The Passion Discussion RePosted
I just can’t imagine that six minutes of gore removed makes that much of a difference. Certainly not enough to drastically change one’s opinion of the movie. Just because Gibson tossed it back into theaters a year after its release, critics should have to see it again? I don’t think so.
Posted by: Stella’s Boy | March 15, 2005 07:08 PM
the recut wasn’t screened for critics.
Posted by: bicycle bob | March 16, 2005 07:02 AM
“the critics have an unbreakable obligation to show up, plant their asses in their seats, and then give us their professional assessments.”
Chester! Now, after so many thoughtful posts on your part, that’s something I have to disagree with. đ
Whether it’s a “Film Comment” critic who doesn’t bother to see every trashy Pauly Shore film or “USA Today” which doesn’t send Mike Clark to a seven hour Bela Tarr film, NO critic can see ALL the films that open. There are just too many of them. Pauline Kael didn’t review Ozu films. She admitted in an interview that she just didn’t “get” Ozu. Admitting that, why should she bother watching them and giving her limited assessment? I think you are right that it’s a bit odd that NOBODY reviewed the new version of “The Legal Execution of the Christ”. Point taken. But frankly, if a critic had to choose between seeing the recut “Passion” and the latest Ming-liang Tsai film, I’d rather have him see the latter and report on it.
Posted by: L.J. | March 16, 2005 07:34 AM
I do not know where you are looking but the film has been reviewed and not well. It has taken away the one thing it brought. The gore and violence of Jesus’ death.
Posted by: Terence D | March 16, 2005 10:32 AM
L.J., my key point (which I admit could have been presented better) has been that this re-release is newsworthy, and therefore arts editors should have ASSIGNED this film to their critics. Trust me, none of the critics at any publication, whether it’s USA Today or The N.Y. Times, are able to refuse assignments from their editors. You can’t compare Pauline Kael and some of the Film Comment crowd to other critics; they fall under the category of essayists who get to pick and choose, a privilege other film critics do not share. Even Roger Ebert, arguably the most powerful movie critic of all time, seems to review every single film that gets released.
Terence, as of yesterday, I hadn’t seen a single review anywhere and there were none posted on Rotten Tomatoes. Today, Rotten Tomatoes posted a single review from Philadelphia Weekly (=thumbs down).
Posted by: Chester | March 16, 2005 11:41 AM
Apparently most people (including editors) simply do not feel that it is newsworthy.
Posted by: Stella’s Boy | March 16, 2005 01:15 PM
I completely agree that that’s the case, Stella. And that’s precisely what I (and apparently I alone) think stinks. Does anyone doubt that if Scorsese were to suddenly release a personally recut version of “The Aviator” that was six minutes shorter, revised to address the criticisms of the original, that every major newspaper would have been all over it?
BTW, Stella, you might want to take a look at the Philadelphia Weekly review, because the critic addresses your “they only cut six minutes” argument. He says that while six minutes may not sound like much, the cuts are extremely noticeable and throw off whatever merit he found in the original version. The review is at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-10005055/reviews.php?critic=all&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1369821.
Posted by: Chester | March 16, 2005 01:48 PM
I don’t think that’s a logical comparison, nor do I think every major newspaper would be all over something like that. Not so soon after the release of the original version. I’ll check out that review, but other articles have stated that the cuts don’t amount to anything significant. I really don’t care. I hated the movie with a passion and will never, ever watch it again.
Posted by: Stella’s Boy | March 16, 2005 02:01 PM
Stella, how is it not a logical comparison? Where is the flaw in my logic?
Posted by: Chester | March 16, 2005 02:19 PM
I think that critic is on crack. The movie’s message is the power of love in the face of barbarism? Lefties will never admit to nor see its strong direction? Are you fucking with me? I’d hate to read his original review. I assume it’s even more full of shit than his review of the new cut. Maybe my choice of words was poor. I just don’t see something like that ever being a remote possibility, re-releasing The Aviator a year after its original release with six minutes cut. And if it did ever happen, I don’t think that every major newspaper would make sure that it was reviewed.
Posted by: Stella’s Boy | March 16, 2005 02:25 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Stella, that “the power of love in the face of barbarism” is not the message I took from the original film. But I think it’s fair to say that it is the prevailing view of those who supported it.
As far as our ongoing debate about the newsworthiness of the recut … hey, where’s Joe Leydon when we need him?
Posted by: Chester | March 16, 2005 02:35 PM
Excellent question. Where is Joe? Did he all of a sudden get busy or something?
Posted by: Stella’s Boy | March 16, 2005 02:40 PM
Manohla Dargis also makes the six minutes mean a lot argument… http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/movies/14pass.html
The only story to be written here is that it’s a blatant ploy to add to the film’s coffers around Easter.
We can expect this flick every Easter season for the next 50 years. Recut or not recut.
Please, this is a not a “Heaven’s Gate” style re-cut – it is a blatant call for more money from a “film maker” who has already made, what, 500 million? on this picture. What the story should be about is Gibson’s attempt at milking this thing for all its worth after being so adament that it was never about the money in the first place.
If ICON re-releases this film for the next 50 years.
Then someone should point to a sales chart of the
Passion DVDs and tell me; “STUPID! IT HAS SOLD
ENOUGH! RE-RELEASING IT CAUSES US MONEY!” Also
does anyone really believe this movie to be an everlasting
piece of cinema? Much like any other fad in this
country in recent years. This movie had it’s time,
made the money on two formats, and now it just
needs to go where fads go once we are finished
with them.
Calling the film a fad does not necessarily saying
that Christianity or Jesus are fads. I am just
saying, this film sort of ranks right up there
with the Osbournes. Think about that analogy for
a second and it should become clear.
Iâm currently away from home base, on assignment, so I havenât had time to post for a while. But I would venture to guess that most (if not all) critics and A&E editors who passed on reviewing âPassion Recutâ did so primarily for reasons of time and space. Political and/or religious controversies have nothing to do with it. Even on the largest papers, arts and entertainment department staffers have to prioritize because thereâs only so much manpower, so many column inches, for film coverage. (Also: A&E sections have to include coverage of theater, television, pop music, classic music, dance, etc. in an ever-diminishing news hole.) To put it bluntly, a reissue of a movie released just 12 months ago â even a reissue in a version minus six minutes â simply isnât as important or newsworthy as new mainstream and specialty-markets films. (Remember: Last Friday, movies as diverse as âDownfall,â âA Tale of Two Sistersâ and âImaginary Heroesâ opened in some key markets, along with general releases of âRobotsâ and âHostage.â) Itâs a bit like what happens when PBS or HBO airs a documentary a few months (or even a year) after its theatrical run â 99 times out of 100, if it was reviewed in the newspaperâs film section, itâs not reviewed again in the newspaperâs TV section. Also: At many (most?) newspapers outside NY and LA, editors will use wire service reviews to cover films that their critics have neither time nor inclination to see. But unless a wire service review is available for the opening weekend, chances are good the movie never gets reviewed, period. (Did AP or Gannett or Knight-Ridder run âRecutâ reviews in time for Friday publication? I bet not.) I strongly suspect that, had âPassion Recutâ posted strong b.o. numbers for its opening weekend, some follow-up reviews or features would have been assigned. (I wonder how many papers did follow-up pieces on âDiary of a Mad Black Womanâ after running a wire review, or no review at all, on opening day?) But itâs obvious that few people cared about the âRecut,â so there was no impetus to assign coverage.
Also, please consider this: At many (most?) newspapers, Saturday feature/A&E sections are printed in advance, quite often as early as Thursday morning. Even if a paper would have sent a critic out on opening day to see âRecut,â the review would not have been printed until Monday. (Unless Iâm misinformed, which is always possible, this is why even the L.A. Times often doesnât get around to reviewing an unpreviewed movie that opens on a Friday until the following Monday.)
Chester, I think Joe gave a fine âlast wordâ kind of answer to your (very good) questions, but Iâll just point out that in the last few years Roger Ebert didnât review three of my favorite commercially released films: âDerridaâ (Kirby Dick, Amy Ziering Kofman), âRaspberry Reichâ (Bruce LaBruce), and âWerckmeister Harmoniesâ (Bela Tarr). Iâm sure I could come up with a lot more if I tried.
mels gonna make bible movies forever now
and why shouldn’t he if they’re making a billion bucks
*If* Ebert reviews *everything* — and he does review virtually every film that gets a commercial release in Chicago (which “Derrida,” etc. probably didn’t) — then there’s at least one good reason. Roger, bless him, triple dips: Sun-Times, At the Movies, and his annual books of reviews. He has ample reason — economic and professional — to see and write about everything. And the damned thing of it is, he’s a good enough and apparently facile enough writer to get away with it!
Maybe Mel was duped. He claims that there was huge demand for a “softer” cut. He came through, and nobody went.
Derrida DID get a commercial release in Chicago.
InterestingâŠ. I think the reason Ebert may have taken a pass on reviewing “Derrida” (which got a rave in the NY Times and played all over the country) is that Ebertâs been a long and vocal critic of academic Film Theory.
Much of that form of theory is based upon French Structuralist and Post-Structuralist philosophy of which Jacques Derrida was a key figure and founding scholar (at least Post-Structuralism). For Ebert to have waded into those waters by reviewing that film would have forced him out of his depth in terms of addressing the philosophical issues that he has indirectly ridiculed over and over again when heâs criticized post-Structural film theory. The easiest thing for him to do was ignore the film.
LJ: I stand corrected on “Derrida.” But I can’t believe it was a refusal to treat the suject matter, either. Ebert’s health has wavered in recent years, which may have had something to do with it…
I was principally interested in making the point that Ebert’s the most thorough of contemporary newspaper reviewers in part because he’s got more than one motivating spur to his work. In the context of this thread, it reinforces the idea that *no* daily newspaper critic reviews everything.
Maybe Ebert felt like no one cared about Derrida. Like the general public.
I don’t think that factors into Ebert’s decision making. I don’t think he considers how much the general public cares about a specific film.
God, Terence. Youâre actually proud that youâre a philistine, arenât you. Pathetic…
In the past year, Ebert’s home base, the Chicago Sun-Times, has instituted an “arthouse movies” column in which another writer covers “smaller” films that Roger doesn’t see… He’s reduced his workload modestly, while more films are being released. DERRIDA played at the Siskel Film Center in Chicago, and had a return run a couple months later.
Jon, if you even knew what that meant or the context to use it in, I would be offended. Since you are a cretin with an IQ of less than 80, I am proudly over it. Keep up the good work, young man.
if ebert doesn’t review a movie now that means the movie stinks or is irrelevant???
He leaves the art house, nonsense films to guys like Ray Pride.
Nice to see Joe Leydon back on the boards! With all due respect, though, I don’t agree with him, and still believe that the decisions made by newspapers and other media not to review “The Passion” might have been politically motivated. So far all of you seem to disagree with me, but I remain unconvinced that this qualifies as a standard reissue â certainly not from a news standpoint. We’re dealing with one of the most politically charged movies of all time, a real hot potato, one whose devisiveness is still reverberating a year after its original release. If you don’t believe me, just the other day there was a story on Movie City News about the enormous rise of anti-Semitic attacks in Canada, an increase that many authorities are attributing to “The Passion.”
