posted
Saw it, was moved and shaken by it, almost as much as from watching "Irrev�rsible" (also with Monica Belucci). I loved hearing Aramaic and L atin spoken by trained tongues, it lended a not insignificant degree of authenticity to the project.
Since most people know the plot, there can't be spoilers per se, but there are some details I'd like to bring up, anyway.
When Jesus is being tortured with the "cat-o'nine-tails", we see Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) walking past the crowd, cradling a weird, demon-like infant that turns and giggles at the sight of the torture. Was this supposed to be the Antichrist? Or was it just some random wickedness, added via creative liberty on Gibson's part, like the similar demons that haunted Judas? It seemed too deliberate to just be that, that's why it stuck to me.
Second, the romans standing closest to Jesus (at the cross), the ones most reluctant to make him suffer, decided to give Jesus some water, from a sponge stuck on a spear. Wasn't this supposed to be vinegar, if I recall my gospels correctly?
Anyway, I've read about this production before watching the movie, there was a swedish journalist that mentioned some details about Mel Gibson and James Caviezel I didn't know before, such as them both belonging to controversial renegade outshoots of catholicism, both have very strict religious beliefs, apparently Mel's father is a holocaust revisionist and Caviezel has been quoted as claiming the Virgin Mary has revealed herself to him.
That being said, I didn't get the impression that this movie was antisemitic; true, more blaim for Jesus' death was put on the jewish priesthood than on Pontus Pilate, but the jews as a group weren't satirized or attacked, nor their religion. In fact, many of the people criticizing the affair were jews, as well as Simon, the man put to help Jesus carry the cross.
All in all, it felt like an important movie, nothing you stand up and applaud and cheer about, but very moving. There were some flashbacks of other moments in Jesus' life, but they were few and far between. I should've liked to have seen more of that, as well as more of his deeds and actions after the resurrection (like in the old Jesus of Nazareth, with superb Robert Powell).
Thoughts? Answers?
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I didn't get the impression that this movie was antisemitic
I never understood that accusation. It'd be like calling "A Man For All Seasons" anti-English because it portrays the English wrongly killing an Englishman in England.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the controversy is that this film has been touted as historically accurate, despite being based on a particular interpretation of the Passion written by a pair of Romanian nuns several hundred years after the fact. A pair who from what I gather are well know for their anti-Semitic writings.
I think there is also some question as to who actually condemned Christ to death. According to some bloke who was around within a generation of the events (as opposed to the gospel writers who weren't) it wasn't the Jewish priests who actually condemned him and that it was in fact to Romans. This tracks with the fact that crucifixion was a Roman punishment for treason and rebellion while the Jewish punishment for blasphemy at the time was (so I gather) stoning. Not that the priesthood wouldn't want a potentially threatening religious leader done away with, I'm sure they'd do it themselves if they had the chance.
I haven't seen this film yet so I can't comment on the accuracy of some of these points (not that a truly accurate account is even possible) but given that Gibson is a devout Catholic, his idea of accuracy probably involves taking the gospels word for word, misprint for misprint. Given his track record with films like Braveheart, with it's many licence taking elements, despite claims of historical truth, I'm not expecting an impartial version of what probably took place. I do expect it to be a deeply moving and glorious depiction of the Gospels.
posted
According to some bloke who was around within a generation of the events (as opposed to the gospel writers who weren't)
Um... two or three of them were apostles.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I've not seen the movie, nor do I plan to. I gather, though, that it's a well made film, and visually, it appears to be absolutely stunning.
I hear on the news every now and again how this movie is moving people to re-engage their faith and start going to church again. That sort of irriatates me. "It wasn't so important to me before... but now that I've seen this movie..."
What makes my eyes bleed with anger is when I hear about church leaders using the movie as part of their sermon. Or using it to draw people to the church. Or holding FRIGGIN' MOVIE PREPARATION SERMONS to get people ready to see the movie.
If it's a movie supposedly based on the Bible, here's a thought... teach them what the Bible says. When I read the gospel accounts of Jesus' death, I find them moving enough without the help of visual aides.
