posted 03-03-2001 07:59 PM            

I am a sentimental person and I like soft dreamy sentimental movies so long as they are not sappy-sweet. I think "Stolen Summer" is right on the thin edge and could fall either way, depending on script rewrites and how Pete directs.

If he goes for the sap, the audience will feel manipulated. Those are the kinds of movies that people love to make fun of.

Having said that, I will say that my favorite movie of all time is, "To Kill A Mockingbird," is another story that teaches adults there is a lot to be learned from the wisdom and innocence of childhood. And that story delivered honest and true feeling without turning on the sap.

I think "Stolen Summer" has some good elements and shows definite potential. However, it does have some basic problems with its dramatic structure and formatting. The best mark I could give it, in the form as it was entered in this contest, would be a solid C+ and most of the good part of that grade would be based on the basic premise of the story. Its execution is sadly lacking. Therefore, I would have to give it a "Consider," which is not a "Recommend" but it is also not a "Pass."

It needs much, much work before it is ready for prime time.

Some of the problems I had with its dramatic structure are:

The main character never faces any major conflict or opposition or obstacle to reaching his goal. Therefore, there is no drama.

Having a main character yelled at by his Daddy or sent to his room is not the stuff upon which to float a feature film. This is not drama.

Never, not one time, do I ever feel on the edge of my seat, waiting for the next thing to happen. Pete has told a very nice story, but he has not engaged me, the audience member.

The most conflict I found in this story rested in the older brother's desire to go to college. It is fine for secondary characters to also be facing their own troubles, but not when their stories become more interesting or have more conflict and more drama than your main character's story.

The idea of having children invent their own tests to get into Heaven is very sweet, but all by itself does not create compelling drama.

Pete, your manner of presenting your story also leaves much lacking in the believability and credibility departments.

I can believe that two children brought together by Fate (a house fire) might strike up a friendship and together wonder about things like Life and Death and Heaven. And between themselves, fashion the notion of having to pass arbitrary tests to get into Heaven.

What is utterly unbelievable is that a Rabbi's son would be so completely ignorant of his own faith and the desires of his own family when it came to matters of religious instruction, that he would immediately believe the first non-Jewish person that came along who said, "You're going to Hell if you don't become a Christian."

Only a non-Jewish person could ever write this and think not only is it credible, but that it will also not be most extremely offensive to any Jewish movie-goers. But perhaps it is your intention to offend and create controversy and protests and demonstrations against Miramax and HBO and all other involved parties.

Because I promise you, that is exactly what is going to happen.

This, "You are going to Hell because you are a Jew" bullshit has been one slam the Jewish people are just a bit tired of hearing.

It matters not that you cloak the sentiment with dialogue coming out of a child actor's mouth. It is still the same thing and it is called Jew-baiting.

You won't be the first and you won't be the last. But somehow, I really can't bring myself to believe that this was your intention when you wrote this story.

I'm asking you and I'm warning you, get rid of the Jew-baiting elements from your story. What's going to happen down the road if you don't is not going to enhance your career and is not going to show Project Greenlight at its best to the rest of the world.

More examples of the Jew-baiting: The dialogue about Jews having horns and being money-grubbing. That's got to go. Don't use a Hollywood feature film to keep that sort of thing alive. You can show well enough how the Catholic father is unfriendly and even prejudiced without doing the Nazis' PR work for them.

I also found it very unbelievable that a sickly frail dying child would be let out of his parents' supervision to go on such a quest. And it was completely unbelievable that he would be in any kind of physical condition to undertake a swim in the ocean out to the marker (buoy). You are going to completely destroy your audience's suspension of disbelief with this one. You have two choices: Either get rid of the physically strenuous tests, or, explain and show to the audience how this child really does have the strength to do those things.

It is also not credible that a Rabbi would allow a non-Jew into his temple to solicit converts, no matter how young the proselytizer is or how cute his smile is. This is so unbelievable as to destroy the basic plotline of your story. I don't think even non-Jews will find this credible. Proselytizing is strictly forbidden according to Jewish law...Jews are not allowed to seek converts and they are not allowed any contact with those who would seek to convert them. And a rabbi most certainly is aware of this very important Jewish commandment.

And now, a word about formatting. I understand that "formatting" is the ultimate dirty word around PGL territory, so let's begin with this taken directly from the rules of this contest:

iii. The screenplay must be between ninety (90) and one hundred thirty (130) pages long, and in "industry standard" screenplay format.

Pete, we are all thrilled for you and after seeing you on the "Tonight Show," I have no doubt whatsoever that you will be a fantastic ambassador for Project Greenlight. On that count, I am exceedingly pleased that you are the winner.

But Pete, in all the hype and the hoopla, if you really do have that precious dream of being a writer, don't let that dream get lost now.

Pete, if you really want that dream, then you really must first learn how to write a screenplay. Don't think you can skip the homework phase now. More than ever, it is critical for you to learn the craft.

And as thrilled as I am for you, I also must be honest enough to say that your script is so poorly formatted it should have gotten itself an instant disqualification from this contest if this contest had EVER been playing by its own rules.

So PGL has chosen as its winner a script that is not even allowed to be in the contest.

Here are only a few examples of what I'm talking about:

Scene/action descriptions should only be 3-5 lines long max. Here is a sample of one of your scene descriptions (and you do this throughout your script):

The rabbi furiously searches the crowd. Joe O'Malley reaches the rabbi. A quick exchange between the two. The rabbi takes off toward
the stairs of his house. Two other firemen catch him and hold him back. Joe motions to the firemen to pull him back and the rest of the crowd to the other side of the street. He grabs a couple of other firemen who aim the hoses at the front door. Joe runs into the house and disappears into the smoke. A CLOSE SHOT on Pete and Seamus, who have been watching from the corner. Mrs. Jacobsen arrives. The rabbi grabs her. Mrs. Jacobsen starts to cry. Everyone watches for Joe to
reappear with two boys in hands. The firemen hose the flames. The rabbi makes another run for the house, but this time policemen hold
him back. The rabbi goes limp as the two policemen hold him up. The rabbi’s eyes are fixated on the front door. Where there is just smoke, the outline of Joe O'Malley appears. He has a child, Danny, wrapped in a blanket in his arms. He runs down the stairs and across the street. He hands the boy off to the paramedics. Danny is suffering from smoke inhalation but is OK. His parents surround him. The rabbi screams at Joe. Joe can only read his lips. David! David! My other boy! David!

The above example would also require not only breaking this up into smaller blocks of text, but also some new sluglines (camera angles/setups).

For your sake Pete, don't listen to anyone who tries to tell you that it doesn't matter. It matters.

