is anyone else disappointed that Kushner allowed the censorship of the original, extremely effective ending of his play for the mini-series? ... I refer to the scene where Roy recommends that the angels use him to bring a suit against God for abandonment.
Apart from that, it was a knockout.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
I haven't seen the play, only the film, but I've read the scene you're referring to and I think you have a point, it would've been a nice touch.
Can't go so far as to say I'm disappointed though.
I guess it's all part of the general American touchiness about religion. Remember all that fuss about the delicious "Life of Brian", the sensitively handled "The Last Temptation of Christ" and the not very daring "Hail Mary"?. The repulsive "The Passion of the Christ" was hailed by the religious lobby in spite of being vastly more offensive than any of those films.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
I agree completely. Life of Brian was truly groundbreaking. It sort of created the "freedom of laughter", if you will, in the sense that one can make comedy out of anything.
It's very disturbing that Passion have gotten so much rave reviews from the Christian right. It is nothing more than a pointless bloody mess created by a truly insane anti-semite.
Quite apart from that "film" being a revolting exercise in the pornography of violence ... why were all those silly soldiers speaking Latin when they should have been speaking Greek? ...and what was with the female satan with her baby? .. let's add misogyny to anti-semitism ...and the glamorous make up and byzantine costumes on the women in what was presented as an exercise in gritty realism? ... and the cross straight from Cecil B. DeMille's summer cross collection? ... and the Jews all going "Mwah-ha-ha" and evilly chewing the furniture ... Jesus, it was a ghastly film.
His other historical exercises, "Braveheart", with William Wallace canoodling with Queen Isobel and "Apocalypto", with the Spanish arriving to convert the heathens 500 years too early only show that this idiot should never be let near a historical film project.
Mel himself has revealed this week that he is manic/depressive, (not bipolar...he likes things old-fashioned, like the Latin mass) ... I suggest lithium and a long, long rest.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
Amen to that, as the old fool Mel himself would say.
shareJust for clarifications sake...are you saying that the reason Mel makes such *beep* movies is because he's bipolar. Cause I take real offense to that.
Mental illness doesn't make you an anti-semite *beep*
~my muse is a fickle bitch with a very short attention span~
No, I really think he is bipolar and that it would explain a lot of his irrational outbursts.
I think he is a creep because he's had a creepy upbringing from his creepy ultra-fundamentalist anti-semitic father,and possibly other issues, some mental-health related, such as alcohilism . As a devoted care giver for 20 years to a partner with mental health issues, I don't need a mini-tantrum from you on the subject mental-health sensitivity, but on the other hand, lets pretend that all people with mental-health issues are always sweetness and light to deal with and create sunshine wherever their feet may tread ... but by all means take offense, since you seem primed to do just that, while presuming you have some sort of sensitivity monopoly on the subject.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
and the Jews all going "Mwah-ha-ha" and evilly chewing the furniture ... Jesus, it was a ghastly film.
It's not known as "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" for nothing.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
"I guess it's all part of the general American touchiness about religion. Remember all that fuss about the delicious "Life of Brian", the sensitively handled "The Last Temptation of Christ" and the not very daring "Hail Mary"?. The repulsive "The Passion of the Christ" was hailed by the religious lobby in spite of being vastly more offensive than any of those films."
I see, so when a movie offends other people, it's brave and controversial. (or "delicious"...yeah, okay)
When it offends you it is repulsive.
Whatever...
Double Standard? Bias? Hello!
No, it's repulsive because it's an exercise in the pornography of violence, barely disguised anti-semtitism (evil Jews going "mwah-ha-ha" while Christ and his crew were as European as all get-out), misogyny (what WAS that with the female Satan and her baby), Biblical chic, (Mary and co dressed like religious icons, with glam make-up), and faux historical accuracy, (those silly soldiers should have been speaking Greek, not Latin ...oh, and the cross straight from the Cecil B. De Mille Spring Cross Collection). ... but no, it was the gloating on every violent action, every twinge of pain for HOURS, without once referencing any sort of meaning in the Life of Christ, only on the pain, the pain and the death, death, death!!! that made it so morbid and repulsive to me, (it my OPINION, ok?). I'm afraid I find films like The Hills Have Eyes and Last House on the Left, to which I think this film is related, pretty awful too.
