home
radioThese are reader comments for the article 'Larry Norman: The David Di Sabatino's Fallen Angel documentary'
Reader Comments
Posted by Paul in UK @ 00:14 on Jun 17 2010
Mike Rimmer wrote:
“He came armed with a battered guitar, a dry sense of humour and a lot of pain. He was going through divorce from his first wife Pamela but what I didn’t know, as I stood listening to him sharing, was that the singer/songwriter had already started a relationship with Stonehill’s wife Sarah.”
“......There were the complications of Norman beginning a relationship with Randy’s wife Sarah while Randy and Sarah were still together.”
Although the film-maker has since denied that this inference was deliberately built into his movie, I see no evidence of MR rushing to even insert the word 'allegedly' anywhere into his account.
Now this CR article is being quoted by others as fact. What a farce!
Mike Rimmer wrote:
“He came armed with a battered guitar, a dry sense of humour and a lot of pain. He was going through divorce from his first wife Pamela but what I didn’t know, as I stood listening to him sharing, was that the singer/songwriter had already started a relationship with Stonehill’s wife Sarah.”
“......There were the complications of Norman beginning a relationship with Randy’s wife Sarah while Randy and Sarah were still together.”
Although the film-maker has since denied that this inference was deliberately built into his movie, I see no evidence of MR rushing to even insert the word 'allegedly' anywhere into his account.
Now this CR article is being quoted by others as fact. What a farce!
Posted by James Swan in New Jersey, USA @ 16:29 on Jun 14 2010
I would like to take issue with you over this idea from your article:
"Di Sabatino has a passion for telling what he terms 'biblical stories' where God will use flawed and broken people to carry out his work."
The problem as I see it with artists like Larry Norman, is that they typically aren't responsible to... anyone.
I would really be interested in you interviewing Steve Camp on his 107 Theses for the reform of Christian music:
Theses 65:
God has designed genuine ministry to be inseparable from the life and leadership of the local church. Any ministry that does not strengthen one's commitment to the local church is inconsistent with the purposes of Christ.
Steve outlines Biblical reasons why Christian artists should love the church, and then states:
71. In response to these truths and to insure a life of godliness and holiness and to guard against blind spots in personal life issues, vocation and theology-submission to the plurality of godly leaders within the church is essential.
72. We are to obey, honor and pray for the faithful pastors in the church who have been given this sacred trust. They are those who are instructed by the Lord to keep watch over our souls as ones that will give an account. Woe to the shepherds who do not take their responsibility to shepherd the flock of God seriously. They dishonor the Savior. They disobey the Scriptures. They diminish their office and defame their calling.
73. In the case of a Christian being overtaken in sin, proper discipline must be exercised within the church to bring about restoration and reconciliation. This is to confirm repentance and to guard the purity of one's life personally as well as the entire body of Christ corporately.
If Christian musicians continue to do whatever they want to, being responsible to no one, history will probably prove there are a lot more documentaries of Christian musicians for Mr. DiSabatino to make.
I would like to take issue with you over this idea from your article:
"Di Sabatino has a passion for telling what he terms 'biblical stories' where God will use flawed and broken people to carry out his work."
The problem as I see it with artists like Larry Norman, is that they typically aren't responsible to... anyone.
I would really be interested in you interviewing Steve Camp on his 107 Theses for the reform of Christian music:
Theses 65:
God has designed genuine ministry to be inseparable from the life and leadership of the local church. Any ministry that does not strengthen one's commitment to the local church is inconsistent with the purposes of Christ.
Steve outlines Biblical reasons why Christian artists should love the church, and then states:
71. In response to these truths and to insure a life of godliness and holiness and to guard against blind spots in personal life issues, vocation and theology-submission to the plurality of godly leaders within the church is essential.
72. We are to obey, honor and pray for the faithful pastors in the church who have been given this sacred trust. They are those who are instructed by the Lord to keep watch over our souls as ones that will give an account. Woe to the shepherds who do not take their responsibility to shepherd the flock of God seriously. They dishonor the Savior. They disobey the Scriptures. They diminish their office and defame their calling.
73. In the case of a Christian being overtaken in sin, proper discipline must be exercised within the church to bring about restoration and reconciliation. This is to confirm repentance and to guard the purity of one's life personally as well as the entire body of Christ corporately.
