You've hardly proved your point.
You didn't support your contention that the death of Hypatia was deliberately softened (your words were "sugar coated") in the movie to appease some hypothetical Christian masses. I'm honestly not even sure that these "Christian masses" were the intended audience of this film, anymore than atheists were the target audience for "The Passion of the Christ."
So the "artistic license" in this case I'd chalk up to the film rating, and the unwritten rule that women in modern movies can't have gory deaths (unless it's a slasher flick, of course).
I don't recall any Christians protesting that the movie "better tone down Hypatia's death scene," do you? Tell me more about this "Palestinian."
The HISTORICAL death of Hypatia was MUCH WORSE than what was depicted in Agora.
Beaten to death with "tiles" (whether roofing tiles or oyster shells) and then having her corpse torn apart and burned is horrific to be sure. I'm sure if it had been depicted as such, people would be trumpeting that here. But I've seen no evidence that it was done to avoid offending Christians specifically.
Not only that, you don't know what you are talking about. (Surprise, surprise.) In the special features, one of the Palestinian Christian actors said he made sure that the director did not depict Christianity in a negative light.
Which one, specifically? Who was this "Palestinian Christian"? If so, he obviously failed in his mission, as the director portrayed Christianity in a negative light
throughout the film, with only a few redeeming moments (but then again, everyone has those, right?).
Not only that, but from a marketing stand-point, they didn't want to depict Christians in a negative light.
Edward Gibbon and Carl Sagan were the inspirations for this film, which use the story to portray Christianity (a stand in for "religion" equated with violent superstition) in a negative light as the enemy of science and reason. The idea of using the "violent Christians" as a parable for the situation with modern Islamists was lost on most audiences.
Are you sure
I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about?
Furthermore, they DIDN'T depict any group - Christians or not - in a negative light.
I quite disagree. Each group commits brutal mass murder, and is motivated towards their crimes in at least two cases, based on perceived insults to their "beliefs." If you're a secular humanist or other modern person sitting in the audience, there could be nothing more evil to you than slaughtering people because they have a different "belief."
But of the three groups depicted in the film (the Christians, the Jews, and the Pagans), the three do not come off equally.
The Pagans are depicted as being in power, but also as being the guardians of reason, science and civilization. They target the Christians, but are right to do so because the Christians are violent and provoked them first. Theirs is seen as a "lost cause" we are supposed to mourn over. Their ways are noble and beautiful and they're even cleaner and "whiter" more than the Christians.
About the only real flaw, per the movie, with the pagan group is that they tolerate slavery (which then allows the Christians to recruit members from disgruntled former slaves) and that they didn't wipe out the Christians when they had a chance.
The Jews are depicted as an important group, who gets picked on and attacked for no reason by the Christians, and then retaliate. So while they're violent, we can understand, because once again the Christians are the dangerous ones.
So we're left with the Christians, who are equated artistically with swarming insects. Some have compared the imagery of them slaughtering their enemies with Holocaust imagery. The end of the movie leaves no doubt that their survival and rise to power was for the worst.
Everybody was a mixed bag, flawed in their own unique ways. Two of the "triangle" of main characters were GOOD men who CONVERTED to Christianity!
Yet, as per Kingdom of Heaven logic, the best Christians are the ones who are least Christian. Orestes converted out of convenience, he's really not that sincere of a Christian to begin with. So his "goodness" is in spite of his affiliation.
Synesius, contrary to the actual figure known to history, turns on Hypatia when she doesn't convert. Essentially he is a "true" Christian because his loyalty is to his religion first, no matter how corrupt and evil it is, and even if it condemns his friends. So he's not the best character. If anything, converting to Christianity turned him into a dick.
Davus, now there's a guy. He's a seeker who joins the Christian cult because of what it can do for him. He tries it out, but what does it do? It turns him into a bad person by appealing to his baser instincts. You could argue he was a bad person to begin with, even though we feel initially sorry for him that he's a (well treated, perhaps ungrateful?) slave. He really just wanted to sleep with Hypatia, and even begins to sexually assault her at one point. His "mercy killing" I guess is redemption, but we're left with the idea that he'll become a good agnostic like Orlando Bloom's character in KOH.
Hypatia's best friends WERE Christians!
And they either set their faith aside to continue being her friends, or they turned their backs on her because of it. I wouldn't call Davus her "friend" just in case you were including him in the "triangle."
Primary characters for God's sake! Even the Christian portrayed the worst, Cyril, was simply a power-hungry man. Not "evil". Just "not good". Or at least, "not a true Christian".
Who were the "true Christians" in the film? The ones who didn't adhere to Christianity, just like KOH. In other words, Christianity is being portrayed in a negative light. Even the "charity" works done by the Paraboloni are done with a selfish bent (notice how in the scene where Davus feeds the beggars he is actually tricked into giving up his own or rather Hypatia's money, to them). Notice the causal way in which they "bury" the dead (including people they've murdered), stacked like logs on a bonfire. Notice the "demonstration" in which the pagan is shoved into the fire. Notice sneaking up on the Jews in the theater to stone them and then claiming that it was done because they weren't keeping the day holy enough. The deleted scenes are even worse, depicting them like the stereotypical image of the Taliban.
