Discussion:
O.T. It's only a movie
(too old to reply)
Valfer
2004-03-01 22:24:08 UTC
Permalink
I can't believe the hoopla over the latest Mel Gibson opus. Credit
his publicity machine for making millions of people take notice of a
movie which belongs in a "cinema art" movie house. The fact that they
buy tickets is not to be overlooked. When Gibson announces the
donation of the proceeds of this movie to charity, I'll buy a ticket.

All of a sudden, Mel Gibson becomes more Catholic than the Pope.
What's next - "Evangelio sicut Mel Gibson?" "Epistolas Mel Gibsonis
ad Hollywoodensis?"


Valfer
Terrymelin
2004-03-01 22:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Valfer
I can't believe the hoopla over the latest Mel Gibson opus. Credit
his publicity machine for making millions of people take notice of a
movie which belongs in a "cinema art" movie house.
It isn't Mr. Gibson's "publicity machine" that made people make notice of the
film. It was the scolds and hate-mongers who waged a year long campaign to get
people to notice the movie and to get them to stay away.

I'd say it blew up in their faces.

Terry Ellsworth
c***@hotmail.com
2004-03-02 01:17:53 UTC
Permalink
<< It was the scolds and hatemongers who waged a year long campaign to
get people to notice the movie and to get them to stay away.>>

I was ready to give the film a fair chance; and hoped that I could like
it. But it's the film itself that's making me stay away.

~ Roger
Oisk17
2004-03-02 04:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
I was ready to give the film a fair chance; and hoped that I could like
it. But it's the film itself that's making me stay away.
~ Roger
I avoid films with excess violence in general. If one believes that the Passion
is about man's redemption, then the violence has meaning beyond the blood and
gore. However, if one believes, as any non-Christian is likely to, that it is
only about the unjust execution of just one of several million innocent,
murdered Jews, then it is only about blood and gore. Why would I want to see
that, except due to a morbid curiosity?

Paul
Terrymelin
2004-03-02 15:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
I was ready to give the film a fair chance; and hoped that I could like
it. But it's the film itself that's making me stay away.
~ Roger
Don't you think it's just a little close-minded to stay away for those reasons
when you haven't even seen it?

Terry Ellsworth
c***@hotmail.com
2004-03-02 21:43:48 UTC
Permalink
<< Don't you think it's just a little closed minded to stay away for
those reasons when you haven't even seen it.>>

I ordinarily never judge a film without seeing it.
But, in this case, I've carefully read descriptions, reviews, word of
mouth, etc., enough to know that the picture almost totally revolves
around the crucifixion - and is a study in gory sadism, which I don't
care to watch. Taken almost out of context of Jesus' life, it seems
pointless, at best. Most of us with anykind of imagination can surmise
what a barbaric execution would be like without a prolonged depiction of
it. What kind of movie would Gandhi have been, if all we saw were
prolonged scenes of his shooting?
Those who want to see a really artistic and meaningful depiction of
Jesus should watch Zefferelli's 'Jesus of Nazareth.' The execution scene
is vivid without numbing the viewer with overkill. The scene of Mary
holding the body of her son in the rain is truly extrordinary and moves
me more than blood and hunks of flesh flying about in clinical detail.

~ Roger
Terrymelin
2004-03-03 02:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
I ordinarily never judge a film without seeing it.
But, in this case, I've carefully read descriptions, reviews, word of
mouth, etc., enough to know that the picture almost totally revolves
around the crucifixion - and is a study in gory sadism, which I don't
care to watch. Taken almost out of context of Jesus' life, it seems
pointless, at best. Most of us with anykind of imagination can surmise
what a barbaric execution would be like without a prolonged depiction of
it. What kind of movie would Gandhi have been, if all we saw were
prolonged scenes of his shooting?
Those who want to see a really artistic and meaningful depiction of
Jesus should watch Zefferelli's 'Jesus of Nazareth.' The execution scene
is vivid without numbing the viewer with overkill. The scene of Mary
holding the body of her son in the rain is truly extrordinary and moves
me more than blood and hunks of flesh flying about in clinical detail.
~ Roger
I would prefer to judge things by actually seeing them and then coming to an
opinion rather than relying on people to see them for me and coming up with an
opinion that I then can agree with -- despite not having seen or experienced
the thing first hand.

But that's just me.

Terry Ellsworth
Keybedder
2004-03-03 04:47:34 UTC
Permalink
<<I would prefer to judge things by actually seeing them and then coming to an
opinion rather than relying on people to see them for me and coming up with an
opinion that I then can agree with -- despite not having seen or experienced
the thing first hand.>>

Funny, you were quite prepared to judge the Chicago Lyric Opera's sound system
for "Sweeney Todd" inadequate from secondhand reports from "friends," without
having experienced it yourself.
Terrymelin
2004-03-03 15:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keybedder
Funny, you were quite prepared to judge the Chicago Lyric Opera's sound system
for "Sweeney Todd" inadequate from secondhand reports from "friends," without
having experienced it yourself.
A stupid statement to make considering I was at the dress rehearsal and three
of the performances.

Terry Ellsworth
k***@aol.com
2004-03-03 23:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Keybedder
Funny, you were quite prepared to judge the Chicago Lyric Opera's sound system
for "Sweeney Todd" inadequate from secondhand reports from "friends," without
having experienced it yourself.
A stupid statement to make considering I was at the dress rehearsal and three
of the performances.
Terry Ellsworth
You were presuming to speak for people who were elsewhere in the
auditorium than in your undoubtedly prime location.
Terrymelin
2004-03-04 00:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@aol.com
You were presuming to speak for people who were elsewhere in the
auditorium than in your undoubtedly prime location.
I suggest you re-read what was actually posted. I "reported" what some people
in the house said about the sound in different locations. I didn't "presume" to
speak for them.

You obviously have some kind of agenda.

Terry Ellsworth
Mark D Lew
2004-03-03 03:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
I ordinarily never judge a film without seeing it.
But, in this case, I've carefully read descriptions, reviews, word of
mouth, etc., enough to know that the picture almost totally revolves
around the crucifixion - and is a study in gory sadism, which I don't
care to watch. Taken almost out of context of Jesus' life, it seems
pointless, at best.
But surely it's not taken out of context. How many do you think go to
this film without already knowing who Jesus is and what His life was
about? Surely not many.

mdl
c***@hotmail.com
2004-03-03 05:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Mark, one can conversely ask who on earth can know anything of Jesus and
not know that he was crucified? And as others here have pointed out,
the method of death wasn't really "special" - many suffered the same
fate, often taking *days* to die.
I simply think that a film that focuses so narrowly on a single aspect
of a great life is monomaniacal and, as far as I'm concerned,
dramatically uninteresting.

~ Roger
David Melnick
2004-03-03 09:02:43 UTC
Permalink
From the Los Angeles Times:

March 3, 2004

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Look at Gibson's Choices in 'Passion'

I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust
survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17,
comes into my room. She asks me if I had seen the film "The
Passion."

I answer, "No."

She continues, "It was so sad. I cried so much. I hate the
Jews."

Very, very sadly, that tells the whole story, Mr. Gibson.

Anna Paikow

Los Angeles
c***@hotmail.com
2004-03-03 15:17:18 UTC
Permalink
The young lady needs to be reminded that Jesus was a Jew; and that his
message was that she should not hate anyone.

