If you didn’t read yesterday’s entry you ought to before moving forward.
What struck me about Odie's story (aside from the obvious) is that the woman’s gut reaction was such a Southern Baptist take on a deeply Catholic piece of art.
As a kid attending Catholic mass with great infrequency, I was always freaked out by the gruesome imagery that peppers Catholic architecture. In a way, going to mass is like seeing a disturbing horror movie every Sunday. Catholicism is the one religion obsessed with suffering. This isn’t a criticism – it’s an observation. As my staunchly Catholic friend Don often points out, some of the greatest art ever created comes from suffering – and he’s right. Without suffering, I can only imagine how dire art would be…but I’m also forced to contemplate if there’d even be a need for art were there no suffering.
I’ve still never seen The Passion of the Christ and I’m less interested in seeing it now than ever before. The phrase “it’s just a movie” isn’t typically part of my vernacular, but in the case of this film, which so many people seem[ed] to take as gospel, I’ve really gotta say it: “It’s just a movie, folks”. It had a script [1], it was shot by cameras, Jesus was played by an actor named Jim Caviezel, and the crew that worked on it likely engaged in the same sort of hedonistic behavior that befalls many a film set. It’s basically one man’s vision of how he believes shit went down. God had nothing to do with this film – con yourself or others into thinking otherwise, but you’re just plain wrong. And I'm not going to hell for saying that, this much I know.
But these facts didn’t stop people from reacting to and treating the film as if it were scripture. Maybe it is a powerful film (I wouldn’t know), but I’m sure back in its day people trembled before the awesome might of The Ten Commandments – you know, the movie where Edward G. Robinson pronounces “Pharoah” as “Fay-row”. (Speaking of The 10C, it’s getting a spiffy miniseries redux on ABC in a couple weeks and I’ve been told the Fay-row version will play on ABC the week after.)
There are numerous reasons I’ve never seen The Passion. A big one is the alleged brutality. I just don’t want to see that. I saw Pasolini’s Salo many years ago and have regretted it ever since. And I don’t have fond memories of I Spit on Your Grave, either. I get that Christ (according to legend) suffered. I get that having one’s hands and feet nailed to planks of wood is torturous. I don’t need to see it visualized on film. I get it – I really do. What amazes me is that so many people took the film as some sort of sign to rediscover their inner Jesus. I’m not a religious man, but I do respect other people’s right to believe - however I’m not so good at respecting people’s right to be ignorant. What’s hard for me to wrap my brain around is that such a huge cross-section of church-going folk were so out of touch with these basic teachings that this movie was a sort of revelation to them. You know, as if “I’d never thought of it like that before.”
I don’t even subscribe to the magazine and I’ve never thought of it as anything but. Check out the stained-glass windows people – it’s all over the place.
The brutality thing isn’t even a real complaint – it’s not a reason to dislike the film, it’s just a reason I don’t want to see it.
Offensive on more levels than can be counted is the "Share the Passion of the Christ" website. I vow that as long as this site exists, I will never see the movie. You know that Biblical line about Jesus driving the moneychangers from the temple? I’m no Bible scholar, but if you can justify the purpose of this website alongside that quote, maybe we can talk. When Curb Your Enthusiasm recently mocked the Christ nail necklace, well, the vindication I felt upon viewing that episode cannot be measured. Can you grasp the sheer amount of money that was made by a certain individual (who directed the film)? And that website is still up there, peddling its cheap wares...
Must. Take. Deep. Breath.
You know what sucks? I never intended for this to be some angry, bile-fueled rant. Odie’s story – which really was notably sweet considering where I’ve ended up – is what inadvertently jump-started it and now I’m in this place of frustration and piss and obnoxious vinegar.
This may be hard to see, but I respect the idea of faith so much that I want people who believe to respect and honor the faith they claim to follow and turn away charlatans and ne’er-do-wells attempting to taint or take advantage of their beliefs. It hurts me deeply when they don’t (or at least don’t appear to) and I lose my faith…my faith in humanity, which - being a non-believer - is the singular faith I’ve got to hang onto. Understand - I don't prance around, overjoyed by my atheism...or agnosticism, or whatever it is I am. I wish I had faith in something higher, but I just don't. I envy those that do and I'd imagine it's a bitchin' way to go through life.
