tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30487573.post3068506945061987654..comments2024-03-14T19:14:03.059-05:00Comments on Acidemic - Film: God bless the Orgiast / who's brought his own: SIGN OF THE CROSSErich Kuerstenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02850572368098319317noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30487573.post-33600327659303536472014-05-21T16:53:38.100-05:002014-05-21T16:53:38.100-05:00And with you, Anon. And please believe me I don...And with you, Anon. And please believe me I don't mean to condemn Christianity as a whole because of a few dull apples, merely that Jesus, by some accounts, including the Book of Enoch, was lively and fun, 'remember me laughing from a tree, not hanging from a cross' - or something. I think each side of this argument overdoes it, becomes extreme, in order to set itself apart from that which it condemns, so the Christians become dour and sanctimonious to counteract the overly jovial and frivolous Romans, and vice versa. The bottom line, the difficulty, with translating Christianity to screen without burying it in dull sanctimony, lies in its ephemeral nature - watching people be nice to her just isn't fun, isn't cinematic, isn't action - hence the very nature of theater from the Greeks as being either tragedy or comedy, never sober niceness. But the screen isn't the same as real life, most of us agree on that, Christians included. But the more sensationalism one absorbs the more one needs to get the same rush, that's what to me is expressed in the Roman debauchery. Whereas the other extreme is to become more and more a martyr to your cause until no one wants to party with you cuz you lost your sense of humor. We need to find the middle. By the way, you should check out my piece on the <a href="http://acidemic.blogspot.com/2012/11/cinemarchetype-17-holy-madman.html" rel="nofollow">Holy Madman</a> archetype, which finds me in one of my every-third-autumn holy man states.Erich Kuerstenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02850572368098319317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30487573.post-67350798217085963032014-05-21T14:32:49.039-05:002014-05-21T14:32:49.039-05:00A misunderstanding of Christianity, joy, and truth...A misunderstanding of Christianity, joy, and truth. What is the joy of the circus? It's entertainment, and usually bad at that. While you identified with the degraded Roman spectators, I found in them a condemnation of human "nature" and popular culture. I'm not defending the production code, but worse than an cruel tyrant who disposed of human lives like so much trash? Are you serious? I don't see the Christians as boring or deluded, but as rejecting an evil and superficial way of life. Joy is about knowing the truth and freeing one's soul to love God, neighbor, and enemy, because we are all brothers and sisters. Many so-called Christians forget that, and I'm sure many so-called atheists know that in their hearts. Peace be with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30487573.post-87495103194182515642013-11-28T21:53:28.475-05:002013-11-28T21:53:28.475-05:00I read somewhere that when Charles Laughton was as...I read somewhere that when Charles Laughton was asked how he was going to play Nero, he said, "I'm going to play him straight".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30487573.post-62751815839348145612011-07-25T21:33:06.192-05:002011-07-25T21:33:06.192-05:00Thanks again, Joe, for your recom. and now comment...Thanks again, Joe, for your recom. and now comments. Sam, I agree about that patent insincerity which I felt was both March and DeMille's way of subverting the Christian gloominess.You convinced me to watch 4 Frightened People last night, and I'm still reeling.Erich Kuerstenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02850572368098319317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30487573.post-54344175910529501372011-07-23T22:06:55.183-05:002011-07-23T22:06:55.183-05:00I remember seeing the 1944 version on TV a long ti...I remember seeing the 1944 version on TV a long time ago. I'd appreciate having the WW2 intro as an extra, but it's nothing special, while the film itself is. As a non-religious fan of religious spectacle, I particularly enjoyed the patent insincerity of March's conversion and the suicidal compulsion behind it. He'd rather die with the girl whether he's resurrected or not. Beat that! <br /><br />But you must complete the DeMille-Colbert set with the wacky Four Frightened People (if I remember the count right) in which the star morphs from meek and mousy to dominant jungle woman. Not what comes to mind when you think Cecil B. DeMille, but more wonderful for that.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30487573.post-22400065052288763782011-07-22T23:38:31.305-05:002011-07-22T23:38:31.305-05:00One of my favourite movies, and Cleopatra is great...One of my favourite movies, and <i>Cleopatra</i> is great as well. The combination of DeMille as director and Colbert as star is electrifying.dfordoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02306293859869179118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30487573.post-14915190935049284142011-07-22T15:47:33.574-05:002011-07-22T15:47:33.574-05:00Erich, a wonderful review, probably one of the bes...Erich, a wonderful review, probably one of the best I've ever read about Sign of the Cross. Someone once loglined this as "The R-rated Quo Vadis," which is pretty accurate. <br /><br />The making of the film is almost as entertaining as the film itself. Frederic March was in lust with Colbert and followed her around like a lap dog. First-hand accounts from on the set have it that March walked around "in a daze" between scenes. All of this, mind you, shortly after March had gotten married. Colbert detested him, so ignored him -- March was a notorious "ass pincher," one of the most notorious in Hollywood apparently.<br /><br />Also, Mitchell Leisen reportedly directed a lot of the film; I've read interviews with him where he claimed he was behind the camera for all of Colbert's scenes. I've also read that the majority of her scenes were filmed with a red gauze over the camera.<br /><br />The version of the film on the boxset might actually be longer than what was released in 1932. In particular the bits with the crocodiles in the arena; these scenes caused a stir even in the pre-Code era and were likely removed for most prints. The theory is that the DeMille boxset contains DeMille's personal print of the film. (The '40s edit, which removed most of the arena and I think the nipple-shots from Claudette's milk-bath, is now the lost version of the film...it also featured an added opening with US soldiers fighting in Italy).<br /><br />Longest comment ever? Probably. But Sign of the Cross does that to me.<br /><br />Thanks for the review!Joe Kenneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285576322579808153noreply@blogger.com