Somehow I’ve seen plenty of reviews of the extended DVD edition of “Donnie Darko,” as well as for the DVD director’s cut of “Ray” and many other recent films. So the unanswered question remains: How and why can newspapers find column inches for those revised films, but not for this?
It is certainly possible that politics are at play. I think many liberal members of the media saw how their targeting of the film backfired and they don’t want to touch it anymore. And the conservative media may be staying away from it because, frankly, all reports so far say that the recut totally sucks.
Sorry, the sentence above is missing a dash and should have read, “…I remain unconvinced that this qualifies as a standard reissue – certainly not from a news standpoint.”
You are really reaching now and sound a little too much like Oliver Stone. A liberal media conspiracy to not review The Passion Recut? I’m sure even Mark and bicycle bob don’t buy that one.
Stella, once again you need to calm down. I never said or even suggested it was a conspiracy. I just said that liberals took a beating and learned the hard way to ignore the film (which I don’t think is the right lesson learned). I’m not the first person to suggest that the media has lost its balls where all things conservative and/or religious are concerned. But a conspiracy requires a collectively formulated plan, and no one is crazy enough to believe that occurred here.
Uh sorry Chester, this film was nothing more than
a fad. Sorry. No grand conspiracies but just another
piece of pop culture that grabbed it’s piece of
the pie, had great importance when it was out,
but now goes wherever one-hit wonders go.
Iâm going to pretend for a few minutes that Iâm an A&E editor at a major metropolitan daily newspaper â which I was, temporarily and only fleetingly, several years ago â and give you my rationale for not covering âThe Passion Recut.â First off, the new version isnât substantially different from the old one. By âsubstantially,â I mean that even with the six minutes snipped, it couldnât have been THAT different because, according to every news report I read (and especially the wire service story we printed), it was still going to get an R rating from the MPAA. Which is why, incidentally, it was released as âUnrated.â (And by the way: My paper, like many if not most newspapers, only rarely reviews âUnratedâ films.) Also: âPassionâ in any way, shape or form is old news. Yawn. The people re-releasing it knew they wouldnât get any ink for it, which is probably why they didnât bother pre-screening it for the press. Trouble is, it isnât old enough yet to qualify as a ânewly restored classicâ (ala âE.T.â or the original âStar Warsâ trilogy) that would indeed get re-reviewed.
And by the way: If memory serves me correctly, we didnât re-review âSaturday Night Feverâ years ago when it was reissued in a PG-13 version. So, no, I donât think we would re-review a re-released version âThe Aviator,â even if Scorsese decided to restore Kate Beckinsaleâs nude scenes to get an R rating.
We covered the extended DVD edition of âRayâ (a newer film than âPassionâ) because, at the time of the videoâs release, it was (a) one of five finalists for the Oscar as Best Picture, and (b) it was still playing in a few first-run theaters. We covered the extended DVD version of âDonnie Darkoâ (even though I personally remain immune to its dubious charms) because, in just a few years, it has evolved into a cult fave. It would be the same thing if someone decided to release, say, an extended version of âRocky Horror Picture Showâ or âThe Shawshank Redemption.â
For anyone who insists on reading political motives into our decision to ignore âThe Passion Recutâ â âCandy Land: The Great Lollipop Adventureâ played in many markets as a weekend-matinee attraction weeks before its release on DVD. We didnât review that one, either. In fact, no paper that I know of reviewed it. But you know what? Variety had that whack job Joe Leydon review it for the record. Still, even Variety didnât assign a reviewer to cover âPassion Recut,â because even the Showbiz Bible didnât think it was worth covering. That should tell you something. A liberal conspiracy? A conservative conspiracy? Hogwash. When you hear hoofbeats, you shouldnât assume youâre hearing zebras. Itâs much more likely that youâre merely hearing horses.
Itâs just like you shouldnât assume ulterior motives because Roger Ebert didnât review âDerrida.â He doesnât cover a lot more movies than you think. For example, he didnât cover âState Property,â a godawful âurban dramaâ of a couple years back that somehow has spawned a soon-to-be released sequel. Come to think of it, he didnât review âCandy Land,â either. I mean, heâs the hardest-working film critic in the business, but even he canât do it all.
Really nice job as usual, Joe, but I still don’t buy it. “The Passion” is a film that has generated as much controversy as “Birth of a Nation.” A year ago, newspapers and TV shows were filled with extremely heated debate over it for weeks, and more people were arguing about “The Passion” than the war in Iraq or the national election. Frank Rich devoted many of his weekly N.Y. Times columns to attack the film. “Prime Time Live” gave Gibson a full hour with Diane Sawyer, an episode that was later commercially released on its own DVD. Not just Jewish but other religious leaders were in an uproar. The end result? Ultimately, because of all the animosity and a remarkable, unprecedented grass-roots marketing campaign, the box office receipts were beyond anyone’s wildest expectations and the film was an international phenomenon.
Now, suddenly, Gibson, who previously had ferociously defended himself against all of his critics (remember what he said he wanted to do to Frank Rich?), has decided to back down and claims to have recut the film so kids and their grandparents can see it. You honestly mean to tell me that new footage from the more tepidly received “Ray” or “cult fave Donnie Darko” (or, for that matter, any number of other jacked-up DVDs) is bigger news?
Well, it doesn’t seem like I’m converting anybody here (no pun intended), so here’s a separate but related question: It is my understanding that many newspapers refuse to carry advertisements for unrated (and NC-17) films. Does anyone know if any of those papers have refused to carry ads for the deceptively unrated “The Passion Recut”?
It depends on their policy towards printing ads
for NOT RATED films. Chester, to me, it seems
like you have not paid attention to your country’s
pop culture lately. The Passion ranks right up
there with the Osbournes as being all over the
press at one time, then later utterly gone. People
moved on from this film. They might have even
bought the DVD, but they moved on.
You really seem to be missing that faucet of modern
day pop culture. Just look at how the last year has
been for Lindsay freakin Lohan, and you will see
with your own two eyes how people/entertainment
rise so very quick now. Then come smashing down
later on. Even though I love the Fab 5. I have
no idea how they have survived this treatment.
So step outside of all this political nonsense, and
look through the eyes of POP CULTURE Chester. There
you will see that the Passion had it’s time in the
sun, merchandise tie-ins, and relevance on TV. Now
it’s just SOOOOOOOOOO last year.
Hey Terence: Maybe they didn’t teach you this in grade school, but many words have more than one meaning:
Phil·is·tine    P   Pronunciation Key  (fl-stn, f-lstn, -tn)
n.
1. A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century B.C.
2. a. A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values.
b. One who lacks knowledge in a specific area.
I’ve read your sad postings for weeks (well, skimmed them, I should say) and 2, a fits you to a “t’.
i love how we got “english” teachers here. people in glass houses….
Chester, Joe already explained (very well) why the Ray extended cut DVD was reviewed. It was a major Oscar nominee (including Best Picture) and it was still playing in some first run theaters. What more do you need? I don’t even hear any conservatives crying conspiracy here, and don’t you think they salivate over any chance to cry conspiracy and bash the liberal media? If they aren’t complaining, there really is nothing to it. And the daily newspaper where I live has been carrying ads for The Passion Recut since the day it opened.
Jon, you lead a very bitter and sad existence if you obsess over my movie thoughts. It might be time to actually leave the basement and join civilized society. I have heard the term “get a life” before. I think it fits you to a, how do you say it, T.
why should a reviewer review the passion recut? it came out last yr and what did they recut? 14 minutes? that should have a review dedicated to it? this isn’t like star wars coming out 20 years later and even that didn’t have a lot of first run reviews. especially empire and jedi.
Not even 14 minutes bob. Only six.
Stella’s Boy, I’ve already addressed above your infantile, reactionary “conspiracy” comments. And I think we’ve all had enough of your endless, mindless pipsqueak squeals of “lookee, lookee, it’s only six minutes, it’s only six minutes!” Even your current statement about your hometown newspaper utterly fails to provide a response to the question I raised. Do you ever have anything worthwhile or fresh to contribute here, or do you just have some sick need to repeatedly see your mommy’s name in print?
As a fan of The Passion, I do not see the need to recut it and release it a year later. I assume they are trying to capitalize on Easter season which is fair. But what is the need to recut it? It is not like it needed to be remastered or had scenes added in. I do not get it.
Chester… Tons and tons of films have been shortened and re-released with nary a critical blip, beyond Saturday Night Fever. Myra Breckenridge, Performance, and A Clockwork Oragne were all cut after their first releases to move them from X ratings to Rs. Zeffereli’s Romeo and Juliet and Altman’s MASH were cut (and later restored), the former to move it from a PG to a G and the latter to move from an R to a PG. Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, Cheyenne Autumn, and many, many others were cut simply for time after they went “wide” as we’d say now. The Shining was cut, I think, after it opened because Kubrick just had second thoughts about a scene after it had opened wide. As far as I know, none of those films were re-reviewed when the cut versions came out. I personally would like to read accounts of how the changes affected the films. I remember an essay I read in a film class about how the censor, by cutting part of the rape scene out of The Virgin Spring, totally changed the impact of the film. It was a very good essay, as I recall.
But I really think that nobody thinks the re-cut version of PASSION matters much. As Joe, or someone said, had it made a ton of money, maybe the editors would have sent some of their critics out. But it’s turned out to be a big nothing so they’ve ignored it.
Chester, what happened? One minute we’re having a nice, reasonable discussion, and the next you are calling me names and attacking me. I’m a little confused here. Take is easy. That was completely unnecessary and only makes you look foolish. I’m sorry if I offended you in some way. I certainly didnt mean to. But what is the point of becoming so childish? Why resort to that crap? What does it prove?
its apparent chester is bi polar and went off his meds for a few hours in the discussion. he was making sense until he went tourettes on stella. i don’t think anyone say that coming
Jon S. (and all others here who so frustratingly keep making the same off-target points), please take off your cinephile blinders and read my earlier statements about what distinguishes “The Passion” from other re-released movies. For what I hope is the last time, I’M TALKING ABOUT THE FILM’S ONGOING VALUE AS NEWS, NOT AS A STANDARD PIECE OF ART OR COMMERCE.
I believe I have already made the case in earlier postings as to why this re-release is newsworthy, particularly in light of everything that transpired last year (and, no, L&DB, you can’t just dismiss what remains an important religious experience/controversy for hundreds of millions of people as “last year’s fad”). Still, here’s what I hope will be a helpful, last-ditch, non-movie hypothetical example for all of you to chew on: What if Salman Rushdie published a personally re-edited, watered-down edition of his “The Satanic Verses” (which originally received mediocre reviews) one year after its first publication in order to appease the jihadists? Does anyone doubt such a book would be newsworthy – even if everybody in the publishing world knew that no one would buy it? Wouldn’t you have expected many A&E editors to assign/force critics to re-read the book in its entirety and re-review it? Even if you had no intention to buy or read it yourself, wouldn’t you be outraged if there were virtually no critical appraisals as to whether Rushdie succeeded under the gaze of intense worldwide, multicultural scrutiny? Wouldn’t that fall under the media’s duty to provide newsworthy information and analysis to the public?