~ Roger
GRNDPADAVE
2004-03-03 15:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Date: 03/03/2004 9:17 AM Central Standard Time
The young lady needs to be reminded that Jesus was a Jew; and that his
message was that she should not hate anyone.
~ Roger
~~~~~~~~~~~
And the teacher should be reminded not to judge the movie without having seen
it for herself.

==G/P Dave
g***@aol.com
2004-03-03 15:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Melnick
March 3, 2004
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Look at Gibson's Choices in 'Passion'
I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust
survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17,
comes into my room. She asks me if I had seen the film "The
Passion."
I answer, "No."
She continues, "It was so sad. I cried so much. I hate the
Jews."
Very, very sadly, that tells the whole story, Mr. Gibson.
Anna Paikow
Los Angeles
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It *doesn't* tell the whole story.

The "post hoc ergo propter hoc" tells us little of what the "hoc"
actually is.

The child may well have hated Jews *before* seeing the film.

The most brutal scenes involve *Roman soldiers* torturing "Yeshua".
But the child didn't say, "It was so sad. I cried so much. I hate the
*Romans*."

(By the way, I think it was a stroke of brilliance on Gibson's part to
have the characters speaking in their native languages rather than in
New Testament Greek or King James English.)

*Reactions* to the film tell us little about the film itself -- but
much about the *reactors*.

==G/P Dave
Mark D Lew
2004-03-04 07:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
(By the way, I think it was a stroke of brilliance on Gibson's part to
have the characters speaking in their native languages rather than in
New Testament Greek or King James English.)
Open question to those of you who saw the film: Were you able to hear
enough of the Latin to discern what pronunciation scheme they were
using? For example, did they use the (supposed) Roman pronunciation
where "v" sounds like "w", and "c" sounds like "k"? How about long and
short vowels?

Seems to me it's not a simple question to decide exactly what
pronunciation to coach. Then again, with all the effort that has gone
into creating authenticity for invented languages like Klingon and all
the varieties of elvish, orcish and entish, who knows? Must be nice
for linguists that a non-academic industry actually has some serious
work for them.

mdl
REG
2004-03-04 08:20:05 UTC
Permalink
In the same purely academic sense that you are asking, I wonder if the
speakers used demotic Latin, or something more classical. Our best knowledge
is that even though we make students suffer through five declensions (or
more), numerous conjugation forms, the ablative absolute, etc, daily spoken
Latin was far simpler...the academically correct Latin we study would only
have been used for certain speeches and events. I wonder, now that you raise
the question, of whether the Latin used was "too correct".

Nitily yours,
REGarum
Post by Mark D Lew
Post by g***@aol.com
(By the way, I think it was a stroke of brilliance on Gibson's part to
have the characters speaking in their native languages rather than in
New Testament Greek or King James English.)
Open question to those of you who saw the film: Were you able to hear
enough of the Latin to discern what pronunciation scheme they were
using? For example, did they use the (supposed) Roman pronunciation
where "v" sounds like "w", and "c" sounds like "k"? How about long and
short vowels?
Seems to me it's not a simple question to decide exactly what
pronunciation to coach. Then again, with all the effort that has gone
into creating authenticity for invented languages like Klingon and all
the varieties of elvish, orcish and entish, who knows? Must be nice
for linguists that a non-academic industry actually has some serious
work for them.
mdl
g***@aol.com
2004-03-04 13:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
Post by g***@aol.com
(By the way, I think it was a stroke of brilliance on Gibson's part to
have the characters speaking in their native languages rather than in
New Testament Greek or King James English.)
Open question to those of you who saw the film: Were you able to hear
enough of the Latin to discern what pronunciation scheme they were
using? For example, did they use the (supposed) Roman pronunciation
where "v" sounds like "w", and "c" sounds like "k"? How about long and
short vowels?
Seems to me it's not a simple question to decide exactly what
pronunciation to coach. Then again, with all the effort that has gone
into creating authenticity for invented languages like Klingon and all
the varieties of elvish, orcish and entish, who knows? Must be nice
for linguists that a non-academic industry actually has some serious
work for them.
mdl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Latin sounded like Italian: lots of *ch* [as in chew] sounds. I
didn't detect any wimpy-sounding "Waynie, weenie, winkie" talk. The
Romans spoke a very robust dialect throughout the film. (By the way,
the Pontius Pilate, with his distinctly un-Roman, un-aquiline nose,
could have been a stand-in for Bob Hoskins).

The Hebrew was interesting, too. Jesus [Yeshua] -- it was oddly
striking to hear him speaking Hebrew -- would address The Lord as
"Adoneye" rather than "Adonoy."

When the Hebrews referred to the Roman Emperor, they would say,
"Kaiser," as though they were either referring to Germany's last
emperor or ordering a roll at a deli.

It's fascinating how the language issue has thus far failed to Spock
any debate.

Live Long and Prosper,
==G/P Dave
Capa0848
2004-03-04 13:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Latin pronunciation (was Re: O.T. It's only a movie)
Date: 3/4/2004 5:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Post by Mark D Lew
Post by g***@aol.com
(By the way, I think it was a stroke of brilliance on Gibson's part to
have the characters speaking in their native languages rather than in
New Testament Greek or King James English.)
Open question to those of you who saw the film: Were you able to hear
enough of the Latin to discern what pronunciation scheme they were
using? For example, did they use the (supposed) Roman pronunciation
where "v" sounds like "w", and "c" sounds like "k"? How about long and
short vowels?
Seems to me it's not a simple question to decide exactly what
pronunciation to coach. Then again, with all the effort that has gone
into creating authenticity for invented languages like Klingon and all
the varieties of elvish, orcish and entish, who knows? Must be nice
for linguists that a non-academic industry actually has some serious
work for them.
mdl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Latin sounded like Italian: lots of *ch* [as in chew] sounds. I
didn't detect any wimpy-sounding "Waynie, weenie, winkie" talk. The
Romans spoke a very robust dialect throughout the film. (By the way,
the Pontius Pilate, with his distinctly un-Roman, un-aquiline nose,
could have been a stand-in for Bob Hoskins).
The Hebrew was interesting, too.
Aramaic, no?



Jesus [Yeshua] -- it was oddly
striking to hear him speaking Hebrew -- would address The Lord as
"Adoneye" rather than "Adonoy."
When the Hebrews referred to the Roman Emperor, they would say,
"Kaiser," as though they were either referring to Germany's last
emperor or ordering a roll at a deli.
It's fascinating how the language issue has thus far failed to Spock
any debate.
Actually a number of scholars (or so they have been described) have written
that the languages Gibson used to 'enhance' the authenticity of the film, were
largely misjudgments. I'm not sure that I remember the details, but I believe
that the gist was that Romans stationed in that part of the world would have
spoken Greek, rather than Latin.

And that both the Aramaic and Latin used were laughably mispronounced by the
actors -- not that one person in a million (at least in the latter case) would
notice.

Pat
Live Long and Prosper,
==G/P Dave
Bruce B. Reynolds
2004-03-05 13:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capa0848
