(Mari)Am still thinking Carrie will wind up with neither Big nor un-Big.;-) I'm going to miss the girls. Ditto.But I missed the early ones and they will not doubt start them again. The four of them reflect the female population. So one has to remain single. Charlotte and Harry will either adopt a bi-racial or physically challenged child. Samantha stumps me though. I like Smith, but like she says:"I don't know whether to blow him or burp him." BTW was the Breast Cancer fundraiser party a hoot.

(Mari) My cable guide says it's rated R; would you say that I'm not getting the, um, uncut version?;-) The "best performing penis" must have been been circumcized. The DVD appears to be uncut.

(Mari) Ok. Ewan lives in England. Can anyone here who lives there tell us if it's the norm for a father to walk around naked in front of his 8-year old daughter when he's "interacting" with her at home. I doubt anybody can tell you what the norm in England is, because IMO there is no such thing, no matter what country you live in. I would think that these sort of things are 'family specific'. What's normal for one family seems weird to the other, and that I find perfectly normal. I have 2 boys at home and never bothered to cover myself while they were young. We dressed together and showered together, and none of us gave it a thought. It was perfectly natural for all of us. It was our norm. So if Ewan goes naked before his kids and they are comfy with it (and he should know, he is their dad) I have no problem with it. Lots of people find nudity natural, just look at the european topless and nudist beaches. If people can go naked 'in public', why shouldn't they do it at home? If that's their norm...

A norm is a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group (according to my dictionary). As such, there's no such thing as an "individual norm." Anyway, at some age, your sons stopped dressing and showering with you; the reason why is the point.

(Mari) A norm is a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group (according to my dictionary). I agree. And a family is a social group, so whatever the McGregors are doing is their norm. I stopped going uncovered before my boys at one point because I made the decision that it's time to separate the boys from the 'girl'. I could've gone the other way, I see no problem with it. By covering up I don't think I did the right thing, I simply made a choice. Ewan made a different one, and if it suits his family..., that's fine. Families make the norm for themselves IMO.

(Karen) It is probably the best performing penis ever to appear in a non-pornographic film, worthy of an Oscar in its own right - and it belongs to the star of the film, Mark Rylance. I didn't think Sundance cut movies - I taped Intimacy and intend to research this on-going topic thoroughly. And thanks for that link, Karen. It delineates exactly how to know if the version you're watching is expurgated. BTW, Mark Rylance was the husband in A&I. (Note to self: visit IMDB and see what other movies this guy is in.)

(Louise) BTW, Mark Rylance was the husband in A&I. I caught that immediately, but you said it was the brother with the agitated appendage, right? I just saw Rylance (in the flesh) playing Olivia in Twelfth Night. Hard to see what was going on under his dress. ;-)

Personally, I think the "nudie" situation is a *class* thing.

(Louise) BTW, Mark Rylance was the husband in A&I. (Karen)I caught that immediately, but you said it was the brother with the agitated appendage, right? Right. That was Doug Henshaw who got caught with his pants hanging on a chair. IMHO the exposure of the weenie in A&I was entirely appropriate in its context. It was the perfect exclamation point to a shockin moment. I didn't mean to imply that it was MR's (his love scenes were explicit, but not graphic), it just suggests to me that MR's film choices are worth a look if one is disposed towards such exposure:-D

(Evelyn) Personally, I think the "nudie" situation is a *class* thing. Meaning what? Upper-middle-lower class, or people who go nude have no class? ;-) Scarlett Johansson has just been chosen as the fragrance girl for Calvin Klein. She is the IT girl all right, now her face will be all over the place more than ever. Good for her.

(Louise) it just suggests to me that MR's film choices are worth a look if one is disposed towards such exposure:-D Unfortunately, he hasn't done many films, as theater (Shakespeare/Globe Theatre) is his main thing, but he does that brilliantly. His Olivia was a riot.

(Louise)I taped Intimacy and intend to research this on-going topic thoroughly. Well, what's the verdict...Sundance, tonight at 11 or Blockbuster?;-)

I don't think Blockbuster carries NR (not rated) films or NC-17. In some cases, Blockbuster has its own versions of movies that have been edited down to the R level. Too bad it's not on HBO or Showtime. :-(

(LindaK) Well, what's the verdict...Sundance, tonight at 11 or Blockbuster?;-) I just checked out the first 10min. and it showed a sex scene where MR pulls out a condom but it fast cuts to grappling around. Since the description on the webpage says it shows one actually being rolled on a penis, I suspect we have a no-go on the un-cut version. :(Karen)I don't think Blockbuster carries NR (not rated) films or NC-17. In some cases, Blockbuster has its own versions of movies that have been edited down to the R level. Too bad it's not on HBO or Showtime. :-( I take it that this a roundabout way of saying Sundance can't be relied on? I'm shocked. What's the point of the channel then? (Rhetorical question) I am now on a mission to see this, any other ideas?

Sorry to double-post, but I did notice a familiar face playing MR's (I suppose) wife - Susannah Harker, aka Jane Bennet Bingley

(Louise)any other ideas? Amazon has two versions--unrated and R. I don't know if the unrated is NC-17, but it does say not sold to anyone under 18. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000BWVD9/qid=1077128196/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8825126-3799129?v=glance&s=dvd

(lindak)Amazon has two versions--unrated and R. I don't know if the unrated is NC-17, but it does say not sold to anyone under 18. Thanks, it looks like that's the one. However I don't think I'm gonna plunk out onwards to 20 bucks to satisfy my prurient interest;) I have my principles, even if they are montetarily founded:-D

I checked Blockbuster online and there was a listing but no details, then I checked to see if they carried Requiem for a Dream, another nonrated movie, and it was there. Hollywood Video only carries the R version. What about that Netflix place? DVDs by mail?

I think they carry alternate versions. Haven't ordered any to be sure though. ;-) On a another note, this just struck me.....a BIG oops! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=599&e=1&u=/nm/20040220/media_nm/art_britain_raphael_dc

A good read... How Harry met Sally The movie that brought fake orgasms to the world's attention is getting the West End treatment. Writer Nora Ephron reveals that the two leads were inspired by her relationship with the film's depressed, womanising director Nora Ephron Friday February 20, 2004 The Guardian It began in October 1984, when I got a call from my agent saying that Rob Reiner and his producing partner Andrew Scheinman wanted to have lunch to discuss a project. So we had a lunch, and they told me about an idea they had for a movie about a lawyer. I've forgotten the details. The point is, it didn't interest me at all, and I couldn't imagine why they'd thought of me in connection with it. I remember being slightly perplexed about whether to say straight off that the idea didn't interest me, or whether to play along for an hour so as not to have that horrible awkwardness that can happen when the meeting is over but the lunch must go on. I decided on the former; and we then spent the rest of the lunch talking about ourselves. Well, that isn't entirely true: we spent the rest of the lunch talking about Rob and Andy. Rob was divorced and Andy was a bachelor - and they were both extremely funny and candid about their lives as single men in Los Angeles. When the lunch ended, we still didn't have an idea for a movie; but we decided to meet again the next time they were in New York. And so, a month later, we got together. And threw around more ideas, none of which I remember. But finally, Rob said wanted to make a movie about a man and a woman who become friends, as opposed to lovers. They make a deliberate decision not to have sex because sex ruins everything; and then they have sex and it ruins everything. And I said, let's do it. So we made a deal, and in February Andy and Rob came back to New York and we sat around for several days and they told me some things. Appalling things. They told me, for instance, that when they finished having sex, they wanted to get up out of bed and go home. (Which became: HARRY: "How long do I have to lie here and hold her before I can get up and go home? Is 30 seconds enough? ... How long do you like to be held afterwards? All night, right? ... Somewhere between 30 seconds and all night is your problem." SALLY: "I don't have a problem.") They told me about endless excuses they had concocted in order to make a middle-of-the-night getaway (SALLY: "You know, I am so glad I never got involved with you. I just would have ended up being a woman you had to get up out of bed and leave at three o'clock in the morning and go clean your andirons. And you don't even have a fireplace. Not that I would know this.") They also told me the reason they thought men and women couldn't be friends was that a man always wanted to sleep with a woman. Any woman. (HARRY: "No man can be friends with a woman he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her." SALLY: "So you're saying a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive." HARRY: "No. You pretty much want to nail them, too.") I said that these things were appalling, but the truth is that they weren't really a surprise; they were sort of my wildest nightmares of what men thought. Rob and Andy and I noodled for hours over the questions raised by friendship, sex, and life in general; and as we did, I realised that I had found a wonderful character in Rob Reiner. Rob is a very strange person. He is extremely funny, but he is also extremely depressed - or at least he was at the time; he talked constantly about it. "You know how women have a base of make-up," he said to me. "I have a base of depression. Sometimes I sink below it. Sometimes I rise above it." This line went right into the first draft of the movie, but somewhere along the line Rob cut it. A mistake, I think, but never mind. The point is that Rob was depressed; but he wasn't at all depressed about being depressed; in fact, he loved his depression. And so does Harry. Harry honestly believes that he is a better person than Sally because he has what Sally generously calls a dark side. "Suppose nothing happens to you," he says in the first sequence of the movie. "Suppose you live there [New York] your whole life and nothing happens. You never meet anyone, you never become anything, and finally you die one of those New York deaths where nobody notices for two weeks until the smell drifts out into the hallway." Harry is genuinely proud to have thought of that possibility and to lay it at the feet of this shallow young woman he is stuck in a car with for 18 hours. So I began with a Harry based on Rob. And because Harry was bleak and depressed, it followed absolutely that Sally would be cheerful and chirpy and relentlessly, pointlessly, unrealistically, idiotically optimistic. Which is, it turns out, very much like me. I'm not precisely chirpy, but I am the sort of person who is fine, I'm just fine, everything's fine. "I am over him," Sally says, when she isn't over him at all; I have uttered that line far too many times in my life, and far too many times I've made the mistake of believing it was true. Sally loves control - and I'm sorry to say that I do too. And inevitably, Sally's need to control her environment is connected to food. I say inevitably because food has always been something I write about - in part because it's the only thing I'm an expert on. But it wasn't my idea to use the way I order food as a character trait for Sally; well along in the process - third or fourth draft or so - Rob and Andy and I were ordering lunch for the fifth day in a row, and for the fifth day in a row my lunch order - for an avocado and bacon sandwich - consisted of an endless series of parenthetical remarks. I wanted the mayonnaise on the side, I wanted the bread toasted and slightly burnt. I wanted the bacon crisp. "I just like it the way I like it," I said, defensively, when the pattern was pointed out to me - and the line went into the script. But all that came much later. In the beginning, I was more or less alone - with a male character based somewhat on Rob, and a female character based somewhat on me. And a subject. Which was not, by the way, whether men and women could be friends. The movie instead was a way for me to write about being single - about the difficult, frustrating, awful, funny search for happiness in an American city where the primary emotion is unrequited love. This is from my notes, February 5, 1985, Rob speaking: "This is a talk piece. There are no chase scenes. No food fights. This is walks, apartments, phones, restaurants, movies." When Harry Met Sally started shooting in August 1988, almost four years after my first meeting with Rob and Andy. What had been called Just Friends and then Play Melancholy Baby went on to be called Boy Meets Girl; Words of Love; It Had to Be You; and Harry, This is Sally, to name just a few of the titles. Rob suggested that we try inserting some older couples talking about how they met. How They Met was another title we considered for at least a day. And gradually, the script began to change, from something that was mostly mine, to something else. Here is what I always say about screenwriting. When you write a script, it's like delivering a great big beautiful plain pizza, the one with only cheese and tomatoes. And then you give it to the director, and the director says: "I love this pizza. I am willing to commit to this pizza. But I really think this pizza should have mushrooms on it." And you say: "Mushrooms! Of course! I meant to put mushrooms on the pizza! Why didn't I think of that? Let's put some on immediately." And then someone else comes along and says: "I love this pizza too, but it really needs green peppers." "Great," you say. "Green peppers. Just the thing." And then someone else says: "'Anchovies." There's always a fight over the anchovies. And when you get done, what you have is a pizza with everything. Sometimes it's wonderful. And sometimes you look at it and you think, I knew we shouldn't have put the green peppers on it. Why didn't I say so at the time? Why didn't I lie down in traffic to prevent anyone putting green peppers on to he pizza? All this is a long way of saying that movies generally start out belonging to the writer and end up belonging to the director. As Rob and Andy and I worked on the movie, it changed: it became less quirky and much funnier; it became less mine and more theirs. And much as I would like to take full credit for what Sally says in the movie, the fact is that many of her best moments went into the script after the three of us began work on it together. "We told you about men," Rob and Andy said to me one day. "Now tell us about women." So I said: "Well, we could do something about sex fantasies."' And I wrote the scene about Sally's sex fantasy. "What else?"' they said. "Well," I said, "women send flowers to themselves in order to fool their boyfriends into thinking they have other suitors." And I wrote the scene about Marie sending flowers to herself. "What else?" Rob and Andy said. "Well," I said, "women fake orgasms." "Really?" they said. "Yes," I said. There was a long pause. I think I am correct in remembering the long pause. "All women?" they said. "Most women," I said. "At one time or another." A few days later, Rob called. He and Andy had written a sequence about faking orgasms and they wanted to insert it at the end of a scene. A few weeks later, we had our first actors' reading, and Meg Ryan suggested that Sally actually fake an orgasm in the delicatessen. We loved it. It went in the script. And then Billy Crystal, our Harry, provided the funniest of the dozens of funny lines he brought with him to the movie; he suggested that a woman customer turn to a waiter, when Sally's orgasm was over, and say: "I'll have what she's having." The line, by the way, was delivered in the movie by Estelle Reiner, Rob's mother. When a movie like When Harry Met Sally opens, people come to ask you questions about it. And for a few brief weeks, you become an expert. You give the impression that you knew what you were doing all along. You become an expert on the possibilities of love, on the differences between men and women. But the truth is that when you work on a movie, you don't sit around thinking: we're making a movie about the difference between men and women. You just do it. You say, this scene works for me, but this one doesn't. You say, this is good, but this could be funnier. And then they go off and shoot the movie and cut the movie and sometimes you get a movie that you're happy with. It's my experience that this happens very rarely. Once in a blue moon. Blue Moon was another title we considered for a minute or two. I mention it now so you will understand that even when you have a movie you're happy with, there's always something - in this case, the title - that you wish you could fix. But never mind. � When Harry Met Sally opens at the Theatre Royal Haymarket, London, tonight. Box office: 0870 901 3356. The screenplay of When Harry Met Sally by Norah Ephron will be published shortly by Bloomsbury books.

