|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Passion of the Christ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 03-07-2004 03:16 PM
I have mixed feelings about the movie, but overall a positive review. For the record, I am an agnostic Hindu who is skeptical of religion. I have defended even Scorsese's attempt at Last Temptation of Christ and even felt he wimped out a bit in that movie. And after seeing Passion, and then seeing Last Temptation on Bravo, I realize Martin Scorsese's version was not as good as I remembered it to be.
Havin said that, I have lots of respect for Gibson's attempt. This movie is made with a lot of passion and as a moviegoer , this is very important to me. I would rather see a flawed movie full of passion than some generic bland crap. That's why I am such a fan of Oliver Stone movies even if I am skeptical of some of his viewpoints.
My only nitpicks with Passion were the overuse of music, slo mo and quick camera movements in the first 20 minutes. Scenes like the throwing of coins in slo mo to Judas looked great in the trailer, but the style of that scene looked a bit contrived when you watch it in the movie itself. The arrest of Jesus had shades of Gladiator redux.
ANTI SEMITISM WHINING:
I hate to agree with the likes of Falwell, but I do not understand the fuss by Jewish leaders. They are really inviting more of a backlash with their protests instead of their whining about Gibson. The only anti Jewish issue I had was the softening of the Pilates character. But Gibson was following only what was preached to him before. I went to a catholic school for a few years and I don't remember Pilates as being portrayed significantly worse. Maybe Jewish leaders are afraid to break their political alliance with the far right and made Gibson the scapegoat. They should try to set the record straight as they see fit, but without trying to make it anti Passion protest. However one may view Pilates portrayal, it is balanced by the following
- Gibson does give screen time to the Pharisees who protest Yeshua's treatment.
-The Romans, not the mob of Jewish hecklers, are given a lot more closeups and screentime in terms of cruelly taunting and torturing Jesus.
- When the guy who helps Jesus move the cross is excused by the romans, he is taunted as "go away Jew" or something similar. Mel Gibson did not have to put this reference to the guy's jewishness. He could have just as easily ended that scene without the taunt by the Roman soldier. If anything, Mel has made it clear with his one scene that it was the power struggle of the Pharisees, not the Jewishness of the Pharisees that turned them against Jesus.
- There are people in the mob who are obviously Jewish. Is that any different from the English mob gathering to see William Wallace tortured to death in Braveheart? Is Gibson an Anti-English bigot? If you make a movie about Jesus, would you include Greeks in the mob just to make jewish leaders happy?
VIOLENCE: Maybe I am jaded. I didn't think the gore was gratuitous. The whole point of the movie was this - Jesus died for your sins voluntarily. If you can't even watch his sufferering, your pain is not even a fraction of the pain he endured first hand. The least you could do is at least experience that pain many levels off, to appreciate his sacrifice. Maybe, a lot of moderate christians are in denial and try to act embarassed by Gibson's use of violence. But if I were a believer, I would think that this use of violence is appropriate. The manner of the death and being saved by Jesus is the SINGLE MOST recruiting tool used by missionaries I have encountered. Whenever, someone tries to convert me, they make this an important point. It is better to sin and be saved , rather than follow all of Jesus's teachings , but not accept him as the son of god and that he died for your sins.
Mother and Son: I liked the fact that GIbson used Mary to portray a mother's grief and helplessness at having to see her song being tortured to death. Very well acted.
Shame on the New York Times for their coverage of this movie. The movie I saw bore no relation to the coverage by the Times. Their obvious bias even extended to neutral areas like predicting the box office of the movie. Just 2 or 3 days before release, they were predicting only 35-50M in the first weekend, while we all seemed to be aware that 100M in 5 days was a possibility. I wish Newmarket was public, because ever since December, I was predicting big things for this company(with Monster, Passion) this quarter and wished I could buy stock in their company.
