short takes

[cellio]

Someone (in a friends-only entry) reported that the actor playing Jesus in Mel Gibson's new movie was struck by lightning during the shoot, along with a director. (A message from above?, the poster wonders.) I know I shouldn't laugh at someone else's misfortune, but the part that really got me was: "It was the second time Michelini had been hit by lightning during the shoot".

Second time... during the shoot. Ouch.

D&D on Wednesday was fun. We were fighting a party that we were trying not to kill (friendly folks under mind-control magic), which made it challenging. My sorceror did not throw even a single fireball. :-) I think my character's paladinhood-enhanced saving throws took Ralph by surprise, though, even though we had discussed it in the abstract. (Yes, there is a natural synergy in D&D 3.0 between sorcerors and paladins. Odd but true. And our ultra-benevolent GM is letting me do it. Mind, part of what he gets out of this is a significant plot hook when he needs it, because of the way he implemented it, but I figure it'll be a good story so that works for me.)

This week's West Wing gave me hope: a good, well-executed episode in the post-Sorkin world. I hope it's indicative of what's to come. (I just about fell out of my chair laughing during the speech-writing scene, because I knew what had to be coming.)

At last night's board meeting, the rabbi urged us all to make short appointments for individual chats. Last time he made that offer the result for me was regular one-on-one study with him. I wonder what'll happen this time. :-)

Trick-or-treating hours in my neighborhood are generally pretty early (5-7ish), so we're usually not even home from work. This year Halloween is on Shabbat, though, and post-DST-change, which means I'll certainly be home. Not excited about dealing with it, but home nonetheless. I guess I should pick up some candy. :-) (I don't mind the little kids at all; while I don't get into the whole "oh isn't that CUTE!" and/or "oh I'm so SCARED!" thing, I'm willing to play along on the candy ritual. It's the teenagers who don't even put on costumes but just show up on your doorstep holding out sacks that bug me. If you want to play, you should at least try.)

We're attending a bar mitzvah (and luncheon) tomorrow. I am unclear on the gift protocol. We haven't been invited to a gathering that isn't on Shabbat, so the choices appear to be: take the gift to the synagogue or take it to their house sometime later. I'll probably tell Dani to put it in the car (I'm walking for the earlier service; he'll meet me for the late service) but leave it in the car until we see what other people are doing. Just goes to show that there are some things you don't learn in classes. :-)

I have a gazillion LJ codes; if anyone reading this needs one, just say so.

Comments

re: Mel's movie

[lil-lamb.livejournal.com]

How weird is the lightning thing!?!?

Re: Mel's movie

[cellio]

Indeed. And with the qualifier (second time during the shoot), I naturally wondered how many times this person has been hit total. Is that director just a lightning-rod, or what?

I'll also admit that a part of me wondered whether cameras were rolling when it happened.

Re: Mel's movie

[lil-lamb.livejournal.com]

If they were rolling, they could save bucks on special effects!:)

Maybe this guy has a lot of iron in his system! :0

[rectangularcat]

If i were hit by lightning that many times (ok, just once!), I'd seriously start buying lottery tickets!

Shabbat Bar Mitzvah Gifts

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

It's not permitted to accept gifts on the Sabbath. What we do for Shabbat bar mitzvahs without weekday celebrations is to bring the gift to the kids' houses afterwards.

Jonathan found that getting gifts on his Shabbat-only bar mitzvah from less observant relatives to be very uncomfortable.

Re: Shabbat Bar Mitzvah Gifts

[cellio]

Thanks for the information. I initially thought that the only issue would be carrying (and the eiruv takes care of that), but I suppose depending on what the gift is there could also be a muktzah issue, yes? (That is, if the gift is muktzah, then either he opens it on Shabbat and has that issue, or he doesn't open it on Shabbat and thus, regardless of contents, has handled something for which there is no use on Shabbat.)

Is there a specific "gift" issue, or is it that gifts trigger other prohibitions? A transfer of ownership that involved consideration or a contract would obviously be forbidden, but that's a different case.