If Christian musicians continue to do whatever they want to, being responsible to no one, history will probably prove there are a lot more documentaries of Christian musicians for Mr. DiSabatino to make.
Posted by James Swan in New Jersey, USA @ 16:19 on Jun 14 2010
Mike,
I just listened to your interview with Charles Norman, and then read this article. It appears the last chapter is yet to be written on the Larry Norman saga. I appreciated both your article and interview.
Initially, Mr. Disabatino's movie appeared to make sense of some of the larger-than-life mythology that's surrounded Larry. I've been a big Norman fan for many years as well. Like many who've read your article, I have quite an LN collection, spanning back three decades. About 20 years ago my friends and I would jest about some of Larry's claims- as I grew older, I realized some of Larry's stories sounds a bit suspicious. I never doubted his faith in Christ, the stories though seemed to get bigger as they went on.
Like you, I've interviewed David Disabatino about the movie, and the interview went fine. Probably David and I would have more theological disagreements than anything else.
Recently I heard Mr. DiSabatino claim the song "Baby Out Of Wed-lock" was about Charles Norman. I've grown a bit more suspicious as to exactly what's going on with David's take on Larry. I don't think everything David has put forth is false, but I do wonder if perhaps there really is another side to all this that paints a bit different picture of Larry Norman. Perhaps David's movie isn't telling exactly the entire story. From the response of Charles about also being Larry's son, it appears David may not be checking all his facts as carefully as he should.
-continued-
Mike,
I just listened to your interview with Charles Norman, and then read this article. It appears the last chapter is yet to be written on the Larry Norman saga. I appreciated both your article and interview.
Initially, Mr. Disabatino's movie appeared to make sense of some of the larger-than-life mythology that's surrounded Larry. I've been a big Norman fan for many years as well. Like many who've read your article, I have quite an LN collection, spanning back three decades. About 20 years ago my friends and I would jest about some of Larry's claims- as I grew older, I realized some of Larry's stories sounds a bit suspicious. I never doubted his faith in Christ, the stories though seemed to get bigger as they went on.
Like you, I've interviewed David Disabatino about the movie, and the interview went fine. Probably David and I would have more theological disagreements than anything else.
Recently I heard Mr. DiSabatino claim the song "Baby Out Of Wed-lock" was about Charles Norman. I've grown a bit more suspicious as to exactly what's going on with David's take on Larry. I don't think everything David has put forth is false, but I do wonder if perhaps there really is another side to all this that paints a bit different picture of Larry Norman. Perhaps David's movie isn't telling exactly the entire story. From the response of Charles about also being Larry's son, it appears David may not be checking all his facts as carefully as he should.
-continued-
Posted by Film Critic in USA @ 03:43 on Apr 29 2010
I saw this film the other night, and what a disappointment. Clearly an amateur work, which may have been fine if I had realized that ahead of time so I could have adjusted my expectations. Bad camera work, terrible audio, a confusing timeline that was all over the place, conflicting information within the story. Even the narration was terribly done.
It was all really disappointing. I hope that someone with better filmmaking skills takes this on as a project. I would like to see the results of a better effort.
I saw this film the other night, and what a disappointment. Clearly an amateur work, which may have been fine if I had realized that ahead of time so I could have adjusted my expectations. Bad camera work, terrible audio, a confusing timeline that was all over the place, conflicting information within the story. Even the narration was terribly done.
It was all really disappointing. I hope that someone with better filmmaking skills takes this on as a project. I would like to see the results of a better effort.
Posted by Markley in Santa Clara, CA @ 07:24 on Apr 24 2010
I think its a real shame that the way the movie “Fallen Angel” comes across whether it means to or not is as a mean spirited and over the top vengeance vehicle. This severely limits its effectiveness in bringing light to this extremely difficult subject. It is a shame because this could be an extremely enlightening exercise for us to understand human frailty better and to help a person who was so hurt in all this… Daniel Robinson.
I so would have preferred if this movie could have treated Larry Norman with much more (at least feigned) compassion and respect and just stuck to 1) providing a balanced look at this talented person that God so used despite his shortcomings and 2) covering the mental health questions that Larry Norman himself raised by writing and talking from the stage about being diagnosed with bipolar trauma and 3) the most important and undeniable element of Daniel Robinson. Daniel’s case is extremely strong since Larry Norman appears to have admitted to being his father explicitly in e-mails and by his various actions including having mentioned him in some of the versions of his will.