Oh and I am aware that this movie could be used for the wrong reasons by right wingers like Falwell. But that should not be used against the movie. I do find it interesting that people like Falwell really don't give a damn about what they claim to be Jesus's teachings. They only care that you need to be saved. POLITICAL RANT ON: They are the same people who are all gungho about preemptive violence and whatever coverups it takes. Geez, I wonder what Jesus would do when it comes to influencing regime changes and lies justifying such actions(just to paraphrase some religious folk who like to use that slogan).
POLITICAL RANT OFF
While I was aware that Jesus was never the actual name, watching this movie just made me want to ask this question. How did the name Yeshua ever get morphed into Jesus ? It's not like Yeshua is such a hard name to pronounce. Why would someone decide to use another name to refer to him?
[ 03-07-2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Pravin Ratnam ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-07-2004 04:16 PM
Here's my take on the film, a few days after seeing it.
Screening: Carmike Cinemas, Screen #4 (THX), audio in DTS, 7:00pm showing, Tuesday 3/2.
First thought: What possessed so many parents to bring elementary school age kids to watch this movie? Are they on drugs or something? They must have taken some kind of "stupid pills" to expose children to this kind of violence and wanton cruelty. It really had me bothered.
Overall, I found the film to be a powerful statement about Christ's last 12 hours. That's all the film intended to be. It did not intend to tell the entire story of Christ's life. The film's title says what it is. Take it or leave it. IMHO, the film works more for those who are familiar with the story of Christ. There are a number of points in the movie not fully explained, and just merely implied with quick flashbacks and other such devices.
It is a pretty rare thing for me to be moved to tears by anything in a movie, and I really didn't expect to be watery eyed by this film either. However, I did find one point deeply moving. After Jesus was unmercifully flogged by the Roman soldiers, Mary and Mary Magdelene were on their hands and knees sponging up his blood off the stone floor of the courtyard. Mary thinks back to when she was on her hands and knees at Jesus' feet, when he saved her life. This is all the movie shows. But I found it to be a very powerful counterpoint. Mary sees the price Jesus paid in saving her life over her sins in prostitution. The priests wanted to stone her to death. The film did not have to have Jesus say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I imagined him saying it. Jesus was a man who had great love for all people and belived everyone was worth salvation. Whether or not you believe him to be the son of God, the guy did indeed have quite a lot of guts for standing up for his principals.
To be honest, I was expecting the movie to be more violent than it actually was. So, if anyone is avoiding the film over the violence, I have to say I have seen worse. Critics like Roger Ebert were calling it the most violent movie he has have ever seen. I was expecting a sustained, unrelenting ordeal. "The Passion of the Christ" is still not something I would allow any child under 13 to see even when accompanied by parents. The scene where Jesus is flogged, first with wood rods and then with cats of nine tails was certainly enough to warrant an NC-17 rating. That part of the movie really had me squirming. But the rest of it had violence no worse than a lot of R-rated movies I've seen. Films like "Man Bites Dog," "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and even "Schindler's List" I believe have more horrible levels of violence in them.
I cannot say I left the movie on any kind of "good movie high". The thing on my mind was how little mankind has learned in the 2000 years since Jesus' death. We have popular cultures that champion monetary greed, physical and psychological cruelty and sexual excess with cartoon superficiality. In the last century we have seen madmen like Hilter, Joeseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung butcher people by the millions. One could look at these occurences and call Jesus a fool for dying for our sins. We're not showing that we're worth the trouble. Even Satan told Jesus that. But leaders lead by example. Jesus showed us the real definition of honor. Stupid sheep will follow cruel people out of fear and give rise to dictators.
My complaint about the film:
CRAP CODE!!!
The film print of "The Passion of the Christ" I watched had some of the worst instances of cap code I have seen yet in a movie. The dots were tattooed on the screen in key parts of the film. When Pontius Pilate literally washed his hands of Jesus and handed him over to the mob, Crap Code was all over the screen. It was so bad that if you took snap shots of the 14 stations of the cross cap code would appear on all of them. It had me thinking of how Jack Valenti would look on a cross.