We’ve all got our religions and they don’t always involve churches and prayer books. This is admittedly a silly example, but right now Doctor Who is like a religion to me. Go ahead and giggle. No – seriously – heckle me (if you haven’t already). It’s something that’s been with me since I was a teen and I’ve always “believed” in it and here in America, it’s finally getting some cred. This wasn’t always the case, and I’ve spent many an hour attempting to “convert” people. For some, religion is football. For others it’s (sadly) shopping. Many assert that politics is the new religion, and that’s difficult to argue, especially in these times in which the two frequently intersect. I don’t get most people’s religion and they rarely get mine. This is all fine. This is what makes us human. This is what should keep us going.
If you believe strongly enough in something, you don’t need to sell it – it's fulfilling as is. When people begin suffering the delusions that everybody else needs to be on the same page they are, we run into big problems.
Ever seen The Last Temptation of Christ ? It’s a movie that’s been almost forgotten by most “regular” people, even though it was reviled and protested by many upon its release. It’s a Martin Scorsese film, starring Willem “The Green Goblin” Dafoe as Jesus. It’s based not on scripture, but on a book of pure fiction, written by some dude, and it’s a beautiful piece of work that keeps the violence at a bare minimum (and it’s a Scorsese flick!). There was no Last Temptation merchandise. People didn’t come out of the film crying and feeling guilty. I think they came out contemplating and feeling alive (well, I did anyway). Part of me hopes there are people out there who mistakenly rent it at the video store thinking it’s The Passion. If so, I wonder how they feel when it’s over. And right now I’m especially wondering how the “they beat his ass” lady would feel – if not about Last Temptation, maybe about my words.
I bet she'd beat my ass.
NEXT TIME ON "SLAP PALS": Something vacuous and lightweight!
[1] Does anybody remember that brief period of time when IMDB actually had an entry for “God” and he was credited as the screenwriter of The Passion? It was on there for a couple weeks, I kid you not.
First and Last
1 hour ago
23 comments:
If you believe strongly enough in something, you don’t need to sell it – it's fulfilling as is.
Everyone wants to belong to something bigger. When you've got infinity, most people will go for infinity+1.
"What’s hard for me to wrap my brain around is that such a huge cross-section of church-going folk were so out of touch with these basic teachings that this movie was a sort of revelation to them. You know, as if “I’d never thought of it like that before.”"
Well, I had to reread both posts twice to get at this which I think is the main premise of you complaint about PoTC. I'm not sure I agree.
It's one thing to believe in the abstract about the brutality of the crucifixtion of Christ, it's quite another to have it portrayed vividly and accurately which I think was Gibson's point - I read somewhere that he wanted to put a face on it and show that suffering for others isn't some obtuse concept but that it is real and important to faith.
To tell the truth, PoTC struck me as more of a really expensive morality play. It's pretty much how it was - I don't see how brutality, or the lack of it, makes it a lousy movie.
With respect to Monty Python's "Life of Brian", one would have to really stretch one's credibility to compare the two - they aren't even in the same ball park in terms of intent which I think is the point. One is histodocumentarian, the other is high satire.
Lastly, I would think that the reaction you garnered with your radio commentary might have been occasioned by a lack of understanding. Unless you are really cynical, and I don't believe you are, you can't screw with somebodies belief's and not expect that kind of reaction - in particular from someone who "believes".
Will you be seeing his new film, "Apocalypto"?
teafran wrote:
I don't see how brutality, or the lack of it, makes it a lousy movie.
I need to clarify - I don't think it's a lousy movie. How could I? I haven't even seen it. I was and still am primarily disturbed by the general public's reaction to it.
Something Odie touched on in his original story, and then clarified further in the Part One talkback, was how people in droves dragged their kids to see this movie, when clearly that wasn't the right thing to do. Somehow people felt the violence in POTC was "OK" because it was about "Our Lord". I pointed out how disturbed I was as a kid by the imagery in the church stained-glass windows; if a freaking window scared the hell out of me, what must kids have thought of this film?
I never screwed with anybody's beliefs on the radio or anywhere else. If they perceived that I'd done so, then that's just silly. Me poking fun at POTC has no bearing on anyone's beliefs anywhere, and that's one of my biggest points: This movie was taken way too seriously.
Truth be told - I'm not surprised my points were misunderstood. The Part Two entry in particular was a clusterfuck of meandering ideas. Surely it's the worst entry I've written on this blog yet. I just started typing with no particular agenda, and I was curious to see where I'd end up. I did very little editing on the piece - I was curious to see how people might react to it.
I was happy that I was somehow able to come back around to the "they beat his ass" lady. That kinda made it all worthwhile.
