|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
|
|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
In Reply to: "There would appear to be legitimate controversy..." posted by clarkjohnsen on July 24, 2003 at 09:14:29:
...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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
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)
- "'Speaking' directly, man to man, as a normal person would..." LOL! - clarkjohnsen 15:08:14 07/24/03 (3)
- Wow Clark, I didn't realize that you were so sensitive about being confronted. - Audiophilander 22:32:48 07/24/03 (2)
- "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)
- Well, it's still mostly a 3rd person rant, but you're improving. - Audiophilander 10:24:04 07/25/03 (0)
- Why only devout Christians?? - Beethoven 12:33:57 07/24/03 (4)
- Jewish or not, Drudge is a patron saint of the political right. - Audiophilander 13:03:35 07/24/03 (3)
- Enough with the excuses already. You said no Jews, bubba. nt - clarkjohnsen 15:14:10 07/24/03 (2)
- I said representatives of the Jewish community. Does Matt Drudge represent the Jewish community? - Audiophilander 21:47:56 07/24/03 (1)
- 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)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