Actually a number of scholars (or so they have been described) have written
that the languages Gibson used to 'enhance' the authenticity of the film, were
largely misjudgments.
Actually misread that as Gibbon, the first time through.
--
Bruce B. Reynolds, Trailing Edge Technologies, Glenside PA
Leonard Tillman
2004-03-04 13:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
The Latin sounded like Italian: lots of *ch* [as
in chew] sounds. I didn't detect any
wimpy-sounding "Waynie, weenie, winkie"
talk. The Romans spoke a very robust dialect
throughout the film. (By the way, the Pontius
Pilate, with his distinctly un-Roman,
un-aquiline nose, could have been a stand-in
for Bob Hoskins).
- Who, btw, is one of Yeshua's people.
Post by g***@aol.com
The Hebrew was interesting, too. Jesus
[Yeshua] -- it was oddly striking to hear him
speaking Hebrew -- would address The Lord
as "Adoneye" rather than "Adonoy."
Sounds like a possibly Cockney influence.
Post by g***@aol.com
When the Hebrews referred to the Roman
Emperor, they would say, "Kaiser," as though
they were either referring to Germany's last
emperor or ordering a roll at a deli.
What was Gibson's source, indicating that the Hebrews of the time
actually pronounced "Caesar" as "Kaiser", the familiar German form?
Post by g***@aol.com
It's fascinating how the language issue has
thus far failed to Spock any debate.
It's just one of RMO's many Kirk...er....quirks.
Post by g***@aol.com
Live Long and Prosper,
Amen to that!
Post by g***@aol.com
==G/P Dave
LT
Michael Bednarek
2004-03-05 02:47:05 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Mar 2004 05:14:24 -0800, ***@aol.com wrote in
rec.music.opera:

[snip]
Post by g***@aol.com
When the Hebrews referred to the Roman Emperor, they would say,
"Kaiser,"
If they spoke Latin, that's indeed the correct pronunciation. How do you
pronounce the Latin word "caesar"? {seezar} is not the right answer.
Post by g***@aol.com
as though they were either referring to Germany's last
emperor or ordering a roll at a deli.
[snip]

Wouldn't you agree that all German emperors were called Kaiser, not just
the last one?
--
Michael Bednarek http://mbednarek.com/ "POST NO BILLS"
Mark D Lew
2004-03-05 09:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bednarek
If they spoke Latin, that's indeed the correct pronunciation. How do you
pronounce the Latin word "caesar"? {seezar} is not the right answer.
Depends on where and when. "Kai-sar", "kai-zar", "keh-zar",
"tseh-zar", "cheh-zar", and yes, even "see-zar" could all be correct.

mdl
REG
2004-03-05 10:04:44 UTC
Permalink
How do you pronounce "salad"?
Post by Mark D Lew
Post by Michael Bednarek
If they spoke Latin, that's indeed the correct pronunciation. How do you
pronounce the Latin word "caesar"? {seezar} is not the right answer.
Depends on where and when. "Kai-sar", "kai-zar", "keh-zar",
"tseh-zar", "cheh-zar", and yes, even "see-zar" could all be correct.
mdl
thierry morice
2004-03-05 20:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
Post by Michael Bednarek
If they spoke Latin, that's indeed the correct pronunciation. How do you
pronounce the Latin word "caesar"? {seezar} is not the right answer.
Depends on where and when. "Kai-sar", "kai-zar", "keh-zar",
"tseh-zar", "cheh-zar", and yes, even "see-zar" could all be correct.
Exactly. Latine was spoken a large amount of time in a huge area. Thus
we can't expect the pronunciation to have remained unique from 753 BC
till 470 AD (or even later after the fall of the Empire) from the
Hadrian Wall to the Middle East.

And just the word "caesar" gave "César" in French, "Kaiser" in German,
"Tsar" in Russian, "Cesare" in Italian ... , so there surely have been
more than one pronounciation.

th.
Mark D Lew
2004-03-06 00:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by thierry morice
Exactly. Latine was spoken a large amount of time in a huge area. Thus
we can't expect the pronunciation to have remained unique from 753 BC
till 470 AD (or even later after the fall of the Empire) from the
Hadrian Wall to the Middle East.
Much later. Pockets of Latin speaking persisted even to the 19th
century.

mdl
Cub Driver
2004-03-05 10:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bednarek
Wouldn't you agree that all German emperors were called Kaiser, not just
the last one?
I recently read The Radetzsky March (wonderful!) and for a time was
puzzled when characters in the book referred to the Emperor Franz
Joseph as Kaiser. (Hey, isn't the Kaiser named Willie?) So evidently
in 1914 there was a Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and a Kaiser FJ of
Austria-Hungary, at one and the same time.

However, Mr. Vaughn at Brewster Free Academy always said: SEE-zar, not
Kaiser.

"Having done this, SEE-zar ..."

And Mr. Vaughn was of the Way-nee Wee-dee Wen-chi school of
pronunciation.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: ***@mailblocks.com (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
thierry morice
2004-03-05 20:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cub Driver
I recently read The Radetzsky March (wonderful!) and for a time was
puzzled when characters in the book referred to the Emperor Franz
Joseph as Kaiser. (Hey, isn't the Kaiser named Willie?) So evidently
in 1914 there was a Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and a Kaiser FJ of
Austria-Hungary, at one and the same time.
Of course, since "Kaiser" just means "Emperor". When the Germans speak
in German about Napoleon I or III they say "Kaiser", too .....

After 1870, there was a German Empire and an Austrian one (since
1806), thus there were two Kaisers.
The Emperor of Austria was also king (kiraly) of Hungary.

th.
L. Neff
2004-03-06 01:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by thierry morice
Of course, since "Kaiser" just means "Emperor".
Like the Russian "tsar," the word "Kaiser" was derived from "Caesar."
Mark D Lew
2004-03-05 10:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
The Latin sounded like Italian: lots of *ch* [as in chew] sounds. I
didn't detect any wimpy-sounding "Waynie, weenie, winkie" talk. [...]
When the Hebrews referred to the Roman Emperor, they would say,
"Kaiser," as though they were either referring to Germany's last
emperor or ordering a roll at a deli.
Well, there's a contradiction right there. Unless there's some unusual
exception I'm not aware of, if there are soft c's then "caesar" should
have one, too.

--
Post by g***@aol.com
Actually a number of scholars (or so they have been described) have written
that the languages Gibson used to 'enhance' the authenticity of the film,
were largely misjudgments. I'm not sure that I remember the details, but I
believe that the gist was that Romans stationed in that part of the world would have
spoken Greek, rather than Latin.
I don't really know that era, but it's certainly true that Greek was
the lingua franca of the eastern half of the Roman Empire throughout
most of its history. On the other hand, Latin was very much the
language of the military, so if the Romans in question were career
soldiers Latin makes sense.

I do question the Italianate pronunciation, though. I'd have to check
the books, but my recollection is that the C and G didn't soften till
several centuries later. The V I think was changing right around the
time of Christ. I'm sure it still had the "w" sound in proper Latin,
but it may well have become "v" in vulgar pronunciation. (But then
that raises the question of whether the various ranks of the military
would speak vulgar....)
Post by g***@aol.com
And that both the Aramaic and Latin used were laughably mispronounced by the
actors -- not that one person in a million (at least in the latter case) would
notice.
I think one in a thousand is more like it.

mdl
Capa0848
2004-03-05 13:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Latin pronunciation (was Re: O.T. It's only a movie)
Date: 3/5/2004 2:11 AM Pacific Standard Time
Post by g***@aol.com
The Latin sounded like Italian: lots of *ch* [as in chew] sounds. I
didn't detect any wimpy-sounding "Waynie, weenie, winkie" talk. [...]
When the Hebrews referred to the Roman Emperor, they would say,
"Kaiser," as though they were either referring to Germany's last
