a really good film! (spoiler if you haven't seen it)
-
gospelcrusader — 21 years ago(January 19, 2005 11:49 AM)
LOL I've seen The Fisher King. Anyway I don't think a whole lot of people have seen Lady Jane, or at least haven't seen this board.
Anyway if you're not a big fan of historicals, (and many people aren't) then of course it wouldn't be your kind of movie. But I happen to love them so I loved it.
and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< -
msherow — 20 years ago(April 07, 2005 10:08 AM)
Jesus talked a lot more about peace than war..and John 14:6 is out of context. Try reading the Koran if you are interested in a God of War, and no prophet was more bloody and evil than Mohammad, according to chapter and verse of the Koran. Yes, we can expect this to happen todayunder fanatical Islam.
-
gospelcrusader — 20 years ago(April 07, 2005 05:26 PM)
um, in response to your reply, John 14:6 was just my signature at the time, I wasn't using it directly in my post. I am not saying Jesus talked more about war than peace. (He certainly did talk about it though, i.e. He said there would be many wars to come at the end of the age, etc). what I was talking about in my post was that because of the split between Catholics and Protestants, which is a main theme of Lady Jane, we can still expect this to happen today"this" meaning division in the Church among Christians, and the persecution of Christians in general. When Jesus said He did not come to bring peace but a sword, it meant(partly) that He knew that people would fight about the truth and over Christianity and religions and spiritual issues because of Him and because of who He is. He brought the truth and a lot of people were not ready to accept that and still aren't. He was saying he didn't come to make peace on earth and everything perfect and a la-de-dah happy life to everyone. Yes, of course He brought the message of peace on earth and goodwill to all, but because people are rebellious and prideful He also knew that not everyone would want that or follow Him, and things would get really ugly because of who He was. If you read the whole passage it of course explains it better that I can. I am definitely not interested in a god of war or the Koran,(although in my life I have read parts of it) because 3 years ago I found my one and only King in Jesus. And I certainly wasn't saying that Jesus is about war, not in the least! He's the Prince of Peace. He was simply prophesying that many wars would be fought because of His name, (which they have), and that households would be divided because of His name (which they were and continue to be today, including my own). This is talking mainly about between Christians. MOST of the major religious conflicts, strife, and wars of history have not been religion against religion but between members of the Church. (different sects, denominations, etc.) so please don't think I was saying that Jesus taught about war or was an advocate of it or anything, but my point was that he was saying that households would be divided because of Him, mother against daughter, and so on, and this was really evident in Lady Jane and that's why I made the comment. I'm sorry if I wasn't especially clear. I have made similar comments on some other posts and people have came back at me, whether they are Christians or not, and start talking about the "Bush agenda" etc when it really had nothing at all to do with the intent of my comment, I was talking about a particular passage about inter-family strife and the persecution of Christians, because of the name of Jesus. so I hope that clears my post up, and I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, it definitely wasn't intentional. God bless!
and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< -
megan_haithcock — 20 years ago(July 07, 2005 09:23 AM)
Jane probably would have been killed eventually even if she had denounced her beliefs and turned to Catholicism, because she had supporters who wanted her on the throne (not exact quote "Did they say a name (anyone specific)?" "They wanted Queen Jane.") It would have been too dangerous to keep an overthrown Queen around while she still had the support of the people. While religion was indeed a factor, the fear that she would gain enough support to try to overthrow Queen Mary was probably a bigger concern.
-
seekingeirene — 20 years ago(September 11, 2005 11:13 AM)
Quote: "Most Christians are nothing but a bunch of war-mongering hypocrites."
"Most" is always a bad word. Almost as bad as "all." :4) Are most Muslims murderous radicals? Are most atheists out to ban the Bible and burn the churches? I'm sorry you've had rotten experiences with judgemental Christians; you're right in that Christianity is not supposed to be a hateful or judgmental religion. Unfortunately most religions, Christianity included, wind up judgmental, violent, etc. Any institution is only as honest as the most deceitful person therein. As a pacifist Christian myself, I follow Jesus and maintain a healthy suspicion of any church that's more organized institution than it is "bunch of like-minded people getting together to help other people."
For the record, there's more to Christianity than the pro-war, anti-everything brand that's unfortunately prevalent in the U.S. right now. Check out "Sojourners" magazine, rent the film "Romero", if you're really interestedand if you're not, I hope you at least feel better for having blown off some steam against hypocrisy in the above post! :4)
And in order to stay on topic.Lady Jane is an awesome movie. Historical inaccuracies out the WHAZOO, major pacing problems as a script, but living proof that Carter and Elwes were AMAZING actors even when they were barely out of puberty. I so just spent $15.00 buying a LJ poster off of E-bay for my dorm room. Carter especially is amazing as a delicate, bookish, almost painfully shy girl who nevertheless has this real core of strength from her faith and her sense of justice. What a shame nobody ever thought to cast her as another JaneJane Eyrebefore she grew too old for the part. -
Virginiana — 20 years ago(February 05, 2006 08:44 PM)
Actually, Megan, that business about the rebels (it was called Wyatt's rebellion, led by Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger) calling for Queen Jane was manufactured for the script. In real life they weren't calling for her restoration to the throne. The script-writer obviously inserted that to give Mary a clear reason for ordering Jane's execution.
If the rebels had been advocating deposing Mary it would have been in favor or her half-sister Elizabeth, who had a vastly superior claim. (Elizabeth, in fact, spend an unhappy time in the Tower over the incident, as Mary suspected her of conspiring with Wyatt.) Five years later, Elizabeth did inherit the throne upon Mary's death and there was little protest in the country.
I think some viewers may be missing the point of this film. It's not a question of Jane's Protestant beliefs being "good" and Mary's Catholicism "bad". It's about religion being used as a tool TO GET AND KEEP POLITICAL POWER.
The primary schemer of the piece, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (Guildford's father) claims to be a Protestant, but he's a bloody and ambitious (and un-Christian) a man as ever lived. He pretended to convert to Catholicism by the end in a futile attempt to avoid execution, but it's obvious he had no true religious convitions at all. His god was POWER, pure and simple. Power is what he worshipped and in the end it's what he died for.
Historical trivial note: The real John Dudley, duke of Northumberland, was survived by several sons, Guildfor'd brothers. One of them, Robert Dudley, would be Queen Elizabeth's true love, though they never married. She made him Earl of Leicester and they were close for many, many years. -
chipmunkguy_5 — 20 years ago(October 25, 2005 09:42 PM)
your ideas of a great unforgettable film disgust me. American Beauty was a great and unforgettable film as was Braveheart Sin City Clerks etc but this was boring crap
That's right. Don't take no beep from anybody's stuffed animal.