Peter T Chattaway

Member
  • Content count

    33,037
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Peter T Chattaway

  • Rank
    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
  • Birthday 10/01/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://patheos.com/blogs/filmchat
  • ICQ
    0
  • Skype
    peter.chattaway
  • Twitter
    ptchat

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vancouver, BC

Recent Profile Visitors

4,786 profile views
  1. Mau wrote: : Calling my Faith a "thing" and pretending there is some type of contradiction about it is non charitable for me. . . . This, from the person who said I am probably not a Christian because I had never heard of a tradition that he claimed was "well-known". Who is speaking non-charitably about whose faith here? Evan C wrote: : At the risk of speaking for Peter, it seemed quite clear to me that "thing" referred to the idea there was no meat at the Last Supper, not your faith. That is correct. : As to the film itself, deviations from minute details of the Gospel are valid artistic licenses. They don't make it blasphemous; it would need to profane Jesus and somehow suggest he wasn't the Son of God to be that. I've always loved the fact that the film takes all of its dialogue from Matthew's gospel, *except* for a few extra lines from Isaiah, which Pasolini felt he could get away with because Matthew's gospel quotes Isaiah so often anyway. That's the kind of cinematic deviation that actually *underscores* what the gospel is about! Rob Z wrote: : The resurrection and ascension sequences feel rushed, intentionally so, but rushed nonetheless). Well, there's no ascension in Matthew's gospel, nor is there in this film. (Matthew ends with Jesus appearing to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee. Luke's gospel ends with Jesus ascending from a hill outside Jerusalem. These two passages are *not* describing the same event, though they are often conflated in films and such.) But Matthew's account of the resurrection is pretty rushed to begin with, so it's probably inevitable that a film that sticks to Matthew's account would feel rushed, too. (Though it bears mentioning that Pasolini doesn't *entirely* stick to Matthew's gospel, since he places Jesus' mother Mary at the crucifixion, which only John's gospel does, and he also places her at the empty tomb, which *none* of the gospels do.) (Oh, and does Pasolini show Peter cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant? I can't remember, but if he does, then *that* is also arguably taken from John's gospel. Yes, the synoptics also describe one of Jesus' followers cutting off the servant's ear, but it is only John's gospel that identifies the follower in question as Peter. Pasolini could have shown James or John doing it and still have been making a faithful adaptation of Matthew's gospel, per se.)
  2. Sony to Adapt Memoir ‘Hope Heals’ Into Movie for Ian Bryce Productions Sony has acquired a pitch from writing duo Bob Smiley and Justin Hensley based on the memoir “Hope Heals.” “Hope Heals: A True Story of Overwhelming Loss and Overcoming Love” was penned by husband and wife Jay and Katherine Wolf. The studio bought the pic for Ian Bryce Productions and Humble Picture Company. The film marks the first project under the Humble Picture Company banner. The book follows the true story of Katherine’s near-fatal stroke and how the young couple’s faith and love for one another helped them survive. With a sense of renewed purpose, the Wolfs embraced their second chance at life and started their ministry, Hope Heals, to share their story with others who are suffering. . . . Variety, March 31
  3. Mau wrote: : That's because you probably are not a christian. I guess my priest isn't a Christian then either -- he had never heard of this tradition either when I asked him about it a few hours ago. : . . . the movie shouldn't be on the 2011 top 100 list, especially within the first 10 films because it doesn't meet the Gospel Standards and can confuse others with these small but often imperfections. You seem to think that the 100 movies that represent this community and its interests are somehow supposed to be free of imperfections. I'd say you don't know us very well.
  4. ...um, do I want to know how Darth Maul comes back from the dead there?
