John - re your previous Audrey post:
Nope, sorry - it's obvious that when we look at it, we are seeing two different things.
The movie you are describing uses the in the words I would use to describe GiGi - a big, bloated, bore.
I did see MFL on Bway, but toward the end of its run, with actors I can't bring to mind (except I believe they were indeed English), and I really don't remember much of it save for Alfred P. Doolittle's head coming up out of a trapdoor in the floor at some point to say some lines. I suppose it's because I'm not in love with the show (although I do like the the Shavian cleverness of some of the songs) that I felt that the movie brought out something more.
How's this for a horrifying thought: a remake of the musical, directed by Guy Richie, with Clare Danes as Eliza (she who is on Bway now in "Pygmalion," to tepid, and worse, reviews). There's nothing in the movies that some joker somewhere can't make worse.
A Strong & Urgent Plea from the ol' Sled Dog
-
klondike
JohnM wrote:
> "But, why is it a shame that the movie is being boycotted?[/quote]"<
Why?
Because the reason being promoted by the press to boycott this movie is based on alleged information that in simple reality is not only wrong, but blatantly deceitful.
There is no mention of, depiction of, or reference to : God, Goddess, the Gods, prayer, angels, religion, worship, damnation, church, clergy, messiahs, salvation, resurrection, possession, priests, the afterlife, reincarnation or Christianity, or any branch thereof, anywhere in this exciting adventure film.
Don't like Kidman, or spectacular special effects, or Texan bounty hunters piloting helium airships, or giant talking Ice Bears? By all means, steer clear!
But staying away to avoid blasphemy? That just makes you a sap, or worse yet, a victim of right-wing media propaganda.
> "But, why is it a shame that the movie is being boycotted?[/quote]"<
Why?
Because the reason being promoted by the press to boycott this movie is based on alleged information that in simple reality is not only wrong, but blatantly deceitful.
There is no mention of, depiction of, or reference to : God, Goddess, the Gods, prayer, angels, religion, worship, damnation, church, clergy, messiahs, salvation, resurrection, possession, priests, the afterlife, reincarnation or Christianity, or any branch thereof, anywhere in this exciting adventure film.
Don't like Kidman, or spectacular special effects, or Texan bounty hunters piloting helium airships, or giant talking Ice Bears? By all means, steer clear!
But staying away to avoid blasphemy? That just makes you a sap, or worse yet, a victim of right-wing media propaganda.
I would really like to know if the whole darn world has gone insane? Why can't people leave children be children with all their little dreams, fantasies and imaginations? Is nothing sacred or exempt from adult perversions? The teletubbies were gay, Snow White was a slut because she slept with the seven dwarfs; where does it stop? Am I just an old fuddy-duddy who hasn't adjusted to the 21st century yet, or just a grandmother who believes a seven year old has every right to still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? Even if this movie DOES have some allusion to atheism or other religious denials, so what - - - IT'S A CHILDS' MOVIE FOR HEAVENS SAKE, they don't know about such things, all they see are the amazing colors and events happening on the screen. It's like I've said in the past, watching some movies, certain scenes and events went right over my head. THAT is why my parents didn't let me see some movies, I was too young to understand them, but children don't need adults mucking up something that should be a joy for them. Kids grow up 'way too soon nowadays, why can't adults just let them be? Boycott a childrens movie because it MAY carry religious innuendoes - the very idea is ludicrous. 
I may be in a 'Go for kids' mode tonight, because today this happened:
My little angel girl kept hugging me, not that she doesn't often, but this was more than usual, and I asked what's with all the hugs - I already have her Christmas gifts - and she said "You smell so good now", when I looked at her funny, she said, "You don't smell like cigarettes anymore, Gramma". Naturally that teared me up a bit and I had to send her off for my purse, but that's the kind of purity kids should be allowed to enjoy.
Anne
I may be in a 'Go for kids' mode tonight, because today this happened:
My little angel girl kept hugging me, not that she doesn't often, but this was more than usual, and I asked what's with all the hugs - I already have her Christmas gifts - and she said "You smell so good now", when I looked at her funny, she said, "You don't smell like cigarettes anymore, Gramma". Naturally that teared me up a bit and I had to send her off for my purse, but that's the kind of purity kids should be allowed to enjoy.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
my fair lady
WOW!. Very interesting (and lively) discussion about 'My Fair Lady'.Hearing (agreeing or not) with the different opinions.
I liked 'My Fair Lady', very much. Andrews or Hepburn? Made no matter to me, Margaret Rutherford could have played Eliza long as Marni Nixon and Bill Shirley did the singing.
