Replies

It was the GUN vote that gave the Republicans ANYTHING AT ALL -THOSE MUTHER F'ING INGRATES!!!

Lest we forget, here was the political analysis in the aftermath of the 1994 elections, during which the Republicans took control of the House from the Democrats for the first time in many years, a few months after the original passage of the so-called "assault weapon ban" which is now up for renewal:

"The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House. The fights that I fought, bloody though they were, cost a lot. The fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 [Democratic] members their seats in Congress."
-- President Bill Clinton
"As candidates who backed gun control legislation fell one by one across the nation Tuesday night, the National Rifle Association re-emerged as a high caliber political force that politicians cross at their own peril," reported The Hill on Nov. 10, 1994.
An astonishing 25% of all voters voted primarily on the gun issue.
-- Connie Chung, CBS News, November 10.
"Exit poll show data showed that more than a third of all voters who cast ballots Tuesday said they supported the National Rifle Association -- and two-thirds of those voters cast their ballots for Republican candidates."
-- Washington Post, November 10, p. A33
25% of all voters, nationwide, identified themselves as NRA or sympathetic to the NRA in exit poll interviews. 25% said the only reason they came out was to vote against gun control.
-- Dianne Feinstein campaign HQ
35% of the voters had a positive impression of the NRA and went overwhelmingly Republican.
-- MacNeil-Lehrer Report, November 10.
"The National Rifle Association...rebounded with a vengeance Tuesday (Nov. 8th) when at least a dozen of the gun-control supporters in Congress it had targeted were defeated by candidates who oppose weapons restrictions," reported Hearst News Service in the Portland Oregonian (11/10/94).
"They [NRA members and gun owners] alone may have well made the difference in this election," said Sen. Harris Wofford reflecting on his loss to Rick Santorum in the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race (AP, 11/12/94).
"I don't want to destroy the good atmosphere in the room or in the country tonight, but I have to mention one issue that divided this body greatly last year. The last Congress also passed the Brady bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it." [Included the historic ouster of longtime Speaker of the House Foley -- Ich.]
-- President Bill Clinton

Take 2...

Historical accuracy is n/a as Gibson takes a very jumbled and selective approach to it. I can list the inaccuracies if you like, but I'm sure you've already gleaned them from TLC. Historical inaccuracy is beside the point, however. The viewer shouldn't have to have prerequisite knowledge of *facts* to be moved via an artistic medium. Astute student of history or not, we can all understand manifestations of basic human motivation...the likes of which could have been crisply and unobtrusively illustrated. Mel did a poor job of that in many cases. I'll tell you a good case though...the role of Peter was very well done during his denial of Jesus. This is what I'm talking about. Another bad case...Barabbas. Probably the biggest cliché in the movie. A frothing, filthy, rude, degenerate imbecile devoid of any vestige of humanity. That's what Mel believes it takes to tell the audience that he's "bad"...since we're idiots. He uses a sledge hammer to drive penny nails.

What we're left with (the only possible thing) is an interpretation...unless the Bible itself has a screen-play somewhere in the back.

I've been more choked-up by local easter plays.

You'd think I'm insulting Jesus himself because I think Mel Gibson is a hack. Gimme a break.