So I guess I see it as just a way for people to feel "Christian" without actually having to act like it.
posted
Despite it being Easter, and despite the fact that I am Catholic (and therefore go to a Catholic church), barely ayone has mentioned it. In fact, the director of our Church (a WOMAN, by the way...it's too bad we haven't accepted women priests yet, but it's close) comes off in her sermons as not liking it. When I talk to fellow Catholics, many times they say Mel Gibson is going a little over the top. Also, they fail to see the point, since the film is about the Passion and not really the life of Jesus...
So not all churches are making a fuss about it. I haven't seen it and don't plan to. Maybe when it comes out on video, but NOT in the theaters.
posted
Aban Rune: "This movie is moving people to re-engage their faith and start going to church again. That sort of irriatates me. "It wasn't so important to me before... but now that I've seen this movie..." --- So I guess I see it as just a way for people to feel "Christian" without actually having to act like it."
And you would rather they be begrudged that?
This is eerie, those arguments are practically identical to the ones the LOTR-"traditionalists" have against the LOTR movie-trilogy.
I see where you're coming from, I just think it seems like saying that the glass is half-empty, without taking into account what possible good can come out of it all. For those that haven't studied the bible for a long time this movie is a strong eyeopener, a view of what the sacrifice consisted of.
I don't have a dedicated faith, though I'm happy for you that you do, if I interpreted your post correctly. However, it saddens me if by that I qualify for a group of your dislike, that you see me as a hypocrite.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"If it's a movie supposedly based on the Bible, here's a thought... teach them what the Bible says."
Sorry, but that's like expecting racial equality to be a hot topic at a KKK meeting. It says what Gibson thinks the Bible says. Deafeningly so.
[ April 12, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I wasn't talking about Gibson making his movie. He can make whatever movie he likes. I was talking about church leaders using the movie, which people have already pointed to as taking license, as a religious teaching tool.
And I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite. I'm not belittling or begrudging anyone's beliefs. I'm just saying that I wish it didn't take a piece of popular entertainment to get people interested in their spiritual needs.
posted
Aban: "I wish it didn't take a piece of popular entertainment to get people interested in their spiritual needs."
There you go with the half-empty glass again; you would only be so lucky if "a piece of pop entertainment" was all it took to get people going.
And I sure prefer to get inspiration or an epiphany when reading a novel or watching a movie than to have it go so far that I "discover" it in prison, on death row or in a motel room in Texas, or to have it shoved down my throat as a child and be a believer-by-default, accepting the existence of God like the existence of the IRS.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: given that Gibson is a devout Catholic, his idea of accuracy probably involves taking the gospels word for word, misprint for misprint.
Just to clarify (again), Catholics are one of the denominations that don't take the Bible literally. They take it as a work of it's time, and realise that it has to be interpreted differently to be relevent today. They are not hardcore "we must attack our women with fish on the third Sunday after Penatost" fundamentalists.
Regarding Gobson: I once read an interview with him where he was talking about this film and his faith, and he mentioned his wife. She is also Christian, she goes to Church (more than him), she is good and kind and he loves her. And he knows that she is going to hell, because she is of a different denomination than him. He wishes it wasn't true, but he believe that it is.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The "one and only religion/denomenation" thing always felt like a heavy-handed imposition to me. It's like the Powers That Be were afraid the beliefs wouldn't stand on their own.
In any case, if I remember my Catholicism correctly, the earliest gospel was supposed to have been written 30 or 50 years after Jesus's death. The reason was that after his death people thought the world was coming to an end within their lifetimes, so there was no point in writing it down for posterity.
Catholics also believe that Genesis was a conglomerated work written by four different authors and then attributed to Moses (a popular practice at the time -- writers attributed their work to famous people to give it more credibility). Protestants (but probably not all of them) believe that Genesis was literally written by Moses. These are just a couple of examples where Catholic and various Protestant doctrines differ, but as you can see the differences are quite fundamental.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