What did I like about it? The music, man; 'on the street where you live 'was one of the top songs of the swing era. 'loverly'' the Rain' 'Without you' Just you wait' and 'I could've Danced were all great tunes.
Here's a thought that will get me in trouble; I always thought audrey Hepburn was too skinny to be a leading lady. That's going to make the fur fly but it really is an honest opinion. .... mel
I liked 'My Fair Lady', very much. Andrews or Hepburn? Made no matter to me, Margaret Rutherford could have played Eliza long as Marni Nixon and Bill Shirley did the singing.
What did I like about it? The music, man; 'on the street where you live 'was one of the top songs of the swing era. 'loverly'' the Rain' 'Without you' Just you wait' and 'I could've Danced were all great tunes.
Here's a thought that will get me in trouble; I always thought audrey Hepburn was too skinny to be a leading lady. That's going to make the fur fly but it really is an honest opinion. .... mel
-
klondike
Hey there, JohnM, Mel, Brooklyn Gal et al:
As there's obviously so much more for you guys to discuss r.e. stage musicals into film versions, the direction of musicals and the casting choices of leading ladies, how about somebody kicking off a new thread, one specifically about those topics?
I mean, it's all been fun, but this thread's getting bipolar, if not downright SCHIZOID!
As there's obviously so much more for you guys to discuss r.e. stage musicals into film versions, the direction of musicals and the casting choices of leading ladies, how about somebody kicking off a new thread, one specifically about those topics?
I mean, it's all been fun, but this thread's getting bipolar, if not downright SCHIZOID!
Okay, I don't want to stick my head into a lion's mouth here, but Philip Pullman, the author of the source novel for "The Golden Compass," has, in several interviews, expressed contempt for C. S. Lewis, the "Narnia" books, and religion in general.
As I understand the trilogy "His Dark Materials," the first book is mostly adventure, and the heavy theology/anti-theology comes in the third book. This was so much the case that some reviewers, such as Charles deLint in "Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction," felt that Pullman damaged his story in volume III with his preaching.
As I understand it, the movie "The Golden Compass" ends before the novel "The Golden Compass" ends so that it would have an upbeat ending. So there have been changes made from book to screen, and an effort has been made to "de-controversialize" the movie.
However, make no mistake, Pullman sees himself as an enemy of religion.
As I understand the trilogy "His Dark Materials," the first book is mostly adventure, and the heavy theology/anti-theology comes in the third book. This was so much the case that some reviewers, such as Charles deLint in "Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction," felt that Pullman damaged his story in volume III with his preaching.
As I understand it, the movie "The Golden Compass" ends before the novel "The Golden Compass" ends so that it would have an upbeat ending. So there have been changes made from book to screen, and an effort has been made to "de-controversialize" the movie.
However, make no mistake, Pullman sees himself as an enemy of religion.
-
jdb1
Well, John, Mel and Klondike - I think I've said all I have to say on the subject of MFL for now. I also agree that Audrey was too thin, but then, I don't dig thin in men or women. However, she was a ballet dancer, and she was probably comfortable as she was. In fact, on some biography show or other I heard a commentator say that Hepburn was at odds with costumer designer Edith Head, who wanted to dress Audrey look a bit less skeletal.
As for Mike's comment: I'll draw us into the lion's den a bit further. Something I've wondered for years and years is - if you feel you have strong and unwavering faith, and believe in the immutableness of a higher power, why would you worry about what some mere mortal puts in something as spritually insubstantial as a book or movie? If you believe you are under the protection of such a power, and you feel your faith, knowledge and beliefs are "unshakable," what difference would it make to you if someone else had a different thought? I just don't get it. I'm at ease with my philosophy, such as it is, and if someone draws a figurative mustache on my personal pantheon, so what? Why should that threaten me if I really believe what I say I believe?
Your thoughts, brothers and sisters?
As for Mike's comment: I'll draw us into the lion's den a bit further. Something I've wondered for years and years is - if you feel you have strong and unwavering faith, and believe in the immutableness of a higher power, why would you worry about what some mere mortal puts in something as spritually insubstantial as a book or movie? If you believe you are under the protection of such a power, and you feel your faith, knowledge and beliefs are "unshakable," what difference would it make to you if someone else had a different thought? I just don't get it. I'm at ease with my philosophy, such as it is, and if someone draws a figurative mustache on my personal pantheon, so what? Why should that threaten me if I really believe what I say I believe?
