 |
Flipside Movie Emporium
Discussion Forums Locked & Archived for Browsing
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
 Posted: 02.21.2004 2:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: |
Ebert is, undeniably, a heavy left-winger, and shows this in interviews, rather than in his reviews, because it would lead his conservative readers to leave him. |
And in one interview he stated the opinion that "a movie isn't good or bad based on its politics. It's usually good or bad for other reasons, though you might agree or disagree with its politics." He does write political articles for the Chicago Sun; why is he not afraid his conservatives readers will leave him for what he says in those?
I don't deny Ebert is liberal, but I suppose how "heavy" he seems to an individual depends on where that individual is sitting between the political poles himself. And while his views are obviously influenced by his political position, as is everyone's, including even conservatives, I've never seen him pan a film just because it was made by someone more conservative than him.
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | Murray I'm not sure on, but to call Eastwood Republican is a bit of a stretch. |
I may have been wrong about Eastwood being a Republican, but calling him a ?heavy liberal? is much more of a stretch than calling him a Republican, unless, of course, the Dirty Harry movies express an aspect of liberalism I've missed.
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | As for examples, it's understood that liberals don't like public exhibition of religion in general. I'd have to dig to cite specific cases in film, as I will, but take, off hand, for example their criticizing conservative judges for using religion in making decisions. |
Excuse me, but liberals balk, as should everyone, when public money is used to advertise a particular religion, like the display of the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments in court houses. Liberals are concerned with civil rights, including the freedom to practice and express religious belief. Such expression includes films funded by private money. The only time any liberal organization puts its foot down is when they feel the line between church and state has been breached. I have never heard of liberals trying to protest religiously-themed movies or art simply because of their religious aspects. Conservatives, not liberals, tried to suppress films like Last Temptation and Dogma, going so far as to make anonymous death-threats to the filmmakers. TV shows like Highway to Heaven, or the current Joan of Arcadia, about a teenage girl who talks with God, have never received any flack from liberal groups.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, don't you think Ebert is covering the fact that he does grade based on politics quite often. In the end of the year review on Ebert and Roeper he stated that he, as a person, and his politics were offended by David Gale. To say that your politics don't affect you (ANY REVIEWER) is absurd. The least thing I want to do is watch a left-wing rant.
Secondly, name one thing Ebert is conservative on. My point exactly.
| the night watchman wrote: | | Joan of Arcadia, about a teenage girl who talks with God, have never received any flack from liberal groups. |
Then, on the other hand, Joan of Arcadia isn't trying to depict the last twelve hours of Christ's life.
And don't think I'm defending this position because of religion. I'm agnostic.
You're misunderstanding me, too. While liberals may be completely tolerant of religion, more so than conservatives, but I think that, if this 1-star review leads to be true, along with the release of the film, there's going to be a whole lotta objection. Look at the french--they're trying to ban all public exibition of religion. How much more liberal can you get than the french. Okay, maybe that was a bit of a joke, but it's got some validity. 
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
A little, tiny bit of caution:
I'm a bit confounded by the conspiratorial stereotyping of liberals and conservatives being bandied about here. I don't think "conservative" is the best adjective to describe those who sent death threats over Dogma, and I don't think "liberal" is the best adjective for those opposed to religious expression in the arts. In those cases, I'd argue there are more pressing factors than where the individual may sit on the political spectrum. (Most of the conservatives I know loathe Dogma but would defend Smith's individual rights as an artist; and many of the liberals I know are quite religious themselves.) Such labels cannot fully characterize an individual, and certainly neither one should be automatically engraved with a negative connotation. Vilification is simplification, and says more about the labeler than the labeled.
Of course Ebert lets his politics invade his reviews--what critic doesn't? And why would we want them to subvert their own subjectivity? Isn't that humanity partially what qualifies them to comment on the most human of art forms? I'd say Ebert does a better job than most in properly weighing his own politics, finding the proper balance when passing judgment on a film. Danny, it sounds like your responses to Bowling for Columbine and David Gale were influenced by your own politics at least as much as Ebert allowed politics to influence his.
Hasn't Eastwood many times described himself as a moderate Republican?
I'm surprised by how easily personal agendas and pre-conceptions lead us towards leaping to conclusions.
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | Well, don't you think Ebert is covering the fact that he does grade based on politics quite often. In the end of the year review on Ebert and Roeper he stated that he, as a person, and his politics were offended by David Gale. |
No, I don't. If he is, it doesn't seem as though he's aware of it. Also, whatever his politics are, it should be noted that David Gale is a liberal, anti-death penalty movie (and a poor one at that). In other words, Ebert didn't pan David Gale because it was conservative.
