, my next career might start with law school. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

LOL Fog, that's really funny! And btw, I think your question is a valid question. And as I am not as dogmatically against the same sex marriage concept, I don't have an answer for you. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Mark, You just summed up the rational (rationalization) for trying to get an amendment passed to prohibit same sex marriage. Now, as much as the concept is currently distasteful for me to even consider (the concept of same-sex marriage), I don't believe that concept is as inherently dangerous or even evil as the religious right (wrong) would have us believe. And I do believe that there are some very eloquent and persuasive people and arguments being posed to support expanding our society's recognition of this situation as reasonable rights. It's as divisive as the notion of abolition of slavery and granting women the right to vote. But it's going to happen and even amending the Constitution isn't going to solve anything. It's just a natural progression, as many other things, of educating everybody. And by education, I mean, that everyone is given (generally speaking) the opportunity to get a basic public education and many more are going to college now than in generations past. Pluralism of thought, coupled with egalitarian education, makes it inevitable. Rather than summoning the religious fervor to further divide the country, people will do well to prepare themselves for acceptance. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/movies/articl...-review24.html# The Passion of the Christ Bill Muller The Arizona Republic Feb. 24, 2004 12:00 AM Maybe it's better if we just learn about Jesus in Sunday school. Left in the hands of Mel Gibson and his The Passion of the Christ, the basic message of Christianity - love your brother - is obscured under torrents of blood to the point of benumbing the audience. From the time Jesus (Jim Caviezel) is captured to the time he is crucified, this film is one long, savage beat-down. Given the movie's relentlessly graphic violence, it's a tribute to director Gibson's clout that he avoided an NC-17 rating (The Passion is rated R for graphic violence). The basic lesson is that Hollywood is here to entertain, not educate. If you want to learn about Christ, your local pastor or priest probably is a better bet. As a teaching tool for children, The Passion - in Latin and Aramaic with subtitles - is virtually useless. It's not only that kids shouldn't see this movie. Many adults shouldn't see it, unless they feel like spending a lot of time with their hands over their eyes. While it's not unreasonable to include a certain amount of blood and violence in the Passion story, Gibson goes overboard, including a gruesome and prolonged flogging scene, as well as a repetitive sequence in which Christ is battered to the ground while dragging the cross, then slowly climbs to his feet. If you can see past the violence, there are some inspired moments, including an eerie opening involving Jesus being tempted by Satan, and a scene in which Jesus's mother recalls him tripping as a child, juxtaposed with his struggles to reach Calvary. The suffering of Judas - who betrays Jesus for 30 pieces of silver - is well-handled, as are the disciple Peter's denials of Christ while Jesus is being hauled away to the Romans. While Jesus' mother, Mary, is not given many lines, Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern makes good use of her eyes and facial expressions to convey emotion. As a conversion tool, The Passion of the Christ is lacking. Many of the faithful who fill theaters this week will walk away glowing, considering this represents one of the most prominent dramatizations of Christianity's most important event. For non-believers or fence sitters, The Passion could seem cryptic and unnecessarily visceral. Those who haven't been to Bible study recently will probably miss some of the more subtle points, though all the basic milestones are there. As for worries of anti-Semitism, those who go into the film looking for bias will probably find it, but there's nothing obvious. While the Jewish high priests come off as fairly bloodthirsty, the Romans don't fare well, either. Governor Pontius Pilate's conscience-stricken waffling seems a bit far-fetched, given his bloodstained historical legacy. While Gibson clearly has credibility problems, mostly tied to his adherence to ultra-conservative Catholic views and his Holocaust-denying dad, it's his preoccupation with violence that does him in here. Think about Gibson's movies for second. Just the body count from the Lethal Weapon films would fill a small cemetery, not to mention all the heads that went a flyin' in Braveheart. Hard to catch the hidden meanings when you're wading through blood and guts. Luckily for Gibson, with The Passion already sold out to church congregations nationwide, he's preaching to the choir. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Wacky, I "feel" for ya! (not completely flippant answer) I do appreciate your feedback. I also wonder whether there is some unwritten expectation that all Christians would want to see this movie? AND... I also do experience emotions and whether I was numb during or at anytime after my stint in the twi army, I don't know. but I am not numb now. Part of my problem is that I can experience too much empathy. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

