"The Passion" trailer

[Spatula]

To Gibson's credit, this is not exactly a Hollywood film.

It's not a hollywood film at all. Gibson's done it without any studio support, and as far as I know has so far been unable to secure US distribution for the film (not surprising considering all the dialogue is in dead languages without subtitles).

Me too. If reports are accurate the the script has been crafted so that subtitles are not needed to follow the story, then why bother with subtitles?

Why bother with the dialogue at all then?

It should be noted that the film has been dogged by repeated claims of anti-Semitism, based off of a leaked script, that have lingered party due to the veil of secrecy that Gibson maintains around the film. That was the reason behind the comment that the film would kill Gibson's movie career.

 

[DerianCypher]

I (through contacts who have seen the movie) have heard it is very well done and not anti-semitistic(sp?)

edit: I should also put in that the movie wasn't completely done and was specially previewed by some people who work in ministries dealing w/ Hollywood.

DC

 

[Starman]

I'm definitely looking forward to this. I have faith in Mel to pull something like this off.

Starman

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Eh, I'll wait until I see the reviews. I feel like this Aramaic-Latin-Gobbledygook without subtitles is just a stunt. As has been said, this is a story almost everyone is familiar with. So if he doesn't have anything new to bring to the table, a la Last Temptation of Christ, I see this unintelligible dialogue thingy to be a cover for, well, a lack of a good script or anything new to say.

 

[Eridanis]

Eh, I'll wait until I see the reviews. I feel like this Aramaic-Latin-Gobbledygook without subtitles is just a stunt. As has been said, this is a story almost everyone is familiar with. So if he doesn't have anything new to bring to the table, a la Last Temptation of Christ, I see this unintelligible dialogue thingy to be a cover for, well, a lack of a good script or anything new to say.

I see your point, TW, but I look at it a different way. I think the lack of modern languages is to take attention away from dialogue (which is mostly unnecessary, since most non-Christians know the general plot & how it's going to end) and focus attention on the cinematography, and allow believers to contemplate the story and non-believers to appeciate the (hopefully well-done) style in which the story is told.

I'm looking forward to this movie, and my only Latin language training is from whatever choral pieces I've sung in the past.

 

[Henry]

I will obviously have to check out this trailer at home. I'm a sucker for "you are there" films, which remove English conventions; however, since English is the only language I am fluent in, I have the weird feeling of being both happy and unhappy with lack of subtitles at the same time.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

I'll be interested in seeing it, despite my original skepticism. It certainly takes a big pair to make this kind of movie. And there's Breaveheart making Gibson look like a competent director and all.

 

[Green Knight]

It's not a hollywood film at all. Gibson's done it without any studio support, and as far as I know has so far been unable to secure US distribution for the film (not surprising considering all the dialogue is in dead languages without subtitles). Why bother with the dialogue at all then?

Because not everyone that lived at the time was mute? Just because they didn't speak in a language which you or I understand doesn't mean they didn't speak at all, and it'd be ludicrous to just have them standing there, mute, not uttering any words at all, when they DID speak.

As for the distribution thing, he recently said that he can get distribution, so that isn't a problem.

It should be noted that the film has been dogged by repeated claims of anti-Semitism, based off of a leaked script, that have lingered party due to the veil of secrecy that Gibson maintains around the film. That was the reason behind the comment that the film would kill Gibson's movie career.

Look at the people making those claims. Believing the movie's anti-semitic is like believing D&D is satanic, just because Jack Chick says so. Jack Chick isn't exactly the most unbiased source when it comes to getting an honest opinion on D&D. The same goes for those who're making claims of anti-semitism.

Nevermind the fact that none of the people making that claim have actually seen the movie, and those that have have had nothing but the highest of praise for it. I think it was Jack Valenti who called Kirk Douglas and told him that this was the movie to beat. The movie even made grown men openly sob in the theatre when Gibson showed it to some people.

 

[Green Knight]

Eh, I'll wait until I see the reviews. I feel like this Aramaic-Latin-Gobbledygook without subtitles is just a stunt. As has been said, this is a story almost everyone is familiar with. So if he doesn't have anything new to bring to the table, a la Last Temptation of Christ, I see this unintelligible dialogue thingy to be a cover for, well, a lack of a good script or anything new to say.

Bring something new to the table? So you want to see a movie which makes things up from whole cloth the way the Last Temptation of Christ did? Guess you have a different criteria then I do, because I prefer movies that stay as close to the source material as possible, especially when the subject matter involves history or religion (I'll spare you my "Pearl Harbor Sucks/Tora! Tora! Tora! Rules" rant).

Personally, the best thing he can do is NOT to "bring something new to the table".

 

[Spatula]

Because not everyone that lived at the time was mute? Just because they didn't speak in a language which you or I understand doesn't mean they didn't speak at all, and it'd be ludicrous to just have them standing there, mute, not uttering any words at all, when they DID speak.

This is a film - it's art, not reality, not history. If Gibson was going for a perfect historical retelling of Christ's final days, he kinda messed that up when he let his casting director hire all those pale-skinned people.

Look at the people making those claims.

Religous scholars that got a look at an early draft of the script? The Anti-Defamation League? Because those are the people who were making the claims.

Nevermind the fact that none of the people making that claim have actually seen the movie, and those that have have had nothing but the highest of praise for it.

The film has been selectively screened (with subtitles, apparently - maybe they're necessary after all?) for people that share Gibson's religous beliefs.