Proof positive that ACTORS should ACT, not SPEAK PUBLICLY

[fossten]

It doesn't use the word FICTION. It uses the word NOVEL on the title page. One can assume that a book noted as a NOVEL is FICTION. Anything after the word NOVEL can safely be taken as FICTION, even though the second page lists "FACTS".

Actually, barry, you're incorrect. According to USA Today, Mary Mapes and Dan Rather, ANYTHING stated by a writer/journalist is to be considered FACT unless it's DISPROVED.

However, one can safely assume that anything printed in the NYT or USA Today is probably FICTION.

 

[barry2952]

Was that supposed to be funny? What does that have to do with this thread? You obviously just like to see your name in print. This site has become the Fossten Show.

 

[fossten]

Was that supposed to be funny? What does that have to do with this thread? You obviously just like to see your name in print. This site has become the Fossten Show.

:bowrofl:
That's hilarious coming from you, who are up to 9 meaningless, self-serving pages now:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=19755

 

[Calabrio]

I disagree, there are several movies about the hypocrisies of Islam coming out of the studios and movie festival circuits.

I remember the last movie about Islam... but then the director was found dead on the street with a knife plunging through his chest affixing a note to him. Theo Van Gogh.

And we all remember the last major book to say anything remotely critical of Islam, Satanic Verses. Salmon Rushdie still fears for his life, but I think the "formal" death sentence has been lifted. Informally,however, it's a different story.

 

[barry2952]

Like your crap isn't self-serving. Do you seriously think that you've changed anyone's minds with your rantings?

 

[raVeneyes]

So far, nothing even comes close to the DaVinci code's trashing of Christian religion.

A) He said there were no movies that were anti muslim...all these films are in some way anti muslim or have been denounced by the muslim orthodoxy

B) DaVinci code does not "trash" the Christian religion.

 

[raVeneyes]

I remember the last movie about Islam... but then the director was found dead on the street with a knife plunging through his chest affixing a note to him. Theo Van Gogh.

And we all remember the last major book to say anything remotely critical of Islam, Satanic Verses. Salmon Rushdie still fears for his life, but I think the "formal" death sentence has been lifted. Informally,however, it's a different story.

Yes it is one of the movies I made a link to.

I didn't say that the Muslim community's reaction was correct in cases when people made movies about their religion, but I am just refuting your claim that there are no movies about muslim counter culture.

 

[Calabrio]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4447366.stm
A movie about homosexual life in the muslim community, being made by a cast of performers and film makers who will have to work annonymously in fear of their lives. Also a foreign film.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0780046/
In the Name of Allah is about homosexual muslims and hasn't come out yet. Another foreign film.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0278102/
Trembling Before G-d is a five year old movie about gay hasidic Jews. It's also a French film.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0415147/
MAROCK is a foreign film. I've never heard a thing about it. Even IMDB has no information regarding the story.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0433116/
LOOKING FOR COMEDY IN THE MUSLIM WORLD is the only domestic film you mentioned, but it wasn't meant to be a critical movie of Islamism. And is still made the movies studios wet themself in fear. That's why it was released with virtually no press. Note, it's a year old.

I don't see how any of these films make your point. The Albert Brookes comedy might have, but it's the only domestic example you provided and the studios were reluctant to release it at the time. Furthermore, it's not a movie critical of Islam, it's more a movie mocking the Albert Brooke's character.

Nothing at all critical of the religion or foundations. No movie about Mohammed raping children or imaginary conspiracies undermining the credibility of the the Ayatollahs.

And the Theo Van Gogh movie that incited his murder was called "Submission." It was a 10 minute film about the abuse of women in muslim society.

 

[Calabrio]

A) He said there were no movies that were anti muslim...all these films are in some way anti muslim or have been denounced by the muslim orthodoxy

Those are not the same thing. None of those films are anti-muslim. Most of them are about homosexuals in a conservative society. Nor were they all about muslims.

And just because the muslim orthodoxy denounces a film, that doesn't mean it's anti-muslim. It just means that they don't endorse the idea of homosexuality.

B) DaVinci code does not "trash" the Christian religion.

I disagree. I think you'll find that the book says that the church has been involved in two centuries of lies, has caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and has actively been involved in the subjegation of women.

My guess is that the movie is much less inflamatory than the book though. It' probably been toned down and the long sections of the book consisting of the voice of the author making wildly dishonest and untrue statements won't be there either.

 

[raVeneyes]

I don't see how any of these films make your point.

let me reiterate my point then:

"I disagree, there are several movies about the hypocrisies of Islam coming out of the studios and movie festival circuits."


All of these films were released here in the US, several of them were festival movies and a couple were studio movies....thus...my point

 

[raVeneyes]

I think you'll find that the book says that the church has been involved in two centuries of lies, has caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and has actively been involved in the subjegation of women.

The book makes none of these suppositions.

I have read the book, and the statement in the beginning of the book makes it clear that though the facts of who existed when and what exactly they did or what exactly paintings look like are true, the author's words about what they were thinking or why they did what they did are all part of the story.

Every fact that Dan Brown presents as fact, such as the size of the pyramid in front of the Louvre and the description of "The Last Supper" who painted them, who commissioned them, and who was involved in their movements are correct. Dan Brown makes it clear however that what he presents as the "why" of the situation is clearly only part of the book's story. He also makes clear that he based the dramatic story of the Jesus' bloodline sub plot on "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" through the chapter in the book for which he was sued. In that chapter he lays out the points made by "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and has his character believe that book's suppositions. This is where most people get the false impression that *they* are supposed to be believing those suppositions. Brown made it clear in the beginning of his book that it is a story, not a history lesson.

 

[fossten]

let me reiterate my point then:

"I disagree, there are several movies about the hypocrisies of Islam coming out of the studios and movie festival circuits."

