Are you ready?the Passion thread

[GrendelZ]

I know this is going to be a hot movie,either for or against everyone will have an opinion on this movie.I personally cannot wait to see it.Just watched the Diane Sawer interview with Mel Gibson and I belive its one of the boldest moves in a long time.We shall see.

[GrendelZ]

You cant honestly tell me that no one has an opinion on this.

[Troy]

I'd really need to see it before I can form an opinion on it.

I AM tired of the hype surrounding it and wonder if it's as offensive as so many people claim it is.

I recall Scorsese's Jesus flick not being nearly as offensive as the fundamentalists that picketed it (without actually seeing it) made it out to be.

Religeous controversy should not be depicted as mass entertainment. It's just too loaded and issue and too easy for people too close to it to mistake the movie as fact rather than fictional entertainment. Gibson does come accross as a humorless zealot fanatic in interviews about this project. When you make a movie that is overshadowed by your "agenda", it quickly loses it's entertainment value. If you have the urge to send a message, use Western Union, not the local cineplex.

It all depends on one's religeous beliefs. Personally, I find Jesus movies rather dull and predictable.

[jack70]

I belive its one of the boldest moves in a long time.

I see very few "new" movies these days... just too many "older" film classics to catch up on. But this movie doesn't interest me much anyway, even if it's as well made as it seems to be. PS: I wouldn't call it “bold,” at least not in the artistic sense. "Bold" would be if it showed Jesus as the leader of an outlaw group of 12 gay outcasts (a non-mainstream view... but a view held by some non-the-less).

If you wanna see a similarly themed film, that has much more to offer, watch the 50's version of Ben Hur. It's easily one of the best films ever made IMHO. It has action, suffering, revenge, justice, beauty, nature, spirituality, perseverance... all great/classic themes, and all in one film... and yes, even Jesus has a cameo in it!

Perhaps you could call it "bold" because of all the roadblocks and opposition Mel got from the media elite (suits) that forced him to bankroll tens of millions of his own cash in order to do it. That is symptomatic of what many people like myself find so troubling about Hollywood in general -- their self-expressed “liberal” (open to all) views, touting "freedom of expression," but which is hypocritical to certain views they find distasteful.

Religeous controversy should not be depicted as mass entertainment. It's just too loaded and issue and too easy for people too close to it to mistake the movie as fact rather than fictional entertainment.

This is a complicated issue, and I have/see views on both sides of your statement. I just don't see why religion should be marginalized (out of) film, where all manner of other themes & things, like gratuitous violence & sex are the norm. I don't see, if you're making judgements (and you are), you can make that one. What's so special about "religious controvery" to exclude it from mass entertainment? (most would argue this IS NOT controversial anyway... the "controvery" aspect is more a marketing scam taken up by the media). If you don't wanna see it fine, but don't say he shouldn't use film to communicate an emotional idea to the audience through entertainment. (PS, I'm not gonna see it either).

Gibson does come accross as a humorless zealot fanatic in interviews about this project.

I thought he was thoughtful and serious, and hardly humorless. What did he say that was "fanatical?" "Zealot" is also a loaded term that I didn't see any evidence of (did I miss him saying "kill all the Jews" or something?). He wasn't degrading or marginalizing others... he was just offering up his view (new testament really) in the marketplace of artistic ideas... take it or leave it.

I’m not religious, but I find absolutely nothing about the film that should scare, frighten or trouble anyone. Are some afraid it might convert a few to Christianity? I’m not religious... but I don’t get that at all. So what if it does? I'm closer to atheist than anything, but I have absolutley no negative feelings when I see people going to church. In fact, it scares me to think how most of 'em would act if they DIDN'T believe in a higher power.

The anti-Jew "controversy" here is without foundation. The same people who would prohibit the film because it might give someone ammunition in their anti-Semite views, don't seem to speak up about certain Islamic sects where Jew-hating is part of their doctrine. Better they should worry about REAL discrimination & resentment of Jews in Europe today (burnings of Synagogues). The whole anti-Jew aspect of this is a straw dog IMO.

