Mel Gibson's "The Passion"

[celestialmind]

So this movie's provoking quite a bit of controversy. Wondering what ACer's have to say about the whole thing. Maybe nobody gives a hoot either way!



Check out this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/3143595.stm


Here's a link for more info on the movie for those who haven't any idea what I'm talking about:

http://www.thezreview.co.uk/comingso...assionthe.shtm


Annie

[Delsol]

I am looking forward to seeing this film very much; may even go into an actual theater for it – something I haven’t done since 1998. Any film about the life of Jesus always seems to create controversy. I try not listen to it. No one alive today was actually there when Christ lived or died, so any version of events that happened are someone’s interpretation at best. My only reflective thought is it’s a bit of a shame when any movie maker is forced to alter a film due to public reaction. I mean – it’s JUST a film. Isn’t it amazing how even after all these years, a man who only lived to the age of 33 can still create such hoopla?

Are you going to see it, Annie?

[goldenmyst]

I am intrigued by it! I loved "Last Tempation of Christ". I read the book and saw the movie. However, I find the fact, which I didn't know, that the Gibson movie was altered to please the public a fatal flaw in my interest. I don't watch censored movies whether that be for nudity, religious ideas, or anything. To me when you alter a movie against the vision of the artist to please puritanical interest the movie is destroyed.

I'll wait till when they come out with an unedited version on video.

John

[Joe]

Eh... no interest in the topic even when it was current events. Plus my Aramaic and Latin are too rusty.

No one alive today was actually there when Christ lived or died, so any version of events that happened are someone’s interpretation at best.

*tilts head with confused look and walks out*

[celestialmind]

I think Del brings up a good point. Who, of any us alive now, was alive way back when? Who has the right to accuse another of relaying innacurate information, especially when none of us has firsthand experience with which to do so? I don't know anyone that would be able to run up to Gibson and say "Mel, you're making Jewish people look bad because you're distorting the truth. I should know because just the other day I was talking to Jesus (or God or John the Baptist) and he told me to tell you that."

Not to discredit the bible or any other religious text that many people hold dear to their hearts, but all any of them really qualify as(in my agnostic opinion) are interpretations of what someone claims really happened. Other humans interpretated what they experienced to the best of their abilities. Not to say that they all suck and hold no truth. In my opinion whether they are accurate or not is irrelevant. They are interpretations, true or not. Isn't that sort of what you were getting at, Del?

People get all riled up and freak out without remembering that in spite of common sources(i.e. the bible, quran, whatever, etc.) that we (Catholics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whoever, etc.)can refer back to in an attempt to justify truth, variation in the opinion of one person from another is not unusual. I don't think it should be looked down on either. If you believe something is true than believe in it and let others believe what they want as well. Why do people always freak out if not everyone agrees with them? SHeesh!

Thanks for your replies, my friends.

Annie

[Beki]

well I saw it monday night and I thin it is a brilliant piece of filmmaking. Granted, my own faith makes it absolute truth forme, but even if you take away the religious importance of the subject, and look at it simply as art, it is nothing less than brilliant ( I am a film addict - own over 700 movies - and only a handful have I ever called brilliant). Artistically Mel Gibson used some very effective devices. He shows aspects of this traditional story that other filmmakers have all missed, like for instance, that first, beyond who they were in the bigger scope of things, Jesus and Mary were a mother and son who loved each other as any mother and son would. That is abundantly clear in this film. I am not CAtholic,and MelGibson did usesome Catholic traditions in telling his story, but that didn't bother me at all. ANother thing it does more successfully than any other Jesus movie I have seen is show how truly political it all was. If that makes the Jewish people appear in abad light well,my response to that is facts are facts ( most religious faiths from that part of the world agree that Jesus lived and was at least a great prophet/teacher, and that is supported historically - they only differ on his divinity), it makes THOSE Jewish people look bad, not ALL Jewish people ( do we think all Germans are bad because Hitler was? I don't think so)And John, the only thing he altered was including subtitles, which I don't mind, I didn't find them or the Aramaic distracting. I never felt the need for them as I know the story so well I could have supplied them word for word myself, but many will see this movie who do NOT know the story and by his own admission he made themovie for non belivers, so it is necessary for them to understand what is going on. I think the poetic liscence you speak of that I saw in evidence only served to make the film stronger as a piece of art. My roommate and i could not stop talking about it for hours after we got home.For those of you considering seeing it - it IS very graphic, and it IS extremely intense, beginningto end with no relief - but very worth seeing!

