I noticed you mentioned the popular cliche in believing
making yourself unnatractive is good acting. What was
your opinnion on that? Did you really believe Charlize
deserved all of those awards? (I personally hate it
when that happens, I believe her performance was hugely
overrated and also believed Naomi Watts was the one
who should have gotten all that recognition, but then
again, I never agree with the academy anyway).
Also, I recenlty heard (and agreed) that a film is harmed
when it casts celebrities (wether they are talented
or not) because you know them so well. You can never
see them as the character they are playing, but as the
person they are in real life, which makes it harder
to get inside the story. (This happens more with celebrities
that have been praised too much, For example: I've noticed
how everytime someone comments on a Sean Penn movie,
they always note on how good or bad his acting was,
but rarely comment on how good or bad the story was,
mainly because they never got it....and why? because
they were paying too much attention to his performance
rather than the story itself. Do you agree to that statement?
(I'm not saying this happens EVERYTIME, but often enough,)
haven't seen "Monster" yet so I can't comment,
but Nicole Kidman's unattractive performance in "The
Hours" was a big nothing. It was a top-rate nose
appliance, though. And other than "Fast Times at
Ridgemost High," I don't think Sean Penn has ever
made a good movie, and I've never thought we has all
that great of an actor. For "Mystic River"
he should have been given the Wallace Beery Over-acting
Award. Sean Penn's performance in that film was the
biggest condemnation of Clint Eastwood's one-take style
ever. After each one of those takes a good director
would have whispered to Penn, "Could you please
bring it down a bit?"
18 days for a 90 minute film? That seems difficult,
to say the least. Your AD has a hell of a job on this
movie. By the way, how much do you oversee on a cable
movie? I would think that on a something you are independently
producing, you would be involved in all departments.
But on Alien Apocalypse, for example, would you be overseeing
production design, having meetings with everyone in
the art department, with sound, DP, etc. in order to
get everyone on the same page? Or does the producer
that's the director's job. It's my responsibility to
get every department making the same film as me, so
I have to convey my vision of the story to everyone.
That's why I've decided to entirely storyboard this
film, since I've never worked with these people before
and I'm not sure what they're capable of, I want them
all to plainly see what I'm envisioning. And getting
this film shot in 18-days has a lot more to do with
my preparations, then with the 1st AD's schedule.
Josh, it's great to hear there'll be another movie of
yours coming out - and with built-in distribution too!
Do you plan on some more exclusive Becker rants and
behind-the-scenes stuff like you did for Running Time
in the articles section? I like reading that stuff.
Also, what do you think is the most successful novel
adaptation film? I really like the original "All
Quiet on the Western Front", and think it really
captured the mood and feel of the book. It still stands
up as one of my all-time favorite war movies.
Oh and one more thing: what books do you recommend to
learn more about Dan Daly, from your screenplay "Battle
at Belleau Wood"?
suppose the most successful adaptation of a novel to
film was "Gone With the Wind," on a purely
monetary level. I do like "All Quiet," but
it's kind of a stilted, early talkie, and all of the
performances, particularly the teacher, are completely
over-the-top. Lewis Milestone was a top-notch director,
though, and seemed most at home with war films. I also
like "A Walk in the Sun" and "Pork Chop
a behind-the-scenes essay on "Alien Apocalypse,"
let's just see what happens first. But I probably will,
once the smoke has cleared.
was only able to find one book specifically about the
battle at Belleau Wood, called "At Belleau Wood,"
by a writer, I believe, named Asprey. There's very little
written about that battle or Sgt. Dan Daly. The most
information I got, which still wasn't all that much,
was from an article in the old Marine Corps magazine,
Leatheneck. Most every history of WWI makes a reference
to the battle, but most give precious few details.
Two things: You're saying that you try to shoot it all-in-one
if you can, which I think is great as far as the actors
goes. But I would think that visually, particularly
as far as lighting goes, you are limiting yourself by
trying to do it all in one shoot. You're pretty much
stuck with the actors and the camera in a limited number
of positions without a new lighting setup. I'm not a
big fan of covering a scene from tons of angles, I think
that's stupid. But I can rarely think of a scene that
would work best done all in one take. That seems very
theatrical to me. And secondly, on the same topic, what
do you think about using steadicams? Do you find that
they allow you to get more accomplished on the set in
less time? I'm not a huge fan of the steadicam look,
but I do think that it is great if you're trying to
accomplish alot in a very few number of shots. I'm not
a big fan of dolly setups or using lots of jibs and
stuff like that. For a big shot, they're fine. But I
know alot of people that love using them for shooting
an entire scene, but for me, locking the camera down
and spending hours setting dolly tracks and perfectly
blocking everything ends up killing the energy more
than anything else.
assure you that I won't have hours to shoot any shot.
Shooting this script in 18-days is going to be a feat,
and there will be no dawdling. I use different equipment
for different purposes, although I'd say I shoot off
the dolly at least 50% of the time, although the camera
isn't always moving, but the dolly is just a handy,
mobile place to keep the camera. A good crew, and I
don't know if that's what I'll have, can lay as much
dolly track as you could ever want in no time. The crew
down in NZ could quickly lay track anywhere, including
from the beach right out into the water, keeping the
track at water level. Let's face it, laying dolly track
is not nuclear physics. I prefer doing camera moves
on the dolly because they're smooth and locked off.
But there are many instances when a Steadi-Cam will
achieve the camera move much quicker and easier, particularly
when you're shooting back on someone or something moving
toward you where you would eventually reveal the dolly
track. Also, Steadi-Cam is very handy for doing camera
moves over severely uneven ground where laying track
would be difficult or impossible. A jib-arm on a dolly
will give you a good-looking up and down move without
having to hassle with a crane, which is a royal pain
in the ass and horrible time-sucker. I use zoom lenses,
too. These are all the tools of the trade. The one thing
I don't do much of is hand-held, which has a purpose,
but for the most part just looks sloppy to me, and you
can never achieve beautiful montage from hand-held shots.
To follow up on the story board question; after you've
drawn everything out, is that when you start adding
up people? I mean, if you have a scene where "..the
aliens bomb the square, the crowds go running."
At what point do you decide how many people you will
need to fill all of that type of scene and when you
will schedule those scenes?
I also wondered about equipment. Do you use the cameras
and equipment they (Sci/Fi) provide, do you give a list
of what you need or is it less defined? Do you request
a particular lighting rig, a model of boom mike, do
you leave that to your department heads? I would think
that, particularly in an overseas shoot, you would want
to bring with you everything you might possibly need.
A lot of what I have read on the subject is by independent
guys on smaller scales who use what they can get their
hands on, so I don't know how it works when you have
of the camera equipment will come from Rome, and has
been ordered by the DP. I asked him about some specific
pieces of equipment, like a zoom lens and a jib-arm,
and he had already ordered them. One of the first things
I did with the line producer a few weeks ago was to
give him a list of how many extras I thought were needed
per scene. How many I get will be a different story.