Life of Brian was delicious because it was so damned funny and because it took a successful shot at a movement that has been successfully bullying multitudes of people since about 400AD, (again an OPINION ... I'm entitled to mine, you're entitled to yours).
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
"No, it's repulsive because it's an exercise in the pornography of violence, "
Read up about Roman scourging. That was realistically portrayed.
"disguised anti-semtitism (evil Jews going "mwah-ha-ha" while Christ and his crew were as European as all get-out)"
The whole events of The Passion of the Christ, and the Gospel books of the New Testament take place in the land of modern day Israel. Back then the land was predominantly Jewish. Which means, in a movie like this, in which some people do some bad things, they are probably going to be Jewish, because that is who was there! Jews! There weren't Germanic people or Chinese people walking around. There were Roman soldiers, yes, who weren't Jewish, but they weren't exactly portrayed positively either.
And let's not forget the "good guys" of the movie, Jesus and his followers, were all Jews.
"Biblical chic, (Mary and co dressed like religious icons, with glam make-up), and faux historical accuracy, (those silly soldiers should have been speaking Greek, not Latin ...oh, and the cross straight from the Cecil B. De Mille Spring Cross Collection). "
Sounds more like whining that actual film criticism. And your assertion that only Greek would have been spoken by the soldiers is wrong. Many would likely have known Latin, and some would have even have spoken other languages (like Syriac). Do a little more research into this. (though this is one of those things that is a bit nitpicky about the quality of a film)
"but no, it was the gloating on every violent action, every twinge of pain for HOURS, without once referencing any sort of meaning in the Life of Christ, only on the pain, the pain and the death, death, death!!! that made it so morbid and repulsive to me, (it my OPINION, ok?). I'm afraid I find films like The Hills Have Eyes and Last House on the Left, to which I think this film is related, pretty awful too."
Gloating on every violent action and every twinge of pain? for hours? besides exaggerating, I'm wondering if the film was fast-forwarded during some parts of the film and slowed down for others. Yes, it was very violent, but not any more than how it would have been.
Also, a lot of the meaning is lost on the film to many viewers because a lot of the people don't get the whole life of Christ in the first place. Most people think he was some wise man who came and told people to love others and be peaceful and blah blah blah. That he was basically some nice guy who taught some good lessons.
That is not the point of the life of Christ. He was, first and foremost (according to the Bible--and this is a Biblical story--for the most part, the snake in the Garden of Gethsemane and the little devil children harassing Judas are not in the Bible) sent to suffer and die to pay for the sins of mankind so that God would be just in forgiving people. Yes, Jesus taught a lot of things, and most people only knew a few things ("Judge not" "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" "blessed are the poor in spirit" etc.) but Jesus talked greatly about repentance and trusting in Him for salvation and eternal life. He also, often, told his disciples that he would have to die and on the third day be raised to life. His disciples didn't always get that he would have to suffer. They tended to think he would become some great King and overthrow Roman rule. People still don't get the Gospel today, it seems.
So why did Jesus have to suffer so much? Well, if he is going to pay for our sins, a slap on the wrist would not do it. The amount of suffering he had to endure had to satisfy God's anger for the sins of the world. It also has to be just. We would say that giving a murderer a five dollar fine for killing a bunch of people is not just. He should have to pay a greater price. Well, Jesus was paying for the sins of people, and the amount of his suffering should be an indication of the seriousness of the sins of people. It is to indicate to us what every single one of us deserves. One who believes in Jesus should see the suffering of Christ and realize, "I deserve that!" It's shocking to think we deserve to suffer like that, because most of us haven't done a lot of things we feel particularly guilty about. And we often feel like our good deeds make up for it. Well, Christ's suffering should dispel all those notions of self-righteousness and confront people with what they truly deserve--intense suffering an death. Of course, most of us don't feel like we are all that bad. We don't believe we deserve to suffer or that we deserve Hell. Well, according to the Bible, God disagrees, and his estimation of the level of our sinfulness is probably going to be more accurate than our own. After all, what do we do? We simply compare ourselves to others who are just as sinful as we are, so in comparison we are average. Okay. Not bad. Or, we compare ourselves to the murderers and rapists in the world and we feel like we're pretty good and deserve to be rewarded. Christ came to dispel those notions of self-righteousness, to convict the world of sin, but also to pay the price for it so that sinners could have a restored relationship with God. That is what the Gospel is about, and that is why it might seem so morbid. It isn't suppsed to be a pretty picture. That's the point. The sins of mankind are horrible and Jesus had to pay a horrible price to redeem mankind.
"Life of Brian was delicious because it was so damned funny and because it took a successful shot at a movement that has been successfully bullying multitudes of people since about 400AD, (again an OPINION ... I'm entitled to mine, you're entitled to yours)."
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But one need only respect those opinions that are backed up with evidence and logical reasoning.
Life of Brian is cheap humor. Making fun of something is easy. Kids know how to do that well. Adults can do it with "sophistication." I could make fun or religion and religious people very easily. I've known many, so I've known some hypocrites, some who were a bit silly, etc. But you know what, why should I be rewarded for making fun of others? And, do I have the right to do so? When somebody resorts to satire, when somebody tries to point out the foolishness or hypocrisy of others, that person is taking the moral high ground. The monty python bunch were making fun of Christianity. I guess, then, that they think they are somehow morally superior to Christianity and thus have the right to attack it. What would come of their lives if intense scrutiny was given to them and all their dirty laundry was brought out into the open? If all their skeletons were taken out of the closet? That is what each individual ought to consider before pointing out the flaws in others. "Do I have the right to do this? Or am I no better?" This is why so many people do not take Michael Moore, and others like him, seriously. Because they make fun of others in the world, they point out the problems and evils of other people, and yet their own lives are riddled with problems and inconsistencies, and sometimes the very same things they accuse others of!
"Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7: 3-5)
That is why people who have problems in their own lives out to shut up until they have dealt with their own issues. Then they can start to comment on the foolishness and evils of others. Besides, as the verses of Jesus seem to point out, until one deals with their own issues they can't see clearly. That is all to common. People who are always making fun of others and pointing out the flaws of others are so blind to their own.
Since I'm presently recovering from surgery, the last thing I feel like is to do battle with a zealot with logorrhea, so I shal be relatively brief:
YOU do your research, the legionaries stationed in Judea at the time were Greek speaking.
Life of brian nearly crippled me with laughter ... a hell of a lot of other people thought it was funny too, principaly in the non-Jesusy sections, Pilate's lsiping reminiscences about his friend Bigus Dickus and the graffiti Latin lesson.
Just because a thing is true does not mean it should be served up in minute detail on screen, for instance, I don't want to see every detail of a child sex-murderer's activities .. but the subject can be shown with restraint and a little artistic taste ... Fritz Lang's "M" for instance. Mel's Passion gloats, and gloats and gloats.
As for preaching the Bible at me. Teach your granny to suck eggs ... I know it quite well ... the following sections especially bear close scrutiny by the Bible enthusiast, who often, in their cozy enthusiasm, forget the following inconvenient texts:
You should keep strictly to kosher food and clothing laws, and Jewish temple observance. Matthew 5:17-19
Hate your family to Death. Luke:14-26; Matthew:10-34. Matthew 10-21
God does not promote peace. Matthew 10:34
Jews are absolutely ghastly: 1 Thess:2-15.Titus1 10-11
That God sends deliberately confusing messages. Matthew 13 11-14
That God lies. 2 Thess 2: 11-12
That he REALLY hates families. Matt 19:29
...and women. 1 Tim2:9-12.! Tim2:15. matthew 24:19
That whatever you do your predestined to go to heaven or burn is the grisly flames. Jude 1-5, Romans 8: 29-30
That most people will go to hell anyway, thanks merciful God. Matt 7:13-14
That Hell is truly atrocious for the vast majority of people who will writhe agonisingly there. Matthew 13:41-42
There are many more goodies that the Christians of today like to conveniently forget.
And yes, free speech allow me the right to attack Christianity for its vapid callousnes over the centuries of Jews, little old women, atheists, gays, and people with opinions of their own.
So teach your Granny to suck eggs sister ... I was mentally tortured by idiot fundamentalists all through my childhood until I had the courage and wisdom to say "what a crock" and tell them where to shove their dogma ... and I and have been much happier ever since ... now I'm sure you have many calls of a similar nature in the neighbourhood, so don't feel you need waste any further effort on me ...there is so much more fertile ground on which to cast your seed, (grain that is, not the Sin of Onan kind ...see: "Hell").
