posted 08-05-2003 05:45 AM                       

quote:

---

Forgive me for being a little confused but how is the audience suppose to understand what is going on if they can't understand what is going on.

---

Well, we could give you a summary of the story, but then we would give the ending away

posted 08-05-2003 06:53 AM                       

quote:

---

Who needs subtitles??? I've watched silent films with very few title cards, and had little problem following the story.

---

posted 08-26-2003 01:49 AM                       

quote:

---

so much so that F.W. Murnau managed to make The Last Laugh without any intertitles whatsoever and still convey quite a complicated plot.

---

posted 08-27-2003 01:48 AM                       

quote:

---

Jews fear backlash from Mel Gibson's Passion
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
The Daily Telegraph, 26 August 2003

British Jewish leaders have joined the furore surrounding Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion, which charts the final 12 hours of Christ's life and includes a brutal depiction of the Crucifixion.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews say they share the growing fears voiced in America that the film could fuel bigotry and anti-Semitism and damage relations between faiths.

The Passion, which is funded, co-written and directed by the Hollywood star, has provoked a storm in America, with Jewish and Roman Catholic scholars calling for changes before its release early next year.

Gibson, a Catholic traditionalist, has defended it as a truthful portrayal of the events surrounding the Crucifixion, and has even insisted that the dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic, the vernacular in Palestine at the time.

He has denied that the film is anti-Semitic or designed to upset Jews, although he told one interviewer: "It's true that, as the Bible says, 'He came into His own and His own received Him not.' I can't hide that."

He has also made extensive efforts to win round his critics by organising private screenings and describing the film as a work in progress which he has already "softened" following criticism.

However, Jewish groups continue to insist that the film portrays the Jewish authorities and "bloodthirsty" mob as primarily responsible for the decision to crucify Christ.

Catholic scholars have also expressed reservations, especially as Gibson is a member of a conservative church which does not acknowledge the validity of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s. One of the reforming council's pronouncements was that Jews could not be held culpable for Christ's death.

Rabbi Eugene Korn, director of inter-faith affairs at the influential Anti-Defamation League in New York, said after a private viewing last week that the film was "toxic" and would be loved by "anti-Semites and bigots".

He told the Jewish Chronicle: "Jews are uniformly characterised as negative, and the Jewish mob is depicted as forcing the decision on to Pontius Pilate, when in reality it was Pilate's decision alone. There are gross historical inaccuracies, and there is massive, and gratuitous, violence."

In a statement, the Board of Deputies, the official voice of the British Jewish community, called for an "early opportunity" to see the film so that they could make a "definitive judgment".

They expressed fears that it may fuel anti-Semitism "by portraying Jews in an unfavourable light, and perpetuating myths which have been refuted by various religious authorities in the past".

The statement added: "We are aware that some leaders of the American Jewish community have voiced their concern on the matter which, in principle, we would share."

Not all opinion has been negative, though. A number of those who have seen the film, including Jewish commentators, have praised it.

The £18 million production, starring James Caviezel as Jesus, will be distributed by 20th Century Fox. Its American premiere is due on Ash Wednesday, but no British release date has been set.

---

posted 11-23-2003 03:30 PM                    

quote:

---

Leaders throughout Hollywood roundly condemned the New York Post for obtaining and then screening a bootlegged film for a news story.

The heads of three studios as well as producer Brian Grazer and director Sydney Pollack express deep concern about news outlets obtaining pirated copies of films and using those incomplete versions for review.

"I find this appalling and unconscionable that anyone would deal with a bootleg tape," said Paramount Pictures chair Sherry Lansing. "I'm as outraged as if it were one of my own films because of what it portends."

She added, "To pass judgment on any filmmaker before they've completed a film is going to make it impossible for us to do our work."

Industry outrage stems from a Nov. 17 report in the Post that the paper had "obtained" a video dub of Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of Christ." The paper showed it to a rabbi, a priest, a religion professor, their own critic and a reader selected at random. A reporter interviewed the panelists and wrote up their reactions.

"Passion" is not due to be released until Feb. 25.

"If I had made that picture, I would have felt raped," said Pollack. "There is obviously a great thing to defend about freedom of the press, but there is also a sense of entitlement in the press that is genuinely offensive on a moral level and every other level."

He added, "As a director, the sense that the New York Post has the legal right to take somebody's work that isn't finished is really very frightening to me."

Walt Disney Studios chairman Dick Cook is equally upset. "I think it's outrageous. It's horrible. It's a case of bad journalism, bad ethics and a broken covenant between producers of motion pictures and the press."

Neither Peter Chernin, chief operating officer of News Corp., nor Tom Rothman, head of the Fox studio, responded to requests for comment.

In a statement to Daily Variety, a spokesman for the Post defended the paper by saying it was covering the controversy surrounding Gibson's depiction of Jews in his film about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

"The filmmaker has already held a number of screenings for individuals, and comments from those viewers have been reported in the media. With so much controversy and attention surrounding this film, we feel this is a legitimate news story," the spokesman said.

That explanation doesn't wash with Grazer, who says the Post's "Passion" package displayed "a complete lack of compassion for artists. It's a violation almost beyond words." He added, "Does the Post want us to think less of them? I don't want to think less of them."

The Post's actions come at a time when piracy has been elevated to the top concern of the industry. By accepting and reporting from a pirated tape, some in the industry consider the Post to be complicit in piracy.

"Any act that helps in any way to legitimize an illegal act like piracy is reprehensible," said Chris McGurk, vice chairman of MGM.

Warner Bros. CEO Barry Meyer, who proposed banning Oscar screeners in order to combat piracy, was unavailable for comment. But in a statement for the studio, Warners said, "The precedent-setting nature of this is deeply troubling on many levels."

The Post did not say from whom it received the tape, and on Nov. 19, it returned its copy to Gibson's reps after his lawyers asked for it back. The paper said it made no copies.

Legal action may be pending. But Elizabeth McNamara, a Gotham-based attorney at firm Davis Wright Tremaine, which represents many leading newspapers and magazines on libel and First Amendment issues, said she doubts Gibson's production company would have much of a case against the Post.

"Reporters get handed things all the time. There's nothing illegal and improper in obtaining and reporting on the tape," she said. In the event of action by Icon, "I'm sure they would assert their newsgathering privileges. What they did was clearly a legitimate news story."

People in Hollywood don't see it the same way. Paramount vice chair Rob Friedman said, "I guess they can always hide behind the issue that it's news but that seems a thin argument to me. It's not as if it's a cure for cancer or an end to world hunger."

The New York Post is owned by News Corp., which also owns 20th Century Fox. For the last three years, it has been under the direct leadership of Lachlan Murdoch. He and Post editor Col Allan were both in Australia, unavailable for comment.

---