--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB > <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet? :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Not interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you seen Lynch's latest movie yet? You know, > > > > > > the one you said was "stupid" before you'd seen > > > > > > it (and then deleted the post)? > > > > > > > > > > As a matter of fact, yes. They showed it here in > > > > > France on satellite because Lynch was one of the > > > > > guests at the recent Cannes festival. Didn't like > > > > > it much, but it *was* much better than his entry > > > > > for the "Chacun son cinema" compilation, which was > > > > > so odd that it appears to have been deleted from > > > > > the distribution copy of the film. > > > > > > > > > > Have *you* seen the film yet, or is your relation- > > > > > ship with it...uh...similar to your relationship > > > > > with enlightenment, too? :-) > > > > > > > > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical > > > > opinion about it, either (just as I have not > > > > done so with either "The Sopranos" or > > > > "Apocalypto," you see). > > > > > > From FFL Message #126122, which was mainly a > > > repost of someone else's ideas from Salon.com, > > > but which contained the following lines, *all* > > > written by Judy Stein, who has *still* never > > > seen the film. The subject line was Judy's, > > > the text in brackets in the second paragraph > > > was Judy's, and the full concluding paragraph > > > was Judy's. I'm sure she doesn't consider any > > > of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure > > > how many people would agree with her. > > > > Of course they aren't "critical opinion." > > > > > As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair- > > > ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just > > > to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion" > > > > Obviously *not* "critical opinion." > > > > > (not to mention slander of Mel Gibson and his > > > film > > > > Not slander, either. > > > > *that she never saw) was warrented, see > > > above. Judy's "Not interested." > > > > > > Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot > > > > > > ...If there were ever an apocalypse in the > > > history of the Maya -- and herein lies the > > > ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- > > > it would be because of European contact. But > > > in the movie, after two hours of excess, > > > hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent > > > the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] > > > to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and > > > bigotry--JS] is devastating. > > > > > > Gee, that's not how I saw it. > > SPOILER > > The arrival of the Europeans happens in, literally, the last 30 > seconds of the movie. I saw the European arrival as the Apocalyse > suggested by the title of the movie, not some sort of coming of > sanity and paternalism. This is the author projecting his own > opinions onto Gibson's work probably because he thinks Gibson is > sending some sort of Christian message. > > But, of course, it could very well be that Gibson also feels it is > the Europeans who are bringing the Apocalyse to the Mayans. Gibson's > Christian beliefs are so whacky and out of the mainstream that he > probably feels -- as most fanatics do -- that any deviation from his > strict interpretations of scripture leads to bad consequences and, > certainly, that applies to all Christians (except for a select few) > that came before him...including the Spaniards who landed on the > shores of Mexico. Anyone that has seen the film knows his heart is > squarely with the Mayans...indeed, he probably LOVES all the torture > stuff and regards it not as evidence of savagery and low-evolution > but as high-evolution and a necessary passage to mankind.
Gibson probably also thinks the Founding Fathers of America were Christians, when in fact most of them were FreeMasons intent on establishing the Novus Ordo Seclorum (see your dollar notes ) "New Secular Order" that the Freemasons and Sir Francis Bacon (councillor to Queen Elizabeth I, and called the "Grandfather of Modern Science" ) had espoused. And the "Pilgrims" at Plymouth Rock he probably thinks were freedom seekers running from English oppression, when in fact, by their own philosphy and actions, were repressive, hateful, fundamentalist christians, who murdered Indians who did not convert, and who left England because Queen Elizabeth and Freemason council were against religious repression, and didn't let the "Puritans" practice their sectarian fundamentalist religion in the towns and villages of Devon and Cornwall, where, if you were "not with them, you were with the Devil". OffWorld .