What time is it when you need to see a dentist? 2:30 (Tooth-hurty) nyuk snicker har har har Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

JF, I'm not trying to discredit anything. This is a discussion about the movie, and it was started out with a note about the violence. I commented on it. I'm just stating my opinion. I don't think the intent of the NYT film critic was to discredit the movie either. I also think you read too much into my comments and the NYT review (like that I'm not a Christian and that I was getting my "panties in a wad...Idon't wear panties, thank you :)--> ). -------------------- Now, moving on, I would be most interested in thoughtful reflections from people who see the movie. I'd like to read about initial reactions, the emotions it evokes, how you felt overall at the end of the movie, what changes in perspective do you believe you have now and think you might have into the future... things like that. Thanks. Telling the truth carries risk.

No JF, it doesn't make them an authority on any biblical matter. Film critics, especially for "The Newspaper of Record", are educated people who can give legitimate reflections and observations on the impact on individuals and audience groups. And in some cases, give reasonable comparisons between this film and others that have been made depicting various aspects of Jesus's life on earth. I've also paid attention to what religious persons have had to say about it, but in most of those cases, the insight leaves out the kinds of observations someone who has studied other aspects of society and culture can give. Telling the truth carries risk.

I understand JF, about looking to a film critic for the "truth" about God, which would be silly. However, I look to a New York Times film critic for reasonable reflection on what to expect from sitting through such a long, intense depiction of violence. I can see the excitement Christians would have thinking they would, perhaps, deepen their faith by having a more acute sense of what Jesus went through. However, I'm not sure that being exposed to that much violence on the screen can return the expected spiritual enhancement. I don't watch horror movies. The only violence I can tolerate in movies is implied violence, not explicit. I just think I would be traumatized, emotionally, rather than energized. I don't see the value in that. Telling the truth carries risk.