Just wanted to add (Sorry if I am wasting a post!) that I love Odds and Ends. It gives me a chance to share film things I find surfing around. It is great to have a place that is a true meeting of minds.

Moving this from topic 187 (Bee)Hey! I've been here a year! Thanks to each and every one of you who have made this a delightful year and to ODB not least of all for connecting me with all of you Happy Anniversary Bee, you've made it pretty delightful too:-)! On the topic of anniversaries...well, actually birthdays, I contacted Rika about renewing the birthday list (btw, she says hello to everyone and she'll be popping back in sometime soon:-)) as there are so many new drooleurs. If any of you would like to email me and give me your date of birth, I'll make sure it gets onto the new list. Oops..almost forgot, thanks for the segue Bee;-)!

Well, now. This is one way of looking at it February 17, 2004 After years of recurring Colin Firth, dreams, I finally had a different one last night. And you know what? It�s a lot more comfortable without the bustle. (I once had a real-life boyfriend who was into costume drama. It got old pretty fast. I called it quits once I realised that, if I didn�t dress up, he�d have trouble maintaining his art direction. But I digress.) When I am at the movies, I simply lust after Colin Firth. Which is easy, especially when he gets that confused little look between his eyebrows, and he looks just like � well, just like everybody else I�ve ever gone out with, actually. But when I am dreaming, I am ashamed to admit, I am in love with Colin Firth. And I don�t just mean I dream I am in love with him. I am in love with him. I can feel it. When I awake, I can even see it: a fine mist of dopamine and testosterone and norepinephrine suspended over the bedclothes - like a scene from A Midsummer Night�s Dream, played at an all-night chemist. In the latest version of the dream, Colin and I meet at the Fremantle Aquatic Centre. I spot him in front of the waterslide. We lock eyes, and I can feel something dragging me down, down, down. I knew I should have waxed! The pool is crowded with lesser mortals. But does this stop us from diving right in? It does not. As we head for the Leisure Lane, my resistance - to chlorine, to Colin, to anything - vanishes. I know with absolute conviction that I would follow him anywhere. Even to the stagnant end of the kiddie pool. (O, the madness! Oy, the germ count!) Is that the sound of my heart beating, I think to myself, or are the kids playing the soundtrack from Jaws again? The point of the dream, of course, is that it�s never safe to go back in the water. It�s important to be reminded of that every now and again - fun, too, as long as you are careful to stay unconscious. That�s probably one reason I�ve fallen so hard for Helen Fisher�s new book, Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. If you can�t sign up for stroke correction with Colin - and I got there first, remember? - Why We Love is probably the next best thing. (Having said that, I�ll confess that I haven�t actually read the whole book yet. Then again, I haven�t actually shagged Colin Firth yet, either. So what does that prove?) Fisher, an anthropologist based at Rutgers University�s Center for Human Evolutionary Studies in New Jersey, argues that love, like so much else in life worth having - from margarita mix to a McDonald�s milkshake - is a largely chemical cocktail. �With orgasm,� she explains, �levels of oxytocin go up in women and vasopressin in men�. (I love it when anthropologists talk dirty.) These �satisfaction hormones� give a sense of calm, peace and cosmic wellbeing - sort of like the Department of Homeland Security, but at a fraction of the cost. Ergo, if you have enough orgasms with somebody, you�re going to feel attached to them. (Mmmm. So this is why so many guys can�t get over themselves.) But mess with the delicate chemical balance, and you�ve got a prescription for disaster. Take �lifestyle antidepressants�, such as Prozac and Zoloft. (Everybody else seems to.) These SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, may not douse the flames of love. But they can sure throw cold water on the Bunsen burner of lust - and the two are more closely related than you might have dared imagine. The depressing thing about antidepressants, Fisher points out, is that they dampen the ability to have orgasms. Bottom line (and just a little to the left)? �If you�re not having an orgasm with omebody on a regular basis, you are not juicing your brain with attachment chemicals.� Couldn�t we just buy frozen concentrate and be done with it, one wonders? Apparently not, especially if we are female. Fresh-squeezed seminal fluid contains a veritable pharmacopoeia of feelgood chemicals, including dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, testosterone, oestrogen. Now, if only they could figure out how to add the chocolate. The biological link between love and sex, and between sex and attachment, is the good news in Why We Love. The bad news is that, if love is a drug, sooner or later most of us will end up in rehab. Extensive cross-cultural research suggests that pre-historic humans were hardwired (and chemically sharpened) for serial monogamy, with the average reproductive relationship lasting only till Pebbles or Bam Bam was ready for preschool. Even today, interestingly, divorce is most prevalent in the fourth year of marriage. (Of course, some of us are just precocious.) Personally, I�m sceptical that science will ever get to the bottom of it all. As Pascal reminds us, the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing. And that goes double for a few other organs I could mention. Now, where did I put my flippers? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8702776^17063,00.html

(Mary)...I love Odds and Ends. It gives me a chance to share film things I find surfing around. It is great to have a place that is a true meeting of minds. (Linda's article)I know with absolute conviction that I would follow him anywhere. Even to the stagnant end of the kiddie pool. (O, the madness! Oy, the germ count!) Is that the sound of my heart beating, I think to myself, or are the kids playing the soundtrack from Jaws again? .....ROTFLMAO! I love Odds & Ends too! It serves up such a wonderfully eclectic array of tidbits! Love the tidbit

SALLY: "So you're saying a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive." HARRY: "No. You pretty much want to nail them, too.") I said that these things were appalling, but the truth is that they weren't really a surprise; they were sort of my wildest nightmares of what men thought. Kind of like the toothbrush bit in The Dreamers! Betcha anything Bertolucci (or whoever wrote the screenplay) heard of that happening. Not that it wasn't a totally EOWWW! moment for all the women in the audience, I didn't exactly detect any men cringing, but laughing. Men will use anything as a toilet because they're able, considerably harder for a woman. But I digress... ;-) Thanks, Murph, for the article and all the other "wonderfully eclectic tidbits." Back to The Dreamers... I am eagerly awaiting Moonerella's take on the film. From my standpoint, it was an interesting look at the era. The sex/nudity was no big deal, but did anyone else notice that the guy who played Theo's full frontals were all from a distance. With the exception of the one tight shot of Matthew's "photo album" (which could've been a body double), the male nudity was far more circumspect than the woman's. Bet if I clocked it, there was more (timewise and skinwise) for the woman. Being nowhere near a cinephile as those in the movie, I did enjoy the intercutting of famous films; it was so much a part of their lives. I saw an Irish film in which the characters enacted that same scene from Godard's Breathless. It was called "When Brendan Met Trudy." (LOL at coincidence!) But I really didn't understand the parents and how they would just leave? Granted they may have been somewhat Bohemian, given the times, but still, it seemed rather bizarre to me.

