Movie - Passion of the Christ

[BigJim]

There is one thing surrounding this film that pisses me off above all others.

When is someone going to give the expression "anti-semitism" a frigging break? It comes into everything and leaks through cracks into places where it has no relevance. (Sort of like Tony Blair really.) I'm sick and f***ing tired of this phrase being repeated for no other reason than the anti-semitism campaigners agrandisement. Christ is depicted being crucified. The Jews in that area give him up and the Romans condemn him. And this is supposed to have relevance for an entire nation or all people who say they have semitic blood? Only a complete turd-brain would believe so. Why should it be seen as being anti a whole people for heaven's sake? For God's sake can we please mention the Jews (As if so many people could possibly be descibed by a single word anyway! You can't just lump millions of people into one word.) without some bunch of tossers like the ADL leaping up and down and screaming for airtime?

Anyway, back on topic. I havn't seen the film yet; I almost certainly will see it. I find religion fascinating and I thoroughly enjoy a good story. I think Mel will have over-gored it for the sake of sensationalism (why would he change the habit of a lifetime? This is the man who asn't got a f***ing clue about history, as demonstrated amply in Braveheart and The Patriot) but I'll see it anyway. I think it'll be fascinating.

 

[BigJim]

Okaaaaay, just over two years on from making that post and I actually have now seen this film.

First impressions....... Mel Gibson is a dumb sack of shit with a proportionately tiny amount of writing/directing talent to his large acting one.

Jim Caviezel I remember being the actor who played Dennis Quaid's son in Wavelength, a film that had me blubbing like a good-un for its unashamedly schmaltzy feel-good ending. This Jesus looked more like he was being played by Eric Cantona. *???*

Watching this film was powerful and moving. Mostly in the bowel area. Despite not being a Christian I find the Jesus story incredibly romantic and touching and despite appreciating the power of this spectacle, it’s pretty obvious that Gibson forgot most of it and just went for mindless violence. Jesus may have been the son of God, he may not; but if He’d been on the receiving end of as much punishment as was depicted in the film he’d never have made it as far as Calvary in the first place. They’d have had to carry him up the fucking hill in strips! I admit that even an ornery twat like me nearly threw up at the sight of Caviezel’s ribs poking through the side of his left flank.

If I was going to make a film about Christ it would be different to this. As I’m about a tenth Red Sea Pedestrian myself, I might even cast myself in the starring role. 😀 (Providing we could find a cross that wouldn’t snap under me.) I’d have more message to balance the massage for a start. Any message that Christ might have brought to Earth is lost in a torrent of blood and tripes. We only see one miracle and flashbacks pertinent to His story are limited to about thirty seconds of the Sermon on the Mount. The most moving part of the film is the touching conversion of Simon from uncaring bystander to supporting shoulder, as a Jesus who took more punishment than Rocky Balboa did in all five Rocky movies (and goes down more times for that matter) weaves his way up the side of Calvary. The impression I’m left with is that Gibson has gone nuts and become obsessed with gratuitous violence and a pre-Renaissance religious mania; fusing the two in a way that destroys what could have been a seriously classical picture. (But as I said two years ago, why would he change the habit of a lifetime now? Braveheart and The Patriot were both complete abortions of cinematography and history.) He could have left the violence in if he wished – after all, he could have cited artistic license pretty legitimately – if only he’d added an extra thirty minutes of message. For someone coming new to the story (as many would do; coming to see the movie with an intentionally blank mind isn’t all that unusual) they aren’t told anything about Jesus, except that he claimed to be the Son of God and got minced to death by the Romans at the behest of the Sanhedrin. The movie is a complete blank sheet for anyone wanting to be made to think.

Now is it anti-Semitic? Well we’re all familiar on this forum with concept of flaming and flame-bait. This isn’t flames, but given the mentality of a thankfully small minority of wankers, it could be flame-bait. The Sanhedrin are led by a really evil twat of a high priest with only two or three decent blokes, and the mob (who we have to assume are mostly Jewish at least, due to the geographical location) could have come straight from a Millwall soccer game. I’m also a bit affronted that Caviezel is so WASP he could have black and yellow stripes and a sting. Makeup is so good these days that could have been rectified quite easily.

