natesfortune

There are two good Romans(Claudia and Pilate), but "no counterweight to the Jews"?

Did this guy even watch this movie?

Not only do two of the PHARISEES actually try to stop what's going on, but what about Simon of Cyrene - perhaps the most heroic character after Christ in the whole story?

Or the lady that came to his aid.

Or the crowd calling for them to stop and fighting the Romans on the way to Golgotha?

What an unfair and simply wrong criticsm that NY Times article is.

natesfortune

Ignoring my questions Baracine?

Or do you simply not have anything actual to add to the debate.

You continue to not provide A SINGLE SPECIFIC for the case you made earlier. Or answer the rebuttals of others to your posts.

natesfortune

You still have not, a single time, said exactly what this "sinister agenda" of Mel Gibson's is or how the film pushes it.

You merely accuse without providing evidence. Over and over and over. Hoping it will sink in, but too lazy and or scared to find the actual evidence to support your point of view.

That's the true method of the very preachers of hate you're claiming to be against here.

The Nature Boy

I'm not trying to break balls here, but where would I look this up? Every traditional film source that I've relied upon carries no information regarding Klan activity expanding or becoming more popular after this film. And this is a film that clearly a lot of people would like to pin a lot of blame on. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I"m saying I don't know and I would like to.

But I will say that if your answer is no more annectdotal than what you've provided, then a few quick points. First off, any inference of anti-Semetism in this film is debatable at best. I'm a Christian, so I'll freely admit a bias in this regard, but I have yet to find any uniform specifics from many Jewish organizations or scholars with the film. There have been vague allusions here. Birth of a Nation had unmistakable brush strokes of racial hatred, from the statehouse scenes, to the presentation of the Klan as the white knights you mention. You'd get little argument from the inflamatory nature of BOAN from even the staunchest Klan defender. We can debate the impact of BOAN, but we can't debate what it is, racist, vitriolic rhetoric.

And secondly, I haven't watched BOAN in a while, and I'd revisit it if weren't such a painful watch. It's something I can only do every 5 years or so, but in my recollection, the film leaves a negative impression of black people and is a positive championing for the traditional south. IF incidents occured thereafter, I can certainly see how. But the final message of this film couldn't be further from that, and it's really hard to imagine this turning a reasonable or neutral person into an anti-semite. I'd go as far to say the positive message of forgiveness and tolerence ultimately preached may go further to diffuse Anti-Semtism than foster it. But that's just my opinion.

Kerborus

I don't understand... You say technically it's not great, but then point out it is visually stunning with great perfromances. Sounds like a contradiction, doesn't it? And I also disagree that you cannot call this movie a well made production (great film) regardless of the subject matter. Anyone who has watched movies cannot deny that the movie has HIGH QUALITY acting, sets, cinematography - it CANNOT be denied! Unless you just wanna smash it for your own reasons or you do not have any frame of reference for quality in these areas. I refer you to B-movies of your choice to see bad examples of all the listed above.

You made my point for me. Popular American culture has given you enough references that you were able to put it together. You didn't need to know anything about the bible to recognize that Mary was saved by Jesus, which was the point - Jesus saves. As for the other items, looks like Mel Gibson has achieved what he intended - getting you to learn more about Jesus' sacrifice. Who looks silly now?

If you could not feel a connection or anything else for Jesus the man, as he was undergoing that horrible trial, I'd check to see if you were human or not, or you can report to any dictatorship that would love to have people like yourself in their employ, who feel nothing as people are totured. But seriously, sounds to me like you had a chip on your shoulder going in...

badger1997

I have to just at this. So because you feel it was well-acted and well-made everybody else has to fall in line with your opinion too or else they absolutely must be bashing the film for their own reasons? Nice to see that someone clearly appointed you the opinion police.

Acting and other aspects of a film, despite what you are trying to say, are subjective. There is no objective set test for them and different people will feel differently about them. I am not saying that some people don't have this chip on their shoulder regarding this film, but saying that anybody who criticizes the acting, sets, cinematography, directing, etc., of the film has an ulterior motive is just plain wrong.

movielib

I got the distinct impression that Simon was forced against his will to help carry the cross although he wanted nothing to do with it at first. He did, however, become very sympathetic as he went on.

(Note: this is not a criticism of the movie; that's the New Testament story. Just that he was not a hero at the beginning but gradually fell into the role during the ordeal.)

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

natesfortune

Yes, he was reluctant at the beginning, which made what he did even more heroic. Just a normal person forced into an extraordinary circumstance, and he handled it with grace, dignity and heroism.

Way more of a character that sticks out to the audience than Caiphas, I'd think.

And certainly an example of the "balance" that the NYT article claims isn't there.

Scot1458

I haven't seen it yet, but how is Nicodemus portrayed?

dave-o

I understand that it is difficult for you to see why some people might find aspects of this film offensive, and you list some good examples that make this topic debatable. However, there are so many examples of negatively portrayed Jews in this movie I couldn't even begin to list them all, so listing the few positive and neutral images of Jews does not convince me that this movie doesn't pose an overall negative view of Jews (all but directly pointing the finger at the Jews for killing Christ).

Ask yourself this, if you knew nothing about Christ, his message, the reason he died, the history of the time period, etc., would you walk away from this film with a clear understanding that the Jewish people were not to blame and that only a select few 'so called leaders' were directly involved, would you walk away with a positive image of the Jewish people? If you answer yes to this, then we must agree to disagree.

I get the feeling that many people are so emotionally and spiritually connected with the story of Jesus and his death (and ressurection) that they are blinded regardless of what other agendas may have been in this movie. It is almost as if any negative comments that are directed towards this movie are also being directed at their beliefs and at their religion itself. What most people seem to forget is that this is just a movie, an interpretation based on Mel's view of events, and most importantly that Mel's view of the events is based on his belonging to a small (and some might label fringe) sect of Catholicism that refused to accept the current Church's absolving of the Jews. This sect has purposely chosen not to follow the current Church's 40 year long attempt to bring Jews and Christians closer together (and to heal the wounds that were many times a result of their teachings).

It is not just Jews who are concerned about this movie and the concern is not just about potential increases in anti-semitism, it is also about destroying 40 years of teaching and healing as a result of people actually believing that Mel has no agenda with this film and is simply trying to tell the 'truth".

movielib

I don't quite see it that way but that's OK. He seems a draftee who, when forced into the situation, just did what any decent person would do.
Absolutely disagree here. This is totally subjective for each person.
I haven't argued the presence or lack of balance myself. There are many reasons I think this is not a very good movie (just as a movie) but I do not think it's anti-Semitic in and of itself.

Giles

The more I have talked to friends about this movie, the more I have accepted the fact that this is just an average flawed film. I find it incredulous the number of people gushing over the fact they think this is the most powerful, most moviing, etc film they have seen. The subject matter and "powerful" story overclouds the fact that Gibson's filming techniques reeks of cliches and overblown production values.

The Nature Boy

Well, so much of film is how it relates to YOU. If you've grown-up or recently come to appreciate with Christ, Chruch, the crucifiction, et al, it becomes nearly abstract to see the cross and Jesus upon it. I mean, we know it'd hurt like hell to endure what he did, but this film takes it out of the brain and into the heart and has unmistakable resonance to many Christians. But because it has heart, doesn't mean it has perfect structure. I think of films that are great in every way we'd evaluate a film, but simply don't resonate with the heart. This is the opposite of a film like that. Flawed on a pure filmmaking level, but two thumbs up to the soul.

Giles

all the film made me want to do was reread the gospels and forget Gibson's overglamourization of the torture and crucifixion of Christ sans the silly slo-mo shots, over saccherin musical cues, and devils running around.

I think too many people who have seen the movie think that just because this harrowing depiction of Christ final hours is an important story are already biased to the story and can't critically evalutate the films inherit flaws and stylistic dynamics that Gibson has embellished in this film. For me the story was fine, what and how Gibson manipulated the story seemd forced and 'hollywoodized'.

jessecrx

Just got back from watching the movie tonight.

It was a very powerful and moving film.

I didn't think the violence was too much. Infact I would imagine it being alot worse.

All this talk about anti-this, Jews that, etc etc is completely new to me. I didn't see anything in the movie that made me feel resentment toward any particular group of people.

Growing up I was taught that Jesus spread the word of God, was accused of blasphemy, and was killed...end of story. This movie gave me a glimpse of the pain he may have gone through before he passed away....that alone took the wind right out of my lungs.

I thought it was a very powerful movie.

talemyn

Wow . . . so many pages of posts . . . so many things to comment on . . .