emperor or ordering a roll at a deli.
Well, there's a contradiction right there. Unless there's some unusual
exception I'm not aware of, if there are soft c's then "caesar" should
have one, too.
--
Post by g***@aol.com
Actually a number of scholars (or so they have been described) have written
that the languages Gibson used to 'enhance' the authenticity of the film,
were largely misjudgments. I'm not sure that I remember the details, but
I
Post by g***@aol.com
believe that the gist was that Romans stationed in that part of the world
would have
Post by g***@aol.com
spoken Greek, rather than Latin.
I don't really know that era, but it's certainly true that Greek was
the lingua franca of the eastern half of the Roman Empire throughout
most of its history. On the other hand, Latin was very much the
language of the military, so if the Romans in question were career
soldiers Latin makes sense.
I do question the Italianate pronunciation, though. I'd have to check
the books, but my recollection is that the C and G didn't soften till
several centuries later. The V I think was changing right around the
time of Christ. I'm sure it still had the "w" sound in proper Latin,
but it may well have become "v" in vulgar pronunciation. (But then
that raises the question of whether the various ranks of the military
would speak vulgar....)
Post by g***@aol.com
And that both the Aramaic and Latin used were laughably mispronounced by
the
Post by g***@aol.com
actors -- not that one person in a million (at least in the latter case)
would
Post by g***@aol.com
notice.
I think one in a thousand is more like it.
mdl
I'm sorry, I meant to say 'the former case', i.e. I was referring to Aramaic,
not Latin

Pat

Historians are like deaf people who go on answering questions no one has asked
them.

Tolstoy
a***@comcast.net
2004-03-05 18:34:51 UTC
Permalink
From the wave lapped shores of the Lake of Illogic: Paraphrasing, [was it
Santayana? ] those who don't read History are doomed to re-live it.
AES
Post by Capa0848
Historians are like deaf people who go on answering questions no one has asked
them.
Tolstoy
Dominique Gascon
2004-03-05 18:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
Post by Capa0848
Actually a number of scholars (or so they have been described) have written
that the languages Gibson used to 'enhance' the authenticity of the film,
were largely misjudgments. I'm not sure that I remember the details, but I
believe that the gist was that Romans stationed in that part of the world would have
spoken Greek, rather than Latin.
I don't really know that era, but it's certainly true that Greek was
the lingua franca of the eastern half of the Roman Empire throughout
most of its history. On the other hand, Latin was very much the
language of the military, so if the Romans in question were career
soldiers Latin makes sense.
Indeed, but if the legionaries belonged to local militias (a definite
possibility) rather to the regular legions, it is likely that they
would have been greek speaking. Greek settlement in the area greatly
accelarated after Alexander's conquest, and numerous greek colonies
were established. The Decapolis league, including Damascus &
Philadelphia [Amman], would have been the likely origin of local
militia men.

As for Pilatus himself, he certainly spoke greek, as any educated
roman did, and he would have addressed the natives in greek (and as
any self respecting colonial overlord, probably never bothered to
learn arameic)
To reply, remove the obvious from my address.

Dominique Gascon
***@cgocable.ca
Mark D Lew
2004-03-06 00:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominique Gascon
Indeed, but if the legionaries belonged to local militias (a definite
possibility) rather to the regular legions, it is likely that they
would have been greek speaking.
Aha, that makes sense. Thanks.

mdl
Wieland
2004-03-04 15:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
Post by g***@aol.com
(By the way, I think it was a stroke of brilliance on Gibson's part to
have the characters speaking in their native languages rather than in
New Testament Greek or King James English.)
Open question to those of you who saw the film: Were you able to hear
enough of the Latin to discern what pronunciation scheme they were
using? For example, did they use the (supposed) Roman pronunciation
where "v" sounds like "w", and "c" sounds like "k"? How about long and
short vowels?
I have not seen the film, but even its use of Latin has been
criticized. The common language of the various ethnic groups in
colonial Judea actually was Greek, apparently, with Latin being saved
for official proclamations and edicts.

I recently read an interview with a professor from a Catholic
university in Chicago
(http://www.abc.net.au/arts/news/artsnews_1052700.htm) who implied
that the average centurion in Jerusalem wouldn't have known the
language at all.

As for pronunciation, as I understand it the film used "modern church"
pronunciation--and as a non-Catholic I can only assume this means
Italianate pronunciation ("beh-neh-dee-chee-moos teh," e.g.)--rather
than authentic classical pronunction.

Anyway, the professor thought the Latin was "so badly pronounced it
was almost incomprehensible." Everybody's a critic.

Wieland
Valfer
2004-03-04 20:27:23 UTC
Permalink
I was taught that the Lingua Franca in the Eastern Mediterranean was
Greek. Roman colonials in the first century A.D., many of whom were
born and raised the the area, often did not speak Latin at all, or if
they did, they spoke one of its "vulgar" derivatives which were
beginning to develop. The early Christian writings were mostly in
Greek, as was the "fish" anagram used as a symbol. The word
"Christos" is Greek, meaning "anointed".

Modern languages are a relatively reliable indicator of the places
where Latin was spoken in Roman times. Latin evolved into Romance
languages in places like Hispania, Gallia, Lusitania, Italia,
Dalmatia, Rhaetia, Dalmacia, etc.

Valfer
Post by Wieland
Post by Mark D Lew
Post by g***@aol.com
(By the way, I think it was a stroke of brilliance on Gibson's part to
have the characters speaking in their native languages rather than in
New Testament Greek or King James English.)
Open question to those of you who saw the film: Were you able to hear
enough of the Latin to discern what pronunciation scheme they were
using? For example, did they use the (supposed) Roman pronunciation
where "v" sounds like "w", and "c" sounds like "k"? How about long and
short vowels?
I have not seen the film, but even its use of Latin has been
criticized. The common language of the various ethnic groups in
colonial Judea actually was Greek, apparently, with Latin being saved
for official proclamations and edicts.
I recently read an interview with a professor from a Catholic
university in Chicago
(http://www.abc.net.au/arts/news/artsnews_1052700.htm) who implied
that the average centurion in Jerusalem wouldn't have known the
language at all.
As for pronunciation, as I understand it the film used "modern church"
pronunciation--and as a non-Catholic I can only assume this means
Italianate pronunciation ("beh-neh-dee-chee-moos teh," e.g.)--rather
than authentic classical pronunction.
Anyway, the professor thought the Latin was "so badly pronounced it
was almost incomprehensible." Everybody's a critic.
Wieland
Cub Driver
2004-03-04 21:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wieland
As for pronunciation, as I understand it the film used "modern church"
pronunciation--and as a non-Catholic I can only assume this means
Italianate pronunciation ("beh-neh-dee-chee-moos teh," e.g.)--rather
than authentic classical pronunction.
I learned Latin in a parochial school, and afterward went to a New
England prep school. The only difference was that Sister Mary Joseph
pronounced V as V, while Mr. Vaughn pronounced it as W. I don't
remember any other differences. (To be sure, it was a while ago. The
nuns still were disciplining bad boys with a ruler edge-on against the
knuckles.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: ***@mailblocks.com (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
Mark D Lew