The joke on Herc and Xena was, for the most part, you
could ask for as many extras as you wanted, but you
were still only getting ten. On "Lunatics,"
the 1st AD, John Cameron (Joel and Ethan Cohn's line
producer, who just fully produced "Bad Santa"),
would ask how many extras I saw in each scene, and no
matter what I said, like, "I see 20 in this scene,"
he'd reply, "Uh-huh, five. How about the next scene?"
"Well, I see 30 extras." John would nod and
say, "Uh-huh, five." Anyhow, the 1st AD, who
lives in Bulgaria, is doing the schedule right now.
Geese and Priests?
I thought this site was about film making and art?
Thought I'd say hey. And pass on a personal voucher
for you having a low stress set. Which is, especially,
uncommon on lower budgeted films.
Anyhoo, for nostalgic sake: What is your fondest or
most memorable memory of LA?
don't think of LA fondly. I feel like I pissed away
20 years of my life there. The highlight was probably
the riots, when it seemed like the whole city might
burn down, which seemed like a really good thing, except
that I was sitting right in the middle of it. There's
nothing like stepping out your front door and seeing
squads of armed marines in Bradley troop transports
josh, I'm sure youv'e touched this subject before, but
what did you think of Lost in Translation?? I honestly
don't know what all those critics saw, sure, its a nice
little small story about to lonely hearts.....but that
certainly wasn't enough to keep me interested for an
hour and forty minutes. And I am positive, that if it
haldn't been directed by Francis Ford Coppola's daughter,
no one would have noticed it. It was nice....a bit boring
at times, and certainly not worth all that praise.
haven't seen it yet, but it's coming soon to a TV near
me (I ordered it from Netflix). I have absolutely no
doubt that you're right. My friend Paul, who tries to
be nice to most films (unlike, say, me), as we watched
the Oscars when Sofia Coppola accepted her screenwriting
award and she said that she wanted to thank those that
helped her get past page twelve where she got stuck,
Paul quipped, "That's all the script she had, twelve
pages, everything else is filler." I'll let you
know what I think when I see it. My hopes aren't high,
however, since I saw "The Virgin Suicides,"
which was about nothing.
quite a bit of overgeneralization you made in your comments
about religion. You preach that people who do not subscribe
to any religion are the "chosen people" and
that religion breeds contempt. It's pretty ironic coming
from this article that uses such angry and insulting
language. You are lumping people who faithfully follow
Christ's teachings to love one another together with
those who say they follow his teachings and do another.
If you know Christ's teachings you know he would condemn
any violence and hate (including the hate you harbor
for people you mention in your aticle). Yes, religion
is exactly separation...separation from things that
hurt people by thoughts, words, and actions. What's
wrong with that? "Peace and goodwill toward others"
comes straight from Luke, chapter 2. You'd make a great
Christian. You would do well to learn a little more
about that which you criticize. Be careful in making
such sweeping generalizations.
Fuck you and the prophet you rode in on. If you honestly
think that Jesus Christ was the literal son of God,
his progeny, then you are a moron.
Before you direct a film like Alien Apocalypse, is there
a particular process that you go through in order to
properly visualize it? I know that you wrote the original
script, but I was wondering if you try to find similar
movies when you're doing storyboards, shot lists, and
production design details. I've found that watching
movies similar to my script is actually a bad thing,
as I end up ripping off ideas. I mean, are you going
through a variety of sci-fi/end of the world movies
now? Or do you just feel confident in your visual ideas
that you can work everything out in your head? Another
thing I've done is gone through tons of magazines and
websites to "find" pictures similar to the
ones that are in my head. I find that this is more helpful
than actually watching other films. I can work better
off a still image than a moving one.
very busily storyboarding the entire film right now.
I've already boarded all of the FX scenes. So far I've
drawn over 350 drawings, and I've probably got another
300 to go. But I don't look at anything except the script.
I honestly don't care how anyone else shoots things.
I read the scene several times, then think, "What
would be the easiest way to shoot this?" Meaning,
can this scene be covered in one shot? If not, then
what other shots do I need to convey the sense of the
scene? With most higher-budget feature films, where
you have between 45-100 days of shooting, you can literally
cover the piss out of a scene, shooting it from a hundred
different angles (like Spielberg does now), but I think
that's far from the best way to shoot a scene. In TV,
where a big part of the director's job is to be the
expediter, it's very important to have figured out the
simplest way to shoot the scene, which frequently gives
the actors the most freedom, and gives you the most
freshness and spontaneity. If you keep shooting a scene
over and over from different angles, you will assuredly
kill the energy of the scene. So, shooting simply is
actually a very good thing, I think. Whatever directorial
influences are already in my head, and there are many,
I don't need to look for any more now.
Josh, in my film class, we recently had the pleasure
of watching Hitchcock's Rear Window. I hadn't seen any
Hitchcock films, and pretty much the only exposure I'd
had to him was watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on
Nick At Nite. I definitely need to see more of his work,
though. Anyway, our teacher compared and contrasted
Rear Window with Brian De Palma's film Body Double.
After watching a scene from Body Double, it's clear
Rear Window is far superior. Where Rear Window is subtle,
Body Double is obvious. Where the acting in Rear Window
is crisp and, for lack of a better word, good, the acting
in Body Double is ridiculous. (Although, I did find
Grace Kelly's acting in Rear Window to be a little wooden.
But not everyone must agree with that, she did win Best
Actress, after all.) Anyway, I'm glad I saw the Hitchcock
version and not the version with Christopher Reeve.
Your thoughts on Rear Window? Your thoughts on Grace
Kelly's acting in Rear Window?
but Grace Kelly didn't win Best Actress for "Rear
Window," she won for "The Country Girl,"
where she made herself very frumpy and unattractive,
just like Charlize Theron this year, and Nicole Kidman
last year. The Academy members are always bowled over
when an attractive girl makes herself unattractive.
Anyway, Grace Kelly wasn't a great actress, she was
a model. But "Rear Window" is indeed a great
movie. Brian DePalma only wishes he was Hitchcock on
his worst day. They shouldn't be spoken of in the same
living in Hollywood for several years, what do you think
of most actors out there? Are they depraved? Did you
ever attend any rowdy parties? Any great stories, gossip?
lived in LA for about 20 years, with a few years off
for good behavior, between 1976 and 2001. As God is
my witness I'll never live there again, although I'll
certainly visit now and then. But I was never part of
a star-studded Hollywood scene. Besides, everyone is
way too paranoid out there to actually throw a good
party. Nevertheless, there were a few good parties over
that many years. Sam Raimi and his then girlfriend,
Lisa Henson, who lived directly across the street from
him, threw a great New Year's party, maybe 1989 or '90,
that ended up encompassing the whole end of the street.