To repeatedly justify the attention paid to “The Passion Recut” by comparing it to re-edits of standard commercial fare like “Saturday Night Fever,” “Myra Breckinridge,” Lindsey Lohan’s career, etc., unquestionably trivializes what transpired last year and embarrassingly misses the boat. Some of the posters here keep muddying the waters by infuriatingly pushing their own personal agendas, repeating ad nauseum how much they hated the original, ridiculously accusing me of generating conspiracy theories, and yelping over and over again that “they only cut six minutes, it’s only six minutes, yep, six minutes, count ’em, six minutes…” At least Dave Poland had the good sense to recognize that this issue had more depth and deserved to be broken out into its own separate thread, and I for one thank him for that.
Gotta admit, though, that at least it feels good to have put Stella’s Boy in the warm, loving embrace of bicycle bob…
You feel like that is something to pat yourself on the back for Chester? Um, OK. Whatever floats your boat. I’m not sure why you are suddenly so angry and defensive and antagonistic. I was enjoying our discussion and I thought you were, too. I had no idea you felt otherwise. Seems to have come from nowhere. I would love to get back to that discussion and get away from the direction it has taken. This is no fun. I apologize for my “yelping” and my claim of a conspiracy theory. I just don’t see the liberal media bias that you apparently do. I hope we can put this behind us and move on.
Am I the only one here who has trouble even getting through Chesters posts? One minute he has some clarity. But the next hes trying to make fun of people with lame comebacks and bad put upons. And uses vulgarities when he cannot make his point.
Chester said (loudly, I presume): I’M TALKING ABOUT THE FILM’S ONGOING VALUE AS NEWS, NOT AS A STANDARD PIECE OF ART OR COMMERCE.
Well, then why are you conflating apples and oranges? Reviews are done by critics, not journalists. They are paid to look at films as art, not as news. Had the Passion Recut done well its opening weekend THEN it would have been “ongoing” news, instead of yesterday’s news, and there would have been some stories and, possibly, some reviews assigned. I’m sure, by comparision, that there would have been stories written and new reviews filed if angry Clockwork Orange fans had picketed the “censored” version of the film at the theaters, or had a petition been signed by a bunch of major artists demanding that only the original version be shown.
You’re acting, Chester, like arts journalists should have CREATED a story where none has materialized because you think there SHOULD have been one. It’s like being angry that the papers didn’t cover a riot that COULD have happend. Now, you’re here chewing on a bone that you refuse to give up like an obsessed dog or something. Give it a rest, huh, bud?.
this guy has been obsessed with a non story here for a week. hes like the nikki finke of the passion recut. the 6 minutes is his michael eisner. he’ll fight at nothing to make sure some critic reviews the cut without six minutes.
Don’t taunt Chester when he’s mad, LJ. He’ll bite you and give you rabies.
One more thing, Chester. Your analogy is completely off. Gibson recut Passion to make more money (or to make little old ladies and parents of teens happy, if you’re in a trusting mood.) In other words, he cut it for people who were already in favor of the purpose of the film but just wanted a watered-down version. That’s completely different than the Muslims who wanted to kill Salman Rushdie for Satanic Verses. Had Rushdie done something like cut his book in a desperate attempt to get the fatwta removed, to, save his own life, it would have been a much different thing. There would have been the sense of him doing something he might have felt “forced” to do. There would have been the question on everyone’s mind: “will it work? Will the radicals remove the fatwa?”
That’s nothing whatâs happened here with the non-success of this “airplane version” of “The Legal Execution of the Christ”
L.J., I didn’t say arts journalists should have created a story. What you fail to acknowledge is my assertion that the story was already there. It was gargantuan, legitimate news last year, and now it’s back. It has been specifically regeared to address many of the criticisms that made it such legitimate news to begin with. The media have just chosen to ignore it, which IMHO cannot be justified.
And while you’re absolutely right that critics “are paid to look at films as art, not news,” that certainly doesn’t mean that news doesn’t at times determine which films are required viewing for the critics. Where news and art converge, the media is duty-bound to provide a critical, artistic assessment.
Also, L.J., if, as you state, this turned out to be the “airplane version” of “The Passion,” that’s not the official word on it. Assuming you’re right, the recut deserves to be exposed. By the critical media. Which hasn’t happened.
Relax, champ. The big question is why do you care so much about the recut of The Passion? You have something against Gibson? Whats the real deal?
Actually, Mark, what I care about are journalistic standards. Even though I disliked the original film and everything it represents, I believe “The Passion Recut” qualifies as news. And I want to see appropriate coverage.
Thank heavens for Manohla Dargis and the N.Y. Times culture desk. They’ve restored a lot of my faith in their arts section by having the integrity to publish the review Dave Poland linked above.
OK, let’s see if we can bring this (mercifully) to a close. Chester, you think critics should have re-reviewed “Passion Recut” (or should have been reassigned to re-review it by their editors)because you think Gibson’s preparation of this revised version of a controversial film qualifies as news. I disagree. And, unless I’m misreading the prevailing sentiment among posters in this thread, everyone else (well, OK, almost everyone else) disagrees as well. And as even you admit, 99 percent of the critics and A&E editors in the known universe disagrees with you. Now, I’m not saying you shouldn’t swim against the current. (Remember, I’m one of the only people in the galaxy who will admit to thinking “Pluto Nash” has some funny moments.) But, no offense, there are more important “unreported stories” to get worked up about. I mean, there still are U.S. forces stationed in Afghanistan. When was the last time you read much about THAT anywhere?
I wouldn’t presume to speak for anyone else, but I can say that my “news judgment” in regard to “Passion Recut” has nothing to do with politics or religion. (Not that it’s anyone’s business, but I am a Christian, and I think the film was bizarrely unbalanced: Too much emphasis on suffering and crucifixion, not enough emphasis on the fact that Christians worship Christ because He was rose from the dead, not because he died horribly.) Indeed, my reason doesn’t have much to do with my artistic evaluation of the film at all. Rather, I think you’re wrong and almost everyone else is right because, to paraphrase L&DB, “Passion of Christ” is yesterday’s news. Maybe I would want to see it re-reviewed if Gibson had done something REALLY radical — like, dubbed the movie into English — but even then I wouldn’t be surprised if this new and imporved version also got ignored.
Now, can we all go back to playing nice?
BTW: This has absolutely nothing to do with “Passion Recut,” but it’s timely because of the attention given “The Education of Shelby Knox,” a very good doc shown here at Austin’s SXSW Film Festival (and, earlier this year, at Sundance). All I can add is, you can run but you can’t hide.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20050319/ap_on_re_us/virginity_stds
Chester if you disliked the original film and everything its representing you;d do what everybody else does–ignore it competely so it will go away quicker.
There’s more important things going on in this country and they are pulling the airwaves away from Mel’s pennance of a movie: like has-been Baseball players on steroids, Demi Moore could be pregnant (gasp) and Channel 4(ITV) in the UK isn’t ordering any new US sitcom half-hour-rights because they suck so bad. (But I bet they haven’t seen Jake in Progress).
Not sure why, but this thread somehow reminds me of a page out of the Miramax street team playbook.
I’m only going to address a couple of points that were made by Joe Leydon and Lota, and then I’m done with this topic, I promise. Both Joe and Lota seemed to find it necessary to point out that there are more important things going on in the world for me to be concerned about right now. DUH! If anyone thinks my life has completely revolved around this issue for the past few days, all I can say is your warped imagination is running wild and you’re spending too much time thinking about my life.
Sure, I took a position and ran with it. At least no one can accuse me of flip-flopping. For what it’s worth, somehow Dave Poland thought this discusssion, which began elsewhere, was juicy and valid enough to branch out into its own thread. Yes, it is truly weird and galling that I could find no one who agreed with me here (or who at least would have the guts to speak up), but I don’t mind “swimming against the tide” by myself, as Joe put it, from time to time.
Joe, I’m going to leave you with one final thought: It certainly is sometimes the case that when something does not deliver as promised, that fact alone is news. If a ticking bomb fails to go off, that is news. If a prominent, controversial doctor promises a cure for a disease and it doesn’t work, that is news. And if the prominent director of one of the most financially successful but monumentally wounding movies of all time promises to deliver a pacifying re-edit of that film and fails miserably (or has lied, as some here have suggested), sorry, but in today’s heated socio-political-religious climate there is something wrong when 99% of A&E editors and all of you pod people cannot see that that too is news. Once again, thank heavens for Manohla Dargis and the N.Y. Times! (As well as that guy from Philadelphia Weekly.)
Done. All of you can go back to watching your round-the-clock coverage of the Michael Jackson trial.
Why you feel the need to insult people (pod people, Jackson trial) who have done nothing but respond in a respectful manner is the true mystery. Despite the nasty turn it took, I still enjoyed the discussion and hope to have more of them. That’s why I come here. But it would be nice if we could refrain from calling people names.
Chester epitomizes a closed mind. He makes a statement, hears virtually everyone out there respond with evidence countering his statements, and he gets surly and over-the-top defensive and starts calling people names. He even makes the irrational suggestion that on an anonymous board, where you don’t have to use your real name, there are people out their who agree with him but don’t have the “guts” to say anything.
Chester, it seems like you have a choice. You can wall-paper your basement apartment with the Dargis piece and spend the rest of the weekend starring at it, or you can grow up.
Let me get this straight: Iâm a âpod personâ whoâs obsessed with the minutiae of Chesterâs life and 24/7 coverage of the Michael Jackson trial. Gosh, if thatâs the case, I suppose I should be grateful that Chester deigns to spend time with a lowly and benighted mortal such as myself. I suppose I should feelâŠ. gee, I donât know, is âprivilegedâ a strong enough word? Or would âblessedâ be more appropriate in this particular context?
Whatever. You know, there is an angle here thatâs worthy of additional discussion, thatâs actually applicable to other âentertainment newsâ events on the horizon. I wonder how many A&E editors had their B.S. Detectors set on Level 11 a few days ago because they felt Mel Gibson had turned them into unwitting accomplices as he stoked the fires of controversy for âPassionâ (the original, unfiltered version) last year? That is, I wonder if, looking back, many editors felt like they had been played once, and were determined they wouldnât be played again? Sure, I know, âPassionâ was seen by gazillions of people, according to the box-office figures. But when cooler heads prevailed, I wonder how much thought was given to the possibility that multiple viewings by many moviegoers may have skewed the b.o. reports? That maybe, just maybe, not nearly as many DIFFERENT people saw âPassionâ as we originally thought?
OrâŠ.
Maybe thereâs a chicken-or-egg line of reasoning at work here. That is, what came first, the press coverage or the controversy? During long dark nights of the soul, do editors fret that Gibson played the press to pump up the want-to-see factor? (Dâuh, you think?) I canât say I have definite answers to any of this. I do know that, based on my own experience on daily newspapers, editors occasionally err on the side of cover-your-ass me-too-ism, and rush to print with stories about real or perceived phenomena only because other editors at other papers in other markets have rushed to print with similar stories. And after the fact, thereâs a lot of soul-searching and second-guessing, along with predictable promises that âWe wonât get fooled again.â
Along those lines: I vaguely remember a few pieces that ran in the wake of the last âStar Warsâ movie, quoting editors who questioned whether they got swept away by hype about âAttack of the Clones,â and who promised that, next time, they would be more conservative in their coverage. Yeah, right. Weâll see, wonât we?
I finally looked at that Manohla Dargis piece for which Chester keeps thanking God. It had, what, maybe two sentences of new stuff to state? Otherwise it was saying the same stuff people said over and over about the other version. If anything the piece proves that there is little that’s really different in the new version, and that editors were right to ignore it and keep from giving Gibson even more free publicity, as Joe convincingly suggests.
Chester is just a close minded scumbag. We have a lot of them in the world. The recut isn’t news. If it was you would see Mel Gibson on talk shows and on the cover of magazines.
i suppose i was being very sarcastic above, apologies to Chester. However, this odd interest with a recut of a plot-less movie filled with gratuitous violence (in the name of religious devotion acc. to Mel) is just a little odd whent here is so much else going on in Cinema.
This huge long thread is devoted to discussing a non-event, although perhaps it is now more clear why it is such a non-event.
And I am not a Pod person (if you mean iPod person…) unless you mean Invasion of the Body snatcher pod type person, nor do I have any interest in the Jackson trial except that it is wasting a helluva lot of tax money, so i wish they could speed it up.
I have promised not to discuss “The Passion Recut” any further, and I will abide by that. I therefore will not respond to any of the recent comments here related to the re-release itself.
But I can express how disturbing it is to see how thin-skinned all of you have become. I have contributed on this site for a couple of months and have seen many – certainly almost daily – extremely vicious, curse-ridden, very personal attacks, quite a few of which have been directed at me. (Anyone remember when I was accused of being Joe Leydon’s lover?) After all of that, you’re all suddenly besides yourselves over “pod people” and “Michael Jackson watchers”??? Wow. Joe Leydon didn’t get anywhere near as upset a few weeks ago when several people here outrageously attacked him for being (I’m paraphrasing here) a dime-store film critic from lowly Variety.
This past week I took a stance all by my lonesome. I went to great lengths to present evidence to support my position and respond to comments made by all of you. (Obviously, I wouldn’t have been branded as such a zealot if I simply chose to ignore every single argument you guys tossed at me.) For this, I was repeatedly ridiculed, misquoted, or received responses that completely ignored or misdirected from my arguments. Go ahead, go back and read my posts throughout this entire thread and the one that preceded it. Then take a look at your responses. Even the best of them, which I think we can all agree were those by Joe Leydon, generally failed to address my specific points. Despite the length and seeming comprehensiveness of his posts, Joe’s position is essentially “I simply don’t agree with you and neither does 99% of the world, so put a sock in it already.”
That’s fine, really. But I do wish at least one person here would have taken the responsibility to at least acknowledge that, even if you disagree with me, you could see where I was coming from and that my position was not completely baseless, untenable, illogical, or beyond the realm of human reason. Or, at a bare minimum, take a step back and recognize with some objectivity that, certainly from where I’m sitting (i.e., alone against the non-responsive hordes), a “pod people” quip may have been apropos or at least fair game. (Would you have preferred “lemmings”?)
Or you can just stick with the mob and continue to brandish your torches. Whatever.
I do not deny that personal frustration set in from time to time over this past week. Some of my responses were caustic. I apologize for any undeserved offense I may have caused.
Chester, you’re aboslutely right. I completely failed to address any of your salient points. Why? Because I am but a craven jackanapes, intimidated to the point of fear and trembling by the sheer power of your relentless logic. Please forgive me. Please forgive all of us. We bow to your superior intellect.
(You know, I should be ashamed of myself. But what the hell: When you’re the oldest child of a dysfunctional family, you’ll do almost anything to maintain the peace.)
Joe, I honestly don’t see where all this snide “We bow to your superior intellect” attitude is coming from, as if I insisted that anyone bend to my will or even so much as agree with me. Not even close. Maybe a “Chester, you’ve got a point” here and there would have been a welcome surprise, but I guess even that has become too much wishful thinking around here.
I cannot see what I’ve done to offend you so much. Truthfully, it’s especially shocking to me since I’ve always treated you with open respect, watched your back, and have forcefully come to your defense in the past. I don’t regret any of that. I’m just really shocked by the contempt you’re suddenly showering on me.
If, as best I can tell, you’re angry that I went on with this debate for too long, all I can say is:
a) My comments were pretty much all in response to statements made to or about me; and
b) Nobody forced you or anyone else to read any of them. It’s not like I was off-topic for this thread. If you didn’t like the program, you should have changed the channel. And your compounding choice to participate didn’t help bring this discussion to a quicker end either (see “a”).
I suspect the problem you’re having, Joe, is not that I ever expected anyone to “bow to [my] superior intellect.” I hate to say it, but quite evidently it’s that I failed to bow to yours. As far as I’m concerned, your insights about the film world are the best on these boards and should always be welcomed here. But your “oldest child of a dysfunctional family” issues need to be left in your therapist’s office.
Wow, the irony is pretty think around here Chester. You’re shocked by the sudden contempt someone is showing you. Imagine that.
Chester, it’s a little weird that you’re mad that people responded to your postings with “off target” replies, something I don’t think is true. Many of the responses Joe, Stella, and L.J. have made seem to have been VERY pertinent. But you seem to have brushed aside anyone who’s made very good points against your position. Like the fact that your whole argument seems based on the fact that you think the news media should have covered a POTENTIAL controversy (even though there are enough real controversies out there), hat you wanted CRITICS to function as JOURNALISTS, even thought that’s not their job, and that your Salman Rushdie comparison was totally off the mark.
As for your ongoing persecution complex about being called “Joe’s lover”, remember: that was an innocent comment from a GAY individual that was as non-insulting as if someone had asked a woman, who seemed to be constantly rushing to defend a man’s honor, if she might not actually be that guy’s girlfriend. The fact that you found that question to be such a toxic insult is just a reflection of your own homophobia.
Stella, it has nothing to do with thick ironies. As far as you’re concerned, it has to do with what a delusional hypocrite you are. You and I have a long history of friction, all of which was initiated by you. I’m still reeling from that time a few weeks ago where you assailed me for a single word I put in parentheses, then lashed out at me as “a condescending jerk” when I explained the punctuation. Now you’re up on a high horse about “name-calling”??? It’s the same problem as when you mix it up with conservatives on this site. You act like you’re morally superior to everyone, but in practice you’re just a flailing, instigating little runt.
Jon, I’d love to respond to your still off-target, self-congratulatory comments about “The Passion” but I’m keeping my word to be done with that. However, your claim that I’m homophobic is truly despicable. I have no problem with anyone’s orientation or lifestyle, and my open support for gay rights is well-documented. What was wrong with your “Joe Leydon’s lover” comment was the way in which it was YOUR effort to insult us. It was a demeaning stunt to divert attention from your brainless arguments, reducing Joe and I from intelligent human beings to prattling sexual playthings. It’s 100% identical to when a man, while losing an argument to a woman, decides his best line of attack is to call her a slut. Different orientation, same misogynistic type of approach. Nothing innocent about that.
Once again, I am embarrassed to admit that I attempted a joke, and it obviously fell flat. I thought that including the remark about my family (which truly is dysfunctional, but never mind), I thought I would be indicating that my intent was… ironic.
Guess I better save the comments about Chester and I planing a fall wedding, and our china patten is registered at Neiman-Marcus, huh?
Neiman-Marcus? I thought we agreed on Bloomies!
WHy don’t you register at Loehmann’s and Sears’ and save your pals a few bucks? Neiman-Marcus aint called “Needless-Mark-up” for nothin.
Then register at Blockbuster so you can rent “The Passion of the Christ Less 6 minutes of gore” DVD special edition and watch it together.
All of it instigated by me? Um, not quite Chester. One minute, we were having a great discussion about The Passion Recut. Then, without warning, you’re attacking me and calling me names. I did nothing to deserve that. And still, you are on the offensive, calling me names. And I have no clue where this moral superiority shit comes from. Seems to me that you’re making things up. I really would like to put an end to this. I see no reason why we can’t. Hopefully you’ll feel the same, because this is getting us nowhere. Let’s return to the reasonable discussion we were having before.
Stella, I didn’t say you started the hostilities on this page. I said you created the friction over the past few months, and they spilled over onto this page. Just like all of your fights with conservatives on this blog, regular readers know there is a history there and your posturing as a blameless cherub simply doesn’t fly.
I am a Jew whose parents sent him to a religious school in New York. My classmates and I were regularly heckled by the public school kids across the street as “christ killers” and they would start fist fights on a regular basis. When I was in third grade, one of those kids threw a rock through the window of my class, shattering the glass and hitting a girl in the neck, sending her to the hospital.
Anyone who thinks the frightening legacy of Mel Gibson’s film is yesterday’s news is living too comfortably in a jaded fool’s paradise. His film revved up the Christian fundamentalist right while putting tens of millions of dollars into the pocket of a religious fanatic, and apparently they’re not done. The last thing I want is to convert more people to Gibson’s dangerous outlook or put more money in his account, but even I know that my partisan concerns don’t make his activities any less newsworthy. It’s similar to the quandary news organizations get into whenever Bin Laden releases a new video message to his followers every couple of months: It’s always the same old bile, but it would be the end of journalism not to show it, analyze it in depth, and then expose it publicly as yet another dangerously manipulative act by a man with a lunatic agenda.
I think you are overstating it just a tad. And I am not trying to say that I have never gotten into it with anyone before. I certainly am no angel and have no misconceptions about that. But in terms of this particular thread, I didn’t start anything and was surprised to see the way the discussion turned. I was enjoying the discussion with you Chester, and I hope we can put this behind us and move forward.
Art, BLESS YOU!!! I read your post with great emotion and, IMHO, you put everyone else here to shame – most especially me. You made the case more clearly and succinctly than I ever did, and I can only thank you with the utmost humility from the bottom of my heart for that.
Thankfully, the recut bombed. That’s at least something to take a little comfort in.
Wow, Chester, you think the concept of two men being lovers means that they are merely each other’s “prattling sexual playthings.” The idea that a heterosexual couple can be truly in love, but that a gay couple’s loving feelings for each other is, in your own estimation: insignificant (“prattling”) primarily lust driven (“sexual”) and involves no emotion, support, or romance, but is characterized, rather, by objectification and dehumanization (being each otherâs “playthings”) is CLASSIC, CLASSIC homophobic thought. You are a homophobe, Chester. As a gay man I’ve seen your like over and over again. If you quack like a duck, as far as Iâm concerned youâre a duck. You, Chester, quack like a homophobe.
You know, if someone sees me with a woman and asks if she’s my wife, I say “no” and don’t even think to get upset. When I see you rushing to Joe’s defense over and over again, and say (as I might to any gay person I meet), “what? is he your lover?” YOU can’t handle it, and you get enraged at me. How homophobic. Just like all those racists who think they’re not bigoted but would go nuts if their daughter ever dated a black man, you are something despicable and yet you’re too ignorant of yourself to know it.