Spoken dialogue requires CHARACTER NAMES with the line of dialogue written underneath. And you write:

Joe and Pete enter the synagogue. Rabbi Jacobsen stands at the pulpit and he is speaking to a quarter full audience. Pete grabs a yarmukle and puts it on his head. He looks at his dad to do the same thing. His dad, reluctantly, puts on a yarmukle. The two take a seat in the back row. The rabbi finishes speaking and the people disperse. Pete waits for them all to pass the last row when he stands up. Rabbi Jacobsen has his back to Pete as he gives instructions to his
assistant. Pete heads toward the altar as Joe stays in the pew.

Yes? The Rabbi was speaking from the pulpit? And what was he saying? You also do this with another character's "dialogue" elsewhere in your story. You use scene description to tell us that Character A says such-and-such to Character B.

And more problems:

I don't believe the following is the proper formatting for a SERIES OF SHOTS and you write:

A SERIES OF SHOTS. Pete counting as Danny runs toward him. Danny hanging from a ring as Pete counts him down. Pete and Danny talking to a man with weights. Danny trying to lift the weight. He can’t. Pete tries. He can’t. They take off some of the weight. Danny lifts the weight over his head. Danny climbs a small hill of rocks. Pete waits for him at the bottom, about six feet below. Danny jumps, hits the sand, and rolls.

You also have numerous technical flaws which, personally, I find to be minor in nature, but these same technical flaws were enough to disqualify thousands of other scripts from advancing in this contest. Why should you be allowed to get away with it?

Among those minor flaws were Continueds at the top and bottom of every page, improper sluglines, cut to's between every single scene, continueds with dialogue when they should not have been there, lack of sluglines or new shots when required, thoughts/feelings/back story in scene description, and so on.

Also, you leave at least 5" of white space at the bottom of every single page of your script. This cannot be laid off on an Adobe screw-up because you also have those Continueds breaking and beginning every single page.

If you did not have all that enormous white space in your script, I very much doubt that your 102-page script would even make it to 80 pages.

Such a script was not eligible to be in this contest.

For now, Pete, you are going to be far too busy to actually learn how to write a screenplay. But give that knowledge to yourself as a precious gift as soon as you possibly can squeeze it into your life. Please don't let the star-making thing take that away from you.

Congratulations, Pete. I think you are probably a very nice man and you probably deserve every nice thing that happens to you.

And PGL, shame on you. I can't believe you are anything but rotten to the core. Look what you have done. Why have you so sabotaged your own integrity? Don't you think you created something here that is even more valuable than what you first envisioned?

So why did you choose as your winner a script that suffers from what are probably fatal dramatic flaws and isn't even in proper screenplay format?

Again, I remind you of your own rules: iii. The screenplay must be between ninety (90) and one hundred thirty (130) pages long, and in "industry standard" screenplay format.

Why, PGL?

And what have you to say now to all of the entrants here who did follow the rules?

posted 03-04-2001 07:25 AM            

As far as the lack of political correctness concerning the Jewish religion, I hope not to offend but to tell a story. It is true that this story is written by a Non-Jew, but my wife and best friends are Jewish. I hate an overbearing message to a movie, but I believe the message here is tolerance, and if I were talking to a child about the message, I would say there is more than one way to heaven.

Thanks

posted 03-04-2001 09:34 AM            

I really truly hope that you don't believe that I was advocating "political correctness" over freedom of artistic expression. I believe that it would be possible to interpret my views that way as I posted them.

That is not my intention.

I speak only to matters of credibility. If you are going to do something in your story that stretches credulity, then you must (like an O.J. Simpson lawyer), lay in your groundwork first so when you get to the key element "facts are already in evidence" that allow your movie-going audience to be comfortable with the breaking of what they know to be real and true.

As your script is written, and as per my critique above, you still have some major work to do in that department especially with these two elements: a frail sickly child being able to master a physically strenuous task that perhaps many able-bodied persons couldn't even do, and the extreme disregard for the Jewish questions I raised.

If I didn't care about your success, I would say nothing and just wait for those mistakes to blow up in your face.

You have captured a "Rabbi personality" rather well, I must say. I suspect that Rabbis and priests share many similiar traits by necessity -- it comes with the job.

Having even a strong theme, such as you do, will not save you from the credibility issue when it will raise its ugly head. And it will.

posted 03-04-2001 11:10 AM            

Having said that, it is a credit to Pete that this script overcame these "obvious" negatives. But the real credit has to go to the judgement of PGL and the reviewers who voted Stolen Summer the winner based on its merits as art rather than structure. They did what they said they were going to do.

posted 03-04-2001 12:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1smartlady:
... What is utterly unbelievable is that a [b]Rabbi's son would be so completely ignorant of his own faith and the desires of his own family when it came to matters of religious instruction, that he would immediately believe the first non-Jewish person that came along who said, "You're going to Hell if you don't become a Christian."

Only a non-Jewish person could ever write this and think not only is it credible, but that

***it will also not be most extremely offensive to any Jewish movie-goers.***

But perhaps it is your intention to offend and create controversy and protests and demonstrations against Miramax and HBO and all other involved parties.

Because I promise you, that is exactly what is going to happen.

This, "You are going to Hell because you are a Jew" bullshit has been one slam the Jewish people are just a bit tired of hearing.

It matters not that you cloak the sentiment with dialogue coming out of a child actor's mouth. It is still the same thing and it is called Jew-baiting.

*** Jew-baiting: The dialogue about Jews having horns and being money-grubbing. That's got to go. Don't use a Hollywood feature film to keep that sort of thing alive.***

***It is also not credible that a Rabbi would allow a non-Jew into his temple to solicit converts, no matter how young the proselytizer is or how cute his smile is.***

[/B]

---

Let me try to link to a few websites:
www.jewishsf.com/bk961108/usspar.htm
http://www.jdl.org/action/action/battle.html

posted 03-04-2001 04:08 PM            

And if Pete knows what it is to have an Irish Catholic father, then he surely knows that sometimes the greatest demonstration of love and care comes cloaked in stern words.

Didn't he do that in his script?

I think Pete knows, if no one else does, that if I or anyone else comes along and gives him a little cyber-swat on his writer's behind, it's only done because we DO care.

And I am sorry Pete to have to use your script as an example of why I have little faith in the credibility of PGL. That is not meant as an insult to you, personally. But I think you are smart enough to figure that out.

It doesn't matter to you at this point. You will now go and make the best movie that you know how to make. And you have many people rooting for your success. I am one of them.

But I will never lie to you. I will always tell you the truth, at least from this one individual's perspective.

You do understand. Don't you?

posted 03-04-2001 04:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1smartlady:
...He has a sense of emotional rhythm that he will not want broken by anything that pops the audience out of their suspension of disbelief... I think Pete knows, if no one else does, that if I or anyone else comes along and gives him a little cyber-swat on his writer's behind,

***it's only done because we DO care.***

---

I don't want to over-analyze this, but...