Where's the mention of you dancing on the tables at this party, Dorine? BAFTA BONANZA: The British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) East Coast held its fourth-annual British Academy Awards party on Sunday at the Hudson Theatre at the Millennium Broadway Hotel. More than 300 guests (including actor Matthew Modine and novelist Tama Janowitz) dined on a buffet lunch, sipped champagne and wine, and settled into their tables to watch the live telecast of the BAFTAs on BBC America. Actor Alec Baldwin was a surprise special guest at the New York event. As he took the podium to announce door prize winners, he joked, "I'd like to thank the British Academy for selecting me as your raffle drawer. It is a particular honor." (He wasn't nominated for a BAFTA award, but he's garnering more and more steam for his Oscar nod.) Baldwin then joked that prizes included a "12-month supply of haggis and stilton shortbreads." Highlights from the actual ceremony, over in London, were host Stephen Fry threatening that his "breasts may fall out" if acceptance speeches went on too long; Bill Ni hy winning for his portrayal of an aging rocker in "Love Actually," and Sofia Coppola reading a hilarious acceptance speech for best actor winner Bill Murray. The BAFTAs aren't always a good predictor for the Oscars -- as in the case of underdog original screenplay winner Tom McCarthy for "The Station Agent," snubbed by the Oscars -- but film of the year honors went to "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." In a surprise move, the BAFTA award for best director went to that other Peter -- Weir -- for "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World." http://www.indiewire.com/biz/biz_040220buzz.html

LOL! I knew the right people to pay off. ;-) Second year in a row that director win was a big suprise.

(Karen)I did enjoy the intercutting of famous films; it was so much a part of their lives. I saw an Irish film in which the characters enacted that same scene from Godard's Breathless. It was called "When Brendan Met Trudy." (LOL at coincidence!) I agree . .the intercutting was facinating . .liked the bit where the kids were running through the museum (was it the Louvre?) Which part was the Irish film shown in? (As an aside, I had a realization while watching one of the intercutting segments. .the one where Isabelle was dancing around w/ the mop (the clips shown from the Marlene Deitrich film (Blonde Venus) . .Joel Schumacher had copied that same scene when he did Batman & Robin . .down to Uma Thurman in the gorilla suit.) (Karen)But I really didn't understand the parents and how they would just leave? Granted they may have been somewhat Bohemian, given the times, but still, it seemed rather bizarre to me. I think it was something they've done before . .I thought I recalled the father, when giving the kids the check or mentioning the money they were leaving, said something like :"Don't spead it too quickly again . ." or something like that. The father was a poet/writer, correct and they left b/c it was a book tour of some sorts. Perhaps every time he had these tours, they just left the kids . . It's been awhile since I saw the film. How long were the parents gone again? A month?

Question: Did "The Machinist"get a distributor at Sundance?

Not to my knowledge. I believe I mentioned I thought that out of the two, Trauma was the more commercially viable film. I see The Machinist as a festival film then to DVD (if it gets as far as a DVD release).

Thanks Mary and Linda for the articles. Thoroughly enjoyed them both.

"Intimacy" is available at Netflix in the "raw" version. I have an "Economy" subscription, and I really enjoy it.

(Kim) Perhaps every time he had these tours, they just left the kids I meant after they've returned and see what had gone on...the living room tent. liked the bit where the kids were running through the museum (was it the Louvre?) The Louvre got a credit at the end. Which part was the Irish film shown in? You mean, which scene from Breathless? This one: There were all sorts of reenactments - from Sunset Blvd and others. (Katty) "Intimacy" is available at Netflix in the "raw" version. I have an "Economy" subscription, and I really enjoy it. Yeah, I had suggested that before, didn't I? Anyway, I'm glad that you too found it enjoyable. The character portraits are fascinating and the acting is so good. A really desperate group of characters, but... Did you realize that was Marianne Faithful?

(Karen) Did you realize that was Marianne Faithful? I did, right off. But, I did just *barely* recognize Susannah Harker (Jane, P&P).

Yeah, I had suggested that before, didn't I? Anyway, I'm glad that you too found it enjoyable. Sorry, I meant I enjoy my subscription, not the movie, which I haven't seen. But all this talk has piqued my interest and I have it on order. The lead guy who was in Angels and Insects sure doesn't seem like the prime candidate for that kind of role - he was pretty wimpy in A&I - but maybe that was just good acting. That Colin Firth dream article in The Australian was hilarious. The writer has great wit as well as great taste.

(Katty) he was pretty wimpy in A&I - but maybe that was just good acting. Mark Rylance is the artistic director of the Globe Theatre in London. He's RADA and RSC and won Oliviers. Nevertheless, it still may not be your cup of tea, but the cast (Rylance, Timothy Spall and Kerry Fox) made it a cut way above the other films which had pushed the sexual content envelope at that time. I felt more assured that it wasn't being done for titillation or other mercenary purposes, plus the story was written by the guy who did My Beautiful Launderette. This was a serious film with explicit sex and serious actors and therefore more worth my time to see than the others. I suggest people read the reviews (of serious critics) before attempting to rent it.

Here is the Rotten Tomatoes page of reviews for Intimacy: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Intimacy-1110561/

Thanks, Karen, for your take on Intimacy. It sounds like a film worth seeing for much more than its sensational aspect. Mark Rylance is probably unrecognizable in Intimacy if all I know of him is the character in A&I, and that is ultimately the goal of a great actor - to disappear into his roles.

Kim) Perhaps every time he had these tours, they just left the kids (Karen)I meant after they've returned and see what had gone on...the living room tent. Ahh . .yes THAT part! . .Maybe the shock of it all made the parents leave . .. .though something in me had a feeling those kids have gotten into sticky situations before . . . maybe that check was more of a payoff for Matthew to leave and forget it happened . . .?:)

Hello ladies, I'm back! Sorry to cut in but why is everyone discussing such an old movie? I remember seeing it because of Marianne Faithful. If you want to see her in an earlier film by one of my favourite film directors, Nicholas Roeg, check out the film with Mick Jaegger when she was his girlfriend and very beautiful, "Interview".

(Moon) Sorry to cut in but why is everyone discussing such an old movie? Esp. when Spring has a Movie Topic;-q http://www.spring.net/yapp-bin/restricted/browse/movies/all

(Moon) why is everyone discussing such an old movie? Intimacy? Yes, it's ancient!....a whole 3 yrs old. ;-) Welcome back, Moon!! Missed ya, and sorry you missed ODB. :-/

Johnny Depp...SAG award! Who saw *that* coming?! Sean Penn's probably cursing CE and all the people who made him go to that shindig.

Anyone want to dish on the Sex & The City finale? All I can say is . . . thank God for caller ID!;-) (Dorine)Intimacy? Yes, it's ancient!....a whole 3 yrs old. ;-) LOL, didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on film discussions. Moon, if you really want to know why, you need to look back further to see how the topic first came up. Johnny Depp...SAG award! Who saw *that* coming?! Not me, was shocked. I liked Tim Robbins's speech; I noticed he has the same publicist as Colin. Was that the same dress RZ wore to BAFTA? Can't imagine she'd repeat, but was certainly very similar. Glad she took my advice and wore diamonds with it this time.;-) Think she can be persuaded to share John Carrabino with someone we all know and love who could use some sage career advice?;-)

(Mari) I liked Tim Robbins's speech; I noticed he has the same publicist as Colin. I liked the speech,too, but tacky how they kept moving the spot off him to get him to stop. Good for him to keep talking. I'm pretty generally aware of the issues he and Sean Astin were talking about. And how about John Rhys-Davies shoving SA over to get him to stop. If I were Sean, that guy would be gettin' a piece of my mind backstage. ;-) One thing that impressed me at a LOTR Q&A and on the show tonight, is how articulate and obviously intelligent Sean Astin is. It's more pronounced when you hear the Hobbits all together. I didn't totally listen to all the people Tim Robbins mentioned. Was that the same dress RZ wore to BAFTA? Can't imagine she'd repeat, but was certainly very similar. *Thank* yoU! That was my *first* thought when I saw her, but just figured I'd mixed her up with someone else. I loved that necklace. See the guy behind Peter Krause when 6 Ft Under won? Chewing his gum like a cow. :-( Was flipping back and forth on SATC, so missed a few tidbits here and there that I'll catch tomorrow night. Glad to see her with Big. I think most people wanted it that way. They just finished editing it the middle of last week...think they were reading around the internet to see what people wanted and went with that. I think it would've been the wrong way to go if Carrie hadn't ended up in a (hopefully) decent relationship like the others. She's had too many dysfunctional ones. I think it would've shown a lack of growth, esp after Big showed growth by apologizing and finally owning up to his feelings. Granted she was in a relationship already, but they were in 2 totally different places, like she and Big were until he got his emotional act together. Think I'm rambling... Good job by Anne Meara...tagged her for a stroke immediately. She gave some good, subtle physical clues, beside the obvious cognitive issues.

Hmmm, took me longer to catch up with the night's offerings than all you guys. Had to submit the TV schedule to the Supercomputer Lab in Champaign to work out what I'd watch from when to when, what I'd tape, when I had time to go the bathroom... ;-) (Moon) Sorry to cut in but why is everyone discussing such an old movie? (Evelyn) Esp. when Spring has a Movie Topic;-q That's where you discuss children's movies. ;-) (Dorine) Johnny Depp...SAG award! Who saw *that* coming?! Ya gotta know that I surely didn't. Pathetic, truly pathetic. (Mari) All I can say is . . . thank God for caller ID!;-) I knew it! I knew it! OK, not how but what they were going to reveal. The retrospective gave it away. The writer mentioned that Carrie didn't know him; didn't know his name. I almost called Ev when the show was over to tell her. The finale was absofuckinglutely great. Didn't let me down at all. (Mari) Was that the same dress RZ wore to BAFTA? My first thought too. (Dorine) See the guy behind Peter Krause when 6 Ft Under won? Chewing his gum like a cow. :-( Yessssss!! Betcha his mother called him right after the show to *chew* him out. What an idiot. (Dorine) Good job by Anne Meara...tagged her for a stroke immediately. She gave some good, subtle physical clues, beside the obvious cognitive issues. I thought so too. It was well done. More in the a.m.

And, Moon, context is rather important. ;-)

Re SATC -- I am happy with the way everything wound up. The Big thing was expected (So his name is John!), but since Miranda and Sam are my favorites, I loved their final moments - Miranda washing Ann Meara was so on target and so full of love and caring (I have done that with my mother in law myself in years past.) And Smith coming home to Sam - what they said to one another? Just grand. Loved that Sam's final words were a very satisfied scream of delight. I was surprisingly sad at the final moment. I came to the show late, but it got to me. Two weeks --- Tony is baaacck! Anyone else like "Curb Your Enthusiasm?" Larry David is such a klutz, and so hilarious.