And I am aware, terribly aware , of my own faults ...I just don't need some prissY Christian to tell me what they are.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
"YOU do your research, the legionaries stationed in Judea at the time were Greek speaking. "
I have. This is a common misconception.
"Life of brian nearly crippled me with laughter ... a hell of a lot of other people thought it was funny too, principaly in the non-Jesusy sections, Pilate's lsiping reminiscences about his friend Bigus Dickus and the graffiti Latin lesson."
Bigus Dickus? That is about as juvenile as humor gets.
I did see the movie many years ago. There were a few good comedic moments.
"Just because a thing is true does not mean it should be served up in minute detail on screen, for instance, I don't want to see every detail of a child sex-murderer's activities .. but the subject can be shown with restraint and a little artistic taste."
Then, I guess, I'm correct in assuming you cannot stand the following movies either: Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Pulp Fiction, all the latest ultra-violent horror films (hostel, wolfcreek, hills have eyes, etc.)
"As for preaching the Bible at me. Teach your granny to suck eggs ... I know it quite well ... the following sections especially bear close scrutiny by the Bible enthusiast, who often, in their cozy enthusiasm, forget the following inconvenient texts: "
I wasn't preaching. I was trying to explain why the film shows the sufferings of Jesus. Or, at least why I think Mel Gibson chose to show them as much as he did. From what I read, Mel Gibson believes the Biblical account of Jesus, so he probably undestands the point of the whole story.
And as for the many verses you point out? Pulease. Try and be original. Those are all such a cliche.
You're taking verses out of their context, isolating them, and making them stand as if they are a message all on their own, which is NOT the case. The Bible is one very big book, with a lot of sermons and messages and accounts of various people. If you miss the point of one verse becaues you isolate from its context and the rest of the book, then you are showing yourself as one who WANTS to hate/reject the Bible and is looking for a reason to do so. Just as the pharisees followed Jesus around, looking for a way to trap him in something he said, so they could accuse him. People continue to do that today.
You know, Jesus said he was the vine. Was he really a vine? No. So what was he saying? Guess what, you are supposed to THINK about that and figure out what he meant, usually by comparing it to other things he said. When Jesus said that unless you hate your mother, father, etc. even your own life, then you are not worthy of following him. Does that mean that you must literally hate them? No. Because Jesus made it clear in OTHER things he said, that one must love others, even their own enemies. So what did he mean? What was he really saying? Of course, people who hate Christianity, aren't interested in knowing what Jesus meant, because they hate him. They simply (like the pharisees) want to take one thing he said so that they can reject him. Just as the pharisees, when they were accusing Jesus, were pointing out things he said, out of context and messing up the true meaning, so that they could reject him as a blashphemer.
It is up to you. You can do what the pharisees did. Look for a verse in the Bible, isolate it, say it means such-and-such so that you feel morally justified in rejecting the rest of it. That is your choice. But I think you're fooling yourself if you really believe you're looking at the Bible objectively.
I have a couple Chrisitan-hater relatives. All of them feel like none of the Christian cousins or siblings "accept" them and they are all bitter, or they remember a lont time ago when a Christian aunt or uncle was mean, and they are still bitter. That's so sad and pathetic. People need get over that stuff. Nobody is perfect. Everyone gets mistreated.
So, I hope you're not like some I've know, who were picked on by some professing Christian when they were ten, or something, and just haven't gotten over it and are filled with bitterness and feel some negative emotion every time they see a Bible or hear somebody praying. Cause that's rather pathetic. Sometimes people need to get over it.
"And yes, free speech allow me the right to attack Christianity for its vapid callousnes over the centuries of Jews, little old women, atheists, gays, and people with opinions of their own. "
Examples please? Anybody can attack something. Back it up.
"I was mentally tortured by idiot fundamentalists all through my childhood until I had the courage and wisdom to say "what a crock" and tell them where to shove their dogma ... and I and have been much happier ever since "
Well, it seems you've admitted to being one of those people still bitter over the "mental torture" of being told that some things are sinful and that you shouldn't do them.
"And I am aware, terribly aware , of my own faults ...I just don't need some prissY Christian to tell me what they are."
