The Passion of the Christ...Who has seen it and what did you think?

Here's one.. it's older but illustrates what you were saying a bit. It doesn't seem as virulent as he is suggested to be by everyone.. .but it certainly isnt' kind.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/media/people/1995/mel.gibson.antigay.history-wockner-06.02.95

Gio in Denver

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

>>I find it hard to tolerate any director who presents as

>historical a film that is really fictional.

>

>Well, I guess that means that you have a life-long intolerance

>towards EVERY director in the history of Hollywoood filmdom,

>considering how they have all bastardized historical fact in

>the pursuit of entertaining the mindless mass of American

>humanity.

You only make that guess because you don't know much about films. The recent film "Cold Mountain," for example, although a work of fiction, presents a wonderfully realistic re-enactment of the siege of Petersburg. Films like "Enemy at the Gates" and "The Pianist" have also created appallingly realistic depictions of war and its effects on those who live through it.

It's quite true that Gibson is far from the only director who distorts historical events in his movies for his own reasons. But most of those directors don't go on every available talk show to tell America that their film is an accurate representation of the events portrayed. Gibson deserves to be singled out in this regard because he and a large group of Right-wing cheerleaders have done exactly that.

The difference between "The Passion" and other films with an historical setting is that its makers have explicitly stated their purpose is not to entertain or amuse but to portray real events that have a deep significance for scores of millions of people. If that doesn't give them a special responsibility to create an accurate portrayal, what would?

>As a matter of fact I do accept the gospels as "gospel" so to

>speak. They were written by eye witnesses and are as accurate

>as anything else we have. Scholars who refute the gospels

>don't have any better information, just educated guesses.

What scholars are you talking about? The fact is that both Bucky and I have pointed out specific ways in which the film portrays things that are NOT in the Gospels. You act as if we were challenging what IS in the Gospels when we are doing the exact opposite. Why?

>I quoted scripture (which is quite surreal to me on this

>website--I would have to think it doesn't happen very often)

>because Woodlawn doesn't believe Gibson follows the gospel

>accounts. As Kippy said in response to the article you

>included, all of these extra-biblical accounts he included

>don't distort the story,

What do you mean they don't distort the story? As Spong points out, the movie includes a number of plot elements for which there is little or no support at all in the Gospels. Why do you keep denying this?

>Anyway it's easy to find a scholar to hold a certain

>point of view. I still contend that he is in the minority in

>the clergy.

Are you kidding? Do you mean to say that most scholars insist the Gospels DO contain all that stuff about Mary and Veronica? I mean, this is not a matter open to interpretation, is it? Either the material is in there or it is not. Which is it?

>All of this just illustrates my point. If you and Woodlawn

>and many others go into this theatre with a negative

>impression of any aspects of this movie (the director, actors,

>point of view or the gospel accounts), you will find much to

>dislike. I had a different bias, of which I am fully aware.

So you are saying that if one goes to the movie with an open mind, one can later read the Gospels and all that stuff about Caiaphas and Mary and Veronica will actually be in there? Is that your idea of a joke?

>I've attached a note from the NYT forum on the Passion. The

>writer is no scholar, but speaks well about the feelings of

>the millions of people were moved and uplifted by this film.

>It's a little sappy, but it's closer to my point of view. The

>writer is referring to a recent negative op-ed piece by review

>A.O. Scott:

>

>"For the sake of all that have an ounce of peace and love in

>their hearts.......put your swords away. Let God take center

>stage, it's a movie starring Him, not you. Allow God to have

>the spotlight for a change. Get rid of the hate, the

>anti-Semitism, the insults.....bring forth any love and peace

>you may find in your hearts."

I think it is incredibly dishonest to blame Jews for seeing anti-Semitism in this film. Are you going to sit there and lie and deny that the Passion Play, on which this film is clearly based, incited violence against the Jews of Europe for generations? The only way Jews could fail to be concerned about a film version of the Passion Play is if they forget all about their own history. Do you really expect them to do so?

Suppose instead of this movie Gibson had done a remake of "Birth of a Nation," with all the racist material and glorification of the KKK left in just as in the original. Would you be blaming African-Americans for being upset about that? I suspect so.

I read Scott's review. What he and a number of other critics have said is that the themes of peace and love are noticeably absent from this film. The film tells of Christ's ordeal. But for some reason it says little or nothing about his reasons for undergoing that ordeal and about the message of peace and love he preached. If Gibson chose not to put that part of the story in the film, why do you blame the critics for pointing that out?