As far as Apocolypto goes, who knows? I'd much rather see him do the oft-rumored fourth MAD MAX movie with George Miller.
teafran: it's quite another to have it portrayed vividly and accurately which I think was Gibson's point
No it wasn't. Gibson is a mad genius, and I wish I had thought up the brilliant marketing strategy he did. Just like Tyler Perry, he knew he had a built in audience for this movie. He showed all this because he loves torture. Look at all his movies. This is the ULTIMATE torture movie, and it has a pedigree so steeped in "how dare you question it?" that it was easy to defend everything he did.
I remember when Malcolm X came out, and people started selling X hats. I thought about how that cheapened Malcolm X's legacy and memory. So, I was SUPREMELY offended when I saw those damn nails being offered. Goddamn nails! The things that hold up my calendar were now being worn around people's necks because it "symbolizes Jesus." C'mon. Are we that gullible? Why not drag a big cross behind you? Or better yet, get crucified! My Lord and Savior suddenly became the hottest toy on the market.
If I knew nothing about Christianity, I would have come out of this movie saying "Boy, that Jesus was stupid!" The movie does little to give us any feeling for what Jesus did when He was alive. All the Passion tells me is that He got His ass beaten, and then "revenge" was taken on certain people. This is NO conversion tool.
I think the movie is lousy, and I've seen it. I'm not going to Hell because I thought it was lousy either, so save it people. It is overly brutal and inexcusably one sided. All it tells me is that Jesus got the beatdown, and I should feel guilty, so I should follow Him solely for that. Well, I don't feel guilty, and that's not why I am trying to find my way using my faith.
I had crazed people who made not one lick of sense come after me on my site, as if I had taunted Jesus on the Cross myself. Well, I wouldn't want to worship a God who needed His worst creation (humans) to defend Him. God can fend for Himself. My saying just that got more hate mail because it took away people's self-righteous power. You can't argue with my point. God needs man? I think not.
I'm not saying anybody who was moved by the movie is wrong. Absolutely not. I respect that, but I learned that my own feelings were not respected.
I'm glad I met that lady, and I'm glad those Tyler Perry movies exist. They put the concepts of Christianity in a more human context than anything The Passion had to offer. I don't think they're great movies by any stretch, but something tells me my Church lady went to see Madea with her congregation.
Most importantly, THE PASSION IS JUST A MOVIE, and it's Mel's interpretation. More power to Mad Max. In theology class, the priest (yes, I went to a Catholic college) said "The Bible did not fall out of the sky." Neither did The Passion.
So endeth my sermon. And I LOVE The Life of Brian. It does not spoof religion or Jesus. It spoofs religious people, specifically those who are so self-righteous that their Bibles leave out Matthew 7:1.
Odie, I don't get where you got guilt from TPOTC.
I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to bring kids to that movie -- it has a very hard R rating. It traumatized me, I don't even want to think about what it would do to my kids, or any kids.
FWIW, I agree with Tom -- there's a difference in knowing about the Crucifixion, and seeing it portrayed so accurately. Even having done the Stations of the Cross on numerous occasions as a child, I lacked a real understanding of what the Passion was probably like.
The commercial tie-ins? Ick, big time. And so not-necessary. Even if it is a great opportunity to make money, did we really need it? Please tell me all the proceeds are going to feed the hungry, or something.
Oh yeah, Odie: Mel loves torture? Are you taking talking points from Parker & Stone? (LOL!) [That particular ep of South Park really did cross the line...but the new season has been brilliant so far.]
Joan: Oh yeah, Odie: Mel loves torture? Are you taking talking points from Parker & Stone?
As much as I love South Park, my review of Braveheart, in which I say Mel loves torture, precedes that particular episode of South Park. I'm glad that Trey and Matt did that show though! They are great satirists. (This is what Odienator actually believes...)
Even though Mel came on TV and said "this is rated R. Leave your kids at home" people were told by congregations to take their children. Stephen King wrote a piece about a little girl who sat next to him and cried all the way through the movie. I would have choked the parent if I were sitting next to her.
Even if it is a great opportunity to make money, did we really need it? Please tell me all the proceeds are going to feed the hungry, or something.
Yeah, it's going to feed the hungry guy or woman selling nails. I think Ross' analogy about Jesus going after the guys in front of the temple was perfect. That's one of my favorite parts because we see a human attribute of Jesus--He's pissed--and it also speaks to the people who want to make a buck exploiting people's beliefs or fears.
