Big Quasimodo

Sorry for the edit, but this was the content to which I wanted to speak.

Background: Married to a Catholic. Pretty damn plugged into pop culture AND DVDTALK.

Film Experience: Exceeded Expectations (and they were pretty low).

Having seen Gibson's recent offerings (Braveheart, The Patriot), I was expecting violence off the scale. I was underwhelmed by the violence (Thank God!). In my estimation, at least 50% was spared clinical documentation by the camera.

PS. The "Oscar Worthy" elements of the film (IMHO) are:

1) Maia Morgenstern as Mary - BSA
2) Cinematography
3) Best Picture

It exceeded my expectations: Admittedly, I went into the theater prepared to hate the film. But the violence was less than I anticipated (I went in anticipating SPR 1st 15 minutes for 2 hours) and the plot was better delivered than I anticipted.
My biggest gripe was the performance of JC)

Snowmaker

I just have one question:

Who/What is that Marilyn Manson-looking guy that keeps appearing in the movie supposed to be?? The one that

bjh_18

That's Satan.

Snowmaker

That's what I thought, but I just wanted to be sure. Thanks.

Was with the ugly baby though?

movielib

Read the dozen or so posts above this one.

al_bundy

Catholic church gouged out the eyes of an astronomer for teaching heresy. They vilified Martin Luther for his beliefs. A sect of protestants in America killed a lot of people for being witches.

Why is it such a stretch of imagination that a bunch of temple priests would want to kill a man who they thought was a threat to their power?

dave-o

I am not sure if you have been reading my posts, I have no problem with your statement (although it was probably a little more complicated than just fearing a threat to hteir power, b/c they also feared what the Romans would do to them if they couldn't conrtol their "people"). I am not sure how you are arriving at these conclusions about my views...

al_bundy

It's not what the Romans would do to them. The temple priests got their power from the Romans, but also from the populace. They maintained that power through the control of various rituals and by passing judgement on people for breaking various religious laws as they interpreted them. For instance the one about being a vegetable on the sabbath and not doing anything. Jesus challenged a lot of these rules. If people would start following the preachings of Jesus then it would mean less power for the priests.

It is almost what happened with Martin Luther. He saw a huge corrupt organization in the church of his time and challenged it. he was then excommunicated and a lot of people decided to follow him and over time the Catholic church lost a lot of followers. Same thing with Galileo. His eyes were gouged out because it was believed that his ideas about astronomy would lessen the power of the church. If earth wasn't the center then people may start questioning Christianity and the teachings of the church. Remember that most of the traditions of Christianity are based on traditions and things made up by the church and not what is in the NT.

According to Mel and Anne Emerich it was the temple priests who pushed to kill Jesus. I don't know how accurate it is. Maybe in reality it was Pilate who wanted him dead and he was able to gather enough haters of Jesus to have them condemn him and free barabas. Doesn't matter to me since Mel's point of view is a very plausible possibility of what may have happened.

If you look at history since before there are plenty of examples of a religious organization becoming big and corrupt and then splitting up into smaller pieces.

movielib

Points of fact:

Whether people remained Catholic or became Protestants had very little to do with whether individuals decided to follow Luther or another reformer. If the ruler of a country (and in some cases just a city, such as John Calvin - a Reformer and a ruler - in Geneva) decided to become a Protestant (of whatever sort) it pretty much meant everyone within his or her control did also. For those rulers who stayed Catholic, pretty much all their subjects did too.

Galileo's eyes were not gouged out. He went blind. There has been speculation that it was from too much looking at sunspots through telescopes but it probably was cataracts and glaucoma.

al_bundy

Not all the time. Ever hear of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. In England some people decided to pack up and move to america because of religious persecution.

I guess it was Dante who had eyes gouged out. But the church did see a threat and took action on Galileo.

dave-o

First off, I am still confused about what you are arguing against here, I have never said that I had a problem with this part of the movie.

Futhermore, it was in part, a fear of what the Romans would do to them. The high priests were an aristocracy that was appointed by the Roman's and used to help control and govern the people. These "high priest" were not true representatives of the larger population at that time. Also, it was regular practice for Romans to put to death Jews (and many others who were seen as criminals). If the High Priests demonstrated an inability to keep the peace and govern their jurisdiction, the Romans would frequently step in, so to say that they were not fearful of what the Romans would do is wrong. This is just a part of what was probably a complicated decision to pusrue Jesus (not as simple as fearing a loss of power as you stated, although that was most likely part of it too, because these High Priests were often described as corrupt with the power of their position).

But once again. I go back to the beginning of this discussion, I think you have either read my posts incorrectly or are attributing things to me that I did not say.

One last thing, to someone who practices Judiasm, referring to their decision to not work on the Sabbath as being a "vegtable" is probably quite insulting (although at the same time somewhat enlightening about you).

movielib

I said "pretty much everyone," not everyone. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that at least 90% of the people went along with whichever way the ruler decided (it was good for their health).