...Ebert & Roper are going to spend five minutes on national TV giving their opinion of your movie when it comes out. At the end, they are going to vote thumbs up or thumbs down.

Ebert (and whoever it was at the time) gave thumbs-down to X-Men, which was the big hit of the summer, money-wise and concept-wise. They gave thumbs-down to "The World is Not Enough" which had Denise Richards in a laughable role, but a whole lot of super production values which your movie doesn't have the budget for.

So, if there's going to be a time for input, the time is (a) after you won the contest, so we don't have to review 30 scripts at once, and (b) before the cameras start rolling.

Here's a story. The original ending of "An Officer and a Gentleman" had Debra Winger crying at her factory job while Richard Gere drove by on a motorcycle, heading out of town. Test screening audiences hated it, so they re-filmed a new ending where Gere marched into the factory and swept her up in his arms and carried her out.

In "Top Gun" the audiences decided there wasn't enough romance, so heroine was brought back and they filmed the scene in the elevator where she wears a baseball cap. Why? Because she had changed her hair for another role and they had to hide it.

1smartlady said your script was short. I think so, too. You probably need to add twenty minutes without "padding". That's a good thing, because you have some expert advice from Miramax and the crew now, that you didn't have before.

We raised a potential problem. The Jewish community is very powerful in Hollywood. At the very least, you are going to be asked to defend a lot of what you wrote. Do you know what the log line will say?

"An Irish-Catholic boy brings a communion wafer to a dying Jewish boy so Jesus will let him into heaven."

Yes, that kind of story IS going to bring a protest from some Jewish groups. It does NOT display tolerance or any kind of understanding for the Jewish position. Yes, you think that the idea of a Catholic boy offering his religion to a Jewish boy who has the "wrong" faith and is about to pay a terrible price for it, you think that is a display of tolerance. You make YOUR religion open so people from other faiths can join.

But what about the people of other faiths who don't want to join your Catholic religion? In the case of Jews, they find the idea of a religion based on Jesus fulfilling Jewish prophecies about a Messiah are laughable, because Jesus did not restore the Kingdom of Isreal to the Jews. That is the role of the Messiah, and until Jesus does that, he is not their Messiah. And your kind offer of allowing this young Jewish boy to accept a gift from Jesus as his Savior is just NOT acceptable to a lot of Jewish people in and around Hollywood. Jewish Defense League (JDL) chairman Irv Rubin filed a lawsuit against the city of Burbank to prevent them from "saying prayers invoking the name of Jesus Christ." Do you at least understand how mad he had to be before he did that?
http://www3.pei.sympatico.ca/reese.currie/topics/jews.htm

posted 03-04-2001 04:34 PM            

"This presents a special problem in dealing with Jews. It is not really possible to witness to a Jew using the New Testament because they do not believe it is true. Jews believe that the New Testament was a complete fabrication, in which remarkably crafty writers tied prophecy to Christ after the fact."

Okay, this author didn't get it exactly right, but he did hit the problem at about 90%. Most Jews think that some of the stories in the NT were invented just to make it look like THEIR prophecies were fulfilled. Their Messiah was supposed to ride into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, the foal of a donkey, so the NT authors made up a story like that about Jesus.

At this point, what I would recommend is that you become an expert on what the possible Jewish reaction to your script could be, and see the problem for what it is. This could involve taking the script to several rabbis in the LA area for their reaction. The protests about "Dogma" and "Last Temptation of Christ" were very loud, and they essentially killed the box office for those movies.

You may not have that problem. You might want to show how an Irish family thinks about Jews and heaven. You might say, "This is how those people work and I can't show them any other way." That's true. But at least get some background on what the problem is, and why they are not going to see your script as an example of "tolerance." They are going to see it as a typical Catholic expression of tolerance, which means other faiths are welcome to join our religion because ours is right and yours is wrong.

posted 03-05-2001 12:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by billhays:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1smartlady:
[b] ...He has a sense of emotional rhythm that he will not want broken by anything that pops the audience out of their suspension of disbelief... I think Pete knows, if no one else does, that if I or anyone else comes along and gives him a little cyber-swat on his writer's behind,

***it's only done because we DO care.***

---

I don't want to over-analyze this, but...

...Ebert & Roper are going to spend five minutes on national TV giving their opinion of your movie when it comes out. At the end, they are going to vote thumbs up or thumbs down.

Ebert (and whoever it was at the time) gave thumbs-down to X-Men, which was the big hit of the summer, money-wise and concept-wise. They gave thumbs-down to "The World is Not Enough" which had Denise Richards in a laughable role, but a whole lot of super production values which your movie doesn't have the budget for.

So, if there's going to be a time for input, the time is (a) after you won the contest, so we don't have to review 30 scripts at once, and (b) before the cameras start rolling.

Here's a story. The original ending of "An Officer and a Gentleman" had Debra Winger crying at her factory job while Richard Gere drove by on a motorcycle, heading out of town. Test screening audiences hated it, so they re-filmed a new ending where Gere marched into the factory and swept her up in his arms and carried her out.

In "Top Gun" the audiences decided there wasn't enough romance, so heroine was brought back and they filmed the scene in the elevator where she wears a baseball cap. Why? Because she had changed her hair for another role and they had to hide it.

1smartlady said your script was short. I think so, too. You probably need to add twenty minutes without "padding". That's a good thing, because you have some expert advice from Miramax and the crew now, that you didn't have before.

We raised a potential problem. The Jewish community is very powerful in Hollywood. At the very least, you are going to be asked to defend a lot of what you wrote. Do you know what the log line will say?

"An Irish-Catholic boy brings a communion wafer to a dying Jewish boy so Jesus will let him into heaven."

Yes, that kind of story IS going to bring a protest from some Jewish groups. It does NOT display tolerance or any kind of understanding for the Jewish position. Yes, you think that the idea of a Catholic boy offering his religion to a Jewish boy who has the "wrong" faith and is about to pay a terrible price for it, you think that is a display of tolerance. You make YOUR religion open so people from other faiths can join.

But what about the people of other faiths who don't want to join your Catholic religion? In the case of Jews, they find the idea of a religion based on Jesus fulfilling Jewish prophecies about a Messiah are laughable, because Jesus did not restore the Kingdom of Isreal to the Jews. That is the role of the Messiah, and until Jesus does that, he is not their Messiah. And your kind offer of allowing this young Jewish boy to accept a gift from Jesus as his Savior is just NOT acceptable to a lot of Jewish people in and around Hollywood. Jewish Defense League (JDL) chairman Irv Rubin filed a lawsuit against the city of Burbank to prevent them from "saying prayers invoking the name of Jesus Christ." Do you at least understand how mad he had to be before he did that?
http://www3.pei.sympatico.ca/reese.currie/topics/jews.htm

[/B][/QUOTE]
To be frank, I don't think that the critiques of this script are fair. I commend Pete in dealing with them so graciously. The problems, however, lie not in the screenplay's handling of Judaism, but in the reviewers' basic misunderstanding of the script. I think this is an EXPLICITLY Pro-Jewish movie. It promotes the sort of religious pluralism that Judaism embraces, while simultaneously exploding the false dilemmas of xenophobic exclusivism. Curiously, these reviewers decided instead to project the opinions of a few characters (namely, the father) WITHIN THE SCREENPLAY onto the script itself. The script's resolution comes not when the Catholic boy "offers his religion to a Jewish boy who has the wrong faith." Rather, it is only when the Catholic boy (and his father) understand that the Jewish faith is a viable means to salvation that the story is resolved. This is very clear, and I am puzzled that people missed this.

An even more disturbing irony is that even while the reviewers attempt to "defend" Judaism, they perpetuate a number of anti-Semitic stereotypes. For example, the idea that "Jews run Hollywood" and are likely to be litigious is a tired cliche. Another misrepresentation comes in the statement that Jews somehow "reject" Jesus and the New Testament. This is most certainly a simplification of a very complex religion.

posted 03-05-2001 10:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnYard:
No, the problems with the script, which is very sweet, are religious and realistic:

REALISM

- two deaths over the top! Plus, their grieving seems minimal
- Irish Catholic kids would NEVER use that language in front of their parents!

RELIGIOUS

- A priest lets a kid play with the body of Christ-would never happen
- A self-respecting Catholic would NEVER don a yarmulke in a synagogue!
- Jesus is not a mere "symbol"!

This SP is very anti-Catholic, and not anti-Jewish at all. The fact is, that Jews certainly do not have a free ticket to Heaven, far from it. That is not "bullshit". The horns thing is a joke and no one believes it.

I really hate how Joe is pertrayed in this film. Very unfair!

---

I agree with your comment about Joe. I think he does tend to slip into the stereotypical drunk Irish-Catholic father at times. His character does arc, but Im not sure that I totally buy it. I think we need to see glimmers of change earlier in the script.

I think we need to also take this script's conclusions about religion a little more lightly. This is not theology, its a freakin screenplay. Remember that the protagonist in this story is only 9 years old. We should not project our own religious opinions upon him. The statement, "The FACT is, Jews do not have a free ticket to heaven, far from it," is unsettling to me. I am troubled when people speak so glibly about matters as mysterious as heaven and death.

Having said that, I would, agree with most of the criticism in this post. The statement that Jesus is a "symbol" might be misconstrued by a Catholic audience. If I were Pete, I would work on rewording this somehow. I was also troubled by the parents' "minimal" amount of grieving, though I was able to suspend my disbelief about the two deaths.

posted 03-06-2001 10:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeRobDogg77:
...I think this is an EXPLICITLY Pro-Jewish movie.

***It promotes the sort of religious pluralism that Judaism embraces, while simultaneously exploding the false dilemmas of xenophobic exclusivism. ***

Curiously, these reviewers decided instead to project the opinions of a few characters (namely, the father) WITHIN THE SCREENPLAY onto the script itself. The script's resolution comes not when the Catholic boy "offers his religion to a Jewish boy who has the wrong faith."

Rather, it is only when

***the Catholic boy (and his father) understand that the Jewish faith is a viable means to salvation that the story is resolved.***

*** This is very clear,***

and ***I am puzzled that people missed this. ***

An even more disturbing irony is that even while the reviewers attempt to "defend" Judaism, they perpetuate a number of anti-Semitic stereotypes. For example, the idea that "Jews run Hollywood" and are likely to be litigious is a tired cliche.

***Another misrepresentation comes in the statement that Jews somehow "reject" Jesus and the New Testament. ***

---

I have to disagree on many of your points.

First, the obvious. If the resolution of the crisis is that the Catholics recognize that the Jews have a viable path to salvation, why did so many people miss this?

Could it be because you read something into the script that wasn't there?

For example, your wording. "the Jewish faith is a viable means to salvation."

The Jewish faith doesn't recognize salvation as an entrance requirement to heaven. This is a Christian concept. You are seeing the problem solely in Christian terms.

As far as the Jews running Hollywood, I never said that and you are offensive in the way you misquoted me. More typical Christian behavior, that you re-state opposition using words the original speaker never said, so you can refute YOUR version of it instead of the original statement.

I posted a link to an article about the head of the Jewish Defense League in Burbank suing the city over prayers dedicated to Jesus at city council meetings. I said this one particular person is representative of certain kind of deep-set resentmet of their treatment, and to simply read what actually happened and draw conclusions based on facts,.

I never said the Jews... well, I'm not even going to repeat your nonsense. If you want to respond to what I actually said, okay, but don't make up stuff.

Here's my request. there is an interfaith dialogue going on. I think the Jews want one thing, they want Christians to acknowledge that accepting Jesus as their savior is not the only way to be with God. This does not mean that the Jews want to change their beliefs, or that they acknowledge anything you believe in your faith. It simply means they are using the dialogue to bring you to change something your faith has said for centuries, that accepting Jesus as your Savior is the ONLY way to salvation.

I don't think you understand exactly what the problem is yet, but if you keep working at it, you might. Start by NOT re-editing my statements into something you've heard before and heard someone refute, and deal with what they say.

posted 03-06-2001 10:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeRobDogg77:
...Having said that, I would, agree with most of the criticism in this post. The statement that Jesus is a "symbol" might be misconstrued by a Catholic audience. If I were Pete, I would work on rewording this somehow. ...

---

Disagree.

The idea of Jesus being a "symbol" is totally correct. It is also the kind of idea that someone just beginning to see what religion is really about would have.

posted 03-06-2001 11:27 AM            

In Philadepphia, March 5, at Lea elementary School, a 9 year-old boy brought an unloaded 9-mm pistol to class. He was discovered and put in police custody.

Had another thought.
Barnyard posted, and this would be good dialogue for Pete's father:

"Jesus is not a mere symbol. He is the Son of God! I know you want everyone to feel good about themselves, but this is blasphemy.
A self-respecting Catholic would NEVER don a yarmulke in a synagogue! Jews certainly do not have a free ticket to Heaven, far from it."

Why not go all the way? Turn up the volume, as they say. Make the conflict more intense and real.

The father has a reaction to Pete's infatuation with the Holocaust. he blames the Jews. He calls them cowards, and says if every Jew had met the Nazis who came to arrest them with a gun in their hand, and had shot them dead or from an ambush instead of marching off to concentration camps like meek lambs, then the Nazis would have gotten the idea and there wouldn't have been all those deaths. So, in father's opinion, the Jews are responsible for the Holocause because they didn't take a gun and stand up against Hitler when he locked them up.