Easily the biggest baddies though are the rank and file Roman legionnaires, who display a cruelty and indifference to suffering I haven’t witnessed since I was at school. It’s hard to imagine any human beings being capable of the sort of stuff they do without having half a moustache, a wanky hairstyle and an inability to do the salute they invented. They are also as dumb as shit: Jesus is three quarters dead by the time he lays hands on the cross and has a long walk carrying a heavy weight ahead of him. Their great idea of the day is to beat and kick him even more, making him collapse three or four times from the shock on his way to Golgotha.

And finally, the crowning turd in the water pipe; the resurrection scene is about thirty seconds long and consists of Jesus standing up and walking out of the tomb; an anti-climax of truly Lucas proportions in my opinion. The film could really have done with a dramatic and heart uplifting climax, but we’re denied it; probably because Mel Gibson is a fucking head banger who’s totally lost in his own bloody mania.

We do get a final picture showing just why Jesus will never be able to eat a Malteaser again though.


Final Verdict: It's no suprise why this was panned by the critics and fans and is now being sold for about five pounds by most online DVD vendors. It was a truly awful effort.

 

[Wrathchild]

I never saw it because I dont particularly care for farfetched, fictional movies.

 

[tulipangel]

Okaaaaay, just over two years on from making that post and I actually have now seen this film.

First impressions....... Mel Gibson is a dumb sack of shit with a proportionately tiny amount of writing/directing talent to his large acting one.

Jim Caviezel I remember being the actor who played Dennis Quaid's son in Wavelength, a film that had me blubbing like a good-un for its unashamedly schmaltzy feel-good ending. This Jesus looked more like he was being played by Eric Cantona. *???*

Watching this film was powerful and moving. Mostly in the bowel area. Despite not being a Christian I find the Jesus story incredibly romantic and touching and despite appreciating the power of this spectacle, it’s pretty obvious that Gibson forgot most of it and just went for mindless violence. Jesus may have been the son of God, he may not; but if He’d been on the receiving end of as much punishment as was depicted in the film he’d never have made it as far as Calvary in the first place. They’d have had to carry him up the fucking hill in strips! I admit that even an ornery twat like me nearly threw up at the sight of Caviezel’s ribs poking through the side of his left flank.

If I was going to make a film about Christ it would be different to this. As I’m about a tenth Red Sea Pedestrian myself, I might even cast myself in the starring role. 😀 (Providing we could find a cross that wouldn’t snap under me.) I’d have more message to balance the massage for a start. Any message that Christ might have brought to Earth is lost in a torrent of blood and tripes. We only see one miracle and flashbacks pertinent to His story are limited to about thirty seconds of the Sermon on the Mount. The most moving part of the film is the touching conversion of Simon from uncaring bystander to supporting shoulder, as a Jesus who took more punishment than Rocky Balboa did in all five Rocky movies (and goes down more times for that matter) weaves his way up the side of Calvary. The impression I’m left with is that Gibson has gone nuts and become obsessed with gratuitous violence and a pre-Renaissance religious mania; fusing the two in a way that destroys what could have been a seriously classical picture. (But as I said two years ago, why would he change the habit of a lifetime now? Braveheart and The Patriot were both complete abortions of cinematography and history.) He could have left the violence in if he wished – after all, he could have cited artistic license pretty legitimately – if only he’d added an extra thirty minutes of message. For someone coming new to the story (as many would do; coming to see the movie with an intentionally blank mind isn’t all that unusual) they aren’t told anything about Jesus, except that he claimed to be the Son of God and got minced to death by the Romans at the behest of the Sanhedrin. The movie is a complete blank sheet for anyone wanting to be made to think.

Now is it anti-Semitic? Well we’re all familiar on this forum with concept of flaming and flame-bait. This isn’t flames, but given the mentality of a thankfully small minority of wankers, it could be flame-bait. The Sanhedrin are led by a really evil twat of a high priest with only two or three decent blokes, and the mob (who we have to assume are mostly Jewish at least, due to the geographical location) could have come straight from a Millwall soccer game. I’m also a bit affronted that Caviezel is so WASP he could have black and yellow stripes and a sting. Makeup is so good these days that could have been rectified quite easily.