(Dorine), Johnny Depp...SAG award! Who saw *that* coming?! Sean Penn's probably cursing CE and all the people who made him go to that shindig. LOL! Totally! I doubt he'll be at the Oscars. I guess for SAG members, more is more. And in that sense, I'm happy about LOTR. And for once, I thought all the ladies looked very nice. (Dorine),And how about John Rhys-Davies shoving SA over to get him to stop. I'm glad he did. Sean should write an article on V or THR about it. Tim had said it very well already. (Mari), didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on film discussions. Moon, if you really want to know why, you need to look back further to see how the topic first came up. I know that! I just wanted to re-enter with a bang. ;-) (Evelyn) Esp. when Spring has a Movie Topic;-q (Karen), That's where you discuss children's movies. ;-) You've got that right. ;-)

Are we up for a discussion of The Passion of Christ? Or would it be too devisive? Early reviews from Time, Newsweek and The Hollywood Reporter are in. (Finally! I am sick to death of the pre-publicity surrounding this film) I have excerpted some of what the reviewers had to say and added my own comments. Will not post until I hear what our leader wants.

(Karen) absofuckinglutely *Loved* when he said that, was ROTF. Just struck me funny. (Murph) Two weeks --- Tony is baaacck! Looks great, too! Anyone else like "Curb Your Enthusiasm?" Larry David is such a klutz, and so hilarious. I can't take him on a weekly basis. I've found it uneven, but have enjoyed it. So his name is John! How cute, it rhymes with the real Big's name...Ron. Are we up for a discussion of The Passion of Christ? Or would it be too devisive? Might get relegated to a closet. ;-) 'I won't comment til I've seen it and I'm not going til the hubbub goes down. Who's going to be able to get near a theater unless you belong to a church group. They're buying up all the tix. (Moon) I thought all the ladies looked very nice. For the most part, me too.

(Karen) absofuckinglutely (Dorine) *Loved* when he said that, was ROTF. Just struck me funny. Another thing given away from the Retrospective show, emphasizing the ending of the pilot episode. Alexandr's ex-wife was Carole Bouquet. Remember her? "For your eyes only..." Would Anne Meara's character have "good days"? I didn't think so with a stroke. SAG favs: definitely Charlize (hair too!) and Naomi and I liked Laura Linney's too. Lots of purple of various shades. Do you think the ladies of SATC planned theirs out. Kristen and Kim's even looked like the same fabric. Cynthia's might have been to blend, as she couldnt' have worn that color with her hair. Re: Discussion of TPOTC I don't care, though everything surrounding its notoreity annoys me.

(Dorine) Johnny Depp...SAG award! Who saw *that* coming?! (Karen)Ya gotta know that I surely didn't. Pathetic, truly pathetic. Why pathetic? I approved. The winners last night, Johnny Depp, Charlize Theron, Renee Z. all went outside the box and excelled in pattern-breaking roles.No cookie-cutters for them. I didn't really like Pirates of the Carribean, but JD was superb. Beats me why Jack Nicholson keeps getting awards for the same ole. (Karen)The finale was absofuckinglutely great. Agree. I laughed, I cried. (Told you Charlotte and Harry would adopt a bi-racial baby...adorable. )Will watch this one again . (Murph) Are we up for a discussion of The Passion of Christ? It's a movie, isn't it? I won't comment til I see it. Evelyn) Esp. when Spring has a Movie Topic;-q (Karen), That's where you discuss children's movies. ;-) (Moon)You've got that right. ;-) We-el, You wouldn't let me discuss Titanic, seven years ago;-/ Loved RZ gown and ...hair;-) liked the speech,too, but tacky how they kept moving the spot off him to get him to stop. Good for him to keep talking. I'm pretty generally aware of the issues he and Sean Astin were talking about. Of course, everyone is aware of the issues. But I look at award shows to know the winners and hear them thank their grandmothers;-) Not *issues* or *tenets of Scientology*. Right on who ever said that stuff belongs in the trades. Paid for. Not on the cheap.

From today's Guardian: A bigger slice of the action This Sunday could see the first woman director to win an Oscar. Why has it taken so long? Natasha Walter talks to leading female film-makers about the battles they face Sofia Coppola's Oscar nomination for best director this year for her second film, Lost in Translation, has been taken as something as a breakthrough for women. This weekend we shall find out whether she is the first woman ever to win. But how can it be that this is only the third time that a woman has even been up for this award - 30 years since Lina Wertmuller was nominated for Seven Beauties and more than 10 years since Jane Campion was nominated for The Piano? What is stopping women making the sort of films that take the highest honours? Women directors at the peak of their careers say that of course women in film have faced all the barriers that women in every sphere have faced - from encounters with outright sexism to the struggle to balance work and family life - but that the industry is now changing. Gurinder Chadha achieved a mainstream hit two years ago with Bend It Like Beckham, and is now about to release Bride and Prejudice, a Bollywood take on Jane Austen. It took her a long time to break through; after she directed her first film, she didn't direct another feature for six years. "I did meet resentment when I started out," she says, "but look, this is a hard industry for everyone. And I feel that the attitudes of an older generation have changed." Beeban Kidron, who has just finished filming the second Bridget Jones film, has also felt barriers come down. "When I started it was so unusual for a woman to be directing," she says. "On my very first film I fired the assistant director after he called me 'the little lady'. But now I feel I have respect for what I have achieved. The only thing that I'm upset about is that I'd like to make a Bond film - and I know I'd do a good job - but that's always pooh-poohed." Indeed, even if women don't face blatant sexism any more, they often say that they are still being ever so gently funnelled into making certain kinds of film. Women directors tend to complain about this more in the US, where the big money goes into the films that glimmer with gore and shimmer with special effects - the sort the boys make. Even if they aren't itching to create those gut-wrenching spectacles, many women say that they are trusted less to handle budgets that men would take for granted. Catherine Hardwicke, who was an experienced production designer before she broke into directing with her heartfelt film about teenage life, Thirteen, was struck by how hard she found it to get her first film financed. "It's harder, it is definitely harder," she told an online film magazine. "The other screenplays that I've written before this, you know, I had them really planned out ... [but] people would just say, 'You're never going to make that as your first movie. A $5m movie, you're never going to direct that!' And I'm thinking to myself - argh! How many first-time directors have I worked with, and they had way bigger budgets than $5m, and they're all guys? I do think it makes a real difference." Other women echo Hardwicke's sense of frustration. Scottish director Alison Peebles, whose first feature film, Afterlife, was released last year, says she can already sense the same thing happening around her. "If I come up with a proposal for a film that involves more of a budget - maybe a period feature or something with higher production values - they might well say, 'Well, you haven't got the experience.' But I don't see that stopping them giving it to a man who doesn't have the experience either." If women are being pushed into making smaller-scale, more intimate films, they are showing that they can succeed within those limits. At this year's Oscars we can measure the growing success of women directors in a way other than Coppola's nomination - and that's in the performances that women directors are generating. In 2002 only 7% of US films bore the stamp of a woman director, but this year's Oscars show that they are yielding the majority of nominations for best actress. [Ed note: Durr! And that's because only women directors will give good, meaty roles to women. Not going to find any worthy of a Best Actress nom in a male-oriented blockbuster f/x type.] And these are performances you can't forget. Nancy Meyers has drawn the performance of her career from Diane Keaton in Something's Gotta Give, getting her to drop her actressy, brittle gestures for something more lively and vulnerable. Niki Caro got the 13-year-old Keisha Castle-Hughes not so much to act her heart out in Whale Rider, as to live, apparently unconscious and unfettered, in front of the camera. And then there is the favourite for the award, the transformation of Charlize Theron from glossy starlet to compelling antihero in Patty Jenkins' film about a lesbian serial killer, Monster. Hardwicke, whose film yielded a best supporting actress nomination for Holly Hunter, recently said: "So many movies directed by men last year are laden with special effects. Movies by women are about feelings, relationships and character." She says actors can recognise the difference between the way she directs and the techniques of her male peers. "These actors tell me, 'Male directors don't let us go there; we want to go there.'" This place that women directors are keen to take their characters is not necessarily somewhere conventionally feminine. Although Coppola was keen to focus on the feminine beauty and sweetness of her actress, Scarlett Johansson - for which Johansson won best actress at the Baftas aswell as an Oscar nomination - other women directors are playing around with the usual view of women on screen. Patty Jenkins was particularly set on breaking what she saw as traditional constraints on an actress when she started work on Monster. "We pushed it as far as we could go," she says. "We didn't want the sort of performance where a beautiful actress is meant to be playing an alcoholic but everything about her suggests that she isn't; you don't see the physicality of it." More unusual than Theron's bad teeth and heavy flesh, though, is her violent fury, which is neither glamorised nor excused. "Men around the film got quite nervous. They said we couldn't give audiences such an unsympathetic female character, that we needed to show her in a more sympathetic light. But I said no - you wouldn't say that to Martin Sheen. We can't shy away from this, she killed people." All the women directors I have spoken to talk about their fascination with trying to get the sharpness and complexity of human emotion on to the screen. Peebles was an actor herself before she moved into directing, and says, "I think I am more simpatico with the actors than some directors." Shona Auerbach is another director on the brink of mainstream success. Dear Frankie, a quiet and moving first film, has been bought for distribution by Miramax; it centres on the relationship between a single mother and her son. "I am very attracted to films in which human relationships and emotions take centre stage," she says. But like many of the other directors, she was wary of saying she felt that had anything to do with being a woman. "Sure, I've been inspired by Jane Campion, but also by Kieslowski." The challenge for the future is not just that women should be allowed to make more films, but that they should be able to make any kind of film. Indeed, what women screenwriters and directors keep saying is that they don't want to be boxed in by anyone's expectations of what they should be doing. With women from Lynne Ramsay to Gurinder Chadha and Sofia Coppola to Beeban Kidron gaining international attention, it feels as though we are only now seeing the start of a new generation of female film-makers who can work confidently across a range of styles. This isn't happening only in the English language market; the Iranian director Samira Makhmalbaf is just 24 and has already won two jury prizes at Cannes, for Blackboards and At Five in the Afternoon, both of which have political as well as personal themes. Patty Jenkins sees the future struggle in this light. "More than just getting work for women directors, I feel that the battle line that is most difficult right now is trying to make universal stories if you are a woman. It's not about being a woman director and so feeling that you must make women's films - or, indeed, going into action films as a reaction to that. I want to make universal films with universal, powerful heroes." Looking at it like that, it seems almost a pity that the Academy has chosen to nominate Coppola and her pretty-pretty vision of a girl in pink knickers falling for a witty older man, rather than some of the more striking visions that women directors are giving us. If only Coppola was on the list this year next to Makhmalbaf, Hardwicke and Jenkins, then the true range of women's achievements would be getting more honest recognition. That time will surely come. http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1153995,00.html

But they didn't even mention Dennie Gordon;-) One would think that with so many women now CEO's of the big studios, they would lend a hand to a female. If you watch the credits, there are lots of women directors on TV.