All of these films were released here in the US, several of them were festival movies and a couple were studio movies....thus...my point

Well, you definitely DIDN'T make your point.

1. There aren't SEVERAL movies about Islam period, only a handful.
2. Of that handful, only ONE of them even addresses the "hypocrisies" of Islam, and that one MAY NOT even be released.

 

[fossten]

Like your crap isn't self-serving. Do you seriously think that you've changed anyone's minds with your rantings?

I was addressing your accusation that I only post to see my name in print. I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy when you sling those kinds of slurs in my general direction. At least I don't have a meaningless, self-serving thread that I daily fill with information that anybody could easily look up for themselves, while not inserting any real contributory opinions.

By the way, Fossten isn't my real name, BARRY.

 

[raVeneyes]

I daily fill with information that anybody could easily look up for themselves

Now, now, don't blow a tonsil. You should know by now that the way we do things around here is that you don't go around just making wild claims. You must back up your statements with facts.

Come on dude...which way do you want it? Make up your mind.

 

[barry2952]

I was addressing your accusation that I only post to see my name in print. I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy when you sling those kinds of slurs in my general direction. At least I don't have a meaningless, self-serving thread that I daily fill with information that anybody could easily look up for themselves, while not inserting any real contributory opinions.

By the way, Fossten isn't my real name, BARRY.

Maybe you haven't noticed that you've gotten the last word on 22 of the last 40 posts.

I stand by my statement that you like to see your name in print whether it's FOSSTEN or DAVID.

Besides, I love rubbing your nose in Bush's crappy numbers. Don't like it, don't read it.

 

[fossten]

Maybe you haven't noticed that you've gotten the last word on 22 of the last 40 posts.

Hey, it's not MY fault that you make crummy arguments that are easily refuted.

 

[Calabrio]

The book makes none of these suppositions.

I have read the book, and the statement in the beginning of the book makes it clear that though the facts of who existed when and what exactly they did or what exactly paintings look like are true, the author's words about what they were thinking or why they did what they did are all part of the story.

So while there was a council of Nicea and they did hold a vote. You're saying it's made clear that Brown is going to lie about what they debated and the outcome of the vote? To the contrary, Brown says that he's recording these events accurately.

Every fact that Dan Brown presents as fact, such as the size of the pyramid in front of the Louvre and the description of "The Last Supper" who painted them, who commissioned them, and who was involved in their movements are correct.

No, all of them are absolutely not.

Dan Brown makes it clear however that what he presents as the "why" of the situation is clearly only part of the book's story. He also makes clear that he based the dramatic story of the Jesus' bloodline sub plot on "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" through the chapter in the book for which he was sued. In that chapter he lays out the points made by "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and has his character believe that book's suppositions. This is where most people get the false impression that *they* are supposed to be believing those suppositions. Brown made it clear in the beginning of his book that it is a story, not a history lesson.

What Brown does is base the story on the claims of the Priory of Sionn in1956 and Pierre Plantard,an insane racist French man who claimed to be the descendent of Christ. It was he who advanced these "blood grail" claims, and who manufactured and distorted the historical record to support his baseless claim. And he just died in 2000.

And the book endorses paganism and goddess worship.

 

[TheDude]

Calabrio, have you read the book?

 

[barry2952]

I'm kinda curious about that myself. Some of your responses are unusual for someone that's read it.

I saw no endorsement of any pagan or mainstream religion.

 

[barry2952]

Hmmm.......No response. How can someone comment on the contents of a book if they haven't read it?

 

[Calabrio]

Hmmm.......No response. How can someone comment on the contents of a book if they haven't read it?

This is almost as lame as the claim "You can't criticize a Michael Moore film until you've sat through it." If I know the arguments he makes, then I don't need to see them slickly packaged. I'm not arguing the film craft, just the substance.

The issues associated with the DaVinci Code have been extensively reported. If you watched cable last weekend you'd have seen wall to wall coverage on networks like the History channel and Discovery.

Furthermore, there have been numerous articles and books, like "Breaking the DaVinci Code" that research each "fact" and supposition included with the book.

Can I comment on the very public, well documented content of the book? Absolutely. What I can't discuss is whether it was fun to read.

And no, you won't find any endorsement of "mainstream religion" in the book. But you will find a tone that is supportive of paganism, specifically goddess worship.

 

[TheDude]

I watched the movie last night, it was actually very entertaining and it mentioned paganism when the subject of Constantine & Rome came up, but I did not see any endorsement of paganism and goddess worship.

 

[barry2952]

Can I comment on the very public, well documented content of the book?

So, In your opinion it's OK for me to cast stones at the New Testament, even though I haven't read it?

Your excuse is lame.

 

[raVeneyes]

If I know the arguments he makes...

The issues associated with the DaVinci Code have been extensively reported...

I'd suggest you read the book, because the 'issues' that the DaVinci Code brings up, are not the claims made by the author or ideas supported by the text of the book. I've read the book in full, and at no time did I feel an urge or a coercion to follow the tenets of Paganism or Goddess worship. These things are not supported or endorsed by the book or movie, and so I must assume that the reports you've read or watched have been not so much on what the book states, but on what others have thought once they've read the book.

The only thing that the book arguably implies is that Paganism, Goddess worship, and Christianity are much more closely related in time and history than most Christians and the church are willing to admit.

 

[fossten]

So, In your opinion it's OK for me to cast stones at the New Testament, even though I haven't read it?

Your excuse is lame.

So is your comparison. You're equating the Word of God with a fictional book. Nice try, Ian McKellen.

You wouldn't know enough about the New Testament to cast proper stones at it, anyway. You know this because you've tried it, haven't you? And were put in your place...by me.