157 replies to this topic

[MrDraco]

intresting thread...

[Sensualist]

Loomis, you put a lot of thought into your post. Good on ya!

[Jaelle]

Sensualist's response to me is quite interesting. He seems to think that those who are criticizing THE PASSION are not Christians. He seems to label me as an out and out atheist who's rejected my faith when I clearly write (more than once) what I hold dear about what I was taught about Christ. Sensualist seems to have taken exactly the fanatical POV: if you criticize the film, if you reject it, then you must be anti-Christian. If you love Jesus Christ, then you MUST embrace this film. If you don't then you must not be a follower of Christ. Sensualist, you sound so unbelievably hysterical in your response to me that I wonder about your own mental balance. Chill out and drink a cold glass of water or something.

Fanaticism indeed.

FACT: There has already been the predicted reaction by evangelical Protestant sects. A church in Denver put up a big sign on its lawn saying: JEWS KILLED THE LORD JESUS. This sign was put up a few hours after the church's pastor and a large contingent of his congregation had seen the film. This was a very big sign easily visible by passing cars and helicopters from local news stations. In North Carolina last night, a rabbi was attacked while leaving a local radio station after being interviewed on his views on Gibson's movie. His attacker called him a "Christ-killer" and said "that movie told the truth about you Jews!" Three synagogues in Delaware were spraypainted with "Jesus murderers" this morning.

FACT: Gibson's father has been quoted more than once denying the Holocaust. I didn't invent that. Gibson has been asked more than once his opinion on his father's comments and he's never once rejected them. I didn't make that up.

Now, I'm not one of those people who say that the film should be banned because of its supposed anti-semitism, nor do I even believe that the film itself is anti-semitic. But Gibson made the choice of portraying the Jewish priests in the way that he does---and in a way that is NOT in the Gospels! He calls himself a literalist but he's not. He emphasizes the corruption and sadism of the sanhedrin, the Jewish mob and absolves Pontius Pilate of guilt in a way that is not in the Gospels. That was his choice.

I merely offer the above in an apparently futile attempt to interject the point that there ARE serious questions to be made about the film and Gibson's POV. No, Loomis, you don't have to be religious to appreciate the film. I watch Leni Riefenstahl's films and appreciate her artistry but neither do I watch her films mindlessly. I've watched many Soviet-era films and enjoyed several of them but NEITHER do I watch them unquestioningly. Riefenstahl made amazing films for Nazi Germany. I watch her films with *thought*, I don't just lap it all up without questioning her artistic viewpoint and her artistic choices. My mind doesn't shut down just because I happen to appreciate the fact that she was a fine filmmaker. I abhor complacency and audiences who are easily manipulated and led. Gibson's film is worthy of thought, questioning and critical judgment.

I chimed in because I was amazed at how everyone's attitude seemed to be "oh wow, cool, this looks great because it's a Mel Gibson movie!" Is it too much to ask for people to understand that this isn't Star Wars or a Bond movie? That this film REQUIRES *thought* and *critical judgment*? That it would help if people *informed* themselves about what criticisms are being made and that those criticisms are more nuanced and thoughtful than you and Sensualist are making them out to be? Have you read the many searching articles about the film by writers from all denominations? By atheists? Have you read Gibson's own quotes on his beliefs and his response to his critics? Forgive me if I'm asking too much of otherwise intelligent people going into a movie theater to see a film with a very strong POV that is worthy of discussion and debate. Mel Gibson *himself* is asking precisely what I am asking: that people think carefully about his film and go into it with an open mind, but not a slavish mind.

Sensualist seems to believe that I have rejected the film already---all I pointed out was what disturbs me about his evangelical views that inform the film. That's it. Is that ok with everyone?

Some Jews have defended Gibson, some have attacked him. And some have simply expressed middle-of-the-road concerns about the film but have not attacked him. Some Christians have criticized Gibson while mostly evangelical Christians have unquestioningly embraced the film. I find it interesting that those are the same people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible yet the film plays around a lot with the Gospels. It's not a literal depiction in the least.

Sensualist and Loomis, you both seem to have ignored the fact that many of the film's critics (including the various voices I posted) were quite nuanced in their cricisms. Kenneth Turan complimented several aspects of the film. I have to ask: why is criticism of this film generating so much sensitivity on YOUR part?

