Charlie Rose

nsjghgs  04/24/2011 11:24 AM Report

WELCOME Fashion Show Mall

http://www.zapposer.com

~ ¤ ??? ???

????????????

,????,''?~~ ,''~?

???? ????

??????????

??Unceasing surprises??

Hobnob  07/26/2009 01:46 AM Report

Cynicism was outrageous in the 90's while I was growing, and I'm at peace with finding my world in that situation because, to pretend Socrates, Wonder begins in Doubt.

Lisem  05/25/2009 11:23 AM Report

Only a truly miserable person could have authored such a sickeningly pompous comment. It is the kind of arrogant, pathetic posting which exists only to drastically lower the overall tenor of internet discourse.

Only two weeks into the discussion, and already someone has commented for little more reason than to feed their contemptuous ego <a href="http://www.filmizliyoruz.com" title="film izle" target="_blank">film izle</a>.

doodahdaze  01/01/2009 11:22 PM Report

tartoupe, when the cinema doors suddenly opened and caused me to almost drop my popcorn and soda, was that you, prancing through the doors and lobby with a big fruitcake smile to the backdrop of Abba music?

tartufe  12/31/2008 11:27 PM Report

Scuse me. Black mother = Viola Davis.

tartufe  12/31/2008 11:18 PM Report

For dog lovers, forget "Doubt." Go see "Marley and Me."

tartufe  12/31/2008 10:53 PM Report

Saw it. It's title is overly ambitiious. It's story line betrays the title. Obverse reactions: when Meryl expressed her "certainties" the story line expressed "doubt." In the end as tokenism to the title, she expressed dought when the story line evidence overwhelmingly convicted him and the Church.

The Church hierarchy transferred him (a la real life) four times with a substantial promotion in the end (real life again). She gathered her evidence 'below' the accepted chain of command, which the protagonist priest soundly rebuked her for her "lack of obedience." Nun-to-nun she compiled her case. (He knew the hierarchy would protect him?) So she won too handily to support the so-called "doubt" of the title. It should have ended conflicted. Maybe take out the transfers at least?

Story line too weak, but acting good - especially the black mother - fantastic.

Chomsky  12/26/2008 09:11 PM Report

kneegrowsrus,

Only a truly miserable person could have authored such a sickeningly pompous comment. It is the kind of arrogant, pathetic posting which exists only to drastically lower the overall tenor of internet discourse.

Only two weeks into the discussion, and already someone has commented for little more reason than to feed their contemptuous ego.

kneegrowsrus  12/26/2008 06:11 AM Report

I've noticed that film quality in general has been deteriorating rapidly over the years, to the point where it has gotten disgustingly awful. This may probably be in part due to the reduction in effort required to produce a film, along with a public so lacking in taste and devoid of culture that anything will pass as a work of art these days. But the Charlie Rose show aught to keep higher standards. Having Elliott Carter on the same week as these poor excuses for talent, I can't believe that such a huge disparity in performance goes unnoticed. I'm sorry, but I feel very strongly about this matter. I have not watched the film (nor do I plan to). But from what I've seen, not only is the plot a weak and atrocious mess, but so are the characters - particularly the filthy turds who play the victims. Pulitzer or no Pulitzer, please save us the misery and refrain from turning the show into a vent for trashy films/literature pieces such as this.

Chomsky  12/17/2008 04:32 PM Report

tartufe,

Yes, you can be gay and Catholic. See www.dignityusa.org, www.newwaysministry.org, www.nacdlgm.org and www.fortunatefamilies.com Note that the website for New Ways Ministry has a whole list of gay friendly Catholic parishes.

There are also a number of articles at ncronline.org on the subject of gay Catholics, most recently ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2738 and ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2663

It's also worth pointing out that there are a few famous figures who are gay Catholics.

Andrew Sullivan, a well known blogger and the former editor of The New Republic, is a gay Catholic (frontrow.bc.edu/program/sullivanmorrison/).

Author Gregory Maguire, the writer of "Wicked" (which has been adapted into a very successful stage musical) and other novels, is also gay and Catholic (ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2007a/032307/032307o.php)

tartufe  12/17/2008 12:44 PM Report

Can you be gay and catholic? That is an outed gay? Despite their clergy isn't it in the unpardonable area? Oxymoron of sorts?

Chomsky  12/17/2008 10:25 AM Report

No Catholic organization I know of is making a fuss over this film. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting gave "Doubt" a positive review. Fr. James Martin, an editor of the Catholic weekly "America," practically promoted the film (http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?id=667B93BB-5056-8928-1031AB1A877643E0), and also served as a technical advisor on it. William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, who frequently protests films he considers anti-Catholic, his been silent on "Doubt."

sonny1963,

Your post does not make a distinction between the hierarchal or institutional aspects of the Church, and the regular Catholics in the pew who, according to the Second Vatican Council, also make up "the Church." It is an error to indiscriminately refer to "the church" without making it clear what exactly you mean by that term. I know quite a few proud, gay Catholics who consider themselves part of "the church" as well. Certainly, you didn't mean to extend your criticisms to them as well?

sonny1963  12/17/2008 12:18 AM Report

Any topic, and I mean ANY topic, is open to the input of artists. The behavior of the Catholic church, a still outrageously influential institution (despite their collusion with paedophiles) was and is unconscionable. Those crimes have brought the church down a peg or two but not far enough in my opinion.

Art capitalizes on everything and particularly the framing of fairly recent history. The church's underbelly has most likely not been exposed enough. Consider the church's role in stimatizing homosexuality, in their righteous and adamant refusal to allow women to become priests, to allow women to be equal members of their society -- and if they had it their way, in the rest of the world, in the patriarchal attitude towards woman demonstrated by condemning any woman who has had an abortion as a murderess and with no comment on the responsibility of men in the procreation of children they do not intend to support and who leave women in the predicament of having to decide whether or not to keep a child. And of course, let's not talk about paedophilia. We've discussed that enough. Is that your argument. Who says when something has been exposed enough? You? Me? No one does. It's up to each individual to decide. You don't have to go to the movie.

Prepaid advertising? So what? The film needs to be sold. it is known by those who study victims of sexual abuse as well as perpetrators that the majority of paedophiles has hundreds, even thousands of victims EACH...have we really addressed this fully? I do not believe so. They have not yet all been caught.

tartufe  12/16/2008 11:55 PM Report

aekern, perhaps but it does seem they're capitalizing on the church's already exposed underbelly. (Perhaps deservedly?) But it's too easy and a bit too opportunistic. Substitute nearly any human frailty for 'child' in your last sentence and it's still valid (drug, alcohol, venality, corruption, gluttony, --- any of the seven deadly sins, yadda, yadda). The Catholic notoriety re this subject amounts to prepaid advertising for these opportunists. Which is OK with me personally. Just think some (of the faithful?) will feel some frustration. But perhaps they should. Subsidizing an institution that perpetrates such abuse deserves to be so rewarded. Proof that religions are inherently evil to begin with. Think Armageddon - a religious instigation, concept. Beelzebub (also a religious controlling invention) is a gentlemen and a scholar by comparison.

aekarn  12/16/2008 09:29 PM Report

REMant, perhaps you should withhold your outrage until you've seen the film or the play. It's so much more than a docudrama - it's a masterpiece of modern theatre. Child abuse is only a small conduit for a reflection on human nature itself.

REMant  12/15/2008 09:58 PM Report

Another @#$%^& moralizing and pandering docudrama? We all know, and certainly knew at the time this was written, that the Church has had problems with homosexuality, so why write plays and make movies about it, except to make a fast buck? Unless perhaps you find something morally perplexing in it?? That it received prizes, was only to be expected, since those are not awards for achievement, but rewards for conformity. The public must express its outrage, even if belatedly. I would have to say, too, that I think, counter to progressive punditry, women were more accepted at all levels of American society prior to the feminist movement than afterwards, even if there weren't as many who were executives, etc., though I am cognizant of the different spheres they largely inhabited then.

tartufe  12/15/2008 09:37 PM Report

As an atheist, I have no dog in this fight. But is there a conspiracy here? The timing seems patently evil, right at Christmas. And doubt could have been about any 'other' issue (closet drunk - hittin the communal wine?, spiritual questioning? etc), but no it has to be their Achilles heel - child molestation. Religions of all stripes are in the end counterproductive, so all's fair - except the secular detritus is not looking very promising if this kind of meanness(?) is extant. A drama about 'doubt' could have been even more affective on a less distractingly sensitive issue. Kinda CS.