The Passion of the Christ [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : The Passion of the Christ



IsmaVA
10-20-2004, 05:51 AM
Saw The Passion of the Christ yesterday . . .very, very sub-par movie, IMHO.

MG seems to have invested the whole movie on gore, not on the story it could have told. Almost nothing of the life and doings of Jesus is presented, relying mostly on the audience knowledge of the story to set this movie apart from any other gore-type movie.
I mean, I don’t mind blood as long as there is a plot behind it (alas Saving Private Ryan for example), but the Passion had only blood . . .the audience had to provide the plot.

If you change the name of Jesus to Bob, and the location to the Amazon, this whole movie could have just been a scene out of “Cannibal Holocaust” (http://www.cannibalholocaust.net/ ).

So, IMHO, this movie sucks . . .however, it made a lot of money for Mel Gibson. :-)

alumpkin
10-20-2004, 06:11 AM
Saw The Passion of the Christ yesterday . . .very, very sub-par movie, IMHO.

MG seems to have invested the whole movie on gore, not on the story it could have told. Almost nothing of the life and doings of Jesus is presented, relying mostly on the audience knowledge of the story to set this movie apart from any other gore-type movie.
I mean, I don’t mind blood as long as there is a plot behind it (alas Saving Private Ryan for example), but the Passion had only blood . . .the audience had to provide the plot.

If you change the name of Jesus to Bob, and the location to the Amazon, this whole movie could have just been a scene out of “Cannibal Holocaust” (http://www.cannibalholocaust.net/ ).

So, IMHO, this movie sucks . . .however, it made a lot of money for Mel Gibson. :-)

I totally disagree with you Ismava. Yes, the movie was bloody, but it did have a very significant story behind it. From my understanding from reviews and articles I have read (if I am wrong, proof please), this is very close if not exaclty what Jesus went through. What I liked about it was that for most of the movie, up until the end, it doesn't really get into Jesus being the son of God. It was implied, but I think this movie was focused more on Jesus as a person and this is the story of how he was tortured and crucified regardless if he really was the son of God. I really don't know if I can sit through the movie again, but I am glad that I saw it and thought is was a well done movie.

With regard to the audience providing the plot, I agree with you and I think that was Mel Gibson's plan... and a good one at that. The public can watch this movie assuming two different plots: 1. Jesus is the son of God, look how the Jews treated him and what happened to him, and it was great to see the resurection at the end. OR 2. Jesus is not the son of God and looked what the Jews did this man. I doubt many people, if any, went into the movie without one of the two above thoughts. After all, think if Mel Gibson had worked to portray Jesus as the son of God or not... the movie might have been more criticized and not as well received. This movie focuses on Jesus as a man and the trials and tribulations that he suffered. I also felt that since there is not a large, fast paced moving plot it makes the movie more powerful because you are forced to sit through and watch everything that happened.

Of course, like any movie, everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it.

IsmaVA
10-20-2004, 06:29 AM
I totally disagree with you Ismava. Yes, the movie was bloody, but it did have a very significant story behind it. From my understanding from reviews and articles I have read (if I am wrong, proof please), this is very close if not exaclty what Jesus went through. What I liked about it was that for most of the movie, up until the end, it doesn't really get into Jesus being the son of God. It was implied, but I think this movie was focused more on Jesus as a person and this is the story of how he was tortured and crucified regardless if he really was the son of God. I really don't know if I can sit through the movie again, but I am glad that I saw it and thought is was a well done movie.

Yes, it had a significant story behind it, but not presented by the movie. It is like showing the Omaha Beach scene of SPR, and nothing else.

About the reality of the movie, well . . .nobody knows for sure what happened to Jesus, and everything is according to which version you are talking about, so I am not really sure about that one.

Like I said, for me, the movie presented nothing worthy of thought, no new take on Jesus, no meaningfull insight, nothing . . .I mean, besides the very bloddy viacruxis.


With regard to the audience providing the plot, I agree with you and I think that was Mel Gibson's plan... and a good one at that. The public can watch this movie assuming two different plots: 1. Jesus is the son of God, look how the Jews treated him and what happened to him, and it was great to see the resurection at the end. OR 2. Jesus is not the son of God and looked what the Jews did this man. I doubt many people, if any, went into the movie without one of the two above thoughts. After all, think if Mel Gibson had worked to portray Jesus as the son of God or not... the movie might have been more criticized and not as well received. This movie focuses on Jesus as a man and the trials and tribulations that he suffered. I also felt that since there is not a large, fast paced moving plot it makes the movie more powerful because you are forced to sit through and watch everything that happened.

