Okay, this had got to be a joke. My harmless little post couldn't possibly have engendered such vituperation. Give me a break...... You're another liberal, right? Just horsing around? Either that or you're just nuts.
Seriously, if this was a sincere response, how does merely identifying myself as a liberal transmogrify into bragging? I'm not out to win any arguments in here. Maybe I'm just testing the waters a bit to see how long it takes before I get stomped to death.
So far, so good.
Actually, I work in the motion picture business in Hollywood. Though I am by no means wealthy, I have to cop to being among the so-called media elite I hear guys like Joe Scarborough complaining so much about. Personally, I have absolutely no objections to Mel Gibson making a faith based film about Jesus and the Passion. By any standards, the story of the Christ is a drama of enormous, almost unbearable dramatic power. I think Gibson's approach is vastly superior to films like KING OF KINGS which show little, if any, insight into the life, times and death of Jesus. While I personally preferred THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, which dared to meet questions of divinity head on, I think an approach like Gibson's, where the audience is shocked into a higher state of awareness, has merit. Everytime I heard that all the liberals out here were screaming in protest over Gibson's film, I just sort of scratched my head and wondered who was making this stuff up.
Here's what THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and FAHRENHEIT 9/11 have in common. Both are independently produced projects, completely devoid of the kind watering down that studio productions are famous for, created by deep feeling men with strong world views for reasons other than mere commerce. Both films seek to challenge their respective audiences. Both films were successful in pushing people's buttons. Both films are works of art which have stirred up enormous controversy.
There's no such thing as an innocuous work of art. All true art seeks to explore the human condition.
How quickly the pattern of "debate" establishes itself: From "a joke" to just little 'ole me whining ("my harmless little post") to faux disbelief ("you're another liberal, right?") to the outright, and refreshing, "you're just nuts" gratuitous insult. And liberalism's fervent adherents wonder why their's is a dessicated, withering creed...
"Seriously, if this was a sincere response, how does merely identifying myself as a liberal transmogrify into bragging? I'm not out to win any arguments in here. Maybe I'm just testing the waters a bit to see how long it takes before I get stomped to death"
"Transmogrify"? LOL, I love it. But, in any event, here's how: you posted a rant in a forum that you obviously must have realized is not, by and large, congenial to your stated ideology...what did you expect, one wonders? The scales to fall from our eyes? Road to Damascus conversions en masse? The arrogance, coupled with the followup mewling about the meanie reply you encountered (thanks to moi), is staggering.
"Actually, I work in the motion picture business in Hollywood. Though I am by no means wealthy, I have to cop to being among the so-called media elite I hear guys like Joe Scarborough complaining so much about. Personally, I have absolutely no objections to Mel Gibson making a faith based film about Jesus and the Passion. By any standards, the story of the Christ is a drama of enormous, almost unbearable dramatic power. I think Gibson's approach is vastly superior to films like KING OF KINGS which show little, if any, insight into the life, times and death of Jesus. While I personally preferred THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, which dared to meet questions of divinity head on, I think an approach like Gibson's, where the audience is shocked into a higher state of awareness, has merit. Everytime I heard that all the liberals out here were screaming in protest over Gibson's film, I just sort of scratched my head and wondered who was making this stuff up. Here's what THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and FAHRENHEIT 9/11 have in common. Both are independently produced projects, completely devoid of the kind watering down that studio productions are famous for, created by deep feeling men with strong world views for reasons other than mere commerce. Both films seek to challenge their respective audiences. Both films were successful in pushing people's buttons. Both films are works of art which have stirred up enormous controversy."
All well and good--great, in fact; glad to hear it.
"There's no such thing as an innocuous work of art. All true art seeks to explore the human condition"
Not quite. "Art," in it's most moving forms, is inherently reactionary; a reaffirmation of either certain basic truths about human nature (not the human "condition"), or an expression of a yearning wish that something lost, diminished, or once deeply felt could be recovered, burnished, and/or restored to some degree of it's former luster. The human "condition" is constantly changing, depending upon the era/society; human nature remains constant--for better and for worse--year after year after year, since forever in the human memory. It is that stubbornly unchanging fact that is the basis of the examination of our most compelling, moving works of "art." Which is precisely why modern "progressives" simply don't get it, despite all of their slavish devotion to the notion of what it means to be "artistic": they believe human nature is "perfectible," while truly compelling "art" proves over and over and over again that the exact opposite is true. Repeatedly.