2004-03-05 10:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wieland
I recently read an interview with a professor from a Catholic
university in Chicago
(http://www.abc.net.au/arts/news/artsnews_1052700.htm) who implied
that the average centurion in Jerusalem wouldn't have known the
language at all.
Thanks for the link. I'm sure these scholars know more about the
language than I do, so lacking any evidence to the contrary I'll take
their word for it that the centurions spoke Greek.

I'd be less skeptical if the article hadn't also quoted someone saying,
"Pontius Pilate was a very cruel and brutal man. And he wouldn't care
two winks about executing another Jew. He had killed so many before
him," which is a reckless claim.

The notion of Pilate as cruel is a common one, but there's no reliable
basis for it. Our only sources on Pilate are Tacitus and Josephus. The
harshest thing that either of them says about Pilate is that he was
recalled to Rome for using excessive force to put down a revolt by
Samarians. To extrapolate personal characteristics from that is just
creative historical fiction, especially given that none of the other
references support it.

Perseus is offline right now (www.perseus.tufts.edu), so I can't
provide a cite, but it's somewhere in chapter 18 of Antiquities.

mdl
Wieland
2004-03-05 16:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
I'd be less skeptical if the article hadn't also quoted someone saying,
"Pontius Pilate was a very cruel and brutal man. And he wouldn't care
two winks about executing another Jew. He had killed so many before
him," which is a reckless claim.
The notion of Pilate as cruel is a common one, but there's no reliable
basis for it. Our only sources on Pilate are Tacitus and Josephus. The
harshest thing that either of them says about Pilate is that he was
recalled to Rome for using excessive force to put down a revolt by
Samarians. To extrapolate personal characteristics from that is just
creative historical fiction, especially given that none of the other
references support it.
mdl
Don't forget Philo's Legatio ad Gaium. Isn't that actually the
primary source for the "brutal Pilate" image?

Philo and Josephus had agendas, of course--but let's face it, so did
most writers of the period. I don't think we'll ever know for sure
what he was really like.

People do seem to feel strongly about the question, for some reason.

Wieland
Mark D Lew
2004-03-06 00:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wieland
Don't forget Philo's Legatio ad Gaium. Isn't that actually the
primary source for the "brutal Pilate" image?
Thanks for the cite. On this topic I'm taking my lead from a colleague
who knows this far better than I do. I'll follow up on the Philo and
see what he says.

mdl
Wieland
2004-03-04 15:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Pardon the typo. I know we have some real sticklers here.

Wieland
Leonard Tillman
2004-03-04 18:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Pardon the typo. I know we have some real
sticklers here.
Sadly, the sticklers are stuck in their sticklings.
They'd ordinarily be advised to "stick it"; Alas, they've nothing to
stick, but their preposterously protruding probosci, already stuck in a
stack - horizontally, vertically, etc., etc.
Wieland
LT
Singer709
2004-03-05 17:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
Post by g***@aol.com
(By the way, I think it was a stroke of brilliance on Gibson's part to
have the characters speaking in their native languages rather than in
New Testament Greek or King James English.)
Open question to those of you who saw the film: Were you able to hear
enough of the Latin to discern what pronunciation scheme they were
using? For example, did they use the (supposed) Roman pronunciation
where "v" sounds like "w", and "c" sounds like "k"? How about long and
short vowels?
Seems to me it's not a simple question to decide exactly what
pronunciation to coach. Then again, with all the effort that has gone
into creating authenticity for invented languages like Klingon and all
the varieties of elvish, orcish and entish, who knows? Must be nice
for linguists that a non-academic industry actually has some serious
work for them.
mdl
Interesting question. As I understand, there are 3 general Latin
pronounciations, (1) Roman Latin, (2) ecclesiastical Latin, and (3)
literary Latin. The first is speculation, as no one can know what it
actually sounded like. And in all likelihood, there were many
sub-varities of that subset, because of regional differences.
Mark D Lew
2004-03-06 00:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Singer709
Interesting question. As I understand, there are 3 general Latin
pronounciations, (1) Roman Latin, (2) ecclesiastical Latin, and (3)
literary Latin. The first is speculation, as no one can know what it
actually sounded like. And in all likelihood, there were many
sub-varities of that subset, because of regional differences.
It's not true that the first is only speculation. For a language as
well-documented as Latin, there are numerous ways of determining
historical pronunciation -- both linguistic (eg, spellings of imported
words) and documentary (eg, contemporary writings about phonetics).

If you're dividing Latin pronunciations into three categories, I think
you'd do better to make your second and third categories southern
European ("Italianate") and northern European ("Germanic").

In recent usage, ecclesiastical has followed the Italianate pattern.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "literary". In the middle ages and
Renaissance, scholars would follow the pronunciation of their local
geography.

Of course you're right that there a plenty of "sub-varieties". Most
notably, the Renaissance also had an English Latin, which more or less
matches how we pronounced scientific names today.

In singing, another one you'll occasionally encounter is a variety of
Latin somewhat akin to early French, which is the dialect in which some
of the numbers from the "Cours d'amour" section of Carmina burana are
written. Proper pronunciation of this text includes some French vowel
sounds and the "zh" consonant which are absent in all the other Latins.

mdl
daniel f. tritter
2004-03-02 15:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Valfer
I can't believe the hoopla over the latest Mel Gibson opus. Credit
his publicity machine for making millions of people take notice of a
movie which belongs in a "cinema art" movie house.
It isn't Mr. Gibson's "publicity machine" that made people make notice of the
film. It was the scolds and hate-mongers who waged a year long campaign to get
people to notice the movie and to get them to stay away.
I'd say it blew up in their faces.
Terry Ellsworth
one would appreciate hearing the moronic paranoid ellsworth identify the
hatemongers by name. i'm making a list of his probable nominees and will
be fascinated to see what their ethnic identities prove to be.

dft
Valfer
2004-03-02 19:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Can you name one of the "scolds and hate-mongers"?

If the movie had not received the clever publicity it did, the whole
thing would have flown under the radar of your "scolds and
hatemongers", and become just another gimmicky biblical epic.

Valfer
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Valfer
I can't believe the hoopla over the latest Mel Gibson opus. Credit
his publicity machine for making millions of people take notice of a
movie which belongs in a "cinema art" movie house.
It isn't Mr. Gibson's "publicity machine" that made people make notice of the
film. It was the scolds and hate-mongers who waged a year long campaign to get
people to notice the movie and to get them to stay away.
I'd say it blew up in their faces.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
2004-03-02 20:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Valfer
Can you name one of the "scolds and hate-mongers"?
If the movie had not received the clever publicity it did, the whole
thing would have flown under the radar of your "scolds and
hatemongers", and become just another gimmicky biblical epic.
Valfer