General "Review"
I thought that this was a very strong film. The acting was extremely good, the visuals . . . particularly the cinematography . . . were excellent, and the editing impacted the film more than any other technical aspect (the flashback cuts were tied in beautifully with the "current action" for some very powerful effects).

I think that there were some accuracy flaws, in comparison to how it is told per the Bible, but, I think that that, given the goals of the film, they did not detract from the accuracy of the overall story, just the accuracy of some of the details.

Overall: A very powerful and effective movie given what Gibson's goals were in making it.

Gibson's Goals
1) I think that Gibson's target audience were people who had some background of the story of Jesus and I think that is perfectly acceptable. He certainly would not be the first artist to create a work that requires the audience to have some prior knowledge of the subject matter in order to fully appreciate the movie.

A very simple example would be the movie Office Space Although you can pick up on some of the humor, you have a much better chance of fully appreciating the movie if you have ever worked in a "cube farm" as part of your career. A strange analogy, I know, but I think that it illustrates the point.

If nothing else, hopefully those who did not quite understand everything will feel compelled to look up answers or ask someone for clarification. I'm not saying this from an evangelical point of view, but from that of someone who has read books, done online searches, talked to knowledgable people, etc. after seeing movies that had references that I didn't understand.

2) Gibson's goal was to provide a movie that gives a true depiction of the final hours in the life of Christ and, I think, that he succeeds in as much as it is his understanding of the events. Gibson has obviously done his research on the events and has developed a feeling for what it must have been like. I think it is a little too demanding to expect that he would be able to create a movie that everyone would see as a true representation of the events of the last hours of Christ's life. He has what he believes to be the true events, he has presented them, and I think that is all that we can realistically expect.

Overall, I think that most Christians will be hard pressed to say that the dipiction strayed far from what the Bible presents. Again, there are some inconsistancies (many of which, I fell can be chalked up to "artistic license" or theological differences between different denominations of Christianity), but I think that the overall portrayal is very true to the stories in the Gospels.

Anti-Sematism
None intended . . . I have no doubt of that. If there was any picked up from viewing it, I would have to agree that it is, most likely, a result of pre-existing bias or, somehow, filtering out the numerous portrayals of sympathetic Jews and/or contravening messages. Some examples:

1) The Sermon FlashbackThis quote is very clearly and pointedly made during the film and states, without any confusion, that it was Jesus' own decision, and no one elses "fault", that he was going to die sacrificially. If nothing else, this should deny the culpability of any one particular group for the death of Christ.

2) The "Good Jews"

There were very clearly examples of both average Jewish people and Jewish leadership who did not want Jesus to be killed. They were shown specifically (e.g., the dissenting priests, Veronica, etc.) as well as generally (e.g., the sympathetic crowd at the scourging, etc.).

3) The "Bad Jews"

Yes, much of the Jewish leadership was portrayed as wanting the death of Christ, but no more so than is shown in the Bible stories. I saw little additional that could have been considered an attempt to artificially stress that portrayal.

As for the mob crowds, again, they were not portrated well, but, I also saw them as an extreme group (much like a modern day group protesting fur or abortion), as opposed to the average Jewish citizen.

Too Violent?
Yes, but rightfully so. Very few people really seem to grasp what was involved in the activities immediately prior to Christs death. They hear the sanitized version ("He was whipped, He bore the cross, and then He was crucified"). Gibson's wanted to let people understand what was truely involved in that sacrifice. They only way to do that was to show it "no holds barred".

I think that the introductory scene of Saving Private Ryanis a good comparison. There are a very few people under the age of 35 who really have a good feel for the intimate horror of war. What Speilberg brought to them in the D-Day invasion was what he felt they needed to see understand that war is more than headlines and news coverage . . . that it is about intimate violence and death. Gibson's approach to The Passion Of The Christ seems to being looking towards the same result.

Random Thoughts/Observances

baracine - I've enjoyed some of your posts in other threads in the past (even if I haven't always agreed with them) and think that you could bring a lot to the conversation here. However, as some others have mentioned, it doesn't seem, based on your comments, like you have actually seen the film. So a simple question . . . have you seen it? If not, I would look forward to hearing what you have to say based on a viewing of the film. In fact, I would recommend that approach to anyone who might be posting without having seen the film.