Easily the biggest baddies though are the rank and file Roman legionnaires, who display a cruelty and indifference to suffering I haven’t witnessed since I was at school. It’s hard to imagine any human beings being capable of the sort of stuff they do without having half a moustache, a wanky hairstyle and an inability to do the salute they invented. They are also as dumb as shit: Jesus is three quarters dead by the time he lays hands on the cross and has a long walk carrying a heavy weight ahead of him. Their great idea of the day is to beat and kick him even more, making him collapse three or four times from the shock on his way to Golgotha.

And finally, the crowning turd in the water pipe; the resurrection scene is about thirty seconds long and consists of Jesus standing up and walking out of the tomb; an anti-climax of truly Lucas proportions in my opinion. The film could really have done with a dramatic and heart uplifting climax, but we’re denied it; probably because Mel Gibson is a fucking head banger who’s totally lost in his own bloody mania.

We do get a final picture showing just why Jesus will never be able to eat a Malteaser again though.


Final Verdict: It's no suprise why this was panned by the critics and fans and is now being sold for about five pounds by most online DVD vendors. It was a truly awful effort.

................And you took the words right out of my mouth! Thank you!

 

[Mastertank1]

Move this thread, please

Someone, please move this thread to the politics and religion forum, so I can give the multiple idiocies posted on it the answers they deserve without violating TMF rules.
Mastertank1

 

[BigJim]

Someone, please move this thread to the politics and religion forum, so I can give the multiple idiocies posted on it the answers they deserve without violating TMF rules.
Mastertank1

This isn't a thread about whether Christianity is true or not, it's a thread discussing what people think of Mel Gibson's artistic merits in depicting the story of Christ's last few hours. You'll notice if you read my post that I don't comment once on actual religion. Therefore it belongs here in Gen. Disc.

I think you'll also find that the same rules apply in P&R as here. P&R isn't a "license to rant" forum. You stand just as much chance of being modded for not being able to post something constructive there as you do here.

 

[Wrathchild]

Ill say this...I dont believe in god or christianity or any "old man in the sky who knows everything" religioin but the crucifixion of christ...the whole "slain king" story is very compelling.

 

[Mastertank1]

Okay

I'll confine my comments to the merits of the film, not the subject matter's truth or falsehood.
I think it highly comparable to "Birth Of A Nation".
Both opted for sensationalism over storytelling.
Both perpetuated or attempted to revive ethnic stereotypes which were already to become discredited and to lose their power at the time the films were made.
Both conveyed more information about the contents and state of the mind of the film maker than about the nominal subject matter.
Both enjoyed a great theater run because they appealed powerfully to prejudices of their respective time, and made a lot of money.

There is one unfortunate difference; D.W, Griffith's career was not blighted, because the people he offended the most had no effective power in the entertainment industry at that time. That was unfortunate.
Gibson, however, offended a group which does in fact wield a great deal of power in the entertainment indusrtry in general and films in particular. I am a Jew myself. I do NOT believe that Gibson had an anti-semitic agenda in making the film. I think his intention was to propagandize in favor of the belief system he was brought up with.
It is unarguable that many many viewers of the film, including both Jews and non-Jews, have read anti-semitism into the film. Many have done so with approval, but they were not converted to anti-semitism by the film; they were anti-semitic to begin with, and would have interpreted any film which presented the story as told in the four gospels as further justification for thier attitude.
I feel certain that a number of my fellow Jews, who happen to occupy positions of power in the film industry, have been trying to interfere with Gibsons career. There have been several projects that seem naturals for him as an actor, which seem almost to have been written with him in mind, which have been made without him. They have failed as a result.
Sadly, I think that for at least some time, the only opportunity Gibson will get to act in new films will be by financing the film himself. Even then, he may have difficulty securing distribution. I've encountered rumors that new sequels
to both the 'Lethal Weapon' and 'Road Warrior' series, as well as one to 'Conspiracy Theory' have been killed due to over-reaction to the perceived anti-semitism of 'The Passion'.
Mastertank1

 

[BigJim]

I'll confine my comments to the merits of the film, not the subject matter's truth or falsehood.
I think it highly comparable to "Birth Of A Nation".
Both opted for sensationalism over storytelling.
Both perpetuated or attempted to revive ethnic stereotypes which were already to become discredited and to lose their power at the time the films were made.
Both conveyed more information about the contents and state of the mind of the film maker than about the nominal subject matter.
Both enjoyed a great theater run because they appealed powerfully to prejudices of their respective time, and made a lot of money.

