RotK and Passion

[Olgar Shiverstone]

It's not melodrama. I mean, you KNOW how it ends, right? There's not likely to be many spoilers on this one.

With that to recommend it, it'll probably beat Titanic.

And while I personally have minimal interest in seeing the movie, I am interested in seeing how it does over time. My gut says it will probably do pretty well -- certainly better than Matrix Reloaded in the long haul, possibly better than RotK. If it beats out Tolkien, though, it better darn well beat that ship movie, too.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't know what comments you're talking about it, but remember the context. The man was being publicly villified, castigated, and accused of being an anti-semite. The only way it seemed Mel could placate some of his critics would be to make a movie about him crucifying his father, rather then Jesus. The hate directed in his way got REALLY bad, and is still going on. Suffice to say, when you're getting attacked from all sides people tend to lose their cool in situations like that. I've got issues with my father, but I'm not about to tear him to pieces in public the way a lot of these critics wanted Mel to do to his. Would anyone else be willing to do that to their father, even though their father may've said/done some bad things, just to appease someone who's been relentlessly attacking and insulting you?

Without getting too deep into the issue, this being EnWorld and all, I think you have dismissed his critics as simply "haters" a bit too lightly. Mel could have "plactated his critics" by saying that he loves his dad, but disagrees with his father's views concerning both jews and the issue of the holocaust. That's it. Nobody was asking him to denounce his father for all time and for all things, nor was he asked to tear his father apart.

If my dad, for example, went around insulting black people and using the N-word on TV, and I was making a film about black slavery, you can bet I would say "I love my dad, but we obviously disagree about some issues, and this is one of those issues".

The issue was relevant given the film he was making. The context is a film called Passions of Christ, which in Europe just so happens to have been the name of a certain type of plays, called Passion Plays, which were about this very subject and which also played a huge role in "villifing, castigating, and accusing" the jews of all sorts of evil, pre-WW2, and fostered massive anti-semitism which helped lead to the creation of the very holocaust Mel's father denies. Add to that the fact that Mel portrays many (but not all) jews as particularly evil in this film, originally including a line from only one gospel which historically was used to "villify, castigate, and accuse" Jews throughout the world of all sorts of evil, portray's Pilot (who history tells us really was actually very evil, and considered a mass murderer by most) as a relatively sympathetic character, and I think it is fair to at least ask Mel what is up.

What his dad said is relevant since Mel claims his dad never lied to him about anything, including the holocaust, in the context of Mel having made a film with a rather suspicious title, originally including a rather suspicious line which even the Catholic church denounced in Vatican 2, and some rather suspiscious portrayals of jews when compared to the Pilot character.

It's fair for people to ask Mel questions about this issue, without being tarred as people who simply hate Mel. You should be able to ask questions about this kind of thing without being lumped into the catagory of hater.

As for the movie itself, I saw it, I liked it, and I don't think it was anti-semetic. And yet, I agree with critics who say his decisions regarding the Pilot character were both unfortunate and inaccurate.

 

[Kai Lord]

Add to that the fact that Mel portrays many (but not all) jews as particularly evil in this film,

The Jews in The Passion of the Christ, both those who oppose Jesus and those who stand with him, are portrayed as they are described in the Bible.

portray's Pilot (who history tells us really was actually very evil, and considered a mass murderer by most) as a relatively sympathetic character, and I think it is fair to at least ask Mel what is up.

Pilate's dialogue and behavior with Jesus and the high priests in the film is almost verbatim from the Bible. I think its obvious what Mel was up to. Making a film depicting the last 12 hours of Jesus' life as it was documented in the Bible. And I found it to be an amazing effort.

For me the most interesting bit of trivia about the film is that for the close-up shot of the Roman soldier nailing Jesus' left hand to the cross, it was Mel's own hand that drove the nail in, out of recognition for his sins.

The most emotionally moving film I've ever seen.

 

[Dirigible]

...it was Mel's own hand that drove the nail in, out of recognition for his sins.

As oppsoed to it being recognition of his egomania ?

With that to recommend it, it'll probably beat Titanic.

Stole my thunder, amigo.

There is already a novelization of the movie.

Oooh, who'd they get to write it?
...
Naah, nevermind; that's a can of worms we don;t need ot open here...

 

[Mistwell]

The Jews in The Passion of the Christ, both those who oppose Jesus and those who stand with him, are portrayed as they are described in the Bible.

Not true. You have words from people, but not personality. You never see text like "and so and so grimaced and leered at him". Mel made a decision to portray people as he did. He decided to make some of the jewish people more nasty than their words might suggest.

Pilate's dialogue and behavior with Jesus and the high priests in the film is almost verbatim from the Bible. I think its obvious what Mel was up to. Making a film depicting the last 12 hours of Jesus' life as it was documented in the Bible. And I found it to be an amazing effort.

As I said above, Pilate's personality is not portrayed in the bible. His words are basically the same, but at no point to you feel Pilate is compassionate in the bible. The character, however, was played as compassionate. Facial expressions, sighs, and simpathetic looks were all added to the Pilate character, none of which is in the bible. It was a decision. And, I think it was a bad decision, since apparently Mel knew quite well that Pilate was known for being cruel and sadistic. That character in the film was not portrayed as cruel an sadistic - though his troops were (and yet Mel also knew Pilate trained those very troops to act just like that, because that is how Pilate himself acted).