If David DiSabatino really wants to help Daniel he could focus on these three elements and then more people including more Larry Norman fans could listen to the undeniable complexity of Larry Norman’s behavior and it would not be drowned out by the current sea of unprovable complaints that take up most of the negative part of this movie. At least the ‘festival’ version of the film was extremely divisive and not very enlightening and did little to help Daniel. The movie is just more tragedy poured upon the tragedy already there…
I think its a real shame that the way the movie “Fallen Angel” comes across whether it means to or not is as a mean spirited and over the top vengeance vehicle. This severely limits its effectiveness in bringing light to this extremely difficult subject. It is a shame because this could be an extremely enlightening exercise for us to understand human frailty better and to help a person who was so hurt in all this… Daniel Robinson.
I so would have preferred if this movie could have treated Larry Norman with much more (at least feigned) compassion and respect and just stuck to 1) providing a balanced look at this talented person that God so used despite his shortcomings and 2) covering the mental health questions that Larry Norman himself raised by writing and talking from the stage about being diagnosed with bipolar trauma and 3) the most important and undeniable element of Daniel Robinson. Daniel’s case is extremely strong since Larry Norman appears to have admitted to being his father explicitly in e-mails and by his various actions including having mentioned him in some of the versions of his will.
If David DiSabatino really wants to help Daniel he could focus on these three elements and then more people including more Larry Norman fans could listen to the undeniable complexity of Larry Norman’s behavior and it would not be drowned out by the current sea of unprovable complaints that take up most of the negative part of this movie. At least the ‘festival’ version of the film was extremely divisive and not very enlightening and did little to help Daniel. The movie is just more tragedy poured upon the tragedy already there…
Posted by Paul in UK @ 09:35 on Apr 20 2010
In light of this information I wonder will Mr Rimmer consider re-writing some of those assumptions he so carelessly included as fact in his piece. I applaude him for tackling this subject, but, like the producer of Fallen Angel, he has not done his research thoroughly enough. The movie is subtitled 'A Bible Story' - and I guess anyone can use selected 'verses' to back up their own story, but only when the 'scripture' is seen in full context can the truth finally emerge.
In light of this information I wonder will Mr Rimmer consider re-writing some of those assumptions he so carelessly included as fact in his piece. I applaude him for tackling this subject, but, like the producer of Fallen Angel, he has not done his research thoroughly enough. The movie is subtitled 'A Bible Story' - and I guess anyone can use selected 'verses' to back up their own story, but only when the 'scripture' is seen in full context can the truth finally emerge.
Reply by Mike Rimmer in England @ 06:52 on Apr 26 2010
hi Paul, I've been trying for a while to set up an interview with Charles Norman to allow the family to give their side of the story. The plan is that he will appear live on my evening show and a future article will give him the opportunity to share his side of the story. I am waiting for him to respond with a suitable date to do this. From what I hear, he wants to be interviewed by me so I am waiting to write a follow up feature as the story unfolds. I think that is the fairest way of moving forwards.
hi Paul, I've been trying for a while to set up an interview with Charles Norman to allow the family to give their side of the story. The plan is that he will appear live on my evening show and a future article will give him the opportunity to share his side of the story. I am waiting for him to respond with a suitable date to do this. From what I hear, he wants to be interviewed by me so I am waiting to write a follow up feature as the story unfolds. I think that is the fairest way of moving forwards.
Posted by P. Vall in U.S.A. @ 00:14 on Apr 18 2010
David Di Sabatino has been exposed as a charlatan.
See the truth about the deception in his Fallen Angel Larry Norman movie:
http://www.failedangle.com
David Di Sabatino has been exposed as a charlatan.
See the truth about the deception in his Fallen Angel Larry Norman movie:
http://www.failedangle.com
Posted by liz doherty in lanarkshire @ 02:41 on Apr 10 2010
As Ray suggests, one day we will have to choose whether or not to allow all of our darkness to be exposed to the light (and, believe me, it will be more shameful than anything suggested in Fallen Angel, when the true depths of any one of our minds or hearts is plumbed).
In order to be able to step into that light it will be absolutely vital that we have repented and been washed clean and know the truth that "God (for the purposes of judgement) does not look at you and see any sin, God looks at you and sees only the blood of Christ." Larry Norman
I think what causes us to be hurt and shocked by "Fallen Angel" is that we have so little insight into our own sinful natures.