  5. Mr. Arkadin wrote: : I think these ideas are actually, to some extent, rooted in Lucas' original treatment (and Lucas, after all, was always interested in Eastern mysticism). He was interested, yeah. But he didn't always develop those themes in the most coherent way. I mean, Return of the Jedi ending with "Celebrate the love!" and then the prequels suggesting that "attachments" are a bad thing... If I thought Lucas was being coherent, I would think that he had *intended* to say that Luke had "corrected" the errors of Yoda and Obi-Wan and all the other Jedi, but as we all know, he really didn't have that much of the prequel back-story figured out when he was making Return of the Jedi, so who knows. It seems just as likely to me that the movement away from "attachments" in the Star Wars films -- seen in the order that they were produced, rather than the order in which they take place -- reflects a trajectory in Lucas's own thinking about these things. : It's worth mentioning that REBELS--which, so far, has really seemed to be where Disney is putting stuff to support the narrative work being done in the new trilogy--recently had an enlightened Obi-Wan declaring that Luke is the true Chosen One. Curious to know more about this. What does "an enlightened Obi-Wan" mean? The Force-ghost Obi-Wan? An Obi-Wan who has discovered the true interpretation? Obi-Wan's track record is so riddled with errors, right up to his death and beyond (when the Force-ghost version of him was still telling Luke to kill his father and saying that "the Emperor has already won" because Luke refused to do that), that I wouldn't put much stock in anything he says at this point.
  6. Mau wrote: : I haven't known of a christian tradition that assume there was meat in the Last Supper when it is well known that Christ's Flesh and Blood was substituting the traditional Passover Lamb sacrificed by the Jews each year during the same feast. I am not aware of this thing that you say is "well-known". I do know that John's gospel disagrees with the other gospels as to whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal of any sort. But Matthew's gospel -- which is the basis for this film -- does seem to indicate that it was. And this scholar argues that it is very clear in the original Greek (especially in Luke's gospel) that Jesus and his disciples were eating lamb at that supper. (Note also how the 15th-century icon depicted at that scholar's blog post shows a lamb on the table at the Last Supper.) : Neither have I seen a few dozens of people for the fish and loaves miracle instead of the 4 or 5 thousand people that should have been there. I'm not going to chastise a low-budget filmmaker for not being able to afford a cast of thousands.
  7. Yeah, I've seen one or two movie bloggers (and I don't follow *that* many) talk about how the Jedi and the Sith were two sides of the same coin, so the "balance" that was talked about in the Star Wars prequels can only be achieved by eliminating *both* groups. (Which means the new movies are subverting the incoherent intentions of George Lucas himself, who as I recall was quite explicit that Anakin really *did* fulfill the prophecy when he killed Palpatine in Episode VI. Personally, I always thought that Luke achieved a sort of "balance" himself by becoming a Jedi Knight who allowed for personal "attachments" in a way that Yoda and Obi-Wan did not.) It's interesting, how the first six films were attended by a lot of Christian discussion on the Eastern mysticism that influenced the *language* of the films, and whether the films actually bought into that mysticism or subsumed it under a Christian belief in good triumphing over evil (rather than good and evil co-existing in a sort of yin-yang way). The new trilogy seems to be pushing in a decidedly more Eastern, less Christian direction, if you've been approaching the franchise from the perspective of that discussion. It still bugs me that Luke is wearing prequel robes.
  8. Mau wrote: : . . . Pasolini's way of manifesting a maxist/revolutionary Jesus which makes this (correct me if Im wrong) not an actual "Jesus life film". . . . this definitely doesn't seem to be a Jesus life story, at least not the traditionally depiction of the life of Jesus held up for almost 2000 years now. That's a little oversimplified. Pasolini was very clear in interviews that the *look* of his film influenced by religious art, that he was making a movie about Jesus *and the tradition that followed Jesus* -- and certainly the soundtrack reflects a wide range of later traditions, from Bach compositions to Negro spirituals. This film is very conscious of the traditional depictions of Jesus' life -- it simply departs from them by emphasizing the earthiness of the Jesus movement (via quasi-neo-realist filmmaking techniques), and also by focusing on the content of a single gospel rather than trying to create a harmonized gospel that isn't found within the New Testament itself. Which is not to say that this film is a strict word-for-word translation of Matthew's gospel; it does leave out a bunch of stuff (as it would have to, to keep its running time down to two hours). Indeed, as W. Barnes Tatum has observed, Pasolini actually *de-politicizes* Matthew's gospel at the crucial moment of Jesus' trial and execution -- which undermines the suggestion that Pasolini was going out of his way to make a Marxist/revolutionary Jesus movie.
