MERGED--> Jesus Camp + Michael Moore and ... - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-19-2006, 03:13 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 11:01 AM
When is this film being put into local mainstream theaters or Arthouses? I would really like to see this film.
__________________

__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 03:40 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 01:01 PM
http://jesuscampthemovie.com/theatreList.html

Nowhere near me. It played at the Boston Film Festival but I wasn't able to go.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 03:46 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I've heard of this piece of crap. They take a look at the most radical sect of Christianity and expose it as if it had any link to mainstream Christianity. I guess the good thing about it is that it proves Rosie O'Donnell dead wrong for saying that radical Christianity is just as bad as radical Islam. What a ridiculous statement.

As for those who have deep resentment for Christianity, go ahead and watch it, and make sure you follow it up with Valley of the Wolves.


yeah, hi, i've seen the film, and i've met the directors, and it's one of the best documentaries i've ever seen in my entire life and each and every person who is in the film stands by it 100% as they think that it is fully and fairly representative of their specific kind of christianity, which is Pentacostal, and by no means do they associate themselves with mainstream Christianity -- they see themselves as fully distinct from, say, Main Line Protestanism, or Catholicism.

perhaps you should try to see the film before you render such judgements, though ignorance hasn't stopped you in the past.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 03:47 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen

Nowhere near me. It played at the Boston Film Festival but I wasn't able to go.


i bet in early 2007 it might get a wider release, as i'm sure it will be a Best Documentary contender at the Oscars.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 03:48 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
yeah, hi, i've seen the film, and i've met the directors, and it's one of the best documentaries i've ever seen in my entire life and each and every person who is in the film stands by it 100% as they think that it is fully and fairly representative of their specific kind of christianity, which is Pentacostal, and by no means do they associate themselves with mainstream Christianity -- they see themselves as fully distinct from, say, Main Line Protestanism, or Catholicism.

perhaps you should try to see the film before you render such judgements, though ignorance hasn't stopped you in the past.
I know enough about it to know it has an agenda that doesn't appeal to me. But if you can honestly say that it doesn't associate the wackos portrayed in the film with mainstream Christianity, I'll take your word for it.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 03:52 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I know enough about it to know it has an agenda that doesn't appeal to me. But if you can honestly say that it doesn't associate the wackos portrayed in the film with mainstream Christianity, I'll take your word for it.



see the film.

it has no agenda. it's one of the most straightfoward pieces of documentary filmmaking i can recall. there's no narration. there's very little music. all of the characters in the film -- the teachers, the students, the parents -- are fully behind the film and feel it is an accurate representation of their faith.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 04:02 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 11:01 AM
MacFisto do you make people do things they don't want? If I were you I would watch it. It's not going to kill you.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 04:12 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 07:01 PM
I heard about this movie on a dutch muslim website this morning and now i want to see it myself.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 06:25 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 06:01 PM
Irvine, are you joking?

Have also seen the film. Have also read interviews with the filmmakers. To say that the film has no agenda is completely naive. What do you think of the Air America radio host whose comments bookend the film? (In one of the interviews I read, one of the filmmakers said that he was a late add, should anyone in the film think the filmmakers sided with the subjects.) What do you think of the fact that the filmmakers shamelessly (and erroneously) equated mainstream evangelicalism with this extreme, isolated strain by using the shorthand "evangelical" in nearly every statistic they showed on-screen to depict this camp, as though the one were the other? What do you think of the fact that in a 90 minute documentary the film spends about 35 minutes in the actual camp itself, and the rest of the time underlining the political element of evangelicalism? As though one woman leading a relatively small camp in the backwoods and hooting "this means war" represented all, most, or even some of mainstream evangelicalism?

"No agenda"? Give me a break.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 06:29 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:01 AM
EVERY movie, documentary, commercial, song, play...etc has an agenda.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 06:35 PM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
Irvine, are you joking?