I don't even get to that part of Jesusu being God's son (or not). My problem is that the movie presents a very "sillouetted" version of Jesus. The movie could have been the story of anybody, since nothing is presented of WHO Jesus was, and what he did.

The only character that presented a notion of depth was that of Poncious . . .

Besides, how can you say that the movie focus on Jesus as a man, when nothing of his life, actions, or teachings was presented?

Like I said, this movie is just a scene from a "Holocaust Cannibal"-like movie. Man is caught, man is torture, man is crucified. . .visually shocking and emphaty inducing, but not really a story.



Of course, like any movie, everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it.

That is true . . . :-)

Kam
10-20-2004, 09:02 AM
"The movie could have been the story of anybody, since nothing is presented of WHO Jesus was, and what he did."

While in time length terms, not much was presented about who jesus was other than a few flashbacks, all you see is what happens to him during the torture. But i personally believe a GREAT deal is shown about him in the way that he endures and forgives. i know no one who would ask God to forgive the people doing what those people did to Jesus AS they are doing it to him. So it is not a story of anybody, because anybody would not have reacted that way. The reactions of any character in any situation is what defines that character. Here we see Jesus' reactions to the most trying of tribulations. To me, that speaks far more about character than anything else could.

Also, MG relying on the audience to provide the entire backstory is simply a storytelling plot device. it is relied upon by many directors in many ways, he is able to take it to an extreme level because of the rather widely known distribution of the back story he is relying on. In one pan around a room, hitchcock gives us the entire character and backstory of Stewart's character in Rear Window, using the audience to create the entire back story taken from just a few pictures and items we see, then he begins to tell us the 'important' part of the story. MG does the samething.

But i agree with alumpkin, this was a one time viewing movie for me. And i agree with Southpark, better to focus on the teachings and beauty and generosity of someone's life, rather than how those are exemplified in their death. Also just like Dragon: THe Bruce Lee story and the ending voice over, why focus solely on the controversial death when there is so much of a beautiful life to look at. just a few penny thoughts.

peace
k2
ps. alumpkin - this saturday... showdown... 'canes and wolfpack!!!!

alumpkin
10-20-2004, 11:54 AM
ps. alumpkin - this saturday... showdown... 'canes and wolfpack!

Oh yes and I will be there to see it. Just found out yesterday that I got tickets through a friend. I can't believe the spread right now is Miami -7.5... it seems a little low, should be more. But of course it doesn't matter cause Miami is going down no matter what the spread is!!!!!! :D

Or at least I hope. :rolleyes:

Kam
10-20-2004, 01:28 PM
Oh yes and I will be there to see it. Just found out yesterday that I got tickets through a friend. I can't believe the spread right now is Miami -7.5... it seems a little low, should be more. But of course it doesn't matter cause Miami is going down no matter what the spread is!!!!!! :D

Or at least I hope. :rolleyes:
that's awesome! i haven't been to a college game in years! will bea great atmosphere, especially with the Gameday crew there at Carter-finley! lemme know how my boys looked in person! always different seeing it live vs. TV, i remember seeing guys like warrick dunn and charlie ward live at the orange bowl, and watching ray lewis, armstead, najeh davenport, kenard lang, and even playing bball with Warren Sapp!! you can really appreciate the level of athletes these guys are, very impressive...

louisville exposed the weakness in miamis defense, that damn man under coverage leaves gaping holes if you can exploit them, with a running/receiving back like mcclendon, the wolfpack could exploit it, keeping him in to block with a delayed release, slip him under for potentially big gains. and the miami offense is so hit-or-miss, i can see why the spread is so low. .. but it won't matter, since they'll pull out the victory over the wolfpack ;)
at least they better!
my upset specials though are big ones, Arkansas over Uga and Cumbie to light it up over TX at home. and not sure if its an upset special or just malice, but hoping for BC over ND.

speaking of passion, am sure the big JC is a 'canes fan, and not the blasphemous ND who dares call his likeness "touchdown jesus" in their stadium. although it was the "Hail Mary" that is one of the greatest plays in college football AGAINST the 'canes... still.. it's a 'cane thing.. hehe

IsmaVA
10-21-2004, 05:09 AM
"The movie could have been the story of anybody, since nothing is presented of WHO Jesus was, and what he did."