And yes I've heard of it.

talemyn

You beat me too it, Wayne . . . good post. So the next question would be for ArchibaldTuttle . . . have you done any research to get any of your questions answered?


dave-o - Perhaps you'd better restate your position . . . I've been in this thread since the beginning and the general feeling that I have picked up from your posts is that you found the movie to be anti-Semetic (in that it gives a negative potrayal of Jews in general).

croweyes1121

I have to say I'm dissappointed by the comments here about lack of context and how Mel has made the film inaccessible to non-Christians. Maybe the film lacks a "backstory" in the traditional sense, but (and I hate to break this to those who obviously cannot get this into their heads) this is a movie about events from the gospels. Even those with virtually no knowledge of the film have to at least know that going in. Now, is it Mel Gibson's fault or the movie's fault that everyone knows what the movie's based on and yet still isn't educated when going to the theater? I think not. Not any more than it's Peter Jackson's fault that people will get a lot more out of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy if they've read the books first. For instance, it's never made clear in The Fellowship Of The Ring that Galladriel is Arwen's mother, but her scenes with Aragorn have a greater emotional resonance if you KNOW that fact going in. However, if you don't, you can still understand the scenes, if not feel their full impact. However, I do not think that fact detracts from the film in any way. I think if a film is made well enough (and The Passion definitely was) and people have questions about it, then it's up to THEM to find those answers. Films like this should motivate people to learn about the context of this story of it's something they deem worthy of learning. No one is stopping anyone who sees this film from attaining further information after viewing it to gain a better understanding of what they've seen. It's like bashing Schindler's List because it doesn't go into the build-up and politics of World War II before throwing you into the suffering of the Jewish people. If you don't know about those events while watching the movie, it's not going to mean as much to you. But then, I believe Schindler's List to be a good enough film that it would motivate anyone with a heart to research the holocaust if they actually went into it with no knowledge. There's nothing stopping us - even in this apathetic world - from picking up a book...or THE book if we leave the theater with questions. It's our right as Americans...and, in my opinion, our responsibility of we are to make an educated assessment of a film as worthy of one as The Passion.

Quote: no one would see Return Of The King who hasn't seen Fellowship and Two Towers. Fair enough. On the same token, no one has any business complaining about lack of context in this film if they're not willing to learn that context for themselves. Why is Return Of The King exempt from this rule simply because it had two movies that came before it? I submit that Jesus has had more than a few earlier film incarnations that give even those too lazy to pick up a bible all the context they could possibly need. You need not be a Christian to learn about Christianity.

One last thought: you can't fault Gibson's depiction of Pilate as being solely based on the gospels and not on historical records. He never claimed the movie was based on anything MORE than the gospels, so it should be viewed as such. Such a complaint would be like faulting the movie for its depiction of Christ as the son of God. There's nothing about that contention to be found in historical records. Hence the very nature of faith.

movielib

Gibson did not use only the Gospels, not by a long shot. He based much of his "filler" material (that was not in the Gospels) - probably more than half the film - on the "visions" of a nun, Anne Emmerich (1774-1824). Gibson said so himself and this has been stated many times in this thread. For example, the Gospels are very sketchy about the scourging while Emmerich went into great detail. Mary sopping up the blood after the scourging was Emmerich, not Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. There are numerous other examples.

baracine

... a nun who just happened to be a violently anti-semitic crackpot. Finish your sentences!

dave-o

In my opinion, the film not only gives a negative portrayal of the Jewish people of that time, but does so in an exaggerated and skewed manner. By using selective parts of each of the Gospels, (i.e. portraying Jews in a negative light, some Romans in an overly sympathetic light), combined with extra-biblical material that comes from the writings of an anti-semitic nun, I feel this all adds up to generate a film that is innacurate, misleading, and possibly harmful (in more indirect ways).

Do I think these things were done intentionally with malice? I don't know, but I tend to to think(hope), No. Do I thnk Mel Gibson has been insensitive to the concerns of other people? Yes (maybe even purposely so, to drum up more controversy, but that is for another thread). Do I think Mel Gibson has been less than honest with his marketing of this movie? Yes (in many ways).

Do I think the film is anti-semitic? Well, this depends on what criteria you use to judge if something is anti-semitic. I don't like to throw around that term lightly, so I don't know if I would go as far as saying it is anti-semitic. Borderline? Certainly. Questionable? Yep. Based in part on the writings of an anti-semite? Yes. I guess, in some ways I am still analyzing and attempting to understand all of the elements that would have me arrive at such a label (once again, I do this, b/c of how serious I think this term is and I don't think anything should be labled as anti-semitic without careful consideration).

Hope this helps to clarifiy some of my views!

baracine

I would like to quote from other sites about this "venerable" mystic who inspired Mel Gibson's film but they seem to belong to White Supremacists or extreme-right-wing wacko Catholic groups bordering on heresy.