>It's quite true that Gibson is far from the only director who

>distorts historical events in his movies for his own reasons.

>But most of those directors don't go on every available talk

>show to tell America that their film is an accurate

>representation of the events portrayed.

These criticisms sound exactly like the same ones launched against the mini-series The Reagans - that it fabricated quotes which were never uttered, created episodes which never occurred, depicted "historical events" which were outright ficiton, etc. The complaint then about the Reagans was that the film was dangerous precisely because it purported to present historical events but did so only by creating fiction - exactly the same criticism you make about Gibson.

Simlarly, the defense of the Reagans by those (like Barbra) who defended it is exactly the defense invoked by Gibson-defenders here - namely, that although the depicted events may not have occurred verbatim, they are nonetheless faithful to the "spirit" of what did occur.

Funny - when it came to the discussion over the Reagans, Woodlawn, I don't recall your outrage over "directors who distort historical events in his movies for his own reasons," even though the Reagans was discussed quite extensively here, and included your participation. I similarly don't remember those who defend Gibson's right of poetic license here defending that same right when it came to the film about the Reagans.

Looks like what we have here - yet again - are people who are pretending to apply and advocate certain principles when, in fact, they apply those principles very selectively, all dependent upon what messenger and message is being promoted. That should come as a surprise to absolutely nobody.

>>It's quite true that Gibson is far from the only director

>who

>>distorts historical events in his movies for his own reasons.

>>But most of those directors don't go on every available talk

>>show to tell America that their film is an accurate

>>representation of the events portrayed.

>

>These criticisms sound exactly like the same ones launched

>against the mini-series The Reagans - that it fabricated

>quotes which were never uttered, created episodes which never

>occurred,

>Funny - when it came to the discussion over the Reagans,

>Woodlawn, I don't recall your outrage over "directors who

>distort historical events in his movies for his own reasons,"

>even though the Reagans was discussed quite extensively here,

>and included your participation.

Unless you are delusional you don't recall me either criticizing or defending the historical accuracy of the "Reagans" miniseries for the simple reason that I had not seen it (and still haven't). My participation in that discussion was limited to one issue: how ironic I think it is for the same people who smear Democrats and liberals to complain when the same tactics they use are turned against their hero Reagan. I haven't changed my opinion about that.

With regard to "Passion," I wouldn't object to the film's attempts to portray Caiaphas as having blackmailed Pilate into doing what he did with the threat of leading a revolt if there were support in the Gospels or historical record for that story. Although I didn't see "Reagans" I also wouldn't object if the authors invented some dialogue to make the point that Reagan stood by and did nothing for years to combat the AIDS epidemic for political reasons, since that happens to be what really occurred.

I did object to the scene in Spielberg's "Amistad" in which Van Buren contrived to replace the judge deciding the disposition of the slaves with a less sympathetic judge, a scene meant to heighten the drama of the film. What actually happened, of course, is that the original judge in the case was a man known for his pro-slavery opinions; he was NOT replaced but decided the case in favor of the slaves on a point of law and despite his personal opinions. I don't complain about artistic license so long as it doesn't create a false impression of history.

Woodlawn, I hesitate to keep bantering with you, because you seize on minor points and blow them into major ones. But here goes:

>What scholars are you talking about? The fact is that both

>Bucky and I have pointed out specific ways in which the film

>portrays things that are NOT in the Gospels. You act as if we

>were challenging what IS in the Gospels when we are doing the

>exact opposite. Why?

In my opinion, the non-Gospel details which Gibson added (of which there are many, I acknowledge) help amplify the story without distorting it. The poignant scene of Mary wiping up Jesus' blood is not in the gospels, but it is a touching scene which shows a mother's grief.

The details about Caiaphas that we discussed before (him threatening to stage a revolt and jeering Jesus and the crucifixion) are also congruent with scripture in that they depict the leaders' desire to get rid of Jesus. That attitude is portrayed in the bible even if the actual events aren't. I believe the biblical account that Caiaphas and other leaders wanted Jesus gone, so for me, the things they say in the movie that aren't in the bible don't change the course of the story. You may think it's distortion. I don't.

>What do you mean they don't distort the story? As Spong

>points out, the movie includes a number of plot elements for

>which there is little or no support at all in the Gospels.

>Why do you keep denying this?

>

Like I said, I don't believe they distort the story. I never said that there weren't extra-biblical details.