I'm not sure what redeeming qualities Cyril was portrayed as having. Just because he didn't laugh maniacally at the end of each scene doesn't mean he wasn't "evil." He lied and ordered the mob to kill Hypatia, and he tried to force Orestes to denounce his friend using a "sexist" scripture. I don't think we were meant to think of him as a deep and human character. He's a symbol of the fanatical Muslim leaders, the Ayatollahs and Osama Bin Laden who preach hate and division, telling lies to get their followers to go out and commit atrocities for their political cause.
You can argue "True Christian" if you want, but the film doesn't seem to distinguish. If anyone is a "true Christian" in this film, it's Hypatia, because she's a "good person," and we're explicitly told that she doesn't believe in anything (except "philosophy" by which we're meant to believe she was an atheist, though in reality Neoplatonists of the time were quite religious and indeed many Christians accepted Neoplatonic thought in their own religious tradition). Movie Hypatia's only flaw is that she tolerates slavery, but then her former slave was an ingrate who just wanted to deflower and possess her in a selfish way anyway, so I guess we can forgive her for that.
So your mileage may vary, but I think it's pretty clear that the film does indeed portray Christianity in a "negative light," even if you take it as just using those negative Christian images as symbols to tell a parable of modern times.
I've seen no compelling evidence that this film was hampered in any way by upset Christians (nor, conversely) that it was successful because of Christian protests. But you're welcome to try to show where I'm wrong there. People on here generally like the film because it feeds or confirms their animus towards Christianity, but want the rest of us to believe the anti-Christian tone of the material is all in our heads (just like with Dan Brown's stuff).
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
12 years ago
[blah-blah-blah] So your mileage may vary, but I think it's pretty clear that the film does indeed portray Christianity in a "negative light"...
Obviously, whatever it is you *want* to see, then you see exactly that. And I forgot that you were complaining about these same things for almost a year before you even saw the film, so you would hardly qualify as an "objective observer". Especially when I factor in some of your other posts displaying your typical Christian persecution complex. I don't know why, but Christians like you always want to be martyrs and complain about all their perceived injustices, apparently oblivious to the fact that they are the largest religion in the world and in the West, the vast majority of believers. Perhaps this problem is related to your God being always being displayed hung on a cross. I imagine if you had to stare at that gruesome image for several hours every Sunday throughout your life, you'd probably start to *want* to be crucified wearing only a loin cloth and a crown of thorns. Or perhaps fantasize about even more violent forms of punishment and execution, kind of like Mel Gibson's film 'The Passion of the Christ'. It was pretty sick how he heaped as much *additional* violence on Jesus as he could (like having him wrapped in chains, tossed over a bridge, and violently jerked back before he hit the ground like a rag-doll, all completely fictitious, unnecessarily brutal, and downright absurd.) Seriously, I couldn't tell if I was watching a story based on the Gospels or Christian torture-porn. But alas, I digress...
Anyway, you *still* haven't proved your point. Considering how negatively you believe Christians were portrayed in this film, it still doesn't make any sense for such a (supposedly) "anti-Christian" director to whitewash Hypatia's death. And your so-called "explanation" for this is rather feeble.
reply
share
kurgan-10
12 years ago
Obviously, whatever it is you *want* to see, then you see exactly that.
Nonsense. How is my view invalid?
And I forgot that you were complaining about these same things for almost a year before you even saw the film,
Irrelevant. Myself and many others were discussing the HISTORY upon which the film was supposed to be based, and some of the statements of the filmmaker as to the accuracy of his story, and what it was based upon.
There was a similar debate about "the Passion of the Christ" before it came out. Yet nobody (except perhaps Mel Gibson) seemed to think THAT was unfair.
so you would hardly qualify as an "objective observer". Especially when I factor in some of your other posts displaying your typical Christian persecution complex.
Logic: You can't be trusted, because of your obvious hatred of Christians.
I never claimed to have some magical perfect objectivity. I am pointing out that we can discuss topics. In your world, who is qualified to discuss anything?
And for the record, Christians ARE being persecuted in the world. But presumably you think I'm one of those people who thinks publicly disagreeing with my beliefs is "persecution." Such an attitude is an insult to the actual Christians who suffer and die for their beliefs in Communist and Islamist nations (who do not enjoy religious freedom as Christians in the West do).
I don't know why, but Christians like you always want to be martyrs and complain about all their perceived injustices,
Now who is putting words in another's mouth? I'm not one of these people.
If some Christians made a movie mocking your worldview, and then came up to you talking about how amazing and accurate it was, I'm sure you'd be justified in responding. It's not a hard concept to grasp. And I'll remind you that critics of Christianity were quick to defend the film with suggestions that there was a Christian conspiracy to suppress the film because the truth was too painful for them to bear.
apparently oblivious to the fact that they are the largest religion in the world and in the West,
But Christians are not a majority who enjoys religious freedom everywhere. As I pointed out, there are several countries in the world where Christians are an endangered and even persecuted minority. I'm not one of these folks you're complaining about.
Muslims are the second largest religion in the world, and yet in some places they are similarly threatened. Atheists are the next largest group and there are places where I'm sure they are not treated equally in society.
Simply because you enjoy privilege in one place (like the United States) doesn't mean you do so everywhere. I never claimed to be a "martyr" because I have to debate with people like you about films and popular perceptions about history.
all completely fictitious, unnecessarily brutal, and downright absurd.) Seriously, I couldn't tell if I was watching a story based on the Gospels or Christian torture-porn. But alas, I digress...
I'm glad you object to historical inaccuracy in films. So I'm sure you are
equally upset with the historical fabrications, caricatures and inaccuracies in Agora, for instance.
Anyway, you *still* haven't proved your point.
You haven't proved your point, which is what I'm responding to. Since all you've done is assert that we're all biased and can't be trusted, and suggested we "google" things, I'm not sure what is needed to be proved...
Considering how negatively you believe Christians were portrayed in this film, it still doesn't make any sense for such a (supposedly) "anti-Christian" director to whitewash Hypatia's death. And your so-called "explanation" for this is rather feeble.
Sure it does. Did he need to turn it into torture porn in order to make his point? Did he need to show an absurd, completely fictitious, unnecessarily brutal, and downright absurd version of her death in order to be anti-Christian?
The atheist filmmaker made his point well enough by fabricating events (the unprovoked stoning of the Jews by the Christians), altering characters (Synesius becoming a betrayer of Hypatia because of his Christian faith), and inventing characters (Davus who becomes a Christian for selfish reasons, turns into a murderer, thief and would-be rapist as a result, and is only noble because he betrays his equally villainous "Christian" compatriots out of lingering love for his mistress) to create the impression that the Christians were universally evil or insane, and that the world would have been better off had the pagans finished them off when they had the chance... drowning any chance that the "message" of a symbolic warning against Radical Fundamentalism especially the Islamic variety was a threat to rational civilization in the modern world would be heard by most viewers, on either "side." He artfully compared the Christians to swarms of insects, used imagery reminiscent of the Holocaust, and manipulated our culturally prejudiced emotions with his contrast of the mostly white, clean and well spoken pagans vs. the mostly swarthy, accented and black clad Christians. Then he tells us in bold letters what we're supposed to think about history. The Christians are clearly the villains of this film, and Hypatia, the pagan who rises above even her own people and becomes an atheist philosopher, is the best of humanity, a martyr for truth.
The average viewer seems to think that "Agora" shows us the true ugliness of Christianity, and that anyone who objects to the film's skewed portrayal is some kind of head-in-the-sand apologist for crimes against humanity.
Hey, "Triumph of the Will" and "Birth of a Nation" were amazing films and works of art that deserve to be preserved for all posterity. But their ideological messages were quite disgusting.
So yes, there's no evidence WHATSOEVER that Amenbar was going to make Hypatia's death overly gory, but buckled under pressure from angry Christian protesters and was not able to realize his artistic vision. But it's absolutely ridiculous to presume that he set out to simply create an objective historical presentation, not realizing people would take it as anti- anything.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
12 years ago
You can't be trusted, because of your obvious hatred of Christians.
Other than you and Garbage, I don't hate any Christians.
If some Christians made a movie mocking your worldview, and then came up to you talking about how amazing and accurate it was, I'm sure you'd be justified in responding.
Except that never happened. A film-maker made a movie accurately depicting the destruction of the Sarapeum by Christian fanatics. But instead of accepting the truth about history, you'd rather rewrite it with fringe theories which completely take the blame away from the Christian church. But anyway, nice try!
Did he need to show an absurd, completely fictitious, unnecessarily brutal, and downright absurd version of her death in order to be anti-Christian?
But he did. As opposed to the real version of her death which is even more brutal!
...to create the impression that the Christians were universally evil or insane, and that the world would have been better off had the pagans finished them off when they had the chance...
Based on the above, I have to assume that you *still* haven't watched the film yet. I mean, seriously, how could anyone watch this film and think such ridiculous nonsense?!? Anyway, let me know whenever you're ready to try and prove your point here, okay? Thanks in advance!
reply
share
kurgan-10
12 years ago
Other than you and Garbage, I don't hate any Christians.
So you still believe Tim O'Neill is a Christian, despite your own admission that such a claim cannot be verified.
I'll take your word for it that you don't hate any Christians (even the ones who challenge you), but I imagine you still hate everything we stand for, because in your mind, we stand for bad things.
Except that never happened. A film-maker made a movie accurately depicting the destruction of the Sarapeum by Christian fanatics. But instead of accepting the truth about history, you'd rather rewrite it with fringe theories which completely take the blame away from the Christian church. But anyway, nice try!
On the contrary, several purportedly "pro-Christian" films have come out in the last decade, and all of them have been mocked and attacked by atheists online. Now it's true, nobody has made a film about the French Revolution, depicting the revolutionaries as evil atheists and trumpeting the film as "accurate" and using it to beat modern atheists over the head (or someone could have made a similar film about the Russian revolution). But still. My point remains. You were grossly offended by "The Passion of the Christ" which many Christians loved. But you were supposedly offended not because it was "pro-Christian" but because you thought it was historically inaccurate.
Except that never happened. A film-maker made a movie accurately depicting the destruction of the Sarapeum by Christian fanatics. But instead of accepting the truth about history, you'd rather rewrite it with fringe theories which completely take the blame away from the Christian church. But anyway, nice try!
Not quite accurately, actually, even if we go by the primary sources. Read them, and compare the scene in the actual film. No need for "fringe theories" there.
I just find it funny, the theory that while Amenbar, an atheist, whilst setting out to make a film to antagonize religious believers, at the same time quietly self-censored his own film in order NOT to antagonize those same people.
If anything, the only "censorship" was the fact that he didn't depict Muslim fundamentalism and oppression in history, but shifted the story to a "Christian atrocity story" to use as an allegory, thus shielding himself from less sophisticated fundy Muslim audiences.
But it would have been little different if some director made a movie about the "greedy treacherous medieval Jews" as a metaphor for the modern Wall Street Bankers. Such a movie would rightly recieve criticism from Jews for promoting a skewed view of history, EVEN IF it was intended as a metaphor (that would sail over the heads of the average filmgoer anyhow).
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
12 years ago
I'll take your word for it that you don't hate any Christians (even the ones who challenge you), but I imagine you still hate everything we stand for, because in your mind, we stand for bad things.
Nope. I think a majority of Christians are good-hearted people who stand for the right things. It's the ones who want to distort history with wrong-headed fringe theories that bother me.
But you were supposedly offended not because it was "pro-Christian" but because you thought it was historically inaccurate.
Nope, not even close. I mentioned 'The Passion of the Christ' in a completely different context. Specifically, I was talking about the psychological effects of constantly viewing the gruesome depiction of God being tortured upon a cross every week of your life. (With one result apparently being a new film genre invented by Mel Gibson: Christian torture-porn.)
Not quite accurately, actually, even if we go by the primary sources. Read them, and compare the scene in the actual film.
Oh really? So are you referring to a completely new fringe theory? Or the dead one lying in a bloody puddle a few threads back?
I'll leave it to you guys then, because I really don't have time for another research project before Christmas. Enjoy!
In other words, you're only interested in promoting wrong-headed fringe theories which confirm your religious biases, regardless of the truth, historical facts, and the scholarly consensus. How convenient...
reply
share
kurgan-10
12 years ago
I also object to people (Christians or otherwise) distorting history. There we share common ground.
Nope, not even close. I mentioned 'The Passion of the Christ' in a completely different context. Specifically, I was talking about the psychological effects of constantly viewing the gruesome depiction of God being tortured upon a cross every week of your life. (With one result apparently being a new film genre invented by Mel Gibson: Christian torture-porn.)
What about the effects of constantly viewing a woman being tortured to death by Christian fanatics?
Oh really? So are you referring to a completely new fringe theory? Or the dead one lying in a bloody puddle a few threads back?
I'm saying the film doesn't match the ancient primary sources, and no, not even if you put in some more gore.
In other words, you're only interested in promoting wrong-headed fringe theories which confirm your religious biases, regardless of the truth, historical facts, and the scholarly consensus. How convenient...
Nope. I just don't have time to chase you constantly in an effort to get any checkable references to begin to back your arguments. Look how long it took the first time!
Can you show me precisely where I've promoted a "wrong-headed fringe theory" in order to confirm my religious biases, "regardless of the truth, historical facts,
and the scholarly consensus" (especially the last one)?
After Dec. 20th, I'll be done grading papers, so I'll theoretically have time to do a library research project dedicated to determining if the sources you provided actually support your theory.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
12 years ago
What about the effects of constantly viewing a woman being tortured to death by Christian fanatics?
Another failed comparison. As if anyone is going to watch the film every Sunday of their entire life. Not to mention the fact, the historically accurate version (as opposed to the white-washed version depicted in the film) was far more violent and brutal, thus negating your own point.
I'm saying the film doesn't match the ancient primary sources, and no, not even if you put in some more gore.
What was gory about the destruction of the Sarapeum? The Christians razed an empty temple!?! (Or did you forget what we were talking about again?)
Look how long it took the first time!
Yeah, someone asks for references two months ago and in my next reply I provide them with six... But then again, you would have actually known that already if you weren't jumping into the middle of someone else's debate. And BTW- At least Garbage has read *one* book on the subject, albeit one written by a Christian apologist promoting a fringe theory...
Can you show me precisely where I've promoted a "wrong-headed fringe theory" in order to confirm my religious biases, "regardless of the truth, historical facts, and the scholarly consensus" (especially the last one)?
I guess you'll find out yourself when you get done grading papers. Apparently, what little you know on this subject is all from wikipedia and James "Intelligent Design" Hannam's website.
reply
share
kurgan-10
12 years ago
Another failed comparison. As if anyone is going to watch the film every Sunday of their entire life.
You think Christians watch "Passion of the Christ" every Sunday of their entire life?
Not to mention the fact, the historically accurate version (as opposed to the white-washed version depicted in the film) was far more violent and brutal, thus negating your own point.
You were the one that was implying people will be psychologically messed up if they see graphic violence in films.
What was gory about the destruction of the Sarapeum?
They went in, one guy grabbed a scroll, yelled "pagan filth" and the group proceeded to throw them around like teenagers throwing toilet paper on Halloween. The film makes it look like they specifically targeted the
texts. Where is THAT in the primary sources?
The Christians razed an empty temple!?! (Or did you forget what we were talking about again?)
Read the primary sources. They targeted the objects of pagan worship, specifically. So if you want to get angry at them for not being supportive of religious freedom, that would be more appropriate than supporting a view that paints them as against literature. The propagandists want us to think that the Christians were simply ignorant book burners, hence they attacked libraries. It's a perfect symbol of the Conflict Thesis. I'm asking where that comes out of the primary sources.
Yeah, someone asks for references two months ago and in my next reply I provide them with six... But then again, you would have actually known that already if you weren't jumping into the middle of someone else's debate.
Well excuse me. If you had wanted a
private debate, you could have done that without me even knowing about it. ;)
To be fair, it did only take you 10 days after you were asked point blank for sources besides Carrier (by Tim).
And BTW- At least Garbage has read *one* book on the subject, albeit one written by a Christian apologist promoting a fringe theory...
I've read the primary sources. You said the film was historically accurate in its depiction (the only thing I've seen you criticize is that Hypatia's death wasn't gory enough). That makes me wonder if you comprehended what
you read...
I guess you'll find out yourself when you get done grading papers.
If you can't be bothered to back up your accusation, why should I even care?
Apparently, what little you know on this subject is all from wikipedia and James "Intelligent Design" Hannam's website.
Apparently not, but I guess I'm the dumb one here. Right. ;)
I did a little research on James Hannam since we talked, incidentally. I take it you have it in for the man, but that really is neither here nor there. He has a BA in Physics and a PhD in the history of science from Cambridge, so he's no goof. You've charged that he's on the
fringe of scholarship regarding the Serapeum at the time of the destruction. So that's the question we'll deal with. I'm less interested in defending Hannam, as opposed to questioning your view that the film's depiction of events is historically accurate.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
12 years ago
You think Christians watch "Passion of the Christ" every Sunday of their entire life?
Are you really that desperate to win a point? Or are you just really that dumb? (Don't bother answering, I alreadly know the answer as I just read your reviews of the entire Highlander film series. And BTW- Thanks for the laughs!)
They went in, one guy grabbed a scroll, yelled "pagan filth" and the group proceeded to throw them around like teenagers throwing toilet paper on Halloween... Where is THAT in the primary sources?
My God you are pathetic.
To be fair, it did only take you 10 days after you were asked point blank for sources besides Carrier (by Tim).
Either you are a bald-faced liar or you have yet to master basic reading skills because I replied the same day.
Apparently not, but I guess I'm the dumb one here. Right.
"There can be only one!" And yes, that would be you...
reply
share
kurgan-10
12 years ago
Are you really that desperate to win a point? Or are you just really that dumb? (Don't bother answering, I alreadly know the answer as I just read your reviews of the entire Highlander film series. And BTW- Thanks for the laughs!)
If you think making fun of my taste in movies is anything more than a red herring, you're the desperate one. And two can play at that game, Alien Resurrection is one of your "favorite films." ;) You're obviously a movie geek through and through, with no room to talk. But who knows, maybe you're just impersonating one on the internet!
Incidentally I see a few films on your list that are pretty gory or disturbing. If you really want us to believe seeing such images will screw up a person's mind, I'd tread carefully.
I mean Apocalypto, really? Mel Gibson is a psychopath for producing "Passion of the Christ" but that other film, which if anything, is worse, in terms of graphic violence and historically inaccurate, is one of your favorites? Don't be a hypocrite.
My God you are pathetic.
You were the one who claimed "historical accuracy" for Agora's scenes there. I think you should have said "artistic license."
You would really benefit from watching the Agora DVD bonus features. Amenbar admits that he doesn't know much about history OR science.
Either you are a bald-faced liar or you have yet to master basic reading skills because I replied the same day.
I was looking at the date stamp of the posts. So sue me.
"There can be only one!" And yes, that would be you...
Did you just challenge me to a pissing contest? ;P
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
12 years ago
Incidentally I see a few films on your list that are pretty gory or disturbing. If you really want us to believe seeing such images will screw up a person's mind, I'd tread carefully.
I've NEVER said that seeing gory films will screw up a person's mind. That is how you misinterpreted my statement, even though I've previously pointed out this error. As I already made clear, I believe staring at a depiction of God being murdered upon an instrument of torture for hours every Sunday of your life would most likely have negative psychological effects.
Mel Gibson is a psychopath for producing "Passion of the Christ" but that other film, which if anything, is worse, in terms of graphic violence and historically inaccurate, is one of your favorites? Don't be a hypocrite.
I've NEVER complained about the historical accuracy of the 'Passion of the Christ', nor do I really care about the historical accuracy of 'Apocalypto' because FILMS ARE WORKS OF FICTION!!! As for the gore, see the above reply.
You were the one who claimed "historical accuracy" for Agora's scenes there. I think you should have said "artistic license."
That scene *IS* historically accurate. It does not contradict any of the documents describing its destruction and it uses these texts as its historical foundation. "Artistic license" would correctly apply to the death of Hypatia. Or to the character of Davus. Or several other things.
You would really benefit from watching the Agora DVD bonus features.
I have watched them. And I've already told you this. So why don't you just try sticking to the topics being discussed, okay champion?
I was looking at the date stamp of the posts.
Obviously. Which means that you have yet to master basic reading skills, as they clearly inform the reader that I replied on the same day.
reply
share
kurgan-10
12 years ago
As I already made clear, I believe staring at a depiction of God being murdered upon an instrument of torture for hours every Sunday of your life would most likely have negative psychological effects.
Why would it? You've given no evidence for this, and you apparently disagree with the idea that viewing violent films will have this effect (and let's be honest, some of the movies in your list of favorite films are far more gruesome and/or disturbing than any crucifix in any Church I've ever seen).
If anything, the fact that the majority of Christians are NOT psychologically damaged from viewing crucifixes seems contrary to your oddball theory. I also don't see any evidence that viewing crucifixes in Church prompts people to make gruesome movies (though one wonders what other sources of inspiration a person might look to in making a film ABOUT the crucifixion). If anything, you should be happy for such things, since it seems to have inspired plenty of graphic, disturbing films that you love.