Is this a reasonable position for a Catholic father to take? If not, feel free to correct me.

The shooters at Columbine were teased and ridiculed, and they saw staging an 'event" where they hit back at their tormentors was a good thing. This may be screwy logic, but it also taps into a very real problem with children. They're children! They control system is thrown out of whack by hormones, and they' don't exhibit good sense. All these adults shake their heads and say, "That is so stupid. They' don't have the brains that God gave us." And that statement shows the same lack of understanding that Pete's father would show if he blamed the Jews for not taking up guns and fighting the Nazis.

So, the boy identifies with Jews. He wants his parents to taunt and insult him because he wants to understand what the Jews went through. Not from the outside, but as a participant. He also wants to find out where the boundaries are with his parents. How far can he go before they resort to violence?

And, at some point, he picks up a gun and says, "My father was right. When people try to force their beliefs on you, you have a moral duty to fight back. Never again!"

So, the kid evolves into a Columbine type of shooter.

Okay, that may not be the way you want this to go. but if you want to be cutting edge and push the envelope, this kid would be a way to do it.

At the very least, don't play the weak-mionded game where you say, "The world would be a better place if..."

Here's what happens. You think, if only the people who oppose me would change their minds and realize that I'm right, then the world wouldn't have to be a brutal place.

For example, the Jews who don't want to accept Christ, or pray to Christ so they can get into heaven. When you create a phony rabbi who cries when he realizes his son didn't make it into heaven, that's nonsense.

The rabbi has HIS faith. He is not going to change his faith because of this 7 year-old. The only thing you can do is create a realistic rabbi who shows what jews really believe in./

As I read the comments here, I see the same thing over and over. They see the idea of a young Catholic boy going to a rabbi and offering to help his son get into heaven. The unspoken assumption is that the Jewish kid can't get into heaven by his own faith, that he needs help from a Catholic boy or from someone like Jesus. And the rabbi just rolls over. Like the jews in Germany, he doesn't fight back. He just goes along meekly with what the Catholic boy tells him, and never corrects the boy's mistakes about his faith.

This might happen, but I doubt it. I think you have created a phony rabbi that says what you think he should said, and gives in on something that rabbis do not give in on. I think this comes from having ONLY a atholic background, and not knowing anything about real rabbis or what their problems are. And that is exactly what the boy in the script goes through. he decides to find out how a Jewish boy feels at Christmas. he gives up his own Christmas and goes to a synagogue to sit with Jewish kids who are also denied the joys of Christmas by their faith. He wants to KNOW how they feel, how it feels to walk though a shopping mall and seeing Christmas decoratins and songs over the loudspeakers and know that the toys and presents are for Christians, and you're a Jew who doesn't get to celebrate Christmas because of your history and faith.

Do you know how that feels, Pete?

And do you know how these Jews feel when a Catholic boy shows up with a communion wafer and says, "Here's my Christmas present to you? You can join my club. You can celebrate Christmas with me if you want. All you have to do is celebrate the birth of Jesus, who was the product of a virgin conception miracle so god could proclaim him as the true Son of God. Just give up your faith and join the celebration. Christmas is great."

posted 03-06-2001 12:16 PM            

It's because we know you have talent and that you have already displayed sensitivity in your writing that we hammer at you now to get it right. At least, that's how my comments are intended. Maybe I shouldn't speak for anyone else.

I warned you of some public reaction, but that was not meant to say that any writer should self-censor according to what public reaction might be. That would be absurd. It's just that I didn't think you were aware of that potential effect and so I wanted to tell you now.

Mostly, my greatest concerns were with credibility and believability. The formatting issues will be resolved with certainty by Miramax script doctors. But you still need to take a care for yourself, to not skip over the learning of your craft.

Formatting is the very least of your worries now. I mentioned the formatting because it speaks to PGL's rules and how they did or did not follow their own rules. But it's most likely not something you need worry about as regards this one project. Just have a care for your future, is all.

Please take a step back from the religion issue per se that we discuss here. Just think "credibility."

In one of my screenwriting classes, I remember this one student who got chewed out royally by the professor because the student had set his screenplay in an existing small town, thinking nobody had ever been there so it wouldn't matter if he got street names wrong or described the businesses there in the wrong way.

Turns out the professor grew up a few small towns away from that one town and knew it well. Oops.

So the professor rips the student a new one, screaming that the kid should never have named a town he'd never seen in his life, blah, blah...because somewhere down the line, if that script had been made into a movie, somebody from that town for sure would alert the media as to what an asshole the writer was.

You must, if you are writing about a small town or a rabbi's habits or any other subject get your details right.

That's why I started on what a Rabbi would and wouldn't do. A Rabbi would never let in a junior Jerry Falwell into his temple to hunt for converts. Besides, a caring Rabbi would know the kid was in for being insulted if he did do that. He would protect this child.

Your great Rabbi with his humor and kindness and compassion would, perhaps, allow this child to look things over, maybe even offer a part-time job (which would REALLY make the Irish Dad go crazy and be a nice lead-in into the conflict over the older brother's college scholarship). But the converting stuff just doesn't work.

Maybe in sweeping up the temple, the boy gets into that particular conversation with the Rabbi and you can still make your points. The boy repeats some of his Dad's ignorant or prejudiced statements and the Rabbi must have the skill and diplomacy to change this boy's mind without teaching him to disrespect a parent???

posted 03-06-2001 01:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by billhays:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MeRobDogg77:
[b] ...I think this is an EXPLICITLY Pro-Jewish movie.

***It promotes the sort of religious pluralism that Judaism embraces, while simultaneously exploding the false dilemmas of xenophobic exclusivism. ***

Curiously, these reviewers decided instead to project the opinions of a few characters (namely, the father) WITHIN THE SCREENPLAY onto the script itself. The script's resolution comes not when the Catholic boy "offers his religion to a Jewish boy who has the wrong faith."

Rather, it is only when

***the Catholic boy (and his father) understand that the Jewish faith is a viable means to salvation that the story is resolved.***

*** This is very clear,***

and ***I am puzzled that people missed this. ***

An even more disturbing irony is that even while the reviewers attempt to "defend" Judaism, they perpetuate a number of anti-Semitic stereotypes. For example, the idea that "Jews run Hollywood" and are likely to be litigious is a tired cliche.

***Another misrepresentation comes in the statement that Jews somehow "reject" Jesus and the New Testament. ***

---

I have to disagree on many of your points.

First, the obvious. If the resolution of the crisis is that the Catholics recognize that the Jews have a viable path to salvation, why did so many people miss this?

Could it be because you read something into the script that wasn't there?

For example, your wording. "the Jewish faith is a viable means to salvation."

The Jewish faith doesn't recognize salvation as an entrance requirement to heaven. This is a Christian concept. You are seeing the problem solely in Christian terms.

As far as the Jews running Hollywood, I never said that and you are offensive in the way you misquoted me. More typical Christian behavior, that you re-state opposition using words the original speaker never said, so you can refute YOUR version of it instead of the original statement.

I posted a link to an article about the head of the Jewish Defense League in Burbank suing the city over prayers dedicated to Jesus at city council meetings. I said this one particular person is representative of certain kind of deep-set resentmet of their treatment, and to simply read what actually happened and draw conclusions based on facts,.

I never said the Jews... well, I'm not even going to repeat your nonsense. If you want to respond to what I actually said, okay, but don't make up stuff.

Here's my request. there is an interfaith dialogue going on. I think the Jews want one thing, they want Christians to acknowledge that accepting Jesus as their savior is not the only way to be with God. This does not mean that the Jews want to change their beliefs, or that they acknowledge anything you believe in your faith. It simply means they are using the dialogue to bring you to change something your faith has said for centuries, that accepting Jesus as your Savior is the ONLY way to salvation.

I don't think you understand exactly what the problem is yet, but if you keep working at it, you might. Start by NOT re-editing my statements into something you've heard before and heard someone refute, and deal with what they say.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I really don't know what to make of your posts. You seem to have your heart in the right place, but you always say something vaguely offensive like, "more typical Christian behavior..." Am I quoting you correctly here?

Please remember that my post was a review of the SCREENPLAY. I phrased my post in Christian terms because the screenplay is written from a Christian perspective. It is only when Joe and Pete BELIEVE that Danny has gone to heaven that the central problem in the script has been resolved. For THEM (not me) getting to heaven and salvation are equivalent (since they are Christians). Talk about twisting someones words around. You took one word that I used (salvation) and attempted to paint me as some sort of proselytizing Uber-Christian. I apologize for my subtleties, and I assure you, in the future, I will spell it out in crayon so that you will better be able to understand my viewpoint.

I would also like to apologize if you believe that I tried to portray you as an anti-Semite. That was not my intention. I do, however, believe that it was unwise of you to even comment about the number of Jews in Hollywood. Of course you did not explicitly say that "Jews run Hollywood," BUT by even bringing it up, you run the risk of perpetuating the stereotype.

posted 03-06-2001 01:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by billhays:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MeRobDogg77:
[b] ...Having said that, I would, agree with most of the criticism in this post. The statement that Jesus is a "symbol" might be misconstrued by a Catholic audience. If I were Pete, I would work on rewording this somehow. ...

---

Disagree.

The idea of Jesus being a "symbol" is totally correct. It is also the kind of idea that someone just beginning to see what religion is really about would have.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I was not making a factual statement one way or the other. All that I was saying was that the idea of Jesus as a symbol might disturb Catholic sensibilities.

But, since you brought it up, I don't believe Jesus is a symbol. On the contrary, he was a flesh and blood prophet whose subversive teachings overturned much of the conventional wisdom of his era. The various "quests" for the historical Jesus, which biblical scholars have undertaken has done much to deconstruct the iconography surrounding the man.

With the sketchy historical testimony that we do have about Jesus of Nazareth, there is always the dilemma between the "pre-Easter" Jesus and the "post-Easter" Jesus. While the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) emphasize the humanity of Jesus, and his role as a social prophet, the Fourth Gospel (The Gospel of John, if you like) has a more symbolic representation of Jesus. Because John contains such a high Christology, many scholars believe that it is the least historical.

In my own opinion, to view him as a mere symbol, then, would be dangerous because it depicts Jesus as some sort of phantasmagoric alien, rather than the human being that he was.

posted 03-06-2001 02:21 PM            

Any producer will tell you, you can't pay for advertising this good. When the Catholics and Jews eventually picket this film, Miramax will be there to reap the benefits.

Good luck, Pete.

Heizer

posted 03-06-2001 02:29 PM            

I don't care to enter the religious debate here, though the discussion is quite interesting, but the tone of your posts suggest to me that you have some vested interest in STOLEN SUMMER. I get the impression that you are defending why PGL selected it and that you had some part to play in that, which makes me wonder why you would feel it necessary to veil your identity. If I am way off base, then please disregard.

I think that, regardless of their personal feelings about STOLEN SUMMER, members would find it interesting to know a little about the thought processes that went into selecting STOLEN SUMMER. I don't mean a detailed analysis of the entire review process (though I am personally interested in that for other reasons), just some discussion of what STOLEN SUMMER has that made it the choice.

posted 03-06-2001 03:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsunami:
MeRobDogg77,

I don't care to enter the religious debate here, though the discussion is quite interesting, but the tone of your posts suggest to me that you have some vested interest in STOLEN SUMMER. I get the impression that you are defending why PGL selected it and that you had some part to play in that, which makes me wonder why you would feel it necessary to veil your identity. If I am way off base, then please disregard.

I think that, regardless of their personal feelings about STOLEN SUMMER, members would find it interesting to know a little about the thought processes that went into selecting STOLEN SUMMER. I don't mean a detailed analysis of the entire review process (though I am personally interested in that for other reasons), just some discussion of what STOLEN SUMMER has that made it the choice.

[This message has been edited by Tsunami (edited 03-06-2001).]

---

posted 03-06-2001 03:49 PM            

I very much enjoyed it, and believe that 1smartlady's remarks are totally off the mark, if not off the wall. There is NOTHING in this script that's remotely anti-Semitic. This script is about tolerance, first and foremost, and about ecumenicism. It teaches that there is more than one pathway to Heaven. On that score, the script rates a big fat 10.

Yes, there are problems. The main one that I saw was that the Rabbi's character could have been better defined. He just lost a son, and is in danger of losing another. Wouldn't this test his faith? You can have the "tests" Pete gives Danny interplay with the testing of the Rabbi's faith, as a result of his loss. Yet he goes through life with absolute equanimity. Not believable.

Second major problem is with Joe, the antagonist. He's anti-Semitic out of ignorance, and vacillates back and forth between being a bad guy and a good guy.

He's a fireman. He did his job, bravely, yet a life was lost. Perhaps rewrite it so that he could question himself whether he should have been able to save the other child. (You might have to change the way the fire transpires in order to do that). Make that a source of inner conflict within himself, which translates into lashing out at his family, and at the rabbi.

One minor point. This guy is Jewish, not Danish (unless he's a Scandinavian Jew, and there are some.) Spell Jacobsen "Jacobson."

posted 03-06-2001 04:04 PM            

Man, I was gonna do it - I was....I have an office at Zoe and a lot of friends keep saying Pickel come review at Zoe, but after you pointed out the same bs goes on there that does here, I'm really contiplating suicide at this point.

Geez...I loved your posts though here to 1smartalick...made me laugh.

posted 03-06-2001 04:57 PM            

are you an relation to 'Tonto'hehe

'Kameradenland' I'll ask around about it from those at Zoe. I'm curious about how you wrote Clinton and O.J. into a s/p......that's gotta be interesting as hell.

My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die....wait, that's not me....I'm pickel....prepare to die anyways....

anyways you made my day with your posts.

posted 03-06-2001 11:12 PM            

couple of months ago i posted alist of the past 4 years of miramax movie. about a month ago,i had a conversation with pete about how his movie is similar in tone to a movie miramax released 2 years ago. if you search the post in the forum, you willsee what i am talking about. the movie is called wide awake and last face it, this script is a miramax movie. that is probably why the picked it.

i am pretty sure if the dist. was warner brothers the upgrade would have more of a lead.

the hbo special will probably tell us more about the process.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsunami:
MeRobDogg77,

I don't care to enter the religious debate here, though the discussion is quite interesting, but the tone of your posts suggest to me that you have some vested interest in STOLEN SUMMER. I get the impression that you are defending why PGL selected it and that you had some part to play in that, which makes me wonder why you would feel it necessary to veil your identity. If I am way off base, then please disregard.

I think that, regardless of their personal feelings about STOLEN SUMMER, members would find it interesting to know a little about the thought processes that went into selecting STOLEN SUMMER. I don't mean a detailed analysis of the entire review process (though I am personally interested in that for other reasons), just some discussion of what STOLEN SUMMER has that made it the choice.

[This message has been edited by Tsunami (edited 03-06-2001).]

---

posted 03-07-2001 10:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChiefWhiteBronco:
...There is NOTHING in this script that's remotely anti-Semitic. This script is about tolerance, first and foremost, and about ecumenicism. It teaches that there is more than one pathway to Heaven. On that score, the script rates a big fat 10.

Yes, there are problems.

***The main one that I saw was that the Rabbi's character could have been better defined.***

He just lost a son, and is in danger of losing another.

***Wouldn't this test his faith?***

You can have the "tests" Pete gives Danny interplay with the testing of the Rabbi's faith, as a result of his loss. Yet he goes through life with absolute equanimity. Not believable.

... By the way, I am Jewish. 100%. I was far more offended by your comments than anything in the screenplay, which if it were on Zoetrope, I would have given it a 7 (very good), with easy potential to be an 8 or even 9 once it was polished.

---

Point #1. The rabbi's character could have been better defined.

This is an excellent example of the kind of notes you get in a story development conference.

There are lots of different kinds of rabbis. Pete said his wife is Jewish, which suggests that he had a specific rabbi in mind when he made up this character. However, he didn't put enough words down on the page for us to identify him, or to know who this rabbi is. Pete knows, because he's met the guy, or has created a rabbi in his mind, but that information hasn't made it onto the page yet.

Point 2. Would the death of his son test the faith of a rabbi? I have to think it would not. We're dealing with someone who has gone through the training to become a rabbi, and the question of God taking away loved ones has been handled in great detail. This is nothing that he isn't prepared for. In fact, he has counseled many people when it happened in their families, and he totally believes that every death is a part of a plan that God has for the entire human race, and that having faith in that plan is the ultimate good.

posted 03-07-2001 10:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeRobDogg77:
I phrased my post in Christian terms because

***the screenplay is written from a Christian perspective.***

It is only when Joe and Pete BELIEVE that Danny has gone to heaven that the central problem in the script has been resolved.

***For THEM (not me) getting to heaven and salvation are equivalent (since they are Christians).***

---

You're right.

When I get an idea that I want to get across, I do rush a bit to get the words down. I don't spend much time re-thinking it, because this is a message board and not a post. Of course you can read things when I take short-cuts like this, and I'm trying to make a different point.

Point #1. The screenplay is written from a Christian perspective.

Not only that, but it reflects some of the bad things about Christianty that I've run into over the years, and these are things that Christians don't seem to be aware of.

For example, at the end of an argument, a Christian will always say, "I'm going to go home and pray for you. I think you'd make a great Christian if we could only turn you around."

This offer to pray for someone is legitimate. They think they are doing you a favor. But it is also extremely offensive to non-Christians because of the underlying premise that the prayers will convince God to do something that will change my outlook and infringe on my free will. In other words, it's a power trip/mind game. And that's what Pete does in the script. He gets the host and takes it to the rabbi so the dead boy can get into heaven. Underlying, unspoken assumption from the Christian perspective, that Christians are not aware how offensive they are to non-Christians.

"To Jews, whatever wonderful teacher and storyteller Jesus may have been, he was just a human, not the son of God (except in the metaphorical sense in which all humans are children of God), In the Jewish view, Jesus cannot save souls; only God can. Jesus did not, in the Jewish view, rise from the dead."
http://www.convert.org/differ.htm

This is not a definitive statement on what Jews believe. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs, and how is what one person sees the issue. But that's why the rabbi's character needs to be fleshed out, and possibly other pOV's introduced. We can't have one man speak for Judaism. We have to see him as an individual, giving his own view, not the group's spokesman.

"Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional Judaism. It was a belief that distinguished the Pharisees (intellectual ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism) from the Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected the concept, because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. The Pharisees found it implied in certain verses."

Okay, the Sadducees said only the first five books, the books of Moses, were the word of God.

The Pharisees said the rabbis had written commentary on the Torah, like the Prophets, and their writings were Scripture, too.

The Sadducee position disappeared after the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, and the concept of a future resurrection of every dead person who had ever lived was spread, because the idea gave hope to a people who had been kicked out of Jerusalem. Yes, we're out of it now, but at some point God will come back and set things right.

When Israel was restored at the end of WWII, it gave a lot of Christians hope that the general resurrection was about to take place, finally. That's called "The End of the World." No joke - that's what it really is in Christian theology. Read the "Left Behind" series for the incredible detail, the blueprint they read into the NT of exactly how the world will end.

So Jesus became a symbol. To Paul, he became a symbol that the Pharisees were right and Jesus was the "first-fruits" of a general resurrection that would take place while he was still alive. In that sense, since Jesus wasn't resurrected and the world didn't end, the Christian concept of "Jesus" is first and foremost a symbol, and only remotely and secondarily a real man who lived and breathed, but who never came back from the dead as proof that the Pharisees were right.

posted 03-07-2001 10:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChiefWhiteBronco:
...I am the author of one of the more notorious scripts at Zoetrope -- Kameradenland. The one about Clinton and O.J.

---

posted 03-08-2001 05:48 AM            

Your great Rabbi with his humor and kindness and compassion would, perhaps, allow this child to look things over, maybe even offer a part-time job (which would REALLY make the Irish Dad go crazy and be a nice lead-in into the conflict over the older brother's college scholarship). But the converting stuff just doesn't work.