(Murph)Miranda washing Ann Meara was so on target and so full of love and caring That was so well done, as was the entire episode. I said from the start that the Russion was a nogoodnik.;-) Him and his anxiety attack. What a baby. Everything was always about him. How sad was it when she went to the restaurant and saw that her "fanclub" had departed, and even left her book behind. Anyone else like "Curb Your Enthusiasm?" I do! Hilarious. "It's a mullatto doll." He's such an ass, but he has me in tears of laughter every week. Last week's was particularly funny, when he picked up that hooker as a way to use the carpool lane going to Dodger Stadium! I have excerpted some of what the reviewers had to say and added my own comments I'd love to read it. Other than Ebert & Roeper (who gave it raves), I haven't read any of the reviews.

(Evelyn) One would think that with so many women now CEO's of the big studios, they would lend a hand to a female. No, they're playing in a "man's" world and those women are the "new men." In order to succeed in business, women have had to become men, a truly sad commentary on the what the feminist movement has produced. Besides, being head of a studio is business and money is the bottom line.

From the AP: Carrie returns to Mr. Big on final 'Sex and the City' NEW YORK -- Torn between two lovers, Carrie Bradshaw returned to Mr. Big and New York, ditching Aleksandr in Paris, on Sunday's finale of "Sex and the City." Her big decision settled a question this HBO comedy had been building toward for six seasons: What man, if any, would Carrie end up with? The satisfying answer: Carrie (series star Sarah Jessica Parker) chose the on-again/off-again businessman beau (Chris Noth) with whom she first struck sparks on the series' premiere. But first, she had to confront her mistake in leaving her world behind to move to Paris with Aleksandr, the self-involved, neglectful artist played by Mikhail Baryshnikov. "I am someone who's looking for love, real love ... can't-live-without-each-other love -- and I don't think that love is here," Carrie tells him. Moments later, Big, who has come to his senses and raced across the ocean to bring her home, finds her, alone, in her hotel lobby. "It took me a really long time to get here," he says. "But I'm here. Carrie, you're the one." After nearly 100 romantic and often raunchy installments, "Sex" closed the book with a top-secret, much-hyped conclusion that made good on its promise to resolve the love life of New York sex columnist Carrie. Meanwhile, it nicely tied up some details concerning her three gal pals: -- Miranda, the hard-nosed realist played by Cynthia Nixon, remained a happy mother and the wife of bartender Steve, living in Brooklyn (where she opened her heart to Steve's ailing mother, inviting her to come live with them). -- Charlotte, the idealist (Kristin Davis) and her husband, Harry (formerly her divorce lawyer) got their wish, at last: they'll be adopting a baby girl from China. -- And hot-blooded Samantha (Kim Cattrall) was solid with her boy-toy hunk, Smith, despite the loss of her sex drive from treatment for breast cancer. In a tender moment, he declares his love for her. "You've meant more to me than any man I've ever known," a tearful Samantha replies. Voila! A few scenes later, she's her lusty self, nude in the sack astride Smith. Her final line is a howl of pleasure. Back in New York, Carrie surprises her friends at the coffee shop where they've exchanged so many confidences with one another (and viewers) through the years. Then, as a special treat at the fadeout, the man Carrie dubbed "Mr. Big" so long ago phones her and, for the first time, viewers learn his real name, displayed on the caller ID: John. "The most exciting, challenging and significant relationship of all is the one you have with yourself," says Carrie in her role as narrator. "And if you find someone to love the you you love," she concludes, "well, that's just fabulous." The Manhattan-set series, which premiered in June 1998, became a cultural phenomenon, defining a new breed of modern woman who wasn't afraid to talk about men -- and her desire for them -- with raw honesty even as she placed top priority on friendships with other women. But as the announced end neared, accompanied by a flood of eulogies, a contradictory message was gaining volume: Maybe this won't be the sure-nuff end of "Sex," after all. The series' top executive, Michael Patrick King, and the show's cast are in discussions with HBO about a movie that would continue the saga, HBO spokeswoman Tobe Becker confirmed Thursday. The details remained in doubt. Indeed, in addressing the question two weeks ago, co-producer Parker unleashed a flood of conditionals befitting a politician on the stump. "I haven't made any decisions about how we might revisit this show and in what medium," she said, listing several unrelated projects that might occupy her for the immediate future. "It's very important to me that we are dignified and graceful in our exit from the (current) series," Parker declared. "After that, if we hear a cry from the public, I think we have to respond to that, if we can do right by them."

(Karen) Would Anne Meara's character have "good days"? I didn't think so with a stroke. Certainly. Depends on many factors....where and how significant the damage is, fatigue level, and current medications among others. Just like those with early to mid-stage Alzheimer's. Dementia, no matter the etiology, can be a wildly fluctuating condition. Makes consistent progress in rehab rather challenging for both the patient and the therapist. Another thing given away from the Retrospective show, emphasizing the ending of the pilot episode. Glad I didn 't watch it if they were giving so many clues. Liked discovering it for myself. Dorine) Johnny Depp...SAG award! Who saw *that* coming?! (Karen)Ya gotta know that I surely didn't. Pathetic, truly pathetic. (Evelyn) Why pathetic? I approved. I didn't disapprove per se, loved him in it, but was just floored that he won. I was rooting for and believe Bill Murray is the best out of that group. Bet anything, the Oscars will be back to a horse race between Bill M and SP. We don't know the percentage of SAG members that voted for JD and there's a significant amount of Oscar voters who aren't SAG members. Curious the percentage of voters who already have their ballots back vs ones who will wait til the last minute on Tues, who may be influenced in the least by the SAG awards. (Evelyn) Of course, everyone is aware of the issues. But I look at award shows to know the winners and hear them thank their grandmothers;-) Not *issues* or *tenets of Scientology*. I say get your message out to your target audience while opportunity is knocking....a captive audience. Can't beat them when they're free and the world's press is there. Though squandering your time and rambling about it is another thing. Thank your grandmother, make your point and leave. ;-)

(Dorine) Just like those with early to mid-stage Alzheimer's. Dementia, no matter the etiology, can be a wildly fluctuating condition. I know more than I ever wanted to know about AD, but thought once a stroke affects certain areas of the brain, that was it. They're gone. Certain motor skills can be relearned, but brain damage is brain damage. Hmmm, fast-forwarded through the LOTR acceptance speech. Wasn't in the least interested. Guess, I'm going to have to check out SA and what went on. Even though the Best Ensemble award is SAG's equivalent for Best Picture, I find it completely hypocritically for the LOTR's cast to have won when so little of the movie has ever been dependent on actors or acting. Note the dearth of acting noms for any of the three films. IMO, the SAG members sold out their profession with that award, as well as the one for JD.

(Karen) Certain motor skills can be relearned, but brain damage is brain damage One of the wonderful qualities of the brain is it's plasticity. Nerve pathways can regenerate to a degree as well as reroute themselves. Otherwise no stroke or traumatic brain injury sufferers would have much or any recovery, such as Robert Lawrence (Tumbledown) for instance. ;-) Now how much recovery there is after a stroke depends again on many factors...amount and quality of rehab, amount of effort/motivation by patients themselves, the location, severity, and type of event, etc. SAG members sold out their profession with that award, as well as the one for JD. I know you didn't like POTC. I did despite it being too long (as was all of the LOTR films), but IMO, JD saved that movie. I absolutely would have thought it crap if he wasn't in it. Same can be said for Once Upon a Time in Mexico with he and Antonio Banderas. I think both movies were raised above being just mediocre or downright awful because of him. I find that to be a gift.

Kirk Honicutt in the Hollywood Reporter - In early scenes and the flashback, Caviezel has the look and gravity to portray the warm and compassionate rabbi that Jesus was. But we get only these snippets of his humanity. (One bizarre flashback focuses solely on his former occupation, that of a carpenter.) More troubling is Gibson's decision to make Jesus into a victim of political intrigue, thus denying him his martyrdom. Why do so many disciples follow this man? What does his promise of eternal life mean in the context of these events? Gibson's intense concentration on the scourging and whipping of the physical body virtually denies any metaphysical significance to the most famous half-day in history. http://hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000441264 ************************** David Ansen - Newsweek: This peculiar, deeply personal expression of the filmmaker's faith is a far cry from the sentimental, pious depictions of Christ that popular culture has often served up. Relentlessly savage, "The Passion" plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade. The film that has been getting rapturous advance raves from evangelical Christians turns out to be an R-rated inspirational movie no child can, or should, see. To these secular eyes at least, Gibson's movie is more likely to inspire nightmares than devotion. It's the sadism, not the alleged anti-Semitism, that is most striking. (For the record, I don't think Gibson is anti-Semitic; but those inclined toward bigotry could easily find fuel for their fire here.) There's always been a pronounced streak of sadomasochism and martyrdom running through Gibson's movies, both as an actor and as a filmmaker. The Oscar-winning "Braveheart" reveled in decapitations and disembowelments, not to mention the spectacle of Gibson himself, as the Scottish warrior hero, impaled on a cross. In "Mad Max," the "Lethal Weapon" movies, "Ransom" and "Signs" (where he's a cleric who's lost his faith), the Gibson hero is pummeled and persecuted, driven to suicidal extremes. From these pop passion plays to the Passion itself is a logical progression; it gives rise to the suspicion that on some unconscious level "The Passion of the Christ" is, for Gibson, autobiography... It's fascinating that the most understated sequence is the Resurrection itself. Rendered in obliquely crisp cinematic shorthand, it brings the movie to an anomalously muted conclusion. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4338528/ ********************************** David Van Beima in Time: "With due respect for his desire that Christ's sacrifice be understood by all and for the gratitude among Christians that a Hollywood deity has finally made an accomplished and utterly unironical Christian film, one can only hope that he has it wrong. The Christian story includes joy, astonishment, prophecy, righteous wrath, mystery and love straightforward as well as love sacrificial. The Passion of the Christ is a one-note threnody about the Son of God being dragged to his death. That may be just the ticket for some times and for some benighted places where understanding human torment in terms of God's love is the only religious insight of any use. But in a culture as rich, as powerful, as lucky and as open-minded as ours � one might even say, as blessed � it is, or should be, a very bad fit indeed. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040301-593591,00.html ********************** These reviewers state my main criticism of the film, (based, I admit, on articles and reviews and more publicity than we need. I haven't seen the film), said better than I could say it. The moments that counted and still count in Holy Week happened not during the horror-filled hours of the crucifixion but on Easter Sunday with Christ's rising from the dead. Redemption, for those who believe, happened then, the joy of knowing that there is life after death. If you are going to graphically show the death of Jesus, then you must make all that suffering lead to his resurrection - the main event - the true heart of why this God/man chose his manner of death. - Murph, a Catholic who is very happy with the English Mass and Vatican II.

(Karen) Certain motor skills can be relearned, but brain damage is brain damage (Dorine) One of the wonderful qualities of the brain is it's plasticity. Nerve pathways can regenerate to a degree as well as reroute themselves. And the same can apply to some degree to SCI (Spinal Cord Injury) sufferers,as well, at least when the spinal cord is only bruised or has an incomplete cut vs. a complete cut. Sorry for the medical lesson. ;-) Neuro rehab was my specialty and favorite area of interest. Did Orthopedics, too, but not as inherently interesting (no offense to those with hip and knee replacements ;-)).