I kept passing Lisa's dad, the late Jim Henson, as we
crossed back and forth from house to house getting progessively
drunker. Jim Henson was a funny guy, and had Kermit
the Frog's voice which just seemed funnier and funnier
as the night went on. I spent a great deal of that evening
talking with Ed Neumier, who wrote "Robocop."
On another occasion I ended up at a soiree at Chasen's,
now defunct, that oddly had me and Bruce and Sam and
the rest of us Shemps, as well as Lew Wasserman, Sid
Shienberg, Michael Eisner, and a number of the other
very big-hitters, as well as Lawton Chiles, the then
Governor of Florida. But the Shemps and the big-shots
didn't much intermingle.
What do you think about the space program? Waste of
money or is space truly the "final frontier"?
I'd like to know what you think of spending money on
the space program in general, as opposed to just GW
Bush's NASA spending. Perhaps I'm a nerd, but the exploration
of space has always been something that's fascinated
Do you think it's realistic to find answers to our overcrowding
questions in space? I know that sounds like bad scifi,
but you never know what we humans might be capable of.
Moon colonies? Terra forming? Do you think these will
ever be possibilities?
I find it disturbing that space isn't a priority unless
there's a "space race" with another country
like Russia or China. It seems there is more interest
in weaponizing space than exploring it. Had we steadily
progressed at the same rate we did in the '60s, we'd
have a man on Mars by now.
As always, thanks.
do we need a man on Mars for? There's nothing there.
Besides, the rovers are doing a fine job. And we've
already been to the moon, and there's nothing there,
either. I resent the space program as a waste of money
at this time when we have big issues on our own planet,
like jobs and health care. Also, until we revamped the
space program back to where it was going before Kennedy
and the space race, meaning completely reusable spacecraft,
not multi-stage, disposable rockets, it's an extra waste
Mike has mentioned some valid things about why the overpopulation
of Deer is occuring, however, the most important thing
to remember is that cause and effect in nature is never
With my knowledge of extinction of animals, I can say
that some extinctions or near extinctions have been
a direct cause of humans, however, some extinctions
have no clear cut cause and there are many cases of
animals running their course without any real idea as
The Dodo extinction was a direct result of human interference
and lack of adaptability by the bird itself. It had
no fear of humans and it could not fly, however, it
had few predators before the Portuguese arrived on the
island of Mauritius. They hunted it for food and destroyed
As for the overpopulation issue I think it is how you
look at the situation as a whole.
To say the world is being overpopulated is a misleading,
since it has more to do with population density or overcrowding
in big cities, mostly in undeveloped countries, but
ours as well.
Here are some facts to chew on:
Population density varies widely. Much of the world's
land surface is empty, and many countries with dense
populations have a higher standard of living than less
In 1992, the population of Hong Kong City was approximately
247,501 per square mile, while in New York City it was
11,480 per square mile, and in Houston 7,512.
If the entire population of the world were put into
the land area of Texas, each person would have an area
equal to the floor space of a typical U.S. home and
the population density of Texas would be about the same
as Paris, France.
In 1988, China had a population of 409 people per square
mile and gross domestic product per capita of $320,
while Hong Kong, with a population density more than
450 times greater, had a per capita GDP of $8,260.
One reason people are crowded together in cities is
because it makes possible many more exchanges and greater
specialization of labor, thus increasing living standards.
Even in sheer numbers, though, there is growing evidence
that the world's population is heading toward stability.:
The growth rate of the world's population appears to
have peaked around 1970, when the annual rate of growth
was 2.09 percent.
By 1980, annual population growth was down to 1.73 percent,
and by 1990 to 1.7 percent.
By 1995, the annual increase had slowed even more to
So, I guess it has much do with whether you are a glass
half empty person or a glass half full person when it
comes to our world population.
I don't feel that population is a problem if we create
solutions for the problems we make, however, we are
not very good at that.
I feel that the more pressing problem is distribution
of wealth and economic stability as well as resources
for those who need them.
I believe the earth has the abilitly to sustain us and
then some. It has been here far longer than the human
race and I suspect it will be here far after we are
gone if that happens.
have no doubt that the Earth will be around much longer
than us. The issue is how long will it be habitable
for humans? We're quickly depleting the oil and coal,
we've fished-out a great deal of the oceans, we've done
a pretty good job of polluting the air and water, and
we've also screwed up the food chain by feeding domesticated
animals back to themselves, as well as feeding them
their own waste products. And just because the percentage
of population growth has come down a couple of .01s,
it's still a geometric increase, that in less than 50
years will double from 6 billion to 12 billion.
I'd hate to get too far into this but there is an important
public policy principle involved. The situation with
deer, geese, rabbits and all other animals is one that
requires considered management. It is akin to the western
forests, such as in Oregon. For years we allowed the
forests to grow by suppressing fire. As a result, fires
are far too intense for the forests to survive. The
forests require management and that means controlled
removal of small brush and deadwood.
In the case of animal populations there are two concerns.
One is economic. A herd of deer in a wheat field can
eat a tremendous amount of grain, they get caught up
by combines (gruesome) and they are involved with traffic.
The other consideration is disease, primarily for the
animal population itself. Is it any more humane to allow
whole populations to starve? Anthrax is a disease of
deer, remember. Lyme disease is another disease which
crosses species. Deer and other populations are artificially
enlarged by the removal of predators. What effect does
that have on surrounding species? The deer have helped
to push pronghorn antelope, who adapt less well to human
encroachment than do deer, out of most midwestern states.
In addition to keeping populations at managed levels,
hunters also provide the vast majority of set-aside
land in the US. Not national parks, per se, but places
like Cheyenne Bottoms, a large wetland reserve in central
Kansas. You might argue that we could support these
areas by other means but the political will isn't there.
Hunters are willing, even avid, to support these areas.
Remember Duck Stamps? There isn't a wetland in America
which hasn't been impacted by proceeds from that source.
Pronghorn antelope are being reintroduced into their
former range. The project is exclusively funded by hunting
Of the hundreds of hunters I have known, I have never
known one who hasn't eaten his or her kill. Deer jerkey
recipes probably outnumber the deer in Kansas.
I studied population biology in college. Going into
that class I was adamantly opposed to hunting. The sobering
truth is that these animals have always been hunted,
but now their natural predators have been removed. For
the good of the populations, some culling of individuals
is a necessity. Hunting provides the resources to not
only keep populations in check, but to insure their
future survival as well.