Most critics of the film have denied the film is anti-semitic and I thought I was pretty clear in my own comments when I said that the charges of anti-semitism are not my biggest problem with it. Sensualist, you are so hysterical about anyone criticizing this film that you seem to have rushed thru my words and plopped one simplistic label on my views of it that suits your own narrow world view. That's up to you. But it's my turn to say "get over it." Get over the fact that there are legitimate reasons to criticize the film. I object to your presumption that you seem to speak for all Christians and that you and Gibson somehow have a monopoly on the Christian truth. And it's Gibson et al. who need to "get over" Vatican II. It's been over 40 years already, don't you think you people need to "get over" it and just *deal* with it?

FACT: Some of the more negative criticisms have indeed come from devout Christians but I suppose that is too much nuance for you to handle. Several Christian scholars have written how Gibson claims to believe in the literal truth of the Gospels but that he veers from them in very significant ways. These same scholars have pointed out the film's strengths but have also offered careful, thoughtful, searching criticisms. It's a pity you are not capable of that sort of complex, nuanced thought. You seem incapable of accepting the fact that it is possible to appreciate the film's strengths while still expressing serious concerns about it.

The comparison to KILL BILL, imo, is quite apt. Tarantino and Gibson both seem to love indulging in graphic, gory violence. Gibson has some weird obsession with playing men who endure torture and horrible deaths. The guy needs serious therapy. But whereas Tarantino is not meant to be taken seriously, Gibson's martyr complex and his evangelical fixation on the physical torture of Christ reduces the story of Jesus Christ to his own personal fixations. If Sensualist had read my comments carefully, he would understand that my objection to the evangelical mindset and Gibson's worldview is *the disturbing, reductive obsession with blood, death, suffering, torture* as the paramount lesson of Christianity; the reduction of Christ's life to his physical torture and his death. Christian scholars all over the country have also written that Gibson has seriously embellished Christ's suffering, adding elements to the torture he underwent that are simply not in the Gospels.

Yes, I know there are some very powerful moments in the film, I've heard the views of people who've seen it and many critics have said exactly what Sensualist has said. There are some very moving features to the film. And one day, when it comes to pay-per-view I'll probably watch it, because I can then control my tolerance of watching and hearing Jesus being flayed. Unlike Gibson, I don't take any pleasure or catharsis in indulging in the prolonged, overemphasized torture of Christ.

As to Satan being a woman, I'm not too disturbed by that. The character is meant to be androgynous. The voice is actually a bit masculine is it not?

Interesting info from an article in today's Times: "Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, the principals of DreamWorks, have privately expressed anger over the film. Steven Spielberg has also privately expressed disappointment not only with the film but with Mr. Gibson's refusal to repudiate his father's denial of the Holocaust. The chairman of two other major studios said they would avoid working with Mr. Gibson because of 'The Passion of the Christ' and the star's remarks surrounding its release. Neither of the chairmen would speak for attribution, but as one explained: 'It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do.' The chairman said he was angry not just because of what he had read about the film and its portrayal of Jews in relation to the death of Jesus, but because of Mr. Gibson's remarks defending his father, Hutton Gibson. Last week in a radio interview, the elder Mr. Gibson repeated his contention that the Holocaust was 'all--maybe not all fiction--but most of it is.' Asked about his father's Holocaust denial in an interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC, the movie star told her to 'leave it alone.'"

Oh and here is Gibson's own words about A.O. Scott, the NY Times critic who reviewed THE PASSION: "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog." This tells me a lot about Gibson's fanaticism. I read Scott's review. It's critical but it's hardly a hatchet job. Scott appreciates much of the technical aspects of the film and lauds Gibson's boldness. But apparently Gibson can't handle critical judgment of his film.

Jack Miles, a very humane and thoughtful Christian scholar writes (in a review that is both positive and negative) on the Beliefnet website:

"Nowhere in the world is there a city of a million people who could hear the Aramaic that constitutes the bulk of the dialogue of this film as if it were their native language. There is, however, one city that comes surprisingly close; and that city happens to be Tel Aviv. Aramaic and Hebrew belong to the same northwest branch of the Semitic language family. A native speaker of Israeli Hebrew will hear the Aramaic of this film rather as a native speaker of Italian might hear Spanish. Nothing in this film will sound quite right in Tel Aviv, but much will sound vaguely familiar. And now and then there will come a sentence of crystal clarity, coincidentally identical in the two languages.