Voila! A few scenes later, she's her lusty self, nude in the sack astride Smith. Her final line is a howl of pleasure Did you love the way the accompanying "flowers[spring] not yet blooming" that Smith sent started to bloomonce blossom at a time... til the last howl when there were flowers all over the place. Nice touch. Clever writing, directing. Just heard on the news that the commercial networks want to run the series...with lots of cutting and cleaning. Won't be the same. I say get your message out to your target audience while opportunity is knocking....a captive audience. What captive audience? I'm not a union member, and what's more, I don't care. Sometimes that type of "in-your-face" behavior serves the opposite effect. Networks hate it because, in all fairness, the opposition requests equal time.

(Mari) I said from the start that the Russion was a nogoodnik.;-) Him and his anxiety attack. What a baby. Everything was always about him. (a) you have to wonder why Carrie stayed so long at the museum; I'd have cut out and gone to my party when I realized I'd been abandoned. (b) remember the ex-wife's comment and surprise that Carrie had her own fame and that Alexandr was fine with it? Made me wonder whether there would've been an anxiety attack at all if he hadn't known about Carrie's party. Bet he would've left her in the hotel under normal circumstances, saying *he* had to unveil the pieces to the curator and would be home later. Personally, Miranda has been my fav this last season. She became the spokesperson for the group. I can't forget how she said last week to Big, "Go get our girl." Just the way she looked, as the one who knew what Carrie was going through in Paris. (Dorine) One of the wonderful qualities of the brain is it's plasticity. Nerve pathways can regenerate to a degree as well as reroute themselves. Otherwise no stroke or traumatic brain injury sufferers would have much or any recovery, such as Robert Lawrence (Tumbledown) for instance. ;-) Yes, yes, yes. But I was talking more about memory loss, and I'm excluding amnesia or anything caused by traumatic or psychosomatic events. Anyway, the events on SATC took place probably within a week's time.

(Murph) These reviewers state my main criticism of the film..... The moments that counted and still count in Holy Week happened not during the horror-filled hours of the crucifixion but on Easter Sunday with Christ's rising from the dead. Redemption, for those who believe, happened then, the joy of knowing that there is life after death. If you are going to graphically show the death of Jesus, then you must make all that suffering lead to his resurrection - the main event - the true heart of why this God/man chose his manner of death. I was curious when watching some stories about it on CNN and other places this weekend, if they dealt with the Resurrection or just stopped when they took him down from the cross. The one main point I see MG making, is to *really* illustrate the depths to which Jesus willingly sacrificed himself for the world. I don't know whether a grand Resurrection scene will be necessary, but it is the whole point of the suffering, isn't it? I think the reality of that brutal sacrifice, such as it would have been back then, is very much lost on most people. Sure people go to church, recite the same prayers about it, ruminate on the sermons about it, but do they **truly** understand what it all meant and would have been like. I didn't for one. Got a good idea so far from the trailer, and I'm astounded, quite frankly. I believe I'll find it quite powerful (if my feelings after the trailer were any indication) regardless of how it ends. I may or may not need the rest of it. How it fits in to the rest of the movie nd whether there is a "payoff" at the end with a satisfying depiction of the Resurrection, I obviously won't be able to comment until I see it. Ironically, I'm a lapsed Catholic and presently consider myself an agnostic. My aunt, who is a nun, won't be seeing it due to the extreme violence. So much for not commenting til I'd seen it. ;-)

Glad you found reviews that agreed with your criticism of the film, Murph. I'll wait til I see it to comment. Meanwhile this seems to be the consensus of opinion...including Rabbi Geldman on CNN yesterday. .. those inclined toward bigotry could easily find fuel for their fire here.) Hey,we don't blame all the Italians for Mussolini.

(Karen) But I was talking more about memory loss Doesn't matter what skills are affected, cognitive or physical (excluding trauma if you wish...though a stroke/cerebral hemorrhage is/can be considered a "traumatic" brain injury, too). Same conditions and principles apply. (Dorine)I say get your message out to your target audience while opportunity is knocking....a captive audience. (Evelyn) What captive audience? All the SAG (and AFTRA) members who were there (and watching at home)!

(Dorine) My aunt, who is a nun, won't be seeing it due to the extreme violence. This was the subject of a Nightline last week that caught. You've got all these church leaders encouraging their congregants to take their children regardless of age, when the film is rated R for its violence, even though it was contextual violence. They had two guys, a reverend from Missouri and a child psychologist (or an educator) from Yale, debating the correct age to expose children to this movie. I was appalled at the hypocrisy again. Just because the subject matter is religion, toss out the "recommended" ratings. Even MG evidently stated the film is not for under 17/18, but these church groups are telling parents to take their 8 yr olds. :-(

(Karen) Even MG evidently stated the film is not for under 17/18, but these church groups are telling parents to take their 8 yr olds. :-( Yikes! The DH and I won't even see it in the theaters. I will need the option of breaks/pause or full stops cause I don't want to be a captive audience. I can't imagine not giving youngsters the same options.:-(

I'm going to see TPOTC...to see what the fuss is about (of course). I'm surprised that so many think it is too violent. From what I remember of one of my history classes, the Romans did this quite a bit...and very well. I bet MG didn't capture even half of how violent it truly was... (Dorine) Ironically, I'm a lapsed Catholic and presently consider myself an agnostic. Wow...and I learn something new about you! Ironically, I'm a lapsed Methodist and presently consider myself an agnostic as well... (Karen) I was appalled at the hypocrisy again. Just because the subject matter is religion, toss out the "recommended" ratings. Even MG evidently stated the film is not for under 17/18, but these church groups are telling parents to take their 8 yr olds. :-( I'm surprised too...I heard that some churches were encouraging people to take their kids to see this. Find it so odd that sex is a big no-no, but violence is okay...though from the looks of the trailer and all the hype, it sounds ulta-violent, but even better if it has a religious theme. Though that won't keep junior from having nightmares. Feel sorry for the kids who will be seeing this...I remember being terrified of the 'candy man' in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, this goes a bit beyond that.

