The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: pmcd9 on February 29, 2004, 01:27:04 am
-
I saw it today. I went with my parents church group which made it pretty surreal. I doubt that many of them really enjoyed it, but felt obligated towards it because it is done with a high degree of reverence toward the subject matter. I can't say it's really a bad movie, but the story has been told so many times there's really no way to add any original insight. About the only thing I can say about it is it's one of the most gruesome pictures i've seen. This is the second Mel Gibson movie in a row (the first was We Were Soldiers) that made me turn away from the screen. We were Soldiers had napalm burned flesh and this one has a very graphic beating with a cat-o-nine tails. I hate to consider what Gibson has in store for us next.
~Paul
-
I was going to start a thread on this if there hadn't already been one. I just got home from it, having walked out. I left before the violence started- Oddly, I wanted to make a point of that so I wouldn't just look squeamish. I just found it mind-blowingly offensive. I'll follow this post up when I'm a little less angry.
-
I left before the violence started
You must have left during the previews then. I mean a guy gets his ear cut off in the very first scene.
~Paul
-
What a magnificent film!
Yes, it's violent, but then again, torturing a guy until he's near death and then driving nails into his forearms and hanging him from a cross-beam is pretty violent stuff.
The Catholic faith is built on gruesomeness.
Of course, these physical acts of violence are much less gruesome than sin.
I don't recall the soldiers who came to collect Christ beating the shit out of him from the Bible (maybe one of the books I haven't read?) because I was always under the impression that they didn't really give a shit about him. Oh sure, they mocked him like he was an American Idol contestant singing off-key, but to be angry with him and want to torture him? Why? He was just some Jewish guy who thought he was god (whether or not he actually was is beside the point). So that didn't really make sense to me.
It's easy to walk the "Stations of the Cross" (christians in the house represent) and to hear the words "suffered and died for our sins" but it's another to actually see it. The film is about the most visceral I've ever seen. Very cringe-inducing, sure, but all you have to do is *watch* it - he had to suffer it.
Anyway, it's a ballsy and risky move on Gibson's part, and I think he proved once and for all he's a "real" director. Just an amazing film.
-
You must have left during the previews then. I mean a guy gets his ear cut off in the very first scene.
Touché, and I'll rephrase: I left before the Violence started, Serious Jesus Flogging style. Ok, I saw a fair bit of that. But you get the general idea. I left about half an hour in because I got sick of sitting through scene after sketchy scene and feel like I was endorsing racism and homophobia just by being there: a lot of details that added up to me just feeling really uncomfortable and angry. I'm not sure if I'm overreacting, because I do have a fairly attuned sense of Heterosexual White Guilt, but I felt a lot better after I left and just went cruising around listening to Blood on the Tracks instead.
-
The other night, I found myself at St. Luke's psychiatric wing (hoooo! long story). But the best thing was, I was having some bizarre, religious-based stuff, and the first question three different people asked was, "Did you just see 'The Passion'?" I asked someone about it, and apparently all week people have been coming in having mental breakdowns due to that movie.
I haven't seen it, and doubt I will. I'm pretty sure how it ends :).
-
I've been telling kids to sneak into it (since it's rated R) because then they wouldn't have to read the book!
-
I should probably see this at some point, but honestly, I'm a little squeamish and a little agnostic. I'm not sure it'd be my bag.
Of course, now I want to see if the "14 Stations" installation that was up around here for a while is anywhere within easy transport distance. That had just the right amount of reverence and high weirdness to keep me going. (Papier-mache eyeless wolves, painted a bright tempora red, to represent the Cricifixion? Oh-kaay...)
-
I am truly too scared to see this.
I have no problem watching violent films, pretty much in general (Audition being a case in point) though certainly it being justified in some terms helps, but I do have very strong thoughts on religion (well, organised religions).
So, well, it depends if this film comes over as a film of the bible, as a book, or all preachy and bullshit-laden, which would anger me beyond belief.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
-
It's not preachy at ALL. In fact, some people are annoyed that it's so matter-of-fact.
There is dialogue, but it's in Aramaic and Latin. I've heard that the multiplexes are getting a subtitled version, but the dialogue isn't really important - I mean, it's all from the Bible, and you should be able to tell what is happening if you're at all familiar with the story.
I am the least religious person on the planet, but I found the film to be amazingly good. And I know enough about the story to at least understand what the events onscreen signify to those who do believe in such things.
-
I've heard that the multiplexes are getting a subtitled version, but the dialogue isn't really important.
The version I saw was subtitled, but like you say Jough the dialogue isn't really important and there's not a whole lot of it anyway. I guess if it were too wordy there would have been less time for Jesus flogging.
~Paul
-
I saw a subtitled version at Local Cinema, but I made a game of looking away from the screen during the Latin dialogue to see what I could figure out. Even at the worst of times, I can always fall back on being a language nerd.
-
Jesus Flogging = Most Blasphemous Euphemism for Masturbation EVAR!