Maybe crucifixions in art are "gruesome," because, perhaps they really were?
As for psychological damage from media, think of the children that grew up on Grimm's Fairy Tales. Did they turn out a generation of psychopaths? From Looney Toons, to comic books, to horror movies, to rap music and video games, most people who are exposed to this stuff for hours, years, etc. turn out just fine. Even those kids who might be traumatized by such things, get over it and grow up to be responsible adults most of the time. I'm not saying we should show young children "torture porn." But we also can't hide the violence and ugliness of the world and nature from them forever. Pretending such things don't exist could be psychologically unhealthy as well, you know.
I've NEVER complained about the historical accuracy of the 'Passion of the Christ', nor do I really care about the historical accuracy of 'Apocalypto' because FILMS ARE WORKS OF FICTION!!! As for the gore, see the above reply.
Didn't you complain that Hypatia's death wasn't gory enough?
That scene *IS* historically accurate.
I don't get it. Hypatia's death takes artistic license and you call it inaccurate. The "destruction" at the Sarapeum takes artistic license and you call it accurate.
It does not contradict any of the documents describing its destruction and it uses these texts as its historical foundation. "Artistic license" would correctly apply to the death of Hypatia. Or to the character of Davus. Or several other things.
So why the double standard? Why wonder if there was a Christian conspiracy to force censorship in one case?
You would really benefit from watching the Agora DVD bonus features.
I have watched them. And I've already told you this. So why don't you just try sticking to the topics being discussed, okay champion?
I must have missed that. So why would you think this stuff was "accurate"?
It seems like you're not really clarifying what you mean when you say something is artistic license and accurate, and something else is artistic license and inaccurate. I would say they're both inaccurate (that's kind of implied in artistic license in the first place).
If Agora had been historically accurate, it would have showed them plundering the idols and parading them through the forum exposed to mockery, etc. The movie sort of hints at such a thing much earlier in the film in a scene of the Christian crowd mocking and throwing tomatoes (?) at statues of the pagan gods (which provokes the pagans to lash out violently).
Perhaps you can point us to the ancient record which indicates that the Christians threw the scrolls around.
Obviously. Which means that you have yet to master basic reading skills, as they clearly inform the reader that I replied on the same day.
Fine, link it then and show me I am wrong.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
12 years ago
Why would it?
It doesn't matter. On the other hand, the fact that you misunderstood what I said does matter, as it negates your point. Sorry.
Didn't you complain that Hypatia's death wasn't gory enough?
Funny that you should ask. Because no, as a matter of fact, I didn't. I pointed out that they whitewashed her death to make the Christians look better. Which negated your (false) claim that the film did the opposite (painted Christians in an overly negative light.)
Hypatia's death takes artistic license and you call it inaccurate. The "destruction" at the Sarapeum takes artistic license and you call it accurate.
Yes. "Accurate" as it does not contradict history. "Inaccurate" contradicts history.
So why would you think this stuff was "accurate"?
As I said, the destruction of the Sarapeum is "accurate" in the fact that it does not contradict the historical sources documenting this event.
Fine, link it then and show me I am wrong.
I already did link it for you. But as I already said, why don't you just try sticking to the topics being discussed? Thanks in advance!
reply
share
kurgan-10
12 years ago
Funny that you should ask. Because no, as a matter of fact, I didn't. I pointed out that they whitewashed her death to make the Christians look better. Which negated your (false) claim that the film did the opposite (painted Christians in an overly negative light.)
So you approve of the artistic liscense?
I thought you were asserting that the director made this creative decision under pressure from angry Christians who were worried such a thing would make them look bad?
Some extra on the crew was your source for this perhaps?
Hypatia's death takes artistic license and you call it inaccurate. The "destruction" at the Sarapeum takes artistic license and you call it accurate.
Yes. "Accurate" as it does not contradict history. "Inaccurate" contradicts history.
"Artistic license" means the arts (filmmaker in this case) is taking creative liberties, filling in gaps with speculation, changing facts for the sake of the production, simplifying and amalgamating for the sake of brevity and so forth.
Amenbar already did this all over the film such as by creating the fictional character of Davus, making Orestes the "jilted suitor," inserting scientific speculation into the mouth of Hypatia she never uttered, inventing an unprovoked attack on the Jews to justify their later attack on the Christians, turning Synesius into a Judas rather than a true friend who preceded Hypatia in death after she began to ignore his letters, etc.
His portrayal of the Serapeum "destruction" is speculative. It adds things we don't know happened, and it omits things we do know happened. That's artistic license, and that's different than calling it "historically accurate."
So you'd be calling it "accurate" in the most vague sense. In the same sense we could call the death of Hypatia as portrayed in the movie "accurate" in a similarly vague sense.
I already did link it for you. But as I already said, why don't you just try sticking to the topics being discussed? Thanks in advance!
Link it again.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
12 years ago
Some extra on the crew was your source for this perhaps?
Yes, except it wasn't an extra, it was the actor who played Ammonius. Which you should know because you said you watched the DVD bonus features. So I guess you were lying about that.
It adds things we don't know happened, and it omits things we do know happened.
