Should read: Hollywood picks Chia over Christ.
Posted on 01/01/2005 11:00:11 AM PST by OPS4
That was in the works and was dropped for some reason. Maybe Mel wantd to devote more time to The Passion. Australian filmmaking genius George Miller would have to make it. He's only made six feature films and all six are terrific (3 MAd Max Films, The Witches of Eastwick, Lorenzo's Oil, Babe: Pig in The City)
FMCDH(BITS)
Hollywood made some nontraditional - some would say apostate - religous movies and they also tanked.
Gibson's movie worked because he had a personal vision - which is not mainstream Catholic - Gibson is not a traditional Catholic.
Lastly, Gibson knew how to market his movie - using the controversy to fuel attendance the way Michael Moore used controversy to fuel his box office.
I don't think everyone who went to see F/911 was a leftists nor do I think everyone who went to see Passion was a devout Catholic. But the auroa of seeing a film some don't want you to see sells tickets.
Lastly, Gibson was genius in making a movie using modern sensabilities and camera angles - if Hollywoood made the Passion it would have been wooden and traditional.
If you want to use motorcycles as an comparitive - Hollywood makes big bikes that are boring. Gibson's movie was like a customized chopper.
Yea - my message is keep your outrage for a real issue - keep your powder dry for a real awards show that means something like the Oscars.
By the way - I also think anti Passion groups threw the anti-Semetisim charge against Mel to manufacture an outrage and raise money as well. The "outrage" industry in America is big business and goes both ways.
If more film makers would pursue a personal vision the way Gibson did there would be far more great films. I didn't like the protests that greeted 'The LaSt Temptation of Christ' (a film that strikes me as the work of a believer) nor did I like the protests against the Gibson film.
As a Jewish colleague once told me, the only reason the ADL still exists is to raise money for Abe Foxman's bank account.
Yup; my first reaction was, "Gee, knock me over with a feather."
It just doesn't seem logical or natural that people like Streisand, Glover, Robbins, Sarandon ad nauseum should have such a "bully pulpit" and able to spew their vicious crap all over the airwaves.
Do Robbins and Sarandon even do that stuff anymore? I think they realized they were becoming self parodic and stopped. I've not heard of either of them making a political speech since 2000...for Nader. At the Oscars last year, a reporter tried to goad Robbins into it and he declined comment.
Should read: Hollywood picks Chia over Christ.
They say the opposite of love is indifference. All I can say is I'm completely indifferent as to what befalls Hollywood anymore -- the people or the industry. If they want to shun a particular movie, or the red states, or anything else they desire, that's fine with me -- the feeling is mutual.
Leni? At least Leni went to Africa and lived among the Sudanese natives for a couple years documenting their incredible lifestyle now disappeared.
What about the great Commie propagandist himself: Sergie Eisenstein who was the beloved of the Bolsheviks and who actually worked in Hollyweird for a few years...
Last I heard they were complaining about their freedom of speech. Maybe they did shut up.
Eisenstien was one of the 3 most important people in film history. He can't be ignored anymore then Newton could be in Physics if he happened to live in a Communist country. He was persecuted by Stalin btw.
I watched a show on Discovery Travel Channel one time called "On the trail of...", or "In Search of..." The subject was Che. The host of the show was a Brit who obviously admired Che. What I learned from the sow was that Che came from a wealthy family, that he dropped out of medical school, and that his friends called him "stinky" because he never bathed.
Leni did some self-rehabilitation after WWII. BUT...the article on Hitler's Library
that appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in 2004 makes it pretty clear that she decided
she'd better shut up instead of helping her Jewish friends/colleagues.
Being friends with Adolph meant more.
For Eisentein, he also made his unflattering compromises, but did seem to suffer for
not totally following the party line in his latter years.
http://www.carleton.edu/curricular/MEDA/classes/media110/Severson/bio.htm
Both of them were great directors/visionaries. Too bad they came to prominence while
entangled with monsters that just couldn't let them go.
As for Leni, my real point was the tip-toeing the UCLA film school folks had to
do to explain why they were showing her retrospecive...seeing how many
folks in "the bidness" would have gone to ovens if her patron had been able to
actually solve "The Jewish Problem".
It's just great fun watching the apostles of political correctness squirm
when slapped by their own gospel.
"Eisenstien was one of the 3 most important people in film history."
One of three? That's quite a statement and makes no sense at all given the scope of film in the last 100+ years.
As for Eisenstein: Eisenstein never forgot his political agenda as a committed Marxist/Trotskyite. His greatest admirer and practitioner today is Michael Moore.
For more info on this topic and film history under the Soviet regime coming out of the recently opened KGB archives see the following below or read Montefiore's books.
http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/06/04/bfstalin04.xml&sSheet=/arts/2004/06/04/ixartleft.html
With all due respect, Eisenstein was a Commie Trotskyite who got entangled with Stalin's enormous and insane ego...he was not terrorized by Stalin at all. In fact, after intervention by his Commie friends in the Kremlin, he was allowed to make a number of films in the 30's and 40s' such as Ivan the Terrible.
As for his "cinematic magic" - nothing could be further from the truth. His ideas of montage he derived from earlier work of Griffith. Just watch Griffith and then watch Eisenstein and tell me which cinema is better!
Eisenstein was a mere puppet for the Bolsheviks. He is simply another one of the leftist darlings who have been revered by the ideological left in this country for too long and for nothing except that he was a Communist, in fact a better one that Stalin.
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.