Some are shocked by Larry's reported weakness and carnality.
Others are more shocked by the seeming hypocrisy of those who have gone on camera to publicly"forgive"/ expose the sins of a friend.
If we really knew our own hearts, we would be shocked by neither of these but would simply worship our God for such a great salvation.
The most shocking thing is that God, knowing what is in a man, can still use a man. That's scandalous grace.
As Ray suggests, one day we will have to choose whether or not to allow all of our darkness to be exposed to the light (and, believe me, it will be more shameful than anything suggested in Fallen Angel, when the true depths of any one of our minds or hearts is plumbed).
In order to be able to step into that light it will be absolutely vital that we have repented and been washed clean and know the truth that "God (for the purposes of judgement) does not look at you and see any sin, God looks at you and sees only the blood of Christ." Larry Norman
I think what causes us to be hurt and shocked by "Fallen Angel" is that we have so little insight into our own sinful natures.
Some are shocked by Larry's reported weakness and carnality.
Others are more shocked by the seeming hypocrisy of those who have gone on camera to publicly"forgive"/ expose the sins of a friend.
If we really knew our own hearts, we would be shocked by neither of these but would simply worship our God for such a great salvation.
The most shocking thing is that God, knowing what is in a man, can still use a man. That's scandalous grace.
Reply by Gary Sellars in Humble TX @ 08:12 on Aug 23 2010
I liked your last three words the best!
There's no one like the Lord! He is so wonderful!
I liked your last three words the best!
There's no one like the Lord! He is so wonderful!
Posted by liz doherty in lanarkshire @ 02:39 on Apr 10 2010
I agree that "Fallen Angel" plays as Di Sabatino's own very personal, very heavily edited piece of art / propaganda.
Nevertheless there IS profound poetry in each of our stories in the measure to which they speak of God's grace and mercy.
"We should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble....Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His (God's) multidimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly, forever toadying, lying and lusting as a schoolboy, forever in that moment of cowardice or insolence...? It may be that salvation consists not in the cancelling of these moments but in the perfected humanity that bears the shame forever, rejoicing in the occasion which it furnished to God's compassion and glad that it should be common knowledge to the universe...Perhaps the lost are those who dare not go into such a PUBLIC place."
C.S. Lewis "The Problem of Pain, Human Wickedness"
I agree that "Fallen Angel" plays as Di Sabatino's own very personal, very heavily edited piece of art / propaganda.
Nevertheless there IS profound poetry in each of our stories in the measure to which they speak of God's grace and mercy.
"We should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble....Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His (God's) multidimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly, forever toadying, lying and lusting as a schoolboy, forever in that moment of cowardice or insolence...? It may be that salvation consists not in the cancelling of these moments but in the perfected humanity that bears the shame forever, rejoicing in the occasion which it furnished to God's compassion and glad that it should be common knowledge to the universe...Perhaps the lost are those who dare not go into such a PUBLIC place."
C.S. Lewis "The Problem of Pain, Human Wickedness"
The opinions expressed in the Reader Comments are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms.
I've seen this film and, quite frankly, it's lame and obviously vindictive. This was obviously his move to lash back in anger at Larry. That having been said, I know Larry was not a perfect guy. Like any of us he had his flaws, but who on earth except for a scumbag takes aim at a brother after his death to smear his memory... especially when the family of the deceased is offended by it?
Furthermore, I am disgusted with Randy's involvement in this movie. Larry led Randy to the Lord and now, after Larry's death, Randy takes aim to essentially slander his bro in Christ while elevating himself. It's no wonder that Randy is the star commentator in Di Sabatino's film. Both of these guys are bitter and it came out in the wash!
Randy has done the same thing to Keith Green. I have personal friends that have hung with Randy and heard the crappy way he talks about everyone but himself as though he were the most godly among them all. I think this is one of the ways Randy deals with the fact that he's never enjoyed the same praise as guys like Norman or Green and, I think after participating in gigs like this, never will.
I've met Larry in person and hung out with the guy (and his mom). Awesome people! All I can say is that Di Sabatino and Randy Stonehill are the last people on earth that I would take their word for. They smeared a genuine brother in Christ and I can only pray God shows each of them mercy and heals their hearts.