Once again, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. As for your false accusation that the director added things we don't know happened, your primary (aka: only) complaint is the director showing the Christians tossing the scrolls "like teenagers throwing toilet paper on Halloween", to which you then you ask me to "point us to the ancient record which indicates that the Christians threw the scrolls around". Therefore, I guess you simply object to exactly *how* he portrayed the Sarapeum being destroyed by a Christian mob. As opposed to showing an angry "mob mentality", apparently you'd prefer it if he showed the Christians calmly walking into the temple, single file, and gently removing the scrolls from their shelves and quietly placing them in a bonfire, all of this polite activity being interspersed with "please's" and "thank you's" with everything nice and sugary... In addition, you've previously said that the director made the destruction of the Sarapeum more gory than the primary sources, yet there is no gore or bloodshed in that scene whatsoever. Further evidence you don't know what you are talking about is the vague accusation that "it omits things we do know happened". Yes, well, the scene ends during the height of the destruction of the Sarapeum and therefore the director didn't show the idols being mocked and demolished in the end, thus portraying the situation as being *less* intolerant and violent on the part of the Christians than it actually was!
So you'd be calling it "accurate" in the most vague sense. In the same sense we could call the death of Hypatia as portrayed in the movie "accurate" in a similarly vague sense.
No, you cannot. Once again: "Accurate" does not contradict history. Like the destruction of the Sarapeum. "Inaccurate" contradicts history. As does the death of Hypatia. And if this is too much for you to grasp, perhaps you should STFU already, stop embarrassing yourself, and go back to reviewing documentaries on professional wrestling, okay champion?
reply
share
kurgan-10
12 years ago
Yes, except it wasn't an extra, it was the actor who played Ammonius. Which you should know because you said you watched the DVD bonus features. So I guess you were lying about that.
Excuse me,
a minor supporting character (interesting that the character's historical public execution via torture isn't shown in the film, only his corpse).
*sigh* Okay tell me where on the DVD it is, and give us the exact quote.
Once again, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. As for your false accusation that the director added things we don't know happened, your primary (aka: only) complaint is the director showing the Christians tossing the scrolls "like teenagers throwing toilet paper on Halloween", to which you then you ask me to "point us to the ancient record which indicates that the Christians threw the scrolls around". Therefore, I guess you simply object to exactly *how* he portrayed the Sarapeum being destroyed by a Christian mob.
I object to a claim of "historical accuracy" in a place where the filmmaker clearly took creative liberties.
As opposed to showing an angry "mob mentality", apparently you'd prefer it if he showed the Christians calmly walking into the temple, single file, and gently removing the scrolls from their shelves and quietly placing them in a bonfire, all of this polite activity being interspersed with "please's" and "thank you's" with everything nice and sugary...
No, I'd prefer that the movie depicted events as detailed in the most ancient accounts and/or according to mainstream historians, OR ELSE leave off the claim of "historically accurate" (either by filmmakers or fans praising the film).
If I praised "Passion of the Christ" for being "historically accurate" would you just agree with me, or would you question that? Caricaturing your response ("oh, so you're saying Jesus was NOT crucified and that crucifixion is NOT a horrible way to die and the Romans weren't happy to torture and kill?") wouldn't seem fair there, would it?
Saying "Passion of the Christ is historically accurate" would seem a blanket statement. If somebody objected and I said "well I just meant that the general ideas in the film were accurate" or that I was talking about the type of footgear one character wore or something, that would seem to indicate the original statement was misleading.
In addition, you've previously said that the director made the destruction of the Sarapeum more gory than the primary sources,
I don't recall writing that. I thought you said that since Hypatia's death in the ancient records (or rather, what happened to her body after she was killed, since it simply says of her actual death that she was "murdered with tiles" which leaves much to the imagination just as "they crucified him" does) was gorier than what was actually shown in the film, that therefore we should believe that Amenbar deliberately toned it down for fear of upsetting Christians (when he seemed to show no such restraint anywhere else the film might have "made Christians look bad").
I just think he was following the general unwritten modern filmmaking "rule" which is that beautiful women don't get gory deaths in films unless it's a horror movie.
yet there is no gore or bloodshed in that scene whatsoever. Further evidence you don't know what you are talking about is the vague accusation that "it omits things we do know happened". Yes, well, the scene ends during the height of the destruction of the Sarapeum and therefore the director didn't show the idols being mocked and demolished in the end, thus portraying the situation as being *less* intolerant and violent on the part of the Christians than it actually was!
No. Most of the audience watching Agora (whether Christian or atheist) is likely to think that offering sacrifices to big statues and stone penises is superstitious drivel. Hence, portraying this would have probably garnered more sympathy for the Christians and less for the pagans.
The way to reverse that would be to show the pagan religion as benevolent and good. All Amenbar tried to do in that regard was to depict the pagans praying to their "Father" in a respectful and solemn manner and then in the next shot show that they weren't worshiping the Christian God as one might have presumed (by their intonation and use of words).
By depicting the scene as shown in the film, they portray the "Christians" (epitomized by the zealous mob) as being specifically out to destroy KNOWLEDGE, that they're anti-rational.
In reality both sides valued philosophy, and both contained popular elements that believed violence was a legitimate way to solve disputes, and both engaged in religious practices that your modern agnostic/atheist/rationalist/liberal would find superstitious or politically incorrect.
So if portrayed historically accurate, I think the filmmaker might have lost some of the momentum in the overall plot, which is to show that Christianity was a bad thing for the world and woe to us for leaving behind the lost cause of pagan science (hence: a cautionary tale for not stamping out militant Islamists when we have the chance).
I mean, you get that right? He's saying that we need to stop the Muslims, because if they really follow their religion, they're going to destroy "us" (the good, civilized, rational people, despite our problems) and set back human knowledge.
