Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Forum Regular GrendelZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    23

    Are you ready?the Passion thread

    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.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular GrendelZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    23

    ???

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

  3. #3
    Close 'n Play® user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    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.

  4. #4
    Forum Regular jack70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    202

    mel & jesus

    Quote Originally Posted by GrendelZ
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    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).


    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    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.
    You don't know... jack

  5. #5
    Forum Regular Crunchyriff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    33
    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.

  6. #6
    Forum Regular jack70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    202

    blasphemous... but not altogether asinine

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Crunchyriff
    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."
    You don't know... jack

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    34
    im going to see the movie this friday night. Being a christian,i probably have a different mind set going in this movie. ive seen some of mel gibsons interviews and dont see what all the hype is about. he simply is trying to put on film of his interpretation of the bibles accounts of what happened, and the significance of Jesus being crucified on the cross.

    for the record, im not sure what im getting into here as my wife saw the movie 2-3 months ago at a special showing for church youth leaders. i didnt ask alot as i hate to spoil a movie im about to see. the interesting thing is that of the several hundred people who saw it, when it was over, everyone was crying from extreme sobbing to wet eyes, or they just kind of stood around in shock. i thought that is a pretty strong reaction to a movie that is spoken in a language most will not understand, with subtitles only.i have a hard time getting fired up for movies with only subtitles. granted , the people viewing this were youth leaders from accross the country so it would be safe to say that the audience was made up of mostly believers. which will be different than a mixed audience. i hope some of you go see it, so you can draw your own conclusion to this movie.

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    515
    All indications are Gibson is trying to convey to the audience what we would have seen had we been there 2,000 years ago. That would be violent and close to grotesque. He is trying to convey the suffering Christ went through, even though he does take some artistic license with it. From what I've read, many people who have seen this have walked out of the movie with tears in their eyes. No noise is made in the theater during the film. However, do yourself and everyone else a favor. Leave the kids at home and if you do not think you can take what will be shown stay home yourself or see another film. The film is violent but necessarily so. Most negative reviews focus on the voilent rather than the film as a whole. I will see exactly what it is like tonight.

  9. #9
    Forum Regular GrendelZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    23

    Not that bad

    O.K. saw it Friday and I have to say its not as bad as everyone makes it out to be.Sure there is violence but they did beat him almost to death and then hung him on a cross.The movie is beautifully shot and has a nonstop pace,I especially like the flashbacks,kind of a different take to see what he may have been thinking.I also thought the scenes with the evil influence were a nice touch,especially with Judas being tormented.

    All in all a good film,not the monumental breakthrough in filmmaking some are making it out to be,I enjoyed it as much as you can while watching torture and death.The performances were especially strong.

  10. #10
    Kam
    Kam is offline
    filet - o - fish Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,770

    my review.

    It's tough to break a review up of this film for its artistic merits alone without some comments on religion. From my own opinion, i didn't think the story was anti-semitic at all. In the same way that the story of moses shouldn't be considered anti-egyptian, so the story of jesus isn't anti-semitic. jesus came into an area where there was an established power structure and he disrupted it, the ones at the top resented this disruption and to preserve their own power, killed him. Same exact scenario with moses, the area he came into had an established power stucture that he disrupted and the pharoah wanted him dead as well.

    On an artistic stand point, however, the film is beautiful. I don't think there was a single scene NOT packed with emotion. Everything was incredibly powerful and, to me, at least, very moving. It never let up from the opening scenes onwards. And from what i have read and my catholic-raised friends that saw it with me (i am not catholic) it is very true to the original text of the gospels down to what was said between everyone. The portrayal of satan was very haunting and the actress that pulled it off was great in the roll.

    The critiques i have read about it being overly violent are asinine in my opinion. When other directors can never explode enough buildings or drop enough bullets or have enough guns in their movies or kill enough people, to show a story accurate to an ancient text where the death count is 3 (and then technically just 2), is not overly violent imo. Texts indicate he was whipped with a whip lashed with glass/bones/etc. To see what that can do to the human body, and to see his response of forgiveness,... there is no other way to have it impact an audience but to show it happen, imo. When you think about how pissed you get (or at least how pissed i get) when someone cuts me off in traffic, and then think how jesus forgave the people who crucified him... well... its food for thought at least.

    On a performance stand point, the emotion that came through everyone was amazing as well, especially given the fact they were speaking two dead languages and still able to convey such emotion. There is a very visceral impact to the beating that the romans give him and it really hits home (again) how cruelty and hatred can live in humans. What was most amazing, (regardless of beliefs, but just taking the story for what it is) that to show a human being who can forgive his torturers like that, is truly an amazing story. To cry out "forgive them for they know not what they do" as metal spikes are being driven into your extremities is a kind of love beyond anything imaginable and something we can all strive for, imo.

    I thought the overall message of the film was one of love, not hate or anti-semitism. And for my two cents, that's a great message to try and get across.

    peace
    k2

  11. #11
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189

    Passion

    I am not a churchgoer. Nor am I Christian. However, I was raised catholic, and remember the 12 arduous years of being force-fed dogma in catechism. There was little in the way of pictureque explanations that really gave me a sense of the intensity of the crucifixion.

    I really want to see that film as soon as it gets here. It looks like an intensive masterwork and a powerful film of merit. This is something that could not have been made just a few years ago.

    I am glad it was made, and hope to enjoy it soon.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    515
    Technically there were four people killed in the movie. Judas commited suicide and Jesus along with two others were crucified.