For me the most interesting bit of trivia about the film is that for the close-up shot of the Roman soldier nailing Jesus' left hand to the cross, it was Mel's own hand that drove the nail in, out of recognition for his sins.

The most emotionally moving film I've ever seen.

I'm glad you liked it. I did too. But don't dismiss people who don't like it, or have some concerns about it, out of hand. There is reason behind the questioning. Mel Gibson added and subtracted things, mostly personality rather than spoken words, from the Bible based on his own belief of how things should be portrayed, and it is perfectly fair to dislike those changes, or question them.

 

[Mythtify]

I just prefer it when folks leave their baggage at the door.

It is insulting to imply that if a person has relegious beliefs, that it is "baggage". It implies that anyone that has relegius beliefs are automicly a lesser person.

A person with religious beliefs is not any lesser or greater a person than anyone else. Everyone has a paradign that they operate through. It is just as wrong for somebody to say that I my world view is wrong, or something is wrong with me, because I am religious; as it would be for me to say that anybody who dosn't have a religious world view is lost.

We as a community should be respectful of each other's world views, even if we don't agree with them.

 

[Kai Lord]

Not true. You have words from people, but not personality. You never see text like "and so and so grimaced and leered at him".

"The high priest tore his clothes. 'Why do we need any more witnesses?' he asked. 'You have heard the blashpemy. What do you think?'
They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, 'Prophesy!' And the guards took him and beat him." --Mark 14:63-65.

As I said above, Pilate's personality is not portrayed in the bible. His words are basically the same, but at no point to you feel Pilate is compassionate in the bible.

The film depicts Pilate as heeding his wife's warning (Matthew 27:19) and being afraid (John 19:8). The film presented him as being conflicted because of a mandate from Caesar that if there was an uprising in Jerusalem he would see Pilate's blood, and he was afraid of an uprising from the people if he spared Jesus, and of one from Jesus' followers if he crucified him. I didn't get a whole lot of compassion from his character, he was obviously looking out for his own skin.

And, I think it was a bad decision, since apparently Mel knew quite well that Pilate was known for being cruel and sadistic. That character in the film was not portrayed as cruel an sadistic - though his troops were (and yet Mel also knew Pilate trained those very troops to act just like that, because that is how Pilate himself acted).

The Bible doesn't make any mention of Pilate being cruel and sadistic toward Jesus, but it certainly does of the Roman soldiers who flog and taunt him. In both the Bible and the film, Pilate knew Jesus was innocent, had the power (as far as he knew) to free him, yet "handed him over to them to be crucified." (John 19:16) Not exactly someone on Jesus' side.

I'm glad you liked it. I did too. But don't dismiss people who don't like it,

You know I did no such thing.

or have some concerns about it, out of hand.

Ditto.

There is reason behind the questioning. Mel Gibson added and subtracted things, mostly personality rather than spoken words, from the Bible based on his own belief of how things should be portrayed, and it is perfectly fair to dislike those changes, or question them.

I agree.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I haven't seen any rude or disrespectful comments from Mr. Gibson, but I thought the Passion was a good movie. One of the things I especially liked was the person who played Satan. I think it was a guy, but shrouded in those robes I really couldn't tell. I waqs concentrating on the subtitles so I can't remember if his voice was male or not. Also, the Passion made me buy Testament.

 

[The Serge]

We're teetering on a slippery slope, folks...

Anyway, I think there needs to be a distinction between the Biblical record, Catholic (and perhaps general Christian) tradition, and historical evidence/facts. From my perspective, it's clear that Gibson and co. are working from a mixture of Biblical record and Catholic tradition more so than historical evidence/fact. This is why certain elements may come across in the film. Gibson, from what I've seen and heard, is not interested in creating a historically accurate portrayal in terms of doing research on Pilate, the roles Jews could have played (and there's not much official out there), and so on. If there was anything historically accurate in the portrayal, it's the violence of being tortured and crucified... which then plays into the whole point of the narrative regarding sacrifice within Judeao-Christian thought.

I think this is important to note because people are seeing this film for different reasons. A lot (quite a few I know and clearly many on these boards) are seeing it because it reinforces their faith and dedication. Others are seeing it because of their curiosity. Frankly, I don't see these reactions as any different to why people see many films. The major difference here is that we're dealing with one of the big three "monotheistic" religions, the dominante religion in the West, and a very well known actor/director.

What I think is ashame here, more than anything else, is the general inability to critique this film as just a film... particularly if the review is negative. I think this is where "baggage" comes into play for many sides of the field. I've seen a few talk shows in which negative reviews were responded to almost as if the critic were some sort of blasphemer or heretic. I also find it unfortunate that most of the people who were crying anti-semitism hadn't seen the film... just heard about it (and, although it is a film adaptation of a Passion Play and although many of these plays did demonize Jews, I think Gibson should have been given the benefit of the doubt before people jumped all over him).

If this thread last much longer, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Diavolo]

i have not seen 'passion' yet, but am really eager to go see it. i will go see this for the aspect of film making and story. i have no care about it's realationship with the bible, or the beliefs of people. i will also see if because in my experience, the movies that critics say aren't good, and movies that create contraversy with people how are so dead-sit in there ways that anything that changes their prespective of reality is just wrong, these type of movies tend to be the ones that are really great. i've noticed time and time again people complain about things that they either don't understand (matrix trilogy) or that contradict their current beliefs(passion, dogma). and they are the ones that will attack a perfect movie and shot it done. honestly it makes me sick. nuff said for now.