No, you cannot. Once again: "Accurate" does not contradict history. Like the destruction of the Sarapeum.
"Accurate" in the vague sense that the Serpapeum was destroyed. Just like in the sense that POTC is "accurate" in that Jesus was crucified.
It's not wrong for us to parse through and see what is "accurate" and "inaccurate" even in these vague areas of general agreement with historical records.
"300" was "accurate" in that the battle of Thermopylae really happened. 300 Spartans really did make a stand against the Persian army of Xerxes which was viewed by history as heroic. They really were a "warrior" society that produced Leonidas, who really was killed in the battle.
"Gladiator" was "accurate" in that there really was an Emperor Commodus who really did go into the arena to fight as a gladiator, and he really was assasinated.
But both films are wildly inaccurate in a lot of other areas, not just fine details. In broad categories they are accurate.
"Kingdom of Heaven" is accurate in that the crusades really did happen and many people really did die because of those conflicts between Christians and Muslims.
The Patriot, Braveheart, Luther, virtually any "historical" movie you can think of contains SOME elements of accuracy with historical records. But calling a film "accurate" or even a scene "accurate" without regard for artistic license vs. the actual evidence, creates a false impression.
"Inaccurate" contradicts history. As does the death of Hypatia.
I agree with you that the death of Hypatia in Agora is inaccurate. However that's not the only inaccurate portion of the film. The accounts of the destruction of the Serpaeum are not depicted in the film. So you might as well be honest and say they are "inaccurate" as well. "Generally accurate" is okay, but "accurate" implies they follow the historical records. You can be inaccurate by omitting things just as by depicting contradictory things, both of which Amenbar did in his film at various points.
And if this is too much for you to grasp, perhaps you should STFU already, stop embarrassing yourself, and go back to reviewing documentaries on professional wrestling, okay champion?
Done? Okay, my turn.
Oh yeah? That's great coming from a person who lists pieces of crap like
Alien Resurrection, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Inglourious Basterds (QT's "best so far," really?), Clone Wars, Natural Born Killers, Pitch Black, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, The Animatrix, THX-1138, Immortals, and yes, AGORA as their "favorite films."
And you liked Apocalypto, which is even more historically inaccurate and politically incorrect than Agora, and more explicit and gruesome than Passion of the Christ.
And you admit to liking the first two Star Wars films (and Clone Wars!), but
didn't like Return of the Jedi? And you trumpet your supposed maturity in your profile? Effortless.
Stay away from the Madness!
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
12 years ago
I object to a claim of "historical accuracy" in a place where the filmmaker clearly took creative liberties.
So you keep saying. And yet you produce nothing to support this claim, other than TWO lame examples(!): the Christians tossing the scrolls "like teenagers throwing toilet paper on Halloween" and complaining about him portraying the Christian mob in a more positive light by not showing them desecrating the sacred objects of other religions (apparently forgetting that the scene ends in the middle of the destruction of the Sarapeum.)
I don't recall writing that.
How convenient. Even worse, you are apparently incapable of rereading old threads as well. So let me help you out with a transcript:
Me: A film-maker made a movie accurately depicting the destruction of the Sarapeum by Christian fanatics. But instead of accepting the truth about history, you'd rather rewrite it with fringe theories which completely take the blame away from the Christian church. But anyway, nice try!
You: Not quite accurately, actually, even if we go by the primary sources. Read them, and compare the scene in the actual film. No need for "fringe theories" there.
Me: Oh really? So are you referring to a completely new fringe theory? Or the dead one lying in a bloody puddle a few threads back?
You: I'm saying the film doesn't match the ancient primary sources, and no, not even if you put in some more gore.
Me: What was gory about the destruction of the Sarapeum? The Christians razed an empty temple!?! (Or did you forget what we were talking about again?)
Therefore, we are left with two conclusions:
a.) You are unable to remember exactly what it is you are talking about. (The destruction of the Sarapeum as depicted in 'Agora'.)
b.) You are a liar.
And in case you aren't aware, either answer embarrasses not only you, but the organization you are "trying" to represent. And rather poorly, I might add.
So if portrayed historically accurate, I think the filmmaker might have lost some of the momentum in the overall plot, which is to show that Christianity was a bad thing for the world and woe to us for leaving behind the lost cause of pagan science (hence: a cautionary tale for not stamping out militant Islamists when we have the chance).
I mean, you get that right? He's saying that we need to stop the Muslims, because if they really follow their religion, they're going to destroy "us" (the good, civilized, rational people, despite our problems) and set back human knowledge.
Hilarious! Talk about the height of absurdity!
Unfortunately, what the director is *truly* saying (as documented in interviews) is that all forms of religious fundamentalism/extremism are bad things for the world, as they will (further) destroy civilization and (further) set back scientific knowledge. Just as it did with the destruction of the Sarapeum library by religious (Christian) extremists! Of course, when you factor in your rather typical "Christian persecution complex", coupled with your general dim-wittedness (as evidenced by your inane film reviews and your silly "Jedi for Jesus" persona) it's easy to see how you came up with your ridiculous little misinterpretation...
So are we done here? With you so effortlessly proving the truth of this thread's subject title again and again? Seriously, I'm almost embarrassed for you. Just stop being THAT type of Christian already, okay? (Which happens to be the only point you've successfully demonstrated here.)
reply
share