Got to agree on all points.

I do NOT believe that Gibson had an anti-semitic agenda in making the film. I think his intention was to propagandize in favor of the belief system he was brought up with.

I don't believe he did either. It wouyld have been impossible to make a "realistic" film version of this story without painting certain characters who happened to be Jewish in a bad light.

It is unarguable that many many viewers of the film, including both Jews and non-Jews, have read anti-semitism into the film.

Uh-huh, I have to concur. I think they fall mainly into three groups.

a) Those who populate the world of the "professionally outraged", who can't exist without a reason to slam someone...

b) Jewish people who are over-sensitive...

c) People who cynically use anti-semitism as a black-coated brush to taint anyone they don't like or approve of, because it's one of the greatest racial slurs in our society. Most leading members of the A.D.L. fit into this category and a large proportion of their rank and file members fall into the first.

I feel certain that a number of my fellow Jews, who happen to occupy positions of power in the film industry, have been trying to interfere with Gibsons career. There have been several projects that seem naturals for him as an actor, which seem almost to have been written with him in mind, which have been made without him. They have failed as a result.

I haven't heard anything to this effect, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. It follows a depressingly frequent pattern I see in a lot of things.

Sadly, I think that for at least some time, the only opportunity Gibson will get to act in new films will be by financing the film himself. Even then, he may have difficulty securing distribution. I've encountered rumors that new sequels
to both the 'Lethal Weapon' and 'Road Warrior' series, as well as one to 'Conspiracy Theory' have been killed due to over-reaction to the perceived anti-semitism of 'The Passion'.
Mastertank1

Yeah, that would fit into my above comments. Sad, but a very oft used technique. It's amazing because most of the people employing it would describe themselves as being "anti-fascist", but then they act in a way that can only be described as fascist themselves.

 

[BigJim]

A review made by another viewer pretty much struck a chord with me...

Scepticism is immediate as the opening scene depicts the Devil - personified as female. The film is a misogynistic, shame & blame ridden, inaccurate & bias depiction of events, the only thing shining with passion throughout being the ugliness of Gibson's machismo. The Passion is Mad Max's Lethal Weapon 5...

On Anti Semitism, one must ask what was in the original script. Max declares inspiration for his spirituality is his holocaust denying Father and chose to base much of his script on meditations from the outrageously anti Semitic Catherine Emmerich, (Catholic nun come 'mystic meg'). Viewed by respected theologians, the original draft provoked request for big changes. Deemed it would promote anti Semitism, it was declared the most anti Semitic work seen in a long time.

However, the film in its final form is not anti Semitic. Everyone depicted as supporting Christ is Jewish and Christ himself is clearly shown suffering and being ridiculed for his Judaism. Evident are the roles of Caesar & the Pharisees as is the fact that it's the arrogant, self righteous, secular hierarchies that bay for Christ crucified. Claims that Pilate is portrayed wrongly as empathetic are false. He is shown as he was - the epitome of hypocritical cowardice.

Is the script accurate? Words from Gospel are slotted into the correct scenes, but that is where the accuracy ends as it is interspersed with so much else from Max's imagination, Catholicism, the Apocrypha and 'Meditations'. The scriptural and historical inaccuracies are too numerous to list, but to name a few...

There is huge play on the Stations of the Cross, with more falls and events than are in gospel - Veronica wiping Christ's face included. There is no Veronica in the Bible. Claudia bringing towels for the women to clean Christ's blood from the floor - this comes from Emmerichs 'hallucinations'. Mary, Christ's mother is not mentioned in Gospel scenes, yet Max places her in every scene, giving her voice and has her referred to as Mother, by ALL, thus elevating her to wrongful divinity. By bringing in the bias of the 'Holy Madonna', it's predictable he will wheel in the ***** and he does. Mary Magdalene is depicted in flashback as the fallen woman, the label of prostitute placed on Magdalene in 591 by Pope Gregory 1 and later retracted by the RC Church. For the finale, Christ gives a Catholic blessing from the cross. Thus Max turns the Devil into a woman and converts Christ to Catholic in one three hour slot.

The passion is also, by default, misandric. If the women are depicted as emotionally inept 'weeping' cardboard cut outs - Jim Caviezel is not given a chance to 'be' Christ - although we could strenously argue the right for anyone to be personifying Christ in the first place considering the second commandment. The love of Christ and the psychological desolation and emotional torture he endured are omitted entirely. The flogging takes up the majority of run time and whilst the violence and scourging cannot be denied, by showing that alone, we do not see a glimmer of Christ. No man in the film, Christ included, is 'allowed' to exhibit emotion, just physical endurance or violence.

Max's tactic is to assault emotions; "Look at what you did to Christ; be ashamed; guilty; feel sorry for 'Christ the victim'," and that is the danger of the film. That people will leave with no more than sympathy for Christ and feel shame too, which was not the intention. Societal trends prove that shamed people walk away, so it could equally be argued that Max's passion is the work of the Anti Christ. If it were made VERY clear that it wasn't an accurate pictorial, Max's offering would be fine, but it isn't, therefore the passion is confusing and false in its message. God loves us so much he gave his only Son to save us? Not in Max's depiction...

If there is to be any value in Max's monstrosity it is that it could make people think about man's inhumanity to man. That people could question what they have seen and then find that the crucifixion was a central part of the mission that had to be, that shame and guilt were not to be the result, but that it was an act of love, redemption, and forgiveness. The bias shown throughout is provocative and base for productive discussion, rather than 'anarchy' between faiths. Another bonus is that even if the music and direction is abysmal, the cinematography is awesome.

Some say Max risking so much dosh was proof of his passion? Turning the 'Passion of Christ' into a voyeuristic feast fit for the palate of a snuff pornographer ensures notoriety, controversy, a box office smash and eliminates risk. 'The Passion' is betrayal with Max prostituting Christ with his own dubious passion.

Judas made 30 pieces of silver - Mad Max will make?

Couldn't have put it better myself. A piece of tat masquerading as art, with a very undetalented director working out his own personal demons on the screen.

 

[Hiryu]

I have a brother who is an avid bible reader who seen the movie and says that the film's depiction of Christ's suffering isn't as bad as it was in reality. I've been holding off on seeing it for whatever excuse my mind can come up with but, I think now that I'll go ahead and give it a look. No more running...

 

[Goodieluver]

I have a brother who is an avid bible reader who seen the movie and says that the film's depiction of Christ's suffering isn't as bad as it was in reality. I've been holding off on seeing it for whatever excuse my mind can come up with but, I think now that I'll go ahead and give it a look. No more running...

Well, no one knows legitimately how bad he was beaten, i mean scientists and scholars have acclaimed he was whipped 144 times with a metal pronged cat o nine tail(how they came to that conclusion i am not sure) But just reading the bible on that is pretty brutal. I guess im part of the recent generation desensitized to brutality. I mean i can watch and aknowledge the brutality but i wont close my eyes or avoid it.(i felt the legitimate decapitation video from terror groups was more brutal) but ironically, the only part of the movie to actually move me was the portrayal of mary throughout the movie. As for antisemitism, anyone can view any movie and claim its offensive, or racist or whathaveyou. I actually had a professor discuss how sleepless in seattle is a racist and bigoted movie, because the only black person is dave chapelle and he is the "comic relief" and "he has lesser power than tom hanks" and that Tom Hanks is pretty much asserting power over meg ryan and being controllive. Now some may say thats a crackpot theory but it just goes to show you can overanalyze ANY treatment and find some "flaw" or "hidden agenda" if yer lookin for it

 

[BigJim]

I have a brother who is an avid bible reader who seen the movie and says that the film's depiction of Christ's suffering isn't as bad as it was in reality. I've been holding off on seeing it for whatever excuse my mind can come up with but, I think now that I'll go ahead and give it a look. No more running...

The Bible itself is sketchy in description and doesn't say anything about the degree it went to. Historical sources however all agree that there isn't anything as bad as that in a real flogging/crucifiction, largely because a flogging that bad would have killed the guy before he could be crucified anyway.