So it happens at a critical moment in “The Passion of the Christ.” Reproducing the scene called in Western art “Ecce Homo” (“Behold the Man”), Pilate has just led Jesus—scourged, bloody, and crowned with thorns—before the Jewish high priests and a crowd of their followers, offering to release him with no further punishment. Rejecting the offer, a priest shouts a phrase in Aramaic that might or might not be intelligible in Tel Aviv. But then the Jewish crowd takes up the same cry in a slightly different grammatical form. They scream in unison a single, terrible word that happens to be identical in Israeli Hebrew and in Aramaic, and they scream it again and again as if it were a football cheer: Yitstalev! Yitstalev! Yitstalev! “Let him be crucified!”

It is true that Matthew 27:25, “His blood be upon us and upon our children,” the biblical line most notoriously used by Christian anti-Semites against Jews, is not spoken in this film. [it is spoken, it's just not subtitled] Yet given the agony of the 20th century for world Jewry, given the complicity of Christianity in that agony, how can a Tel Aviv audience witness with anything less than utter horror this scene of a Jewish mob chanting for Christ’s blood in what sounds like Hebrew? American Jews who know enough Israeli Hebrew will hear the same words in the same deeply disturbing way. Moreover, though few Americans know this, most Palestinians born under Israeli occupation speak Hebrew as well as Arabic. They, too, will understand yitstalev, and they won't think only of Jesus."

I merely offer these points of view here so that people can understand that this isn't some fun Hollywood jaunt to first century Judea where you can just sit back and take it all in with your brain shut down. I simply offer them in the hope that people can go into this movie with more care and thought, that this whole discussion is much more complex than the mindless Sensualists portray it to be, that's all.

Oh and here's another example of the powerful effect of this film: a woman in Wichita, KS died of a heart attack while watching THE PASSION. Sheesh!

BTW, regarding the fact that this has nothing to do with Bond... I continue to be confused about this point constantly coming up on the General Discussion forum. I came to CBn reading a lot of the General Discussion board and concluding that it was meant precisely for that: civil general discussion that is not Bond-related. Anything Bond related belongs on the other forums. So I'm quite confused on this point.

[Xenobia]

Hey Jaelle, first of all I think this discussion does have something to do with not necessarily Bond but the essence of CBn. We are all film fans, and we are discussing a filmt hat for better or worse, is quite the topic of conversation.

I just want to point out that I never said Mel Gibson should want to do Public pennance. I said I feel like he feels like he needs to, given his comments about his life before and after getting help for his substance abuse.

I make the comments I make, based on the reviews I have read, the comments made by religious scholars I respect on all sides of the faith debate, AND based on Mel's appearance on Leno on Thursday, February 26th. I stand by everything I said, keeping in mind, this is coming from my opinion and what I was taught about my faith. I add the caveat that even though there is supposed to be a unifed catacheism, variations abound. Gibson had one variation, I had another.

I stand by my comments on Satan's portrayal. Satan was never portrayed in the Bible as a woman, and if someone else is making him into a woman, I have to wonder what their motivation is. Moreoever, as I thought about it, I don't recall the Devil being present at Gethsemene. What makes that moment so moving is that Christ, as a man, knows what is coming and is terrified of it. As the God that we believe him to be, he overcomes that fear with Love. The Devil doesn't need to be there, his humanity is enough of a deterant.

I am still concerned about the reference to Kill Bill because, as I said before, while both men revel in gore, their motivations for making the film are radically different. And in KB, we don't linger on one character's blood and gore, it moves around quite a bit, and at it's bloodiest point, Tarentino switches to black and white film. Gibson lingers on the same image of gore, and never switches to black and white. Tarentino uses the gore to tell a story. Gibson wants us to feel Christ's pain. To an extend, I can understand that Gibson wanted to point out the neat little cuts that are displayed in a typical Crucifix are nowhere near accurate to the wounds Christ suffered. But I gotta admit, I think we all could get the point after a few whips on the back, a look at one hand being nailed in, a moment of Him on the cross.

I am hoping that this isn't indicative of Gibson's mentality, but I was deeply disturbed during Leno last night when Gibson LAUGHED at the fact that the man playing Christ was struck by lightening once, and someone else was struck TWICE on two seperate occasions. He calls that latter man, "Lightening Boy." Yeah, getting hit by lightening is real entertainment.

I will see the movie, and I will probably have a lot more to say about it when I do, but you gotta wonder what's going on when religious leaders from every corner are saying there is something deeply wrong with this film.