    It was less violent than I was originally envisioning. Don't get me wrong, Toy Story 2 this ain't and it is much closer to the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan than most seem to think but it is broken up extremely well by the flashbacks.

    Very powerful movie that was extremely well done. If you are looking for a popcorn flick see something else. If you want a date movie, look elsewhere. If you want to see what may have happened (given everything we know from the Gospels and history) to Christ during his last 12 hours go see this. This movie in my book is truly phenominal!

  13. #13
    Forum Regular jack70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    202
    Thanks for the reviews guys. This is not something I plan on seeing because I already know the story well, and don't feel the need for the spiritual/emotional massaging it's intended to bring out. I'm glad the film was made though... it's always good to expand people's education about such topics. Hopefully tolerance can be learned. I do wonder what the reaction to this will be in Islamic countries, if any, when it's released worldwide.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kam
    The critiques i have read about it being overly violent are asinine in my opinion
    That's a bit harsh. no? I've heard that same thing from many who otherwise liked the film. My guess is that Gibson wanted to push that aspect (the violence - both intensity and timewise) because our culture is so overly bombarded by violence on the screen today. If he'd played the violence down, it would have lessened the impact for many people.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan
    It was less violent than I was originally envisioning. Don't get me wrong, Toy Story 2 this ain't and it is much closer to the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan...
    I think a lot of the controversy over the violence was because the film's possible effects on some who are very young. Many youngsters don't process adult fare the way adults do, and it could make for psychological trauma (nightmares etc). Even many adults have expressed the view that it was quite strong (re: the woman who suffered the heart attack). It's the reason for the R rating.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sealed
    However, I was raised catholic, and remember the 12 arduous years of being force-fed dogma in catechism. There was little in the way of pictureque explanations that really gave me a sense of the intensity of the crucifixion.
    I was raised Catholic as well. The prayer books I read at mass were loaded(!!) with such illustrations... no surprise from me. I'm older though, so maybe things are toned down today. I spent many afternoons praying at the "signs of the cross" in church. I also read a lot of history and grew up watching Sparticus and Ben Hur.... both give a pretty nasty and realistic view of how brutal those times were.


    Quote Originally Posted by GrendelZ
    All in all a good film,not the monumental breakthrough in filmmaking some are making it out to be,I enjoyed it as much as you can while watching torture and death.The performances were especially strong
    Even Gibson says that this was a "small" film, meaning that it's not the kind of filmaking that has hundreds of special effects/digital editing people working for years, or thousands of extras in expensive period costumes etc. I've read some very positive reviews on it's cinematography and make-up/costume design.

    The "Jewish" controversy (by a few in the Jewish community) is something I find interesting. Just as I was raised Catholic, and understand the basic plot extremely well (it's at the heart of Catholic doctrine)... I think most Jews simply were unaware of the simple basics of the plot because they were never exposed to the New Testament, just as I was never exposed (at all) to the Torah or the Koran. I think many Jews, upon hearing about, or seeing this plot, mistakenly saw the Jews as the "bad guys" in the story. It's actually silly, if you were raised within Catholic or Christian doctrine. I know of no one who believes that.... but I can understand how Jews, who have been historically persecuted and conditioned to be aware of this, could wrongly construe this as somehow damaging to them.

    I remember the pubic reaction to the 70's TV-mini series Roots had a similar reaction. Many people, both Black and White, were quite surprised to see the reality of the slave trade as it happened 100-200 years ago. For myself, it was EXACTLY as I had read about, and was taught in school. Not that seeing it visually on the screen wasn't emotional or troubling.... but it was history the way I had learned and read about. I remember my reaction to those who saw the "reality of the plot" in Roots and WERE SHOCKED! was totally surprising to me... how could they be so clueless about how barbaric slavery was. (the truth is, they never were taught about it). I find many modern Jews reaction here, to Gibson's film, very similar. Whether it was slavery, or whether it was the cruxifiction, (some in) both audiences were shocked about a true story they just weren't unaware of.

    Modern Christians don't feel ANY more animosity towards Jews in the story of Jesus, than modern Blacks should feel towards whites for what happened centuries ago. Both Blacks and Jews certainly still have plenty of (justified) feelings of discrimination and persecution due to their history, but logically, it's not fair to direct it at modern straw dogs. BTW, the slave trade was masterminded by many Muslims in Africa, who had quite a different way of looking at things than other religions. The Arab trader Tau B' Tib(sp) was more feared than Napoleon in the 19'th cent world.
    You don't know... jack

  14. #14
    Kam
    Kam is offline
    filet - o - fish Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,770
    "That's a bit harsh. no? I've heard that same thing from many who otherwise liked the film. My guess is that Gibson wanted to push that aspect (the violence - both intensity and timewise) because our culture is so overly bombarded by violence on the screen today. If he'd played the violence down, it would have lessened the impact for many people." jack70

    i meant to direct this at the crtiques i have read that were negative of the film and one main reason cited, was the violence. Ebert said it was the most violent film he had ever seen, but also gave it 4 stars. It is extremely violent, but it is not "overly" violent, imo.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-12-2004, 08:53 PM
  2. So do we want to do a Tuesday thread?
    By Dave_G in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-28-2004, 01:54 PM
  3. How to remove a duplicate thread?
    By msrance in forum Site Feedback/Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-17-2004, 09:35 PM
  4. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-18-2003, 09:31 AM
  5. Tuesday Second Thread
    By Pat D in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-26-2003, 09:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •