REVIEW: Watch Out For Leftist Sucker Punch in Jim Carrey’s Lifeless ‘Christmas Carol’
by John NolteSo Disney spends $200 million on the production of screenwriter/director Robert Zemeckis’ computer-animated adaptation of Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” a story of redemption, reconciliation and forgiveness proven to have strong universal appeal. And what do they let Zemeckis go and do in their big-budgetted holiday tentpole aimed at families excited about celebrating this most holy of seasons…?
Add his own piece of dialogue trashing organized religion.
First off, I want Zemeckis to know he didn’t get me. Oh, hell yes I was ready for it. After a decade of watching this industry crap on its own art and box office in order to childishly get off on insulting their customers, you need not be a genius to understand that there was no way a story with a number of overt positive Christian moments could survive intact.
Oh, Zemeckis gave it everything he had to lull me into thinking this one was safe: A soundtrack loaded with classic carols about “Christ being born” and all that, but I’m not Charlie Brown with the football, and sure enough…
Because I was scribbling notes, there’s some paraphrasing here, but the set up for the leftist sucker shot went a little something like this…
Scrooge (the voice of Jim Carrey) and The Ghost of Christmas Present fly high above the city. The soundtrack blares a beautiful version of “Christ is Born in Bethlehem” and then they hover for a beat near a large lovely cross set atop a church steeple. Scrooge says, “Quite beautiful,” and they fly on.
At this point you can practically hear Zemeckis chuckling as he imagines all us racist, tea bagging, Christianists smiling warmly … right before he strikes.
Scrooge and the spirit hover above a bakery, and then from completely out of nowhere comes the following:
Scrooge: Spirit, these poor people have no means to cook their food and yet you seek to close the only places in which they can warm their meager meals every 7th day.
Ghost of Christmas Present: Hear me scrooge. There are some upon this earth of yours who claim to know me and my brothers and do their deeds of ill will and selfishness in our name. These so called men of the cloth are as strange to me and my kin as if they never lived. Charge their doing to them, not us.
Gotcha’ teabaggers! You thought this one was for you? Are you crazy? We is Hollywood! Bwahahahahahaha….
For the record, here’s what Dickens wrote:
There are some upon this earth of ours,” returned the Spirit, “who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.
Dickens was no fan of organized religion either, but as you can see Zemeckis thinks he knows better and took it upon himself to change a general warning about hypocrisy into a very specific slap at organized religion — at “men of the cloth” in general. No qualifiers, no “some” men of the cloth… Nope, the whole lot of them.
Why do it, Bob? (That’s a rhetorical question)
For the same reason “The Blind Side” had to take a shot at George W. Bush. Either driven by his own bigotry, a need to inoculate himself in a town full of religious bigots who wouldn’t appreciate a purely pro-Christian film, or both — it was mandatory that something offensive to the tens of millions of us stupid enough to believe in organized religion rear its story-stopping, heavy-handed head.
From a purely artistic standpoint, to say this where-the-hell-did-that-come-from moment sucks all the goodwill out of the story is an understatement. And “goodwill” was all this soulless production had going for it.
This is the most clinical, uninspired, by-the-numbers adaptation of the Dickens’ classic yet. And to use a style of animation incapable of bringing life to the eyes of your characters in a story brimming with humanity might be the dumbest big studio decision of the year … even dumber than the sucker shot and a couple of silly, unmotivated chase sequences.
When you add advertising expenses, Disney’s “A Christmas Carol” probably cost a total of $300 million, which means it will have to make close to $600 million just to break even – and thus far, after over a month in release, the worldwide box office has yet to crack $250 million.
If you had to clear over a half-billion dollars just to break even, would you allow an out-of-nowhere shot at organized religion in your Christmas film?
Not if profit was more important than ideology.
I’m not saying Zemeckis’ artless insult is why this Disney production is in deep, deep financial trouble, but it sure as hell doesn’t help that someone like me is spreading the word right before their last-gasp weekend to clean up some of that red ink.
And please do tell me again how Hollywood is money driven…
Anyway, in the spirit of the holiday season and to quote the mighty Clark W. Griswold, I’d like to say to Leftist Tinseltown:
Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, kiss my ass. Kiss his ass. Kiss your own ass.
…and in the spirit of adding my own little slice of dialogue to a classic: Don’t forget to go to Hell.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
200 Comments
a) This is one of the most remarkably close-to-the-text adaptations I've ever seen, from its opening on. For better or worse. And that quote isn't that different. You went in with your claws out.
b) The financial situation here isn't quite what you say; the math's a little off. Because "The Polar Express" makes a good amount of money every winter when it's reissued, Disney's gambling they can make steady residuals every winter with this film. Given the global gross so far ($249 million and counting) plus the fact that DVD generally sells 1 1/2 the theatrical gross, this film is well on track to being long-run profitable.
Actually, from a Christian perspective, Zemeckis isn't all that far off from Jesus' teaching on claiming to be his follower without carrying out the actions he directed.
Matthew: 7, 16-23 "You will be able to tell them by their fruits. Can people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, a sound tree produces good fruit but a rotten tree bad fruit. A sound tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor a rotten tree bear good fruit. Any tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown on the fire. I repeat, you will be able to tell them by their fruits. 'It is not anyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?" Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, all evil doers!
Hmmm. Islamic mullahs are men of the cloth. Must have been a tough, painful call for Zemeckis to not single out Christians.
This whole Carrey project makes no sense anyway. It's a vanity project for someone who was once upon a time a big star. Why do beautiful animation and have the Scrooge an outright ugly cartoon? I just don't get any of it.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Fernando Colon and Michael Chavez, Mr. Pink. Mr. Pink said: REVIEW: Watch Out For Leftist Sucker Punch in Jim Carrey’s Lifeless ‘Christmas Carol’ http://tinyurl.com/ydl38m6 [...]
So how exactly do you explain the change in the text then, I'm curious? Happenstance? VRWC? Divine (read: globally conscious) intervention?
V, I have to Vastly disagree with you on the quote not being "that different".
As John wrote, it's well known that Dickens was not a strong believer in organized religion, but he had no issue with believers in religion (something learned in most high-school literature classes). Zem's quote is DIRECTLY aimed at the believers of organized religion.
You might argue that was the intent of Dickens' quote, but you'd be hard-pressed to prove that as a pure fact ,and not just your interpretatino of the original quote. With RZ's quote, there is no doubt who he's aiming his comment at.
I don't understand Zemeckis' fascination with this type of animation. Frankly, "Polar Express" creeped me out. Add to that my extreme dislike of Jim Carrey, and this movie won't get my ten bucks.
I have no interest in this film. Zemeckis hasn't made a decent film since Cast Away – and that was ten years ago. This type of animation is horrible and yes, a little creepy. As for Jim Carrey, his shtick is getting really old. Dumb and Dumber is the only movie of his that I can still watch and laugh.
When I recently saw the movie, that line did give me a bit of pause, but at the same time – irrespective of Zemeckis' intention – let's face it, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion – Christian or otherwise. To that end, I just let it slide.
"This is one of the most remarkably close-to-the-text adaptations I've ever seen"
Yeah, it may well have been. I think you know better about what we're talking about than you let on. So, we're sick of this crap. We can't say anything about it? Thanks a lot, "v dot dot dot dot". Is anybody else here getting sick of replying to these dbags?
I don't waste a lot of money on Hollywood films anymore.
I don't have the biggest problem with the animation but, believe me, I really hope he gets back to his fun, live-action roots… the same mind that brought us Used Cars and Back to the Future.
My friend and I are huge Zemeckis fans and, even though I haven't seen this film yet, my friend saw it with his kids and said it was a disappointment: a dull, dour mess.
Frankly this little sucker punch line doesn't bother me … in the grand scheme of whats wrong with this film that's so minor as to be insignificant (and easily missed anyway).
This animation type is indeed horrible and creepy … if you're going to animate a move animate it, if you're going to shoot live action, shoot live action (and supplement with tasteful CGI). But this type of animation seems more like a "proof of concept" thing to me … fine you proved you can do almost photo-realistic animation … save it for video games where it actually adds to the experience instead of the movies where it just comes off as ugly.
There are at least a dozen better adaptations of A Christmas Carol … go buy one of them on DVD instead of this lameness.
Oh and enough with the 3D movies … it didn't work in the 50s, it doesn't work today (especially since the vast majority of the audience sees it on a small screen without the special glasses).
On a side note in The Blind Side, I didn't find the Bush Bashing sucker punch all that effective or "sucker punchy" … of course some worthless government cog employee (especially as a female minority) is going to say something bad about Bush. And the pro NRA/CCW line delivered to the face of the gangbanger more than made up for it.
Used Cars is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen….
[...] rest is here: REVIEW: Watch Out For Leftist Sucker Punch in Jim Carrey’s Lifeless ‘Christmas Carol’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I saw the movie and didn't see this line as an attack on organized religion. It seemed to me very similar to what Jesus said that those who claim to be men of God but act as sinners are as ungodly then any sinner. This is an important Chrisitan tradition. Meaning proclaiming loyalty to Christ is alone does not excuse unforgiveable actions. Though Zemekises adaptation certainly wasn't my favorite version of a Christmas Carol I still found it somewhat enjoyable
John – you've (once again) confirmed my suspicions. The trailer for this 'Scrooge' sent up red flags in my mind at once as I watched a story of a spiritual redemption treated as a fun ride at Disneyworld. Now your review has confirmed my gut instinct that, yes, a film that abandons spiritual beliefs will also sneer at them. That settles it – in this Season of Giving, I am giving my movie money to the collection plate at church.
(P.S. I am so glad that this film isn't making a profit. Any studio that has the gall to trash Christ on His birthday deserves to lose its shirt.)
Maybe Dickens was trying to say something about the Church of his day, but was afraid of getting reactions like the ones on this very blog. He was known for providing "family entertainment" and in a Christmas story the last thing he'd want to do would be to start an angry religious debate. He could have shown a well-upholstered vicar enjoying Sunday dinner with his family while little orphans starved and begged in the street outside. But even that scene wouldn't have had much to do with "passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry and selfishness." At worse such a vicar would be guilty of thoughtlessness, laziness, complacency or just falling down on the job.