Who was it that used to do those National Geographic
voice-overs. He should read this thing out loud. It
reads a bit hokey, but I think it's important.
and hunters have almost entirely decimated many species
of ducks, almost all the "varmints" ('cause,
hey, they're varmints, right? Varmints have no right
to live), and fishermen, both commercial and sport,
have destroyed the populations of many, many different
species of fish, like Grouper, which are now nearly
extinct. I'm not trying to ban hunting or fishing, I'm
only saying that killing living creatures should not
be done for amusement, no matter whether you eat the
creature afterward or not. That's what I think, and
it doesn't have to rational, either.
there, well not looking for a job or for you to read
a script, but i do have my short film, iwould like to
send if you have a p.o. box or office address, im currently
producing and directing my own films, im working on
a full feature now and intend to go back and try to
do a full feature out of this particular story, and
since i own a couple of your films , one being intruder,
i figured you could watch my 13 minute short!.....no
hassels about getting it made, just curious what you
had nothing to do with "Intruder." I haven't
even seen it.
Linn Cross Dog
looking for anthony Quinn acting as an UTE INDIAN
his movie name was flapping eagle some time in the sixtys
Linn Cross Dog:
film you're referring to is called "Flap,"
which came out in 1970, was directed by the great British
director, Carol Reed, and was a huge bomb and critically
roasted. "Flap" flopped.
of your complaints on CATCH ME IF YOU CAN was that they
opened the movie with DiCaprio already caught. ETERNAL
SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND supposedly gives away
the ending too. I read some of the script and saw the
scene in the trailer. It opens with Jim Carrey and Kate
Winslet meeting for the "first time" then
it cuts to ten days earlier showing them just breaking
up. Think it could possibly ruin the rest of the movie?
Maybe the rest of it will be trippy enough to work.
That and Charlie Kaufman films seem to have a habit
of a really cool trailer with the perfect song which
happens to be located nowhere IN the actual movie. damn,
I forgot where I was going with this. okay new subject,
What's the difference between Spike Lee's BAMBOOZLED
and Ralph Bakshi's COONSKIN (both about stereotyping...
oh yeah, there's also Robert Townsend's HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLE)?
I mean you'd think Spike Lee would've mentioned Ralph
Bakshi's movie at least somewhere in his film. I heard
it caused a riot at the museum of fine arts, but I can't
really find any articles on it anywhere.
real connection is that they are two of the worst films
ever produced in the history of filmmaking. Ralph Bakshi
is the worst animated feature director of all time.
Sitting through his films was the single biggest waste
of time in my whole life. I truly HATE his movies, and
it pleased me greatly to find out that Robert Crumb
hated them, too. And Spike Lee just sucks.
Regarding hunting and the overpopulation argument -
the reason there are so many freakin' deer is that we
humans have killed off most of the predators of the
deer. The wolf and coyote population has been devestated.
There are so few that they won't make a dent in the
population of the deer, who are now free to breed like
lice. As for avain flu - that disease (and SARS, apparently)
are the direct result of humans keeping millions of
animals penned up in close proximity to each other and
to humans for the sake of food. In short, the reason
we have 40 hojillion dear in Kansas, SARS in S.E. Asia,
and Avian Flu all over the world is because of a vast
abundance of humans who are filthing up the planet with
irresponsible growth. Anyone who is so worried about
any of these issues should be airlifting condoms to
India and Africa, paying for family planning and abortions,
and campaigning for financial incentives to have 2 or
fewer children. Dressing up in orange camo and taking
pot shots at deer won't solve a thing.
On a filmic note on this, check out Never Cry Wolf,
either the movie with Charles Martin Smith (which I
felt was pretty good), or the book of the same name
by Farely Mowat. To sum up the relevance of both - Herds
of carribu are dying. The Canadian government suspects
that wolves are to blame. Turns out that the wolves
were actually keeping the herd strong by killing off
the weak. Kill off the wolves and you get weaker, sicker,
more prolific herds of caribou who die at the drop of
a hat. Obviously that's a drastically simplified overview...
End of rant. As always, thanks for your time, and carry
enjoyed "Never Cry Wolf," which was very well-made.
There's a wonderfully funny scene, as I recall, where
the character of Farley Mowat is trying to find out
if the wolves could possibly live on eating nothing
but mice, so he begins eating nothing but mice. He cooks
them in every possible way and eats them for months.
Two Eskimoes show up one day and offer him some freshly
caught salmon, but he refuses because he only eats mice,
which the two Eskimoes are amazed by, but take in stride,
the look on their faces saying, "These crazy white
to your point, which I completely agree with -- the
world is over-populating at an insane rate, but it's
not even an thought or an issue these days. We humans
infringe on every animal's habitat, then decide that
the only possible, "humane" answer is to kill
the animals. It took the entire history of civilization,
from 10,000 years ago until 1900 for the human population
to reach one billion people. When I was a kid there
weren't quite 4 billion people on this planet; now there
are over 6 billion. It took 10,000 years to get to one
billion, then it took just 100 years to go from 1 billion
to over 6 billion. Anyone getting the geometry of this?
We'll probably be up to 12 billion by the end of my
life, and the planet may very well not be able to sustain
that many people. However, in a world where people think
it's rational to sue McDonald's because they're fat,
no one will take any responsibilities for their own
The deer and animal population problems are more complicated
than just that and I don't have the space to go into
I have worked a great deal with animals most of my life
and even living in NYC, I still volunteer at the zoo
amongst other things.
I hate hunting too, but the biggest problem I have with
people complaining about the deer and geese population
in the Suburbs (New Jersey has one too!) is that builders
and people decide to live and encroach on areas were
animals have been living for years and then they complain
because there are too many of them.
Well, shit, I say, you have invaded their home, so what
the hell are they supposed to do? people are strange
sometimes. It's like Everyone wants to have that nice
home in the suburbs or the country, but they forget
the reality of living amongst other creatures like deer,
geese, raccoons, possums etc. is all part of the deal.
If you are bothered by this then move to a city where
it is designed for people and not for destroying natural
Either that or take Josh's advice and just enjoy the
wonderful creatures you are blessed with in your backyard.
there are a lot of deer around, ya know what? You have
to drive more carefully. They're pretty big, and unless
you're not paying attention, like talking on a cell
phone, you won't hit them if you actually see them and
give them the right of way. If they get out on the freeway,
then they're fucked, but that's life. And what are the
geese doing, honking and shitting on things? I saw some
big honking geese yesterday flying overhead and felt
honored. Whenever the herd of deer or the wild turkeys
showed up at my place I felt honored. But we humans
enjoy killing things, and cutting down trees, and strip
mining, and drilling for oil in Alaska.
You're against hunting? I live in Kansas which, quite
literally, has more deer than people(also more cows;
3:1). You can't drive between towns here at dawn or
dusk and not run the risk of plowing into a deer. We
also have more Geese than you could shake a stick at.
If we don't control these populations with hunting we're
going to have serious problems. We now have more deer
in North America than at anytime in the history of deer.
We already have a deer-wasting disease akin to BSE which
is spreading. Between Avian Flu and West Nile Virus,
not to mention the danger to aircraft, something needs
to be done to control all these birds. I don't care
for hunting myself, and I certainly think there are
guidelines which should be followed, and generally are.
I also agree that many hunters fit the stereotype to
a "T", but I don't really know what we would
do without them. We've eliminated all of the predators
and it is really impractical to try to reintroduce them.
That said, you are dead-on about handguns. Their proliferation
is based upon cultural myths. The violence some people
say handguns prevent is handgun violence to begin with.
Any objective psychiatrist would describe the American
relationship with handguns as insane. Thanks,
I'm not a vegetarian and I have no issue with killing
animals for food. I'm proud of my place on the food
chain. But I think killing anything for amusement is
awful. Killing is not a game. I'll just bet there are
even more deer in Oregon, where I lived last year, than
in Kansas, and what's the problem with there being a
lot of deer? That we might run into them in our cars?
So, instead of us having to pay more attention to driving,
let's just kill the deer. I had a herd of deer come
by my house there almost daily, and they are the calmest,
sweetest creatures on earth. They knew that both Bruce
and I wouldn't harm them, so during deer season they'd
rarely leave, and I really liked having them around.
It made me feel calmer to just see the deer just hanging
around, lying down and snoozing, licking their babies;
they're really just the sweetest creatures, and incredibly
trusting. Quite frankly, I'd like it better if there
were more deer and less people. Bruce's and my running
joke was that because deer season with a rifle is 4
or 6 weeks long, but bow-hunting season was a month
longer, we felt that baseball bat season should be a
month longer than that, and hand-to-hand combat season
should be longer still.
With regards to your comments about how you see the
world and Bird's comments, I just wanted to add that
what I believe is that many people would rather be lied
to in certain circumstances than know the truth and
I think that the "truth" is subjective to
a certain extent.
We all see the world the way we see it and if we are
fortunate, we can keep an open mind about life and death
while still using our minds to question the mysteries
As sad as it seems, I believe Bird brought up a good
point about the end of his marriage, and I just wanted
to say that I applaud him for his courage to carry on
despite his circumstances. You have a lot of courage
I read the article on handguns too and I did not find
any further justification for having one either.
I studied Martial Arts for a few years, and I found
that the discipline of self-defense in the realm of
Martial Arts outweighs that of any justification for
using a handgun for defense.
It is truly a cultural thing in many respects. Tokyo
has more people than NYC and death by handguns is almost
I also agree that your pride and ego can heal, but once
you are shot and dead that's it.
Getting back to movies, I just watched Samuel Fuller's
It was disturbing I really enjoyed. I don't think all
his films are good, but I liked this one and I know
he was adamantly against racism in any form and this
film really show that.
I have "The Naked Kiss" coming next from Nextflix
and I am looking forward to that one too!
Great discussions here this week.
Fuller made some of the oddest films, and "The
Naked Kiss" is one them. An absolutely terrific
opening, then it takes some of the stranger plot turns
one could imagine. I saw Constance Towers at the Sam
Fuller memorial at the DGA and she looks great! Robert
Stack told a funny story there: he said he had trouble
with one of his lines, so he went to Fuller and told
him. Fuller replied, "Tell it to the director."
Stack said, "But you're the director." "Then
tell it to the producer." Robert Stack said, "But
Sam, you're the producer, too." Sam Fuller grinned
and said, "Then I guess you're fucked."
I hope you don't mind me chiming in on this whole celebacy
issue, but I did have some thoughts.
As it happens, I did attend a Catholic (main-line, not
Traditionalist) high school seminary. During my four
years there I met more priests than most people ever
do in a lifetime. In my experience about one-third of
those priests had serious issues with their sexuality.
I do recall, and this was in the early eighties, one
of the college seminaries having something of a purge
of an effete culture. In my time I knew one priest who
was a serial molester of children. He was transferred
and placed 'in parentis locum' over forty or so ninth-grade
boys in a dormitory setting.
I should also mention that one-third of the priests
I met were extraordinarily devout men who lived lives
dedicated to serving others. Deluded or not, these men
were genuine in their compassion towards others and
their desire help people irrespective of race, color
It is a curious thing that not all Roman Catholic priests
take vows of celibacy. In the Eastern Rite priests are
allowed to marry and, under some circumstances, Anglican
priests who are married are allowed to become Roman
Catholic priests. It would be interesting to compare
abuse rates among married clergy with those among the
celibate. It would also be interesting to rate the performance
of married priests with the celibate since both groups
The other point I find interesting is that the original
motivation behind the celibate clergy was to prevent
Church offices from becoming hereditary. Appointments
to Church positions was a means of generating revenue
and of controlling the gentry which required such positions
for their second sons. The current arguments put forth
by Rome in favor of a celibate clergy don't ever seem
to address the origins issue.
On a related note, When you take Cynthia's advice and
run for office you should take the word "Marriage"
out of the legal lexicon and give everyone the right
to name a Standard-Recipient who would recieve all of
those rights currently conferred to spouses, including
those involving insurance and transfer payments(Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security). "Marriage" is
a religious term (without real meaning, I might add)
and we need to seperate it from the state.
Thanks as always,
agree. The government should only be in the business
of giving out civil unions, straight, gay or whatever.
If you then want to get married you should then go to
your local church, mosque, temple, or synagogue, and
get your holy man or woman to "sanctify" it
for you. But marriage is a religious issue and should
have nothing to do with our government. I'm also not
saying that there aren't any good people who have ever
gone into the clergy of the all the various religions,
I'm just saying that all of those religions are, for
the most part, crap, and are a bastion of the sexually
repressed and sexually fucked-up people.
I just read "America: Land of the Stupid Cowboys."
First of all, you claim to be Libertarian, but I saw
in a recent post that you want "health care for
everyone, not only tax incentives but legitimate kick-backs
and freebies for companies that stay in the USA and
hire American workers". This seems to be against
the Libertarian view of the government's role. Have
your views changed since then?
Anyway, regarding handguns, I used to be adamantly against
handguns, and I still sort of am. It wasn't until I
came across the following essay, "http://www.tcht.net/coward.html",
that I saw that there was some sort of justification
for concealed and carried handguns. It still creeps
me out that certain people could be packing heat, but
truthfully, if I was going to be robbed, raped, attacked,
etc., I would much rather have a gun on me than be defenseless.
But I have to laugh at the mental image of Charleton
Heston sitting at home with muskets and pretending he's
The essay is four years old. Are your views still the
I'm a registered Democrat, but I was four years ago
as well. I've never accepted the full Libertarian agenda,
but I'm for a lot of it. Yet I still don't think handguns
are good idea, and the article you sent didn't convince
me otherwise. Am I seriously supposed to accept that
if a robber pulls a gun on me I ought to pull a gun
on them? Then you've got the shootout at the O.K. corral.
And the basis of that article is that our dignity is
worth as much as our lives. I say, bullshit! Someone
pulls a gun on you and says to give them your money,
you give them your money -- your dignity has nothing
to do with it, and should your dignity be damaged from
this, it will repair. I repeat from my essay, handguns
are just a plain-old bad idea and ought to be banned.
