Anyone one seen The Christ,

[SnoopDog]

Before I say something, I'll have to mention I'm not a very religious guy and I haven't seen it yet. But I don't understand the fuss about it.
In the end it's just a movie, there have been other violent movies before, some old religious movies had violence in it.
So I guess the violence is true to the book. (lol, that sounds funny)
The only criticism it might get is that it is anti-semitic. But I can't judge on that without having seen it.
By the way, I like Mel Gibson, as an actor and director. You might not like violence or the stories he's involved with but at least you have to admit that he is actually a good actor and director.
Snoopy
P.S.: One of the best thread topics ever, lol

 

[Pure]

//We can't imagine just how much he suffered. //

Probably not, if we haven't been prisoners in certain countries.

BUT. The Romans executed (crucified) hundreds along the sides of the road.

AND. The civilized(?) Brits, 300 or more years back executed in a number of nasty ways; how about pouring molten lead in the fellow's ass; disemboweling after hanging, etc.

I shall leave aside our Pre Columbian forbears.

It's hard to imagine ANY of these old ways to 'go.'

 

[English Lady]

Pure...good point..we can't imagine the pain any of them were in...Thank God!


Snoop....well i'm going to watch it when I can because i will be fascinated to see how gruesome it really is. I guess he's going for the shock factor.....I'm quite interested to see how he goes about it.

 

[SnoopDog]

As I've heard it's really, REALLY gruesome. And for the short trailer scene I've seen, where he's being crucified, now that looked kinda .... disturbing let's say
Snoopy, looks at his kennel, no crosses there

 

[shereads]

Wow, did they hack them off and glue them on a real actor

Suddenly reminded of an episode of The Young Ones wherein ever-depressed Neil once again fails to kill himself, this time by "not being able to get the last nail in."

 

[Guest]

Suddenly reminded of an episode of The Young Ones wherein ever-depressed Neil once again fails to kill himself, this time by "not being able to get the last nail in."

ella, what the hell kind of show was that?

 

[shereads]

The Romans executed (crucified) hundreds along the sides of the road.

AND. The civilized(?) Brits, 300 or more years back executed in a number of nasty ways; how about pouring molten lead in the fellow's ass; disemboweling after hanging, etc.

I shall leave aside our Pre Columbian forbears.

"Crucifiction is nothing. Stabbing; now there's a nasty way to go."

-- an elderly Jewish man in "Life of Brian" tormenting a Roman centurion.

 

[shereads]

ella, what the hell kind of show was that?

The Young Ones?

Blame it on the Brits. During the '80's the series ran here on MTV. A group of college house-mates who despised each other and were slackers; a sub-plot featured Neil's hamster and a family of puppet rats living in the basement.

The first episode I watched made me a fan because it contained this:

------------------

Depressed pilot of a commercial aircraft casually says to co-pilot: "I hope we don't have a crash."

Co-pilot: "Nonsense. Statistically, we're in a lot more danger just driving home from the airport."

Pilot: "Yes. And we have to do that too."

-----------------

Which was the first time that particular statistic has ever been cited in a way that makes absolute sense to me.

Just finished reading last week's Newsweek magazine critique of Gibson's film, which has been getting negative press for its alleged anti-semitism since it was in filming. I had thought the charges of anti-semitism were some sort of knee-jerk reaction, understandable in light of a long history of blame for Jesus' death having been used as an excuse to persecute Jews.

The Newsweek article offers specific evidence to support the charges of anti-semitism against this filmed version, though. It details several ways in which Gibson's film departs from scripture, expanding the culpability of the Jews and portraying Pontius Pilate's role as a passive one. In the film, he is pressured into executing Jesus in order to placate the Jews and prevent rebellion. Historians maintain that Pilate had no need to placate the Jews and in fact had a history of putting down minor rebellions by violent means. Additionally, the article explains the Gospel account of Christ's death in light of it having been written by people living under Roman rule, who had a political axe to grind against the Jewish power elite.

Gibson has of course denied any anti-Semitism, but does admit that the film is his "personal vision" and not entirely faithful to scriptural accounts.

 

[NoJo]

Re: Hmmmm

I'm guessing the book's better than the movie.

 

[Guest]

Gibson has of course denied any anti-Semitism, but does admit that the film is his "personal vision" and not entirely faithful to scriptural accounts.

Thanks for the 'young ones' info.

If that is correct above, it says enough for me. A "personal vision" from Mel Gibson? No thanks.

Perdita

 

[NoJo]

Viv Stanshall, I think, reminded us many years ago that:

Not only was Jesus a Jew,
He was once a teenager too.

 

[shereads]

I don't plan to see it because I have a physical aversion to brutality on film. At the same time, I did see Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List - knowing they would be far from entertaining. I saw both out of what I can best call a feeling of duty, however puny the effort on my part. Finally, someone had chosen to show the reality of combat/of the Holocaust in an unflinching way, so that we can truly understand what these people went through. I don't condemn anyone for not wanting to see such films, but neither do I doubt the sincerity of the motive. And I watched both films with a feeling that if I had suffered that way, I would take some small comfort in the hope that someday my story would be told and people would cry for my pain.

I don't doubt that Gibson feels compelled to show the violence of what Jesus faced, so that we can understand his fear. Whether or not he believed himself to be God and looked forward to an eternity without pain, facing crucifiction with full knowledge of what awaited him is a different matter than if he had allowed himself to be executed by beheading or some other quick way. I can see the point, and I'm sure it will be a powerful experience for Christians. I do hope that those who see it will be reminded that the role of the Jews has been emphasized to an extent, and the guilt of the Romans downplayed, whether for dramatic purpose or because there is some anti-Semitism at work; Mel Gibson's father is not shy about being a Nazi sympathizer.

Even some theologians who were interviewed for the Newsweek article noted that the Gospel account of Christ's death likely took some dramatic license in ast least one aspect: the reason for killing Jesus was that his popularity made him dangerous; so the jeering, abusive mass of people watching his progress as he carries the cross is inconsistent with the rest of the story.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Hmmmm

I'm guessing the book's better than the movie.

Which translation?

And what is that thing in the fire in your AV? It looks like a stalactite.

 

[NoJo]

Even some theologians who were interviewed for the Newsweek article noted that the Gospel account of Christ's death likely took some dramatic license in ast least one aspect: the reason for killing Jesus was that his popularity made him dangerous; so the jeering, abusive mass of people watching his progress as he carries the cross is inconsistent with the rest of the story.

A great book called "Revolution in Judea" provides a lot of political background to the world Jesus was born into. It made a lot of sense to me.

But I think it's probably true that his popularity with the poor was a major threat both to the Romans, and to the puppet governement drawn from the corrupt Saducee priesthood.

But please, everyone, remember who invented Crucifiction. And who ruled Judea.

One historian has remarked that the mere two references to the Roman occupying force in the New Testament is about as odd as writing about France in 1942 without mentioning the Nazi's.

 

[shereads]

But please, everyone, remember who invented Crucifiction.

Attorney General John Ashcroft! Who could forget?

One historian has remarked that the mere two references to the Roman occupying force in the New Testament is about as odd as writing about France in 1942 without mentioning the Nazi's.

Understandable if the Nazis were in power while one was writing the book.

 

[Guest]

...[re. Saving Pvt. Ryan:] Fnally, someone had chosen to show the reality of combat/of the Holocaust in an unflinching way, so that we can truly understand what these people went through.

This goes to the point I was trying to make earlier. Even if you film actual violence you cannot "truly understand" what the person is going through. Your reactions are your own, no one else's. Not a soldier's in battle nor a person being crucified nor a woman being raped. Re. physical pain, there is no way to portray the reality of it to another. Depending on one's intelligence and sensitivities, one may come closer to an idea of the reality, but not the thing itself.

Perdita

 

[NoJo]

I don't follow any religion, having taken a vow of science many years ago.

But, what appeals to me most in Christ's life is what he preached-- not what happened to him, or the miracles, or even the crucifixion or resurrection.


Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:38-44)

 

[Guest]

There's an interview in March's issue of Reader's Digest with Mel about the movie. It was interesting. In his view, what happened in real life to Jesus was likely even more violent than the movie portrayed it, saying that according to history, he was bruised and beaten so that his face didn't even look human anymore.

 

[NoJo]

Sorry, I don't find that interesting, but sleazy and sensationalist. And it gives me a good idea of how Mel's pitching the movie.

 

[shereads]

This goes to the point I was trying to make earlier. Even if you film actual violence you cannot "truly understand" what the person is going through. Your reactions are your own, no one else's. Not a soldier's in battle nor a person being crucified nor a woman being raped. Re. physical pain, there is no way to portray the reality of it to another. Depending on one's intelligence and sensitivities, one may come closer to an idea of the reality, but not the thing itself.

Perdita

The storming-the-beach scene in Saving Private Ryan did a superb job of conveying the sheer terror of being fired upon from a ridge, knowing that you are going to die so that the ones arriving behind you might have a chance to progress up the hill while the enemy is reloading. I've seen so many war movies that glorify or minimize that part of battle. I can't pretend I felt what they felt, but I was closer to understanding it than I had been before. I was shaken in a way that I've never been by any other account of war.

Spielberg used no music, and claustrophobic camera work that gave the sensation of being in the middle of confusion. The sound effects of bullets pinging off of metal; close-ups of young men sobbing and trying to shield themselves behind bodies. The theater in Miami Beach where I saw Saving Private Ryan - and before that, Schindler's List - was about one-quarter filled with elderly people whose memories were being honored.

No, you can't offer to let an audience feel the pain of torture or of being wounded by a grenade, but you can show them what it's like to face such a thing so that they question whether they themselves would have had the courage.

I will not watch this movie; I don't feel the need to subject myself to watching torture. But I think a case can be made that no one has ever portrayed the horror of what Jesus knew he was facing when he refused to try to save himself, for whatever merit it might have. We can't understand the courage it might have taken if we don't accept that he had seen the torture he was about to face, and was as sickened by it as the audience of this fillm will be.

Unfortuntely, there will be an element of people who enjoy that kind of violence and miss the point.

I remember hoping that when my pre-adolescent nephew saw Saving Private Ryan with his parents, he'd get over the idea that war is glamorous and exciting. Didn't work that way. He thought the movie was 'cool.'

 

[Guest]

... how Mel's pitching the movie.

This is an excerpt (from the SF Chronicle). Disgaastin! - Perdita

See The Movie, Buy The Nail: Jesus died for your sins -- and also to sell you a really btchin' "Passion" coffee mug

By Mark Morford

You, yes you, can right now purchase a truly stylin' sepia-toned "Passion of the Christ" cross-adorned coffee mug, an exact replica of the one Jesus Himself used every morning at the Jerusalem Starbucks.

You can buy "witnessing tools," including lapel pins labeled in indecipherable Aramaic (yay Aramaic! What a comeback! Who knew?) and lapel pins with crucifixes, and packs of "witnessing cards" to swap with your Jesus-happy friends, just like the Disciples did when they sat around the holy campfire, swapping tales of sad lost goddesses and making s'mores with communion wafers and pink Easter marshmallow peeps.

But nothing says "slightly masochistic Jesus fanatic" like adorning your fine self with a two-inch silver pewter crucifixion-nail pendant, hanging 'round your neck from a nice 24-inch leather chord. Oh my yes.

It's an actual product, available right now for about ten bucks from Mel Gibson's official "Passion of the Christ" movie Web site, while supplies last, which they will forever and ever because they're doubtlessly made in bulk by Malaysian sweatshop workers wearing faded "Lethal Weapon IV" T-shirts who all believe in a very unhappy Allah. Irony, it knoweth no boundaries.

full article and pics

 

[Guest]

ella, I tried to make myself as plain as possible. You didn't get me.

Of course seeing 'pvt. ryan' or 'Platoon' isn't going to change someone's ideological thinking, whatever their age. Can you think a great film on racism is going to affect a KKK member so that he reconsiders his views of niggers? If someone hates Jews, seeing Schindler's List or footage from the camps is not going to do fuck all to change their minds.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

Here's a review by one of my fave film critics, it reads quite fair. I will definitely not be seeing this film. - Perdita

It's a passionate film. It's also a bloodbath. Brutality engulfs Mel Gibson's vision of the Crucifixion. - Mick LaSalle, Chronicle Movie Critic

At its best, "The Passion of the Christ'' is an inspired film, and inspired in the best sense, by a sincere faith and a desire to express and share that faith. Writer-director Mel Gibson's recounting of Jesus' last hours on earth is filled with many details of a kind that can come only after long contemplation. These touches are not ignorable, nor is Gibson's wise and daring choice to present the story in the historically accurate languages of Aramaic and Latin. "The Passion of the Christ'' is Gibson's attempt to cut through the conventions of the Hollywood epic and get to the true heart of the story.

But the film suffers from a grand miscalculation on Gibson's part, for in avoiding one set of Hollywood conventions, he accidentally falls victim to a whole other set. He adheres with absolute faithfulness to the surface reality of Jesus' crucifixion -- in all its blood and horror -- but ends up turning Christianity's central event into an action movie. There are some flashbacks and a handful of brief conversations, but for the most part the movie consists entirely of James Caviezel, who plays Jesus, getting beaten to a bloody pulp. "The Passion of the Christ'' is a two-hour-long murder scene.

For some, that will be a selling point. Certainly, a case can be made that Gibson's film comes closer to the objective, surface truth of Jesus' crucifixion than any other film that has gone before it. But there's also such a thing as spiritual truth. Cecil B. DeMille, in the silent days, and Nicholas Ray, in 1961, each made a Jesus film that scaled back on the violence yet captured something of the meaning of the Crucifixion and the ecstatic nature of the Christian faith. Gibson's film dilutes much of that in buckets of blood. Instead of letting his reverence broaden him, Gibson uses his action-movie expertise to reduce the Crucifixion to something kinetic, literal and merely tragic. The story doesn't make Gibson bigger; he makes it smaller.

All of this bespeaks a fundamental problem in overall conception, and yet the film's look is often first-rate. In a blue moonlit haze, the camera first finds Jesus in the Garden of Olives -- here more like woods than a garden --

suffering an agony of terror, as the devil, a smooth-faced, androgynous being, perches nearby. The soundtrack combines industrial noise with something like the sound of an orchestra's tuning up and running scales. The effect is distancing, and so is the Aramaic language. In these early moments, "The Passion of the Christ'' carries a promise of excitement, the sense of going back in time to see things as they really happened.

For this Jesus, nothing is easy. When he leaves the garden, he is resolved to follow through on his sacrifice, but he hasn't lost any of his dread. There's no escaping the terrors of being in a human body, even when these terrors are countered by faith and the absolute assurance of paradise.

It's a point worth making, but soon we realize that Gibson intends to make that point through excessive violence. The first hint comes as the soldiers are taking Jesus to see Caiphas, the high priest. They punch him so that he falls off a bridge and is saved from hitting the ground only by the fact that he's wrapped in chains. Pulling on the chains, the soldiers drag him back up, laughing. This is nothing compared with what comes next.

"The Passion of the Christ'' follows Jesus as he's beaten and spat upon by the Pharisees, brought to Pontius Pilate, brought to King Herod and then brought back to Pilate. In one of the movie's smart touches, Pilate's interview with Jesus takes place in a corridor -- for Pilate, it's just another day in this miserable outpost of the Roman Empire. It's the Pharisees who are insistent on seeing Jesus crucified.

In a movie in which every non-Roman character, saint or sinner, is Jewish, it would be hard to sustain a charge that the film is anti-Semitic. However, it is a little disquieting to notice that every evil Jewish character carries on like a community theater Shylock, while the good Jews -- such as Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene or Maia Morgenstern as the Virgin Mary -- act like normal human beings.

The turning point of the film comes when Jesus is beaten by two sadistic Romans, carrying out Pilate's orders. In a scene that must go on for at least 10 minutes, Jesus is tied to a block and beaten with sticks. Then he's flailed, the skin ripped from his back and sides and chest in bloody chunks. By the time he's dragged away, there's a circumference of spattered blood all around the block. The movie is already a bloodbath, and it gets worse. Caviezel goes through the rest of the film dripping and drenched with blood, and in the Crucifixion scene, Gibson leaves nothing to the imagination.

The effect, as is usually the case with violent action movies, is numbing, but even then some strong moments stand out. Gibson intercuts Jesus' nailing to the cross with convincing scenes of the Last Supper, and Jesus' words from the cross -- especially his assurances to the good thief -- have an impact. But their impact is mild compared with that of other films about Jesus and Christianity, and more than anything, this indicates the flaw in Gibson's strategy, the failure of his noble experiment.

"The Passion of the Christ'' should have left audiences in a state of exaltation. Instead it just leaves audiences exhausted.

review url

 

[dr_mabeuse]

But if Jesus didn't suffer and die, then he wouldn't be the Christ, right? Sof if the Jews or the Romans didn't kill him, then someone else had to, right?

Or would we still be worshipping him if he'd died of old age?

Not only is Mel's Daddy a Nazi sympathizer, but he's a holocaust denyer. He says all the German Jews came over here because that's where the money was. Honest.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

Mab., I couldn't find it, but the elder Gibson was featured in a NY Times article a few months ago I think. Anyway, he's a way-Right-wing Catholic (thinks the Pope is Satan, etc.) He's 85, but he's been saying this stuff for decades.

As for your question, it makes sense, but I don't know what to reply.

Perdita

Mel Gibson's father describes Holocaust as mostly fiction

By Tracy Connor - New York Daily News - 2.22.2004

Mel Gibson’s father went on an explosive rant against Jews days before his son’s movie about Jesus Christ hits theaters.

"They’re after one world religion and one world government," Hutton Gibson, 85, said in a radio interview that will air Monday night.

Gibson also said Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan should be lynched and called for the government to be overthrown.

The timing of Gibson’s comments is certain to fuel the uproar over "The Passion of The Christ," which opens this Wednesday. Some critics say the film blames Jews for Christ’s death and will provoke anti-Semitism.

Hutton Gibson spoke Monday to Steve Feuerstein of "Speak Your Piece!" on WSNR-AM, a show syndicated by Talkline, the largest syndicator of Jewish programming. Some of his most outrageous rants focused on the millions of Jews exterminated by Adolf Hitler. He said the Germans did not have enough gas to cremate 6 million people and that concentration camps were just "work camps."

"It’s all - maybe not all fiction - but most of it is," he said.