Things are slowing down up there, but John Wildman had a movie day that sounds like the most fun I have heard anyone have this week. A stoner comedy called High School, Vincenzo Natali’s Splice with Sarah Polley, amd 12th & Delaware from the terrific documentarians that brought us Jesus Camp.
Here you go,..
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā” “Yeah, sure ā you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Didn’t we already see Splice when it was called Species?
And, as a special pet peeve of mine,… THAT’S NOT HOW DNA WORKS.
On the subject of religion, I’m somewhere between Bill Maher and the lead singer of Deicide, but JESUS CAMP was some of the most loathesome, hateful, cheap-shot, condescending bullshit EVER committed to film. Anyone who pretends it’s “even-handed” is so far left they have no perspective… And seen today, it’s ALREADY a ludicrously DATED bit of Bush-era hysteria… Because, yeah, that THEOCRACY we were all so worried about TOTALLY happened under Bush’s watch.
One of the most despicable pieces of filmmaking ever committed to celluloid; OH LOOK, THE MIDWEST! Fat people! Fast food signs! STRIP MALLS.
You could feel the CONTEMPT dripping from every shot. Not to mention that a bunch of tubby yahoos bowing to a CARDBOARD CUTOUT OF BUSH is pretty fucking benign and SILLY in the grand scheme.
One of the worst movies EVER MADE.
Fuck, I feel like I just unleashed my inner NICOL D, but even thinking of JESUS CAMP, I can just picture a bunch of smarmy hipster fucks in thrift store reek-clothes tittering on cue like trained seals at the Laemmle’s Sunset 5.
It’s closer to HATE SPEECH than to a documentary.
JESUS CAMP POWER. YEP YEP YEP.
It appears there’s a controversy brewing about the creature designs used for SPLICE with an artist claiming that he was brought in to help with the designs and then screwed over by the producers.
Here’s a link to an interview with the artist with some pricelessly charming responses from our friend Don Murphy.
http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/35539/exclusive-artist-dan-ouellette-discusses-splice-and-why-always-get-it-writing
I’m impartial since I’ve seen both sides at fault when these sort of disagreements pop up. The designs *do* look awfully similar though. If you want to remain 100% fresh regarding the creature designs in the film then you can consider this a spoiler warning.
as a guy who lives in the bible belt, i gotta tell you that those kind of people really are everywhere. the most popular radio personality here in coastal carolina gets on the air and claims that God in his infinite wisdom decided the outcome of the Boston senate race.
There are two talk radio stations in town. Both of them run conservative talk all day. You can switch back and forth between Beck and Limbaugh, O Reilley and Hannity, all the way into the late night where they run Michael Savage on one station while Mark Levin is raging on the other.
When you watch a documentary about religious fanatics far removed from the bible belt, it might seem disingenious. But from someone who lives here, i gotta tell you that they’re not far off.
I was at the gas station the other day and there was a table set up outside with people trying to save my soul. High school students are recruited to join teen religious groups. While they’re at the meeting, members of the team go to their house and put signs on the lawn that say “This teen is a member of (insert name of religious group)”
I got into a debate the other day with someone trying to tie together disliking people who don’t speak english and accepting christ as their salvation.
I asked her “you realize Jesus spoke a number of languages, and i doubt he would have turned someone away who didn’t speak Aramaic.”
You could have heard a pin drop.
These people are frightening. It doesn’t take a lot more than pointing a camera at them to show you how scary their train of thought is.
These are people who hang portraits of a caucasian, blue eyes, blonde haired jesus. And that’s what they picture. History and common sense be damned.
The indignation may be obvious, but don’t you find it even a little bit justified?
LexG is picturing you.
What does a neutral version of Jesus Camp look like? I lived in the Midwest for nearly 30 years and also know many people like the ones depicted in Jesus Camp, which of course makes me a Christian-hating intolerant elitist. If you set out to make a movie about those people, and you turn the cameras on them and record what happens, what is an appropriate way to be unbiased? How would you make that movie mystery?
You need to direct your response to LexG. The criticisms are his, and did NOT include an assertion that the people depicted in the film do not exist. Try addressing everything else.
Pretty defensive for someone who just insulted another person here mystery, so pardon me if I am not keen on taking your advice. Thanks anyway.