Handguns have nothing, zero, zip to do with the Bill
of Rights, and have a major amount to do with all of
the rampant shootings in this country -- more than any
other country in the world, by far. And, once again,
I've spent a lot of time in a society without handguns,
New Zealand, and nobody gets shot there, even though
you can still have rifles. Rifles fulfill the Bill of
Rights, allows you to go hunting should you care to
(I'm against hunting, too), and no one can sneak them
into a bar.
agreed with Gavin's post that "you rub people in
the biz the wrong way, and that maybe you aren't the
best person to try to get people to buy your film?"
If you gave this any serious consideration, I would
think that you would try to examine your attitude and
learn why you think that way.
You reply to his post with, "I got my co-producer,
Jane, who has a very pleasant, intelligent, phone demeanor,
to make all the calls, and still we can't get anyone
to watch it, or even call back."
It doesn't matter how great Jane is. The point is that
they want to work with someone they are comfortable
with. You can say the right things and go through all
the motions of what is considered polite, but people
can still sense negativity from you.
"Mrs Raimi looked at me very seriously and said,
"It's worse than that, Josh, you're insulting."
Well, we all have our crosses to bear."
I hope you were kidding with that remark because if
you think that your poor attitude is just a natural
part of you, then nothing will ever change.
Being a good director is not just about making a movie
that looks good, it's about knowing how to create a
good relationship with your cast and crew. Do you really
think an A-list actor is going to work with someone
who is unpleasant? You need to provide a comfortable
working environment for those around you, otherwise
you will just be creating more tension and disrupting
the production. Making a movie is a team effort and
if you're not a team player, then all you're just in
Developing a good relationship with the studios is not
about schmoozing, but having the right attitude. They're
not going to waste their time dealing with someone unpleasant
when there are so many people out there just as talented
with a good personality. There are a lot of introverted
directors. Do you think Ang Lee or David Lynch are great
socializers? There is something to be said for networking,
getting your name known and making contacts. You don't
have to be a phony to know how to do this well.
how do you know? I actually run one of the most pleasant,
tension-free film sets I've ever seen. I never get upset
and I never yell, which most directors would have great
difficulty saying. I get along brilliantly with actors,
and I would surmise that there isn't a single actor
I've ever worked with who wouldn't work with me again.
The fact that I'm not good at schmoozing is yet a whole
other can of worms. Schmoozing, whether you'd like to
own up to it or not, is significantly based in lying,
and I'm just not interested in lying. If I must become
a liar to get my films made, then I just won't get them
made. Kissing people's asses holds no interest for me,
and that's what the Hollywood system is based on, and
if you think it's not, then you've never been a part
i had a hammer, and you were in sight, i would throw
it at you, for making such a pointless movie. the quality
is terrible becuase you cant afford a good camera, and
i pray to god your didn't write the script. when i watched
it, i was embarrased for you. you should probably get
Sam R. to buy you a good camera, becuase he can afford
it after directing such a good movie like spiderman.
so dont make fun of school of rock, just becuase your
mad they had the funding to advertise the movie, while
no one knows about yours becuase they suck.
I Had a Hammer" is pointless, but "Spider-Man"
isn't? Wow! I guess I wasn't paying enough attention
to "Spider-Man." And that crappy camera I
used was a 35mm Panavision Gold, which many folks in
the film business might well consider to be a decent
camera. And why do I get the distinct feeling you didn't
even see "Hammer"?
Regarding Scott's post...
I guess I should reiterate that I myself am not a religious
person. As stated before, I'm a lapsed Catholic and
now I'm seriously flirting with Atheism. I guess I feel
the need to announce this because you seem to have lumped
me and Ben in the same category. Ben's a religious man,
I am not. Scott's post did me plenty of good, just like
any open and honest discussion would. The reason I took
offense to many of your posts to Ben is because I think
one can be critical of a religion without besmirching
those who follow the faith. After reading all the Anti-Catholic
comments, I couldn't help but imagine my poor Irish
mother lighting a candle every Sunday her whole life,
never hurting anyone and praying for us all. She did
plenty of good things: she believed in civil rights
for all before it was fashionable to do so, she gave
money that she probably couldn't afford to charities,
plus she was a social worker, so she actually saw that
abortion was not a completely evil act, contrary to
most Catholics' belief. She was not what you would classify
as "religious right", but she was very religious.
I guess I imagined those attacks targeted at her, and
I was offended.
I lost my faith when I was disabled in a car accident
in 1990. I'm paralyzed from the waist down, and I wasn't
even driving the car. My wife divorced me two years
after the accident, she says it was because I changed
as a person, but I blamed my handicap and I still do.
I have serious questions about the existence of God.
I'm not a "blind devotee". I just think that
people's beliefs are personal, and what may work for
one may not work for another. I do not like to see someone
berated because of their beliefs, especially in the
name of tolerance.
That being said, I clearly don't agree with Ben's take
on divorce. Although if it were up to me, I would still
be married, I now realize that since my wife was unhappy
our separation was for the better. It's not always a
lack of trying.
Anyways, all the best to Scott, Ben, and you too, Josh.
If there is a God, I hope he smiles on all of you.
what? My beliefs mean as much to me as Ben's do to him.
But I see the world and my place in it from my own POV,
not from a multi-thousand year old philosophy that was
undoubtedly fine for ancient humans, but has no place
in the modern world. I take responsibility for my own
actions, my good deeds are my own, as well as my sins.
I'll do what I can with this life because it's the only
one you can be sure of; pinning your hopes on a supposed
next life is an abnegation of one's reponsibilities
what about the Mormon religion. What do you think
about it? If I think all the major religions are nonsense,
why wouldn't I think a Johnny-come-lately sect the Mormons
aren't even more ridiculous? God spoke to Joseph Smith
in Upstate New York? And gave him a golden shield with
the Book of Mormon written on it? Oh, please!
Your response to Ben was close to what I would have
to say, but I just wanted to add a few things.
First, I never said that any person being Celibate leads
to child molestation, I was talking only of priests.
Sex can be abused like anything and if you have a leaning
towards this then it will become a problem when it is
Of course I mentioned Gandhi was celibate from his mid-thirties
until his death and he did not molest kids, however,
Catholic Priests are not Gandhi, although, many of them
could have learned what tolerance is from him.
Second, I absolutely agree with Josh about Marriage.
Marriage fails for many reasons and it is unjustifiable
to say that it only ends because people are selfish.
Let me tell you that I have seen first hand someone
stay married to her Alcoholic husband for over forty
years until his inevitable death.
They never slept in the same room for years during the
marriage and the only reason she did not leave him was
that she was devotedly religious and this was a time
when divorce was frowned upon greatly by the church.
In my opinion, that is horseshit!
