Speaking as both a Catholic and a liberal, I didn’t catch that interpretation. PotC was extremely powerful for me. But the images that most struck me were not of the Passion, they were of flashbacks showing Christ’s compassion. Those images, in direct contrast to the horrors delivered upon him, were what I came away with the most.
Of course, everyone who had anything critical to say about Gibson’s movie saw it.
Everyone I talk to says that F9/11 is Moore’s propaganda film. I have no desire to see a propaganda film. I’ll wait for the DVD.
Everyone I talk to says that Passion is Gibson’s… well… passion video. That it is essentially a two-hour brutal beating. Again, no desire. Again, I’ll wait for the DVD.
I saw both in theaters, though each time it was someone else’s idea. Like I said in this thread, they’re both neat for sparking so much discussion, but neither one really moved me. Actually, the thing that interested me the most about Fahrenheit 9/11 had nothing to do with the movie itself; the premiere attracted groups like NORML that handed out information and voter registration paperwork. If nothing else, hopefully the movie will prompt a small increase in political awareness and activity.
Well, some things about The Passion of the Christ were true. 
Probably not, but their opinions about the movie are no more worthy of respect than the opinions of the people who refuse to see F9/11. What’s your point?
That is correct. Did you know that these “jews” actually exist? And that the scene depicting Jesus sitting at “table” - these “tables” exist, as well! 
True enough, which is why I’m puzzled by the right’s reluctance to see the movie. He excoriates Bush with the same vigor that he pilloried Clinton in “Dude, Where’s My Country?” In that book, he called Clinton the “best Republican president in the history of the country” because of his abysmal record on civil rights and other issues.
Sorry for the continued hijack.
Not to steer this into Great Debates territory, but I thought the right’s reluctance would be obvious.
I’ve been making it a minor hobby these last few days to find legitimate criticism of Fahrenheit 9/11, myself; while I enjoyed the movie, I want to make sure the points it presents are accurate, and figure the critics would be the ones most likely to play up any errors. Problem is, all the criticisms I’ve found so far are either from folks who haven’t seen the movie, or folks who misremembered/misrepresented what was shown in the movie. I’m beginning to think the damn thing is bulletproof…
rjung, as a defender of F9/11, I think most of the valid criticisms you’ll find will point out errors of omission, rather than outright lies or deceit. But that’s for another thread.
Errors of omission don’t strike me as “errors” per se; the point of a documentary is to persuade you of a certain POV, and it seems entirely within the perogative of the director to omit points that he feels are irrelevant to the message he’s conveying. Heck, when you or I retell a story to other people, we’ll omit details and information that we feel is irrelevant, yet that hardly makes us liars for doing so.
Could be. Wonder if there’s any interest.
I’m a very liberal agnostic/atheist.
I didn’t see PotC because I was afraid that it might convert me to Christianity, and I didn’t want to risk it.
I’m going to see F911 because my reasons for being a liberal are very shaky, and if I don’t see it I might end up voting for Bush against my will. I’ll probably have to see it several times between now and November to keep up my resolve.
I saw them both twice. I saw POTC becaues I was interested in the subject matter and because I wanted to see how well I could follow the Latin (it turned out that the actors spoke with such thick Italian accents that it was almost unrecognizable as Latin). I thought it was just OK. I was a little underwhelmed by the message (“he died for your sins” [snore]), but I thought it was well directed and some of the scenes had real artistic power. With the exception of one line of dialogue, I didn’t think it was antisemitic, I just thought it was theologically narrow and missed an awful lot of the point of the character it was about.
i liked F911 a lot more. I recognized it as propaganda but it was fun propaganda and it was nice to the right get a taste of their own medicine for once. I think a lot of the standing ovations weren’t so much mindless endorsements of everything in the film, but just a show of appreciation for a guy who’s giving voice to a lot of emotional frustration. The film is a cinematic pit rant, not a GQ answer. The applause is for a good rant.
Anyway. I didn’t dislike either film, but F911 was more in my emotional wheelhouse.
I still would like to see a good, realistic and (as much as possible) historically accurate interpretation of the life of Jesus- one that actually focuses on what he taught rather than how he got killed.
I may catch PotC on DVD. I would see 911 if I could see it without paying. I wouldn’t want to fatten the DNC coffers;)
Comments like these have been roundly ridiculed throughout the board. Why do people keep making them?
Cite?