I wasn’t insulting anghus. I don’t for a second think that LexG’s description of the JESUS CAMP fanbase describes him. I’m just trying to highlight the dangers of stereotyping.
I see how you could read my response as defensive, but it was intended as matter-of-fact. I pointed out that the arguments posed by you and anghus do not address LexG’s criticisms. The crux of his criticism disputes your assertion that the filmmakers simply turned on the cameras and recorded what happened.
It’s not a necessity for documentaries to be evenhanded – I’ll Godwin myself by saying that you’re unlikely to find a documentary painting a favourable light for Hitler unless you’re digging up Leni Riefenstahl’s old work. Sometimes you just show what’s there, and if you have several hours of fascinating footage you generally don’t deliberately leave most of it out to show that it only happened for a day or two over a few weeks of filming.
Certainly the bulk of notable docs in the last few years haven’t been exactly neutral – The Cove, Supersize Me, anything by Michael Moore, all have been quite unapologetically polemic. Even King of Kong had a “hero” and “villain”. Sometimes that’s just the story that falls out.
Lex has barely been south of Wilshire, much less in the south or midwest.
And as far as that theocracy Lex, what do you make of our troops using combat rifles inscribed with biblical verses? Or the Bush-era references to “crusades”? And that holy war is still going on today.
I agree that an undisguised lack of neutrality is legit. Is there such a thing as a doc being egregiously one-sided? Is being manipulative in a doc frowned upon?
I didnt think jesus camp was nearly as manipulative as a moore doc.
These people exist. They are nuts. Why are people of faith given a pass when they exhibit strange behavior? The sympathy confuses me.
Count me in as part of the group that found Jesus Camp creepily accurate.
Mike Huckabee, a 2012 presidential contender who beats Obama in a recent poll (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/2012-presidential-poll.html) concerning a prospective 2012 race, has called for a theocracy.
Mr. Huckabee: “But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”
Does that sound like a good idea to you Lex? It does to the people in Jesus Camp.
I haven’t seen JESUS CAMP, but I assume the problem is that by focusing on the extreme, the filmmakers give the impression that all Christians are fundamentalist whackos. Whether a documentarian has a responsibility to provide a broader perspective is another matter, but I get Lex’s point. I’m originally from Kentucky, and I’ve certainly experienced that kind of condescension from folks who think everyone from that area is a tobacco-chawing, inbred mouth-breather who shoots his dinner and lynches “nigras.” And of course there are people back there who think all of us in L.A. are sitting around the cement pond doing drugs, having orgies and quoting the Communist manifesto, and I’m sure one of ’em could bring a camera out here and “prove” their thesis.
But again, I can’t claim to have any insight on JESUS CAMP until I see it.
And that too might make for an entertaining documentary.
If you are attempting to chronicle a certain segment of Christianity, should you begin your film by proclaiming that “This does not represent all Christians?” Or should you interview Christians who are not as extreme in their views? How much responsibility is their in portraying “the other side” or whatever if you are making a documentary about a specific group of people? If I see it and assume that every single Christian is just like the people in the film, is that the filmmakers’ fault?
Before the start of any documentary, there should be a mini-documentary about how not everybody on Earth is just like the subjects of said documentary.
Oddly enough, the only thing I really disliked about Jesus Camp was the radio stuff that was thrown in to add “perspective,” when that perspective was really bashing.
The core of the film? Documentary all the way.
I don’t think it claims to be about everyone or all the Bush voters. It is about a hard core group that feels it should be training Christian children in the way Al Quaeda indoctrinates children to hate the west or Palestinian schools teach hate of Israel and Israel schools sometimes teach fear and hatred of Palestinians.
I am surprised by Lax’s reaction, I have to say.
Best typo of the thread. š
I agree with DP’s take, that the frame story of the radio guy was basically disingenuous.
Otherwise I’d call it one of the best horror movies of the last decade.
Why should they need to open by saying “Not all Christians are like this?” The movie isn’t called “Christians”, it’s pretty obviously about a specific segment. Sure, not all Christians are like that…. but the Christians that actually go to “Jesus Camp” are.
Exactly storymark.
A sampling of critics, from Rotten Tomatoes:
“Even-handed”
“Not even remotely balanced”
“Admirable impartiality”
“Unabashedly liberal”
“Next to no editorializing”
“The deck is stacked”
“It poses serious questions, then steps out of the argument.”
“Intrusive and irritating commentary”
“Unbiased”
“Outrageously unfair”
Are these critics watching the same movie? Of note, the negative comments I quoted are from positive reviews.
“I don’t think it claims to be about everyone or all the Bush voters. It is about a hard core group…”
On the contrary, most of the reviews I read see the “hard core group” presented as a microcosm of a large political/religious movement.
So Christian thinks we’re in a theocracy government right now?
In my view, we’re not a theocracy, but no serious presidential candidate can be anything other than an avowed christian and that’s a fact. Of course, the god talk is mostly culture-war boiler plate to keep the proles in a froth so the corporate empire can carry on business as usual. With the rise of “prosperity gospel,” free-market dogma and loving jesus are increasingly indistinguishable.
“as a guy who lives in the bible belt, i gotta tell you that those kind of people really are everywhere. the most popular radio personality here in coastal carolina gets on the air and claims that God in his infinite wisdom decided the outcome of the Boston senate race.”
anghus, have you read Stephen King’s UNDER THE DOME? It’s brilliant in the sense that he’s taken all the right wing hysteria of the last decade and made it the true villain of the story. A big chunk of the story involves a Christian radio station and Crystal Methamphetamine. Christians + crystal = insanity!
“On the contrary, most of the reviews I read see the “hard core group” presented as a microcosm of a large political/religious movement.”
And that would be incorrect how? Even a large movement is still not every Christian. And if you don’t think there was a large political/religous movement… I don’t know where you spent the last decade.
You know, one of my formative moments was the same dumb argument from the liberal side. The movie was “blood in the face” and at Sundance, there was outrage because the filmmakers didn’t make it clear enough that neo-Nazism was bad.
One of the worst things critics do, I think, is to play this game where they act like they are smart enough to get it, but the public is not. That’s why you get all this kind of critical “what it means” opining on a film like Jesus Camp… or George Bush is Darth Vader… or Avatar is a lefty movie… etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
Aside from the radio thing, which I think was a bow to the pressure of the left to say, “this is not good,” Jesus Camp has exactly as much politics in it as the people in the camp put in it. The filmmakers didn’t bring the Bush standee to the camp. And they didn’t put Bush in office so that the right would have him as a champion at that time.
Yes, Michael Moore can swing insanely in a personal way… to his detriment. But Jesus Camp is not a hate doc. It is a remarkable story of something most of the public is unaware of.
Jersey Shore is much more painful to watch, as the only lesson possible is, “Nice body parts, but we are superior to these idiots in every other way.” This is not unlike Fox News or Keith Oberman who looks at every story as, “I am taking what I can from it as news, but really, all I want is to find a way to slam the other side in there and I don’t care how I have to wriggle to find it.”
Jesus Camp? It’s embarrassing to some. I’m sure it’s exhilarating to others. That doesn’t make it a bad or unfair documentary.
wow, ‘jesus camp’ is one of the scariest films i have ever seen, no manipulation necessary, just shining a spotlight on these nutjobs was all it took. the documentations simply gave the jesus campers the rope and the campers happily hung themselves. brainwashing, delusions of grandeur, the hitler youth – oops, i mean ‘jesus’ youth – on crusade…one thing is always scarily true: genuinely crazy people don’t realise they’re crazy
sorry, i meant ‘documentarians’ in my second sentence, not ‘documentations’, don’t know what my fingers were playing at
Kind of what yancy said:
I just think a bunch of truck-stop crackers praying to a *cardboard cutout* is a pretty absurd niche. And I didn’t really find them that “scary.” Yeah, indoctrinating the little rat-tailed kids into this seems queasy, but if a bunch of yahoos going to a Jesus Camp gives them some happiness in life, have the fuck at it. Otherwise, where else are we gonna get all our strippers and tweakers?
And try as the filmmakers may to equate these peaceable, genteel buffons with real terrorists, the only thing the Jesus Camp crew is gonna terrorize is the McDonald’s drive-thru.
And not to be incendiary, because, again, I’m NOT RELIGIOUS, but… Isn’t it kind easy and slightly prejudiced to ONLY focus on a bunch of rural Caucasian Christians?