I also agree with Josh that you can't say with certainty
that you will never contract AIDS because you are married
and Monogamous. That is like saying you are certain
you will never contract lung cancer because you don't
smoke. Odds are you won't, but everything in life is
All relationships have cycles just like life. Sometimes
it is better to end those cycles that can's mend then
it is to carry on. I will even go so far as to say that
you can't say for certainty that in 30 years time your
marriage won't fall apart and your wife may want a divorce.
Also, there has been a great deal of evidence that children
coming from a loving single parent home are no worse
off or ill adjusted then kids coming a family having
both parents. In fact it is far more damaging to kids
for two parents to stay together when the marriage isn't
working. I have two good friends here who are single
parents and their kids are wonderfully adjusted, intelligent
I have seen it happen to the most devote of Christians.
Religion doesn't give you any more control over anything;
it is just a crutch to supply answers where there aren't
any, however, that is the trap, since it can't. If everyone
realized that they will only have 70 years or so to
live, I believe people would live their lives far differently
and treat each other a lot better.
It's like John Lennon said, "Life is what happens
when you are making plans".
daresay that all this logic won't do Ben or Bird the
slightest bit of good. Religion is based on anti-logic,
and if you base your life on it you're living in a dream
Believe it or not, the first half of "School of
Rock" is actually funny. Of course it goes down
hill from there, but it had potential.
I think you would just enjoy it for the Classic rock
references which was a lot of fun.
certainly watch it when it pops up on cable, but it
certainly didn't seem like anything to go out of one's
Sexual urges are something that can be controlled. Celibacy
doesn't lead to child molestation.
Most kids today would be better off having a mother
and a father, even with some discord. But 24/7 miserable
family isn't good either. They shouldn't have been married
in the first place. This society is plagued with people
giving into their selfishness. They give up on spouses
easily, get divorced and get into equally bad relationships.
Many people who are getting divorced these days are
getting remarried and redivorced. Part of knowing that
you have to stay married is knowing that you have to
make the best of it. Probably 98% of today's divorces
are a result of people not trying. They're selfish.
Someone who is married, has a kid or two, and continually
fights with his or her spouse could easily reevaluate
their priorities and make sacrifices to make things
work. I think they are all lazy, selfish and greedy.
I can guarantee a few things, and I credit all of it
to Catholicism and the morals and sense of responsibility
it has instilled in me: I am not concerned about the
AIDS epidemic. I will never get AIDS. I am not worried
about the divorce rate because I will never get a divorce.
And I will never make my household miserable for my
family because I'm unhappy about something. People today
are totally screwed up, and no one wil believe the truth.
Maybe 20 years from now when I'm still happily married
with however many kids my wife and I have, people will
say, wow, maybe you did somehting right. But probably
not. They'll probably find some other excuse or diversion
to allow them to continue their crappy lives.
Lost in Translation wasn't just bad for the infidelity.
(What do you mean there was no cheating? Who did Bill
Murray wake up with?) And he did kiss the girl at the
end. You go to Japan, kiss some girl and see if it doesn't
bother your wife.
all due respect, you are completely full of shit. If
just 50 million American couples would just come to
their senses and listen to you, since you seem to know
what's wrong with everybody's marriage, then this would
be a better world. 98% of all marriages fail because
they're "not trying"? Do you ever think about
what you say, or do you just say it? My mom and dad
divorced after 40 years of marriage, and I honestly
think they gave it the old college try. And you know
for a fact that celibacy doesn't lead to child molestation?
Of course you don't, you're just spewing horseshit.
Celibacy clearly led to child molestation in the cases
of at least 6,500 Catholic priests, and one bishop,
so far. Unless, as I suspect, the entire clergy of the
Catholic church is filled with repressed homosexuals.
Aldous Huxley said that celibacy is the worst sexual
perversion of them all, which may well be overstatement,
but there's probably some validity there. You're awfully
lucky that God gave you a 100% assurance you won't get
AIDS, even from a blood transfusion. God gave me a 100%
assurance that anyone who thinks they know all the answers
is really just an idiot.
the subject off religion, what did you think of THE
SCHOOL OF ROCK?
don't seriously think I'd pay money to see that, do
I have a general film question, and a specific political
Film first - are there any novels or short stories you
would ever want to adapt as a screenplay? This assumes
a best case scenario where you can get the rights with
no hassle. What sorts of considerations should one bear
in mind when adapting a novel or short story?
Politically, just wondering what you thought of Nader's
candidacy. Do you share the growing concern that he
might prove to be an upsetter again?
That's it for now. Fight the good fight!
have to say I'm much more interested in making my own
scripts than adapting other people's work; however,
there are still a few books over the years that just
seemed like movies to me. Kurt Vonnegut's "The
Sirens of Titan" and "Cat's Cradle,"
Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy and his novel "The
Gods Themselves," Colleen McCullough's Rome books,
Alice Hoffman's books "Seventh Heaven" and
"Illumination Night," Don Delillo's "White
Noise," Phillip Roth's "American Pastoral,"
Ian Fleming's "Casino Royale" exactly as it's
written (set in 1953), "Mefisto in Onyx" by
Harlan Ellison, "Franny and Zooey" and "Raise
High the Roofbeams, Carpenters, and Seymour, and Introduction"
by J. D. Salinger, "Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant,"
by Anne Tyler. That's it for the moment. As for considerations,
I don't know because I've never done it. And as for
Ralph Nader, bless his soul, I think he's a good man
and he's attempting to show that it doesn't have to
be a two-party system. The Democratic party has moved
quite far into the center and I don't mind at all that
there are far left voices out there.
I have been reading the screenplays you have posted
here on your site, and thoroughly enjoying all of them.
The problem is, I got to the last one, and the link
is broken. I am a completist, and don't think I will
be able to read anything else until after I get ahold
of that one (The Winds of Fate). Hope you can help me
out on that, by letting me know when the link is working
again, or (if you are feeling particularly nice and
generous) sending me a copy of said screenplay. Not
being the presumptuous sort, I won't bother sending
my address unless you ask for it.
for pointing that out. We'll do our best to get it fixed
ASAP. I'm glad you're enjoying my scripts.
taken care of; here is the link to the "Winds
of Fate" screenplay downloadable .zip file.
No, they didn't elect me spokesman. But neither did
every Jew collectively elect Abe Foxman, nor did every
gay person elect to be represented by GLAD views. It
works for others, so I thought I'd chime in. Having
said that, I maintain that most Trad Cats share my views.
But off the subject, you say that you always write a
treatment before you write a script. Do you add a lot
of scenes and action during the script? Or would you
say the story is 99% done when you start the script?
If so, do you have a guideline of how prose compares
to a script page? If you have twenty pages of treatment,
will that easily make 100 pages for a script?
"easily" makes a 100-120 page script. But
by writing a treatment first you can work out most,
if not all, of your story problems before starting the
script. What I mostly add to the treatment when adapting
it into a script is dialog. Also, ideas that can simply
be stated in prose need to be shown in a screenplay.