As for the guilt factor, I think (and again this is the brilliance of Mad Max) that Mel pushed every button in me that was put there by my Baptist upbriging. Plus, I had people in my apartment complex damning me to Hell because I wouldn't take tickets to The Passion (I had seen it already).
Again, I'm not saying that people who were moved or changed or had their faith reaffirmed by this movie are wrong. In fact, I envy them. I just didn't get that.
I don't know why I'm really complaining; I love gore! But I think the Bible is far less explicit in this telling because it wants you to focus elsewhere. I understood what happened pretty well just from those passages.
There were so many ideas floating around in Ross's original post and the followups that it's hard for somebody like me who has the attention span of a lighting bug to keep up with them all.
So I'll just ramble onwards and upwards (hopefully).
I'll do this in two posts - the first is responding to my good friend Ross.
"I never screwed with anybody's beliefs on the radio or anywhere else. If they perceived that I'd done so, then that's just silly."
Your original post said the following: “I don’t know. I never saw that film. It just looked kind of silly to me, like it was a Monty Python movie or something."
Can you understand how an older gentleman, with some obvious knowledge of movies, took some offense to that? Let me put it this way - when I read that, I took you to say, rightly or wrongly, that PoTC was the equivilent of "Life of Brian" - that's how I interpreted it. You undervalued PoTC by assigning it a value equal to a comedy. To somebody who has probably has a great deal of faith, it would come across as an insult and a denigration of him personally for what he believes.
So why is his reaction to your commentary "silly"? For a man of, I assume, life long faith and being of an age where Sunday services are a weekly ritual full of import it is not silly at all - it's a direct negative comment on his personal beliefs. Consider how he approached chastising you - he went to the, presumably, show's authority figure, Chris Duel and appealed for him to put you in your "place".
Let's take one more comment from your original post. To wit:
"If the guy could've smacked me with his cane over the air, I'm sure he would've, provided his colostomy bag didn't get in the way."
You say you didn't mean to mock, but what is that piece of prose meant to mean? It's not exactly a positive statement about somebody who confronted your commentary head on.
You then go on to say:
"I found myself apologizing - on the air - to this guy and that I didn’t mean to offend or mock his faith or whatever. Still pissed at myself for not just unloading on him further…but these sheep are a sensitive flock..."
How would you intrepret that? It's apparent that you view those who believe in low regard - otherwide why would you those terms? Juxtapose "I didn’t mean to offend or mock his faith or whatever." with "Still pissed at myself for not just unloading on him further…but these sheep are a sensitive flock..." How do you intrepret that?
"I actually apologised - ON THE AIR..." Did you not mean the apology? And why?
There is a dichotomy there. And I'm not trying to be offensive - this is strictly for discussion purposes - but can you really put a lesser value on the old gent for having a genuine reaction to a precieved insult than your own malleable and somewhat judgemental observation with respect to him?
So in a sense, yeah - you did insult the old gent - at least he took it that way and it wasn't silly at all because it's a reflection of how you feel - in your own words.
Faith is a funny concept - you can buy all, some or none - or in the case of the more recent neo-pagan belief systems, invent one. :>
I want to address the Church Lady in the second part with Odienator and some of the other more interesting commentary there.
Just remember - this is a discussion - nothing more.
Tom -
Oh Lord...if you only knew how burnt-out on this topic I am at this point. Catholic Don came over last night and the POTC was argued and debated ad nauseum until the wee hours of the A.M.
My original Monty Python comment wasn't said to the old man - it was said to Becky, another guest on the show, and it was said in a very casual, off-handed manner. I really said it without thinking. The old man called in to bitch about the comment, and I still maintain I didn't deserve the whole "you're going to hell" speech for saying it. If for no other reason than whether or not I go to hell isn't his call to make.
All other stuff - colostomy bag and so forth - man, that's all for the blog. I'm just funnin' for creative purposes.
I do not hold people who believe in low regard - I'm not even sure where you got that. But if someone says I'm going to hell for bagging on TPOTC, then I may hold them in low regard for being stupid. Again, it's not their call to make. The theoretical god can decide that, and if there is a god, I'm pretty sure he won't send me to hell for satirizing a movie. I think God logically would have to have a better sense of humor than that, if not the greatest sense of humor in the entire universe.
As far as the old man's concerned, again, I never directly insulted him. I just didn't - at least not until I wrote this blog entry (which I don't think he'll ever read).