How (rightfully) uneasy would you JESUS CAMP FANS be about a similar doc that went into, say, African-American churches, and contemptuously mocked a black congregation as it cheered and danced in the aisles? I’m sure you’d see some effusive, overcome praise and worship in that venue that might make the J-Campers look subdued, not to mention maybe the same family-values moralizing; But the laughter and condescension wouldn’t be as easy and guilt-free as mocking a bunch of hayseeds in the sticks.
Not saying that either should be ridiculed or is more or less worthy, just pointing out that falling back on “bumpkins are funny” is cheap, and easy; Really, if a bunch of smart-ass redneck loons went into a temple, pointing a camera mockingly during services and making fun of “that there crazy Hebrew!”, we’d all be properly repulsed, and recognize such a thing as a REALLY SHITTY DOCUMENTARY.
I know on some level it’s a case of Bill Maher’s brilliant line that “people who run everything” (ie, Christians) can’t get to complain about being persecuted. True enough… My argument is more that it’s just one-note and tiresome to always single out the same fringe doofuses as representative of mainstream Christians and Catholics.
lex, did you actually watch ‘jesus camp’? your ‘oh those gentle doofuses’ take on it is inexplicable to me.
“My argument is more that it’s just one-note and tiresome to always single out the same fringe doofuses as representative of mainstream Christians and Catholics.”
who is “always single[ing] out the same fringe doofuses as representative of mainstream Christians and Catholic”? could you be more specific and provide some examples as to this conspiracy?
like somebody said upthread, ‘jesus camp’ is representative of those christians who run/go to jesus camp; no more, no less.
Yes, Big Perm, we’re in a proto-theocracy to the degree that every President HAS to be a church-goer and true believer or he ain’t getting elected.
And what exactly do you make of biblical verses inscribed in military rifles? That’s some serious fundamentalism.
Of course the irony of Bill Maher is while he himself has said many things against Christians and Catholics, his documentary Religulous is by no means a hate doc. It is a one sided, perhaps only in a tokenistic way shows other religions beyond Christianity, but it is not hate. It actually has some funny and truthful bits in it and has some entertainment and knowledge value.
As for Ewing and Grady, if their doc is not meant to indict all Christians, Catholics and Bush supporters, why did they not give any indication in the doc as to otherwise?
The tag line for Jesus Camp is “America is being reborn.”.
Clearly it is/was meant to tap into a cultural zeitgeist of fear and loathing that many leftists have towards Christians, Catholics, and the childish paranoid fear that a theocracy was about to take over America like that of the Taliban. Jesus Camp is Reefer Madness for leftists.
Problem is, Ewing and Grady are probably not even aware of who the Taliban is and if asked would say they are misunderstood. Meanwhile if they lived in a true theocracy they would have been thrown in jail never to be heard from again. Instead they were feted at the Oscars at tables of the most expensive wine and escargot.
How oppressed these fresh scrubbed little children must be indeed while eating from a 40 dollar ring of Brie.
But the great tell is in the context. Bill Maher interacts with his guests. Even as he pokes fun at them in Religulous, there is never the feeling that he feels they are sub-human animals who should be shot on site.
That feeling of dread and hate permeates every frame of Ewing and Grady’s film. And even then I wouldn’t be so concerned if it were just felt towards the parents. But it manifests itself towards the children too, who know no better. That they could intergrate with these children for so long, knowing all along how they were going to present these children…well if that is not hate, I do not know what is.
Had they followed up the film with a doc on how leftist professors in North American universities indoctrinate youth to hate Israel and the west (hat tip to Howard Zinn), or how NAMBLA used to be a signatory to the International Lesbian and Gay Alliance, then one could say they are taking controversial stories that few know about and are shining a light on them.
That their follow-up seems to be yet another facile look at Christians says much about the context of where they are coming from and who they think their audience is.
Perhaps at next years Oscars they can take a bite of Caviar for those lying starving in a dungeon somewhere.
Anybody who isn’t happy with Jesus Camp’s “bias” must really hate the spectacular “Deliver Us From Evil.”