Quote me in my previous post (the on you replied to) in which I told you what your faults are. I never did.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You've almost got to admire arrogance as breathtaking as yours ... no, the torture consisted of dawn baptisms at a river in freezing cold, having to stand around praying as a five year old around the bed of every dying parishioner regardless of their condition and then having to kiss the corpse when he/she died and being thrashed if my biblical knowledge about Amos or some other obscure prophet was up to scratch and being shown pictures of the demon Appollyon and the tortures that awaited anyone who deviated from the path.
I understand what fundamentalist Christianity pushes. God sets a trap for two people who are somewhat naive having just been created, an they fall for the blandishments of a sophisticated snake. God becomes so furious with them he curses humanity for all time. He is sso very furious he has to incarnate himself as a perfect human being and then grusomely sacrifice himself to assuage his own anger.
If you don't know what the church did to Jews, atheists, old women living by themselves, atheists, gays and people with opinions of their own, your knowledge of history is minimal ... here's a few hints ... Inquisition, witch-hunts, well-poisoning libels, blood-libels, Gallileo ...that should get you started.
If you don't know what the church did to Jews, atheists, old women living by themselves, atheists, gays and people with opinions of their own, your knowledge of history is minimal ... here's a few hints ... Inquisition, witch-hunts, well-poisoning libels, blood-libels, Gallileo ...that should get you started.
I may be riddled with "problems and inconsistencies", I just don't think talking to an imaginary friend is going to solve them.
Taking verses and isolating them? what, you mean quoting scripture to suit your own purposes like Christian preachers have done for centuries? Do you think the sources of the gospels are so pure that they are free of inconsistency and modification in the early Christian era? ..they are full of contradictions and inconsistencies ... I have limited time but I'll quote two: jesus said, "Why do you call me good, only God is good" ... here Jesus denies that he is either god, or good ... and how about Judas ... did he hang himself, or purchase land with a cliff and throw himself off so his bowels burst assunder? ... oh, and Matthew keeps making mistakes with Judean geography.Nit -picking? ... for many Christians these books are the word of god, inerrant and unalterable ...so these inconsistencies need explaining, not dismissed as cliches ... don't know what flavour you profess, but for many it's, well, holy writ. Those verses are a cliche? ... so is the whole volume.
Sometimes people need to get over it ... you're right ... hes dead ... get over it.
Now could you ban me or something so I don't have to receive any more of your replies on my email ...there are people I'd much rather be responding to ... if you must have the last word, send it to a friend who cares.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
"You've almost got to admire arrogance as breathtaking as yours ... no, the torture consisted of dawn baptisms at a river in freezing cold, having to stand around praying as a five year old around the bed of every dying parishioner regardless of their condition and then having to kiss the corpse when he/she died and being thrashed if my biblical knowledge about Amos or some other obscure prophet was up to scratch and being shown pictures of the demon Appollyon and the tortures that awaited anyone who deviated from the path."
Alright. Well, some of that does sound kind of weird.
"I understand what fundamentalist Christianity pushes. God sets a trap for two people who are somewhat naive having just been created, an they fall for the blandishments of a sophisticated snake. God becomes so furious with them he curses humanity for all time. He is sso very furious he has to incarnate himself as a perfect human being and then grusomely sacrifice himself to assuage his own anger. "
Naive? They weren't sinful yet, which means they did not have an inner desire to rebel. They didn't have a "dark side" if you will, which the rest of us struggle with day after day. In fact, that makes them almost without any excuse whatsoever to disobey a very straight-forward command. And God told them EXACTLY what the consequences would be. They heard it. They disobeyed.
And you act like God sets out to torture. God's punishment are his removing himself from people, which is giving people what they want! Take light out of a place and what is left over? Darkness. Take energy out of something and what is left over? Coldness. Take God out of some place, and life and happiness and joy and goodness go with it. Darkness and pain and evil is simply what is left behind. Look around in the world. There is plenty of darkness to be seen. And consider physics? Does darkness really exist? No. It is not a thing. It is simply what is left behind when light is taken from some place. And coldness. Does coldness really exist? No. Actually, it doesn't. It simply taking heart from something and it is the effect of what is left behind.
"You've almost got to admire arrogance as breathtaking as yours"
Um....HUH?
That is what is known as an Ad Hominem. You ought to look it up and read the definition.