Passion Plays
Every year on Easter Weekend, the Lawton-Fort Sill area draws thousands of tourists to watch the Passion Play in the Wichita Mountains. The play is held in what is known as "The Holy City," a missionary built in the 1800's. I'm pretty curious to see what kind of effect "The Passion of the Christ" may have on attendance at this event as well as affecting any of the dramatic narrative in the program.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 03-08-2004 04:16 AM
Mr Martin is quite right. The first step was the transliteration of Yesshua into Greek in which the New Testament is written. Iessos, because the Greek language does not have a sh sound and because it was very customary to transliterate words with the respective grammatical gender ending, in this case -os for a male name. From there, it went into Latin Iesus, again because it felt more natural for Latin speakers to end his name with the typical -us for male names. The letter J was not used in classical Latin, and only came into use in the middle ages to represent originally a "Ye" or "Yi" sound. From there, it went on to be used in different ways in different languages, basically depending on how the letter J came to be used in each language. For instance, as in modern French and English where the J is pronounced as in, well "Jesus" for instance, in Spanish as the aspirated H, in German still as a Y-sound.
Correspondingly, "Christos", Greek for "the anointed" was accepted into Latin with the Latin ending "Christus" and is still used in that form in many languages. Why the ending was dropped in English, I don`t know.
About the violence - I also found the violence over the top. We only see Jesus beaten to pulp, he gets up and goes on time after time, but we do not feel any of his mental struggle to go on and on. That was thematized very well in "The Last Temptation", and even more so in the magnificent book by Nikos Kazantzakis after which the movie was made. Which reminds me, isn`t Jesus tempted by the devil on the cross one last time? Where was that in the movie?
quote:
and then seeing Last Temptation on Bravo
I didn`t catch that movie. That sounds like a Western...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mitchell Cope
Master Film Handler
Posts: 256
From: Overland Park, KS, United States
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-14-2004 08:38 AM
I think the reason this movie is so successful is because it rings true with Bible believing Christians. Mel Gibson did put his interpretation of the last twelve hours of Christ's life up on the screen. Martin Scorsese tried to do the same thing, but it was rejected by most, if not practically all, believers. It may be Mel's interpretation of the gospels, but it isn't going to fly if it is not close to the truth.
I heard Mel Gibson say if he was a painter, he would have done a painting. If you've been to any museums and galleries around the world, there are literally thousands of paintings on the suffering and crucifixion of Christ. Mel didn't just make this stuff up on his own. He also acknowledged the guidance of the Holy Spirit in making the movie. I think to show less suffering and torture would be to understate what we did to Christ. Would that be the truth?
The movie is difficult to watch because of the pain and suffering. It is not light entertainment. I thought the flashbacks were effective, but at the same time distracting to the continuity. I didn't think the earthquake in the temple looked real enough. The appearance of Satan in the garden is not scriptural, but very effective in showing what Jesus was about to do for us. I'm glad Mel put it in. I assume the baby Satan was carrying later was the anti-Christ. But who knows, it could have been you or me if Jesus had not died for us. Isn't that spooky? My biggest complaint was that not more time was spent on the resurrection of Christ. Maybe a sequel is in the works, though I understand Mel would like to do a movie about Abraham and Isaac.
As an aside, there's an inside joke in a Bible study group my wife and I go to. This movie is so successful, we understand that they're going to write a book about it. Like I said, inside humor. Hope you got it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays
Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 03-14-2004 04:00 PM
quote:
Believe me, after seeing this film, I have a MUCH better idea of the price that was paid.
This is it, entirely. People have been so desensitized to violence that it fails to impact them. Saying Jesus was tortured and crucified, or just reading the words, most people today will think, "Yeah, okay." But, seeing such events, accurately depicted, with your own two eyes DOES make you realize how horrific it must have been.