-- Xenobia

[Jaelle]

Very thoughtful posts, Xenobia, I appreciate your sentiments completely. They sound like someone who's trying to keep an open mind but also has concerns. You sound like someone who'll go into the theater with a questioning, skeptical mind. And I agree with you in your reactions to Gibson on Leno. I've seen him in interviews before and read his print interviews. He actually had left Caviezel on the cross for a couple of hours and forgot about him. He said that, laughing, on the PAX channel "making of" special. Charming guy.

Caviezel, btw, is a devout Catholic.

There IS one thing only that does offend me greatly: the merchandising of this film. I may not be a practicing Catholic but I do respect many of the teachings I was taught in my upbringing. Sorry, I think that someone who is so publicly pious about his deep religious beliefs licensing cheap chachkes relating to it is pretty low. Gibson has actually LICENSED crucifixes and other items related to the film.
Shows how deep his religious devotion goes. If he were really devout, he wouldn't profit one dime on this film.

[Sensualist]

Jaelle, you are engaging in an unbelievable amount of intellectual deceit with respect to what I wrote in this thread. The fact is I do not belong to ANY organized religion. I went of my own free will after work to se what the hype was about. Plain and simple.

If you read any of my posts in this thread, my MAIN criticism is levied against those who CRITICIZE A FILM THEY HAVE NOT SEEN. Period.

If you fit into that category, then, well, you set yourself up for it. I HAVE seen the film, you HAVE NOT. That is a FACT.

Re-read my posts before wasting your time and energy writing yet another chapter to MASK the remaining fact that you continue to USE extraneous factors (*) to VILLIFY a movie you HAVE NOT SEEN.

Shameful.

Once you've actuall SEEN said film, perhaps then you can crucify it. Until then, an intelligent individual would reserve judgement and stand down.

I would.

[* Extraneous Factor 1: Woman dies of heart attack in KS. (Perhaps she was an over-weight lady. Who really knows why she had a heart attack? But leave it to YOU to blame the movie for it!)

* Extraneous Factor 2: Gibson is profiting from the movie. (Why should'nt he? Why should he be any different from another risk-taker, like say a Peter Jackson, who had to fight an up-hill battle to get his movie made and distributed.)

* Extraneous Factor 3: Mel's dad denies Holocaust. (So Mel's dad is a bit of a nut-case who belongs in the loonie bin. What does that have to do with the fact that the movie is 'good' or 'not'? And, again, how would you know? You haven't even SEEN THE MOVIE)

* Extraneous Factor 4: The Aramaic spoken in the movie ought to have been Greek/is not an authentic version of Aramaic/Latin was only spoken by the Romans, and only to one another. (These are red herrings. It's a MOVIE, for heavens sake. I'd have preferred English with no subtitles. But we got what we got. Drive on.)

I could go on and on...]

Edited by Sensualist, 28 February 2004 - 12:07 AM.

[Xenobia]

I forgot about the merchanidizing of the film...I have been trying very hard to forget. That's just sick and wrong. I don't get it. I just don't get it.

Jaelle, please check your Private Messages. I sent you one on a completely different matter.

-- Xen

[Jaelle]

Sensualist,

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. You are attacking me with assumptions that YOU ARE PROJECTING ON TO ME.

I mentioned the woman who had a heart attack NOT as a criticism, for pete's sake. I should think you would be intelligent enuf to understand that I wouldn't criticize the movie for giving a woman a heart attack! I mentioned that in passing to add one extra bit of info that demonstrates how *powerful* the viewing experience can be to some people. That was it! I am getting fed up with you imposing your hysteria on to me. STOP TWISTING MY INTENT because you can't seem to deal with anyone criticizing this film! Heaven forbid anyone have concerns about it. And no, I won't shut up about it just because I haven't seen it. I have SAID more than once that I have chosen not to see the film NOT because of any moral or political reasons but simply because of the exaggerated, neverending gore. I have close friends who've seen and who know my tastes well. They've told me that it would be better for me to wait to see it, I trust their judgment.

Interesting that you see nothing wrong in profitting from merchandise related to Christ's suffering and death. I just love this religious piety and hypocrisy. Here's a film about a man whose ONE MOMENT of anger in the Gospels is when he sees merchants selling goods in a place of worship. Crass profitting from one's religious devotion, oh yes, very Christ-like. Your hypocrisy is clear. "Gosh my faith is so strengthened by watching Jesus get flayed for two hours, oh, gee thanks, that's $12.85 for a bloody crucifix, I'll take two." Yuck, the crass hypocrisy is revolting.