Art, I hear you, man. But I can’t understand why you really would want the media giving Gibson more free publicity. The gay community learned after our protests of “Basic Instinct” backfired and turned that film into a huge hit, that the best thing to do to hateful pop culture discourse is to try to deal with it in a way that gives it the smallest amount of publicity possible. The fact that Chester seems to want to stir up a sleeping Beehive and do something to give the anti-Semitic right even more impetus to lash out just makes no sense to me. Except for the fact that he canât handle people disagreeing with him.
And for the record, from my dispassionate stance on the matter, I’ve felt that Stella has been far more reasonable and polite over the months on this board than has Chester, who really seems to have trouble with anger management.
And one more thing, Chester. Go back to my earlier posts and find one comment I made that was “self-congratulatory”. Then explain WHY, you think it was “self-congratulatory.” Did I drop the name of someone famous I know? Did I mention I’m a published author? Did I mention my high-paying prestigious job? WHAT have I said that was self-congratulatory?? You are so out of control at this point that you’re just making absolutely no sense anymore. Are you maybe getting me mixed up with someone else?
Stella: I hope your being upset doesn’t mean you’ve changed your mind about being my maid of honor. I’ve already ordered a lovely gown for you. Lime green, just like mine.
But semi-seriously folks: I’m back in Houston today, and I noticed that they’re selling at various outlets — even at Randall’s super markets, for cryin’ out loud — DVDs of “The Passion of the Christ” with “R-RATED” figuring prominently in the dislays. Could it be that Gibson released this new “unrated” version just to get people fearful that the R-rated version wouldn’t be around much longer, so they better buy their copies immediately? Or am I being even more paranoid than usual?
YOU’RE wearing a gown, Joe? Humm… I would have thought for sure that you were the butch and Chester was the femme.
(Don’t throw your laptop against the wall, Chester. You’ll regret it later…)
Joe, nothing could change my mind about being your maid of honor. We are going to look smashing in our lime green gowns. I can’t wait for the big day.
Of course you did call “Straight-Jacket” a “fey and frisky farce with a fabulous fashion sense.” Alliteration like that is NOT very macho, come to think of it. đ
Jon: Hey, look — considering how many times I’ve been screwed over lately, I just automatically assumed that being a bottom is my lot in life.
Joe, I’m starting to like you. I think I’m going to go out and buy that book of yours…. (Hey, isn’t the cover lime green?)
Jon: My secret is out. I hope my son takes the news without freaking out. Maybe I should rent “That Certain Summer” and show it to him.
Joe, back to seriousness again. I think you’re on to something. Gibson hasn’t made any money on the recut Passion, so at least he can try to instigate panic buying of the DVD of the original as a way to make more money. Reminds me of when Disney said they would never release “Fantasia” in any format ever again, and some people actually believed them. I remember people who didn’t even like “Fantasia” buying it because of that. Gibson’s just being more subtle about it.
Bingo! See, all of us — Jon, Chester, Stella, all of us — were fooled by Mel Gibson, Crafty Capitalist! We thot “Recut” was a money-grubbing ploy to sell more movie tickets. We didn’t know it was a money-grubbing ploy to sell more DVDs!
Jon, regarding your 4:29 and 4:39 postings, you are just flagrantly and pathetically wrong. Just because you’re haplessly losing an argument to two people – in whatever gender combination – you don’t get a free pass to ask if they’re sleeping with each other. The exact same would hold true if I had come to the defense of a woman. If you were having an argument with a female co-worker and a male co-worker came to her defense, do you think you’d be entitled to freely shout out to everyone in the office, “Hey, everybody, he must really want to bone her!”? By any objective standard, your comment was disgustingly inappropriate and offensive, and you cannot defend it by falsely and slanderously pulling out the homophobia card.
I also don’t know where you got the idea that the phrase “self-congratulatory” means “name-dropping.” What I was talking about was your repeated insistence that you’ve presented convincing counterarguments here. You haven’t even come close. But, as promised, I’m not getting into any of that anymore.
Finally, your response to Art shows that you are altogether too narrow-minded to comprehend the broader ethical priorities he so eloquently laid out. That’s all I’m going to say about that, though. I don’t want you to start going off the rails as to whether I’m fucking him, too.
Chester, you slut! The ink isn’t even dry yet on our wedding invitations, and you’re already out tom-catting around! Does that mean I have to give back the presents? I’ve already started using the nifty blender Bi-Bob sent us!
Stella, you know what? You’re right. How do you like that? Certainly in the narrow context of this page, it was inappropriate for me to nuke into you like that, and I apologize. In the future, I for one will try harder to bury our history and let bygones be bygones.
No, no, Joe, I’m still all yours. And please don’t forget to add that fabulous espresso maker we saw to the registry!
Since Dave is not around — he’s probably too busy asking beach bunnies to slather him with sun-tan oil to worry about us — can I suggest that we devote the rest of this thread to weekend b.o. news? I’m intrigued by the nummers for, of all things, “Diary of a Mad Black Woman.” Remember all the ink that got spilled a few weeks ago for stories about how this would be a breakout hit, attracting crossever audeinces, and blah, blah, blah? Well, looks to me like it’s running out of steam, indicating that it HASN’T been able to cross the color line. Please don’t misunderstand: I’m not trying to dis the movie. And it certainly has performed well enough to merit sequels, spin-offs, what have you. All I’m saying is, once again, you have a bunch of journos and editors jumping on the bandwagon, writing about a “phenomenon” that might not be quite so phenomenal after all.
By the way, Jon, since I went to the trouble to review your comments as you requested, please go ahead and review mine. On what basis do you dare assume that I’m straight?
I’m glad to hear that Chester. And to be totally honest with you, I had completely forgotten about any history we had around here. I apologize for anything that I said in the past that contributed to it.
Speaking of this weekend’s box office, Ring 2 started its quick descent before its second weekend. A 12% Friday to Saturday drop. Can’t say I’m surprised since it’s a terrible movie. I expected a little more from the director of Ringu. Probably won’t even make it to $100 million now.
Joe, I’m not sure “Diary”‘s “phenomenon” status should be diminished just because it didn’t crossover all that much. The film still made a phenomenal amount of money, especially when taken with a view of its budget and subject matter. Here we had another movie (like a certain other one mentioned on this page, which I dare not name) that flexed a lot of its muscle via grass-roots marketing. And I don’t get the sense that the industry suits have the slightest idea yet about how to deal with that.
No doubt about it, “Black Woman” — much like “The Omega Code” — relied on grass-roots marketing. But also like “Omega Code,” I think its unexpectdly huge opening-weekend numbers established expectations that weren’t met. Obviously, in both cases, biz was/is sufficiently big to generate a sequel. On the other hand — at the risk of sounding like a suit, and a white guy suit at that — “Black Woman” leveling off does tend to give credence to notion that any film pitched so obviously to any niche audience will have a hard time crossing over. And without that crossover potential, it will be hard for any niche-audience film — be it a film picthed at blacks, gays, Evangelicals, whatever — to be deemed worth the risk of a huge budget. If you doubt me, just ask Spike Lee how much trouble he’s had over the past several years while trying to find any studio willing to part with the budget he deems necessary for a Jackie Robinson biopic.
And didn’t Lee have Denzel Washington lined up to play Robinson? And he still couldn’t get it made. I believe at the time he said he needed $40 million to make that movie. But, as with horror movies, as long as you can make movies like Diary of a Mad Black Woman on the cheap ($5.5 million) you’re going to see plenty of their ilk.
Since when has “self-congratulatory” meant defending one’s own position? Me thinks you need to get a dictionary, Chester. And did I ever say I thought you were straight? I don’t think so. Most truly, unconflictedly straight people DON’T have much homophobia. Saying I think you’re a homophobe is NOT saying that I think you’re straight by any means. In short I think you need to take a class in basic logic before you come round here with your hysteria and hyperbole, buddy boy. You know, you use a lot of grad school terms: “broader ethical priorities,” etc., but you seem like a true moron. I hope you’re NOT gay. I’d hate to claim you as part of my community.
I think both of you (Joe and Stella) may be right. I doubt “Diary” will be any kind of breakthrough into big-budget studio fare for African-American filmmakers (and I’m going to assume that, for purposes of this discussion, we are presently using that standard as our working definition of “phenomenon”). But it might make it easier to acquire financing and find distribution for some lower-budgeted films, particularly those targeted at African-American women. Just like the success of the “Friday” and “Barbershop” series uncovered a previously underserved niche in the marketplace, “Diary” could possibly do the same for its audience segment.
Then again, weren’t “Waiting to Exhale,” “How Stella Got Her Groove Back” and “Soul Food” supposed to accomplish that?
Doesn’t Beautyshop open soon? I’m guessing that will make a ton of money, too, and it probably cost next to nothing. And Kevin Bacon is in it, which is sort of odd.
Expecting more from the director of Ringu? HA.
Like Ringu proved he could direct.
I swear to god. This place makes me feel like Han
Solo coming out of carbonite sometimes. Delusions
of grandeur man! DELUSIONS!
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Uhhh, sorry. Just remember this valuable lesson:
Never ever let your cat step on your keyboard.
Shenanigans, sadly, upon me. Again, sorry.
I may be wrong — and if I am, I’m sure one or more of you will correct me — but I think it was William Goldman who came up with the term “freak hit.” By that, he meant a movie that is very successful in terms of b.o. and reviews, but doesn’t spawn a lot of imitators because, well, the suits dismiss it as a freak hit. Like “Terms of Endearment” or (and I know some of you hate this film, but please bear with me) “Ordinary People.” People can’t figure out just WHY these films were successful, since they’re not adhering to safe formulas, so they’re not imitated. Put it another way: Remember all those new Westerns we were told we’d get after “Dances With Wolves” and “Undefeated” won Oscars? Well, ahem, I’m still waiting.
L&DB: Well, if you fed the freakin’ cat once in a while, maybe it wouldn’t be trying to gobble up your computer mouse.
Jon, I don’t know the answer to “Since when has ‘self-congratulatory’ meant defending one’s own position?” That’s because I’ve never said anything like that in my life. My exact published definition here of “self-congratulatory” was “your repeated insistence that you’ve presented convincing counterarguments.” In other words, just saying repeatedly that you’ve made your case does not make it so.
OK, no, I’m not gay. (Like the relatively new cliche goes, “not that there’s anything wrong with that…”) But before you start in again on how that conclusively proves I therefore must be a closeted gay homophobe (!!!), I guess even by your own twisted logic you need to first go back and prove the homophobe part – which, incidentally, is the only part I find offensive.
Not that I need to defend myself. My professional work, my community and charity record, my writings, and my diverse circle of friends and family speaks for itself. Of course, I can’t expect you to know anything about any of that. What is most probative for our group’s discussion is how every reader here can see that you completely ignored WITHOUT EXCEPTION every single point I made in my earlier (5:28 PM) post, where I ripped your despicable homophobe case to shreds. I provided a very complete, factual analysis of the facts. Did you provide any kind of counterargument. No. Not a peep out of you. Instead, all you provided were more unsupportable shouts of “Homophobe! Homophobe!” (Incidentally, that’s exactly the way conservatives win arguments: by placing unsubstantiated pejorative labels on their opponents.)
At this point, I guess that kind of non-response was to be expected from you. At the same time, I have no doubt that you are in self-congratulatory mode about your absolute non-performance there as well. Yeah, Jon, give yourself a hand – that one was a thorough doozy. Really, don’t your shoulders ever get tired from patting yourself on the back endlessly?