This picture is emotionally moving. THAT is why it is a good picture; it speaks to the audience on a more than superficial level. Certainly, to Christians.
The Bible says Jesus was beaten beyond recognition, so I think Mel Gibson set out to be authentic by depicting the devices in use at the time, which no doubt would have been the same used on Jesus, yielding the same results. Therefore, we can surmise that it is an accurate portrayal of the event... as accurate as possible with the information we have.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gracia L. Babbidge
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 709
From: Bowdoin, Maine
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-02-2004 10:45 AM
Out of morbid curiosity, I opted to watch this one, and for the record, I'm pagan. In my company for viewing this were my mother & my best pal. Also for the record, my pal is a fellow pagan, and my mother had been coerced to go to mass every Sunday as a child by her mother, but her father was half Blackfoot, and taught her about that spiritual path as well.
I'd call this one an example of a well-crafted film; yet not necessarily an entertaining film.
*Minor spoiler*
One thing that I found absurd was with the actual crucifixion in the film was showing the nails being driven through his palms. Yes yes, we've all been told that nails were driven through his hands as he was lying on the cross - and we've been told to take that as meaning the nails were driven through his palms. Reality check! The bones & tissue of the palm will not support the weight being placed on them in the process of crucifixion, the hands would tear ferociously, thus not remaining nailed in place. ![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
I seem to recall reading somewhere (maybe in a palmistry reference book), that in the distant past, in many places around the world, the wrist is considered to be part of the hand rather than part of the arm. I also remember discussing the methods Romans used to torture people in a history class, and the point was brought up that the Romans had a variety of ways of crucifying people, not all of which involved nails, some were simply tied up. Yet those that were nailed had the nails driven through their wrists, because the bones there are strong enough to support the weight that they must. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Ok ok ... it's a weird detail for me to harp on, but it's something that bugged me. ![[Shrug]](graemlins/shrug.gif)
*End minor spoiler*
My mom was rather teary-eyed through most of the scenes clearly showing Mary greiving, as those scenes were rather moving. My pal also got a little choked up at a few of those scenes as well. Me, being the 'hard-ass' that I'm told that I am, didn't shed a tear throughout the film.
My friend really only commented heavily on two aspects. The first being the brutality of the Romans depicted made her glad that she was living now, yet at the same time stated that even now, it does not necessarily take much to reduce civilized people to a barbaric mob. Then after a little reflection, she remarked that Lucifer / Satan was interestingly placed throughout the film, and could be interpreted in many ways at every point.
*Comments to follow that are not intended to offend anyone on a religious / spiritual level, but may do so*
So, all in all, after viewing the Passion of the Christ, my feelings about organized religion were validated. One can teach a beautiful message, some will be receptive to it, others will be afraid of it, a lot of it will not be remembered if there's no drama anywhere around it... and if there's an excessive amount of drama, those that follow the ones originally receptive to the beautiful message will eventually get too wrapped up in the the drama / pomp / circumstances around the secondary events, and miss the message.
Jesus - Emmanuel - Yeshua - however you want to refer to the man, was teaching a beautiful message, promoting peace, and love among all that live, and believed in his message with all his being. Yet at the time and place he existed, such a simple, spiritual idea was taken as a threat, as it undermined the acceptable form of control used to herd the masses like cattle - religion. Let some time go by, and more Christian know more details surrounding the birth and death of their Christ than they know details of the message he was teaching. ![[scream]](graemlins/scream.gif)
I did notice some flashes in the film where some of Yeshua's lovely message were shown, but the rest of the film overwhelmed those flashes, dooming them to be of little notice.
*ranting off*
Anywho - the cinema where I viewed the film was kind enough to have placed a box of tissues in the auditorium for those that got weepy watching the film.
...Even though they commandeered the projectionists' (tall) desk chair as the resting place for the tissue box...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Topic Closed
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
GO MEL! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic