Rocky

This review tells me all I want to know about this movie... and shows why I just don't feel compelled to see it. '''''''''' New York Times February 25, 2004 MOVIE REVIEW | 'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST' Good and Evil Locked in Violent Showdown By A. O. SCOTT here is a prophetic episode of "The Simpsons" in which the celebrity guest star Mel Gibson, directing and starring in a remake of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," enlists the help of Homer Simpson, who represents the public taste (or lack of it). Homer persuades Mr. Gibson to change the picture's ending, replacing James Stewart's populist tirade with an action sequence, a barrage of righteous gunfire that leaves the halls of Congress strewn with corpses. The audience flees the theater in disgust. I thought of Homer more than once, with an involuntary irreverence conditioned by many years of devotion to "The Simpsons," as Mr. Gibson presented his new movie, "The Passion of the Christ," to carefully selected preview audiences across the land, making a few last-minute cuts, and then taking to the airwaves to promote and defend the film. It opens on Wednesday nationwide. Given the Crucifixion story, Mr. Gibson did not need to change the ending. "The Passion of the Christ" is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it. Mr. Gibson has constructed an unnerving and painful spectacle that is also, in the end, a depressing one. It is disheartening to see a film made with evident and abundant religious conviction that is at the same time so utterly lacking in grace. Mr. Gibson has departed radically from the tone and spirit of earlier American movies about Jesus, which have tended to be palatable (if often extremely long) Sunday school homilies designed to soothe the audience rather than to terrify or inflame it. His version of the Gospels is harrowingly violent; the final hour of "The Passion of the Christ" essentially consists of a man being beaten, tortured and killed in graphic and lingering detail. Once he is taken into custody, Jesus (Jim Caviezel) is cuffed and kicked and then, much more systematically, flogged, first with stiff canes and then with leather whips tipped with sharp stones and glass shards. By the time the crown of thorns is pounded onto his head and the cross loaded onto his shoulders, he is all but unrecognizable, a mass of flayed and bloody flesh, barely able to stand, moaning and howling in pain. The audience's desired response to this spectacle is not revulsion, but something like the cowering, quivering awe manifested by Mary (Maia Morgenstern), Mary Magdalen (Monica Bellucci) and a few sensitive Romans and Jerusalemites as they force themselves to watch. Disgust and awe are not, when you think about it, so far apart, and in Mr. Gibson's vision one is a route to the other. By rubbing our faces in the grisly reality of Jesus' death and fixing our eyes on every welt and gash on his body, this film means to make literal an event that the Gospels often treat with circumspection and that tends to be thought about somewhat abstractly. Look, the movie seems to insist, when we say he died for our sins, this is what we mean. A viewer, particularly one who accepts the theological import of the story, is thus caught in a sadomasochistic paradox, as are the disciples for whom Jesus, in a flashback that occurs toward the end, promises to lay down his life. The ordinary human response is to wish for the carnage to stop, an impulse that seems lacking in the dissolute Roman soldiers and the self-righteous Pharisees. (More about them shortly.) But without their fathomless cruelty, the story would not reach its necessary end. To halt the execution would thwart divine providence and refuse the gift of redemption. Anyway, this is a film review, not Sunday school. The paradox of wishing something horrible to stop even as you want it to continue has as much to do with moviegoing as with theology. And Mr. Gibson, either guilelessly or ingeniously, has exploited the popular appetite for terror and gore for what he and his allies see as a higher end. The means, however, are no different from those used by virtuosos of shock cinema like Quentin Tarantino and Gaspar No?who subjected Ms. Bellucci to such grievous indignity in "Irr?rsible." Mr. Gibson is temperamentally a more stolid, less formally adventurous filmmaker, but he is no less a connoisseur of violence, and it will be amusing to see some of the same scolds who condemned Mr. Tarantino's "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" sing the praises of "The Passion of the Christ." Mr. Gibson, from the moment he began speaking publicly about this project, emphasized his desire to make his "Passion" as realistic as possible. To that end the dialogue is in Aramaic and a dialect of Latin, which takes some getting used to but which dispenses