Scoop

Vinton writes:

If recent days have taught us anything, it is that you can not judge a film by its maker. One of the only films to come out of Hollywood that I could even come close to recommending was "The Passion of the Christ". (I couldn't recommend others see it, because it was rated 'R', and if anyone else saw one going into an 'R' rated movie, it might cause them to stumble. After, how would those outside the theater know you were seeing a film rated 'R' for violence, rather than for foul language or nakedness.) And yet, as we have heard in the news, the maker of that nearly fine film, does, in fact, drink alcohol. Somehow we must seperate the film maker from the film.
So I went in the film, "Scoop" knowing the film maker, Woody Allen is a well known athiest, degenerate and New Yorker, but I put those things aside to judge the film as a film.
And the film, standing alone, apart from its perverted creator, I cannot recommend. Sure it does have some interesting things about a couple of suspect professions.
Mr. Allen plays a magician who goes by the name, The Great Spledini. In the name of magic, show buisness magic, he accidently conjurers up the spirit of a dead reporter who happens to divulge to a member of the audience a clue to a murder.
At least someone in the show buisness industry is finally honest about the link between "magic shows" and the occult. I've been suspecious of this for years.
Sure, I do myself the occasional illusion in a children's sermon. But before I do the trick, I clearly label it as such and not magic. And after I perform the illusion with a suitable Biblical or spiritual analogy, I explaing the illusion ("See the hidden pocket in my sleeve", "See how the Bible coloring book has uneven edges to the pages" "See how the elephant is really your Sunday School teacher, Mrs. Milia")
The film not only shows the clear link between magic shows and the occult, but also the link between Tarot Cards and Murder (the serial killer always leaves a Tarot Card at the murder scene.) I have always been suspecious of such a cause and effect. (I also suspect palm reading leads to cannabalism and the horoscope will make you blind and weegee boards lead to thoughts of suicide and bad posture.)
The other dark profession examined in the film is journalism. Now this is not the wholesome kind of reporting I did at seminary when I scribed for "The End Times Times". There we interviewed and investigated our stories. (I'm still proud of my expose on Darwinism in the kindergarten class.)
But that isn't what the student reporter played by Scarlett (fitting name) Johannson does in the film. No, she seems to think the way to investigate a person is to lie about one's idenity and then have sexual intercourse with them (in this case that Wolverine fellow from those comic book films.) Now, I'm sure this is standard reporting procedure at The New York Times, but I think even some reporters at CNN would find this behavior questionable.
And, of course, the film has much in the way of double Ontarios (French for dirty jokes), but fortunately, I did not get them. If I did have any inclination to foul humor, I would simply remove the 'S' from the title of this film, but I am above such things.
So let me urge you to skip this, and all films, because a good sermon is all the fun you need.

Helga:

Sadly, I must once again agree with Vinnie that you should not see this film.
The young womyn character in the film, played by Scarlett Johannson, goes to England to visit with friends in the upperclass and falls for the Hugh Jackman character who plays a Lord or some such thing, but the film never directly critizes the class system as such.
I believe in the equality of all human beings (and that equality goes out also to all species, whether human or chimpanzee, moose or bananna slug). I do not believe there should be 'classes' on planes - first class, buisness class, tourist class and such - all people are equal. (I also don't think anyone should be destroying our planet by flying a plane either, but that is another subject.)
I believe any judgements and distictions made by class are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! (Unless these distictions are made in the Hindu caste system, because we can not judge other cultures, especially when the culture, such as anything related to Eastern Spirituality is clearly superior to our own.)
And it goes without saying the film is sexist, as are all Hollywood films. Many times in the film, the subject of Ms. Johannson's glasses are raised, as to whether they make her more or less attractive. I thought perhaps this might be a telling plot point in the mystery, but no, the 'focus' is just lookism. Does anyone in the film raise the point whether Mr. Allen would look better or worse without glasses? I think not.
At least there was no talk about a romantic or sexual relationship between Mr. Allen and Ms. Johannson. As my regular readers know, I do not believe there should be any obstacles love, whether those obstables be age or race or gender, but when it comes to Mr. Allen and younger womyn, let me just say... how should I put it? Alright - "EWWWWWW!YUCK!PETU-EEE!"
So, do not burn fossil fuels to venture to see this film. Instead of this comedy, enjoy the comedy found in your own soul. Instead of this mystery, enjoy the mystery your own heart. Instead of theater popcorn, enjoy the popcorn of your own karma.
Best of our Mother Earth to you all, Helga