-
Jesus Christ: Hey Mom!
http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/stories/the_passion_of_the_christ_blooper_reel.php
-
holy shit that is radical funny.
jesus (on cross): I can see my house from here!
-
I like the idea that:
Jesus: My God! Why have you –
[Caviezel is struck by lightning.]
Off Camera: Cut!
is something for a blooper reel!
-
At first I doubted the believability of forgetting the word forsaken but I'm betting it's easier to forget in latin or aramaic.
-
Yea. I also want to know what Aramaic for 'I can see my house from here' is anyway.
-
How is the Aramaic in the film, anyway? I had a suspicion ahead of time that they'd cut corners on the actors' Aramaic training on the assumption that nobody in the audience would notice, but if they did a good job on the Aramaic then kudos to them for that.
-
How is the Aramaic in the film, anyway? I had a suspicion ahead of time that they'd cut corners on the actors' Aramaic training on the assumption that nobody in the audience would notice, but if they did a good job on the Aramaic then kudos to them for that.
It's like that backwards Red Dwarf. Instead of saying actual lines in reality they're just mocking people who take the time to work out the translations.
-
I'm sure -- since the movie has been out so long -- that at this point everybody else has already had this conversation a dozen times. Please excuse my late-coming, and feel free to banish me to the study.
I left about half an hour in because I got sick of sitting through scene after sketchy scene and feel like I was endorsing racism and homophobia just by being there: a lot of details that added up to me just feeling really uncomfortable and angry.
I think I can understand this, but maybe you can help me. I'm getting that you felt that by watching a movie about Christ you were endorsing some of the worst things ever associated with Christianity, things that aren't portrayed by this movie or supported by the vast majority of Christians. Is this what you mean? Like when I feel uncomfortable singing the national anthem because of what the US did to the indigenous Americans at its founding?
If this is the case, let me assure you that there is much more to Christianity than hating people. Like not hating people. In fact, it's pretty much about not hating people. Totally. It's been used as an excuse to hate people, but it's not a good one. Please do not feel bad about seeing overtly Christian things because you think it's wrong to hate people. Jesus thought it was wrong to hate people. I think Christians should start seeing him as a kind of 'good example' to follow.
As for the movie, it is mentioned several times that those pushing for Jesus' destruction aren't representative of all of the Jewish people. People keep saying, "Where's the rest of the council?" and "Why are you doing this at night when everybody else won't be able to have a say?" Heck the only racial slur is levelled at a sympathetic character by a Roman soldier. The guy isn't a follower of Jesus, he's just some poor Jewish guy that got roped into manual labor. Oh sure there were 'bad Jews', but you could tell them apart easily, because they all wore funny hats. And the whole time, Jesus was all "Love the people that scorn you," and "Father, please have mercy on the guys in the funny hats."
It's hard to see what I would think of this movie if I wasn't so attached to the subject matter, but I can't imagine that I'd find it anti-semitic. Basically, I love Jewish people, and I didn't think this movie had anything against them.
I did come away with a reinforced mistrust of authority, and as for racism, boy do I hate Italians now. Sheesh. Those guys are monsters.
-
Jesus thought it was wrong to hate people. I think Christians should start seeing him as a kind of 'good example' to follow.
Yes, they certainly should.
-
Long, articulate comment
This is definitely the best response I've heard to my criticisms of the movie, I usually get, at best, blank stares followed by "Are you.... Jewish?" [which, in the town where I unfortunately dwell, would be quite the novelty].
But I didn't dislike the film just on behalf of Christianity as a whole-- while I'm not such a huge fan of the sum of that (and pretty much any other) religion's effects on humanity, that's another story for another day. I have problems with Christians as individuals (like our buddy Mel), not inherently with the religion as a whole and everyone who believes in it.
I found the film to be offensive in itself: The main problem I had with it was relatively subtle, and, having, it generally seems, forcibly oversensitized myself to these things. I kept finding that the Jews who were on the good, pro-Jesus team looked a hella lot more Aryan than the bad guys, who had darker skin and hooked noses. This made me very, very uncomfortable, and whether or not it was intentional on any level, I think it's important for a movie of this inherently controversial nature to pay attention to something like this.
My history's not that great, but after I looked into it a little, it seemed that the film was also fairly revisionistic: here (http://www.interfaithfamily.com/article/issue128/boteach.phtml)'s a slightly histrionic, but interesting article on that.
Sorry to rant, and thanks Pedro for taking the time to respond so cogently.
-
Sorry to rant, and thanks Pedro for taking the time to respond so cogently.
No, no. Not a rant. A great response.
...I'm not such a huge fan of the sum of that (and pretty much any other) religion's effects on humanity...
You might be surprised by the sum effect of religion on humanity. While we often hear about the horrible things done in the name of various organized religions, it is surprising how much good is done -- even discounting any sort of spiritual good -- in the name of God on a regular basis. For instance, until relatively recently the entire system of western education was run by religious leaders. We owe so much art, literature, philosophy, and science to Islamic, Jewish, and Christian organizations. The Catholic church doesn't spend all its time molesting small boys. How many hospitals have they built? How many people have been fed, clothed, immunized, and given training and work opportunities by Catholics in many parts of the world? This is the same organization that started the Crusades and the Inquisition. People do horrible things in the name of God, but they also do wonderful things, and I would venture that the sum total effect is on the good side.
I have problems with Christians as individuals (like our buddy Mel), not inherently with the religion as a whole and everyone who believes in it.
Yeah, some people have major problems. I count Lethal Weapon IV as part of Mel's.
I kept finding that the Jews who were on the good, pro-Jesus team looked a hella lot more Aryan than the bad guys, who had darker skin and hooked noses.
It struck me that Jesus looked pretty darned white, but I have trouble recognizing ethnicity. Simon (the slurred Jew from the earlier post) was definitely a non-white good guy, and Peter wasn't the mighty-white, but I totally see where you're going there.
Edit: Spelling, punctuation, and this is getting long. I'll split it into a second post.
-
My history's not that great, but after I looked into it a little, it seemed that the film was also fairly revisionistic: here (http://www.interfaithfamily.com/article/issue128/boteach.phtml)'s a slightly histrionic, but interesting article on that.
Woof. This guy's problem isn't really with the movie. His problem is with the Bible and what he considers the historic view of it. I don't know enough Bible history (because I'm not yet good enough at practicing my faith) to refute things like "Luke and Matthew based their own Gospels largely on Mark". From what I've heard, this particular statement is based in truth, but a horrible oversimplification.
The real crux of this guys argument is that Pilate was horrible and that the Gospel is implausible. He's right on the first count. The Bible doesn't tell the whole story of Pilate, and the movie makes the guy out to be a saint. He's not really a major player, so the texts that were included in the Bible don't dwell on him, and his motivations for trying to spare Jesus when Romans killed so many others are unknown. The choice to make him look like a hero in the movie was a bad one, but not a horrible racist one.
To convince people the Bible is implausible, Rabbi Boteach quotes: "And all the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children.'" How plausible does this scene appear to the discerning mind?" This is mob mentality and entirely possible. The people were saying that they were sure they were doing the right thing. They were saying, we're so right that may lightning strike us if we're wrong. We're so sure, we want to be held accountable and our children to be held accountable.
At some point, Christians took this to mean, "Let it be known that we, the Jews, are killing this guy and so from now on it's fair game to kill our descendents and take their stuff." This is not what the tiny crowd of Jewish people meant that day, and even if they did, the nation of Israel was freaking huge and this miniscule group of city-slicker Jerusalemites can't possibly speak for the 12 Tribes.
You'll notice that throughout history, Christians have interpreted the Bible to mean 'kill Jews and others' when it was financially helpful to do so. Because of religious an societal restrictions on medieval Christians (such as the ban on usury) and the Jewish culture's propensity toward higher education, many Jews in the middle ages rose in stature to a wealthy merchant class. This prompted greedy neighbors to claim things like "All our problems are caused by Jews, and Christ wants us to kill them." When they succeeded in rousing the rabble with Passion plays (like this movie but with real racism), they slaughtered their Jewish neighbors and took their wealth. This was especially easy because in many cases the rabble what was roused owed thier victims money. My contention is that the passage quoted was not meant to incite racism, but actually happened. The racism part was added later.
"Firstly, the very same Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus was accorded an enthusiastic welcome to Jerusalem by the Jews just five days earlier. But aside from this glaring contradiction...
It's not a contradiction. How many people lived in Jerusalem. How many of these welcomed Jesus? How many of them demaded his death later that week? How many didn't do either? Not all people within a community agree on who is the Messiah and who should be put to death. Heck, our community can't even agree on whether or not our leader was properly elected.
"The simple and undeniable fact is that Jesus was condemned in a Roman court on a Roman charge, and put to death by a method of execution used only by the Romans, just as the two leading historians of the time, Josephus and Tacitus, expressly maintain."
That fact is certainly not undeniable as the word of two historians over two thousand years ago don't hold any more water than third hand reports from the National Enquirer. Just as 'holy texts' do, historians in any time often get things wrong, especially when it is politically helpful to them to do so. I maintain that the fact is that Jesus was willingly put to death without interference from his followers, by Roman soldiers, at the order of a Roman governor, under the duress of an angry mob, who had been riled up by certain powerful leaders of an organized religion, who in turn had been helped by one Jesus' own friends, as was the plan of the Almighty. Who do you blame for all that? If you blame the Jews, chances are you're not Christian.
--
I hope this hasn't been to ranty or long winded. I felt that the Rabbi's column deserved some rebuttal. Again, this may belong in the study.
-
Not at all ranty, and thanks for the rebuttal. I agree that that guy was a little over the top; that was the only defense I could quickly find, and I didn't really have the time or energy to restate it in less energetically vituperative language.
But I definitely respect your superior Bible/historical knowledge and the time you took to politely respond, and I shall definitely take time to re-read your posts over when I'm not just taking breaks between hours of working on a major essay due tomorrow. I still think the movie was pretty sketchy, though, and the same goes double for Mr. Gibson.