Simon (or Simeon) of Cyrene - To clarify, it states in the Bible that Simon was from Cyrene, a town in northern Africa where modern day Lybia is. As such, he was probably not a Jew, but, there is nothing in the Bible to confirm or deny that fact. If nothing else, however, he was not a "local" and, therefore, was less likely to have a strong vested interest in local news or politics (in regards to Jesus).

Pilate and Latin/Aramaic - Someone (too far back to go find it) mentioned that an "expert" pointed out that Pilate would not have spoken Latin to Jesus. In fact, unless I misunderstood the words during the film, Pilate actually begins his conversation with Jesus in Aramaic, but switches to Latin only when Jesus replies to him in Latin.

The "S/He" Devil - I had heard some mention of Satan being played by a woman prior to seeing the film, however, even with that pre-concieved notion, I was really unsure, up until seeing the name in the end credits, whether or not it was a man or a woman. I agree with the portrayal of Satan was intended to be "androgenous" and also thought it was brilliantly done.



I think that's all that I have for now (to early in the morning for anything else). If I think of anything else, I'll follow up later.

talemyn

Follow-up
After some sleep, I remembered another important aspect of the "Anti-Sematism" section of my previous post, and that is Maia Morgenstern. For those of you unaware, she played to role of Mary (the mother of Jesus) and is proudly Jewish herself. Given her role, I'd say that she had a far more initimate view of Mel and his intentions than any critic, as she was able to see and discuss them with him first hand during the filming. She has some very positive things to say about him and the film in this article from The Jewish Journal.

Kerborus

Again, I believe that quality acting and filmaking is beyond being subjective. You can recognize a film was 'well made' and the actors are 'good actors' without enjoying a film.

There are differences in good and bad film making, roll your eyes all you want.

moocher

Exactly why this movie needs its own subforum but it looks like I'm beating a dead horse with that request. There's enough material for a subforum in this thread alone...

Supermallet

But it's still all subjective. I may think De Niro's performance in Raging Bull is amazing, but others might think it's boring. I thought Julia Roberts was just okay in Erin Brockovich, and a friend of mine thinks it's one of the best performances he's ever seen. If it's objective, where's the criteria?

Personally, I didn't think the acting in Passion was incredible. The guy who played Pilate was the best, I thought.

Kerborus

Yes, but even the layman knows the difference in the level and production of acting and directing in Raging Bull than say CBS' 'The Reagans'.

My point isn't whether it was enjoyable to watch, but that acting and production can be distinguished to be either 'good' or 'crap'.

This movie is very well acted and the production is incredible, anyone with eyes can see this. Whether it's 'enjoyable' or not is subjective.

Supermallet

I didn't say anything about level of enjoyment. I was talking about gauging the quality of a performance. I don't think you can objectively claim the quality of anything. Because it all comes from a subjective mind. Again, if there is an objective stance on it, what is the criteria for a good performance? One man's gold is another man's junk.

I'll take an example from the film. The scene where the priests' soldiers are taking Jesus from the garden. My friend was gushing over the speed changes in it, saying they were amazing. I thought they were distracting and didn't work at all. Difficult to pull off? Definitely. An example of an accomplished cinematography team? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean it worked, or was worth doing. And yet, my friend loved it. So, who is right? Am I objectively wrong but subjectively right? And who is the arbiter of what is objectively right and wrong versus subjectively?

badger1997

I guess I just don't see how anybody can claim with a straight face that judging acting isn't subjective. Like Suprmallet said, there are no set criteria that everybody can grade on equally.

Look at the Oscars this year alone. I absolutely loved the performances by Sean Penn in Mystic River and Bill Murray in Lost in Translation. Yet you see tons of people around here complaining about overacting on Penn's part and Murray "playing himself." I thought they were masterful performances, but others thought they were horrible. Who is to decide who is right?

On the other hand, I couldn't stand Tim Robbins in Mystic River. This is an actor I usually like and I didn't think his performance in the movie was even remotely good. Yet he was praised all over for it and was annointed a "lock" for the Oscar weeks before the ceremony.

So how can the quality of a performance be objective? It simply can't. Name any performance that you think defines a great acting performance and I guarantee I can show you plenty of people who think that the performance was anything from average right on down to totally horrible.

wm lopez

I liked that they showed Satan a lot.
It will remind and show that he is a big part of the events of this world and what he stands for.
A lot of the young today get their view of Satan from MTV that he's just a party animal.

The Exister