with the stilted, awkward diction that afflicts so many biblical epics. The absence of identifiable movie stars (with the exception of Ms. Bellucci, who comports herself with fitting modesty) also adds an element of verisimilitude. But the style and tone of "The Passion" are far from what is ordinarily meant by realism. The first part, which takes place in the murk and gloom of night (shot by the superb cinematographer Caleb Deschanel), has the feel of a horror movie. As Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane, the camera tiptoes around him like a stalker, and John Debney's score is a high-toned creep show of menacing orchestral undertones and spine-jabbing choral effects. A slithery, effeminate Satan (played, the end credits reveal, by a woman named Rosalinda Celentano) slinks around like something in a Wes Craven nightmare, and Judas, reeling from his betrayal, is menaced by demon children with pointy teeth and milky eyes. When daylight dawns, the mood shifts from horror-movie suspense to slasher-film dread. Throughout, Mr. Gibson lays on Mr. Debney's canned sublimity with the heaviest possible hand, and he indulges in equally unsubtle visual and aural effects. Judas's 30 pieces of silver fly through the air in slow motion, and the first nail enters Jesus' palm with a thwack that must have taken hours of digital tweaking to articulate. The thuddingly emphatic storytelling (along with the ancient languages) makes the acting almost beside the point, though it is hard not to be impressed by Mr. Caviezel's endurance. The only psychological complexity in this tableau of goodness and villainy belongs to Pontius Pilate and his wife, Claudia, played by two very capable actors, Hristo Naumov Shopov and Claudia Gerini, who I hope will become more familiar to American audiences. Is "The Passion of the Christ" anti-Semitic? I thought you'd never ask. To my eyes it did not seem to traffic explicitly or egregiously in the toxic iconography of historical Jew hatred, but more sensitive viewers may disagree. The Pharisees, in their tallit and beards, are certainly shown as a sinister and inhumane group, and the mob they command is full of howling, ugly rage. But this on-screen villainy does not seem to exceed what can be found in the source material. Mr. Gibson a few weeks ago reportedly expunged an especially provocative line of dialogue that referred to the Jews: "His blood be on us, and on our children." That line comes from the Book of Matthew, and it would take a revisionist to remove every trace of controversy and intolerance from a story that rests squarely on the theological boundary separating Christianity from Judaism. That Mr. Gibson did not attempt to transcend these divisions may be regrettable, but to condemn "The Passion of the Christ" for its supposed bigotry is to miss its point and to misstate its problems. The troubling implications of the film do not arise primarily from its religious agenda: an extreme, traditionalist Roman Catholicism that has not prevented "The Passion" from resonating, oddly enough, with many evangelical Protestants. What makes the movie so grim and ugly is Mr. Gibson's inability to think beyond the conventional logic of movie narrative. In most movies — certainly in most movies directed by or starring Mr. Gibson — violence against the innocent demands righteous vengeance in the third act, an expectation that Mr. Gibson in this case whips up and leaves unsatisfied. On its own, apart from whatever beliefs a viewer might bring to it, "The Passion of the Christ" never provides a clear sense of what all of this bloodshed was for, an inconclusiveness that is Mr. Gibson's most serious artistic failure. The Gospels, at least in some interpretations, suggest that the story ends in forgiveness. But such an ending seems beyond Mr. Gibson's imaginative capacities. Perhaps he suspects that his public prefers terror, fury and gore. Maybe Homer Simpson was right after all. "The Passion of the Christ" is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). It has many scenes of graphic violence. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST Directed by Mel Gibson; written (in Aramaic and Latin, with English subtitles) by Benedict Fitzgerald and Mr. Gibson; director of photography, Caleb Deschanel; edited by John Wright; music by John Debney; production designer, Francesco Frigeri; produced by Mr. Gibson, Bruce Davey and Stephen McEveety; released by Icon Productions and Newmarket Films. Running time: 120 minutes. This film is rated R. WITH: Jim Caviezel (Jesus), Monica Bellucci (Magdalen), Hristo Naumov Shopov (Pontius Pilate), Maia Morgenstern (Mary), Francesco De Vito (Peter), Luca Lionello (Judas), Mattia Sbragia (Caiphas), Rosalinda Celentano (Satan), Claudia Gerini (Claudia Procles). Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Telling the truth carries risk.

