Posted on 01/06/2005 2:54:25 PM PST by gina girl
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/6/153719.shtml
If the Academy ignores the "Passion" then I'm ignoring them. For good.
Well, I just contend that it's the kind of "different" film that Hollywood usually goes ga-ga over. It's not gay cowboys eating pudding, but it should raise some artistic ears. The contenders this year are particularly lame.
Was Moore even there last year? He didn't have a film out. What lovefest are you talking about? As for mostly leftist films, look at Post #63 in this thread. The Oscar winning films tend to be conservative.
P.S. Mad Max 4 please :) Make it more like The Road Warrior, not Beyond Thunderdome.
Man oh man, are we ever overdue for that! They should let me write the script treatment however, I'm just a-bubbling over with twenty years worth of ideas.
As I see it, in the first movie he was a young cop trying to protect a dying civilization. For the next two he was an aimlessly wandering warrior of the wilderness. This time around he should be a middle-aged cop struggling to protect a burgeoning civilization. Plenty of opportunity for messianic imagery and christian morals there.
I LIKE it. I REALLY LIKE it.
"And neither is its being ignored by awards political. 'The Last Temptation of Christ' wasn't nominated for a Best Picture Oscar either and no one claimed that was a sign of Hollywood's inherent conservatism."
Perhaps the lack of a nomination for the "Last temptation" had more to do with it being a piece of cinematic DRECK.
Now quit slurring Mel and believers or kindly leave this forum you Troll.
Al
"The grosses for 2004 actually set a record high. In regards to 'The Last Temptation of Christ', Medved's speculation about why Scorsese made the film is completely wrong. Scorsese had worked on a script as early as the 70s. A time when projects that outre were much more common. Because of financing continually falling through he had to wait till 1987-1988 to get it made. Scorsese considered going into the Priesthood as a young man. That movie had nothing to do with any in-crowd. It was the personal work of a troubled believer. The reason it failed commercially is that non-believers avoid religious themed films altogether. And the believers certainly weren't going to go."
OK, Mister "6-24-2004" DU/TROLL, get this straight: Scorcese is an ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOT, not a 'troubled believer'. Hence the conscious effort to smear The Saviour in the 'Last temptation'.
Now kindly shut up and try to learn something here for a year or two before you start posting - or crawl outta here - please.
Al
" So you shun people who don't share your taste in movies? Isn't that sort of...silly? :-)"
Spam, SPam, Spam, Spam, SPam, Spam, Lovely Spam.
"People have compared the Gibson film to something like 'Schindler's List' but seem to be forgetting that the latter really wasn't very violent.."
OK. All together now:
WHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT?
The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the organization behind the Golden Globes, instead gave nominations to "Vera Drake" (about a kindly abortionist), "Kinsey" (about the discredited sex researcher), and "The Sea Inside" (about a paraplegic's campaign to be euthanized).
Wow... they don't even pretend anymore, do they. They might as well stand on top of the Hollywood sign and scream, "IT'S ABOUT POLITICS!! NOTHING BUT POLITICS!!"
I guess the quickest, surest way to get a nomination is to play a lesbian who gets raped and is paralyzed by a botched abortion which sends her on a quest to "die with dignity."
That Our Lord suffered horribly and Atoned for us, and Rose from the dead? Gibson based his work on two Catholic mystics. If you think the Vatican opposes that, then either you're getting some very foolish information, or I don't know what else. The difference he and I and many have with the Vatican goes to matters of Catholic dogma. It's very simple. The churchmen, today, seem embarrassed and offended by Catholic teaching, papal encyclicals, conciliar decrees, and the writings of the Saints. Catholics are not, and are not offended by Catholic orthodoxy. That's a source of disagreement, and cause for quite a roaring good conversation at one's next charity fundraiser.
I think we should blacklist the BLACKLISTERS, in short. They want to shun Our Lord? They want to make The Passion, even just as a film, go away? Then we shun them. Two can play at that. And the stakes are high.
No doubt, you'll be here, front and center, on Oscar night, drooling over the second-rate fare nominated for various awards, eyeing the celebs on the runway for this dress or that. The whole of the LM wants you to do just that, just as they wanted you to vote sKerry. I refused then. I'll refuse in a few months, too. But . . hey.
"Do you really think boycotts against people because they don't share your taste in movies is something worthwhile?"
No, I think an organization, who broadcasts to millions of people over the public airwaves should not omit a movie because it is not to their political liking.
In addition, by taking this position and then trying to pass off degenerate garbage to us as art is an insult.
By boycotting the broadcasting company and the Academy, we send a message that we will no longer tolerate being insulted by the "minority" left wing of this country.
Movies are about art. The Passion, from my perspective is one of the top three movies of the year. It may not win, but should be recognized.
You are correct. Gibson's film cannot be submitted as a foreign film.
What kind of scum are you to defend Hollywood?
Please point where I slurred anyone. Before you slurred me that is.
When you're through with the name calling I can explain that I, among others here, am a life long movie lover.
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.