Let's say I was arrogant, anyway, does that even matter? If an arrogant person says, "Two plus two equals four." Should we then say, "It can't be, because you're an arrogant person, so I don't have to listen to you."
Whether I am arrogant or not, is completely and totally irrelevant right now. For you to point it out, is a waste of your time. Besides, name-calling should be beneath us.
"If you don't know what the church did to Jews, atheists, old women living by themselves, atheists, gays and people with opinions of their own, your knowledge of history is minimal ... here's a few hints ... Inquisition, witch-hunts, well-poisoning libels, blood-libels, Gallileo ...that should get you started.
And what do you know of thse things, other than what you have heard in the discussion of the politically-correct?
Oh, and Gallileo WAS a Christian, by the way. And when he got in trouble with the Roman Catholic Church (which I am not a member, by the way, I am a protestant for a reason) did he cry and moan and whine about his situation? No, he went on being a Christian!
Read about Paul in the New Testament. He didn't always get along with other Christians!
Do you have this idea that Chrisitans are bad and everybody else is saintly? Because I don't see it. Do I see Christians as being flawed? Yes. THAT IS WHY THEY BECAME CHRISTIANS!
Jesus said that the man who beat his breast and said "Forgive me God, a sinner" is the one who is right with God. NOT the one who says, "Thank you God, that I am not like other men. I do this and I do that." In other words, he thinks he's righteous in himself.
I perceive you see yourself as humble and me as arrogant. I admit that I sometimes am arrogant. I'm the one who admits I'm a sinner. I see evidence of it in my life. I don't hide fromt it, much as I'd like to.
And I think you definetly probably feel like I'm a bad person, and you're glad you're not like me "intolerant, close-minded, judgmental, etc." Those accusations get thrown on Christians a lot, and then, after being called so many things, they are called "self-righteous". I don't know any Chrisitans who claim to be perfect. I don't even know any who claim to be good. I think they all simply say they are better than they were a year ago, but they have a long way to go.
"Taking verses and isolating them? what, you mean quoting scripture to suit your own purposes like Christian preachers have done for centuries? "
Aw, but those preachers encourage their listeners to search out their Bibles themselves. They don't say, "I'm going to read a verse to you and explain it, but I don't want you to read anymore of the Bible. Let me tell you what it means!" No, they encourage people to read their Bibles and study it for themselves. In other words, they aren't trying to trick anybody.
"I have limited time but I'll quote two: jesus said, "Why do you call me good, only God is good" ... here Jesus denies that he is either god, or good "
Jesus said this AFTER a man called him "good teacher." Jesus' point is that there is no "good teacher." You don't call him good, UNLESS you also call him God. If he is simply a teacher, he is human like you and me, which means he is sinful. Jesus didn't come to be a teacher, primarily, and tell us not to spit into the wind and to help little old ladies across the street. Lot of people don't want to say he was God. Because then they would have to repent. Which people don't want to do. So what do they call him? Good Teacher. C.S.Lewis explained it well when he said that if any human says he is the Son of God, we wouldn't call that person a "good teacher." We would call them a crazy lunatic. Or a wicked liar. Or, I guess we could believe the person and follow him. But we wouldn't call him a good teacher. So why do people call Jesus "good teacher." His point was, "Why are you calling me good? ONly God is good." So, if Jesus really is good, then he is also God. You can't just say, "Well, he was a good teacher." That option wasn't given to us. Cause if he is just a teacher, then he is not good.
Jesus asked Peter who the people say he is. Peter said, Some say a prophet. Some say John the Baptist. The Pharisees thought he was possessed or a liar (they called him a blasphermer). Jesus then said to Peter, "Who do YOU say I am."
And Peter said, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God."
You see, lot of people didn't want to commit to saying that Jesus was the messiah. But it was obvious he was a good man, so instead of saying he was crazy or a liar, they would say, "Well, he's a good teacher."
" and how about Judas ... did he hang himself, or purchase land with a cliff and throw himself off so his bowels burst assunder?"
Some say he probably hung himself and then the rope broke or the knot came undone or the branch broke and he fell and burst open. I don't exactly know. That certainly not something I sit and worry about.
"oh, and Matthew keeps making mistakes with Judean geography.Nit -picking?"
I'm not aware of any geographical mistakes. I'm not even aware he was all that specific anyway.
The whole volume is a cliche? Well, if that is the case, then why do so few live according to it? Cliches are things that are overdone. I've met so very few people who follow it really closely. And the few I have are the most loving people I've known.
Hmmm ... yes, yes, ...bored now ... willing to concede any point to you including that the moon is blue if you'll only go away and cease ranting ... I'm sure you have many calls of a similiar nature to make in the neighbourhood ... you've convinced me ... I'll run down to the nearest protestant church and join right away ...yes indeedy, you Christians are all wonderful ... you have made me see with a blinding clarity just how wrongy, wrong wrong I have been ... oh yes in deedly-deed-deedy! ...wrong, wrong, WRONG! ...how can I have been such a fool? ... next time there is a hideous disaster, I shall pray to the god of the protestants to thank him for saving me from the awful disaster that he sent ... I just can't thank you enough.
I suspect I knew what ad hominem meant before you were born.
Off to pick some nits now.
Adieu .. or is it au revoir? ..no, come to think of it, let's make it adieu.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
... by the way ...nihil curo di ista tua stulta superstitione. Vescere bracis meis.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
Oh ...and yes, I hated all the films you mentioned except Pulp Fiction, which I count a guilty pleasure... but I was completely turned off by the unnecessarily graphic nature of the basement rape scene ... the scene with the mess in the car was hard going, but a lot of the plot depended on it.
Braveheart was another historical farrago with its kilts and Wallace *beep* the heir to the throne's betrothed, and so was Apocalypto, with either the Spanish arriving 500 years too early, or the Mayans lingering 500 years too long.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
[deleted]
Pryor is not Roy ... the scene has, in my opinion, if I'm allowed one, less impact when the suggestion come from Pryor instead of Roy .. the original was highly ironical ... no wonder Kushner changed it for the mass American market ... By the way, authors are capable of self censorship. Your belief that only governments can censor may, in the strictest definition of the word, be true, but news editors do it all the time, (think Murdoch) ... I'd think of something rude like your "get a grip ' to say to you, but I don't think you rate the effort... so relax, no need to get splenetic.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
[deleted]
We already had this discussion and your pedantic view means that common expressions such as "self-censorship" would be disallowed by the thought police in whatever little gulag of the mind you are attempting to establish. We've had religious rants and linguistic bullying ... what's next? ... tasers? ... a stern lecture on my use of elipses? ... YOU get a grip.
Pryor/Cohen? ... I disagree ... one is allowed to disagree with authorial choices ... one is EVEN allowed to disagree with YOU. I, for instance disagree with Stephen Sondheim's decision to cut the duet "Ah, Miss" from "Sweeney Todd", because it severely weakens the Joanna sub-plot to the point of near insignificance. I know, he is the godlike Sondheim who I admire immensely, but even little insignificant me is allowed to disagree with some of his choices ... that's what fora are for.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I stand corrected in all things by you, the arbiter of right and wrong ..as for hostile, I have a tendency to be a little hostile when being patronised by arrogant prigs.I expressed opinions, I did not present them as facts.
Burton? ..Sondheim? ... whoever made the decision I still think its omission weakens the Joanna subplot.
Now, there are so many people being so wrong about so many things everywhere, I don't want to monopolise your valuable correcting time.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
[deleted]
We'll have to agree to differ ... the bit that I objected to was the removal of Roy's offer to the angels to sue God ... one of the plays' best jokes and no more theatrical than some of the stiff that was included ... the ghostly ancestors for instance..
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
is anyone else disappointed that Kushner allowed the censorship of the original, extremely effective ending of his play for the mini-series? ... I refer to the scene where Roy recommends that the angels use him to bring a suit against God for abandonment.I have a few points about this. First, the way you remember the play's scene is not quite the way is it. Roy doesn't offer to represent the angels in an abandonment suit (it's Prior who suggests that the angels should sue God, just as it is in the movie). In that phone conversation, Roy is actually offering to represent the "King of the Universe"--God the abandoner, not the angel abandonees--in the Family Court suit that the angels have apparently filed against God. Also, that scene was not the end of the play. It was toward the end of the play, but the actual ending is the same as the movie's--Prior's speech at the fountain, delivered directly to the audience.