[Jessie]

You know... I didn't know about this movie before last night and I still don't know what it's about. All I do know is that they were giving out free tickets to it like crazy at the college.

[Yalith]

I hope to get a chance to see this movie. I am amazed that the people are actually speaking Aramaic. That language is nearly dead.

I give Mel kudos for not sugar-coating the story. Honestly, the event of crucifixion (any crucifixion, not just Jesus' crucifixion) is very bloody and violent. Over time, people have Victorian-ized the whole scene, painting pretty pictures of Jesus on the cross.

In some countries (I think Cuba may be one) they do a re-enactment, where people actually get their hands nailed to a cross, and the cross is lifted to upright. I saw footage of one, and oh my word, it was just gross.

I can't say I will make it through the entire movie, because my tolerance for violence of that sort is very low. But I will go see it when time and money become available.

[Brittney L]

I'm looking very forward to seeing this film. I might go tonight if I get the chance.

Everyone saying it's quite accurate, except the nails in Jesus' hands (They were actually in his wrists). But other than that the accounts are right on, it seems.

I'm really glad to see so many here intrigued in it.
It's a shame that all of this controversy is sparking out of a movie about Jesus. I hate times like these.

I will post more about it when I see it.

[Yalith]

Jesus has always been one to spark controversy.
So I'm not really surprised.

[monkey boy]

not interested I guess.

nothing against Jesus of Nazareth - if more people behaved in a Christ-like
manner (and I don't mean Christian), this
old world would be a much better place.

mb

[Beki]

AS A VERY COMMITTED CHRISTIAN, MB, I FIND THAT COMMENT JUST A LITTLE OFFENSIVE...BUT I'LL LET IT PASS...NO, I AM NOT SHOUTING, COMPUTER LOCKED ON CAPS AT WORK)

BEEN READING REVIEWS ALL MORNING AND i HAVE TO CONFESS THEY MAKE ME VERY ANGRY...THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO APPLAUD MOVIES TARANTINO MOVIES AND GIVE OSCARS TO SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - UNBELIEVABLE

[paquerette]

As a big fan of "Silence of the Lambs," I find that comment a little offensive...

[penpainter]

Saw the first show in Manchester.

...maybe a quarter of a cinema...

Funny how full the back was!

Sat dead center, five rows from the front.

Was SO glad to see someone take the fairy-tale aura out of the event!

Called my Dad after. Reverend Dad. Told him no to expect the rush he got after The Exorsist, but that it was extemely graphic and some might approach him on that level.

Having read the Bible thoughout my life (went the tenth grade at a school where classes included study of the entire Bible and read it, front to back, nine times between the fall of '97 and the summer of '98) i was most interested in whether the story there was followed, and i could not see where poetic license had varied to any 'provable' degree...just a few scenes aparently created for added impact.

All in all i would give it two thumbs up for depicting a glamified story in a realistic way, and warn those with weak stomaches not to view it. At points during the movie i actually felt disgusted to be part of the race, not because Jesus was a prophet, but just the horrors of the brutalities we are capable of...

I don't know what was changed to appease folk, but the movie did not seem lacking, or, for that matter, over-done, even in the gore sector.

[Beki]

I think silence of the lambs is a very good movie, Hannibal even better, so is pulp fiction but none are oscar material...the point though is that these reviewers applaud nmovies with extreme violence simply fo rthe sake of violence while putting down a movie for depicting accurately what happened historically - crucifixtion was very real, so was scourging with cat o nine tails laced with nails.And the truth is Mel Gibson probably toned down the violence some because the roman soldiers were brutal angry people for the most part who hated being assigned to what they considered the armpit of the empire. So I do not understand how the reviewers could complain about the violence, that's all.