Re: Shabbat Bar Mitzvah Gifts

[magid.livejournal.com]

I believe there is an issue with transferring ownership, even without consideration or contract. The only thing that doesn't fall under this category of problem is giving food that can be eaten immediately (bringing dessert to a host of a meal, even if it's not necessarily served, for instance).

[lefkowitzga.livejournal.com]

If you don't feel comfortable giving a gift on Shabbat, send it or drop it off on some earlier or later date. If you don't mind giving a gift, the more liberal reform congregations often have a place that the gift can be left, similarly to a wedding gift table.

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

I am an ultra-benevolent GM, it's true. But I've thought about my relaxed attitude towards munchkinning, and I'm pretty happy with it.

The only purpose of the game is mutual enjoyment, so the only reason to deny a request (particularly one that's within the rules) is if there's a real argument that denying the request adds to mutual enjoyment overall.

In this case, even if the original motivation was for munchkin purposes, we found a good story for it, and her story as a paladin who doesn't know the paladin's code is an interesting story.

[kayre]

This week's West Wing gave me hope: a good, well-executed episode in the post-Sorkin world. I hope it's indicative of what's to come. (I just about fell out of my chair laughing during the speech-writing scene, because I knew what had to be coming.)

Yes, there's at least some hope... but do you ever come out of an episode with a strange desire to mail a crate of high-wattage lightbulbs to the White House?

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

"but do you ever come out of an episode with a strange desire to mail a crate of high-wattage lightbulbs to the White House?"

No, pretzels! You see, first we have to get the current one out. :D
-- Dagonell

[cellio]

Oh, sure -- doesn't everybody? :-)

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

Someone (in a friends-only entry) reported that the actor playing Jesus in Mel Gibson's new movie was struck by lightning during the shoot, along with a director. (A message from above?, the poster wonders.) I know I shouldn't laugh at someone else's misfortune, but the part that really got me was: "It was the second time Michelini had been hit by lightning during the shoot".

I hate to be snarky and cynical, but has this been validated in any useful way? I couldn't find it on Snopes, but it still screams "urban legend," especially given the lighting rod (if you'll pardon the choice of metaphor) that the The Passion has been for speculative criticism.

Well. Hey.

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/24/gibson.passion/index.html), apparently. Who'd have thought...

Re: Well. Hey.

[cellio]

I'm glad no one was seriously hurt. If I were him, I'd get rid of that umbrella -- it's obviously bad luck!

[bonnita.livejournal.com]

I certainly hope you werent insinuating that because he was playing Jesus it was some come of message from above. I know Jews do not like derogatory comments made about their beliefs? Same goes for Christians.

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

While I can't speak for the original poster she's quoting (having not even seen the quoted post myself), I suspect it's much more likely this is a reference to the way the film portrays Jesus, and particularly the controversy the film's been greeted by among Christians who fear it's going to reflect too much editorial license on Gibson's part, rather than the fact that it's Jesus at all.

[Obligatory Truth-in-Soapbox Disclaimer, for the record: I'm a Christian, but am of the school that believes I can't say much meaningful about the film's portrayal until I've seen it, and anyway tend to be "unimpressed," at worst, rather than "offended" by films that I feel have flaws in how they portray key aspects of my beliefs.]

[cellio]

Nope -- that was the original poster's comment, not mine, and I don't think it was meant seriously. Speaking just for myself, I don't believe that God behaves that way.

I won't spend money to see the film, but I'm not boycotting it or anything like that. And my discomfort is not because of the content per se (for example, I quite enjoy the musical "Jesus Christ Superstar"). I don't like what I've heard -- from Christians, not just Jews -- about the movie's portrayal of events, and am concerned that it will do damage to the improvements that have been made in the last 40 years in interfaith relations. But I don't think it'll be a huge effect; it'll be a nuissance, but it won't kick off a crusade. It may kick off some low-level bigotry, though.

And just to be clear, since I don't think we know each other, I think Gibson has every right to make his movie and get it in theatres if he can find backers.