Happy Happy Dot Dot Dot!!! Telling the truth carries risk.

yeah, new fad... apparently the wwjd bracelets have gone out of style. Telling the truth carries risk.

Anyone else like me an not care to see it? Telling the truth carries risk.

Weeeelll, shouldn't you also provide the interpretation when you speak in tongues in the church? :)--> Telling the truth carries risk.

Ah ha! I think Mel Gibson just revealed to me the interpretation of this incoherent dream! "At least to me, maybe not to the techies!" Ok, TomStrangester, you're back in order. Thanks. [This message was edited by Rocky on February 25, 2004 at 9:43.]

btw, niKa, there was 9 inches of snow at Mt. Lemmon overnight... that's a very good thing. Thought you might like to know that. Let it snow (where the fire vulnerable trees are).

shoe-er

Well, it's difficult, but we've been trudging on with out ya niKa... as TomS says, we like it when yur here, and I say we don't like it as much when yur not... same for ourseestorEXCIE

Today, on my way back home from downtown Phoenix, I drove past Tempe Diablo Stadium (can be seen from the I-10 freeway) and saw Anaheim Angels uniforms on fellows in the parking lot... IT'S TIME for SPRING TRAINING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Schwarzenegger orders attorney general to halt gay marriages BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer Friday, February 20, 2004 ©2004 Associated Press URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/20/state2325EST0245.DTL (02-20) 21:52 PST BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered California's attorney general Friday to take legal action to stop San Francisco from granting marriage licenses to gay couples. In a letter to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Schwarzenegger directed the state's top lawyer "to take immediate steps" to get a definitive court ruling declaring what the city is doing to be illegal. "Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law. The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee," Schwarzenegger wrote. "As Attorney General, you have the authority to take legal action to require the City and County of San Francisco to comply with the laws of the State." Schwarzenegger's directive to the attorney general was prompted in part by a Superior Court judge's decision Friday not to impose a temporary restraining order on the city that would have halted the weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings. At the state Republican Party convention Friday evening, Schwarzenegger personally announced the directive to a cheering crowd of activists. "We rely on our courts to enforce the rule of law. But you see, in San Francisco, the courts are dropping the ball," Schwarzenegger said. "It's time for the city to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law. That's my message to San Francisco." The crowd gave a lengthy standing ovation. "You have, at this point, nearly two weeks of flouting of state law. The governor feels that we've come to a point where we're starting down a dangerous path and it leads to anarchy at some point," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Rob Stutzman on the governor's decision to issue the directive. "It's time for this to end." Lockyer, an elected Democrat who is a potential candidate in the 2006 governor's race, already has said that he plans to vigorously defend the state in the lawsuit San Francisco's city attorney brought Thursday that challenged California's marriage laws on constitutional grounds. "By virtue of the city and county of San Francisco having sued the state of California, we need to respond to that lawsuit in the next 30 days," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Lockyer said Friday. "It will be squarely before the courts." San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples last week, has defended his actions by saying California's Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The mayor's spokesman, Peter Ragone, scoffed at Schwarzenegger's directive to the attorney general, noting that two judges have already declined to grant emergency orders sought by two conservative opponents of marriage rights for gays and lesbians. "The truth is, thousands of people are involved in loving relationships and having them recognized for the first time," Ragone said. "We urge the governor to meet with some of the couples because what's happening is both lawful and loving." ©2004 Associated Press

Congress CAN amend the Constitution, or states can amend the constitution. I don't remember the percentages/votes, but it ain't easy.