I'll agree with you that I can see *why* he was offended by my original statement, but hey man, that's the price of free speech and I was on a talk radio show. Again, he's the one who said I'd have to answer to the Lord, not the other way around.
Odie -
I really liked how you brought Tyler Perry into this mad max-I mean "mix".
I've yet to see the new one, but I too found DIARY to be a wonderful, moving film, and nobody was more surprised by my reaction than me. I am clearly not part of the target audience for his work, on any level, and yet the film brought tears to my eyes on more than one occasion.
Odie wrote:
I had crazed people who made not one lick of sense come after me on my site,
You have a site? Where???
Odienator - my new friend.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Gibson's "torture" is more like reality of the times - his movies reflect the truth of the times he represents. I remember when "The Patriot" first appeared - the horrors of children using weapons and shooting people!!!
Did that not happen? Did the American Revolution not include children - which then would have been around 12 years of age? Of course it happened - probably more than once.
That time period was particularly vicious to children of 12 and up - sometimes even younger. The fledgling American Navy courtmartialed a 14 year old Midshipman and dismissed him from service dishonorably for failing to maintain an attack on a superior force. Oddly, he had been ordered to do so by the last surviving superior officer, himself a Midshipman senior by time-in-service as that boy died.
You mentioned "Braveheart" - is that not a representative example of the brutal effects of the time and total unyielding war? No quarter, no mercy?
The meme that this is all somehow related to a pervese delight in "torture" and somehow ignites insight into a mind full of S&M fantasy is distorting the truth - that is the way it was. Period. Ain't no way around it.
The modern cultural mindset of being enlightened and using the "higher meaning" of truth is also a distorted and actually quite unreal view of the world. Conflict, war, brutality is the way of the world - we just don't want to face facts.
And that brings me to Church Lady.
Have either you or Ross considered that perhaps instead of being a comedic moment, what she really meant that, as an article of faith, she knew the torture and cruxifiction of Christ in only an abstract sense and this movie brought the reality of the times to fore and put a very real, ultimate reality to that event? That perhaps, more so than ever, her faith was strengthened by the very real representation of that event?
With respect to marketing, this is nothing new. During the Middle Ages and even through the Renaissance, whole villages made enourmous amounts of money by selling "relics" and what I guess you could call religious "totems" such as nails. :>) Made Jim and Tammy Baker looks like chumps.
In the American Southwest, Navaho, Zuñi and Hopi used to sell each other fetish symbols and such - never of their own religous like a Navaho selling a Hopi fetish, but they would sell a Hopi a Hopi fetish.
Relating this to Christ throwing the money lenders/changers from the Great Temple isn't relevant because it's two different forms of commerce.
One last comment. Does God, or any small god, need man? I would posit that He indeed does need man - else why would He have created him? Without belief, there can be no God - empirically. :>)
Consider this - there have been more words written in this commentary than in your entire blog. :>)
Let's close it up and save the real debates for another time - I totally understand.
Still friends? :>)
Odie wrote: I had crazed people who made not one lick of sense come after me on my site,
Ross wrote: You have a site? Where???
Correction: I HAD a site. I closed it down after all that POTC mess. (I hate people.) Behind the scenes, I've been trying to update it and post reviews, but there aren't enough hours in the day, and truth be told, my site was never meant to be interactive. It was just my reviews and a "leave the writer the hell alone" vibe. It'll be back sooner or later, because Matt keeps putting his foot in my ass about updating it.
teafran: Thanks for your friendly debate. I appreciate that we can have a civil discussion about all this. As for the Church Lady, with all due respect, I know exactly how she said what she said, and what she meant by it. She was stating the truth as she saw it, in a vernacular I could not only understand but appreciate. She said it to bring a smile to my face, and to let me know what I was in for once I stepped in the theater. If she had been deadly serious, she would not have said what she said. It was a comedic moment. I was there. It was a Baptist to Baptist moment. It was funny.
But enough of all this. I haven't talked this much about a movie I panned in years.
Tom wrote:
Consider this - there have been more words written in this commentary than in your entire blog.
No doubt - it's gratifying that the lot of you paid attention to and thought about and (as Odie pointed out) reasonably discussed the topic.
And I certainly didn't want to put forth the vibe that it shouldn't be discussed further - by all means, have at it. I just get easily worn down by theological debate. You know how useless it is to argue religion - everybody raises valid points and yet nobody ever really changes anyone else's mind.