I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. The movie had no publicity to speak of and
most people had never even heard it was being made until a group of "scolds and
hatemongers" got a hold of a copy of the script and starting screaming to the
media that the film -- which they admitted they had never seen -- was
anti-Semitic.

So the media jumped all over the story and had the "scolds and hatemongers" on
television on a daily basis and that stirred up interest in the movie.

Then people who had never even heard of it started hearing about and many
decided to find out for themselves. That resulted in $135m in box office --
which is unprecedented for a movie opening in February -- and endless publicity
for the film.

Mr. Gibson couldn't have bought that kind of publicity. It was handed to him by
the foes who would have censored the film and kept it from people.

I'll say it again. Their campaign against the film has utterly failed.

Terry Ellsworth
a***@comcast.net
2004-03-02 22:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Ellsworth,
It's not a campaign against "the film."
Surely, even a person of your limited
intelligence might have noticed by now.
Wellllll . . .. . obviously not.
AES
I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. <
[ qvetch, qvetch, qvetch. . . . ]
Mark D Lew
2004-03-02 22:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Then people who had never even heard of it started hearing about and many
decided to find out for themselves. That resulted in $135m in box office --
which is unprecedented for a movie opening in February -- and endless
publicity for the film.
Mr. Gibson couldn't have bought that kind of publicity. It was handed to him
by the foes who would have censored the film and kept it from people.
I think you're right that the attendant controversy brought in the
lion's share of the ticket sales. But I think you're wrong to
characterize it as being brought about entirely by the movie's
detractors.

The detractors may have started the debate, but they aren't the ones
who reached all the people. The pro side of the debate has been
equally vocal, and I would estimate that roughly half of Americans
first heard about it from someone in favor of it. Among eventual
ticket-buyers it's probably more than half.

I would guess that there were far more ticket-buyers who first heard
about the controversy from Dr James Dobson than who first heard about
it from the Anti-Defamation League.

Would Dr Dobson have endorsed the movie so sweepingly if he weren't
able to point at the others who are (allegedly) trying to censor it?
Maybe not. But the focus of his argument was not to send a message
against would-be censors, but rather to send a message to the Hollywood
establishment that a Christian-themed movie really can sell well. That
motive is there regardless of what the ADL and Frank Rich had to say.

md
Terrymelin
2004-03-03 02:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
The detractors may have started the debate, but they aren't the ones
who reached all the people. The pro side of the debate has
Without the detractors there would have been no debate and no controversy. That
is what gave the movie so much publicity.
Post by Mark D Lew
The pro side of the debate has been
equally vocal, and I would estimate that roughly half of Americans
first heard about it from someone in favor of it. Among eventual
ticket-buyers it's probably more than half.
They would never have heard those people if the detractors hadn't been
denouncing the film for a better part of year.

It is always the negative that starts a controversy and a debate. That is where
all the publicity originated from.

Terry Ellsworth
Mark D Lew
2004-03-03 03:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
They would never have heard those people if the detractors hadn't been
denouncing the film for a better part of year.
It is always the negative that starts a controversy and a debate. That is where
all the publicity originated from.
But if there hadn't been detractors they could have easily been
invented. The majority of those whose primary source of cultural news
is Focus on the Family, Fox News, or conservative talk radio had no
idea that there were detractors to the movie until
Limbaugh/Savage/Dobson/O'Reilly told them that "those liberals" are
trying to stop you from seeing this movie. You really only need one
or two editorials to point at to make that claim -- and sometimes you
don't even need that.

mdl
Terrymelin
2004-03-03 15:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
But if there hadn't been detractors they could have easily been
invented
Could have but weren't.
Post by Mark D Lew
The majority of those whose primary source of cultural news
is Focus on the Family, Fox News, or conservative talk radio had no
idea that there were detractors to the movie until
Limbaugh/Savage/Dobson/O'Reilly told them that "those liberals" are
trying to stop you from seeing this movie.
That may be true but they were also right. And if "those liberals" hadn't tried
to stop people from seeing this movie there would have been no controversy.
Which has been my point.

Terry Ellsworth
daniel f. tritter
2004-03-03 16:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Mark D Lew
But if there hadn't been detractors they could have easily been
invented
Could have but weren't.
Post by Mark D Lew
The majority of those whose primary source of cultural news
is Focus on the Family, Fox News, or conservative talk radio had no
idea that there were detractors to the movie until
Limbaugh/Savage/Dobson/O'Reilly told them that "those liberals" are
trying to stop you from seeing this movie.
That may be true but they were also right. And if "those liberals" hadn't tried
to stop people from seeing this movie there would have been no controversy.
Which has been my point.
Terry Ellsworth
the only point you bring us, dear ellsworth, is the one on top of your
empty head. and you insist upon demonstrating the depressing vacuum
between your ears continuously.

it's "those liberals" again. need we guess that ellsworth is just
warming up for his campaign as rmo's resident karl rove parrot. as we
all know [or can depend upon ellsworth reminding us nonstop], "those
liberals" are against heterosexuality, christianity, motherhood, the
flag, apple pie, and, in all likelihood, even norman podhoretz.

one had thought that the fall of the berlin wall and the implosion of
the soviet union had left fools like ellsworth without an enemies list,
but paranoids cannot accept a world where they are not persecuted. straw
men are their stock in trade. and orwellian lexicography is their medium.

ellsworth needs his liberals. if only he'd make an appintment for his
daily ten minute hate and stick to the time scheduled.

dft
GRNDPADAVE
2004-03-03 19:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Date: 03/03/2004 10:53 AM Central Standard Time
---Snip<------
Post by Terrymelin
That may be true but they were also right. And if "those liberals" hadn't
tried
Post by Terrymelin
to stop people from seeing this movie there would have been no controversy.
Which has been my point.
Terry Ellsworth
the only point you bring us, dear ellsworth, is the one on top of your
empty head. and you insist upon demonstrating the depressing vacuum
between your ears continuously.
it's "those liberals" again. need we guess that ellsworth is just
warming up for his campaign as rmo's resident karl rove parrot. as we
all know [or can depend upon ellsworth reminding us nonstop], "those
liberals" are against heterosexuality, christianity, motherhood, the
flag, apple pie, and, in all likelihood, even norman podhoretz.
one had thought that the fall of the berlin wall and the implosion of
the soviet union had left fools like ellsworth without an enemies list,
but paranoids cannot accept a world where they are not persecuted. straw
men are their stock in trade. and orwellian lexicography is their medium.
ellsworth needs his liberals. if only he'd make an appintment for his
daily ten minute hate and stick to the time scheduled.
dft
~~~~~~~~~~~
Far be it from me to defend, Mr. Ellsworth, but I think now and then he does
elicit "a grain or two of truth among the chaff."