The PRESIDENT never will be able to amend the Constitution, nor, frankly, make laws. And to your point, Krys, it's not Robert's Rules, which are used when conducting official business/decision making meetings of official bodies, which can be political in nature (state legislatures, city councils, committees, or other kinds of organizations (corporate boards of directors meetings, for example). However, one of the functions of courts in America is to determine what really matters/applies when laws conflict. And laws often conflict. State laws cannot violate, technically speaking, the highest law of the land, which is the US Constitution. However, state laws OFTEN violate the Constitution. A government agency charged with fulfilling a governmental function has certain authority delegated to it. In the federal government, the chief executive is the President. In state governments, the chief executive is the Governor. I heard tonight, for example, that the Governator (Ahnold), ordered the California Atty General to force the San Francisco city clerk to stop issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. I haven't verified this on any online news source yet, but in Arizona, the Atty General is elected, not appointed (the federal atty gen is appointed and reports to the Pres), so in AZ, the governor would not have such authority to order the Atty Gen. But the main legal issue in San Francisco is that unless there is a clear and specific applicable law to forbid the action, if the executive (mayor) interprets the law such that it is ok to proceed, as has been done there this week, then it proceeds until a court orders it stopped. then, depending on how important the issue is to either or both sides, it will continue to higher courts on appeal, until the highest court in the land, the US Supremes.

well, some states have laws against it... AZ being one of them. but, as someone referenced earlier, NM was NOT one of those states.

That's debatable LG, and I would be that you know it. btw, back on the subject of same sex marriage, I saw this news item a few minutes ago: N.M. county begins issuing marriage licenses to gay couples Associated Press Feb. 20, 2004 03:45 PM BERNALILLO, N.M. - A county clerk issued marriage licenses Friday to at least 15 gay couples, some of whom then exchanged vows outside the courthouse, and dozens more same-sex couples lined up for a chance to tie the knot. A sign-up list at Sandoval County courthouse grew to 38 couples after county clerk Victoria Dunlap announced she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Dunlap said she made the decision after county attorney David Mathews said New Mexico law is unclear: New Mexico law defines marriage as a contract between contracting parties but does not mention gender. "This has nothing to do with politics or morals," she said. "If there are no legal grounds that say this should be prohibited, I can't withhold it. This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible." Outside the courthouse, two preachers conducted marriage ceremonies. "When we heard the news this morning, we knew we couldn't wait. We had to come down here," said Jenifer Albright of Albuquerque, who exchanged vows with partner Anne Shultz. The move came just over a week after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to thousands of gay couples in a direct challenge to California law. A spokeswoman said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson was opposed to same-sex marriage. "The governor has always been a champion for human rights. He supports equal rights and opposes all forms of discrimination. However, he is opposed to same sex marriage," said Marsha Catron. Two New Mexico state senators - one Democrat and one Republican - asked Friday for an opinion from New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid. A spokeswoman for Madrid said an opinion could be issued next week. Republican state Sen. Steve Komadina criticized the county clerk and called for a prompt opinion from the attorney general. "I feel badly that action was taken before an answer was obtained," Komadina said. "That was very irresponsible and will cause heartache to people on all sides of the question." Bernalillo is a few miles north of Albuquerque, New Mexico's largest city.

I thought it had to do with fueling automobiles...?

Something having to do with A rod, or A-Rod, or something like that.