Odie wrote:
Correction: I HAD a site. I closed it down after all that POTC mess.
That's unfortunate. I didn't realize this very topic had caused you so many problems! Had I, I may never have posted your story in the first place.
If/when you get the new site set up, let me know as I'll link to it and hang out there. You're a great writer and you should have your own forum to spout whatever you feel the need to spout.
Whether or not you make it interactive is your business, but I enjoy discussing posted topics with other readers and the writer, but nobody can make you respond further to whatever you throw out there, be there a talkback available or not.
Ross, I'm glad you posted it. It didn't conjure up any bad memories or anything!
Thanks for your kind words about my writing ability. Truth be told, I am a computer programmer by trade, and should therefore be a man of logic and math rather than a man of logic, math, and words. It's a very schizophrenic existence. There are days when I wish I could exchange writing skill for something else, like mechanical inclination or a great curveball. Or maybe arches for my feet. Anybody out there want to trade a pair of size 13 arches for slightly used writing talent?
Great post.
I particularly liked and agreed with:
"What’s hard for me to wrap my brain around is that such a huge cross-section of church-going folk were so out of touch with these basic teachings that this movie was a sort of revelation to them."
What I find really interesting is that I completely followed your train of thought through the piece.
That may be a bad thing for you.
nick wrote:
What I find really interesting is that I completely followed your train of thought through the piece.
That may be a bad thing for you.
Not at all! As I wrote, I wasn't sure about this one. So far I haven't had anyone scream at me, which can only be a good thing.
Granted, it'll sit here for god knows how long, and sooner or later, someone will find it, and not like it, and then...
Thanks for the kind words and for stopping by, Nick.
Boy, it really is interesting to read all this back-and-forth between my oh-so-intelligent friends (and reminds me how much I miss Teafran over on ATF).
I remember when PotC came out--boy, did that movie piss off the Jews. I attended services at a family member's synagogue and was presented with a document entitled "Why PotC is Anti-Semitic". I ran across a couple others of those, but the final recommendation was always: "here's what we think, but make up your own mind (preferably without putting more money in MG's pocket)."
"Make up your own mind"... This is vastly different from what I was taught as a Catholic growing up--no questioning, EVER, and blind acceptance of all teachings. At least as a Jew, I'm invited to question the bible and even question God (the word "Israel" has been said to mean "he who wrestles with God"--it was the name given to Jacob after he wrestled an angel).
Just my own ramblings added to everyone else's.
(and for those of you raised Catholic, how much fun was it to torture the nuns and other Sunday school teachers with questions they couldn't answer. For example, "if you have to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven, then is Moses in Hell?". Classic...)
Chris: "if you have to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven, then is Moses in Hell?"
Back when I was dating outside of my religion (heh heh), I dated a Catholic with whom I had wonderful conversations about the saints. I was always fascinated by saints (which is why I liked Millions so much, I suppose) and the whole saint process. I guess torturing nuns with questions like the one you posed is a great Catholic pastime. But the stories I heard always ended with the nun going batshit (just saying that is going to get me sent to Hell) and opening up a can of ruler-generated whup ass. I think the nun did a few backflips too, and operated in bullet time, like the Matrix.
For the record: Moses is in Heaven, arm wrestling with Jesus and taking bets on how much I'll mess up every day.
I was lucky enough to be in CCD rather than actual full-time Catholic school. Mostly, we had non-nun teachers who were easily flustered.
Quote: "Catholicism is the one religion obsessed with suffering."
gotta be nitpicky here dude.
Suffering and its causes are the core of most buddhist teachings, as well as several major other religions.
Catholicism is the one religion obsessed with MAKING people suffer, be it through self-flagellation (which, as we found out this weekend, is pretty fun to watch), uncomfortable pews, tacky wall art, or ridiculously long sermons.
Big difference. :)
teafran said: "With respect to Monty Python's "Life of Brian", one would have to really stretch one's credibility to compare the two - they aren't even in the same ball park in terms of intent which I think is the point. One is histodocumentarian, the other is high satire."
yeah, but which is which?
Teafran says: "You undervalued PoTC by assigning it a value equal to a comedy."
really?!?
Wow. I thought he was being overly flattering...Life of Brian is a much better film, and will stand the test of time better too. 20 years from now, passion will be right there next to the latest remake of the 10 commandments and farenheit 9/11 in the bargain bin, and life of brian will still be flying off the shelves in whatever the new format of HDVD x 30 or whatever.
Post a Comment