Over the last two months, Tony Kushner has had people on both sides of the Atlantic in a panic. Perestroika - the second part of his much acclaimed series Angels in America - opens in London tonight and in New York on Tuesday. But only two weeks ago, the National Theatre was still receiving new scenes from him by fax and on Broadway, previews were being cancelled to accommodate his rewrites. Now, though, it looks as if all the chaos may pay off.Right up to the last minute, Kushner still took the highly unusual step of continuing to revise his work for its 1993 premieres (and after--the published version of the play has a note indicating that it is a revision that was finished in September 1995).
Published in The Independent (UK), Saturday, November 20, 1993, http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/arts-the-chop-and-chan ge-of-daily-life-tony-kushners-perestroika-is-not-just-about-chaos-its -engulfed-by-it-gerard-raymond-reports-1505397.html
Oh dear ... i have mis-remembered ... put it down to addled old-age ... i love the fountain scene ... i just seemed to re, (it was a long time ago) ... pity it was left out though ... I remember laughing at Roy's exit lines, even if I got it wrong about who the offer was made to. So, death hadn't improved his moral vision at all.
Either way ... it is the greatest play since Albee's "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" in my opinion.
... and I concede your point about the term "censorship" ... I just felt that it may have been removed to avoid offending the sensibilities of the mass-audience.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
Sorry, part of my reply dropped out... the missing bit was ...I remembered Roy made an offer and I found it amusing, but apparently I got it wrong about to whom he made the offer. "I am a very foolish, fond old man, and to tell you plainly, I fear that I am not in my perfect mind".
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
Thank you, Thomasina, for the accurate post. I had posted something similar (almost a year ago!) but it has been surprisingly deleted.
I'm glad to see the other poster who seems to be wrong on so many counts has accepted his grave mistakes, but am still quite put off that my posts were deleted (especially since said poster used very foul language in reference to me, something I did not do, and yet his posts are clear as day.)
If he really wants to know what censorship is, he should look at what happened to my posts.
And, perhaps, consider what he's writing before he does.
http://thenewyorkcourier.blogspot.com/share
I came back to this thread because I was responding to a message from someone else, politely correcting an error on my part... they neither harassed, nor patronized me, as you did, and so were responded to politely.
So, do you come back to the thread to seethe and fume?
No, come to think of it, please don't feel compelled to respond.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
bradjanet you made this thread worth the read. I literally laughed aloud over the "twat prig" comment! Thanks for an amusing read!
Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.
Oscar Wilde
I am always ready to accept correction when I am in error, and am happy to consider opinions different from my own, but when some jumped-up Mrs. Grundy gets into a fit of self-righteousness and attempts to beat me around the head with his/her/its infallible assertions, why not give them back a little of their own medicine? Glad you enjoyed the argy-bargy.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
Prior does say this when he is in Heaven making his case to the angels about why he wants to go back to Earth.
shareWell, in the script I have of the plays, there are a couple short consecutive scenes at the end of "Perestroika" that are optional; the one you are mentioning is one of them. I think there is a subtitle before the scene explaining that it is optional. Although, I think that might be because of the brevity of the scene vs. a complicated set to put on stage. Either way, I didn't find it too offensive when it wasn't in the film. It's not always the best decision in a film to bring the audience to a whole different realm when the climax has already been reached. Prior's trip to Heaven was (obviously) a huge plot point. After that is resolved, there is no need to break the narrative up and go back to Heaven, Hell, Purgatory or whatever.....I must say, I do love that scene with Roy. However, I was expecting that brief part with Roy spiritually showing up in Joe's living room. Oh well. Great plays, great film adaptation.
shareIt was always meant to be a minor discussion point in passing, not an epic argument spilling over into several pages and drawing obsessive persons from several dark corners of the cosmos ...we are agreed on the main thing, that it was a wonderful play, brilliantly adapted and directed, and with a dream cast. Now, I shall silently steal away before Miss Hitler returns, (you'll know who I mean if you've read the thread)
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
If you re-read Perestroika and take special notice of the Author's Note: that scene is optional. While I think it's amazing (the one where Roy agrees to defend God in court), it is an optional scene. There's another phenomenal scene in heaven where Harper finds Little Sheba. Also optional, also cut.
[insert something witty and philosophical here]
This is a rare case of more is more ... I'll take all the options please.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.