This one can be trusted for a balanced discussion of the positive and negative aspects of Christianity, from a philosophical standpoint, and the influence of Emmerich's visions on Gibson's film:

http://www.primechoice.com/philosoph...ectschrist.htm

Gibson's critics warned that he is apparently using as sources an 18th century mystical anti-Semitic book by a German nun, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, and a tome of Mary of Agreda, a 17th century Spanish aristocrat. Emmerich's book is a diary of the nun's visions many of which are anti-Semitic. Emmerich "told of a vision she had in which she rescued from purgatory an old Jewish woman who confessed to her that Jews strangled Christian children and used their blood in the observance of their rituals. (Jewish Week 7/4/03)

The Emmerich work contains such extra-biblical elements as:

• Jesus' cross being constructed at the orders of the high priest in the courtyard of the Temple.
• Servants of the high priest bribing fellow Jews to demand Jesus' death and even paying some of his crucifiers.
• Violence far beyond what the gospels present during Jesus' hearing before Caiaphas and Annas.
• Pontius Pilate criticizing the high priests for physically abusing Jesus and suggesting that they are thirsting for both his body and blood (cf. John 6:53).
• Scenes of the brutalizing of Jesus not present in the gospels, such as Jewish figures dragging him around with a bag over his head so that it violently impacts against stone.
• Pilate stating that he fears the high priest is planning a revolt against Rome.

Numerous other scenes not present in the New Testament could be cited from the Emmerich book, but those noted here all have the effect of increasing the guilt of Jewish characters for Jesus' sufferings.

Mary of Agreda wrote that all Jews continue to be afflicted because of their involvement in Jesus' death. Both Mary of Agreda and Catherine Emmerich are examples of how Christian accounts increased the guilt of the Jews over whatever guilt some Jews may have had when Jesus was killed. John Dominic Crossan, the author of Who Killed Jesus Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus wrote in a web page on beliefnet.com how in Mark 15:6-15, "the crowd" comes before Pilate to obtain amnesty for Barabbas and only turn against Jesus when Pilate tries to release him instead. But now watch what happens to that Markan source as the story progresses through the later Gospels. Matthew 27:15-26 first copies Mark's "the crowd" but then enlarges it to "the crowds" and finally to "all the people." Luke 23:13-15 changes Mark to "the chief priests, the leaders, and the people." Finally, John 18:37-40 speaks simply of "the Jews." ... "The crowd," in other words, grows exponentially before our eyes. For a brief summary of an alternative view of Jesus's life and who was responsible for his death see the "Who was Jesus" and "Who Killed Jesus" web pages.

croweyes1121

Okay, fine. So the film isn't STRICTLY based on the gospels but use a few other NON-FACTUAL sources (like visions). Point taken. But the movie still doesn't claim to be based on historical FACT, per se, so my point about Pilate still stands. I think the point that is always lost in these discussions is the absurdity of looking for "truth" in a film about religious belief which, by its very nature, is inherently subjective.

baracine

You and I seem to agree on that point. But there are millions of people out there who now look to Mel Gibson as the Fifth Evangelist.

Or, to misquote Homer Simpson: "Look, Marge! The Jews must be evil. The movie is playing evil music!"

talemyn

movielib

C'mon, that crack about the Fifth Evangelist was pretty good (and there was a context for it).

I don't watch The Simpsons (I know, that's a heresy all by itself) so I don't know what he's talking about there.

baracine

First there was Shakespeare, then there was Matt Groening.

I'm referencing an episode where Homer was suspected of sexual harassment on the person of his babysitter and dragged through the mud of public opinion until a videotape taken secretly by the school's janitor, Willy, proved his innocence.

At the end of the episode, the same low-life "infotainment" TV news show that had indicted Homer in the eyes of the TV-watching public in the first place condemns Willy the janitor as a peeping-Tom pervert for having taken this very video and Homer comments, in a typical flip-flop proving his own well-established idiocy and his gullibility for the media - any media: "Look, Marge! He must be guilty! The TV is playing guilty music!"

You should know the classics...

Luc TC

OK, lots of arguing about characters development. For me, I would have really felt the impact of the pain he went through if I understand why.

Someone out there explain to me how Christ died for our sins:

1. If Christ must die the way he did, then how could anyone be blamed?

2. Why must he endure the pain to save us? What does it mean for a him to die for our sins? So God will forgive man if they ask for forgiveness if his son will bear the pain and die by man's hand for us? I'm sorry I just never really got that from church or religious people. So clarify. Surely Christ had many choices to make and I never got the sense from this movie or others why he chose to be tortured and killed?

aroney

All this ongoing talk of backstory (or lack thereof) Sheesh...

It's like saying about Saving Private Ryan :

What were all those Germans doing in France?

and Why was everbody shooting at each other?

C'mon. I'd bet as many, if not more, people are familiar with the basic story of Christ than they are with World War 2.

You can knock the "Passion..." for alot of different things - but backstory?

Stop...now.