Your thoughts, brothers and sisters?
jdb1:
As I said, children don't care what the writer says, as long as the movie entertains them. I personally gave up formal/organized religion so long ago, I can't recall when it was, but I have the beliefs of my childhood so strong in me, they keep me on the straight and narrow. Although called the 10 commandments in catholicism, those 10 things are simply rules for everybody to live by and are the basics of any religion. Everyone knows you shouldn't steal, or kill, or hurt peoples feelings and as long as you choose to follow those rules, you will live a good life. It's so simple, I don't need a preacher, or priest, or reverend or rabbi or whatever to remind me every Sunday, or Saturday. It's all choice. Listen to the idiots or ignore them. Duh.
Anne
As I said, children don't care what the writer says, as long as the movie entertains them. I personally gave up formal/organized religion so long ago, I can't recall when it was, but I have the beliefs of my childhood so strong in me, they keep me on the straight and narrow. Although called the 10 commandments in catholicism, those 10 things are simply rules for everybody to live by and are the basics of any religion. Everyone knows you shouldn't steal, or kill, or hurt peoples feelings and as long as you choose to follow those rules, you will live a good life. It's so simple, I don't need a preacher, or priest, or reverend or rabbi or whatever to remind me every Sunday, or Saturday. It's all choice. Listen to the idiots or ignore them. Duh.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
klondike
Oh, I think lots of mistakes are being made on this subject, Mike, but I think the biggest one is that Philip Pullman is being tried by grapevine, a nasty old American parlor sport, made all the more insidious by our modern multiplicity of media access.MikeBSG wrote:Okay, I don't want to stick my head into a lion's mouth here, but Philip Pullman, the author of the source novel for "The Golden Compass," has, in several interviews, expressed contempt for C. S. Lewis, the "Narnia" books, and religion in general.
As I understand the trilogy "His Dark Materials," the first book is mostly adventure, and the heavy theology/anti-theology comes in the third book. This was so much the case that some reviewers, such as Charles deLint in "Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction," felt that Pullman damaged his story in volume III with his preaching.
As I understand it, the movie "The Golden Compass" ends before the novel "The Golden Compass" ends so that it would have an upbeat ending. So there have been changes made from book to screen, and an effort has been made to "de-controversialize" the movie.
However, make no mistake, Pullman sees himself as an enemy of religion.
Such access should make us that much more commited to fairly examining the facts behind all the rumors that fly about, and yet far too often, such access has seemed to merely clone broader variations of all those negative or sensational rumors.
Obviously, the biggest problem in this particular case is that apparently only a small fraction of the people most determined to warm up the tar & bag the feathers have seen the movie, or intend to, and only a miniscule percentage of them have even looked at the book, much less actually read it, or even discussed its content with anyone who has.
And yet, everyone standing in line to bang the drum is somehow an overnight expert on the depth & nature of the "problem".
Here are some excerpts direct from "the horse's mouth" as they appeared in a Washington Post article, so for a change, let's let Mr. Pullman speak for himself:
> "But I'm not in the business of offending people," he says. "I find the books upholding certain values that I think are important. Such as that this life is immensely valuable. And that this world is an extraordinarily beautiful place, and we should do what we can to increase the amount of wisdom in the world."
He says he recently received a review in the mail from a vicar who found the books' "moral base" to be secure. "What he meant," Pullman explains, "is that the qualities and the actions which the story seems to be saying are good -- such as courage, love, kindness, compassion and so on -- are ones that we can all agree on. . . . It's saying things that we generally agree on, so what is there to disagree with?"
Pullman read the Narnia books as an adult and found them deeply disturbing. "Lewis was celebrating, upholding certain activities and attitudes which I am explicitly against, such as bullying, racism, misogyny. Girls are no good, says C.S. Lewis. Girls are only good as long as they act like boys. If they're tough, they're okay, but intrinsically they're inferior. People with dark skins who probably come from somewhere sinister like the East, and almost inevitably smell of garlic, are always a sign of evil or danger."
In the final Narnia book, "The Last Battle," the older girl is excluded from salvation because she has become too interested in lipstick, nylons and invitations. "In other words, she's growing up. She's entering adulthood," says Pullman. "Now this for Lewis, was something . . . so dreadful and so redolent of sin that he had to send her to Hell. I find that appalling."
Both Lewis and Tolkien stressed "the otherness" and superiority of their fantasy worlds. Pullman is passionately opposed to that, too. He gazes out the window and watches the unending downpour that is turning his yard into a mucky pool. "I want to open people's eyes if I can, and their hearts and their minds to the extraordinary fact that we're alive in this world, which, although it is full of rain and mud, is nevertheless extraordinary and wonderful. And the more you explore it and discover about it -- scientifically, imaginatively, artistically -- the more wonderful and extraordinary it becomes."
The author would also like to help readers discover the possibilities within themselves. "Harry Potter was born to be a wizard, and I don't really like that idea. I wanted to get away from the notion that somebody is born with a particular destiny," he says. "Lyra is a very ordinary child, and so is Will, and there are hundreds of thousands of millions of kids like Will and Lyra all around the place. The great things they do are doable by all of us. . . . Lyra's and Will's responses are the responses of every young person who is faced with something difficult and is courageous enough to deal with it. "
"What I'm interested in is what people are like as human beings, and how we grow up and how we love each other and how it's difficult to live with each other," says Pullman. "Traditionally, that sort of stuff has belonged in the domain of realistic fiction. But why not put that in a fantasy context? I wanted to make this fantasy as realistic in psychological terms as I possibly could."
The trilogy's animal familiars are a fanciful device that serves as a shortcut to characterization (or, possibly, species stereotyping). Children's daemons change according to their mood -- when Lyra is angry, hers often transforms into a polecat -- but once a person matures into adulthood, his daemon settles into a single form. Servants' daemons are always dogs. The villainous Mrs. Coulter's daemon is a golden monkey, while the fearsome Lord Asriel's is a powerful snow leopard.
Readers frequently ask Pullman what sort of daemon he might have. "I think she would be one of those birds who steal bright things, like a jackdaw," he says. "Storytellers work by picking up little bright bits of experience or gossip or something they've read that sort of sparkles. So you pick it up and take it to your nest."
Pullman's influences range far and wide. Washington Post book critic Michael Dirda, who has called the trilogy "the best, deepest and most disturbing children's fantasy of our time," assembled a remarkable list that includes "Paradise Lost," the poetry of William Blake, the Jewish cabala, Wagner's "Ring of the Nibelungs," "Peter Pan," "Star Wars," superhero comics and Ursula K. Le Guin's "Earthsea" books.
Pullman devised the names for some of the trilogy's most beloved characters by borrowing from a variety of sources. The author came up with "Iorek Byrnison" for the armored bear by thumbing through a book of old Norse poems. "Iorek means something like bear," he explains, "and the second part of his name comes from 'byrne,' which means something like armor. Then I added a typical Nordic suffix." Texan aeronaut Lee Scoresby was derived from actor Lee Van Cleef and arctic explorer William Scoresby. As for the elegant and beautiful witch Serafina Pekkala, Pullman took that name right out of a Helsinki telephone book. "It's a really common name in Finland," he says.
Another book? Could there be a sequel to the trilogy?
He's also considering the early life of one of his favorite characters, Lee Scoresby, and how he came to be friends with the armored bear. Then there's the story of Serafina Pekkala and the human she once loved . . .
"There are all kinds of stories, thousands of stories, that could be set in this world," he says. The expert storyteller's dramatic pause. "And I may write them." <
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
Anne:
As you might not agree with them doesn't make those who are called to that profession idiots. They are frequently learned men and women who spend years in seminary learning what it is to be a leader and teacher of God. They are genuinely devoted to their calling. They are humbled at their task and take their responsibility in all seriousness.
Believers are called to come together (on Saturday or Sunday)and in that fellowship we find great things. It's a special community because of its foundation and for those who wish, they too can be part of it.
Judith:
I have no knowledge of this film so I can't comment on it in particular but I'll say this about the rest of your question.
I have been a Christian most of my life. As you are I am quite secure in what I believe and I have not seen anything nor fear anything that will change my belief. It is not the strong of faith who are worried. It is those who seek and for our children who can, under the guise of entertainment, be easily manipulated that bring out these concerns.
What I think some others have issues with are how things are presented. When they say they are one thing and then are something else, that is a problem. When religion and people of faith are now the people who are not tolerated especially by those who claim that they are victims of intolerance, that is a problem. It is what they see as a breakdown of morality in society. Not a breakdown in faith but in what is right or wrong or just plain decent. It is bigger than a movie or a book. It is sometimes a double standard in the way they are treated.
There are enough of us that we too have our morons (i.e. Westboro Baptist.) Of course, those are the ones who always make the news. History is not clean but we strive to be better. Too often people make that wide sweep and collect us all in that group. But like any group those small parts do not make the whole.
I don't know if I have expressed it well. I'm not for boycotting. I'm not for censorship. I'm not for restricting anything. However, if I want to speak up about something because I think it is too violent or too sexual or too degrading or too insulting to my faith then I should be given the same consideration.
