RotK and Passion

[John Crichton]

Being born a Roman Catholic, I am really interested to see this film. I won't get into faith or religion as per the rules but I wouldn't want to anyway. I've been interested in this film since news first leaked. I want to know if I should take my Mom to see it despite the gore (I will view it myself before mentioning anything to her) and things like that. That and it just looks like a visual feast about a story that I know very well.

 

[Dimwhit]

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.

Nope, it was a woman who played the Satan character. Hard to tell, though...

 

[Kesh]

Assuming it doesn't take this thread too far over, I'm curious what comments you're taking about. I heard several interviews with him, and nothing he said seemed disrespectful. But maybe I missed something.

Mostly his assertion that non-Catholics would not be going to Heaven. Apparently, his wife is Episcopalian, and he felt it was a tragedy that she wouldn't be going to Heaven with him.

I personally find that sort of attitude distasteful, but as always, YMMV.

 

[barsoomcore]

Sure, Passion makes you think...and I would expect it makes you think about some fairly important things...but what makes this any different than what I've gotten out of reading Dune, which to me was very powerful and sure made me rethink a lot.

Very little difference indeed. I think in fact, that making you think about yourself rather than making you think about the events of the narrative is a hallmark of truly great stories.

One of the things about the story of Christ is that it's simple. Take all the "narrative" out of it and you have: Man suffers. Man is transformed. There's really only two "events" in the plot. He has a really bad day but at the end of it, he is transformed. The little kernel of truth at the core of this story is that if you want to transform yourself, it's going to hurt. And "The Passion" strips out most of the other details and cuts straight to this little kernel.

Which is a quality of great stories -- they clearly illustrate truths. You could make a claim that Dune does the same thing. Or Hamlet. Or Fight Club. Like you say, lots of stories do this.

In a way, it almost feels like when I get something deep and profound out of something liike Dune or Lord of the Rings, people just laugh...but with Passion, its perfectly alright to get something powerful out of it.

There's a wonderful line from a Zen book I have kicking around that might give you some comfort:

Thinking that enlightenment can only come from respectable sources, from great wise men or religious authorities or venerated texts, is a form of arrogance. Man thinks he is so special, so intelligent, so important, that he can only be enlightened by sources that match his illusions of his own importance. When in truth, the man who opens himself to enlightenment from the lowliest of sources -- he is truly enlightened because he has let go of that ego that demands to have its illusion of significance supported.

Enlightenment, wisdom, good ideas: they can be found anywhere. Anyone who doesn't think so is closing their mind to the true nature of the world and pretending to an importance they don't possess.

One of the purposes of literature is to provide wisdom. To show us what is true -- not to represent reality, but to show what is true in reality. In our lives. Great literature ought to do this -- and great readers ought to look for it. If you're not looking for wisdom, if you're not trying to decide for yourself what is true or what is not -- what are you doing with your life?

Besides scoring hot chicks, of course.

But I'm saying "Bravo!" to you -- finding wisdom in fiction. That's why it's there and anyone who scoffs at such a past-time is closing themselves off from one of the most important tasks all human beings face.

Whew. That got a little serious there. Take it or leave it.

 

[barsoomcore]

Mostly his assertion that non-Catholics would not be going to Heaven. Apparently, his wife is Episcopalian, and he felt it was a tragedy that she wouldn't be going to Heaven with him.

If he believes it, I think it's perfectly acceptable for him to say it. Indeed, I'm glad he thinks it's a tragedy -- I prefer that sort of attitude to, say, forceful conversion, or suggestions that such people are not human or don't deserve to be treated with respect or loved. Which many people of strong beliefs throughout the world and history have decided is appropriate behaviour.

It's perfectly acceptable to think something is true and to say so. I prefer such statements to be made with compassion and consideration, which I think his statement (if your report is accurate) was done.

Whether or not he's CORRECT, is of course an entirely different question, one which I suppose we'll all get an answer to one day or another.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Out of context, dude. He wasn't saying anybody who is religious has baggage, he said anyone who has baggage with religious folks has baggage.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Regardless of your belief in the Bible as a spiritual work, it's the most detailed historical document of the area we have. I'm not sure why you're trying to separate history from the Bible when the Bible is the only real historical record that we have for this event.

 

[Ranger REG]

Mostly his assertion that non-Catholics would not be going to Heaven. Apparently, his wife is Episcopalian, and he felt it was a tragedy that she wouldn't be going to Heaven with him.

I personally find that sort of attitude distasteful, but as always, YMMV.

You'd be surprised by other religion's views.

BTW, you'll have to cite your source as to where he made that alleged "assertion."

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm not sure why you're trying to separate history from the Bible when the Bible is the only real historical record that we have for this event.

Let us say that one can try support one's interpretation using a "scholarly" approach, in which as many sources as possible are consulted and the interpretation accords as accurately as possible to the combined results, or one can try to support one's interpretation using a "literary" approach, in which only one source is consulted and the interpretation is, in fact, an interpretation of THAT source, rather than an attempt to determine what "actually" happened.

There are numerous sources giving us information on the people, the places and the practices of the time, some that are arguably of greater veracity than the Gospels (the origins of which are a matter of serious debate academically). Not all of these sources agree with each other, so in creating an interpretation, does one attempt to resolve these differences? Mel Gibson has said that no, he's not interested in doing that. He is making a "literary" interpretation of the Gospels.

 

[Endur]

Passion will be the top-selling movie of all time (it will exceed Titanic).

FYI: I thought ROTK was the most intense and emotinoal movie I have ever seen, but I understand why Passion will probably be seen by more people, since the Passion is history and religion, but is not fantasy.

Just read an interesting article.

Seems that Passion had a larger 5 day opener than RotK did; $125.2M vs. 124.1M.