Films/DVD Asylum

"There would appear to be legitimate controversy..."

206.243.39.17

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

clarkjohnsen

(R)

In Reply to: Monty Python still has my nod for the best version. posted by Audiophilander on July 23, 2003 at 23:51:10:

Whenever a smug liberal newscaster or reporter covers a topic of conservative concern, the descriptors "controversial" or "not mainstream" are sure to be included, along with a wrinkled nose.
And that's exactly what the quote in the subject line is doing.
The writer has not seen the film, he's only read reports in the liberal press -- but the "controversial" aspect has dissuaded him from attending it. But in typical liberal fashion, he adds to the downhill snowball by appending the phrases "religious zealotry", "crazed cultists" and "allegorical fables".
Well! Who'd ever want to see a movie like that!
The writer mentions Monty Python. Perhaps he should inform himself of the censored parts of Life of Brian. They're hilarious, but in the "liberal" venue of this writer, unshowable in theatres.
clark

Follow Ups:

LOL! Talk about smug: This writer, that writer, c'mon Clark! Apparently you're still having difficulty ... - Audiophilander 10:48:32 07/24/03 (9)
...raising your virtual eyes and "speaking" directly, man to man, as a normal person would in confronting an opposing viewpoint. To be fair, perhaps you're simply trying to elevate your comments in a dispassionate (pun intended) jounalistic style, but posting dismissive comments in the 3rd person as if speaking for a larger group denouncing one lone dissenting voice suggests a megalomaniacal self-absorption on your part that reeks of pettiness, IMO. Wrapping strained observations in that trademark dismissive vernacular (i.e., the condescendingly indirect "the writer" rhetoric) may be suitable for curt editorial commentaries, but it does little to promote dialogue from where I sit.
Well, Mr. Johnsen, I'll endeavor to ignore your condescension and respond politely, if only to correct your misimpressions and poorly drawn conclusions. Have I seen the film? Of course not! I'm basing my impressions on the rather troubling news report from Lloyd Grove in the Washington Post and the fact that the hand-picked audience to which Mel screened his film happened to be a who's who of the far right! This provides more than a clue to the film's agenda. Why were no representatives from the Jewish community invited even though attendance was requested by Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League? Why only those known to be devout Christians?
I used the word "contoversial" out of politeness, as I am not opposed to controversial films and would not be dissuaded from viewing ANY film for that reason alone. However, my added points about religeous zealotry, crazed cultists, and allegorical fables were intentionally included to weigh heavily here because I sense other manipulations at play. This isn't a discussion of censorship, but rather, conversely, this is about an effort to build an audience in the Christian community through careful screening and exclusion before public protests about purported anti-semitism can be levied against the film.
As for your comments about the hilarious aspects of "Life of Brian", the reason I find that film applaudible is the fact that it's NOT santimonious, but rather a parody. Any film which can laugh at life and our fierce devotion to sacred cows that True Believers can ever agree on is okay in my book.
AuPh
- "'Speaking' directly, man to man, as a normal person would..." LOL! - clarkjohnsen 15:08:14 07/24/03 (3)
  "This writer, that writer..." Yeah, sure. But just say "you" and one gets attacked for ad hominem
  or whatever else suits the mood.
  (Notice how one properly says "one", and not "I", to divorce the writer from the person.)
  But there is better -- just listen:
  "...posting dismissive comments in the 3rd person as if speaking
  for a larger group denouncing one lone dissenting voice suggests
  a megalomaniacal self-absorption on your part that reeks of pettiness, IMO."
  One begs the writer's pardon! What was that all about?
  "Wrapping strained observations in that trademark dismissive vernacular
  (i.e., the condescendingly indirect "the writer" rhetoric) may be
  suitable for curt editorial commentaries, but it does little to
  promote dialogue from where I sit."
  Stand up and be heard then! And speak plainly. Please
  "Well, Mr. Johnsen, I'll endeavor to ignore your condescension and
  respond politely, if only to correct your misimpressions and poorly drawn conclusions."
  The writer is so very kind...
  "Have I seen the film? Of course not!"
  I knew it, I knew it!
  "I'm basing my impressions on the rather troubling news report
  from Lloyd Grove in the Washington Post"
  That report was *meant* to be "troubling" -- to the gullible.
  "...and the fact that the hand-picked audience to which Mel screened
  his film happened to be a who's who of the far right!"
  Q: Who's in the near right and who's in the mid right? (I mean,
  it's always "far right", so one must wonder.)
  "This provides more than a clue to the film's agenda."
  Hmmm... The "Christian far right" is another freely tossed-out
  phrase. Could it be that these people were invited because they
  were *Christians*, not because of their (coincidental) political views?!
  "Why were no representatives from the Jewish community invited
  even though attendance was requested by Abraham Foxman, National
  Director of the Anti-Defamation League? Why only those known to be devout Christians?"
  Aha! There's the answer already! Because they were *Christians*.
  "I used the word 'contoversial' out of politeness, as I am not opposed
  to controversial films and would not be dissuaded from viewing ANY
  film for that reason alone. However, my added points about religeous
  zealotry, crazed cultists, and allegorical fables were intentionally
  included to weigh heavily here because I sense other manipulations
  at play. This isn't a discussion of censorship, but rather, conversely,
  this is about an effort to build an audience in the Christian community
  through careful screening and exclusion before public protests about
  purported anti-semitism can be levied against the film."
  Geez Luiz. Now we have ourselves a society where Christians can't
  entertain Christians without someone should cry Exclusion!
  And in such stuffy language too...
  "As for your comments about the hilarious aspects of 'Life of Brian',
  the reason I find that film applaudible is the fact that it's NOT
  santimonious, but rather a parody. Any film which can laugh at life
  and our fierce devotion to sacred cows that True Believers can ever agree on is okay in my book."
  Fine, but they still didn't dare laugh at Jews. That makes it sanctimonious.
  It was censored, plain and simple. Semper fidelis Hollywood.
  clark
  - Wow Clark, I didn't realize that you were so sensitive about being confronted. - Audiophilander 22:32:48 07/24/03 (2)
    You worry about ad hominem attacks before they occur and apparently have denial problems when confronted about your refusal to talk directly. BTW, one can't help but notice that your aloof responses are quite selective, which only serves to reinforce the appearance of pettiness.
    > > > "Could it be that these people were invited because they were *Christians*, not because of their (coincidental) political views?!" < < <
    "...were *Christians* ..." - So, are you suggesting that the movie might cause them to renounce their faith or recommit to it? ;^)
    Seriously, if the movie didn't come off as somewhat anti-semitic why would concerned citizens of other faiths be restricted from previewing the film and only Christians & supporters of the current Conservative Administration be given VIP invitations?
    > > > "Aha! There's the answer already. Because they were *Christians*." < < <
    So, are you agreeing that the film's screening appears exclusionary and bigoted or what?
    > > > "Geez Luiz. Now we have ourselves a society where Christians can't entertain Christians without someone should cry Exclusion!" < < <
    Do you wish to exclude the better hotels and restaurants as well? How about restrooms? I guess my comments alluding to the impact of D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" went right over your head. I* guess that shouldn't surprise me. Many Conservatives are dead-set against anti-discrimination legislation as well; so, if Aryan cross-burners focus on this film as a justification for a renewed escalation of their hate crimes, where will you stand?
    As for the excised footage from the Life of Brian, I'm against censorship of irreverent material regardless of who it pokes fun at because such films are parodies and do more to diffuse tensions than aggrevate them. I can understand why Jewish people might be sensitive to irreverent humor after all that they've been through, but IMHO the removal of any footage from a movie, whether it's sensitive or not, should only be considered when it gets a negative reaction from the preview audience. But that sort of makes my case for allowing members of the Jewish community to preview this film before it's wide release, doesn't it? ;^)
    Cheers,
    AuPh
    - "Wow Clark, I didn't realize that you were so sensitive." I'm not. *You're* the all-feeling liberal here. - clarkjohnsen 09:14:42 07/25/03 (1)
      The writer's language is so stuffy, one is tempted to be merely amused. However, a couple questions seem worth addressing.
      
      "...why would concerned citizens of other faiths be restricted from previewing the film and only Christians & supporters of the current Conservative Administration be given VIP invitations?"
      Boston has numerous "Jewish Film Festivals". Does anyone in his right mind suppose that care is taken to invite Christians, Buddhists, Pagans etc. to the preview night? Geez!
      "So, are you agreeing that the film's screening appears exclusionary and bigoted or what?"
      All screenings are exclusionary. The writer ascribes that to bigotry. Let him indulge himself.
      "Do you wish to exclude the better hotels and restaurants as well? How about restrooms?"
      Maybe this is humor?
      "I guess my comments alluding to the impact of D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" went right over your head."
      Maybe this is patronizing?
      "I guess that shouldn't surprise me. Many Conservatives are dead-set against anti-discrimination legislation as well; so, if Aryan cross-burners focus on this film as a justification for a renewed escalation of their hate crimes, where will you stand?"
      Under the Cross? Geez!
      "As for the excised footage from the Life of Brian, I'm against censorship of irreverent material regardless of who it pokes fun at because such films are parodies and do more to diffuse tensions than aggrevate them. I can understand why Jewish people might be sensitive to irreverent humor after all that they've been through."
      Where's the sensitivity to Christians and what *they've* been through, like being thrown to the lions? Or more recently, being the constant butt of safe (albeit toothless and spineless) jokes by the liberals?
      "But IMHO the removal of any footage from a movie, whether it's sensitive or not, should only be considered when it gets a negative reaction from the preview audience."
      Ho hah. TLOB happened before preview audiences were used. That censorship was good ol' cowering before the powers.
      "But that sort of makes my case for allowing members of the Jewish community to preview this film before it's wide release, doesn't it? ;^)"
      Meaning, that it's cool to let them censor it?
      Someone here has a weird view of free speech.
      clark
      - Well, it's still mostly a 3rd person rant, but you're improving. - Audiophilander 10:24:04 07/25/03 (0)
        
        In Reply to: "Wow Clark, I didn't realize that you were so sensitive." I'm not. *You're* the all-feeling liberal here. posted by clarkjohnsen on July 25, 2003 at 09:14:42:
        
        > > > "The writer's language is so stuffy..." < < <
        Sorry Clark, I would take a Benadryl, but I doubt that it would clear-up my perception of your biases.
        > > > "Boston has numerous 'Jewish Film Festivals'..." < < <
        So, what does this have to do with our discussion here? Are you suggesting that they go out of their way to select attendees based on faith or political point of view as was done in the instance of Mel's film? LOL! If THAT'S your justification for The Passion's VIC (Very Important Christian) screening, then you'ld better work on it a bit! 8^D
        > > > "Where's the sensitivity to Christians and what *they've* been through, like being thrown to the lions?" < < <
        Earth to Clark! You're comparing this to the Holocaust, the attempted genocide commited in modern times by folks calling themselves Christians? Wow, if I weren't shocked by the outrageousness of your views I'd try to muster a laugh. Let's see, those poor abused Christians who were thrown to the lions, when? Oh yeah, nearly 2000 years ago!
        As for Christians being the butt of *safe* jokes by Liberals, albeit toothless and spineless in your estimation, well, you only have bonafide space cadets like Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson, hypocritical womanizing evangelists like Jim Bakker & Jimmy Swaggert and crazed cultists like David Koresh & Jim Jones to thank for that!
        If Christian evangelicals and other weak-minded overzealous folks would keep their own council and leave the rest of us the you-know-what alone then there'ld probably be a lot less cause for concern over entertainment and how it might be perceived by the public at large.
        AuPh
- Why only devout Christians?? - Beethoven 12:33:57 07/24/03 (4)
  Interestingly enough, one of the invitees was Matt Drudge, why I don't know, but he happens to be Jewish and I've read that he's claiming it is one of the best movies he's seen. I find it bizarre that Drudge was in the audience. Apparently, Lloyd Grove tried to crash the party, but he was shown the door.
  - Jewish or not, Drudge is a patron saint of the political right. - Audiophilander 13:03:35 07/24/03 (3)
    Drudge himself is often a central figure in controversy. It's hard to say how appreciative he would be at being let-in on something as controversial as a film screening where he could rub shoulders with other right-wing Washington insiders, but it wouldn't surprise me if he made a few promises and pulled a few strings in order to attend.
    AuPh
    - Enough with the excuses already. You said no Jews, bubba. nt - clarkjohnsen 15:14:10 07/24/03 (2)
      a
      - I said representatives of the Jewish community. Does Matt Drudge represent the Jewish community? - Audiophilander 21:47:56 07/24/03 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Enough with the excuses already. You said no Jews, bubba. nt posted by clarkjohnsen on July 24, 2003 at 15:14:10:
        
        I rest my case!
        Cheers,
        AuPh
        
        Like Jesse Jackson represents "the black community"? Molly Ivins, "the female community"? About the same I'd say. - clarkjohnsen 09:21:46 07/25/03 (0)
        
        In Reply to: I said representatives of the Jewish community. Does Matt Drudge represent the Jewish community? posted by Audiophilander on July 24, 2003 at 21:47:56:
        
        Liberals and their group politics. Feh!
        clark
The Life Of Brian - mishmashmusic 10:31:34 07/24/03 (2)
I always thought TLOB was a clever satire of "religion," and not of Christianity itself. Very funny and biting movie, and yes---it is pretty un-PC today. Don't think it would fly far in today's cinema...
- "A clever satire of 'religion,' and not of Christianity itself." Quite right. BUT... - clarkjohnsen 10:37:21 07/24/03 (1)
  ...the parts that satirized the Jewish religion had to be removed. Semper fidelis Hollywood .
  clark
  - So, have you seen the Uncircumsized version? (nt) - Audiophilander 11:01:18 07/24/03 (0)
    ;^)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft

You can not post to an archived thread.