As you might not agree with them doesn't make those who are called to that profession idiots. They are frequently learned men and women who spend years in seminary learning what it is to be a leader and teacher of God. They are genuinely devoted to their calling. They are humbled at their task and take their responsibility in all seriousness.
Believers are called to come together (on Saturday or Sunday)and in that fellowship we find great things. It's a special community because of its foundation and for those who wish, they too can be part of it.
Judith:
I have no knowledge of this film so I can't comment on it in particular but I'll say this about the rest of your question.
I have been a Christian most of my life. As you are I am quite secure in what I believe and I have not seen anything nor fear anything that will change my belief. It is not the strong of faith who are worried. It is those who seek and for our children who can, under the guise of entertainment, be easily manipulated that bring out these concerns.
What I think some others have issues with are how things are presented. When they say they are one thing and then are something else, that is a problem. When religion and people of faith are now the people who are not tolerated especially by those who claim that they are victims of intolerance, that is a problem. It is what they see as a breakdown of morality in society. Not a breakdown in faith but in what is right or wrong or just plain decent. It is bigger than a movie or a book. It is sometimes a double standard in the way they are treated.
There are enough of us that we too have our morons (i.e. Westboro Baptist.) Of course, those are the ones who always make the news. History is not clean but we strive to be better. Too often people make that wide sweep and collect us all in that group. But like any group those small parts do not make the whole.
I don't know if I have expressed it well. I'm not for boycotting. I'm not for censorship. I'm not for restricting anything. However, if I want to speak up about something because I think it is too violent or too sexual or too degrading or too insulting to my faith then I should be given the same consideration.
Chris
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
I spent a few years studying to be one of those "idiots" and while I never did enter the ministry, I have a lot of respect for those that carry the burden--it's not an easy one.
As for Pullman or his film, I'm not aware of either so I will reserve judgement on his work. I don't believe in critizing anything until I have personally viewed or read it. I don't judge by hearsay. I will say his statements about Lewis from what I have read in this thread are erroneous at best. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles do have theological flaws in some areas (nothing Pullman mentioned), but I really don't think anyone should be exclusively patterning their lives after children's books. From what I read of his own words he is a non-believer, so how could he hope to understand a book with belief at it's core?
As for his own work, as Johnm said, I'm not a fan of Kidman or CGI so I'm not really interested (I didn't see the Narnia film either). However, if someone creates any kind of quality work--I usually enjoy it no matter who made it or what the subject matter is. John Lennon said many things I personally disagree with, but I admired the man's talent and his willingness to be open and frank in his music and ideals. Paul Gauguin left his family in the lurch to paint, and while I don't agree with his values, in viewing an exhibition of his work two years ago I could not help but be incredibly touched by his skill. I personally think to enjoy art is to celebrate creation. This does not mean you agree with the artist or his statement. To quote Tom Hulce in Amadeus (1984): "I'm a very vulgar man, but my music is not."
When I was a kid, my parents made a point of previewing books, music, films, before they entered my world. I think that's still a pretty good principal for youngsters. If parents have any qualms about what their children might be seeing, it's their responsiblity to look closer and see if they are mature enough for the content.
As for Pullman or his film, I'm not aware of either so I will reserve judgement on his work. I don't believe in critizing anything until I have personally viewed or read it. I don't judge by hearsay. I will say his statements about Lewis from what I have read in this thread are erroneous at best. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles do have theological flaws in some areas (nothing Pullman mentioned), but I really don't think anyone should be exclusively patterning their lives after children's books. From what I read of his own words he is a non-believer, so how could he hope to understand a book with belief at it's core?
As for his own work, as Johnm said, I'm not a fan of Kidman or CGI so I'm not really interested (I didn't see the Narnia film either). However, if someone creates any kind of quality work--I usually enjoy it no matter who made it or what the subject matter is. John Lennon said many things I personally disagree with, but I admired the man's talent and his willingness to be open and frank in his music and ideals. Paul Gauguin left his family in the lurch to paint, and while I don't agree with his values, in viewing an exhibition of his work two years ago I could not help but be incredibly touched by his skill. I personally think to enjoy art is to celebrate creation. This does not mean you agree with the artist or his statement. To quote Tom Hulce in Amadeus (1984): "I'm a very vulgar man, but my music is not."
When I was a kid, my parents made a point of previewing books, music, films, before they entered my world. I think that's still a pretty good principal for youngsters. If parents have any qualms about what their children might be seeing, it's their responsiblity to look closer and see if they are mature enough for the content.