|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 01/11/2005 8:07:18 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Skip to comments.Mel Gibson post-award press conference-"Kinship" with Michael Moore
Posted on 01/10/2005 10:33:48 AM PST by bushfamfan
Does anyone have the quotes that Mel Gibson apparently made after receiving his People's Choice Award in saying he felt a "kinship" with Michael Moore and attacking the war in Iraq?
Yes I know. Someone asked about whether Mel's a conservative and I posted that in response to it.
Good for you, and, in the end, good for him.
FR's getting a whole lot of crazy newbies. :-(
No,HE wasn't and HE wasn't a Libertarian either.
Sorry, I just ping for trolls. In fact I haven't used the list for awhile.
How quickly the pattern of "debate" establishes itself: From "a joke" to just little 'ole me whining ("my harmless little post") to faux disbelief ("you're another liberal, right?") to the outright, and refreshing, "you're just nuts" gratuitous insult. And liberalism's fervent adherents wonder why their's is a dessicated, withering creed...
"Seriously, if this was a sincere response, how does merely identifying myself as a liberal transmogrify into bragging? I'm not out to win any arguments in here. Maybe I'm just testing the waters a bit to see how long it takes before I get stomped to death"
"Transmogrify"? LOL, I love it. But, in any event, here's how: you posted a rant in a forum that you obviously must have realized is not, by and large, congenial to your stated ideology...what did you expect, one wonders? The scales to fall from our eyes? Road to Damascus conversions en masse? The arrogance, coupled with the followup mewling about the meanie reply you encountered (thanks to moi), is staggering.
"Actually, I work in the motion picture business in Hollywood. Though I am by no means wealthy, I have to cop to being among the so-called media elite I hear guys like Joe Scarborough complaining so much about. Personally, I have absolutely no objections to Mel Gibson making a faith based film about Jesus and the Passion. By any standards, the story of the Christ is a drama of enormous, almost unbearable dramatic power. I think Gibson's approach is vastly superior to films like KING OF KINGS which show little, if any, insight into the life, times and death of Jesus. While I personally preferred THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, which dared to meet questions of divinity head on, I think an approach like Gibson's, where the audience is shocked into a higher state of awareness, has merit. Everytime I heard that all the liberals out here were screaming in protest over Gibson's film, I just sort of scratched my head and wondered who was making this stuff up. Here's what THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and FAHRENHEIT 9/11 have in common. Both are independently produced projects, completely devoid of the kind watering down that studio productions are famous for, created by deep feeling men with strong world views for reasons other than mere commerce. Both films seek to challenge their respective audiences. Both films were successful in pushing people's buttons. Both films are works of art which have stirred up enormous controversy."
All well and good--great, in fact; glad to hear it.
"There's no such thing as an innocuous work of art. All true art seeks to explore the human condition"
Not quite. "Art," in it's most moving forms, is inherently reactionary; a reaffirmation of either certain basic truths about human nature (not the human "condition"), or an expression of a yearning wish that something lost, diminished, or once deeply felt could be recovered, burnished, and/or restored to some degree of it's former luster. The human "condition" is constantly changing, depending upon the era/society; human nature remains constant--for better and for worse--year after year after year, since forever in the human memory. It is that stubbornly unchanging fact that is the basis of the examination of our most compelling, moving works of "art." Which is precisely why modern "progressives" simply don't get it, despite all of their slavish devotion to the notion of what it means to be "artistic": they believe human nature is "perfectible," while truly compelling "art" proves over and over and over again that the exact opposite is true. Repeatedly.
In fact, this thread has been totally infested by trolls.
Guys, this is my last ping of the RKBA list.
Res Ipse Loquitor ...
I've watched that overhyped piece of turd, so I feel at least somewhat qualified to comment on it.
If Moore-on was so intent on accurately portraying Iraqi life before the war, then why didn't he show the jailed/tortured/murdered dissidents? Or the rape rooms? Speaking of which, why didn't he interview any of the women who were unfortunate enough to catch Uday or Qusay's eye -- and live to tell about it ("it" being the brutal rapes they endured)?
What about those who spoke out -- or were just believed to have spoken out -- against Saddam Hussein's murderous regime, and got stuffed into plastic shredders, feet first?
Sheah, Saddam's Iraq was Disneyland on the Euphrates...
I believe I've just had a religious epiphany.
Now, now-Saddam's palaces were very nice. /sarcasm
Yes, indeed: the matter does speak for itself...
And maybe,newbie just signed up this minute,YOU are on the wrong forum.Ya think?
(The late freeper, not the late-and lame-United States Senator.)
Dude, like, why did you guys ban me?
-good Thames, G.J.P.(Jr.)
Jeeze, this thread is lousy with trolls..
Did you see that South Park episode about him last year? ;D
Whatever the case, they've certainly been crawling all over this thread tonight!
I didn't know they did that over at DU. They do it on LP...but that's the VILLAGE OF THE BANNED and some,over there,have had multiple nics here for years and years,so that when one nic gets banned,they still have others to use. These are FR's "sleeper cells".
