Posted on 02/20/2015 4:21:58 AM PST by Kaslin
Here's one obvious sign that we live in a profane world. "Fifty Shades of Grey," the "mommy-porn" book turned into a movie, complete with its whips and chains and erotic punishment, debuted to far less controversy than "The Passion of the Christ" in 2004.
The media toasted "Fifty Shades" as the biggest February movie opening weekend ever at $83.8 million, just a shade more than "The Passion." But Mel Gibson's Jesus film debuted on Ash Wednesday, not on Friday. According to BoxOfficeMojo.com, in its first five days, "The Passion" grossed $125.5 million; "Fifty Shades" stood at $98.5 million. It received a lousy C-plus CinemaScore from audiences, so its ticket sales may begin to trail off.
Both films grossed far more than they cost in the first few days. "The Passion" found success as a protest of popular culture, a moment for the Christians to make a public statement about their faith having a place in the public square.
"Fifty Shades" is far more mainstream in today's culture. NBC's "Today" show hosted an entire "Fifty Shades Week" to boost the movie -- barely mentioning it was made by NBC's Universal Pictures. The French company Make Up For Ever introduced a makeup collection "inspired" by the movie -- an ideal product to conceal any bruising? Photos on Twitter showed Target stores sold merchandise like the "Fifty Shades of Grey Yours and Mine Vibrating Silicone Love Ring" next to children's toothbrushes.
Studios rejected "The Passion," and nobody believed the film with subtitles over ancient Aramaic would help sell anything except, well, Bibles.
Before and after the release of "The Passion," there was great derision about its supposed anti-Semitism. CBS called it an "ecumenical suicide bomb." The New York Daily News ridiculously claimed it was "the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II." (Now they have found "Fifty Shades" a little "too vanilla.") Universal wanted a naughty R-rated blockbuster with sequel potential, not an NC-17 "art film."
Time's review of "The Passion" was headlined "The Goriest Story Ever Told." Critic Richard Corliss claimed the movie was only for "true believers with cast-iron stomachs; people who can stand to be grossed out as they are edified." Corliss's review for "Fifty Shades" carried the headline "Where's the Wicked Whiplash?" It was too tame for him: "Even by movie standards, the flogging is more ceremonial than sadistic. It hasn't nearly the sickening impact of the 40 lashes given Mel Gibson's Jesus in 'The Passion of the Christ.'"
Gibson surely made that bloody passage hard to watch, but it was done to underline the depth of our savior's sacrifice. It was also historically accurate, whether Hollywood liked it or not. What made Gibson's film controversial was that he intended it to be evangelistic. It was intended to persuade the viewer to consider (or reconsider) the Christian faith in a very secular world.
"Fifty Shades" isn't interpreted by the cultural commissars as promoting sadomasochism -- even though that's what it does, with the dominant male's "Red Room of Pain" cast in a glossy sheen. As usual, the pathetic so-called feminist movement has been completely missing from this debate. The National Organization for Women is still protesting the Super Bowl on its website. "Sex-positive" feminists are sounding "pro-choice" -- if a woman wants to be whipped and chained, that's her preference.
It wouldn't be this way if the whip-holding Christian Grey were actually a Christian. Then the depths of his oppressive sexism would be never-ending.
There has always been smut. Don’t buy it and the problem is over.
tried watching it the other night to see what all the cackling was about, fast forwarded through most of it, it was the worst dreck i've seen since i don't remember when... even the sex scenes sucked, finally turned it off
Were you watching an illegal download? Has it been released to video?
“Were you watching an illegal download?”
If so burn a few copies and pass it around so others can burn a few copies and pass it around and so on.
Money out of their pockets but don’t get caught.
I wouldn’t watch it if a copy was given to me legally or illegally.
I dunno know what the hubbub is all about.
The story line is a re-write of “The Story of O”, which was first published in 1954.
This sort of ‘pastime’ started taking off in America, before the ‘80’s, but with the invention of both styles of video recorder-playback systems, as well as laserdisc-tv, in that timeframe, it really took off, complete with local video rent-a-shops having their own little ‘cast of characters’ for local production, only.
Of course, in mentioning all of this, one must go back in history, to the most infamous name connected with it, the Marquis De Sade.
This movie is not ‘news’, nor is it a ‘freshness’, brought out by Hollywood, but merely a legitimization, of somethiing that has been in existence for at least 35 years, in this country, alone.
Pretty much sums it up.
What Bozell fails to mention is the film was pretty much panned by the critics, yet "we" rushed to the box office to put our hard earned cash down to watch it.
The media warned us. We still had to see it for ourselves.
I pretty much have concluded the most vocal “objections” are just from attention seeking opportunists. (see Huckabee)
Capitalism works.
This author was unable to have her book published and she self published, picked up by the sex fetish world, and obtained some easy pr from hollyweird types in that arena.
Capitalism works, don’t like it don’t buy it.
It was not too long ago booze and condoms could not be advertised on TV.
it's on several online streaming sites now i know why she was ashamed to have her parents watch it, it's terrible
p.s. i NEVER download anything, if it's not streaming i don't watch getting busted for dloading a movie simply isn't worth it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.