BTW, the clips I've seen show this film as VERY violent. They've really overdone the blood thing to the point of almost satire IMO. That aspect may give others a more "reality" basis for the story, but to me (anyway) it looks overdone, false and hokey.(but gimme a break here... I reserve that comment since I ain't seen the whole film). Great film directors knew that NOT showing too much is more effective than throwing stuff in your face, whether it's romance (grutuitous sex), violence (Hitchcock teased you with it, which was MORE effective), or even comedy (Laural & Hardy falling down out-of-the-frame was way funnier than on-screen. Less, is usually better, and more effective... but today's culture is more "in-your-face" and heavyhanded... and less artistic IMO. I DO like Mel Gibson though. He surrounds himself with talented people and has a good eye. I look forward to his future works.

[Crunchyriff]

I would say that from the clips I've seen thus far, 'overly violent' is not accurate. Quite the contrary, though Gibson did "tone-down" the realism factor, so as to not make it too much for the viewer to bear.

Lets face it, Jesus was reduced to human rubble before being hung on the cross. Many medical studies have been done on this very subject: and the beating, crown of thorns being mashed on His head, and 39 lashes with a whip tipped with shards of bone, glass and pottery; makes for a very un-tidy appearance, to be quite frank. The flaggellation ripped much skin and tissue off of his body, and certain internal organs were probably partially exposed.

Imagine the gusher you can see when somebody merely gets a bloody nose. We have ssen tidy, easily stomached portrayals before for the sake of familyTV and censors- today we have as close to the real thing as you can get.

It ain't pretty, is it?

IMHO to have The Messiah protrayed as the leader of 12 homosexual men is asinine, blasphemous, and is about what I'd expect out of a certain percentage of this generation's mindset.

[jack70]

I would say that from the clips I've seen thus far, 'overly violent' is not accurate. Quite the contrary, though Gibson did "tone-down" the realism factor, so as to not make it too much for the viewer to bear... Lets face it, Jesus was reduced to human rubble before being hung on the cross.

I watch a lot of political-talk shows, and this film has been talked about on most all of em. One of them showed a clip that was quite a bit more intense than the others, probably because "the others" made the decision that that intensity was the reason this film got the "R" rating, and didn't want to show too much on primetime TV.

Yes, I've worked in medical emergency situations and I've seen some pretty awful things. The thing that Gibson wanted to do was make the viewer feel the pain Jesus was subject to... I think one of the most effective ways he had to do that was visually, through (moocho) blood, because that's something most people don't see that much. It evokes a visceral response. I don't dispute the real physical effects from being crucified, but if that torture was TOO intense, the person would collapse from shock, unconscience. The same would occur if too much blood was lost. I'm sure that many DID collapse, and were then nailed to their crosses unconscious. The clip I saw just looked too overdone... it looked like the movie Carrie... like they painted on & splashed blood in areas of his body that would never realistically have blood on them. I admit, it's just an impression since I haven't seen the film.

I understand what Gibson was doing for emotional impact, but it was a little TOO over the top IMO (from a strict medical basis). Whatever though... it obviously moved those who HAVE seen it to very emotional responses. Of course, most of those viewers are already disposed to the message of Jesus as son-of-God, which contributes to their emotional response.

IMHO to have The Messiah protrayed as the leader of 12 homosexual men is asinine, blasphemous, and is about what I'd expect out of a certain percentage of this generation's mindset

Well, you should know that THAT belief IS out there. I only brought it up to compare/illustrate what was called "BOLD." Can you imagine the public hoopla that would happen if this film had THAT as a plot?

Yeah, it's blasphemous... but not altogether "asinine." If you know the (sick) history of the Popes in medieval times (let alone today's priests), the way the gospels were secretly edited by the religious elites for centuries in medieval times, the scarcity of unbiased historical records from that era... it's not that much of a stretch. True believers... they aren't going to see it that way, anymore than Islamists or Jews are going to deviate from what they hold to be their "word of God."