But it against all rational storytelling techniques
to sit down to write a script and not know where it's
going or what the ending is. In a good script everything
is leading to the conclusion.
don't understand you, Josh. You claim that all religion
is evil and stupid, yet you have the nerve to say that
Mel Gibson's movie is "the Devil's work".
Your big problem with it is the way it is seemingly
disrespectful to Jews, yet you have no problem whatsoever
being completely disrespectful to Catholics. When you
say that "most" Catholic priests are child
molesters or sex offenders, it is not only untrue, but
also offensive and hateful. Every priest I have ever
known has been kind, pious, and generous(and this is
coming from a lapsed Catholic). Your venomous response
to my last post was downright mean-spirited. I don't
understand why you think it's okay to shit all over
other people's beliefs and say damaging things, yet
you think any subtle criticism of Judaism is "anti-Semitic".
You're showing an obvious bias here, Mr. All-Religion-Sucks.
Stereotyping all Catholic priests as child-molesters
is just as offensive as any given Jewish stereotype.
When I said the Christians have a beef with the Jewish
religion, I meant it in the same way that I meant that
Protestant's have a problem with the Catholic religion.
Because the Jews are also an ethnic group, does that
make them beyond reproach? THE PASSION is not attacking
the Jews as a people. Mel Gibson is not like one of
these Christian Identity bigots who believe that Jews
are the sons of Cain. To be critical of some of the
Jews in the story, when almost everyone in the story
is Jewish, is not uncalled for. In PINOCCHIO, everyone's
Italian. So if the Great Stromboli is an evil character
in PINOCCHIO, it's inaccurate to interpret PINOCCHIO
as anti-Italian, because the good characters are Italian
One can always point to the sorriest examples of a group
of people and paint everyone in that group with the
same brush. Notice I didn't bring up the jack-booted
thugs in Israel who treat the Palestinians no better
than the Nazis treated the Jews. I didn't bring it up
because I wanted to separate the policies of Israel,
which I disagree with, from the Jewish people. To blame
Ariel Sharon's Jewishness for his evilness would be
uncalled for. I really like your films, Josh. I respect
your talent and I want to like you. But you sure make
it hard when you make blanket statements like this.
do believe that religion is evil, and I think that Judaism
is every bit as bad as Christianity, Islam, and Hindu
(I actually think that Buddhism isn't evil because it
doesn't have any biggotry and hatred built into it).
I serious believe that being a Catholic priest and taking
a vow of celibacy is a sexual perversion, and can only
lead to other sexual perversions. Considering there
have now been over 11,000 allegations of homosexual
child molestation against 6,500 Catholic priests, and
now the first American bishop, I don't think my stereotyping
is coming out of nowhere. As for the "beef"
between Protestants and Catholics, for the past several
hundred years that has been entirely theoretical and
rhetorical; in regard to the beef between Christians
and Jews, Christians have frequently, and recently,
gone out and killed Jews because of it. You know of
any examples of Jews killing Christians due to religious
differences? It's like southern whites and southern
blacks, they may both dislike each other in equal amounts,
but the blacks never go out and lynch the whites. There
is no play or movie that causes Jews to go out and kill
Christians. But the passion play has been historically
proven to cause Christians to go out and kills Jews.
That's a fact. Everything in the world is not equal.
Some groups are a lot more intolerant than others, and
at the top of the intolerant list goes Muslims and Christians.
As I metioned in the last post, the Jews' intolerance
of homosexuality is, in my opinion, hateful. I also
believe that the Israelis attitude and treatment of
the Palestinians is unconscionable, and as long as they
treat the Palestinians as second-class citizens they
deserve every terrorist attack they get. And when the
Israelis retaliate with rockets, tanks, and bulldozers,
those are every bit as much terrorist attacks as what
the Palestinians do. One man's terrorist is another
man's freedom fighter. But to say that the Israelis
are just like Nazis is silly. It's like calling George
Bush Hitler, which, as Bill Maher pointed out, is inaccurate
because A. Adolf Hitler was a decorated frontline war
veteran, and B. Hitler was elected because he got more
votes than the other guy.
In response to Ben's last post I would like to say something
that challenges his beliefs about Priests and chid molestation.
Isn't it still a fact that the traditional Catholic
rules and not just the Vatican II rules still have it
that Priests must take a vow of celibacy?
If this is fact which I believe it to be then it is
the most ridiculous rule any religious organization
still has going for it.
Priests are human and the fact is taking this vow goes
against all the principles of human nature whether you
have a strong will or not.
All it does is promote harboring sexual delinquency
amongst Priests, since they can find a safe haven to
perform their sexual acts without getting caught.
That is up until now. I know now as an adult what the
two Priests in my old Parish were up to and I don't
think it had anything to do with the Traditional Catholic
values or Vatican II values.
All I know is these men had urges that they could not
control and I was fortunate enough as a kid to figure
out something wasn't quite right and steered clear of
It is an extremely difficult urge to curb and abolish
your entire life. Gandhi was able to do it, but not
until he was older.
I think it is almost impossible for a majority of males
including Priests and it has become obvious now, but
it is even worse that they turn to sexual deviancy with
young boys because of this absolutely ridiculous rule
of the church.
As for "Lost in Translation", the film has
much more going on than just cheating on ones spouse
which actually never occurs in the film. Sexually anyway.
It about two very real characters both caught in a similar
rut in their lives and they just happen to be generations
I don't think you will like the film Josh, but not for
the reasons Ben has outlined. I enjoyed the film, I
felt that Bill Murray captured his character really
well. Both actors were very good in their roles, but
the script did suffer and the film went a little too
Does Ben think that religion is the cure for Adultery?
I think this is nonsense. All religion has done for
poor marriages is kept them together and made two people
incredibly unhappy for the rest of their lives when
they should have separated from one another.
I don't condone divorce, but in a great majority of
cases it is the best thing for a relationship that has
failed to mend. Dissolving a bad marriage which can't
mend has been proven to be more beneficial when there
are children involved as well. Who wants to be with
there parents when they are miserable 24/7. Answer:
I am thankful that in this day an age people are not
forced to stay together with the guilt of religion if
they can't mend their relationship.
seems that most priests, and now a bishop, too, are
repressed homosexuals, that's why they went into the
church in the first place, in an attempt to overcome
this dreaded sin, and, of course, they have generally
failed. The fact is, the the entire Christian and Jewish
religions are completely fucked up regarding homosexuality.
10-12% of the population is gay and always has been
since the beginning of humanity. Being against homosexuals
is the same thing as being against left-handed people,
or redheads, or blacks, or Indians. You can cloak it
in religious dogma all you'd like, but if you're against
homosexuals you're bigot. Biggotry is of course evil,
and if your religion condones it, then your religion
is evil, too.