 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nostromo
I've seen it. The photography was fine. The torture scene was very graphic. But I think Gibson went overboard. Frankly, I don't think someone could survive such a beating and remain conscious, let alone carry a cross on his back. That said, I found the movie incredibly boring. After one hour, I was saying to myself: get crucified and die already! die! die! die! It doesn't even come close to Zephireli's movie or, for that matter, Scorsese's. |
I am sure, Nostromo, that you are not a Catholic. The movie was accuarate and faithful and, above all, realistic. There is no doubt that Gibson was trying to give us not only the story of Jesus, but the reality of his passion in crucifixion. I think he succeeded. I was enormously moved by this movie. It is an ultimate work of love.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nostromo
|
 |
Montréal, Québec
Mar 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I am sure, Nostromo, that you are not a Catholic. |
In fact, I was catholic. Now I'm either an atheist or an agnostic. I'm not sure and I don't care, really.
quote:
The movie was accuarate and faithful and, above all, realistic. |
Well, it's accurate and faithful to the bible account. It doesn't mean, however, that it's historically accurate.
quote:
There is no doubt that Gibson was trying to give us not only the story of Jesus, but the reality of his passion in crucifixion. I think he succeeded. I was enormously moved by this movie. It is an ultimate work of love. |
Yes, I think you have a point here. One of the interesting things in the movie is the hyperrealism. Like I said, it's extremely graphic. Even the crucification itself.
While it's interesting, it didn't move me. Blood and gore doesn't do it for me anymore. I still think Zephirelli's movie is infinitely superior. It moved me when I was a child and moves me now, even if I'm not a believer anymore. It's just a great story.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I don't know if Plato was married. It's not unlikely, but it wouldn't stop him being bisexual - which was probably the norm.
He did not get the "meat injection" from Socrates because respectable Greek men did not allow buggery; it would make them too much like women. There's a passage in the Gorgias where Socrates wins an argument by pointing out to his interlocutor that the interlocutor's position commits him to the shameful claim that taking it up the ass is good.
But all this is academic. Plato thinks that all sex is degrading. That's why the Symposium ranks it below friendship. It's essentially the way that animals participate in a form of immortality, but since we humans are immortal there is really no need for it. |
I doubt bisexuality was the norm. From Symposium it is derived that:
_The Athenian population frowned on those who engage in homosexual acts.
_Sparta executed those found to engage in such acts.
Besides no matter the oustanding achievements, Greeks remain humans. And humans are homosexual in a below a 10% of the general population. So the whining in Symposium about how the Athenian population looked down on homosexuals and their executions in Sparta can be seen in this context as well.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-02-2004 05:57
Isn't making massive generalizations about entire beliefs the very definition of bigotry? You're gulity as charged.
|