 

[Tickle Machine]

The Passion of the Christ

I seen the movie two weeks ago and all I can say is: No man could endure what Christ endured. I had a liitle qualm about Judas though, then some members of the church that I attend showed me in the bible that the 30 pieces of silver belonged to the children of Israel. The whole cross thing is symbolic.

 

[Goodieluver]

I seen the movie two weeks ago and all I can say is: No man could endure what Christ endured. I had a liitle qualm about Judas though, then some members of the church that I attend showed me in the bible that the 30 pieces of silver belonged to the children of Israel. The whole cross thing is symbolic.

So are you trying to say because of the unrealistic brutality that Jesus did not exist\just a story and he wasnt beaten or are you commenting on how remarkable Jesus christ was?

 

[german]

I thought it was a good movie, I saw when it came out and also purchased the dvd. Being it one of my favourite movies I have only watched it 3 or 4 times compared to other movies I enjoyed upwards of 20 times only because it stirs emotions inside that I found worrying and thats why I think there was a major issue with this movie with the jews.

Now I have 2 point;

1 - The jews were there, simple and they played a huge role in his death and torture thats historic fact, I dont understand why jews have a problem with it, it happened. It's like any other historic film.

Now I didn't see any Jews questioning the historic content in the movie Munich or how that movie portrayed the people of Palestine, a touch hypocritical maybe????

2 - Also in regards to the jewish community worrying that the movie would create more hate towards them, I can understand their view but I feel that people who hate them will always hate them and people who dont (I might say people with a touch higher intelligence level) wont and a movie I think wont change that.

may God love us

Kust

 

[TklDuo-Ann]

I still think this was well done for the most part. As far as people enduring the level of brutality... What do you think they did it for? It wasn't supposed to be pleasant. And, the Romans never cared if a prisoner survived or not. The whole point was to make the execution so feared that people would go out of their way to avoid it.

If anyone would like to check out an excellent look at the true horror of crucifixion, try finding the book "Doctor at Calvary". It's written by a surgeon who studied the shroud and determined what was done to the man who had been lain in it. (Whether you believe it to be Jesus' shroud or not, it gives a good idea of what these people went through.)

Ann

PS - That book was out of print last I knew. Though they were looking at re-releasing it, I don't know if they've done so yet. Barnes & Noble was able to find me a used copy a while back.

 

[BigJim]

On the subject of "the Jews"...


Those who say the story of Jesus (any story really, not necessarily this one) is anti-semitic need to shake themselves. According to whatever version of the story you refer to, the ones who wanted Him dead most were the local priests.

There's nothing racist about that. Geezer turns up, threatens their powerbase, makes them look like bastards and wankers. That is something that it not at all difficult to imagine. Pristhoods the world over would have reacted the same way, not because they are priests, not even because they are Jewish, but because they are powerful people who see the reason for their authority being eroded. That they are Jewish and priests is irrelevant and coincidental, because of the geographical location we're talking about.

Anyone who discriminates against millions of people in a religion because of the alleged historical reactions of no more than a dozen is a fucking numpty-bollock. Anyone in that group who says that the alleged actions being publiscised of those dozen is a racialist blow against the whole people, is seriously over-sensitive.

The Sanehdrin and the few score rent-a-dunken-lout in the square are not "the Jews" any more than the narrow-minded idiots who set fire to Harry Potter books are "the Christians".

 

[MrMacphisto]

How does this keep coming back to Jews? I agree that the term "anti-Semite" is very overused these days, but when it comes to "The Passion of the Christ", I thought it was good and not anti-Semitic in the least. Christ was a Jew, and the movie obviously regards him as the hero, so that sounds pro-Semitic to me. You could probably argue the movie was anti-Pharisee though....

I'm not a Biblical scholar or theologian, so I don't know how accurate it was, I just wanted to see something with good acting and emotional intensity. I thought the movie delivered the goods. I wouldn't doubt that Gibson is probably a little nutty as a person, but if he makes good movies, I'll watch them.

 

[BigJim]

Virtually nothing happens in the world these days that involves Jewish people, or a Jewish person, without some wanker from the ADL celling it "anti-semitic". This movie certainly was.

I agree with your term of "anti-Pharisee" though Mac, although not even that was correct, because it was only part of the Pharisee movement that was shitty.