You point out various "extraneous factors" yet I would've mentioned each one had I seen the movie. They're all relevant to me in discussing the film, whether I've seen it or not. People who HAVE seen it have mentioned every single topic I've brought up! They're all relevant, not extraneous at all. Each topic I've brought up has been mentioned, considered and discussed by those who've SEEN THE MOVIE!

Your replies are getting so tedious and OTT -- you insist on misreading my intent. You insist on believing that I've completely rejected the film and placed a final judgment on it without seeing it. You insist on believing that I've already come to final conclusions about it. Yet I have said that I will see the film and that all I want is for people to go into it with some THOUGHT and background as to what all the debate is about. Why is that such a PROBLEM for you? Grow the hell up and stop labelling me and reducing my position to one of caricature.

[Jaelle]

Hey get your bloody cruficixes for $12.95 right here! Want a souvenir from your movie experience? Get some pewter nails and try them on at home!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.calendarl...r/qtakes/cl-et-
quick27.4feb27,2,2405526.story?coll=cl-home-more-channels

MOVIES
'Christ' sets off souvenir spree
From Associated Press

February 27 2004

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" not only has people debating the last hours of Jesus' life but also running out to buy such souvenirs as crucifixes, lapel pins and cards tied to the film's promotion.

A particularly popular item is a pendant fashioned from a single nail made of pewter and attached to a leather strap, say officials of Bob Siemon Designs, licensed by Gibson's Icon Productions to produce jewelry tied to the film. The pendants represent the nails used in the film to fasten Christ to the cross.

The company has shipped Christian bookstores roughly 75,000 cross pendants and about the same amount of nail pendants, said Dwight Robinson, the company's marketing manager.

[Sensualist]

Sensualist,

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.  You are attacking me with assumptions that YOU ARE PROJECTING ON TO ME.

I mentioned the woman who had a heart attack NOT as a criticism, for pete's sake.  I should think you would be intelligent enuf to understand that I wouldn't criticize the movie for giving a woman a heart attack!  I mentioned that in passing to add one extra bit of info that demonstrates how *powerful* the viewing experience can be to some people.  That was it!  I am getting fed up with you imposing your hysteria on to me.  STOP TWISTING MY INTENT because you can't seem to deal with anyone criticizing this film!  Heaven forbid anyone have concerns about it.  And no, I won't shut up about it just because I haven't seen it.  I have SAID more than once that I have chosen not to see the film NOT because of any moral or political reasons but simply because of the exaggerated, neverending gore.  I have close friends who've seen and who know my tastes well.  They've told me that it would be better for me to wait to see it, I trust their judgment. 

Interesting that you see nothing wrong in profitting from merchandise related to Christ's suffering and death.  I just love this religious piety and hypocrisy.  Here's a film about a man whose ONE MOMENT of anger in the Gospels is when he sees merchants selling goods in a place of worship.  Crass profitting from one's religious devotion, oh yes, very Christ-like.  Your hypocrisy is clear.  "Gosh my faith is so strengthened by watching Jesus get flayed for two hours, oh, gee thanks, that's $12.85 for a bloody crucifix, I'll take two."  Yuck, the crass hypocrisy is revolting.

You point out various "extraneous factors" yet I would've mentioned each one had I seen the movie.  They're all relevant to me in discussing the film, whether I've seen it or not.  People who HAVE seen it have mentioned every single topic I've brought up!  They're all relevant, not extraneous at all.  Each topic I've brought up has been mentioned, considered and discussed by those who've SEEN THE MOVIE!

Your replies are getting so tedious and OTT -- you insist on misreading my intent.  You insist on believing that I've completely rejected the film and placed a final judgment on it without seeing it.  You insist on believing that I've already come to final conclusions about it.  Yet I have said that I will see the film and that all I want is for people to go into it with some THOUGHT and background as to what all the debate is about.  Why is that such a PROBLEM for you?  Grow the hell up and stop labelling me and reducing my position to one of caricature.

A...I CAN deal with people who've SEEN the film and have criticisms of it.