Correction to above post: “Dances with Wolves” and “Unforgiven” (not “Undefeated”) won Oscars. That mistake was made because.. because… because my cat typed in the wrong name. Yeah, that’s the ticket. My cat typed in the wrong name.
Chester really might be an investor in the recut of The Passion.
WHEN have I patted myself on the back, Chester? You are just totally delusional at this point; do you know that?…..
I will say this in response to your 5:28 posting: I tend to like the word “lover” more than “boyfriend”. I donât have a cute little “boyfriend.” I have a male lover. Heâs forty-four years old and he has a doctorate. (I guess that is patting myself on the back a little, huh? Well, guilty as charged this one time.) The point is that neither he nor I are anybodyâs “boys”. I also donât like the use of dumb little workplace euphemisms like “partner” since they just exist to give homophobes a sense of plausible deniability about the nature of our relationships. And my lover is also not my “spouse” since weâre not married, and that’s for reasons with which you must be at least a little bit familiar. He is my LOVER. Get used to the word. If you want to get spastic about the use of that term, contend that it only implies juvenile lust, illicit passion, or is only suitable for verbally shaming people, fine. But thatâs your provincial, middle-class, moralistic perspective, not mine.
BTW, if I pick and choose which of your dozens of idiotic statements I’m going to argue against, it’s because there’s only 24 hours in a day, and I’d rather spend the majority of my weekend time with my LOVER than arguing with you. The number of good arguments I and others have made against your points, you tend to ignore anyway. You certainly haven’t come up with any defense against L.Jâs points about your untenable Salman Rushdie analogy. I mean think about it. If I see that youâre making twenty idiotic statements, I may pick two or three to respond to, but Iâm not going to go through them all one after another.
As my grandma used to say: âYou canât teach a pig to sing. It just wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.” You are clearly annoyed, Chester, just as my Grandma would have predicted, and I only have so much time I want to waste away, even on a weekend, especially with you Chester.
Jon, seriously, what are you on?
Your Lover? Boyfriend? Partner? Spouse? Boy? Huh? What does any of that have to do with my 5:28 posting?
As far as your 44-year-old Ph.D lover is concerned, hey, congrats to you. I wish you both the best of life, love and hot, passionate, sweaty sex. I sincerely hope that sometime soon you can call him your spouse, if that’s what you both want. I also hope he’s checked you tonight for weapons and sharp objects.
No kidding, does anybody here know Jon personally so you can rush him a paramedic?
First, LAYDON, do not mock my cat! That kitten
types 60 words a minute. She just messed up that’s
all. When she becomes a cat. She will easily
remember to backspace properly to eliminate huge
spacing gaps in paragraphs. Talent pussy that one.
Sorry. Under law, I had to make that joke.
And now to sum up:
2) Chester is rather verbose.
3) Jon agrees, but dislike Chester due to his poorly
laid out verbose arguments.
4) Chester becomes easily confused.
5) Jon would rather have sex than read Chester’s
verbose rants all day.
6) Chester, becomes more confused.
7) I explain my kittens mad typing skillz.
That pretty much sums it up. Now Jon, Chester,
return to your seperate corners. Refer with your
ring people, and avoid tripping on the way back
to your stool. Those have been known to paralyze
people. HOOAH!
I liked Ringu. So sue me. And I assumed that Nakata could direct a horror flick least as well as Gore Verbinski.
I liked Ringu. So sue me. And I assumed that Nakata could direct a horror flick least as well as Gore Verbinski.
anyone that apparently disagrees with chester is a homosexual. way to fight for ur points, chest. thats sure to win ur arguements
Okay, this is really the last time I try to teach a pig to sing. Chester wrote” Your Lover? Boyfriend? Partner? Spouse? Boy? Huh? What does any of that have to do with my 5:28 posting?”
I refer you back to 5;28: “you don’t get a free pass to ask if they’re sleeping with each other. If you were having an argument with a female co-worker and a male co-worker came to her defense, do you think you’d be entitled to freely shout out to everyone in the office, “Hey, everybody, he must really want to bone her!”? ”
Okay, this is really the last time I try to teach a pig to sing. I promise, Grandma. Chester wrote” Your Lover? Boyfriend? Partner? Spouse? Boy? Huh? What does any of that have to do with my 5:28 posting?”
I refer you back to 5;28: “you don’t get a free pass to ask if they’re sleeping with each other. If you were having an argument with a female co-worker and a male co-worker came to her defense, do you think you’d be entitled to freely shout out to everyone in the office, “Hey, everybody, he must really want to bone her!”? ”
You clearly seem to think me using the word lover was an attempt to shame you and Joe, that the word “lover” is the exact equivalent of “secret fuck buddy”. I’m saying that it’s not, that it’s closer, to me anyway, to “spouse”, and that when I asked if you and Joe were lovers it was roughly the same as me asking if you two were married. If you can’t get that, well, we’re just speaking different languages. I use English by the way. Sometimes I make reasonable use of connotation in addition to denotation. I thought you could keep up.
Okay. I’m done. I’ve tried for post after post, and Chester just can’t follow a normal English discussion.
D’oh! Some cutting and pasting problems there, my friends.
“Secret Fuck Buddy”? Wasn’t that a Marvin Gaye song?
It was supposed to be. The had to rewrite it to “Secret Funk Buddy” to get it on the radio.
I wish I could keep up with all Chesters personalities. But thats a fulltime job.
Jon, you are just plain scary now. Not only are you self-congratulatory about your weak-ass arguments, you are now also self-congratulatory about your miserable comprehension of the English language.
Virtually no one – NO ONE! – would assume in common usage that the word “lover” automatically equates with “spouse.” In the context of a relationship, “lover” ALWAYS has clear-cut sexual connotations that are NOT the sole defining traits of marriage or even committed civil unions.
Just think of the basic old chestnut, “I am taking a lover.” Would the average listener think the speaker is seeking a spouse or, quite clearly, a fuck buddy?
A contemporary example: Princess Diana was Prince Charles’s wife; Camilla Parker-Bowles was his lover.
As far as I’m concerned, you are welcome to define words any way you choose. If you want to see something as yellow that the entire rest of the world sees as green, be my guest. But you do not get to besmirch anybody’s good name (i.e., with charges of homophobia) simply because he/she does not conform to your eccentric vernacular.
That’s it. You’re a moron, I’m done talking to you, and I won’t respond to any more of your utterly worthless bullshit. (No offense intended – all of that means “Have a nice day!” on Jon World.)
Terence D and bicycle bob, I actually applaud your support of Jon in this matter. As two of our resident conservative representatives of the far right, it’s quite a nice surprise to see you backing an outspoken homosexual like Jon, who has made it clear throughout this argument that he expects to be accorded all rights presently afforded only to heterosexuals. I take it then that you will not be joining your fellow right-wingers in their push for any “Defense of Marriage” amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Bravo!
Excellent point Chester. I am very impressed by the way bob and Terence have embraced Jon. Maybe they aren’t as narrow-minded as I suspected.
I must say I agree with Jon. I’ve heard many people, especially less-conservative gay people, use the word “lover” in the way that Jon describes. Yes, the word has a clear-cut sexual connotation–I don’t think Jon would deny that fact and he hasn’t thus far, but it doesn’t only mean sex. And Jon is right to suggest that it’s not necessarily a punitive term among open-minded people, as you seem to think it is. I think you need to realize, Chester, that when virtually everybody on this thread starts having problem with what you’re saying and the way youâre saying it, you ought to rethink your attitude and address what most of us here would consider to be your sense of illogical defensiveness.
You know, the allegiances shift in this blog almost as often and unexpectedly as they did in pre-WWI Europe.
On a movie-related note: Tonight I’m supposed to see “Beauty Shop,” and I have a painfully melancholy feeling that it may be one of the very last times I see the MGM lion before a newly released movie. Sigh.
When is Beautyshop opening? Let us know how it is Joe, and what in the hell Kevin Bacon is doing in it.
What is Kevin Bacon doing here? Well, right off the top of my head, I’d say he is making enough money so he can continue acting in movies like “The Woodsman” and the upcoming Atom Egoyan film.
Chest, maybe its time ou started the meds again. Paxil does wonders I hear.
Bacon likes acting especially with off beat supporting parts. I think he had a little fun with this Queen Latifah flick.
Jon, don’t let a bigot like Chester stop you from being who you are. He hates himself because deep down he can’t be who he is and who he wants to be.
In some wierd way, Chester has become a uniter: Mark, bob, Stella’s Boy, Joe, Jon, Terence, me. Maybe we should send him to the middle east.
You straight guys can laugh all you want because it’s not your problem. But I’m a gay man who is active in gay politics and I fail to see the humor. I beg Jon to please shut up already. Chester has openly endorsed gay rights and sexual freedom all over this Blog. For Jon to keep calling him a homophobe is a stupid, counterproductive waste of valuable political capital. Attacking one of our vocal supporters is nothing more than shooting all of us in the foot and it puts a really bad face on our community.
Let me ask you something, then, L.J: Are you Jon’s lover? Because based on your comment and the context in which all of this is under discussion, that question is now entirely fair game.
Mark, are you Jon’s lover?
Terence D, are you Jon’s lover?
I know I wasn’t asked, but I am not Jon’s lover. Seriously, let’s squash this, as my homies and I are fond of saying. Don’t hate, participate. Chester and I have put what transpired behind us, and I think we should just end this and move on. It accomplishes nothing. So please, enough Chester bashing. Let’s talk about movies again.
Thanks, Don, for being the only current responder capable of processing what has been written all over this page.
Thanks, Stella, as well.
My pleasure. I’m tired of all the hating and would really like to discuss movies again, a sentiment that, I’d venture to guess, most people around here share.
No I’m not, but I’m pretty sure that “Don” is just you pretending to be gay in order to create the illusion that you have SOME people out there in the world who agree with you. Has “Don” ever posted before this? Where’d he come from all of a sudden? (And right after he posted, you posted. Interesting timing.) Same could be asked about “Art”. Isn’t it funny how when you’re argued into a corner and find that none of the regular bloggers on this board agree with you, suddenly, out of nowhere, some brand new “person” appears and comes to your rescue, one who seems to have read the whole thread. Not only are you a divisive fool, you seem to be schizophrenic, or just pathetically dishonest, as well.
Mark, Terence D and bicycle bob seem to always be united and watch each other’s backs. No problem with that, but I can’t help but wonder: Are you guys lovers?
I am neither of those people L.J. Why, is it so impossible to believe that someone could could actually be on the same side as me? Sorry, but the fake broadcasts come from the White House and the Republican party, not me.
But you sure sound an awful lot like Jon. And you’re beginning to sound like conservative commentators Terence D, Mark and bicycle bob. Hmmm…
Wow, Stella. What a saint you seem to be. =) You’re right that we should get back to the films, of course, but frankly, I’m sick and tired of coming on here from time to time and seeing just how much Chester has bullied so many people here over the last few months. (You, Joe, Jon, Gomby, back before the Oscars, who seemed like a nice guy but was totally shouted away by Chester.)
So, okay, consider me officially at a truce, too. But I think I’ll save my comments for you, Joe, Jon, and some of the more reasonable posters.
Once again, I will try to move this thread back to a discussion of movies. (It would help, of course, if Dave took time off from snorkeling, sun-tanning and smoking ganja to create a new thread â hint, hint! â but presumably heâs too busy to worry about us.) Iâm knocking around ideas for a piece thatâs a kinda-sorta follow-up to my book (now available in fine book stores everywhere, by the way; it has a lovely lime-green cover) about movies you need to see to be film literate. Hereâs the general concept: The 50 most influential movies of the past 25 years. Let me emphasize: Not necessarily the BEST movies of the past 25 years, but the most INFLUENTIAL. For example: âHeavenâs Gateâ would have to be on that list, because its failure ended the golden age of “director-driven cinema” in ’70s Hollywood. âRambo: First Bloodâ (but not the original âFirst Bloodâ) and âTop Gunâ would also have to be on the list, I would think. So would âGhostbusters,â âFatal Attractionâ and (gulp!) âFlashdance.â âA Room With a Viewâ popularized a certain type of period drama, just as âRoger & Meâ spawned a new genre of first-person documentary. And youâd have to have at least one John Hughes title â but would it be âSixteen Candlesâ or âThe Breakfast Clubâ? Also, youâd have to include films that introduced or re-introduced U.S. and global audiences to the cinema of a particular country. But what would represent Iran? Hong Kong? Or Japanese anime? (âAkiraâ or âGhost in the Shellâ?) And in terms of reviving interest in particular genres â whatâs more influential, âBraveheartâ or âGladiatorâ? And are certain films generally viewed as âgreatâ not necessarily influential? (Like âRaging Bull,â maybe? Or âShoahâ?) Any ideas? Suggestions?
You’d have to include Reservoir Dogs, wouldn’t you? Tarantinoesque (spelling?) became a genre for a while.
Joe: Thanks for giving us something new to chew on.
Pulp Fiction of course, also, from Hong Kong, Chunking Express would be my choice. You’d also want to consider a Woo film, maybe The Killer. AKIRA was the big anime film from what I remember. Don’t forget Blade Runner. From Europe I’d find the first one of those “adorable little boy coming of age films”, My Life as a Dog, I’d guess? Or wait, I guess Fanny and Alexander would be the first of those. How about the Russian film Come and See, which clearly inspired Saving Private Ryan? Or maybe Platoon for the modern war film genre. How about sex, lies, and videotape for US indie cinema? As for Iranian filmmaking, has that really had much of an influence outside of the art film world? At best it seems to be a refusal to follow Hollywood over the cliff into hyperbolic stylistic excess. One last gasp of minimalism in the once vibrant tradition of Neo-realism and structuralist cinema.
Your new book idea sounds like a good idea to me, Joe. And isn’t the cover your current book, which I quite enjoyed by the way, more of a AVOCADO green? I know you want to camp out with your gay friends, but it’s really not lime… Speaking of gay films, I’d pick Philadelphia. Didn’t that shock people in terms of how much money it made, especially considering it didn’t get THAT good of reviews, and thus open the doors to In and Out, the Birdcage, and others? If you want a real obscure but important pick in terms of gay films and AIDS, I knew a gay film Prof. who told me that the Derek Jarman film The Last of England was the least well known highly influential film of the last twenty five years. He claims it deeply influenced the style of Coppola’s Dracula, Van Sant’s Private Idaho, and so many more recent films that it’s practically re-written some of the cinematic grammar we use today, and yet no one outside of the director’s guild and a few queer theory types seems to know it exists.
Anyway, good luck with it.
T.J.: I dunno, maybe an avocado that’s been in the fridge for a really, really long time?
One more thing, then I have to work on my own writing project: Don’t get caught up in films that everyone thought would have a huge impact, but didn’t. I’m sure you’re savvy enough not to do that, actually. But I know that many people thought Blair Witch was going to have all this impact, but did it really? Even though I don’t care for William Goldman’s philosophy of filmmaking, his phrase, that you quoted, “Freak Hit” is worth holding onto here. A film can make a fortune without it have any lasting reverberations, just as one can lose it’s shirt–as you said with Heaven’s Gate–and have an influence. While we’re on that, remember, One From the Heart lost a lot of money, but the French loved it, it fueled there whole “Cinema du Look” mini-genre (Subway, Diva), and came back to the US in the form of Moulin Rouge and others, right?
influential of the last 25 years (to moviemakers) although it is difficult in general to evaluate movies of the last 5 years becasue one doesn’t know if they will have any impact at all for the long term…most fo the “influential” label would come from long hindsight.
Blade Runner (real sci fi & noir; unique and not rated well at timeof release and still is considered one of the best of any type of movie of the last 25 yrs)
Star Wars (fantasy & kids story ebing accessbile to adults)
This is Spinal Tap (re. mockumentary & comedy)
Shinjuku triad society[Miike] OR Sonatine[Kitano]
(young gangster/crime movie makers have seen either or both of these though they may not want to admit it)
run lola run (on stylistics)
Das boot (most influential war film–come and see is the best but I know so many people who should have seen it who haven’t.)
Alien (genre bending–horror + sci fi + woman as butt-kicking leader)
Crouching tiger, hidden dragon–opened up Asian movies for many people who prior to that time had Never seen an asian language movie/story.
Spirited Away–influenced many who had not recognized Asian animation. Now it is commonplace, before 2001 it was the domain of geeks and manga afficonados.
The wrong trousers–seemed influential amongst animators and was enormously popular
hoop dreams–brought the docu to inner city america
Batman (1989)–probably the best comic book movie up til spiderman, if not the best. Spawned many comic book plans for movies
In the future I think f*cking amal and Touching the void will be in that top Influential list but it is too early to tell.
I knew I said I was done with Chester, but if it’s true what LJ said, and it seems resonable since Art and Don were only one-shot posters, and Chester pretended to be Jewish and Gay in order to put words in the mouths of people of other religions and sexual orientations, then that has to be the biggest ethical lapse ever on this blog. A straight non-Jew pretending to be gay and Jewish to try to prove that he’s right about gay and Jewish issues. If it’s true, and I do feel he’s innocent till proven guilty, then he’s the equivilant of a white guy in blackface at a minstral show acting black to promulgate his white perspective on what society should think of blacks. IF true, again if, Chester should be utterly ashamed of himself. That’s even worse than homophobia. At least the homophobia wasn’t at a conscious level.
Jon, I had no wish to continue this argument, and have abided by the “truce” that was put into place a few hours ago. But your vicious comments have forced me to go back on the record:
1) I’ve already stated that I had nothing to do with the writing of those two posts. I fully agree that doing what you and L.J. have the audacity to accuse me of would be an unspeakable ethical lapse, and it disgusts me beyond words that you could stoop so desperately low as to make such a baseless charge. How pathetic it is that you cannot back down enough from your rabid stance to acknowledge the remote possibility that someone might agree with me. There are plenty of first-and-only-time posts on this site. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the attack on me by “carl,” above, on March 19, 9:54 AM. Should I assume you or L.J. prepared that one, because it sure sounds an awful lot like you!
2) I AM JEWISH. Always have been, and I have given you no reason to presume otherwise.
Prejudice is often defined as “the influence of preconceived notions over one’s mindset.” Therefore, your preconceived notions about how to identify Jews shows that you are prejudiced, specifically an anti-Semite. Maybe not a virulent one, maybe not “at a conscious level” (as you put it above), but still an anti-Semite.
Now that you’ve been exposed on the Internet, that label may haunt you for the rest of your miserable life, just like I could potentially suffer from the false slanders you have tried to attach to me. Your hysterics, some of which appear to have been drug-induced, are inexcusable. The gang-up mentality you have promoted here, where you have rallied for personal attacks against your opponents instead of addressing the arguments they present, is sinful. You have proven yourself to be an unforgiveably immoral person with absolutely no sense of propriety or boundaries. And let me be perfectly clear: None of that has anything whatsoever to do with your sexual orientation, which is probably the one thing in your wretched existence that you deserve to be proud of.
Kevin Bacon is very amusing in “Beauty Shop” as a haughty piece of Eurotrash who runs a stylish salon where Queen Latifah works. She quits to start her own business, he’s greatly pissed. The movie is slight, but often extremely funny and never less than engaging. It’s the kind of movie that makes you think each person on screen loved going to work every day during the production.
Why should I be pround of my sexual orientation? I was born with it. It’s not an accomplishment. By the way, didn’t I just say you were innocent until proven guilty?
Hey Joe, Raiders of the Lost Ark is undeniably one of the most influential films of the last 25 years. It’s editing, it’s all-climax all the time pacing. Even Star Wars didn’t have that kind of full throttle from beginning to end pacing. Many say it was the begining of the end.
Jon, a person can be proud (or not) of something he/she was born with. As a personal example, I was born Jewish and I am very proud of it.
Um, maybe that’s that was a bad analogy to give to an anti-Semite like you…
So, is Beautyshop basically Barbershop 3? If so, I’ll definitely pass.
It’s actually a bit more subdued than the “Barbershop” flicks. Nothing — not even Bacon’s fey villainy — gets out of hand. And, what the hell, I admit it: Alfre Woodard looked pretty hot in some scenes. I know, she’s always playing noble women in movies. But I’ve always thot she’s a babe. What can I say? I’m a pig.
BTW: This another one of those “urban audience” films that will open on a Wednesday, so there won’t be riots in theaters.
I guess your definition of “pride” is as off the mark–to my perspective–as is your definition of “lover.” I always thought pride was what you felt when you accomplished something. Silly me. Also, considering that LJ was the one who actually accused you of writing those other posts, the fact that you attacked the GAY blogger rather than the non-gay-identified one seems…
What’s the word? Whatâs the term when you attack the gay person who doesnât deserve it….
It’s just not coming to me.
By the way, that 45 year-old lover of mine, the professor. Remember him? He’s Jewish. We’re all ready for Yom Kippur here in our house and I can tell you that he doesn’t think I’m anti-Semitic at all. In fact he’s the one who suggested the “blackface” analogy to me vis-a-vis straight people pretending to be gay on a blog when I read LJâs posting to him.
By the way, Chester, I WILL apologize for assuming you were not Jewish. That was wrong of me.
No, Jon, that’s not the only time someone can feel pride, and you should be embarrassed to even suggest otherwise. Like I noted above, you can feel proud of your heritage. Another example: Somehow as a straight man I seem to have been exposed to the concept of “gay pride,” something you as our resident gay representative now openly deny as a possibility.
You can feel pride at the accomplishments of others (e.g., family, your children, friends, your country, sometimes even total strangers – there are people on this web site who take a lot of pride in George Bush). I would like to think that if your professor-lover received some kind of honor or added distinction, you would feel proud of him – even though you may have had nothing to do with it. Then again, since you have said that my definition of pride is as off the mark as my definition of “lover,” the pride you would feel for your lover would then, by your trail of logic, mark you as a homophobe. An anti-Semitic homophobe.
Actually, Jon, I did correct and chastise L.J., not just you, for making the insinuation about those two bloggers. Then, after I had already issued that firm denial, you made the same false accusation again. You therefore earned much more severe treatment. You deserved worse.