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | To say that your politics don't affect you (ANY REVIEWER) is absurd. The least thing I want to do is watch a left-wing rant. |
I never said that, and I don't want to watch a left-wing rant either, which, ironically, is pretty much what David Gale is.
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | Secondly, name one thing Ebert is conservative on. My point exactly. |
Danny, I really, honestly don't know the details of Ebert's politics, but he certainly does not match up with the stereotypical view of the hard-core liberal.
| Danny Baldwin wrote: |
Then, on the other hand, Joan of Arcadia isn't trying to depict the last twelve hours of Christ's life. |
So what if it did? There were two TV movies a few years ago about Christ, and no controversy surrounded either one of them. Why is it impossible that there is something specific to Gibson's movie that someone might object to? Why does Passion have to represent Christianity or faith? Why can't Ebert dislike it, presuming he does, simply because he thinks it's a bad movie?
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | While liberals may be completely tolerant of religion, more so than conservatives, but I think that, if this 1-star review leads to be true, along with the release of the film, there's going to be a whole lotta objection. Look at the french--they're trying to ban all public exibition of religion. How much more liberal can you get than the french. Okay, maybe that was a bit of a joke, but it's got some validity. |
They're actually proposing a ban on the wearing of religious symbols, like crucifixes or Muslim headscarves, in public schools. I don't know much about the French government, other than it is fiercely secular, or exactly how I feel about such a ban. But like I said, apart from the concerns expressed by the Jewish community, I really do truly think the religious right is trying to stir up controversy that doesn?t exist, so that, like I suggested above, they can spin doctor any negative reaction to Passion as an attack on faith. Even Gibson isn't helping the matter. He said in his interview with Diane Sawyer something to the effect that anyone who has a problem with the movie really has a problem with the Gospels. This is obviously untrue, and consciously or unconsciously he is trying to set up Passion to be beyond criticism. But the fact is, it's a movie, an individual interpretation of the written word. Considering that there are three different and distinct versions of the crucifixion story in the Bible, which version of the tale Gibson chooses to use, or how he chooses to combine them, is, in itself, subject to valid criticism that has nothing to do with Christianity itself. Just because some Christians may find Passion inspiring doesn?t mean that someone else?s negative reaction to it as a work of cinema is an attack on their faith.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the night watchman wrote: | | Excuse me, but liberals balk, as should everyone, when public money is used to advertise a particular religion, like the display of the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments in court houses. Liberals are concerned with civil rights, including the freedom to practice and express religious belief. Such expression includes films funded by private money. The only time any liberal organization puts its foot down is when they feel the line between church and state has been breached. |
Although I generally agree with your sentiments, there are some mighty broad generalizations being made here. And some mighty big assumptions. For example, I'd argue that the phrasing "when public money is used to advertise a particular religion, like the display of the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments in court houses" betrays a specific interpretation of the controversy that not all involved parties would accept as even close to accurate.
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beltmann wrote: |
I'm a bit confounded by the conspiratorial stereotyping of liberals and conservatives being bandied about here. I don't think "conservative" is the best adjective to describe those who sent death threats over Dogma, and I don't think "liberal" is the best adjective for those opposed to religious expression in the arts. In those cases, I'd argue there are more pressing factors than where the individual may sit on the political spectrum. (Most of the conservatives I know loathe Dogma but would defend Smith's individual rights as an artist; and many of the liberals I know are quite religious themselves.) Such labels cannot fully characterize an individual, and certainly neither one should be automatically engraved with a negative connotation. Vilification is simplification, and says more about the labeler than the labeled.
|
You're absolutely right, Eric; I wasn't trying to over-generalize and I apologize if I made it sound like all conservatives are responsible for the actions of a few. I was simply trying to rebute the claim that liberals oppose religious expression.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beltmann wrote: | | I'd argue that the phrasing "when public money is used to advertise a particular religion, like the display of the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments in court houses" betrays a specific interpretation of the controversy that not all involved parties would accept as even close to accurate. |
Well, I intended to be hyperbolic and inflamatory, but I don't think what I said is that far off the mark; at least, from one side of the picture.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beltmann wrote: | | Danny, it sounds like your responses to Bowling for Columbine and David Gale were influenced by your own politics at least as much as Ebert allowed politics to influence his. |
Well, even though I would deny Moore's talent, I would certainly say my reactions have been influenced by political affiliation. But, here, I was simply making the point that Ebert's denying his politics is absurd.