B...The gore is not "neverending". (O, sorry, you haven't seen the movie. Forgive me). There are numerous flashbacks that exhibit Jesus's playful nature, his humour, his sense of brotherhood, his sense of friendship, humanity. There was nothing gory about it. (But, o, you haven't SEEN the movie so how would you know? Right?)

C...More intellectual dishonesty: I never said I saw nothing wrong with Gibson profiting from Christ's suffering and death. I said/implied that he took a business risk and, as a result, ought to be rewarded according to what/how the market deems appropriate in the industry he's in.

D...You seem to be doing a lot of cutting-and-pasting of other peoples' writings/opinions and going off your friend's thoughts/opinions. Why not ante up and critique the movie AFTER having VIEWED it? Either that, or just stop going on and on about something you have not seen...

A lot of what you've written in this thread I could read elsewhere. What i'm more interested in is your (as well as other CBn-er's) well thought critique of this film upon first hand viewing. THAT would carry weight. THAT would be more credible. That's all.

Edited by Sensualist, 28 February 2004 - 01:14 AM.

[Brix Bond]

So, Braveheart, eh?

[Doubleshot]

Well, I said the only way I'd see The Passion is if I didn't have to pay. So we snuck in. What can I say? I was every bit as unimpressed with the film as I expected I would be. I felt like Elaine in the Signfeld episode about the English patient: "Just DIE already!!!" Sure, the film was well made and the average filmgoer probably has the emotional connection with the material. But I don't. Good acting. So-so cinematography. If you haven't figured it out before, I'm just not a real religious guy, and this had no impact on me. Whatsoever. So, nice try Mel Gibson, but I like your work better in Lethal Weapon. I let Signs get away with this because it was an extremely skillfully-made film and had a lot of suspense and a plentiful supply of Hitchcockian nastalgia. This has neither.

I pity the America that shells out $20 million for this film on one day.

[Harmsway]

I stand by my comments on Satan's portrayal. Satan was never portrayed in the Bible as a woman, and if someone else is making him into a woman, I have to wonder what their motivation is. Moreoever, as I thought about it, I don't recall the Devil being present at Gethsemene. What makes that moment so moving is that Christ, as a man, knows what is coming and is terrified of it. As the God that we believe him to be, he overcomes that fear with Love. The Devil doesn't need to be there, his humanity is enough of a deterant.

Okay, first off, I'm going to respond to the Satan portrayal thingy. Gibson's Satan is displayed as a woman as a mockery to the Virgin Mary image more than anything else. While the Virgin Mary is his comfort, Satan is his downfall - thus they somewhat mirror eachother.

And about Gethsemane, though the Bible doesn't say implicitly the Devil was at Gethsemane, I'm pretty sure it makes sense to have him there. That moment is the final temptation of Christ. I think it's apparent in the Gospels that Satan's temptation of Christ didn't stop with the official temptation in the wilderness, it was a continuous thing throughout the life of Christ. I see Gethsemane is the culmination of temptation, but that's a matter of interpretation.

Besides, the Gospels very rarely give the location of the Devil, as he is in the spiritual world and unseen, but I have no doubt he would be missing out on his moment of triumph. As Jesus puts it in the Gospel of Luke: "But this is your hour--when darkness reigns."

[Kingdom Come]

Having seen clips of the film, I see one error they have made; Christ was NOT crucified by nails through the centre of his hands - but through his wrists.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I must be the only guy in America who doesn't give a **** about this movie, Jesus Christ,religion and what Mel Gibson's dad said about the Holocaust. His father's ignorance doesn't affect Gibson's merrits as a filmmaker and why should his dad be quoted publically in the first place? Is a parent of a celebrity a celebrity?

I'm totally emancipated from Religion; I think it's the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.... I didn't grow up with it and I never believed in God. Ever. ...And I sleep well at night...especially since I never had the misfortune of being sexually abused by a sexually disturbed and frustrated Predator, who happenend to be a Priest in service of the Catholic church.

[Loomis]

[quote]
In North Carolina last night, a rabbi was attacked while leaving a local radio station after being interviewed on his views on Gibson's movie.

[Kingdom Come]

Another thought of mine apart from the inaccurate 'nails throught the center of the hands' - I also note that 'they' have have presented Christ, physically, in the standard and most inaccurate way possible.

For any1 still interested; Christ did not have a beard; nor was he slender! he was stocky and bullish looking.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Geez, I must be shallow.

I want to go to the cinemas to see a well-told story up on the screen. If I want historical accuracy I'll go to a library.

I am really looking forward to seeing this movie when it comes to my neck of the woods.

[Sensualist]

Another thought of mine apart from the inaccurate 'nails throught the center of the hands' - I also note that 'they' have have presented Christ, physically, in the standard and most inaccurate way possible.

For any1 still interested; Christ did not have a beard; nor was he slender! he was stocky and bullish looking.

And you know this 'cause you were there. Right?

[Sensualist]

Geez, I must be shallow. 

I want to go to the cinemas to see a well-told story up on the screen. If I want historical accuracy I'll go to a library.

I am really looking forward to seeing this movie when it comes to my neck of the woods.

I doubt you'd find "historical accuracy" even at the library, Brett. History, they say, is written from the point of view of the victor.

If, on the other hand, you want to see an engaging, facinating, powerful and well-made piece of art with an interesting musical score (he uses ques reminiscient of the female vocals in 'Gladiator' as well as Techno!) on the Big Screen, then this movie rates.

It's hardly perfect in its execution technically. And, unlike 'Signs' there's no pretence of "suspence" (as Doubleshot put it) as the ending is already known (Doh!). It, nevertheless, has its merits as a piece of cinema and has a very 'arty' flavour to it.

I've seen several movies over the past 12 months (including the likes of X2, T3, Pirates Of The Carribean, Finding Nemo, Loonie Tunes (with Timothy Dalton), etc) and i'd rate The Passion of The Christ somewhere behind LORT: The Return Of The King and somewhere ahead of Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World.

It's the best "foreign language" film i've seen since Das Boot.

Edited by Sensualist, 28 February 2004 - 03:02 PM.

[Kingdom Come]

Sensualist, my little wasp caught in a bottle, like you and it seems the makers of this film, have not been privy to the most modern advancements in discovering what Christ looked like. Recently there have been several documentaries on such advancements.

As for the nails through the hands; comes from early biblical films. More importantly if anyone were crucified, you would last a number of minutes before the nails would rip through your hands and you would fall from grace - something you personally would not like to happen often is a good guess. The wrists are much stronger.

So these 2 'stupid' mistakes makes me NOT want to see the film.

[Sensualist]

Sensualist, dearest, sweetest, like you and it seems the makers of this film, you have not been privy to the most modern advancements in discovering what Christ looked like. Recently there have been several documentaries on such advancements.

The depiction you point to was fabricated by a known English Luciferian who had an agenda to make Jesus Christ look ugly. The more recent (un-biased) scientific methodolgy has depictions of Jesus' facial structure (sans hair, eyebrows and facial hair) looking like what many people look like in that area of the world today. (Makes sense, non?) In addition, if it was the fashion/norm 2000-odd years ago for Galilean men to have long hair and be bearded, then I imagine Jesus would also have long hair and be bearded. (Makes sense, non?)

From what I understand and have read ('cause I wasn't there) is that Jesus was so beautiful that people who saw him had a very hard time taking their eyes off of Him.

As for the nails though the hands as opposed to the wrist argument: The Roman soldiers were shown tying the wrists (of the three of them) firmly with ropes to the cross to secure them BEFORE nailing them to it (the cross). That way the crucified would remain firmly in place.

In the end, Kingdome Come, I really could care less if you go see this film or not simply because of your little differences of opinion with Mel Gibson. I liked the movie as a stand-alone piece of cinema and am going to see it again this afternoon.

I've done a lot of snow skiing and ocean kayaking and reef snorkling in the last month and have not seen too many movies. The Passion is worthy enough to take a second look. I'm sure Mel Gibson will welcome me opening up my wallet a second time.

Edited by Sensualist, 28 February 2004 - 03:28 PM.

[Xenobia]

I had wondered if the Devil as a woman was a mirror image of the comfort of the mother. I see I might be right.

I was once told, long ago, that most crucifixions had you tied to the cross at your wrists and feet, so you would stay up there, and you wouldn't fall off. I have no idea if that is true.

I had always been worried about some yahoo beginning an anti-semtic hate spree, and then turn around and blame Mel Gibson. Trust me, that anti-semite had hate in his heart long before this movie. That being said, those feelings should not be encouraged, and when you make a movie about someone's faith, you need to careful of such things.

As for Speilberg, I am not sure what to say. On the one hand, he could be right about this film, but on the other hand, this is the man who did not like Benini's Life Is Beautiful.