>>Anyway it's easy to find a scholar to hold a certain

>>point of view. I still contend that he is in the minority

>in

>>the clergy.

>

>Are you kidding? Do you mean to say that most scholars insist

>the Gospels DO contain all that stuff about Mary and Veronica?

> I mean, this is not a matter open to interpretation, is it?

>Either the material is in there or it is not. Which is it?

>

No I never said that. I meant the Spong was in the minority in the clergy in being critical of the film. The NYT has trotted out a few of these more liberal biblical scholars to flesh out their opinion that Gibson is in the wrong, but I know and have read the opinions of many, many more who believe Gibson was true to the spirit of the bible.

>>All of this just illustrates my point. If you and Woodlawn

>>and many others go into this theatre with a negative

>>impression of any aspects of this movie (the director,

>actors,

>>point of view or the gospel accounts), you will find much to

>>dislike. I had a different bias, of which I am fully aware.

>

>So you are saying that if one goes to the movie with an open

>mind, one can later read the Gospels and all that stuff about

>Caiaphas and Mary and Veronica will actually be in there? Is

>that your idea of a joke?

>

Now you are the one distorting my words. Of course I never said or meant that. I am very aware Veronica is not in the bible, but she represents a Jewish sympathy in the movie that I believe is important. If Gibson was only out to castigage Jews and foment anti-Semitism he would have left out any sympathetic Jewish characters that aren't in the gospels.

>I think it is incredibly dishonest to blame Jews for seeing

>anti-Semitism in this film. Are you going to sit there and

>lie and deny that the Passion Play, on which this film is

>clearly based, incited violence against the Jews of Europe for

>generations? The only way Jews could fail to be concerned

>about a film version of the Passion Play is if they forget all

>about their own history. Do you really expect them to do so?

>

Dude, the Passion and the old passion plays are based on the BIBLE--so obviously there are similarities. I am certain that Gibson didn't make this movie to incite hatred, but to show the depth of Christ's sacrifice. If the depths of that sacrifice are threatening to other people who don't believe in him, that's unfortunate. But I don't water down my faith because I might offend someone. Especially when the presentation of the villians is not directed at a race or any current individuals, but at a few bad men that lived over 2000 years ago.

>Suppose instead of this movie Gibson had done a remake of

>"Birth of a Nation," with all the racist material and

>glorification of the KKK left in just as in the original.

>Would you be blaming African-Americans for being upset about

>that? I suspect so.

>

I don't think Birth of a Nation represents anyone's faith. I wouldn't agree with a movie that glorifies racists.

>I read Scott's review. What he and a number of other critics

>have said is that the themes of peace and love are noticeably

>absent from this film. The film tells of Christ's ordeal.

>But for some reason it says little or nothing about his

>reasons for undergoing that ordeal and about the message of

>peace and love he preached. If Gibson chose not to put that

>part of the story in the film, why do you blame the critics

>for pointing that out?

>

It's because the critics are looking for every reason to criticize--throwing everything at the film and just hoping something sticks. I guarantee that many of these reviewers are threatened by this film and want to seek it's demise, which is why A.O. Scott hypocritically slams it in his review, but once it's a hit tries to dismiss it as "only a movie."

As Kippy said many posts ago, this isn't the Life of Christ or the parables, it is entirely focused on the last hours of His life, which is why it is so powerful. It is a well known story. I didn't need any of the back story. If one wants to know more of the story, one can read the bible.

>I don't complain about artistic license so long as it doesn't create a false impression of history.

My sentiments EXACTLY, Woodlawn. I guess we just disagree on the definition of "false impression" with regard to the Passion. I don't see any false impressions depicted in the movie, but my threshhold may be higher than yours, since I'm biased in favor of the movie and you're not.

>>I don't complain about artistic license so long as it

>doesn't create a false impression of history.

>My sentiments EXACTLY, Woodlawn. I guess we just disagree on

>the definition of "false impression" with regard to the

>Passion. I don't see any false impressions depicted in the

>movie, but my threshhold may be higher than yours, since I'm

>biased in favor of the movie and you're not.

Yeah, well, there has to be some reason you don't want to deal with the fact that, as both Bucky and I have pointed out, Gibson put a bunch of stuff in the film for which there is little or no support in the Gospels. I don't know about Bucky, but I wouldn't care that much about his distortions if it were not for the fact that a number of them just by a strange coincidence seem contrived to emphasize the guilt of the Jews.