This review tells me all I want to know about this movie... and shows why I just don't feel compelled to see it. '''''''''' New York Times February 25, 2004 MOVIE REVIEW | 'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST' Good and Evil Locked in Violent Showdown By A. O. SCOTT here is a prophetic episode of "The Simpsons" in which the celebrity guest star Mel Gibson, directing and starring in a remake of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," enlists the help of Homer Simpson, who represents the public taste (or lack of it). Homer persuades Mr. Gibson to change the picture's ending, replacing James Stewart's populist tirade with an action sequence, a barrage of righteous gunfire that leaves the halls of Congress strewn with corpses. The audience flees the theater in disgust. I thought of Homer more than once, with an involuntary irreverence conditioned by many years of devotion to "The Simpsons," as Mr. Gibson presented his new movie, "The Passion of the Christ," to carefully selected preview audiences across the land, making a few last-minute cuts, and then taking to the airwaves to promote and defend the film. It opens on Wednesday nationwide. Given the Crucifixion story, Mr. Gibson did not need to change the ending. "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. Mr. Gibson has constructed an unnerving and painful spectacle that is also, in the end, a depressing one. It is disheartening to see a film made with evident and abundant religious conviction that is at the same time so utterly lacking in grace. Mr. Gibson has departed radically from the tone and spirit of earlier American movies about Jesus, which have tended to be palatable (if often extremely long) Sunday school homilies designed to soothe the audience rather than to terrify or inflame it. His version of the Gospels is harrowingly violent; the final hour of "The Passion of the Christ" essentially consists of a man being beaten, tortured and killed in graphic and lingering detail. Once he is taken into custody, Jesus (Jim Caviezel) is cuffed and kicked and then, much more systematically, flogged, first with stiff canes and then with leather whips tipped with sharp stones and glass shards. By the time the crown of thorns is pounded onto his head and the cross loaded onto his shoulders, he is all but unrecognizable, a mass of flayed and bloody flesh, barely able to stand, moaning and howling in pain. The audience's desired response to this spectacle is not revulsion, but something like the cowering, quivering awe manifested by Mary (Maia Morgenstern), Mary Magdalen (Monica Bellucci) and a few sensitive Romans and Jerusalemites as they force themselves to watch. Disgust and awe are not, when you think about it, so far apart, and in Mr. Gibson's vision one is a route to the other. By rubbing our faces in the grisly reality of Jesus' death and fixing our eyes on every welt and gash on his body, this film means to make literal an event that the Gospels often treat with circumspection and that tends to be thought about somewhat abstractly. Look, the movie seems to insist, when we say he died for our sins, this is what we mean. A viewer, particularly one who accepts the theological import of the story, is thus caught in a sadomasochistic paradox, as are the disciples for whom Jesus, in a flashback that occurs toward the end, promises to lay down his life. The ordinary human response is to wish for the carnage to stop, an impulse that seems lacking in the dissolute Roman soldiers and the self-righteous Pharisees. (More about them shortly.) But without their fathomless cruelty, the story would not reach its necessary end. To halt the execution would thwart divine providence and refuse the gift of redemption. Anyway, this is a film review, not Sunday school. The paradox of wishing something horrible to stop even as you want it to continue has as much to do with moviegoing as with theology. And Mr. Gibson, either guilelessly or ingeniously, has exploited the popular appetite for terror and gore for what he and his allies see as a higher end. The means, however, are no different from those used by virtuosos of shock cinema like Quentin Tarantino and Gaspar No?who subjected Ms. Bellucci to such grievous indignity in "Irr?rsible." Mr. Gibson is temperamentally a more stolid, less formally adventurous filmmaker, but he is no less a connoisseur of violence, and it will be amusing to see some of the same scolds who condemned Mr. Tarantino's "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" sing the praises of "The Passion of the Christ." Mr. Gibson, from the moment he began speaking publicly about this project, emphasized his desire to make his "Passion" as realistic as possible. To that end the dialogue is in Aramaic and a dialect of Latin, which takes some getting used to but which dispenses with the stilted, awkward diction that afflicts so many biblical epics. The absence of identifiable movie stars (with the exception of Ms. Bellucci, who comports herself with fitting modesty) also adds an element of verisimilitude. But the style and tone of "The Passion" are far from what is ordinarily meant by realism. The first part, which takes place in the murk and gloom of night (shot by the superb cinematographer Caleb Deschanel), has the feel of a horror movie. As Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane, the camera tiptoes around him like a stalker, and John Debney's score is a high-toned creep show of menacing orchestral undertones and spine-jabbing choral effects. A slithery, effeminate Satan (played, the end credits reveal, by a woman named Rosalinda Celentano) slinks around like something in a Wes Craven nightmare, and Judas, reeling from his betrayal, is menaced by demon children with pointy teeth and milky eyes. When daylight dawns, the mood shifts from horror-movie suspense to slasher-film dread. Throughout, Mr. Gibson lays on Mr. Debney's canned sublimity with the heaviest possible hand, and he indulges in equally unsubtle visual and aural effects. Judas's 30 pieces of silver fly through the air in slow motion, and the first nail enters Jesus' palm with a thwack that must have taken hours of digital tweaking to articulate. The thuddingly emphatic storytelling (along with the ancient languages) makes the acting almost beside the point, though it is hard not to be impressed by Mr. Caviezel's endurance. The only psychological complexity in this tableau of goodness and villainy belongs to Pontius Pilate and his wife, Claudia, played by two very capable actors, Hristo Naumov Shopov and Claudia Gerini, who I hope will become more familiar to American audiences. Is "The Passion of the Christ" anti-Semitic? I thought you'd never ask. To my eyes it did not seem to traffic explicitly or egregiously in the toxic iconography of historical Jew hatred, but more sensitive viewers may disagree. The Pharisees, in their tallit and beards, are certainly shown as a sinister and inhumane group, and the mob they command is full of howling, ugly rage. But this on-screen villainy does not seem to exceed what can be found in the source material. Mr. Gibson a few weeks ago reportedly expunged an especially provocative line of dialogue that referred to the Jews: "His blood be on us, and on our children." That line comes from the Book of Matthew, and it would take a revisionist to remove every trace of controversy and intolerance from a story that rests squarely on the theological boundary separating Christianity from Judaism. That Mr. Gibson did not attempt to transcend these divisions may be regrettable, but to condemn "The Passion of the Christ" for its supposed bigotry is to miss its point and to misstate its problems. The troubling implications of the film do not arise primarily from its religious agenda: an extreme, traditionalist Roman Catholicism that has not prevented "The Passion" from resonating, oddly enough, with many evangelical Protestants. What makes the movie so grim and ugly is Mr. Gibson's inability to think beyond the conventional logic of movie narrative. In most movies — certainly in most movies directed by or starring Mr. Gibson — violence against the innocent demands righteous vengeance in the third act, an expectation that Mr. Gibson in this case whips up and leaves unsatisfied. On its own, apart from whatever beliefs a viewer might bring to it, "The Passion of the Christ" never provides a clear sense of what all of this bloodshed was for, an inconclusiveness that is Mr. Gibson's most serious artistic failure. The Gospels, at least in some interpretations, suggest that the story ends in forgiveness. But such an ending seems beyond Mr. Gibson's imaginative capacities. Perhaps he suspects that his public prefers terror, fury and gore. Maybe Homer Simpson was right after all. "The Passion of the Christ" is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). It has many scenes of graphic violence. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST Directed by Mel Gibson; written (in Aramaic and Latin, with English subtitles) by Benedict Fitzgerald and Mr. Gibson; director of photography, Caleb Deschanel; edited by John Wright; music by John Debney; production designer, Francesco Frigeri; produced by Mr. Gibson, Bruce Davey and Stephen McEveety; released by Icon Productions and Newmarket Films. Running time: 120 minutes. This film is rated R. WITH: Jim Caviezel (Jesus), Monica Bellucci (Magdalen), Hristo Naumov Shopov (Pontius Pilate), Maia Morgenstern (Mary), Francesco De Vito (Peter), Luca Lionello (Judas), Mattia Sbragia (Caiphas), Rosalinda Celentano (Satan), Claudia Gerini (Claudia Procles). Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Telling the truth carries risk.