The New Yorker -- NAILED by DAVID DENBY Mel Gibson�s �The Passion of the Christ.� Issue of 2004-03-01 In �The Passion of the Christ,� Mel Gibson shows little interest in celebrating the electric charge of hope and redemption that Jesus Christ brought into the world. He largely ignores Jesus� heart-stopping eloquence, his startling ethical radicalism and personal radiance�Christ as a �paragon of vitality and poetic assertion,� as John Updike described Jesus� character in his essay �The Gospel According to Saint Matthew.� Cecil B. De Mille had his version of Jesus� life, Pier Paolo Pasolini and Martin Scorsese had theirs, and Gibson, of course, is free to skip over the incomparable glories of Jesus� temperament and to devote himself, as he does, to Jesus� pain and martyrdom in the last twelve hours of his life. As a viewer, I am equally free to say that the movie Gibson has made from his personal obsessions is a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminating procession of treachery, beatings, blood, and agony�and to say so without indulging in �anti-Christian sentiment� (Gibson�s term for what his critics are preading). For two hours, with only an occasional pause or gentle flashback, we watch, stupefied, as a handsome, strapping, at times half-naked young man (James Caviezel) is slowly tortured to death. Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagrely involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus� message of love into one of hate. And against whom will the audience direct its hate? As Gibson was completing the film, some historians, theologians, and clergymen accused him of emphasizing the discredited charge that it was the ancient Jews who were primarily responsible for killing Jesus, a claim that has served as the traditional justification for the persecution of the Jews in Europe for nearly two millennia. The critics turn out to have been right. Gibson is guilty of some serious mischief in his handling of these issues. But he may have also committed an aggression against Christian believers. The movie has been hailed as a religious experience by various Catholic and Protestant groups, some of whom, with an ungodly eye to the commercial realities of film distribution, have prepurchased blocks of tickets or rented theatres to insure �The Passion� a healthy opening weekend�s business. But how, I wonder, will people become better Christians if they are filled with the guilt, anguish, or loathing that this movie may create in their sou s? �The Passion� opens at night in the Garden of Gethsemane�a hushed, misty grotto bathed in a purplish disco light. Softly chanting female voices float on the soundtrack, accompanied by electronic shrieks and thuds. At first, the movie looks like a graveyard horror flick, and then, as Jewish temple guards show up bearing torches, like a faintly tedious art film. The Jews speak in Aramaic, and the Romans speak in Latin; the movie is subtitled in English. Gibson distances the dialogue from us, as if Jesus� famous words were only incidental and the visual spectacle�Gibson�s work as a director�were the real point. Then the beatings begin: Jesus is punched and slapped, struck with chains, trussed, and dangled over a wall. In the middle of the night, a hasty trial gets under way before Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia) and other Jewish priests. Caiaphas, a cynical, devious, petty dictator, interrogates Jesus, and then turns him over to the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), who tries again and again to sp re Jesus from the crucifixion that the priests demand. From the movie, we get the impression that the priests are either merely envious of Jesus� spiritual power or inherently and inexplicably vicious. And Pilate is not the bloody governor of history (even Tiberius paused at his crimes against the Jews) but a civilized and humane leader tormented by the burdens of power�he holds a soulful discussion with his wife on the nature of truth. Gibson and his screenwriter, Benedict Fitzgerald, selected and enhanced incidents from the four Gospels and collated them into a single, surpassingly violent narrative�the scourging, for instance, which is mentioned only in a few phrases in Matthew, Mark, and John, is drawn out to the point of excruciation and beyond. History is also treated selectively. The writer Jon Meacham, in a patient and thorough article in Newsweek, has detailed the many small ways that Gibson disregarded what historians know of the period, with the effect of assigning greater responsibility to the Jews, and less to the Romans, for Jesus� death. Meacham�s central thesis, which is shared by others, is that the priests may have been willing to sacrifice Jesus�whose mass following may have posed a threat to Roman governance�in order to deter Pilate from crushing the Jewish community altogether. It�s also possible that the temple �lite may have wanted to get rid of the leader of a new sect, but only Pilate had the authority to order a c ucifixion�a very public event that was designed to be a warning to potential rebels. Gibson ignores most of the dismaying political context, as well as the likelihood that the Gospel writers, still under Roman rule, had very practical reasons to downplay the Romans� role in the Crucifixion. It�s true that when the Roman soldiers, their faces twisted in glee, go to work on Jesus, they seem even more depraved than the Jews. But, as Gibson knows, history rescued the pagans from eternal blame�eventually, they came to their senses and saw the light. The Emperor Constantine converted in the early fourth century, and Christianized the empire, and the medieval period saw the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. So the Romans� descendants triumphed, while the Jews were cast into darkness and, one might conclude from this movie, deserved what they got. �The Passion,� in its confused way, confirms the old justifications for persecuting the Jews, and one somehow doubts that Gibson will make a sequel in which he reminds t e audience that in later centuries the Church itself used torture and execution to punish not only Jews but heretics, non-believers, and dissidents. I realize that the mere mention of historical research could exacerbate the awkward breach between medieval and modern minds, between literalist belief and the weighing of empirical evidence. �John was an eyewitness,� Gibson has said. �Matthew was there.� Well, they may have been there, but for decades it�s been a commonplace of Biblical scholarship that the Gospels were written forty to seventy years after the death of Jesus, and not by the disciples but by nameless Christians using both written and oral sources. Gibson can brush aside the work of scholars and historians because he has a powerful weapon at hand�the cinema�with which he can create something greater than argument; he can create faith. As a moviemaker, Gibson is not without skill. The sets, which were built in Italy, where the movie was filmed, are far from perfect, but they convey the beauty of Jerusalem�s courtyards and archways. Gibson, working with the cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, gives us the ravaged stone face of Calvary, the gray l ght at the time of the Crucifixion, the leaden pace of the movie�s spectacular agonies. Felliniesque tormenters gambol and jeer on the sidelines, and, at times, the whirl of figures around Jesus, both hostile and friendly, seems held in place by a kind of magnetic force. The hounding and suicide of the betrayer Judas is accomplished in a few brusque strokes. Here and there, the movie has a dismal, heavy-souled power. By contrast with the dispatching of Judas, the lashing and flaying of Jesus goes on forever, prolonged by Gibson�s punishing use of slow motion, sometimes with Jesus� face in the foreground, so that we can see him writhe and howl. In the climb up to Calvary, Caviezel, one eye swollen shut, his mouth open in agony, collapses repeatedly in slow motion under the weight of the Cross. Then comes the Crucifixion itself, dramatized with a curious fixation on the technical details�an arm pulled out of its socket, huge nails hammered into hands, with Caviezel jumping after each whack. At that point, I said to myself, �Mel Gibson has lost it,� and I was reminded of what other writers have pointed out�that Gibson, as an actor, has been beaten, mashed, and disembowelled in many of his movies. His obsession with pain, disguised by religious feelings, has now reached a frightening apotheosis. Mel Gibson is an extremely conservative Catholic who rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican council. He�s against complacent, feel-good Christianity, and, judging from his movie, he must despise the grandiose old Hollywood kitsch of �The Robe,� �The King of Kings,� �The Greatest Story Ever Told,� and �Ben-Hur,� with their Hallmark twinkling skies, their big stars treading across sacred California sands, and their lamblike Jesus, whose simple presence overwhelms Charlton Heston. But saying that Gibson is sincere doesn�t mean he isn�t foolish, or worse. He can rightly claim that there�s a strain of morbidity running through Christian iconography�one thinks of the reliquaries in Roman churches and the bloody and ravaged Christ in Northern Renaissance and German art, culminating in such works as Matthias Gr�newald�s 1515 �Isenheim Altarpiece,� with its thorned Christ in full torment on the Cross. But the central tradition of Italian Renaissance painting left Christ relatively unscathed; the artists emphasize not the physical suffering of the man but the sacrificial nature of his death and the astonishing mystery of his transformation into godhood�the Resurrection and the triumph over carnality. Gibson instructed Deschanel to make the movie look like the paintings of Caravaggio, but in Caravaggio�s own �Flagellation of Christ� the body of Jesus is only slightly marked. Even Goya, who hardly shrank from dismemberment and pain in his work, created a �Crucifixion� with a nearly unblemished Jesus. Crucifixion, as the Romans used it, was meant to make a spectacle out of degradation and suffering�to humiliate the victim through the apparatus of torture. By embracing the Roman pageant so openly, using all the emotional resources of cinema, Gibson has cancelled out the redemptive and transfiguring power of art. And by casting James Caviezel, an actor without charisma here, and then feasting on his physical destruction, he has turned Jesus back into a mere body. The depictions in �The Passion,� one of the cruellest movi s in the history of the cinema, are akin to the bloody Pop representation of Jesus found in, say, a roadside shrine in Mexico, where the addition of an Aztec sacrificial flourish makes the passion a little more passionate. Such are the traps of literal-mindedness. The great modernist artists, aware of the danger of kitsch and the fascination of sado-masochism, have largely withdrawn into austerity and awed abstraction or into fervent humanism, as in Scorsese�s �The Last Temptation of Christ� (1988), which features an existential Jesus sorely tried by the difficulty of the task before him. There are many ways of putting Jesus at risk and making us feel his suffering. What is most depressing about �The Passion� is the thought that people will take their children to see it. Jesus said, �Suffer the little children to come unto me,� not �Let the little children watch me suffer.� How will parents deal with the pain, terror, and anger that children will doubtless feel as they watch a man flayed and pierced until dead? The despair of the movie is hard to shrug off, and Gibson�s timing couldn�t be more unfortunate: another dose of death-haunted religious fanaticism is the last thing we need.

Sorry about the breaks in the text.

(Time)The Christian story includes joy, astonishment, prophecy, righteous wrath, mystery and love straightforward as well as love sacrificial. The Passion of the Christ is a one-note threnody about the Son of God being dragged to his death. Could be. But that's the movie MG chose to make and the part of the story he chose to focus on. I see no point in questioning why he didn't make a different movie. Obviously, I can't comment on a film I haven't seen, so I'll confine my comments to an optimistic hope that this will all promote more dialogue. As a modern Catholic, taught that *all* are guilty and that Jesus died for all the sins that were ever committed and all that would ever be committed, it wouldn't even occur to me to assign blame to any group. I know non-Christians who were not aware of that teaching. At the same time, I've recently learned more about how such depictions have been twisted and perverted throughout history to persecute people and fuel bigotry. As for taking 8 year olds, that's just plain nuts.

Mari, I'd quote you, but I'd just be dittoing your whole thing. Very well said, thank you. To Mari's point: (Rabbi Geldman on CNN yesterday... ) .. those inclined toward bigotry could easily find fuel for their fire here.) I'm afraid he could have as easily said *will* find fuel. I hope I'm wrong. As an Episcopalian, I've already seen the grief that can be caused by well meaning people. And I've not gone back to see who said it first (Maria?) but I will not see this in a theater either for the same reason I did not see Saving Private Ryan.

(Karen), Even though the Best Ensemble award is SAG's equivalent for Best Picture, I find it completely hypocritically for the LOTR's cast to have won when so little of the movie has ever been dependent on actors or acting. Note the dearth of acting noms for any of the three films. IMO, the SAG members sold out their profession with that award, as well as the one for JD. Pish, posh. I happen to like JD very much and add that LOTR would not have worked for me if there were no acting involved. - Murph, a Catholic who is very happy with the English Mass and Vatican II. I can't wait to see The Passion and will probably go Thur. Moon, a Catholic who is not very happy with the English Mass and the Vatican II. I still pray in Latin. I would love to have a strict Jesuit Pope next, but it will not happen. I have read a lot about this film in Italy recently, but will not comment until I see it.

(Tress)I'm surprised too...I heard that some churches were encouraging people to take their kids to see this. Find it so odd that sex is a big no-no, but violence is okay..., As a catholic, presently practicing, I don't find the hypocracy surprising at all.

(Karen) I was appalled at the hypocrisy again. Just because the subject matter is religion, toss out the "recommended" ratings. Even MG evidently stated the film is not for under 17/18, but these church groups are telling parents to take their 8 yr olds. :-( Not my parish! In fact my husband and I are going to see it first and see it we should have the boys see it. (Dorine) Ironically, I'm a lapsed Catholic and presently consider myself an agnostic. I am more gnostic.

(Karen) all these church leaders encouraging their congregants to take their children regardless of age Now I consider that beyond irresponsible of both the church leaders and the parents, if they take them. Does anyone wonder why I'm a lapsed Catholic, as well as an agnostic? ;-) (Tress) I'm surprised that so many think it is too violent. From what I remember of one of my history classes, the Romans did this quite a bit...and very well. I bet MG didn't capture even half of how violent it truly was You haven't seen any clips I take it. MG may not have captured the full effect, but what's there is hard to take.....in the few minutes I've seen. I bet there are slasher/horror movies that may be worse, but still.... I have wondered whether I'd be able to sit through it or need to do like Bee and wait for DVD. My curiosity about it over the past year is overriding any qualms I have. Wow...and I learn something new about you! Likewise! :-) I remember being terrified of the 'candy man' in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, The guy with the net? The Childcatcher? Oooh, me too!! ;-) (Mari) it wouldn't even occur to me to assign blame to any group. Me neither. Was surprised when all this controversy first started up. I've never heard anyone fixate on blaming any particular group. And I went to a Catholic school from first grade through high school graduation. If anyone did bring it up, I apparently discarded that notion and have forgotten about it. Who knows, maybe I'll find the movie "blames" a certain group. (Denby) Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagrely involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus� message of love into one of hate. I suspect he may have missed MG's ultimate point, but can't say til I see it. And there is an element of hate in the whole story. Otherwise, no one could possibly do something like that to other human beings, nor would that set up the Resurrection for our redemption. We'll see what happens in the film. But how, I wonder, will people become better Christians if they are filled with the guilt, anguish, or loathing that this movie may create in their souls? I would think they would or could, as hopefully they might have increased insight into Jesus' suffering for everyone and in the future strive to be better people, so as not to feel that His suffering was in vain. Just a guess. Will revisit that article after I've seen it.

Closed

(Me)Does anyone wonder why I'm a lapsed Catholic, as well as an agnostic? ;-) (Evelyn) Pssst...Dorine...don't let other people's actions impact on your moral convictions... or to put it differently.... Don't *blame* other people for what you think /do. That was a jokinginly rhetorical question, hence the winkie. My dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church, and religion in general is much deeper and more personal than that. Not a particular person(s)/event(s). Maybe a variety of them. The above would be an oversimplified, and somewhat invalid reason to go away from "the church." Just an evolution in my views on spirituality and methods of worship over the years. It's a very personal thing for each person, and each one goes with the one that works for them, be it in a group setting, or not. That's all. :-) Was just telling my aunt a smidge of what we all have been talking about on TPOTC. She mentioned it was too hard for she and I to discuss on an IM forum and I concurred. I love to talk religion and politics, but I did almost post earlier, that this is a subject that's quite difficult to discuss on a message board due to the sheer volume of conversation that can and may be generated.

And I didn't miss your winkie, either. ;-)))

RE: MG's Passion of Christ... (Karen) all these church leaders encouraging their congregants to take their children regardless of age I think you may be referring to more of the fringe, ultra-orthodox, right wing Christian sects. I don't know too many 'mainstream' Catholic churches that are pushing their under-age congregants to see this film en masse. (Mari) As a modern Catholic, taught that *all* are guilty and that Jesus died for all the sins that were ever committed and all that would ever be committed, it wouldn't even occur to me to assign blame to any group I agree. I also consider myself a modern Catholic. Was raised in the faith but like many in my position, I tend to *pick and choose* those tenants by which I lead my life. I'm also raising 2 kids in the Catholic church. I was never taught that the *Jews* *murdered* Christ but am surprised to learn how many non-Catholics think the Catholics teach and promote this anti-semitic view. Even my DH (who is Jewish) was always brought up to think the Catholics promulgated this belief. (It took a long time to convince him otherwise.) My concern about this film is that it will merely fuel the flames of the virulent anti-semitism that's the root of so many global problems right now. I can't help but suspect MG's motives given his affiliation with Opus Dei (a bunch of wackos, IMO), and his father's well documented vilification of the Jews. MG has been 'on record' on more than one occaision supporting his father's positions. I have doubts about him making this film merely for the 'love of Christ', as opposed to furthering his extreme religious agendas. The Christ I was taught to follow was accepting of all comers.

(Dorine)I know you didn't like POTC. I did despite it being too long (as was all of the LOTR films), but IMO, JD saved that movie. I absolutely would have thought it crap if he wasn't in it. Same can be said for Once Upon a Time in Mexico with he and Antonio Banderas. I think both movies were raised above being just mediocre or downright awful because of him. I find that to be a gift. I just finally caught POTC on Sat ala DVD . .and I agree . .other than JD, the film itself was really nothing that great . .some neat special effects and all . .his performance made the film for me. Did you catch any of JD on The Actor's Studio? Found it interesting how he starts on his characters via flashes of images he gets . .hard to describe it exactly the way he did . .also as an actor, do enjoy how varying his roles are, how he broke away from being a Hollywood product and took his career into his own hands . . RE: The Passion - Am curious to see the film, as is my DH . .and will also wait to give commentary aafter we see it. But given our spiritual backgrounds/current spiritual paths, it will be interesting seeing it in my current mindset, as opposed to say it coming out 6 years ago or so. (Both of us are former Catholics, DH more an agnostic now, with a penchant for Buddhism and I consider myself an eccelctic spiritualist/pagan;)

Sam Mendes is listed for Charlie Rose tonight for anyone interested.

Oops, CR just said Sam Mendes will be on later in the week.

(Karen) all these church leaders encouraging their congregants to take their children regardless of age Teens to See 'Passion' With Church Groups Mon Feb 23, 5:41 PM ET By MARTHA IRVINE, AP National Writer CHICAGO - At first, Emily Schemelia wasn't sure she wanted to see "The Passion of the Christ," fearing that Mel Gibson (news)'s movie about the crucifixion might give her nightmares. "It looks scary!" the 13-year-old from East Windsor, N.J., says of the film that has some wondering if it's too graphic and violent for young people. Still, despite its R-rating, she and many other youth will be among those flocking this week to see the film � with their parents' blessing. Emily decided she wants to go because "it's true; it's in a different language; and it's supposed to give you the effect that you're there." Some teens will see the film with church youth groups that have booked tickets well in advance. Others are going with their parents, often Christians who see this as a chance to reinforce biblical teaching or to spur discussion. "I'd want to see the movie, anyway," says Novel Tooley, a Baptist from Atlanta who plans to accompany 13-year-old stepson Ray and his church youth group when they see the movie this weekend. "And I think it's going to be an important experience for him." Ray agrees. "I'm excited and curious to see what it's about," says the teen, who viewed clips from the film at his church over the weekend and thought it was "pretty true" to the biblical story. His youth group is one of a few that will view the film while taking part in a "30-hour famine," a fast and hunger fund-raiser sponsored by the nonprofit group World Vision. Some Christian publishers, such as Michigan-based Zondervan, also are providing discussion guides for students and others who see the movie. But even with its religious theme, not everyone thinks most young people are ready to see a movie that a Time magazine reviewer said was best suited for "true believers with cast-iron stomachs." Some worry that the movie has anti-Jewish undertones, which Gibson has denied. "I think many kids are going to come out of the film asking 'Why did the Jews hate Jesus so much?'" says Jonathan Schwartz, assistant director of the American Jewish Committee's Chicago chapter. He saw the film at a screening at a Christian church last month. "Because the film reasserts so many hurtful and discredited anti-Jewish characterizations, it troubles us." At the same time, he remains hopeful that the film could spur positive interreligious dialogue. Still others think Gibson's movie focusses too much on the prolonged gore of Christ's death to be suitable for young people � and not enough on his life. "He is a powerful director who's too obsessed with blood and rage. And that doesn't sit well with the adolescent tendency toward extreme emotions," says Marc Gopin, director of the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University. Jimmy Lee, a youth pastor at the Chinese Evangelical Church of San Diego, says parents were "definitely" concerned when he suggested teens from the church see the movie. In the end, church leaders and parents decided to let them go, concurring that "the violence has a message and a purpose. And it does not glorify evil," Lee says. But, he adds, each teen who attends must have a permission slip signed by a parent. At least one child development expert says that parents should be trusted to know their children � and whether violent images tend to trouble them. "Parents know their children better than anyone," says George Scarlett, an assistant professor at Tufts University in Boston whose work includes research on spiritual and religious development. "Violence for one child may be a very different experience than violence for another." Mary Chastain, a United Methodist youth minister in Eureka, Mo., saw the movie at a conference last fall. She doesn't think children younger than 10 should see it. But she calls it a "wonderful, wonderful film" � and plans to take her church's youth group to see it Friday. (The age range on the registration page for the film's Web site starts at 13.) Chastain says youth in her group have been asking her, "'How bloody is it?'" "And they did want to know also if I felt it was truthful � if I felt it was according to the Bible and historic fact," she added. She does. Fran Capo, a Roman Catholic in New York, says she gets that same sense. That's why she plans to take 15-year-old son Spencer to see the film. "Mainly," she says, "I don't think there is really going to be anything new that wasn't already in the Bible." [Ed. note - Boy has she got another thing coming, I suspect.] On the Net: Official film site: http://www.thepassionofchrist.com/ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&e=2&u=/ap/20040223/ap_en_mo/film_passion_youth

(Moon) LOTR would not have worked for me if there were no acting involved. The best acting in movie 2 was by that computer-generated character IMO. Still haven't seen #3. Must go this week sometime. ;-) (Irvine AP) At least one child development expert says that parents should be trusted to know their children � and whether violent images tend to trouble them. "Parents know their children better than anyone," says George Scarlett, an assistant professor at Tufts University in Boston whose work includes research on spiritual and religious development. "Violence for one child may be a very different experience than violence for another." Does no one question why there are Bible books for children? :-(

Here's Roger Ebert's review: THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST / **** (R) February 24, 2004 BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us. The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen. I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another: At the Cross, her station keeping ... Stood the mournful Mother weeping ... Close to Jesus to the last. For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it. David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins." This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end. This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.) If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts. The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo. In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous. Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved. "Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism." This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture. A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs. This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often. Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it). It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it. Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it. Amen! No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. The mob killed Jesus. Thanks, Mari! A level headed Ebert comes through.

A nonsectarian, commercial interlude: ;-) N.Y. Jeweler to Launch 'Sex' Necklaces When Carrie Bradshaw broke her Russian lover's heart and the necklace he'd given her in the "Sex and the City" finale, the jewelry had a stunt double. The real necklace, consisting of nine diamond beads on a platinum chain and valued at $55,000, remains intact, said New York jeweler Fred Leighton. A crystal and silver version was used in the scene in which Carrie, played by Sarah Jessica Parker, ends her romance with an artist played by Mikhail Baryshnikov. The 20-carat diamond piece was designed for the HBO show at Parker's request, said Leighton, whose Fred Leighton Rare Collectible Jewels has supplied other pieces to the series that ended its six-season run on Sunday. While "Sex and the City" started other fashion trends, serious cash is required for those who want this bauble. Leighton is making a 10-carat, $25,000 version and has already sold a half-dozen. Is he prepared for knockoffs? "Probably. Who cares? Then we go on to the next thing," he said Monday. In the series, Carrie is happy to end up with Mr. Big (Chris Noth) and a simple nameplate necklace spelling out her first name. But Parker is interested in obtaining the diamond piece, Leighton said. The actual necklace from the show remains at his store and it's uncertain if it will be sold, said Leighton, who has a private collection that includes pieces owned by the Duchess of Windsor, Wallis Simpson.

(RE)I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it. (RE)This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. And I respect RE for being a voice of reason. Thanks, Mari.

Yesterday Murph posted an article from TIME on "The Passion of Christ". But it was not a review, it was a Viewpoiint article. Here is the review written by Richard Corliss entertainment editor of TIME. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040301-593580,00.html

(**applauds Ebert**) Very nice write up! Thanks for posting it Mari!

(Evelyn) Beats me why Jack Nicholson keeps getting awards for the same ole. Thank you! (Moon) Pish, posh. I happen to like JD very much... POTC isn't a great movie but it's entertaining, fun and a good pirate movie. And JD made it work. Actors are always saying how comedy is so much harder than drama. It's about time they walk the walk and show their appreciation when peers pull it off - this from someone with a low opinion of awards shows ;-) (Moon)... and add that LOTR would not have worked for me if there were no acting involved. (Karen) The best acting in movie 2 was by that computer-generated character IMO. Thanks to the acting talents of AS. The LOTR cast as a whole did a wonderful job. Besides, even Finding Nemo needed actors. Machines may rise but they will never take over! Well, not in my lifetime anyway ;-) (Irvine AP) At least one child development expert says that parents should be trusted to know their children. (Moon) In fact my husband and I are going to see it first and see it we should have the boys see it. That's called parenting. You go girl!

Now for some utter fluff... the AOL Moviegoer awards! Hottest song - from Love Actually "The trouble with love is" by Kelly Clarkson. Oh yeah, JD won best actor too;-)

Only read part of the review at from the NY Times print edition this morning of TPOTC, but he (A.O. Scott) gets the point/my point from earlier regarding showing it as it realistically may have been vs "showing the love" per se. Can't post it as I've been knocked offline at home and I have only time where I'm at for a quick check in for mail and peeking here. Not sure when I can check back in. :-(((

You can read reviews from the major news outlets at metacritic; the NY Times one is there also, Dorine. http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/passionofthechrist/

Am not surprised; this got great reviews at Sundance: The Machinist Operating at Paramount Classics Source: The Hollywood Reporter Thursday, February 26, 2004 Paramount Classics has snapped up distribution rights from Filmax International to Brad Anderson's Sundance Film Festival selection The Machinist, starring Christian Bale. The speciality division has aquired rights to the film in North America, the UK, South Africa, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand. It is planning a late-2004 release. The film, which also recently screened at the Berlin International Film Festival, stars Bale as factory machinist Trevor Reznik, who has not slept in a year. His lack of sleep has led to a deterioration in his physical and mental health, and he struggles to come to terms with his breakdown. Jennifer Jason Leigh, Michael Ironside, Aitana Sanchez Gijon and John Sharian also star.