There are times Gibson's film brought back to mind "The Robe" -- about which no
controversy reverberated.

The negative notices re Gibson's opus appeared long before the movie began
circulating.

Those notices, frankly, aroused my curiosity sufficiently for me to plunk down
$5.25 at Evanston's multiplex to take in the flick.

I think I got my money's worth.

I think, Sir Dan, that you hate conservatives as much as Ellsworth hates
liberals: in short, hardly at all. Now if you were to make the object of your
mutual dislike the New York Yankees, then I think you might find you have
something in common.

G'day,
==G/P Dave
Terrymelin
2004-03-03 21:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by GRNDPADAVE
Far be it from me to defend, Mr. Ellsworth, but I think now and then he does
elicit "a grain or two of truth among the chaff."
Nice to see that G/P Dave hasn't lost his condescending touch.
Post by GRNDPADAVE
Now if you were to make the object of your
mutual dislike the New York Yankees, then I think you might find you have
something in common.
The New York Yankees are the greatest baseball team in the entire history of
civilization.

Terry Ellsworth
GRNDPADAVE
2004-03-03 21:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Date: 03/03/2004 3:13 PM Central Standard Time
Post by GRNDPADAVE
Far be it from me to defend, Mr. Ellsworth, but I think now and then he does
elicit "a grain or two of truth among the chaff."
Nice to see that G/P Dave hasn't lost his condescending touch.
Post by GRNDPADAVE
Now if you were to make the object of your
mutual dislike the New York Yankees, then I think you might find you have
something in common.
The New York Yankees are the greatest baseball team in the entire history of
civilization.
Terry Ellsworth
~~~~~~~~~~
Hmm. Better than the White Sox?

==G/P Dave
Terrymelin
2004-03-04 00:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by GRNDPADAVE
Hmm. Better than the White Sox?
==G/P Dave
The White who?

Terry Ellsworth
daniel f. tritter
2004-03-03 21:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by GRNDPADAVE
Far be it from me to defend, Mr. Ellsworth, but I think now and then he does
elicit "a grain or two of truth among the chaff."
Nice to see that G/P Dave hasn't lost his condescending touch.
Post by GRNDPADAVE
Now if you were to make the object of your
mutual dislike the New York Yankees, then I think you might find you have
something in common.
The New York Yankees are the greatest baseball team in the entire history of
civilization.
Terry Ellsworth
... which can serve to describe the limits of ellsworth's acquaintance
with civilization.
he reminds me a lot of a poster of a few years ago who identified
herself as "tommy," [whom? remember?] and made a number of ungrammatical
pronouncements such as we are now hearing from ellsworth ... a bit more
grammatical, but equal to our departed poster in bottom line stupidity.

dft
Terrymelin
2004-03-03 02:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
Would Dr Dobson have endorsed the movie so sweepingly if he weren't
able to point at the others who are (allegedly) trying to censor it?
And there you make my point. All of the people praising the film -- many of
whom actually saw it unlike the detractors -- did so only to counter all the
denunciations from the people trying to censor.

And if you think that the attempt to censor was "alledged" then I have a bridge
in Brooklyn to sell you. What do you think they were trying to do other than
intimidate the filmmaker into changing his film or scaring people from seeing
it?

Terry Ellsworth
Mark D Lew
2004-03-03 03:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
And if you think that the attempt to censor was "alledged" then I have a
bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
"Alleged" doesn't mean they didn't. It just means I'm not in a
position to prove that they did. As you know, I try not to make any
factual claims without having seen the evidence myself.
Post by Terrymelin
What do you think they were trying to do other than
intimidate the filmmaker into changing his film or scaring people from seeing
it?
Well, I don't know. I've certainly *heard* that they were trying to
censor, but I had *heard* that Mel Gibson had made anti-semitic
statements, too, and didn't realize there was no evidence for that
until I was called upon to back it up. If you want to take up the
burden of proof about censorship attempts, be my guest. I'm not
prepared to do that.

mdl
Terrymelin
2004-03-03 15:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
"Alleged" doesn't mean they didn't. It just means I'm not in a
position to prove that they did. As you know, I try not to make any
factual claims without having seen the evidence myself.
Well, all you would have to do is turn on your TV set or read the New York
Times w which has been running articles slamming the film for at least the past
year. It was hard not to miss it.
Post by Mark D Lew
Well, I don't know. I've certainly *heard* that they were trying to
censor, but I had *heard* that Mel Gibson had made anti-semitic
statements, too,
I didn't hear it. I saw them speaking on CNN and being quoted in the New York
Times. So in that sense I "heard it." Check out the quotes. All the evidence is
there for people to see.

Terry Ellsworth
Mark D Lew
2004-03-04 07:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Well, all you would have to do is turn on your TV set or read the New York
Times w which has been running articles slamming the film for at least the
past year. It was hard not to miss it.
I saw lots of articles and interviews slamming the film. I couldn't
recall any serious efforts to actually censor it.

(I assume we really are talking about actual censorship here, not the
hyperbolic use of the word where some aggrieved person cries
"censorship" just because someone else criticizes or neglects to
provide funding.)

mdl
Terrymelin
2004-03-04 15:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
I saw lots of articles and interviews slamming the film. I couldn't
recall any serious efforts to actually censor it.
My use of the word "censor" is this. There was a concerted effort to get the
film stopped, to prevent people from seeing it, to get it changed to avoid a
boycott, etc. I call that an attempt to "censor" a work of art.
Post by Mark D Lew
(I assume we really are talking about actual censorship here, not the
hyperbolic use of the word where some aggrieved person cries
"censorship" just because someone else criticizes or neglects to
provide funding.)
Definitely. This was never an issue of money. Mr. Gibson financed the entire
project out of his own pocket. Like a true artist.

Terry Ellsworth
Oisk17
2004-03-04 17:45:55 UTC
Permalink
As I previously submitted quotes from two reviews (Wieselthier and Sullivan)
that were very critical of the film, I think it only fair that I relate the
views of the Principal and other Rabbis at my Orthodox Yeshivah in Brooklyn.
Much to my surprise, they reported that the film was powerful, and no more
anti-Jewish than is necessitated by remaining faithful to the source material.
They advised us to see it - but also advised us to urge our students NOT to see
it.

Ordinarily, "graphic violence" is sufficient comment to prevent me from
watching ANY film, but I may make an exception this time. My wife, who is
Roman Catholic, does not wish to see it either, but I may try to pursuade her.

Paul
Terrymelin
2004-03-04 19:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oisk17
As I previously submitted quotes from two reviews (Wieselthier and Sullivan)
that were very critical of the film, I think it only fair that I relate the
views of the Principal and other Rabbis at my Orthodox Yeshivah in Brooklyn.
Much to my surprise, they reported that the film was powerful, and no more
anti-Jewish than is necessitated by remaining faithful to the source material.
They advised us to see it - but also advised us to urge our students NOT to see
it.
Ordinarily, "graphic violence" is sufficient comment to prevent me from
watching ANY film, but I may make an exception this time. My wife, who is
Roman Catholic, does not wish to see it either, but I may try to pursuade her.
Paul
It is very, very violent and I found it very hard to take at times. It is not
for the faint at heart.

Terry Ellsworth
daniel f. tritter
2004-03-04 19:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Oisk17
As I previously submitted quotes from two reviews (Wieselthier and Sullivan)
that were very critical of the film, I think it only fair that I relate the
views of the Principal and other Rabbis at my Orthodox Yeshivah in Brooklyn.
Much to my surprise, they reported that the film was powerful, and no more
anti-Jewish than is necessitated by remaining faithful to the source material.
They advised us to see it - but also advised us to urge our students NOT to see
it.
Ordinarily, "graphic violence" is sufficient comment to prevent me from
watching ANY film, but I may make an exception this time. My wife, who is
Roman Catholic, does not wish to see it either, but I may try to pursuade her.
Paul
It is very, very violent and I found it very hard to take at times. It is not
for the faint at heart.
Terry Ellsworth
well, this lionhearted boor overcame his trumpeted misgivings. one
wonders whether he bought any of the souvenir nails being peddled in the
lobby [not too close, we trust, to the pop corn] that the self-confessed
true believer and man of faith [faith in the merchandising buck, that
is], mel gibson. ellsworth, if you got a couple dozen, you could wear a
necklace of them, close to your heart, which is alleged not to be faint.

back in the days of seven new york daily newspapers, they used to sing
that well known christmas carol, "hark, the herald tribune sings."

and in that same era, we got a full dose of faith from the late rev.
norman vincent peale, who hawked "the power of positive thinking," and
in addition to his best seller, had a not inconsiderable mail order
business selling mustard seeds, symbolic of his faith.

and riding an auto late at night, one could hear a spiel telling us,
"send $2.98 for your bible. that's b-i-b-l-e, send your $2.98 to bible,
w-w-v-a, wheeling, west virginia."

where'd you say you're from, ellsworth? elmer gantry, anyone?

dft
a***@comcast.net
2004-03-04 20:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Or, as in your case, a faintly flickering brain.
Such as it is.
But then, you've seen the film, as you advertised. Any further damage?
AES

"Terrymelin" <***@aol.com> wrote:
It is not for the faint at heart.
Post by Terrymelin
Terry Ellsworth
Parterrebox
2004-03-04 00:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
The movie had no publicity to speak of
Gibson has been plugging this show for a year or more -- remember all those
special top-secret screenings with pre-screened sympathetic opinion leaders?
=============

parterre box
www.parterre.com
REG
2004-03-03 01:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Valfer, in fairness I think there was a lot of pre-publicity from people who