Happy Happy Dot Dot Dot!!! Telling the truth carries risk.

yeah, new fad... apparently the wwjd bracelets have gone out of style. Telling the truth carries risk.

Anyone else like me an not care to see it? Telling the truth carries risk.

Weeeelll, shouldn't you also provide the interpretation when you speak in tongues in the church? :)--> Telling the truth carries risk.

Ah ha! I think Mel Gibson just revealed to me the interpretation of this incoherent dream! "At least to me, maybe not to the techies!" Ok, TomStrangester, you're back in order. Thanks. [This message was edited by Rocky on February 25, 2004 at 9:43.]

btw, niKa, there was 9 inches of snow at Mt. Lemmon overnight... that's a very good thing. Thought you might like to know that. Let it snow (where the fire vulnerable trees are).

shoe-er

Well, it's difficult, but we've been trudging on with out ya niKa... as TomS says, we like it when yur here, and I say we don't like it as much when yur not... same for ourseestorEXCIE

Today, on my way back home from downtown Phoenix, I drove past Tempe Diablo Stadium (can be seen from the I-10 freeway) and saw Anaheim Angels uniforms on fellows in the parking lot... IT'S TIME for SPRING TRAINING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Schwarzenegger orders attorney general to halt gay marriages BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer Friday, February 20, 2004 ©2004 Associated Press URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/20/state2325EST0245.DTL (02-20) 21:52 PST BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered California's attorney general Friday to take legal action to stop San Francisco from granting marriage licenses to gay couples. In a letter to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Schwarzenegger directed the state's top lawyer "to take immediate steps" to get a definitive court ruling declaring what the city is doing to be illegal. "Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law. The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee," Schwarzenegger wrote. "As Attorney General, you have the authority to take legal action to require the City and County of San Francisco to comply with the laws of the State." Schwarzenegger's directive to the attorney general was prompted in part by a Superior Court judge's decision Friday not to impose a temporary restraining order on the city that would have halted the weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings. At the state Republican Party convention Friday evening, Schwarzenegger personally announced the directive to a cheering crowd of activists. "We rely on our courts to enforce the rule of law. But you see, in San Francisco, the courts are dropping the ball," Schwarzenegger said. "It's time for the city to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law. That's my message to San Francisco." The crowd gave a lengthy standing ovation. "You have, at this point, nearly two weeks of flouting of state law. The governor feels that we've come to a point where we're starting down a dangerous path and it leads to anarchy at some point," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Rob Stutzman on the governor's decision to issue the directive. "It's time for this to end." Lockyer, an elected Democrat who is a potential candidate in the 2006 governor's race, already has said that he plans to vigorously defend the state in the lawsuit San Francisco's city attorney brought Thursday that challenged California's marriage laws on constitutional grounds. "By virtue of the city and county of San Francisco having sued the state of California, we need to respond to that lawsuit in the next 30 days," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Lockyer said Friday. "It will be squarely before the courts." San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples last week, has defended his actions by saying California's Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The mayor's spokesman, Peter Ragone, scoffed at Schwarzenegger's directive to the attorney general, noting that two judges have already declined to grant emergency orders sought by two conservative opponents of marriage rights for gays and lesbians. "The truth is, thousands of people are involved in loving relationships and having them recognized for the first time," Ragone said. "We urge the governor to meet with some of the couples because what's happening is both lawful and loving." ©2004 Associated Press