Now I’m left wondering what everybody thought of the doc “Deliver Us From Evil”
my goodness, the usual nicolD claptrap, but a couple of outright gems:
“…Problem is, Ewing and Grady are probably not even aware of who the Taliban is and if asked would say they are misunderstood.”
well hey nicol, glad to see you aren’t being nonsensical and making HUGE leaps of logic and ridiculous assumptions according to your rampant biases and paranoia! do tell, how can someone whom you claim is probably unaware of who the taliban is then go on to say they are misunderstood if asked? NONSENSICAL
“That feeling of dread and hate permeates every frame of Ewing and Grady’s film. And even then I wouldn’t be so concerned if it were just felt towards the parents. But it manifests itself towards the children too, who know no better. That they could intergrate with these children for so long, knowing all along how they were going to present these children…well if that is not hate, I do not know what is.”
wtf are you talking about, nicol? i’ll bet you’ve not even seen ‘jesus camp’, as the film-makers clearly demonstrate an undercurrent of concern and empathy for the brainwashed children, which you’d know if you HAD ACTUALLY WATCHED IT. there is no ‘permeating hate’ for or vilification of the indoctrinated children in the film, the onus is clearly on the batshit crazy adults. you are full o’ shit, as usual
As usual, Nicol both is unworthy of a response and doesn’t even really want one, either. What a pale, resentful, paranoid troll he is.
Oh yeah, like the image at the top of this thread.
oh thanks jeff, now the image of nicol i had in my head is forever replaced by that little bald gut-muncher!
Leah, the full image I have of him is a mashup of the demon here and Nicol’s actual self-portrait (?) from his blog – basically, the little bald beastie sitting with his hand in his head with all the cares of the world weighing him down.
i didn’t know nicol has a blog! i’m scared of that
“i’m scared of that, too” is what i meant to say before i slopped my drink onto my keyboard and accidentally posted trying to dab it up
Nicol thinks Ewing and Grady wouldn’t know who the Taliban is? Holy cow Nicol, why don’t you fuck a Bible or something?
As for Christian:
“Yes, Big Perm, we’re in a proto-theocracy to the degree that every President HAS to be a church-goer and true believer or he ain’t getting elected.”
I don’t think this theory has ever really been put to the test, and don’t bring up Nader who barely counts as a candidate. Jesse Ventura did okay for himself and he straight up said religion is for the weak minded. I think as the years go on we may see this put to the test for real though, as the older generation dies off.
“And what exactly do you make of biblical verses inscribed in military rifles? That’s some serious fundamentalism.”
Well, a contractor putting numbers on a scope that the average soldier would have no idea what they mean and is not government sanctioned, in my opinion is slightly different than having a religion-based governemnt.
Christian, the Nicol D of the left.
hey, i feel compelled to say that while christian certainly tucks his bulge to the left and that is what it is, whether you agree or disagree with him one can easily follow christian’s line of thought/reasoning, he’s willing and able to discuss and explain his opinions, and he’s capable of listening to and understanding the rationale of others; this is contrary to the modus operandi of nicol, whose outrageously extreme myopia/paranoia apparently prevents him from doing any of these things to a viable degree (plus much of what he writes is just delusional gobbledygook)
Well, that is true so maybe I was being too hard on ol’ christian…although I imagine if I advocated Palin for president, he wouldn’t be seeing understanding my rationale. Of course, who would?
“Isn’t it kind easy and slightly prejudiced to ONLY focus on a bunch of rural Caucasian Christians?”
I honestly don’t get this, Lex. Is every doc meant to cover every thing?
The movie isn’t called “Oh, Those Christians!” It is a film on a subject. Almost every doc this side of 14 hour Ken Burns epics does exactly that.
Is the documentary on “real girls” required to include men who don’t fuck dolls in order balance things out?
Eh, maybe I’m wrong. I’m not really that bright, nor do I know much about documentaries.
I’ll pull an Annie Hall and concede.
Looking at those critics’ quotes it’s not exactly a fringe opinion – and opinion’s can’t be wrong pretty much by definition. š
Having said that, I know some of you disagree quite strongly with Nicol but derailing the thread to make ad hominem comments is starting to go a bit overboard.
…if anyone’s going to be derailing threads around here it’s going to be ME.
Again, nationally america is in no immediate danger of becoming a theocracy. But it’s hard to deny there are regions and towns where vocal majorities or very motivated minorities would be happy to have the 10 commandments in every courthouse and schoolroom, mandatory prayer time, where the theory of evolution is publicly reviled as a communist plot or something, where abortion would be totally banned and pre-marital sex punished by law, that sort of thing.
The theory about presidents has been put to the test every four years for the last 100 years at least! Name one major party candidate who wasn’t on record as being a christian. That may change in a generation or two, but not anytime soon. You could say Romney is a test case actually because while Mormons consider themselves christians many evangelicals have a horror of mormonism…it will be interesting to see if that prevents his winning the nomination.
Anyway, apologies for talking politics.
“Even a large movement is still not every Christian.”
Every Christian minus one is “not every Christian”. Could Jesus Camp indict that group and not be considered an over-generalization?
From the reactions of those here, Jesus Camp clearly failed to put into perspective the prevalence of this level of zealotry. Otherwise, we wouldn’t get proclamations that “those kind of people really are everywhere”, followed by a number of innocuous anecdotes. Of course, like any number of special interests, there is a large values-based political movement. To suggest that Jesus Camp is a microcosm of that movement is ignorance.
Nicol D offered a well-argued distinction between Jesus Camp and a doc like Religulous, but that was ignored in favor of one remark about the Taliban. Surprise.
“It is a remarkable story of something most of the public is unaware of.”
Since most of the public is Christian, it follows that being unaware = being unaffiliated. Broad generalizations = secular hysteria.
Saying that the doc makers probably don’t know who the taliban are, that actions of children are somehow exempt from being a part of the subject, or that the makers are obligated to show “how leftist professors in North American universities indoctrinate youth to hate Israel and the west” to demonstrate that they are unbiased is not “well-argued”.
Perhaps Nicol did feel that Maher’s interaction with the subjects lent a more human feel, but the absence of this does not mean “clearly it is/was meant to tap into a cultural zeitgeist of fear and loathing”. That’s a subjective view, and while it’s not isolated given Lex’s uncomfortableness (along with a number of reviewers), it’s certainly not worthy of contemptuous remarks implying Ewing and Grady don’t care about people in dungeons that could equally be applied to Nicol too.
“how leftist professors in North American universities indoctrinate youth to hate Israel and the west”
And that is not conservative hysteria and a broad generalization? Where is the Jewish outcry? I would expect a vocal uprising in protest of all the American university professors teaching their students to hate Israel.
Nicol D. tried to blame leftism caused a psychopathic gun-killer to get away with campus murder, so no Big Perm, I’m not the Nicol D. of anything. I’m not the only to one to point out the scary ties our government has to religious fundamentalism, and it’s hardly a novel “leftist” theory. You always play at this game of not thinking too hard then fobbing it off as insight. Jesse Venture proves that America isn’t grounded in political devotion to religion? I provided sterling examples of our theocratic nature, with eight years of Bush as fairly ample evidence. And the fact that Palin got that close to the WH only adds to the evidence. When an elected President can say, “I don’t know” then I’ll believe.
I really dug SPLICE but Wildman is correct. The audience laughs in a non-nervous way at a pretty critical juncture in the film. I wonder if when the film gets picked up if they’ll cut that part or change it. It really couldn’t hurt and I think would make it more interesting to leave the scene vague rather than show what they show.
I normally don’t condone messing with an artists intent, but in this case it could be prudent.
No torpid, the theory about presidents has not been put to the test, simply because they all say they believe in god. Putting it to the test would mean one candidate would have to step out and say they’re agnostic, and then we see how things go.
Christian, you say I don’t think very hard but I’d say that applies to you in spades. You come up with simplistic theories and then cling to them unwaveringly. At least I admit I’m a jackass.
Eight years of Bush is sterling evidence that we live in a theocracy (which by dictionary definition we don’t actually live in)? Then please explain eight years of Clinton! And if people loved Bush so much, why wasn’t McCain able to simply ride the wave into office? I’d say if anything, Palin helped to keep McCain out of office…if he had a reasonable VP, he may have been able to slide in. Just because you watch the news and see some rabid assholes say they love her, doesn’t mean all of America does.
christian wrote: And what exactly do you make of biblical verses inscribed in military rifles? That’s some serious fundamentalism.”
OK, I think I’m going to need a definition of fundamentalism or fundamentalist.
In the past 40 years has there been President who’s been a bigger proponent of Christianity than Carter? Would he be considered a fundie? I don’t think he at all compromised his beliefs.
I did not see Jesus Camp. I do not how broad or narrow a scope of people were included. Per Lex
“Per Lex