felt so concerned about the anti-Semitic angle that they were literally
pre-judging the film. It's not that I don't understand that, including the
wish to try to "control" what was feared to be a very dangerous topic being
raised in a powerful way, but all the same you can'd deny there was a lot of
press and press releases trying to get the film significantly edited or
changed.
Post by Valfer
Can you name one of the "scolds and hate-mongers"?
If the movie had not received the clever publicity it did, the whole
thing would have flown under the radar of your "scolds and
hatemongers", and become just another gimmicky biblical epic.
Valfer
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Valfer
I can't believe the hoopla over the latest Mel Gibson opus. Credit
his publicity machine for making millions of people take notice of a
movie which belongs in a "cinema art" movie house.
It isn't Mr. Gibson's "publicity machine" that made people make notice of the
film. It was the scolds and hate-mongers who waged a year long campaign to get
people to notice the movie and to get them to stay away.
I'd say it blew up in their faces.
Terry Ellsworth
Valfer
2004-03-03 23:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Wiser heads have advised me of the fact that the publicists I was
blaming are themselves surprised by the hoopla raised over this movie
by such a diversity of people. What we have here is best described as
the result of a number of loudmouthed people holding bits of the truth
about this movie trying to out-scream each other in front of the
public. Instead of having their opinions be the "sole truth", they
have achieved unprecedented box office for the movie. Hey, we're only
human!

The people who found the movie anti-Semitic sight unseen were probably
just as wrong as the apologists for the movie - or perhaps just as
right. What turns me off about the matter right now is Mel Gibson's
"More Papist than the Pope" attitude. Who is to blame for Christ's
death is a matter for theologists to discuss. Lay opinions on such
matters are superfluous, specially those of the talking heads in TV
talk shows, or those of "Mel the Evangelist". Is it anti-Semitic? I
don't know. I figure that someone whose family was decimated by nazi
fanatics sixty years ago must know more about this that I.

I haven't seen the movie, and will wait until it comes out for rental.
Patience is one of my few virtues. If the movie gives me a religious
experience, it will be in private. If it makes me sick, nobody will
ever know. I doubt it will make me anti-Semitic, just as "Schindler's
List" didn't make me go out and shoot my German neighbors.

Valfer
Post by REG
Valfer, in fairness I think there was a lot of pre-publicity from people who
felt so concerned about the anti-Semitic angle that they were literally
pre-judging the film. It's not that I don't understand that, including the
wish to try to "control" what was feared to be a very dangerous topic being
raised in a powerful way, but all the same you can'd deny there was a lot of
press and press releases trying to get the film significantly edited or
changed.
Terrymelin
2004-03-04 00:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Valfer
What turns me off about the matter right now is Mel Gibson's
"More Papist than the Pope" attitude.
You are quite mistaken, Mr. Valfer. That is a comment "he's more Catholic than
the pope" that has been tagged on Mr. Gibson from journalists. Mr. Gibson has
never made or asserted the comment about himself.

Terry Ellsworth
a***@comcast.net
2004-03-04 00:56:24 UTC
Permalink
No,
Only by his religious affiliations.
Or is the Pope now subservient to Mel Gibson et pere in matters of
theological dogma?
If the world doesn't live up to your expectations, why qvetch it into
line, Ellsworth.
Your style, our curse.
Pepin le Theologian
[Church of Lev Bronstein's Ghost, Agnostic ]

"Terrymelin" <***@aol.com> wrote
That is a comment "he's more Catholic than
Post by Terrymelin
the pope" that has been tagged on Mr. Gibson from journalists. Mr. Gibson has
never made or asserted the comment about himself.
Terry Ellsworth
Mark D Lew
2004-03-04 07:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
You are quite mistaken, Mr. Valfer. That is a comment "he's more Catholic than
the pope" that has been tagged on Mr. Gibson from journalists. Mr. Gibson has
never made or asserted the comment about himself.
This looks like another case where Mel Gibson's own views are blurred
with those of his father.

Gibson pere has asserted, among other things, that every Pope since
John XXIII has been a heretic, and the Vatican has been taken over by a
"New World Order" conspiracy.

Presumably, Gibson fils doesn't share all his father's beliefs. He
does, however, oppose the Vatican II reforms, and he has provided
financial support to groups which share that opposition. That puts him
at odds with the Papacy on that one point, at least.

mdl
Valfer
2004-03-04 14:44:54 UTC
Permalink
What happened to the dogma of Papal infallibility? Gibson calls
himself a Catholic, then says the past four popes are wrong. There is
a name for people who share his beliefs - Protestant.

If Gibson likes the Tridentine Mass, fine! I like it, too. There is
little to dislike in the old rites, but the Vatican II reforms are a
lot more than words and music. The church leaders took a look outside
the window and realized that the world had changed during the past
four centuries. What does Gibson want - a return to teaching kids in
Catholic school that "jews are evil because they laughed while Jesus
was crucified?"

Valfer
Post by Mark D Lew
Post by Terrymelin
You are quite mistaken, Mr. Valfer. That is a comment "he's more Catholic than
the pope" that has been tagged on Mr. Gibson from journalists. Mr. Gibson has
never made or asserted the comment about himself.
This looks like another case where Mel Gibson's own views are blurred
with those of his father.
Gibson pere has asserted, among other things, that every Pope since
John XXIII has been a heretic, and the Vatican has been taken over by a
"New World Order" conspiracy.
Presumably, Gibson fils doesn't share all his father's beliefs. He
does, however, oppose the Vatican II reforms, and he has provided
financial support to groups which share that opposition. That puts him
at odds with the Papacy on that one point, at least.
mdl
Terrymelin
2004-03-04 15:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Valfer
If Gibson likes the Tridentine Mass, fine! I like it, too. There is
little to dislike in the old rites, but the Vatican II reforms are a
lot more than words and music. The church leaders took a look outside
the window and realized that the world had changed during the past
four centuries. What does Gibson want - a return to teaching kids in
Catholic school that "jews are evil because they laughed while Jesus
was crucified?"
Valfer
That is really unfair and a kind of "religion-baiting" that is uncalled for.

No where in the record could one even remotely come up with a statement like
the above.

Terry Ellsworth
Valfer
2004-03-04 19:46:39 UTC
Permalink
...What I have written I have written. (John 19:22)

Valfer
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Valfer
If Gibson likes the Tridentine Mass, fine! I like it, too. There is
little to dislike in the old rites, but the Vatican II reforms are a
lot more than words and music. The church leaders took a look outside
the window and realized that the world had changed during the past
four centuries. What does Gibson want - a return to teaching kids in
Catholic school that "jews are evil because they laughed while Jesus
was crucified?"
Valfer
That is really unfair and a kind of "religion-baiting" that is uncalled for.
No where in the record could one even remotely come up with a statement like
the above.
Terry Ellsworth
GRNDPADAVE
2004-03-04 19:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Date: 03/04/2004 1:46 PM Central Standard Time
...What I have written I have written. (John 19:22)
Valfer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Good is better than Evil because it's Nicer." (Li'l Abner, as cited by Al
Capp).

==G/P Dave
Leonard Tillman
2004-03-04 20:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Valfer
...What I have written I have written. (John
19:22)
Valfer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by Valfer
"Good is better than Evil because it's Nicer."
(Li'l Abner, as cited by Al
Capp).
==G/P Dave
--------------------------

"It's better to forgive than to receive." (Otto Schmidlapp, friend of
Chester A. Riley, on "Life of Riley)

"Love! What is love? It's thin...it wears away...
But HATE? It lasts! -- Through the YEARS!!!"
(-- Said gleefully by Professor Irwin Corey)

Li'l Abner Yokum, btw, with his townsman Marryin' Sam, did one Hell
of a duet, "Our Country's In the Very Best of Hands!" in the '59 film
based on Capp's comic strip.

LT
"It is much easier to be critical than to be correct."
-- Benjamin Disraeli
Terrymelin
2004-03-04 15:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark D Lew
Presumably, Gibson fils doesn't share all his father's beliefs. He
does, however, oppose the Vatican II reforms, and he has provided
financial support to groups which share that opposition. That puts him
at odds with the Papacy on that one point, at least.
mdl
True but nowhere does he make the claim that he "more Catholic than the pope."

Terry Ellsworth
Parterrebox
2004-03-04 00:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
It was the scolds and hate-mongers who waged a year long campaign
Gibson went on Fox News before there was a word spoken against him to lash out
at what were then imagined foes. In other words, he fired the first shot.
=============

parterre box
www.parterre.com
Terrymelin
2004-03-04 03:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Parterrebox
Gibson went on Fox News before there was a word spoken against him to lash out
at what were then imagined foes. In other words, he fired the first shot.
=============
parterre box
www.parterre.com
You're full of shit as usual Jorden. The record shows that Gibson never said
one word until his foes stole a copy of the script and starting going on TV to
denounce a film they had never seen.

Your version of events is just a plain out, old fashioned lie.

Terry Ellsworth
daniel f. tritter
2004-03-04 15:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Parterrebox
Gibson went on Fox News before there was a word spoken against him to lash out
at what were then imagined foes. In other words, he fired the first shot.
=============
parterre box
www.parterre.com
You're full of shit as usual Jorden. The record shows that Gibson never said
one word until his foes stole a copy of the script and starting going on TV to
denounce a film they had never seen.
Your version of events is just a plain out, old fashioned lie.
Terry Ellsworth
and that's coming from a walking paradigm of the lie, the living
embodiment of what mary mccarthy said about lillian hellman. are we
going too fast for you, ellsworth? evidently.

dft
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...