Great response! While I don't agree that my original post was a rant, I find your response, taken as a whole, to be both fascinating and invigorating.
I think we might be splitting semantical hairs, and while I do not consider myself to be intrinsically anti-semantic, I think we actually are not, by any means, at polar opposites in our views regarding art. I would agree that human nature is pretty much a constant, and I would go further to say that, insofar as nature informs our circumstances then the human condition is likewise a continuum. If this were not so, then the works of Euripides, Shakespeare, Lorca, Coboabe, Mark Twaine, Balzac and countless others would fall on deaf ears. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that art is reactionary. Certainly the ancient Greeks wrote dramas that may be considered such (Trojan Women, The Frogs, and The Birds come readily to mind), but I am among those who consider art to be largely (though not exclusively) aesthetic rather than didactic in purpose.
Brecht was a true didacticist, no doubt. So was Lorca in his own way. Having said this, I believe, nontheless, that most art takes a more open ended approach to the eternal human struggle. It may sound corny but art seeks to ask questions, rather than answer them. This is why art has such explosive potential.
Whoever you are, you're obviously both very smart and wickedly funny.
Would you mind explaining what you mean when you say that art is reactionary? Oh, and by the way, my comment about you being nuts wasn't an attack. It was a stab at humor. I'll concede that you're funnier than I am. In any case, I'm not likely to be hanging around here much longer.
Centuries ago the Catholic Church considered to be heretical any assertion that Jesus, during his brief time on earth, was not equally corporeal and spiritual. Why else would Jesus bother to live as a man if not to understand through experience what humanity endures on a daily basis? That much of modern theology seeks to discount the physical aspect of Jesus' existence is troubling to many classical theologians. The presence of the human urge as an intrinsic part of transcendant spirituality provides the paradox which is dramatized in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. Harvey Keitel's Brooklyn accent notwithstanding, I found the film compelling and thought provoking. I believe that the director was exploring his own faith in creating such a film.
The Passion of Christ was a snuff movie
Either that, or some creep over in DUmmyland has posted a link directly to this thread.
And here it is.
BTW, that's supposed to be "corporal"; not "corporeal". I haven't quite figured out this board.
Happy to oblige. Let us consider, for a moment, one of the oldest of oldest stories still current: two heartsick teenagers who both believe all the problems of life can be distilled to the essence of their passion for each other; crappy parents with serious future in-law implications; an unexpected series of almost comic (and I stress ALMOST) SNAFU's; and all the while a miniature war, of sorts, rages, froths, bubbles, and seethes in the background...
And yet...we're understanding of the situation; stirred by the circumstance; and moved by the denouement. EVERY bit of it, logically examined in the light of rationality right up to the end, seems to make no sense--until it does. And when they both die, something in the mundane about it moves us: a spark of understanding flickers through the centuries, and grounds itself in the realization that, yes, those kind of intrinsically human feelings--of feverish adolescent longings; of seemingly senseless conflict swirling hither & yon about oneself like a vortex; of sad ends to badly cut cards in this-or-that particular round of life--have always existed--and will always exist.
Shakespeare was a genius not because he plowed any new ground and sprouted something new in the process; he was a genius because he told us tales about things we already instinctively understood in a way that resonates hundreds of years hence--and will for thousands of years to come. That is true "Art," in every sense of the word: a reminder, not a prognosis.
Such Art, in it's most beautiful, enduring forms, is always thus: a verdict-delivered in the affirmative on the ancient truth that there isn't much new cooking under the Sun; and that even the most precious things we hold in it are common experiences, shared across the ages.
Their smarmy obsessions with their intellectual betters never seems to cease.
They are so much fun. Guess which poster I am on this thread?
Wow, and I always thought that Romeo and Juliet was a play about the transitory nature of love, hate and ultimately, life. Perhaps I'm being silly, but when you call art "intrinsically reactionary", I am led to believe that you feel that all art is political. As a matter of personal choice, I try not to view the aesthetic through political prisms. I'll be pondering your post for some time. At the present moment, I feel you speak quite eloquently but not necessarily to the point. It's been a fun diversion. Thanks to all.
The keywords on this post are like a fire to a moth. Trolls are drawn to Mel Gibson Threads and Michael Moore threads. Combine them and all heck breaks loose.
Does Jesus Christ also love the insane followers of Jesus Christ or just the "sane" followers of Jesus Christ.
Of course Jesus loves everyone, I don't think he stipulated any one group of people he was dying for.
No I don't. If you actually read my post, you would see that I listed a few examples of actors who could separate fiction from reality. I didn't put the Gipper on the list because he was already involved in politics..........
"Is the world safer without Hussein in power?"
Good question. Is the world "safer" today then when the war began?
It would be hard to prove one way or the other. Have bombings around the world increased or decreased since the occupation began? Does this fact have anything to do with Saddams arrest? Has al-queda become weaker or stronger since the war began?
All of these questions are very difficult to answer and would only be a start as to whether the world is "safer" or not with Saddam out of power.
A parallel question might be, is the world safer now that the Soviet Union no longer exists?