--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's > > hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a > > post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought > > this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon > > article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only > > knowledgeable person to have been upset by the > > movie: > > Please note that the only hysterical person here is > the Judester herself, which she will hopefully > demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-)
Well, actually I'll demonstrate how hysterical Barry was all morning. It was my remark about how nobody pays attention to him any more except to make fun of him that triggered his meltdown. Which, as I noted to laughinggull, gives me lots of chances to make fun of him, as I anticipated. > Please also note that she has said NOT A WORD about > the real issues at play here. I haven't even gotten started, toots. > That is, it's NOT ABOUT whether the movie was > historically inaccurate. No one has suggested > that it was. Au contraire, Pierre. Any attempt to get people to focus > on that is a diversion from the real issues. Actually, as Barry knows, the "real issues" have very much to do with the historical inaccuracies in the movie. > What those issues are -- the ones that Judy will > continue to avoid dealing with -- revolve around: > > 1. Why did she feel competent to comment on a film she > had never seen, and obviously has *still* never seen? Bogus question. Of course there's no reason one shouldn't comment on the issues surrounding a film when there's plenty of good reporting on those issues, as there was with "Apocalypto." > 2. Why did she choose to characterize Mel Gibson as a > "Christian bigot" (again, based on a film she'd never > seen), when the article she was originally taking as > gospel did not mention a word about Christianity? As already noted (and even acknowledged by Barry himself), Mel Gibson was widely considered to be a Christian bigot well before the film came out. The article didn't mention Christianity explicitly, but it was very distinctly implicit, as I noted at the time. > Please note also that not a single one of the "sources" > she cites below say anything about Christian supremicist > themes in the movie, either. In fact, it's mentioned explicitly in two of the pieces: > > Yes, Gibson includes the arrival of clearly > > Christian missionaries (these guys are too clean to be > > conquistadors) in the last five minutes of the story (in > > the real world the Spanish arrived 300 years after the last > > Maya city was abandoned). It is one of the few calm moments > > in an otherwise aggressively paced film. The message? The > > end is near and the savior has come. And: > > Ignacio Ochoa's [director of the Nahual Foundation that > > promotes Mayan culture] comment that "Gibson replays... > > an offensive and racist notion that Maya people were > > brutal to one another long before the arrival of > > Europeans and thus they deserved, in fact, needed, > > rescue" articulates what I was feeling, especially > > towards the end of this film. When the Berkeley crowd > > started booing at the end of the film as the Spanish- > > Christian missionaries arrive, I'm sure it was in > > response to this sense. How did Barry manage to miss these mentions, I wonder? I'll just leave this in for readers to contemplate: > JUDY MADE THAT UP. > ABOUT A MOVIE SHE HAD NEVER SEEN. > SHE'S STILL SAYING IT, SIX YEARS LATER. > ABOUT A MOVIE SHE'S *STILL* NEVER SEEN. > RATHER THAN ADMITTING THIS, > SHE'S GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN. > SHE'S A NUTCASE.