I find it hard to believe you're so dense that you don't see the connection between this film and the Passion Play that incited so much violence against Jews in Europe for centuries. And yet it's only by ignoring that connection that anyone can claim there's no reason for Jews to be upset about this film.

It's as if you said you can't understand why African-Americans would be upset by the flying of Confederate flags. After all, there is no longer any Confederacy or Confederate Army fighting to preserve slavery, right? It's just a flag, a piece of cloth that can't hurt anyone. But they feel, and with good reason, that this flag is a symbol of a great evil that befell their ancestors. Why should Jews object to a film version of the Passion Play? After all, there are no longer Jewish ghettos and pogroms to which the authorities turn a blind eye as there used to be, right? But the Passion Play remains a symbol of great evil to Jews, and with good reason. Do you really not get that?

Gio,

That was a very interesting article. I appreciate the link and the added info.

If the articles are true (and I have no reason to doubt it) then there seems to be truth and merit to VaHawks statements. x(

>Yeah, well, there has to be some reason you don't want to deal

>with the fact that, as both Bucky and I have pointed out,

>Gibson put a bunch of stuff in the film for which there is

>little or no support in the Gospels. I don't know about

>Bucky, but I wouldn't care that much about his distortions if

>it were not for the fact that a number of them just by a

>strange coincidence seem contrived to emphasize the guilt of

>the Jews.

>I find it hard to believe you're so dense that you don't see

>the connection between this film and the Passion Play that

>incited so much violence against Jews in Europe for centuries.

> And yet it's only by ignoring that connection that anyone can

>claim there's no reason for Jews to be upset about this film.

>

>

>It's as if you said you can't understand why African-Americans

>would be upset by the flying of Confederate flags. After all,

>there is no longer any Confederacy or Confederate Army

>fighting to preserve slavery, right? It's just a flag, a

>piece of cloth that can't hurt anyone. But they feel, and

>with good reason, that this flag is a symbol of a great evil

>that befell their ancestors. Why should Jews object to a film

>version of the Passion Play? After all, there are no longer

>Jewish ghettos and pogroms to which the authorities turn a

>blind eye as there used to be, right? But the Passion Play

>remains a symbol of great evil to Jews, and with good reason.

>Do you really not get that?

>

I addressed these issues in post #30. I can't believe you're so "dense" that you keep hammering a point that I've already given my opinion on. You must not understand what I'm saying, because you keep hitting subjects I've discussed.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere here. You're questioning my intelligence because my opinion doesn't match yours, which I find to be a pathetic way to debate.

>>It's as if you said you can't understand why

>African-Americans

>>would be upset by the flying of Confederate flags. After

>all,

>>there is no longer any Confederacy or Confederate Army

>>fighting to preserve slavery, right? It's just a flag, a

>>piece of cloth that can't hurt anyone. But they feel, and

>>with good reason, that this flag is a symbol of a great evil

>>that befell their ancestors. Why should Jews object to a

>film

>>version of the Passion Play? After all, there are no longer

>>Jewish ghettos and pogroms to which the authorities turn a

>>blind eye as there used to be, right? But the Passion Play

>>remains a symbol of great evil to Jews, and with good reason.

>

>>Do you really not get that?

>>

>I addressed these issues in post #30. I can't believe you're

>so "dense" that you keep hammering a point that I've already

>given my opinion on. You must not understand what I'm saying,

>because you keep hitting subjects I've discussed.

As a matter of fact, this thread has become so convoluted that I didn't see your post #30 until you referred to it above. Now that I have read it, I have no difficulty understanding what you're saying. You're saying that seeing the version of the Passion story that Gibson presents is so important to you that you don't give a shit if it's deeply offensive to others whose ancestors have been murdered and tortured because of the emotions inspired by similar theatrical presentations in the past.

You say you're not going to "water down" your faith for the sake of others, or words to that effect. But that is a distortion on your part. No one is objecting to your beliefs, whatever they may be (and if you are frequenting a website that helps people hire gay prostitutes your beliefs certainly are not mainstream Christian). What people are objecting to is Gibson's attempt to present the story of Jesus's death in the same accusatory and inflammatory manner that the Passion Play did, a manner that reminds Jews of the evil done to them by your co-religionists over many years.

Your position is really no different from that of people who say they display the Confederate flag because it's an important part of their cultural heritage, and that if it means pushing into the faces of African-Americans a symbol of the hatred and oppression their ancestors suffered, that is just too bad. Yes, I understand you perfectly.

>I don't think we're going to get anywhere here. You're

>questioning my intelligence because my opinion doesn't match

>yours, which I find to be a pathetic way to debate.

Not your intelligence -- your character. And my questions about that have now been resolved.

>Not your intelligence -- your character. And my questions

>about that have now been resolved.

>

I can't figure you out, Woodlawn (not that I really want to). You've posted here many, many more times than I have. Why do you feel the need to hang out on this board day after day and deliver smug, sanctimonious opinions on a variety of unrelated topics? I've only read a fraction of your posts, but very rarely do you have a pleasant thing to say.

You may think you're having an impact on others, but you haven't changed my opinions one iota. You don't know anything about my character or intelligence, and everything you say makes me realize that I extremely glad that I'm me and not you.

>>Not your intelligence -- your character. And my questions

>>about that have now been resolved.

>>

>

>I can't figure you out, Woodlawn (not that I really want to).

But I have no trouble figuring you out. You have now reached the point in this discussion at which you can't think of any way to counter the arguments I've made and so you are trying to change the subject. It won't work.

>You've posted here many, many more times than I have. Why do

>you feel the need to hang out on this board day after day and

>deliver smug, sanctimonious opinions on a variety of unrelated

>topics? I've only read a fraction of your posts, but very

>rarely do you have a pleasant thing to say.

What I choose to do with my time is none of your fucking business, actually. No one forces you to read, let alone respond to, any of my posts. If you choose to do so, then try to be a big boy and take responsibility for your own choices instead of blaming me for them. If you choose not to do so, it won't be a problem for me at all.

As for my "smug, sanctimonious opinions," with regard to the film that is the subject of this thread those "smug, sanctimonious opinions" are shared by some of the most distinguished clergymen, scholars and religious activists in this country, including Rabbi Marvin Hier, the head of the Holocaust Memorial in Los Angeles and Abraham Foxman, the head of ADL. There's very little I've said about the film that can't be found in articles and public statements by these and other people of the same national standing.

>You may think you're having an impact on others, but you

>haven't changed my opinions one iota.

I think I'm exchanging opinions on topics of interest to gay men in America with other such men who find those topics interesting. I have no expectations of changing anyone's opinions, certainly not those of a bigot like you. Bigots, by definition, form their opinions without regard to the facts.

> You don't know anything

>about my character

Oh yes, I do. The fact that you blame Jews for being upset about the popularization of what is to them a centuries-old symbol of hatred, oppression and violence speaks volumes about you.

>What I choose to do with my time is none of your fucking

>business, actually. No one forces you to read, let alone

>respond to, any of my posts. If you choose to do so, then try

>to be a big boy and take responsibility for your own choices

>instead of blaming me for them. If you choose not to do so,

>it won't be a problem for me at all.

>

I'm not blaming you for my choices. I'm proud of my choices. I'm complaining about the pitiful way you try to denigrate those who disagree with you. That is intolerance.

>As for my "smug, sanctimonious opinions," with regard to the

>film that is the subject of this thread those "smug,

>sanctimonious opinions" are shared by some of the most

>distinguished clergymen, scholars and religious activists in

>this country, including Rabbi Marvin Hier, the head of the

>Holocaust Memorial in Los Angeles and Abraham Foxman, the head

>of ADL. There's very little I've said about the film that

>can't be found in articles and public statements by these and

>other people of the same national standing.

>

Abraham Foxman has said on the record that he doesn't believe this film is anti-Semitic. Many millions of people who saw this movie also don't believe it is anti-Semitic. You're the one in the minority here.

>I think I'm exchanging opinions on topics of interest to gay

>men in America with other such men who find those topics

>interesting. I have no expectations of changing anyone's

>opinions, certainly not those of a bigot like you. Bigots, by

>definition, form their opinions without regard to the facts.

>

I'm not a bigot, Woodlawn, and though you may think so, you don't have the power to make me one just by pronouncing your shallow intolerant opinions. I feel sorry for you, buddy, if you think I'm a bigot. I can't imagine what a tizzy you get into when you face REAL prejudice.

>I'm not blaming you for my choices. I'm proud of my choices.

>I'm complaining about the pitiful way you try to denigrate

>those who disagree with you. That is intolerance.

You are a liar. You, not I, are the one who insisted on making this discussion about personalities and not issues. The responsibility for what ensued is yours. Don't lie about it.

>Abraham Foxman has said on the record that he doesn't believe

>this film is anti-Semitic. Many millions of people who saw

>this movie also don't believe it is anti-Semitic. You're the

>one in the minority here.

I never said Foxman called the film anti-Semitic. He has made other remarks highly critical of the film. You're not going to lie about that too, are you? Do you want me to quote some of them?

You say I'm in the minority? That is a very odd remark coming from someone like you, a gay man who hires prostitutes. If being in the majority makes one correct, then what does your lifestyle make you?

>I'm not a bigot, Woodlawn, and though you may think so, you

>don't have the power to make me one just by pronouncing your

>shallow intolerant opinions.

I cannot make you a bigot, I can only point out the bigoted remarks you've made on this board. They speak for themselves. Pity you can't erase them.

No matter how many lies you tell, you can't change the fact that for many Jews the Passion Play has much the same significance as the Minstrel Show has for African Americans. Both are theatrical presentations that have been used over a long period of time to encourage and reinforce racial hatred and prejudice. Gibson has made a film version of the Passion Play. What would happen if he made a film version of a Minstrel Show? I bet you'd buy a ticket, right?

> I feel sorry for you, buddy, if

>you think I'm a bigot. I can't imagine what a tizzy you get

>into when you face REAL prejudice.

I doubt you have ever felt sorry for anyone, or felt anything for anyone, for that matter. Your lack of understanding and of caring about why so many Jews find this film so offensive is at odds with such feelings, and indeed is at odds with the religious beliefs you profess to hold. But it is very common among racists and other hatemongers.

Go back and check the posts, my friend. You were the first to start with the insults. I will never apologize for the bible. And hey, you don't know anything about me. Your tired jabs about hiring sound a lot like a guy who is desperate to make a point. You seem fairly intelligent for the most part, it's a shame you have to stoop to those tactics. Maybe it's the weakness of your arguments that leads you to this point.

>Go back and check the posts, my friend. You were the first

>to start with the insults.

You are a liar, but of course we've already established that. Nothing could be more insulting -- and more perverse -- than to blame Jews for being upset at the popularization of a longtime symbol of hatred and oppression of Jews. And that is exactly what you did. Why lie about it?

>I will never apologize for the

>bible.

And you will never stop trying to ignore the fact that your hero Mel has made not a film that is faithful to the Gospels but one that distorts them in order to advance the cause of hatred.

> And hey, you don't know anything about me. Your tired

>jabs about hiring

On the contrary, I know plenty about you. I know that you claim to be defending the Bible, but that you are also someone who involves himself in activities, like gay prostitution, that are strictly prohibited by the same religious texts you claim to hold sacred. That alone says quite a lot about you.

>sound a lot like a guy who is desperate to

>make a point.

And you sound like an idiot -- or like someone who is unable to make the obvious logical connections between your actions and the principles you claim to hold dear, which is much the same thing.

In an earlier post you claimed to wonder how I would react to "real prejudice." There's no need to wonder about that. You only have to look at how I've reacted to the many openly anti-Semitic statements of the poster Ad rian, such as his statement that Israeli Jews are "hirsute mongrels" and that they should "stop counting their money and start fucking their wives" lest they be overwhelmed by a growing population of Muslims. Unlike Hooboy, who has banned him from this forum, I've never advocated censoring him or anyone else. So much for your lying claim that I'm intolerant. I've always tolerated racist views -- but tolerating them doesn't mean keeping quiet about them. That I will not do.

Passion: Please don't spol the endings.....

Personally, I liked Mel Gibson's "What Women Want."

I have not see the Passion show because I already know ending. Doesn't the guy die or something?

I saw Titanic three times in the Theaters and I own the DVD and even though I know the boat sinks, I think Leo is a doll.

I was at at hotel on the Big Island of Hawaii once and he was staying there with three of his friends. My little entourage had arranged a very nice, private sunset cruise and I asked if we could invite Leo along and got a resounding NO from the person who was hosting our cruise.

That was about the time of "Gilbert Grape" and he wasn't as popular, although he was nominated for an academy award for his performance.

Probably one of the biggest regrets of my life. He was a very, very nice guy, easy on the eyes and he rubs his nose just like he does in all his movies.

But as for "the passion" I've read the book and they are typically better than the movie versions. I did see the movie about the blue eyed Jesus. I think they killed him, too.

But he was no where as cute as Leonardo Di Caprio.

Sorry, just my 2 cents. That and $2 bucks will get you on a New York City bus, but you'd better have the correct change. They do not take bills, either.

__

The above written as a regular guy, not the owner of a website and has no official meaning, just unofficial BS.)

__

--garbo the hoo