-- Xenobia

[Kingdom Come]

" ... had a very hard time taking their eyes off him..." Sensualist, I cannot say the same thing about you, non? Should read "keeping their eyes off him" - non?
A bullish; stocky man in those times and these times would seem to be beautiful to any number of people - myself included - non? Hardly sums up 'ugly' - non?

Sen, u should consider a name change to "The ego has landed".

Seriously, I think it is a very worthy film to see and hope a LOT of people do go to see it for healthy reasons... but all I am going on is the trailer and to see 2 such stupid mistakes in the trailer alone makes me wonder how many more are contained in the actual film. I'm sure most of us remember the flack Marty Scorsese encountered when he made his 'Christ' film a number of years ago and no doubt its box office was helped by the very flack itself. Same will be true of this film.

Don't know if any1 agrees with me but in the last few years there does seem to be a very ugy right wing scourge rising from all directions......

[Loomis]

[quote]
I had always been worried about some yahoo beginning an anti-semtic hate spree, and then turn around and blame Mel Gibson.

[Sensualist]

I had wondered if the Devil as a woman was a mirror image of the comfort of the mother. I see I might be right.


-- Xenobia

Xenobia, why don't you see the movie instead of going by here-say. The specific character of "Satan" is played by a female actor in this move. The Devil is NOT a WOMAN in this movie.

The look of "Satan" in this movie is not a feminine one. The look is androgynous. Asexual. In addition, the voice is more masculine that anything.

Please, Xenobia, you need to see this movie before jumping to erroneous conclusions.

[Tarl_Cabot]

We missed you Sensualist...things were getting a little stale here!

[Sensualist]

Ah, Hollywood.... where being a paedophile, a rapist and a fugitive from justice won't bar you from being awarded the Best Director Oscar as long as you hold the "right" views on the Holocaust and on Jews, but where the slightest, unsubstantiated accusation of antisemitism (or homophobia, or being anti-black, or whatever) will be enough to make your career go up in smoke.

As an international star in the film industry for nearly 25 years, I'm sure Gibson has more Jewish friends, colleagues and acquaintances than the average Israeli citizen (as well as more gay friends, colleagues and acquaintances, come to that).

I've been reading the Talkback on Gibson's film at AICN, and numerous posters have observed that, if we're going to brand THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST antisemitic, shouldn't we also complain that SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN might stir up anti-German feelings, and that ROOTS is anti-white?

Ah...thank goodness for Loomis and his razor-sharp intellect and wit!

Yea...only two of the top ten distrbutor/studio heads are unhappy with Mel. That's their problem. Looks like Mel didn't even NEED the other remaining eight to get his movie distributed.

Already, before the weekend even started, the movie has more than made back it's production budget (US$ 30 million) with grosses of $26 mil and $14 mil on Wednesday and Thursday respectively. And those grosses are from North America only.

Just wait. These slimey studio heads will be sucking on Mel Gibson's knee caps when all is said and done.

And, Loomis, you're probably correct when you say that, after 25 years at or near the top (including an offer by Cubby to play James Bond), he has a fair number of friends from the Jewish community who, as you know, have a fair representation in 'Hollywood' at all levels.

Only ignorant folk (who are bigoted in their views anyway) will 'use' this movie for their own disgusting purposes.

The Passion depicts a lot of Jews who helped/tried to help Jesus. Only one (not all) Jew (Caiaphas) was depicted in a negative light. On the other hand, the utter brutality and sadistic barbarism of some (not all) of the Roman soldiers was quite extreme. But no one focused-in on that.

Presumably, all Christians ought to be enraged at Italians who hail from the middle of that Mediterranean country. (IF you take it to its logical (or illogical) conclusion, that is.)

(But wait a minute! Aren't most Romans and Italians baptised as Christians in the Roman Catholic church anyway? Oops...better to attack the "other fella" )

Edited by Sensualist, 28 February 2004 - 05:05 PM.

[TGO]

Well, since people are not going to see the movie based on small observations, like Christ being nailed to the cross by his hands, instead of his wrists, how about this? Christ as seen in The Passion is not accurate. He is described as having hair like wool, and skin like "burnt bronze". Instead we have a Christ here, that harkens back to the Renassance paintings of Europeans as Christ. How come that hasn't been brought up?

Never expect complete historical accuracy from Hollywood, people.

[Kingdom Come]

Sen, isn't it near time you were thinking about getting ready to go out and watch the film again?!!!