Who are you, 1dogmaticlady, to speak for rabbis? There are rabbis who would behave exactly as stated in "Stolen Summer," and use this incident to teach a kid tolerance. I personally know one. On the other hand, there are rabbis, both in Israel and in the USA, who are every bit as intolerant as the most hardline Afghanistani or Iranian mullah.

posted 03-08-2001 11:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pete Jones:
Keep up this discussion because it helps me. I am in the middle of my first, let's hope last, rewrite and some of this information helps me with the rewrite. I do agree the rabbi needs more dimension, hopefully that will come in the writing I am doing. Thanks for all of the notes, and I swear I'm not being a smartass. I will check some of those links.pete

---

Links are fun. If I post a link, I don't have to read through the entire article, just download the first page so I have the URL. I usually print them out and go read them later in hard copy, because each link leads you to ten other links and you can get so lost... you can see that in my posts. I often try to get to a particular point, and make errors in my rush to get there.

On February 3, 1999, the Los Angeles Times reported:

Nation in Brief/Tennessee/ Falwell Apologizes after Angering Jews.

"The Rev. Jerry Falwell apologized for saying last month that the Antichrist is a Jewish man who probably is alive today. During an unscheduled appearance at the 18th International Christian Prayer Breakfast in Nashville, Falwell said, "I apologize to my Jewish friends here and around the world, and I apologize to the Christians here for having created any kind of rift."

Okay, what kind of RIFT did Falwell create that he had to apologize for?

"According to the Bible, the Antichrist will spread universal evil before the end of the world but will be finally conquered at the second coming of Christ. On Jan. 14, Falwell told a conference on evangelism: "if he's going to be the counterfeit of Christ, he has to be Jewish."

So.... Falwell, a Christian minister with his own website and Liberty Baptist University, told a conference on "evangelism" that the antichrist is probably alive today and has to be Jewish.

I wonder how it came about that Falwell got enough pressure and complaints from a chance remark he made at a conference which was probably only attended by Christians interested in evangelism that somebody in the Jewish world found out and raised enough of a fuss that Falwell made a public apology?

What if Falwell had made a movie and released it through Miramax? Hmmm.

I think it would be interesting if Pete's mother took Pete to a seminar on the Jewish faith run by American Hebrew Congress, to expose him to his Jewish roots. Possibly she is enlightened, liberal, interested in her children's education, or angry that her husband is so bigoted.

At the conference, they discuss the Jewish idea of heaven. Different from Christian?
The book I posted on Jewish afterlife gives some examples in Jewish literature, some glimpse that the subject is very complex.

It could be that this rabbi thinks the dead remain in the darkness of the grave, what the OT calls SHEOL and the LXX translates as "Hades" until the resurrection. That is one Jewish belief, but not universal.

There is a reason why the resurrection of Jesus caught on. Jews had been taught that when Jews die, the nephesh (soul) goes into a land of eternal silence and darkness and stays there. this gave a lot of children nightmares, so they came up with a new idea.

I think it's Ezekiel 37 or 38, it says there will be a time when the bones will be made to stand up, and flesh will be put on them, and the dead shall live again. This verse inspired a new belief in a Resurrection. The Pharisees believed this, and Paul grew up and attended a school run by Pharisees in Tarsus. he considered himself a "zealot for the traditions of my ancestors" which means he had a strong belief that the resurrection would occur. When Jesus appeared to him, he announced, "Jesus is the fist-fruits of the resurrection, proof that this will be the last generation and we are living at the End of Days." Didn't happen that way, of course. But Jesus was, as you suggest, a symbol of Paul's faith, which he had before he ever heard of Jesus.

So, when lil Pete gets home, he asks the priest about this strange idea that dead people sleep in the dust of the earth, in a dark and silent land called Hades until the resurrection. And the priest tells him that this is the Christian belief, too.

What?

The NT doesn't talk about going to heaven to be with Jesus. The NT says that Jesus was raised up to heaven to stand beside God as a sign that he was divine, a Son of God, and otdinarly mortals don't get that kind of treatment. According to Paul, when Jesus comes back and appears in the sky, the dead will be raised up out of their graves and given new spiritual bodies, and will float up to meet Jesus in the sky.

posted 03-08-2001 11:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pete Jones:
Keep up this discussion because it helps me. I am in the middle of my first, let's hope last, rewrite and some of this information helps me with the rewrite.... Thanks for all of the notes, and I swear I'm not being a smartass. I will check some of those links.pete

---

Re-writes are tough. If you didn't like your script, it wouldn't be there on the page.

I got very angry at the first editor who cut out part of my story to make it shorter and fit on his page. However, in a movie, that's what you do. Humphrey Bogart used to take a script and cross out his own lines. He'd say, "Here, you take this one, i don't want to say it." He got the reputation for being terse and rugged that way. Also, he realized that you don't want to stay on an actor saying these long speeches. You want the script to move, to see the reaction to what he says.

Talking heads are out.

What's in? "Home Alone".

The best kid movie in recent movie was Home Alone. You can rent it on video and watch it again and again because the kid had character.

He started off as a nerd but then he discovered that he could do things on his own, and he grew up to be smart. And devious. He wasn't just an actor saying lines, he was a real kid with a personality and a light bulb that went on over his head when he got in a corner and had to think his way out.

Make the kid smart. Way smart for his age.

posted 03-09-2001 11:08 AM            

Leonard Nimoy is too old for the rabbi, but Sci-Fi channel shows the original Star Trek re-runs at 5:00 and I was listening to Nimoy deliver his dialogue, thinking how we've watched him age, but that he had more command presence than any actor, up to and including Patrick Steward.

If you could write the dialogue for your rabbi hearing the voice of spock in your head...

and also, Nimoy appeared in an Outer Limits episode, playing a lawyer defending a robot accused of killing his creator. Lots of people were surprised that Nimoy took the role, but Nimoy was very big in SF dramas before he signed on to Star Trek. I think he was in "Revenge of the Rocket Men" or some title. He was fun to watch, even then, and who knows? He might do your movie. He could be the boy's grandfather, the rabbi's father, and give the rabbi a chance to talk to someone...

Here's what I see. Pete comes into the synagogue. Leonard Nimoy (playing a senior rabbi) Bishop Spong (playing himself, see this month's Playboy for background on him) and a young rabbi are standing in a back corner, having a conversation. Pete comes up and asks whether Jews go to heaven. Nimoy looks at the young rabbi and says, "I think you should answer that one." The young rabbi, realizing he has been put on the spot in front of these very important peers, scowls at Pete and mutters, "Thanks a lot, kid." And then he gives a wonderful answer that impresses Nimoy, so he can have a conversation with Spong about it in a later scene.