Congress CAN amend the Constitution, or states can amend the constitution. I don't remember the percentages/votes, but it ain't easy.

The PRESIDENT never will be able to amend the Constitution, nor, frankly, make laws. And to your point, Krys, it's not Robert's Rules, which are used when conducting official business/decision making meetings of official bodies, which can be political in nature (state legislatures, city councils, committees, or other kinds of organizations (corporate boards of directors meetings, for example). However, one of the functions of courts in America is to determine what really matters/applies when laws conflict. And laws often conflict. State laws cannot violate, technically speaking, the highest law of the land, which is the US Constitution. However, state laws OFTEN violate the Constitution. A government agency charged with fulfilling a governmental function has certain authority delegated to it. In the federal government, the chief executive is the President. In state governments, the chief executive is the Governor. I heard tonight, for example, that the Governator (Ahnold), ordered the California Atty General to force the San Francisco city clerk to stop issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. I haven't verified this on any online news source yet, but in Arizona, the Atty General is elected, not appointed (the federal atty gen is appointed and reports to the Pres), so in AZ, the governor would not have such authority to order the Atty Gen. But the main legal issue in San Francisco is that unless there is a clear and specific applicable law to forbid the action, if the executive (mayor) interprets the law such that it is ok to proceed, as has been done there this week, then it proceeds until a court orders it stopped. then, depending on how important the issue is to either or both sides, it will continue to higher courts on appeal, until the highest court in the land, the US Supremes.

well, some states have laws against it... AZ being one of them. but, as someone referenced earlier, NM was NOT one of those states.

That's debatable LG, and I would be that you know it. btw, back on the subject of same sex marriage, I saw this news item a few minutes ago: N.M. county begins issuing marriage licenses to gay couples Associated Press Feb. 20, 2004 03:45 PM BERNALILLO, N.M. - A county clerk issued marriage licenses Friday to at least 15 gay couples, some of whom then exchanged vows outside the courthouse, and dozens more same-sex couples lined up for a chance to tie the knot. A sign-up list at Sandoval County courthouse grew to 38 couples after county clerk Victoria Dunlap announced she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Dunlap said she made the decision after county attorney David Mathews said New Mexico law is unclear: New Mexico law defines marriage as a contract between contracting parties but does not mention gender. "This has nothing to do with politics or morals," she said. "If there are no legal grounds that say this should be prohibited, I can't withhold it. This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible." Outside the courthouse, two preachers conducted marriage ceremonies. "When we heard the news this morning, we knew we couldn't wait. We had to come down here," said Jenifer Albright of Albuquerque, who exchanged vows with partner Anne Shultz. The move came just over a week after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to thousands of gay couples in a direct challenge to California law. A spokeswoman said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson was opposed to same-sex marriage. "The governor has always been a champion for human rights. He supports equal rights and opposes all forms of discrimination. However, he is opposed to same sex marriage," said Marsha Catron. Two New Mexico state senators - one Democrat and one Republican - asked Friday for an opinion from New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid. A spokeswoman for Madrid said an opinion could be issued next week. Republican state Sen. Steve Komadina criticized the county clerk and called for a prompt opinion from the attorney general. "I feel badly that action was taken before an answer was obtained," Komadina said. "That was very irresponsible and will cause heartache to people on all sides of the question." Bernalillo is a few miles north of Albuquerque, New Mexico's largest city.