Have also seen the film. Have also read interviews with the filmmakers. To say that the film has no agenda is completely naive. What do you think of the Air America radio host whose comments bookend the film? (In one of the interviews I read, one of the filmmakers said that he was a late add, should anyone in the film think the filmmakers sided with the subjects.) What do you think of the fact that the filmmakers shamelessly (and erroneously) equated mainstream evangelicalism with this extreme, isolated strain by using the shorthand "evangelical" in nearly every statistic they showed on-screen to depict this camp, as though the one were the other? What do you think of the fact that in a 90 minute documentary the film spends about 35 minutes in the actual camp itself, and the rest of the time underlining the political element of evangelicalism? As though one woman leading a relatively small camp in the backwoods and hooting "this means war" represented all, most, or even some of mainstream evangelicalism?

"No agenda"? Give me a break.

nathan, are you joking? did we see the same film? when did you see it?

the bookending was asked about, and they said they included him because there was no sense of balance in the film whatsoever, so they felt as if they had to include something to give it context and didn't want to resort to narration. the host is also from this exact area in Missouri, and i don't believe he's on Air America at all.

they used the word "evangelical" because that was what the subjects, themselves, called themselves. it would be tedious, and pointless, to qualify (to your liking, i imagine) endlessly throughout the film. there was way, way more than 35 minutes spent in the camp itself, and many of the activities that were outside the camp were camp-related activities, political or otherwise.

i think the fact that it has gotten a rise out of you is evidence to just how point blank the film is: you get out of it what you want to see. how would you not expect two female documentary filmmakers from NYC to be anything other than "biased" or have an "agenda"? i would fully expect that reaction from those who would self-identify as evangelical -- one woman in the audience brought up the same point, and said she was evangelical, and homeschooled her kids because she thought the public schools were way, way too conservative and indoctrinated her children to be mindless, warlike patriots. i know we'd like everything to fit our definitions of what we want the adjectives we use to describe ourselves, but life doesn't always work that way. might you have made a different film? probably. but you'd just have an agenda all by yourself.

and how do you explain the fact that ALL the subjects are thrilled wtih the film and stand behind it and have gone with the filmmakers to festivals?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 06:35 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 06:01 PM
Sounds interesting.

Michael Moore is a moron BTW. The fact that he's endorsing it automatically makes me less interested.

I'll still give it a chance though.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 07:01 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
MacFisto do you make people do things they don't want? If I were you I would watch it. It's not going to kill you.
A clip on the news was enough for me. I'm not going to put myself in a straightjacket over it.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 07:23 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

nathan, are you joking? did we see the same film? when did you see it?
A buddy of mine was asked to review it and was sent a screener. We saw it about 3 weeks ago.

Quote:
the host is also from this exact area in Missouri, and i don't believe he's on Air America at all.
The DJ's name is Mike Papantonio; his talk show is broadcast on Air America. Podcasts are readily available on-line.

Quote:
they used the word "evangelical" because that was what the subjects, themselves, called themselves. it would be tedious, and pointless, to qualify (to your liking, i imagine) endlessly throughout the film. there was way, way more than 35 minutes spent in the camp itself, and many of the activities that were outside the camp were camp-related activities, political or otherwise.
The film sums up evangelicalism in about three sentences. The filmmakers could have chosen to sum up extreme Pentecostalism the same way. Heck, they could have chosen to add one clause saying, "Fundamentalist Pentecostalism is a sect of evangelicalism, which..." The filmmakers however chose not to, instead tarring 45 million Americans with the same brush.

My buddy and I went back and specifically timed the amount of time the filmmakers spent at Jesus Camp. Thirty-five minutes.

Quote:
how would you not expect two female documentary filmmakers from NYC to be anything other than "biased" or have an "agenda"?
You were the one who insisted that it had no agenda, Irvine. (You seem to be backing off that statement.) I have no problem with agenda-driven filmmaking -- reflecting the worldview of the artist is a by-product of creativity. But let's not say that it's something it isn't.

Quote:
and how do you explain the fact that ALL the subjects are thrilled wtih the film and stand behind it and have gone with the filmmakers to festivals?
Becky Fischer, the subject of the film, does seem content with the film, though she did mention in indieWIRE that she had a number of reactions to the film more nuanced than your blanket "thrilled" would indicate.

I think the film is important to see; it's certainly well-made, it's very engaging, and it focuses on something we haven't really seen on film before. But to say "it has no agenda" is misleading at best.

By the way, the film's score (yes, there is one) is by Force Theory.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 08:40 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
[B]
The film sums up evangelicalism in about three sentences. The filmmakers could have chosen to sum up extreme Pentecostalism the same way. Heck, they could have chosen to add one clause saying, "Fundamentalist Pentecostalism is a sect of evangelicalism, which..." The filmmakers however chose not to, instead tarring 45 million Americans with the same brush.

well, if the film had any narration, you might have a point. it's amazing how we get to the point that if we feel as if a film doesn't specifically reflect our own experiences. i'm sorry you feel as if you've been tarred, but that speaks much more to your own paranoia since i think the film goes to great lengths to not be about evangelicals, but about these evangelicals.

it sounds like a reaction i had to a film called "Gay Sex in the 70's." i wrote a journal entry about it. i was taken aback by many of the things i saw in it, firstly because i felt as i the bathhouse culture of 1970s new york had nothing to do with me, nor was it even representative of the average gay experience in the 1970s, let alone today. however, it was a very accurate portrayal of the social and sexual lives of a very specific group of gay male new yorkers in a very specific time period. as much as i might not feel as if my experience, or the experience of all gay men, everywhere, was accurately represented, that doesn't mean that it wasn't an accurate representation of these gay men, however distinction from my experience -- and the experience of some 30m gay people across the US -- might be.

it was my own reaction that i might somehow be indicted, or grouped in with these men, or that, say, an evangelical might see this film and it might confirm all their prejudices, or an Ohio soccer mom might think that this is what typical mainstream gay life was like, that was the "bias" or the "agenda" -- and that wasn't the fault of the film, it was my own prejudices, insecurities, and hang-ups that we all bring with us whenever we approach any work of art.

the main point is that this film doesn't resort to any sort of easy cinematic manipulation to tell it's story or present it's characters.

it's documentary filmmaking of the highest quality.




[q]My buddy and I went back and specifically timed the amount of time the filmmakers spent at Jesus Camp. Thirty-five minutes. [/q]

and leading up to camp? and after camp? and the time spent getting to know the kids so they were fully fleshed out, three dimensional, complex, intelligent, articulate, fully sympthetic characters?

perhaps they shouldn't have bothered and just presented us with little hateful christian children of the corn?

as for the DJ, the filmmakers said that this is a political film, and having someone who's concerned about the politicization of Christianity open and close the film isn't meant to shade meaning or understanding, rather to place the film in the political context in which it stands.


[q]You were the one who insisted that it had no agenda, Irvine. (You seem to be backing off that statement.) I have no problem with agenda-driven filmmaking -- reflecting the worldview of the artist is a by-product of creativity. But let's not say that it's something it isn't.[/q]


no, i was saying that we're all capable of reading agendas when we want to, and i think the film does have an "agenda," or more accurately a goal, which is to depict such a directly political religious camp and how they target youth.



[q]Becky Fischer, the subject of the film, does seem content with the film, though she did mention in indieWIRE that she had a number of reactions to the film more nuanced than your blanket "thrilled" would indicate.[/q]

it must be that agenda.

everyone in the film is on board with the film. we'd all have more "nuanced" reactions to any sort of film or television project we were involved in -- ever watch "project runway"? -- but the universal approval of the film by the subjects belie any claims to the chicanery of the filmmakers or that they're seeking to defame 45m people.


[q]I think the film is important to see; it's certainly well-made, it's very engaging, and it focuses on something we haven't really seen on film before. But to say "it has no agenda" is misleading at best.[/q]

then we'd have to define what we mean by agenda -- it has a goal, a purpose, a context, but to say it's out to defame a group of people, to slander someone, to indict anyone, is totally false.

it's as far from a piece of political hackery as anyone could possibly get.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com