While in time length terms, not much was presented about who jesus was other than a few flashbacks, all you see is what happens to him during the torture. But i personally believe a GREAT deal is shown about him in the way that he endures and forgives. i know no one who would ask God to forgive the people doing what those people did to Jesus AS they are doing it to him. So it is not a story of anybody, because anybody would not have reacted that way. The reactions of any character in any situation is what defines that character. Here we see Jesus' reactions to the most trying of tribulations. To me, that speaks far more about character than anything else could.

Kam, it is a movie . . .you can have a character say and do whatever you want.

The only thing we see about Jesus in that movie is that he endured a lot of pain in those last hours, nothing more . . .for all we know he could have been just a masoquistic loony.


"Also, MG relying on the audience to provide the entire backstory is simply a storytelling plot device. it is relied upon by many directors in many ways, he is able to take it to an extreme level because of the rather widely known distribution of the back story he is relying on. In one pan around a room, hitchcock gives us the entire character and backstory of Stewart's character in Rear Window, using the audience to create the entire back story taken from just a few pictures and items we see, then he begins to tell us the 'important' part of the story. MG does the samething.[/QUOTE}

With TPOTC Mr.Gibson does not rely on the audience to provide the backstory . . the audience provides the WHOLE story.

All in all this movie did not provide any new insight on Jesus, what he did or why he did it . . .all it did was provide a lot of blood to a well known story . . .


[QUOTE=Kam]"But i agree with alumpkin, this was a one time viewing movie for me. And i agree with Southpark, better to focus on the teachings and beauty and generosity of someone's life, rather than how those are exemplified in their death. Also just like Dragon: THe Bruce Lee story and the ending voice over, why focus solely on the controversial death when there is so much of a beautiful life to look at. just a few penny thoughts.



yeap . . . .

Bryan
10-21-2004, 06:09 AM
"MG seems to have invested the whole movie on gore, not on the story it could have told. Almost nothing of the life and doings of Jesus is presented, relying mostly on the audience knowledge of the story to set this movie apart from any other gore-type movie.
I mean, I don’t mind blood as long as there is a plot behind it (alas Saving Private Ryan for example), but the Passion had only blood . . .the audience had to provide the plot."

You missed the whole point. Gibson wasn't trying to show the life of Christ. He said there were many other movies out there which have done an excellent job of that. The movie wasn't about the life of Christ but the suffering He willingly went through.

"About the reality of the movie, well . . .nobody knows for sure what happened to Jesus, and everything is according to which version you are talking about, so I am not really sure about that one."

For that matter, no one knows for certain what criminals who lived during the rule of the Roman Empire went through now, do they? Yet history and archeologists provide us with this information. They show us what tools were used and how the punishment was performed. They let us know how people were beaten yet lived only to have their torture prolonged further. This is where the phrase "Beaten half to death" came into being.

Of course, your whole point to this is you thought it was a mediocre film when you saw it in a private viewing (i.e. your home). This wasn't meant to be a blockbuster movie or popcorn flick. It wasn't made so people would see another movie about the life of Christ. It was all about the suffering. The flashbacks provide relief from endless viewing of torture and serve the purpose of showing us more of His humanity. In an audience showing you could hear a pin drop. You could hear the people crying and emotionally connecting, finally getting a realistic glimpse of what He went through.

A lot depends upon your mindset and what you expected to see. A person going in with the mindset of "He went through this for me" will have a much different reaction than a person watching it thinking "Let's see what the hype is all about."

It pretty much is a one time viewing. I can not imagine anyone wanting to watch an enjoyable movie to escape the pressures and realities of everyday life wanting to watch TPOTC. Showing it in the original languages added a deeper layer of authenticity to it.

What was your point of view going in? What were you expecting to see when you watched the movie? Unless you were completely ignorant you knew what to expect going into it. You read the reviews. Odds are you saw what people said about it. A lot of blood, violence, and torture. That is what those who didn't get the movie saw. Those who got it saw what their personal Savior willingly did and went through for them to pay for their debt of sin. Two completely different points of view with two completely results. The audience factoring in in the equation for they provide another environment. The silence, the laughter. the tears, the open weeping, and the joy of seeing the open tomb for that is all that is needed at the end.

From that perspective Gibson accomplished what he set out to do.

IsmaVA
10-21-2004, 12:18 PM
"MG seems to have invested the whole movie on gore, not on the story it could have told. Almost nothing of the life and doings of Jesus is presented, relying mostly on the audience knowledge of the story to set this movie apart from any other gore-type movie.
I mean, I don?t mind blood as long as there is a plot behind it (alas Saving Private Ryan for example), but the Passion had only blood . . .the audience had to provide the plot."