  9. Link to our thread on the original 1935 film. Links to our threads on James Whale's Frankenstein (1931), Tim Burton's Frankenweenie (1984, 2012), Stuart Beattie's I, Frankenstein (2013), Richard Raaphorst Frankenstein's Army (2013), Paul McGuigan's Victor Frankenstein (2015), Matt Tolmach's Frankenstein (in development), David Auburn's The Casebook of Victor Frankenstein (in development), Matt Reeves' This Dark Endeavor (in development) and Jay Russell's Wake the Dead (in development). Links to our threads on other Universal "shared universe" monster movies The Mummy (2017) and The Creature from the Black Lagoon (in development). Links to our threads on previous Bill Condon films Kinsey (2004), Dreamgirls (2006), The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011), The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012), The Fifth Estate (2013), Mr. Holmes (2015) and Beauty and the Beast (2017). We don't seem to have any threads on Sister, Sister (1987), Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh (1995) or Gods and Monsters (1998). - - - Bill Condon In Talks To Helm ‘The Bride of Frankenstein’ At Universal Pictures EXCLUSIVE: Bill Condon, who directed the live-action Beauty and the Beast into a $1B+ worldwide box office monster for Disney, is in early talks to take the helm of a remake of a film in the Universal Pictures monster universe. We hear that Condon and Uni are both excited to collaborate on The Bride of Frankenstein, which Condon has said in previous interviews is one of his favorite classic monster movies of all time. The original, which starred Elsa Lanchester and Boris Karloff, was directed by James Whale back in 1935. Condon, in fact, is known to have included a kind of homage to Whale’s film in the climax of his Twilight: Breaking Dawn – Part 1, with one character reviving another and turning her into a monster to save her life. In addition, he won an Oscar in 1999 for Best Adapted Screenplay for the film that featured Whale (portrayed by Ian McKellen) in Gods and Monsters, which he also directed. . . . The Bride of Frankenstein remake is being produced by Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan from a script by David Koepp (Uni’s first two Jurassic Park films) that is said to have kind of a feminist bent to the new story (yes!). The studio has been mining its monster IP goldmine with remakes for years. Their classic monsters go back to the Karloff, Lon Chaney and Bela Lugosi films from the 1920s and ’30s. The next remake up is The Mummy, starring Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe, which Uni opens June 9. . . . Deadline.com, April 13
  10. Various sources are reporting that Jude Law will play young Dumbledore in this movie. This amuses me, as the first film showed Colin Farrell morphing into Johnny Depp... and Farrell, Depp and Law were the three actors who signed up to finish Heath Ledger's role in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus a few years ago.
  11. Dwayne Johnson's 'Jungle Cruise' Is a Go at Disney (Exclusive) The actor has closed a deal to star in Jungle Cruise, Disney’s live-action adaptation of its iconic theme park ride. Johnson has found room in his busy schedule, slotting the movie in for a spring 2018 start of production. . . . Cruise has had Johnson attached since 2015, but the project was still in deep development and went through several drafts by several writers (J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay wrote the most recent draft) while Johnson filmed movies such as Central Intelligence and Sony's Jumanji re-imagining. With the script looking more solid, Johnson was ready to slot it into his schedule. The actor begins shooting Rampage, New Line’s creature feature video game adaptation, later this spring. His high-rise adventure movie Skyscraper will shoot in China in late summer and fall. After a short breather, and with Jumanji opening in December, Cruise will be next on the docket. Hollywood Reporter, April 7
  12. Oh, did I not get around to posting the spreadsheet here? I wrote a blog post here that includes a link to the spreadsheet, which is still available via Dropbox.