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the night watchman wrote: | | This is obviously untrue, and consciously or unconsciously Gibson is trying to set up Passion to be beyond criticism. But the fact is, it's a movie, an individual interpretation of the written word. Considering that there are three different and distinct versions of the crucifixion story in the Bible, which version of the tale Gibson chooses to use, or how he chooses to combine them, is, in itself, subject to valid criticism that has nothing to do with Christianity itself. Just because some Christians may find Passion inspiring doesn?t mean that someone else?s negative reaction to it as a work of cinema is an attack on their faith. |
I agree with every word here, except for your comment that Gibson is trying to position his movie beyond reproach. In that same Sawyer interview, he openly acknowledged that the film is his own, personal artistic vision of the Gospels. As I recall, he very, very clearly stated that this is not a "definitive" version: "This is my version of what happened, according to the Gospels and what I wanted to show -- the aspects of it I wanted to show."
His main concern was defending the film against the charges of anti-Semitism, which I believe he did with intelligence and eloquence. At one point he said something to the effect of, "... Let's get this out on the table. This is what the Talmud says. This is what the Gospel says. Let's talk. Let's talk... It's not about playing the blame game. It's about faith, love, hope, and forgiveness." (Excuse me if memory doesn't get the quote word-for-word correct.)
In fact, Diane Sawyer also interviewed Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, who readily acknowledged, "I do not believe it's an anti-Semitic movie." Foxman clarified that while he didn't feel Gibson nor the movie was racist, he was concerned that the film merely had the potential to fuel anti-Semitism in some viewers. That worry, of course, I can certainly understand... but I also wonder whether we should then stop making movies about slavery because it might incite hatred for Southerners in some viewers. (I'm aware that analogy is rather glib. Forgive me.)
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the night watchman wrote: | | I never said that, and I don't want to watch a left-wing rant either, which, ironically, is pretty much what David Gale is. |
I'd simply call it a good drama, rather than a political one, but that's another story.
| the night watchman wrote: |
| Danny Baldwin wrote: |
Then, on the other hand, Joan of Arcadia isn't trying to depict the last twelve hours of Christ's life. |
So what if it did? There were two TV movies a few years ago about Christ, and no controversy surrounded either one of them. Why is it impossible that there is something specific to Gibson's movie that someone might object to? Why does Passion have to represent Christianity or faith? Why can't Ebert dislike it, presuming he does, simply because he thinks it's a bad movie? |
I'm not going to deny his right to call it a bad movie, but one star signifies an abomination. I have a hard time believing a movie anyone spent 12 years of their life on could ever be that bad. Considering his ratings it either has to be political (a la David Gale) or stupidly crude (Bad Boys II). However, much of this is pretty pointless discussing, when we don't even know his rating and thoughts to be true. Sure, he'll try to deny it. Heck, it could even be sub-concious.
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | Considering his ratings it either has to be political (a la David Gale) or stupidly crude (Bad Boys II). However, much of this is pretty pointless discussing, when we don't even know his rating and thoughts to be true. Sure, he'll try to deny it. Heck, it could even be sub-concious. |
I think the biggest problem I have, Danny, is that you are simply not allowing Ebert to have an opinion free of ulterior motives. Here are some movies he's rated with one star or less that fall into neither the category of "political" or "stupidy crude," but into the category of "simply bad": Action Jackson, An Alan Smithee Film Burn Hollywood Burn (and if you don't believe that movie deserves no stars, turn in your cinephile card and start watching more TV), North, Ballistic: Eks vs. Sever, Battlefield Earth, Dream a Little Dream, Freddy Got Fingered, Jaws the Revenge, and Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot!.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a hard time believing it's that bad. To put it in the category with Freddy Got Fingered, there's just no way, in my mind.
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it might be best at this point to give this discussion a rest until we've read the actual review.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | I have a hard time believing it's that bad. To put it in the category with Freddy Got Fingered, there's just no way, in my mind. |
How about in the same category as Heaven's Gate? A director may have passion, or may invest a great deal of energy and time, but that doesn't make him immune to folly.
Besides, 1-star rating for something like Freddy does not mean the same thing as 1-star rating for something like, say, Pearl Harbor or Bad Boys II. Star ratings simply cannot be weighted against one another like that.
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Scrutchin
Studio President
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 832
Location: Pearland, TX
|
| Posted: 02.21.2004 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | I have a hard time believing it's that bad. To put it in the category with Freddy Got Fingered, there's just no way, in my mind. |
Would now be a good time to admit that I actually liked Freddy Got Fingered? Sure, it's a bad movie, but it's so off-the-wall insane that... no, never mind, there's simply no way to defend the movie. I almost tried.
_________________
Michael Scrutchin
Flipside Movie Emporium
www.flipsidearchive.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2007 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