Maybe there's some profit motive to "blue laws" that I'm not familiar with. Does closing businesses on Sunday enrich anyone – the businesses or the Church?
I wonder what percentage of Jim Carrey's paycheck went to the "people". I mean, now that he hates capitalism he must be walking the walk, right?
Anyway, I think the author of this piece is overreacting. I can't think who else Dickens could have been referring to other than churchmen. And frankly, if there's only one line of possible, questionable anti-Christian bias in an entire movie, I think we can count ourselves lucky.
One might benefit from reading about the "manna from heaven" in the book of Genesis when discussing the "blue law" (closing businesses on Sunday). God will always provide, providing you follow His directions.
Same thing I've been thinking: If you want to direct an animated movie, then animate it and be done with it. I did manage to sit thru "Beowulf" (there's 90 mins. of my life I'll never get back again), and while the backgrounds and monsters were visually impressive, it was unsettling to watch the people. Most of the time the animated actors still look enough like the human actors to be able to identify them (i.e., Tom Hanks as the conductor in PE), but the animated Beowulf was blond and had a ripped bod, while the actor is short and stocky and balding (picture George Costanza battling a dragon). I just kept thinking, what's the point?
I fail to see a significant distinction between the Dickens and the modernized Zemeckis version.
"Dickens was no fan of organized religion either, but as you can see Zemeckis thinks he knows better and took it upon himself to change a general warning about hypocrisy into a very specific slap at organized religion — at “men of the cloth” in general. No qualifiers, no “some” men of the cloth… Nope, the whole lot of them."
Bull!!!
The Zemeckis version DOES qualify and limit which "men in cloth" are in question. The quote certainly does NOT implicate all men in cloth. Here it is the quote again:
Ghost of Christmas Present: Hear me scrooge. There are some upon this earth of yours who claim to know me and my brothers and do their deeds of ill will and selfishness in our name. These so called men of the cloth are as strange to me and my kin as if they never lived. Charge their doing to them, not us.
Which men in cloth? "THESE" Men in cloth! Which ones does THESE refer to? The previous sentence says: "There are some upon this earth of yours who claim to know me and my brothers and do their deeds of ill will and selfishness in our name." Its the same limited qualification that Dickens had.
Nice try tho.
As an evangelical, the crack about 'men of the cloth' doesn't bother me much because in the evangelical church we have 'eliminated the middle man'. By focusing on faith, bible study, prayer and works, our relationship is directly with Christ and we are just as sceptical of priests as is Zemeckis. But I didn't see the movie, so I don't know how cheap a shot it was in the context.
What I hate about most movies these days is the way they try to control you through your emotions. I like the 'idealogically-big' movies that make you think, instead of the little movies that tell you what to think. My favorite movies were just about anything with Bogart; Sierra Madre, African Queen, etc. He was a complicated guy, unlike any character in movies today.
I'm never watching another animated, pixarated, CGI-toxicated or otherwise cartoon-ified Hollywood movie again. Make it real or count me out.
It's a festival of the "played out". Carrey is played out, Zemeckis is played out, this kind of icky animation is played out. Soon, Hollywood's ability to afford this kind of infantile "Eff you traditional America!" message is gonna be played out as well. Let's work on making that sooner.
This just seem's silly. There may be a very vague attack on organized religion in there somewhere, but considering its essentially the same sentiment as what dickens wrote originally…Far cry short of a Bitch slap to organized Religion.
A "sucker punch" is a hit you don't see coming.
As you point out, the scene and most of the dialogue are from a book first published in 1843, that has been filmmed and staged thousands of times since then, and is one of the most widely-known works of literature in the history of the world.
To have been "sucker punched" by such a thing must take an extraordinary amount of effort on the part of the punched
How exactly is it trashing Christ? At worst, at the very worst, its saying that there are Clergy who claim to be doing things in the name of God who are really doing things completely adverse to it. Zemeckis might have intended that as a slight against Mormons or the Catholic Church, but motivation aside, that sounds like a simple statement of the facts. Jesus himself had quite a lot to say about people who do evil things in his name.
There are Thousands of clergy who are undoubtedly completely morally depraved, even if that means being proud beacuse you think you are superior to other's because of the distinction of being Christian. Besides, in these days of thousands of silly splintered denominations, only once Church can truly have it right, so clearly the others are all ,on a level, heretical.
Point in case, that simply wasnt trashing christ.
LOL. Yeah, there's definitely an effort being made to be injured!
Oh, and for the record: YES, among the many (technical) problems of this movie is that the scene in question comes out of nowhere and makes no explaination as to what it's talking about – one of many areas where this particular version's insistance of hewing to the text is it's undoing.
In the book, Dickens is making a side-swipe at British Sabbatarianism – the practice of closing government/church-run institutions on the Sabbath, which was also the only day most of England's working-poor had off from work. Forget "sucker-punching," a bigger problem is that the film is thus railing against a social injustice that hasn't existed for over a century.
I just don't think many people are going to see this. As we've seen on the Top 25 thread, there are amazing versions of this story readily available. Jim Carrey isn't a "must see" for anyone anymore so, unless someone is seriously bored, there's not much reason to bother going to the theater for this flick.
The reason I don't go see anything in the theater anymore is because of this very thing, however. I assume I'm going to be insulted at some point so I just don't bother going. And, even if the insult doesn't happen, I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for it so the overall enjoyment is lost. The left has really destroyed the movie business, haven't they?
I don't really have an issue with the "sucker punch". I'm not going to see this movie, but one little line that vaguely refers to priests won't ruin a movie for much like the jab at Bush in The Blind Side bounced off me.
I'm a fan of yours Mr. Nolte, but this is kinda weak……
While a screenwriting student at UCLA, I took advantage of many opportunities to directly confront Hollywood writers and producers (some of the with 30+ years of experience) about political and anti-religious bias in current films. I say directly because I am OPENLY conservative, even when surrounded by lefties (why someone should do this is another topic).
They are aware of the bias, and they do not care. There are two reasons for the bias. They honestly feel that this serves MOST of their audience – domestic and (especially) foreign. As far as they are concerned, middle-aged red-staters do not go to the movies in sufficient numbers to affect this decision. The second reason they do it is because they CAN. They despise organized religion and they show a modicum of affection toward America only insofar as it can be "transformed" by progressive politics.
This will never change. The solution is to learn how to make your own kind of movies and put them on the market.
Yeah. The real "War on Christmas" is going on at the White House this year. Nativity figures OUT, and Hell-O Obama and Mao ornaments on the "HolidayTree"!
Yes we are all sick of these worthless leftists and their attempt to destroy Judeo/Christian values. Its OK for a muslim to butcher innocent men, women and children and we have to sit quietly by for fear of offending a "peaceful" muslim, but its no big thing for liberal filth to spew their anti christian hatred all over the public even though a vast majority of this country labels them-self "Christian" and believes in Judeo/Christian values.
I saw the 3D computer toon version of Dickens’ A CHRISTMAS CAROL, and it was without doubt the worst version of this classic ever filmed, and among the worst movies I’ve ever seen. It galls me particularly, since I spent over 40 bucks for tickets for the whole family, plus popcorn slathered in butter-substitute chemicals.
Jim Carey plays Scrooge as the most cartoonishly evil version of the character imaginable, sneering and yelling and growling out lines which should have been delivered with imperturbably British condescension. He also plays the Ghost of Christmas Past, hooting and hissing out lines that should have been delivered with imperturbably British melancholy. He also plays the Ghost of Christmas Present, screaming and screaming out a forced donkey laugh to blast out lines that should have been delivered with imperturbably British jollity and good-humor. The Ghost of Christmas Present even screams out his forced stupid-sounding roars of laughter even as in a completely gratuitously gross and pointless scene, his face melts into a skeleton as he dies slowly and horribly before our eyes.
Contrast this with the George C. Scott 1984 version made for television, where Scrooge was portrayed as a real person. Instead of a twodimensionally evil and bitter miser, he is here portrayed as a merely coldhearted and aloof man who jests at Christmas. Imagine the difference between saying "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons? Well, then let them die and decrease the surplus population" in a tone of ringing hatred, and saying the same line with a smile and a twinkle in the eye, as if the whole matter is a joke, not something to concern a serious businessman.
Or contrast this with the stunning visuals and pitch-perfect voice acting of the 1971 animated version (illustrated by Richard Williams and voiced by none other than Alistair Sim, reprising his role from the definitive 1951 version.)
Whereas in the 2009 computer toon version, there is a scene where Scrooge in his nightshirt, having been reduced to the size of a rat, is chased (accompanied by Jim Carey’s screams) through the streets and up and down walls and rooftops of London by a haunted hearse drawn by demon horses, and (since it is a three dee movie) the miniature figure must be shown dropping in and out of stormdrains, sliding across ice, leaping always directly at the viewer. It goes on and on, and hold no excitement nor point whatever, since we all know the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Be is not here to murder Scrooge, but to enlighten him.
I give it five out of five hammers in the head for excessive stupidity.
"Well on track to being long-run profitable(sic)". It still sucks , dosen't it?
v…'s points are perfectly reasonable.
The movie's text really does hew closely to the original – outside of a bit of the ghost animation, it is disappointingly unimaginative, actually.
The quoted text is very close to the original and Nolte admits Dicken's original text was critical of organized religion.
The '"rewrite" simply makes Dicken's meaning clearer and more succinct.
Honestly envision the ghost saying the original while scooting around with Scrooge. I think most viewers would be scratching their heads. The phrase "men of the cloth" is clarifying.
Furthermore, "so-called men of the cloth" clearly refers back to "some." This is not a blanket condemnation of all organized religion.
The movie, like the story, is a celebration of Christmas, and doesn't shy from showing it to be a Christian holiday (ie the crosses).
I'm first in line against left-wing bias in film (th the point of paranoia I'm repeatedly told) but Nolte's reaching here.
"We can't say anything about it?" Of course you can. So can v… So can I. That's what Big Hollywood is all about.
Merry Christmas.
In ancient manuscripts, "Adam and Eve" (Forgotten Books of the Bible) Satan continued to plague (lead astray) Adam, Eve and family. He did so by assuming other forms and identities and always, always pretended to have humans best interest paramount. The entertainment industry was made to order for Satans liery deceptions. I watch the screaming, jumping, adoring masses who are willing to sacrifice anything or anyone to follow in "stars" footsteps and know who is the one standing in the shadows.
To further clarify, it isn't directed at "believers of organized religion" but the clergy, who are generally associated with organized religion. If the Scrooge character hadn't commented on the beauty of the cross, you might have some wiggle room there, but you don't. And neither does Mr. Nolte, who yet again couldn't refrain from profanity, even in an article that purports to stand offended by the slander of organized religion. Ironic.
But Zemeckis was raised a Chicagoland Roman Catholic — with no recent lack of infamy among its clergy — and you can be sure "…there is no doubt he's aiming his comment at" hypocritical CLERGY. And unless you are a hypocritical priest or a pastor, Mark, then you stand undefamed. So, does Mr. Nolte.
Excellent, MB. I was wondering (obviously, from my over-long post above) why Dickens would have been so…agitated about something we used to take for granted. If we consider that the working poor back then may have been working 12+ hours a day, at least six days a week, and everything was closed on their only day off, it's easier to understand his outrage. Interesting that he saw it as a practical, not a constitutional issue.
However, I still think it was a weird place to throw in the extreme, condemnatory language. It was a religious tradition set in law – not a conspiracy by evil people to take advantage of the poor. At least I don't think it was. I suppose you could imagine Victorian social engineers planning to keep the poor fully occupied six days a week and too exhausted to do anything on the seventh – but let's close all the shops on Sunday just in case. Keep 'em out of trouble…
Yawn.
Yeah, because that is going to really amount to something more than a hill of beans.
I have to agree with those who ask why this movie was even made. What can an all-CGI Christmas Carol show us that live-action + SFX can't? Seems like a gratuitous use of the tool, maybe just to suck in audiences.
The line isn't directed at "believers of organized religion" but rather the clergy, who are typically found in organized religion, especially in Dickens' day. If the Scrooge character hadn't commented on the beauty of the cross, Mr. Nolte might have some wiggle room there, but he doesn't.
Zemeckis was raised a Chicagoland Roman Catholic — with no recent lack of infamy among its clergy — and you can be sure the line is aimed at hypocritical CLERGY. Perhaps it was an unnecessary line, but unless you are a hypocritical priest or a pastor, then you, like Mr. Nolte, stand undefamed.
On another point, it's disappointing that again Mr. Nolte, like other writers on Big Hollywood, couldn't refrain from needless profanity in an article that purports to stand offended by the slander of organized, Christian religion. Sad irony.
Jesus gave us 2 commandments to supersede ALL other commandments,except ,of course,Exodus 20:3, which is the first commandment~"Thou shall have no other gods before God".These 2 commandments, under the New Testament Covenant with God are,'Love thy neighbor as thyself" and,Matt.7:1~ "Judge not lest you be judged, for with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged".Food for thought when libs cast about seeking to blame everyone else for the ills of the world.
Dickens never mentioned "men of the cloth" and indeed the innuendo: Some men on this earth wasn't aimed at "religious" men at all, (unless you count those who "worship" money) but rather industrialism and industrialists in particular. There is your difference, whether it be some or all is entirely irrelevant.
I think the "every 7th day" part does single out Christians, especially in the context of such an overtly Christian occasion and society…
While not meaning to nit-pick, Jesus did, as you have proven, speak out against "ravenous wolves in sheeps clothing". I believe the point being made in this instance is that every chance hollywood gets, they will,indeed attempt to paint religion, ESPECIALLY CHRISTIANITY, with the broad brush of intolerance. True Christianity, in it's pure, unadulterated form, is the only TRUE religion of peace and love on Earth.Jesus died on the cross to expressly fulfill prophecy so that we can all receive salvation.Everything changed with the arrival of Jesus Christ, for in his death he gave us life.Jesus brought to us the True Spirit of God, so ALL can have a personal relationship with God, through Jesus Christ.
That's my take on it too.
1 VERY IMPORTANT qualifier here, my friend. These atrocities of which you speak were not committed NOR perpetuated by God or Jesus, but by HUMAN BEINGS."Mans inhumanity to man" will continue unabated, with any and all justifications being cited as reason for hatred to rear it's ugly head.
You sound angry yourself,friend.
That´s not how I read it. The meaning is: There are some, and they are the men of the cloth. In any case, Dickens didn´t clearly limit himself to either all or some men of the cloth. His description would be more inclusive. It´s not the biggest deal in the world, frankly, but there is still a difference and it didn´t happen by accident.
Sure, it´s only a big deal if YOU blow a gasket.
Not meaning to nitpick, but, Jesus dosen't want or seek our loyalty. Our loyalty belongs to God only. Not only does God or Jesus disapprove of religious posers, the Bible states that there will be a special place waiting just for them, because they have led people astray in God's name.That being said, what is an "unforgiveable action"? God's mercy knows no bounds if your soul is true in repentance.
True Hank, walking the walk straight to the bank.
Well thats the thing, if it's important to a progressive liberal, then it HAS to be important to everyone else or you're a mindless trog with no heart.
This particular progressive liberal doesn't have the ability to see that what Obama did to the Christmas tree is offensive, and because HE doesn't see it, then no one else should. It's self-centered and a bit childish.
Equally off-putting for me was the schtick with Marley's Ghost. The ghost's jaw was, as per the book, held shut with a kerchief but scripter/director Zemeckis decided it would be good to have the jaw snap open and Marley comically struggle with it — during one of his most telling lines and thematic statements on Dickens' behalf, "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business." Why, Bob, why?
"Honestly, envision the ghost saying the original while scooting around with Scrooge. I think most viewers would be scratching their heads.
Oh really?
Earlier this year, the French lower house narrowly approved loosening rules restricting commercial activities on Sunday. The center-right government of Sarkosy proposed the change and his governing coalition voted broadly in favor of it with Socialists and Greens opposed.
Even though the government was giving assurances that employees would have the choice to refuse Sunday working hours and many would receive double-pay and meals, the unions fought the change
"We're absolutely opposed to this misguided text," said Joseph Thouvenel, deputy secretary general of the Confederation Francaise des Travailleurs Chretiens, whose 132,000 members include many in the retail sector.
He said that his members wanted to keep Sundays free for "family, spiritual, and collective time."
The mandatory Sunday off is a government law in France so I wouldn't have been confused by the original text, and the only thing "clarifying" by the inserted phrase is the anti-organized religion agenda of the screenwriter.
True Craig, but when Jesus came to Earth to fulfill prophecy everything changed. A New Covenant with God was established. Jesus relaxed 'laws' on what we could eat, for instance, stating that "what comes out of a man's mouth is more important than what he eats". Jesus also brought to us a personal relationship with God, through the Holy Spirit. We don't have to go to Church to find God,"Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened". Jesus also chastised the religious glory seekers, stating"Go into the closet and pray in private and ye shall find God".
That and annoying audiences. People who just can´t shut their cakeholes for a single minute, never mind two hours. While the left may not be directly to blame for those idiots, I´m sure they aren´t card-carrying conservatives
The movie has made about $250 million worldwide, over half of it in the US. They clearly had hoped for more, but it´s hardly a disaster and it´s still in release.
I have to agree with most of what I'm reading here… "Sucker punch" not likely. And the line really did stand out to me when I first heard it, because I agreed with it. My family and I have gone from church to church over last seven years, we thought we found one, but it was unfortunately just like every other Non-denominational church we had been to. I really think the "Church" is in a bad place right now, along with the country. That is why we have Church at our home, we take communion there, and other friends and family members join us if they want to. My family and I want something real! We are tired of being "fake" Christians… I for one don't mind the line at all. I do agree with your line about bringing life to lifeless characters, very true. Other than this one Nick, I'm with ya… I know us Christians are constantly on the defense, but I think it is the "fake" Christians who should really be scared, because they are stuck in place where they cannot believe and cannot dis-believe. aka. The modern mind.
The evangelical church didn't eliminate the "middle man", my friend. Jesus Christ did so himself, by becoming the"middle man", as you say. Jesus brought to Earth the True Spirit of God so that we can all have a personal relationship with God, with whom all things are possible.
I like your comparison with the 1984 version. Yes, it can be done differently, but then it wouldn´t be the Jim Carrey I know and avoid at all costs.
I would not have seen this under any circumstance because "Beowulf" was horrible and I can´t stand Jim Carrey.
Obviously Mr. Nolte´s point was exactly that it was directed at clergy. All clergy. Read it again.
You keep saying "men in cloth" just a four time slip? Everyman is in cloth, men of the cloth has a rather more specific meaning. Distorting the message for gain is the exact same thing the movie did. Don't be an apologist, the intent was very clear, to demean religion.
To those who admit this was intended as an insult but as it goes 'not that big of a deal.' I'd say, this is how minds are changed, this is how propaganda is done. Your children will remember this is some corner of their mind. This is what you read on this site day after day. The steady everyday slam against traditions, Christianity, every value that was considered true just 50 years ago, never mind 100 years ago. That snow the north and midwest is digging out from was laid down by one snowflake at a time. This movies slam is one snowflake. Maybe it isn't "remarkable" but it is extremely important. We are buried up to our necks in snow, while the blizzard still rages, isn't it time to take it a bit more seriously than brushing it off as "another snowflake, what's the big deal."
You posted a reasonable response, and I do appreciate that, but I must disagree. I think it makes the line less clearer than the original text.
I've seen various versions of a Christmas Carrol umpteenth million times, and I'm sure I've read a few times – at least in grade school, so even though I admit I'm not an expert, and I am familiar with the material.
I take the over all moral of the story as not only the evils of greed gone wild upon the greedy, but also upon others around them. I never got the impression religion had anything to do with it. Indeed, the presence of ghosts would seem to indicate to me, a lack of any religiosity.
The only ghost Christians believe in that I know of is the Holy Spirit, and we can't even seem to agree on that. (Organized religion ain't all that organized).
I haven't seen it yet, and I'm not going to see it this season, but I must say, those screen shots make the characters look pretty creepy.
Give me Bill Murray and the Solid Gold Dancers any time.
No doubt, correct on both posts. There was no love lost between the Pharisees and Jesus. Here's one of my favorites: Matthew 9:2-8
2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.
Wow, talk about turning yourself into a pretzel to get it wrong.
Nolte was right. These men of cloth refers to some upon the earth. It does not magically turn into some of these men of cloth as you ridiculously try to assert.
Furthermore, as I previously posted, places like France have had mandatory government laws restricting work on Sundays. Earlier this year, legislation was narrowly approved in the French lower house loosening restrictions on commercial activity on Sunday.
It was opposed by Socialists and Greens. "We're absolutely opposed to this misguided text," said the deputy secretary of the Confederation Francaise des Travailleurs Chretiens, whose 132,000 union members include many who work in the retail sector.
He said his members wanted to keep Sunday free for "family, spiritual, and collective time."
The original text was appropriate and the screenwriter was clearly inserting his anti-organized religion agenda.
He more relevantly could have said, these Socialists are as strange to me and my kin as if they never lived. Charge their doing to them, not us.
I can. How about some modern examples (I know they weren't around during Dickens' time, but I'm not that familiar with that period of history – but hypocrisy seems to be an enduring human trait).
ACORN, Planned Parenthood, ELF, American Red Cross (paying their CEO tens of millions of dollars).
The list of people claiming to do good, while serving themselves is sadly, almost endless.
I guess what get's my gall the most is modern writers who believe they can some how improve upon great works of literature.
Several years ago one of the networks did a miniseries on the Virgin Mary. And they actually attributed the stoning of the adulteress – and the line "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to Mary, not Jesus.
First off, how big of an over inflated ego must a Hollywood writer have to think they can improve upon John's Gospel? Second, if they can't find a compelling story line somewhere in the Bible, they should go back to cranking out Burma Shave ad copy.
Exactly. There is no excuse or reason for the continuation of the Hollywood studio monopoly. It will be an uphill battle to inform the public that the film exists, but it's doable. Hollywood will do whatever it can to destroy it's competition too. So — it will never be easy — but the time is ripe for a revolution in the entertainment industry.
See, these Hollywood and New York haters are one reason I watch most movies on DVDs on loan from the public library anymore … schedule of my own choosing, quiet surroundings, clean floors and upholstery, fresh popcorn, customized bathroom breaks …. what's the advantage in actually paying to see a movie any more? I'm older and I have more patience … at least, enough to wait to get the DVD a few months after the movie is released rather than enriching doofbags who hate me.
My advice to everyone: get a library card and use it. Probably the more you use it, the more you'll appreciate it.
If you want to direct an animated movie, then animate it and be done with it.
Wish somebody had told James Cameron that.
Mousie – Films that tell great stories AND contain conservative / libertarian values (and no sucker punches) already exist. Some quick examples: 300, Gran Torino, Pursuit of Happyness, We Were Soldiers, Gettysburg, etc).
The trouble is that MANY more conservatives and libertarians must start working in the entertainment industry AND they must be OPEN about their beliefs so they can find each other and join forces on projects. This means moving to LA and other sacrifices, especially financial. The sadest part is that not enough conservatives seem to want to do this, prefering to spend their time and efforts to feather their own nest. If that is the case (and I am not talking about John here) then they have no business complaining.
So YOU would have understood (listening while watching the movie, mind you, not reading and contemplating it at your computer) Dicken's original phrase as being a condemnation of something like modern political leftists, rather than of non-ideologically defined hypocritical pontificators (that would include some clergy). I understand the phrase differently, but that is a separate issue from the phrase's comprehensibility for most viewers, many of which would be children. I think the movie maker's decision to shorten the phrase and insert something he believes is clearer is defensible.
However I think your real point is that "so-called men of the cloth" is distorting rather than clarifying. To that I would ask: do you really think Dickens thought of left and right the way you do, and would have agreed with your way of thinking in that regard to boot? Even if Dickens were a nineteenth century conservative (and it is not my recollection that he was – he was a champion of London's poor and for 'liberal' reforms as far as I know) your analogy seems inapt.
I don't know what religion you grew up with, or even if you did grow up with religion, but in the church I was raised in, part of "keeping the Sabbath day holy" was caring for the poor, the sick, the widows and orphans, etc. It's always seemed to me that he was talking about the people who profess to believe in Christ, but then turn around and ignore the poor and the helpless in the spirit of keeping the Sabbath day, much like the Pharisees in the Bible. They were so concerned with the exact letter of the law, inventing ways around it so they could keep going on their way and at the same time, using it to berate others, that they neglected the spirit of the law. Remember how they were so incensed that Christ would dare heal somebody on the Sabbath, because that was "working" and not "honoring" the day? That's the same message I always took from this bit.
When you trash Christians, then you trash Christ. Dickens wrote "There are some upon this earth of ours" who purport to be Christian but are not. By writing the words 'some upon this earth', Dickens makes it abundantly clear that he means all humans upon this earth who purport to be Christian but in fact aren't.
But that is NOT what Zemeckis says. Zemeckis deliberately kicks out Dickens' words ('some upon this earth') and instead inserts 'men of cloth'. Men of cloth of the Christian faith are the clergy. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Dickens means mankind – but Zemeckis means only Christian ministers. It's clear and unambiguous. Ergo, when Zemeckis trashes Christian ministers, than Zemeckis trashes the God about whom they preach – Christ. That, my friend, is trashing Christ.
Sorry but I guess you guys must be those types that I hear about that are super-easily-offended.
Somehow I just don't see the secret Red infiltration you fear so much using Christmas Decorations as part of their evil plotting.
p.s. you might go check under your bed right now.. ya never know when a Red might be sneaking up on you!
This is rather silly. Zemeckis's line is almost verbatim what Dickens wrote, simply cut down and shortened for clarity. Even with the minute differences, the intention is the exact same as Dicken's. This is part of what's wrong with the conservative movement right now; ridiculous quibbling over imaginairy issues rather than focusing on matters worthy of attention (i.e. not three extra words in a Jim Carrey film) just gives ammunition to liberals. The lines are the same and I can't see anyone actually getting upset over this unless their skins as thin as one of the Ghosts of Christmas.
wow you almost had me there. But no.
read the Dickens again:
There are some upon this earth of ours,” returned the Spirit, “who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.
“who lay claim to know us" Who claim to know the Ghosts of Christmas besides religious men?
look, if you are looking to get punched, well, I guess you are a sucker.
Zemekis and Dickens both intend to critize the hypocrits that are among organized religion.
There is an insult there to be sure, but its very specific and its common to both versions.
read the Dickens again:
There are some upon this earth of ours,” returned the Spirit, “who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.
“who lay claim to know us" Who claim to know the Ghosts of Christmas besides religious men?
Not all religious men are men of the cloth.
Didn't take long for you (and your moron buddy Cog-douchenozzle) to come in here and dump all over this thread.
Still stupid as ever, I see.
Lazy.
You´re not exactly a bundle of joy yourself. What are you doing except hanging around here and being constantly annoyed and, well, offended? A sample from your comments vs. a sample from Hank´s and I rest my case.
"Scrooge and the spirit hover above a bakery, and then from completely out of nowhere comes the following:…."
Bingo! YOWSER!!
That smacked me right in the face, too, and made my skin crawl. I knew Dickens had *something* terse to say about so called do-gooders, but I KNEW Carrey's version was liberal, modern day secular bvllsh1t.
The free preview passes my wife and me received for that screening was the only thing that saved it from being a mediocre telling of Dickens' inspired, excellent story of Christian repentance and redemption.
.
Well, I'll toss my oar in on this one, V-Dot-Dot-Dot (who the hell do you work for, anyhow, a double-secret division of the Vermont Dept of Transportation?), and tell you that the grammar and context of the movie dialogue and Dickens' original MAY BE CLOSE…
but the reference to "so-called men of the cloth" has only one plain meaning; pastoral professionals – preachers, etc. Teachers and leaders of people of faith. That lumps 'em all in, and does not cull out the good.
If you read Dickens' original and UNDERSTAND it, you will see that the Spirit in the book actually refers only to men who engage in corrupt practices using faith as a justification. This could include both wayward preachermen and lay people, too, who use religion as a subterfuge for bad acts.
The not-so-subtle difference? Zemeckis pees on all men of the cloth as the group who do "deeds of ill will and selfishness." Dickens only pees on people who claim to be faithful but hypocritically do the ill-will deeds.
Get the point? Zemeckis trashes religion as hypocritical, but Dickens trashes only those who are hypocritical within religion.
I hope you get this point, and I also hope it opens your eyes to how Christians as a whole get trashed (because, let's face it, Christmas is a CHRISTIAN Holy Day….)
Not silly, at all. "These so called men of the cloth …" is made up dialogue – made up whole cloth – to promulgate a particular agenda, and a far cry from the cursing accusation by Dickens of self-righteous do-gooders in general.
.
Amen, El Gordo
Sco, you nailed it.
Doncha wonder whether anybody is actually even paying attention anymore?
Sometimes it does not surprise me at all that nearly everyone will keep drinking from the punchbowl that the office @sshat pee'd in.
Fight the good fight, my friend!!
Maybe it was just a slow day, hank. At least we got to discuss our ideas about faith and salvation
So true, Glenn. Narrow is the path and fewer still are those who follow it.
I believe we're also discussing the in your face in general war against religion that spews from hollywood at every small or large chance they can muster.
You must be logged in to post a comment.