You missed the whole point. Gibson wasn't trying to show the life of Christ. He said there were many other movies out there which have done an excellent job of that. The movie wasn't about the life of Christ but the suffering He willingly went through.

I understand what the intention was and I agree with you in that MG did do what he set out to do with the movie. . . however, my point was not really that it was a mediocre movie, but that it was not the profoundly moving experience as it was describe almost everywere.


""About the reality of the movie, well . . .nobody knows for sure what happened to Jesus, and everything is according to which version you are talking about, so I am not really sure about that one."

For that matter, no one knows for certain what criminals who lived during the rule of the Roman Empire went through now, do they? Yet history and archeologists provide us with this information. They show us what tools were used and how the punishment was performed. They let us know how people were beaten yet lived only to have their torture prolonged further. This is where the phrase "Beaten half to death" came into being.

My friend, one things is to GUESS what must have been LIKE some 2,000 years ago . . another one to implied that anybody could KNOW what a SPECIFIC individual went experienced.


"Of course, your whole point to this is you thought it was a mediocre film when you saw it in a private viewing (i.e. your home). This wasn't meant to be a blockbuster movie or popcorn flick. It wasn't made so people would see another movie about the life of Christ. It was all about the suffering. The flashbacks provide relief from endless viewing of torture and serve the purpose of showing us more of His humanity. In an audience showing you could hear a pin drop. You could hear the people crying and emotionally connecting, finally getting a realistic glimpse of what He went through.

A lot depends upon your mindset and what you expected to see. A person going in with the mindset of "He went through this for me" will have a much different reaction than a person watching it thinking "Let's see what the hype is all about."

LIke I said, I didn't really consider it mediocre, but I agree completely with you POV argument . . .


"It pretty much is a one time viewing. I can not imagine anyone wanting to watch an enjoyable movie to escape the pressures and realities of everyday life wanting to watch TPOTC. Showing it in the original languages added a deeper layer of authenticity to it.

I agree with this argument also . . .I really do not see a reason why anybody would like to see that movie, besides, you know, just because there was such a big fuss over it.


"What was your point of view going in? What were you expecting to see when you watched the movie? Unless you were completely ignorant you knew what to expect going into it. You read the reviews. Odds are you saw what people said about it. A lot of blood, violence, and torture. That is what those who didn't get the movie saw. Those who got it saw what their personal Savior willingly did and went through for them to pay for their debt of sin. Two completely different points of view with two completely results. The audience factoring in in the equation for they provide another environment. The silence, the laughter. the tears, the open weeping, and the joy of seeing the open tomb for that is all that is needed at the end.

That is exactly was I was expecting from this movie . . a moving experience . . .watching something that would made me realize something . . .it didn't do it for me . . .

However, I do admit that the popular reaction contradicts my experience, but these days that is not really that convincing.


"From that perspective Gibson accomplished what he set out to do.

And that is absolutely the truth . . .:-)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-02-2004, 11:12 AM
"The movie could have been the story of anybody, since nothing is presented of WHO Jesus was, and what he did."

While in time length terms, not much was presented about who jesus was other than a few flashbacks, all you see is what happens to him during the torture. But i personally believe a GREAT deal is shown about him in the way that he endures and forgives. i know no one who would ask God to forgive the people doing what those people did to Jesus AS they are doing it to him. So it is not a story of anybody, because anybody would not have reacted that way. The reactions of any character in any situation is what defines that character. Here we see Jesus' reactions to the most trying of tribulations. To me, that speaks far more about character than anything else could.

Also, MG relying on the audience to provide the entire backstory is simply a storytelling plot device. it is relied upon by many directors in many ways, he is able to take it to an extreme level because of the rather widely known distribution of the back story he is relying on. In one pan around a room, hitchcock gives us the entire character and backstory of Stewart's character in Rear Window, using the audience to create the entire back story taken from just a few pictures and items we see, then he begins to tell us the 'important' part of the story. MG does the samething.

But i agree with alumpkin, this was a one time viewing movie for me. And i agree with Southpark, better to focus on the teachings and beauty and generosity of someone's life, rather than how those are exemplified in their death. Also just like Dragon: THe Bruce Lee story and the ending voice over, why focus solely on the controversial death when there is so much of a beautiful life to look at. just a few penny thoughts.

peace
k2
ps. alumpkin - this saturday... showdown... 'canes and wolfpack!!!!

Sounds like this young man has a film school edumacation!!!