New York who? Posted on Wed, Feb. 18, 2004 With addition of Maddux, Cubs' rotation could be best of all-time By PHIL ROGERS Chicago Tribune CHICAGO - Gentlemen, start your superlatives. But first, pause for a little perspective. If Greg Maddux had signed with another team, it would be easy to describe him as a great pitcher on the way down. After all, Mad Dog was dogged in Game 3 of the Division Series at Wrigley Field, but it was Mark Prior who was the truth. Maddux's earned-run average was 3.96 last season, the highest since his rookie season in 1987. Because of concerns about his back and legs, the 37-year-old Maddux has become a six-inning pitcher, rather than a workhorse. Like Tom Glavine, his strike zone seems to have shrunk since Major League Baseball introduced the controversial QuesTec system, which will be in use for the first time at both Chicago ballparks in 2004. These are facts that might be encouraging to baseball fans reading the St. Louis Post-Dispatch or the Houston Chronicle. But you're not doing that, are you? So we'll spare readers the cynicism. The most important side of the Maddux coin is that the Cubs just landed themselves a future Hall of Famer who has averaged 17.4 victories over the last five seasons. He joins a rotation that includes two aces and two others with sometimes electrifying stuff. He is replacing Shawn Estes, whose 5.73 ERA over 28 starts kept the Cubs from 90-plus victories a year ago. With Maddux in Estes' spot - not to mention Juan Cruz in the wings as starter No. 6 - the over-under on victories for the 2004 Cubs should be elevated from about 92 to 95. The Cubs once again should be favored to win not just the National League Central but also the pennant, a distinction they lost after Houston added Roger Clemens to its unexpected signing of Andy Pettitte. Just how good could this Cubs rotation be? If Prior, Kerry Wood, Maddux, Matt Clement and Carlos Zambrano all are healthy enough to make 30 starts - Zambrano's the most questionable after excessive wear - it could be one of the best starting staffs ever, perhaps the greatest in the era of the five-man rotation. Going way back when, Cleveland's combination of Bob Feller, Early Wynn, Bob Lemon and Mike Garcia was tough to beat. Ditto the Yankees of the same era, built around Allie Reynolds, Vic Raschi and Ed Lopat. The Dodgers in 1966 had Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Claude Osteen and Don Sutton. Baltimore got 20 victories apiece from Jim Palmer, Dave McNally, Mike Cuellar and Pat Dobson in 1971. Oakland had a tremendous core in Catfish Hunter, Vida Blue and Ken Holtzman in the early `70s, but Blue Moon Odom was an erratic No. 4. With expansion and the evolution of the fifth starter, there's nothing trickier for modern executives than building a rotation that's powerful at the beginning and strong at the end. The Big Red Machine almost had run its course when Tom Seaver arrived as ace. The Mets had some great staffs in the Dwight Gooden era but they weren't as strong at either the front of the rotation (Gooden, Ron Darling and David Cone) or the back (Rick Aguilera, Bob Ojeda and Sid Fernandez) as this Cubs team could be. Atlanta had three great arms to count on from 1993 through `99, when the Maddux-Glavine-John Smoltz trio was in its prime, and found promising No. 4 starters in Steve Avery and Kevin Millwood, but those two never overlapped. Only in `98, when Millwood won 17 games while Denny Neagle won 16, could manager Bobby Cox feel as good about all five men in his rotation as Dusty Baker should this morning. When your toughest question is what to do with a pitcher like Cruz, who when he's on has better stuff than Maddux, you can't wait for Opening Day to arrive. Now that the winter is over, it's guaranteed to be an agonizingly long spring training for Baker, general manager Jim Hendry and Cubs fans, who will knock wood every time someone mentions how good this rotation will be if all five starters remain healthy. Houston fans know the feeling. With Roy Oswalt, Wade Miller, Pettitte, Clemens, Tim Redding and Jeriome Robertson or Carlos Hernandez, the Astros' rotation figures to be almost as good. But only one of these two teams has a 23-year-old with the Tiger Woods gene (Prior). And it's the same team that has a Hall of Famer who has won at least 15 games in every year since 1988 (Maddux). Clemens loves the camera and the camera loves him, yet he has won 15 games or more in only four of the last 11 seasons. Pettitte has won 15 in six of his nine. With Maddux in the mix, there's no debating whether the Cubs hold an edge over the Astros - and maybe every single starting rotation in the last 30 years. The question is whether they can be better than the 1998 Braves, who had five starters win 16-20 games for a team that won 106.

You want WARM? When California falls in, I have some oceanfront property along what's now the Colorado River... hachacha!

I'd report them for violating the Federal Do Not Call List Laws.

And here I thought you could help me with the technical name of that figure of speech.

And please don't forget that EVERYthing worthy of complaining about in America is the Democrats' fault.

Wouldn't that be any of us who disagree with them? :D-->

I believe the item in question was proposed legislation and/or state constitution amendment on same-sex marriage. What I saw on CNN (the pinkos!) :D--> was that debate on the issue has been cut off until something happens next month. I don't know any specifics of proposals and/or status of pending consensus.

Hopefully I won't offend anyone but I love The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. and Bill Maher's new show on HBO. And I got to meet Mary Steenburgen (one of the actors in Joan of Arcadia) whose father worked for the same railroad my grandfather did in Northern Arkansas... I met her when she and her husband (John Becker/Sam Malone/ Ted Danson) came to the phoenix area for the now ended campaign of Wes Clark.