Well, since you seem incapable of letting go of this ridiculous fatwa you have against me, I guess I need to be the one to just swallow my pride and end my participation in this farce right here and now. Frankly, you sound completely unbalanced and I’m starting to worry about what’s going to finally send you over the edge completely. So this will be my last posting to you about all of this.
Enjoy your life with your alleged Jewish professor. I say “alleged” because I have no idea what kind of Jewish person would have his home “all ready for Yom Kippur” right now. Yom Kippur falls on October 13th this year. I hope for your sake he’s not making you fast until then.
BTW, in anticipation of your lame response that you meant some other Jewish holiday:
– The holiday of Purim is this Friday. But it’s a holiday that requires almost zero preparation or household “readiness.”
– The major festival of Passover is at the very end of April. For observant Jews, it requires a great deal of household preparation, maybe a week. But over a month? And to be “all ready” already? NO WAY!
Then again, I’m sure you’re going to end up telling me again, “What I meant was, and what you should have understood, which you didn’t because I deem you to be a homophobe…”
Finis.
A few things:
1) Chester’s a Jew. HOORAY!
2) What guy wants his man or woman to go around
calling him my “45 year old lover?” If that’s
not a human hurt. I do not know what is.
3) Poland, if you are out there, POST SOMETHING
NEW ALREADY MAN! THIS MADNESS HAS TO END!
Enough with 45 year old lovers, passover,
Chester’s religion, and LAYDON’s take on Kevin
Bacon in Beauty Shop. There has to be something
else for all of us to post on! THERE HAS TO BE!
Did you read the NY Times or LA Times weekend
magazines? Those people usually piss you off.
SO VENT!
4) This rant was sponsored by Jennifer Garner: David
Poland’s favourite actress since 2003 and Michael
Vartan’s BAIN to his existance.
5) I say good day.
I’m with you Joe. I have always been fond of Alfre Woodard.
I’m with you Joe. I have always been fond of Alfre Woodard.
First, Iâm really embarrassed that I got mixed up about Yom Kippur. That might have had something to do with my joke falling flat about getting the house all ready for it. My lover has been wringing his hand about an upcoming academic conference held in October to which heâs been invited. It would mean him not strictly observing Yom Kippur if he went and he’s been talking and talking about it the last couple of days. (For the record, we live in an apartment, not a house. I must have “lied” about that too, I guess youâd say. Also, for the record, Yom Kippur isnât just on the 13th of Oct. as you say, it goes, this year, from sunset on the 12th to sunset on the 13th. I suppose I could grab onto that to call you a phony, but I’ll move on.)
Yes, I have heard of gay pride. I disagree with the term. Perhaps you believe in a univocal political identity, but I donât. Maybe thatâs why in my student activism days I was a member of Queer Nation rather than some cuddly “gay” “pride” organization. The fact that you hang on to the idea that youâre can be proud of so many things you were born with or into actually reflects a very conservative, old fashioned kind of ideology. It has roots in WHITE racial pride (maybe you’ve heard of the KKK) which is a double-edged sword to say the least.
So youâre mum from now on. Great. I love getting the last word in. Does this mean we wonât be hearing from Don or Art anymore?
Can we go back to talking about movies now? Please? Someone? Anyone? Bueller?
I agree Joe. So is anyone actually going to pay to see Miss Congeniality 2? Could the movie be even more unnecessary than The Whole Ten Yards?
I agree Joe. So is anyone actually going to pay to see Miss Congeniality 2? Could the movie be even more unnecessary than The Whole Ten Yards?
the sound of bruce willis and matthew perry laughing all the way to the bank had something to do with that movie. script? whats that?
chester gives jews a bad name. marky mark, how do u deal with guys like him in ur tribe???
I think it’s time contemporary sequels started looking more like the horror-movie sequels produced by Universal in the 1940s. You know, movies like “Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man” or “House of Dracula,” where you have 2 or 3 or 4 characters crossing paths. Like, you could have “Miss Congeniality” meeting Bruce Willis’ “Die Hard” cop, and they join forces to kick some terrorist ass. Or drop “Daredevil” into the next “X-Men” sequel.
To get back to Joe’s book (since I really don’t know what the hell’s going on in the general discussion and really don’t care to find out), on the anime titles, Akira would probably be the one. Spirited Away’s Oscar was somewhat important, but let’s not forget it was a category that was throwing birdseed at stuff they’d never nominate for anything other than the peripheral awards. It’s one of my favorite movies, but again, we’re talking about influence.
Akira laid the tracks. It got the concept to people that there was something like this: cartoons for mature audiences that didn’t necessarily mean crap like Heavy Metal. Ghost in the Shell may be the more well-loved considering the sequel and the two seasons of the TV series, and it may have been the first big one to hit theaters, Siskel and Ebert and all that, but Akira was a precursor to that. My Neighbor Totoro and Grave of the Fireflies are also contributors to anime’s growing popularity, Akira wasn’t the absolute first, and it wasn’t Perfect Blue, which was probably the first movie critics handled on the same level of, say, a Hitchcock film, but Akira got the initial word out the loudest.
Oh, and on the topic of aniamted movies, The Little Mermaid or Snow White would definately be influential. Without Little Mermaid jumpstarting everything, we wouldn’t be as saturated with animated features as we are.
I am surprised they don’t do crossovers more nowadays. Only recent thing I can think of is having Michael Keatons cop character in Jackie Brown than in Out of Sight.
the comic book movies can’t do it cause all their rights are tied up among different studios. they can’t use the kingpin character in spiderman because daredevil has it. would make too much sense for them to partner up
Didn’t Body Heat bring back noir in a big way?
And consider the second Indiana Jones movie for a second. It’s the least well liked, but it is the one that brought about the PG-13 rating, which seems to be what virtually all potential blockbusters aim for nowdays. The rating says the film tough enough to seem cool to High School and College Kids but not so tough that children can’t get in on their own. Films that would have had less violence and sex (to get a PG) now have more, and films that might have bit the bullet and taken an R now have more wiggle room.
I’m using my lunch break to respond to the blogger named Jon. I do not appreciate being called a fraud over and over again on this blog by you, a drama queen who needs someone to stick a gag in his mouth.
I came aboard yesterday as a longtime Hot Blog listener, firsttime Hot Blog caller. I’ve seen Chester get too snarky with other bloggers. Yet all the way through his argument with you he hasn’t once shown anything but unconditional support for the full menu of gay issues. Chester gave a lot more vigorous support for our community than you did with all of your smug narcissism. You went so far as to compare the gay pride movement to the KKK in front of this audience which is populated mostly by straight white guys. That’s just treason if you ask me.
As a gay man and a health worker I’ve seen countless people die because of discriminatory government policies that kill homosexuals. My friends, that is genocide. I’ve also had to deal with the fallout from too many fringe idiots like you who do everything in their power to distance our straight supporters, people who can help turn the tide, help get us our liberty and save lives. I blogged for the first time yesterday not to take sides in your petty squabble with Chester but to ask you to stop calling one of our outspoken supporters a homophobe. From what I’ve seen, if Chester is your idea of a homophobe then we need all the homophobes we can get. Otherwise the blood will be on your hands, not his.
Sincerely,
Donald Gold
Hey Don, how about you relax a little pal. Blaming the government because gays die? Thats pretty lame. What does the government do? Spike the kool aid at gay bars and in San Francisco and the village??? If you want to go sprouting off about how gays are discriminated against, thats fine. But don’t give us kook theories like the government is out to get you.
It is almost impossible to release blockbuster type movies now without less than a PG 13 rating. It is written into contracts. It maximizes profits. The days of R rated summer movies are over.
Like all conservatives, Mark loves the government and defends them whenever he gets the chance. And didn’t Collateral just make $100 million last summer? Isn’t it rated R?
Don, all I can say is that I was shaken, stirred and honored by your post.
And to everyone, I’m working on being less “snarky.”
Anybody else see the trailer for the Cedric the Entertainer/Mike Epps version of “The Honeymooners”? While I’m not a fan of TV remakes (I think I’m the only person who has low expectations for this summer’s “Bewitched”), at one point I thought this project had some potential. Now IMHO it looks like an unmitigated disaster, totally devoid of the charm or character of the classic TV original.
The trailer can be viewed at http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/the_honeymooners/
Well I was done with Chester, but now I’ve got Don to worry about.
I’d put my years of service, including an award from the ACLU, up against your whatever credentials any day. If you don’t see the problem with taking PRIDE in the fact that you were BORN a certain way, be it Jewish, gay, straight Aryan, or whatever, you ought to quit chugging tequilas at circuit parties and take a course in Queer Theory. Maybe you’ll have an epiphany somewhere between the Judith Butler and the Michael Warner. Actually, you might just want to think for half a minute about the kind of person who takes pride in how she or he was born, rather than his or her accomplishments. He’s been very good at playing the victim lately, but I’ve read Chester belittle virtually everyone on this board at least once or twice in the last two months; the fact that he freaked out so outrageously at me after suggesting he might have a male lover was the straw that broke my camelâs back. Sorry, but iâm not retracting any of my remarks to make milquetoast appeasers like you happy.
Go back to wearing your red ribbons and posing in your float at the gay pride parade. I’ll actually continue thinking outside the box do the good work I do in Queer politics.
I’m curious to see how well “The Honeymooners” does at the box-ofice — because, judging from the reactions I’m getting from my students, few people under the age of 25 know much about the source material. No kidding: I recently found that none of the 20 students in my Broadcast and Film Writing class at University of Houston has ever seen an episode of the old TV series.
I’m way over 25, and I’ve never seen an episode of The Honeymooners. That show is OLD, man. I’d say most people under 40 or so have never seen more than a clip here or a clip there. It was never rerun as much as, say, I Love Lucy.
I grew up in New York City, and until I moved west 15 years ago “The Honeymooners” could be found on WPIX at least twice daily. But since moving away, it’s generally nowhere to be found on any of my several hundred cable channels other than an occasional brief run on Nick at Nite. I’ve found the exact same regional thing to be true of the TV version of “The Odd Couple.” Both shows are near and dear to my heart, but you’re right, Joe – I don’t know if “bang, zoom, to the moon, Alice!” means much to today’s audiences.
In the same class,I couldn’t find a single student who’s ever seen “Kojack,” either. Hope this doesn’t bode poorly for Ving Rhames.
the honeymooners is going to bomb. where does this cedric guy get off calling himself the entertainer? whats he ever entertained?
My bad: It’s “Kojak,” not “Kojack.” Hope the ghost of Telly Savals doesn’t come knocking at my chamber door.
I’m almost 23 and I’ve seen a couple Honeymooners episodes. Then again, my dad was a TV repairman who LOVED Nick at Nite during the Donna Reed, Make Room for Daddy era. It’s not quite “Car 54, Where Are You?” (remember that movie? Thought not), but unless it gets a good trailer or something like that, I don’t see it being much of a smash.
And, of course, it’s Telly Savalas, not Terry Savals. Think I’ll go back to sleep for a while.
As someone who grew up watching reruns of The Honeymooners I can say I am not really thrilled to see it on screen. But these cross over, redo films can make money. I guess we will see Halle Berry in I Love Lucky next year.
Time for this entry to stop…. move along to the space provided, please.. no show here….