Supermallet

I think there's a bit of a difference. A lot of people know about the Bible, but a good portion of this country only vaguely know the actual details of what is written in the bible. The Lord of the Rings would have been a good example had Peter Jackson only made The Return of the King and expected everyone to know the content of the first two books before seeing it. After all, The Lord of the Rings is the second best selling set of books after the bible.

As for Caleb Deschanel, while I haven't read anything about the collaboration between Mel and Caleb, I would say that there IS a chance that Caleb did have a strong influence on placement as well as lighting. I say this because Caleb Deschanel is one of the top cinematographers in the world. Although I agree that it is generally the director's job, it wouldn't surprise me if Caleb had quite a bit of influence.

dave-o

This may be true, but there are many instances in the Gospels where Jews are portayed as sympathetic towards the plight of Jesus, (in fact Jesus had quite a large 'Jewish' following), yet these were selectively not placed in the movie. My point is that it is quite possible to selectively take 'true' passages from the Gospels and portray events in very different ways. If I wanted to make a movie that purposely points the finger at the Romans for being responsible for the death of Jesus I could, by simply omitting all of the passages where Jews are portrayed in a bad light and only focusing on those passages that portray the Romans as 'bloodthirsty' and 'evil'. I am not saying that Mel did this consciously and that this was his intention, but the fact remains that this seems to be the end product.

Take this into consideration with the fact that Mel has alluded to the fact that he was influenced by (anti-semitic) extra-biblical sources (although he has done a lot of spinning since he first talked about this) and there is cause for great concern (that is beginning to appear has been underestimated and not overhyped like most people think). I understand that I am probably not in the majority with my thinking on these issues. Quite frankly, why many people fail to see how upsetting this movie could be for a Jewish person worries me immensely. Because it indicates that they are either unable to understand/empathize with this sentiment or that they are unwilling to do so.

DGibFen

Isn't that where "Signs" took place?

oldchuckles

I don't believe anything about Mel Gibson's depiction of "The Passion" because he has no credibility. This was demonstrated by the many purposeful historical inaccuracies in the "The Patriot" (2002). As I recall, this film was banned in England because it completely (and willfully) distorted the English military leadership. Particularly insulting was the scene where the English general gathered the town folks in a church, locked them inside, then nailed the doors and windows shut, and then set the church on fire. Gibson used the real General's name (who is still a hero in England), but everything else about this false incident was a lie. (also, I believe there were many historical slurs in Braveheart.) If Gibson can't get his history right going back 225 years, then how can we believe he has his facts right this time (going back 2,000 years)? "Passion plays" throughout history (around the world) have always been used to fuel anti-semitism. I will not spend a dime to see this movie bloodbath. The previews showed Jesus (like the movie "Carrie") drenched in blood. It portrays the Jews as a bunch of blood-thirsty louts. Who needs this kind of stuff? Since Gibson has already been proven to be a liar in previous historical films, no one should believe his current interpretation. Even the Pope reprimanded his aide for informing the Gibson publicists of the Pope's alleged "movie review" that this film "is as it was." How would the Pope know whether the depicted brutality is truthful and not exaggerated. Since when does a Hollywood fairy tale film-maker have the final word in depicting a historical event, particularly a film-maker like Gibson who has a history of falsifying historical events to "excite" the boxoffice? If anyone wants to see cinematic classics regarding Jesus, I would highly recommend "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (directed by George Stevens) or "King of Kings" (starring Jeffrey Hunter). At least with these two films, children can join their parents in the viewing.

William Wallace

um...Mel did not direct or write The Patriot, and even if he did, the Bible is something he takes much more seriously.

Supermallet

Sorry to burst your bubble, oldchuckles, but The Patriot is NOT a Mel Gibson film. It is a Roland Emmerich film starring Mel Gibson. It wasn't written by Gibson, either, it was written by Robert Rodat. So using The Patriot as the basis for your argument is a no-go.



That's a little vague. There might be, but you'd have to tell us what they are before we can take issue with them.


Well, when you whip someone, generally they bleed. The Christian faith says that Jesus was fully man and fully God, that was part of his miracle, so if you whipped him, and beat him, and put a crown of thorns on his head, he'd most likely bleed. And, unlike Carrie, this would be his own blood, not pig's blood. And he wouldn't kill everyone in a telekenetic frenzy.

Again, the film you mentioned as your basis for claims of historical inaccuracy, The Patriot, only starred Mel Gibson, so he can hardly be at fault for its historical distortions.

And I don't see how those other two Jesus films you mentioned would be any more realistic than Mel's portrayal. Just because you can take your kids to it is not an indicator of its worth.

I didn't post it in this thread, but some scholars have taken issue with the film's historical inaccuracies, specifically:

1. Latin would not be used by common people, it was reserved for the Roman elite (i.e. the Imperial family). They should have been speaking Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew instead of Latin and Aramaic and Hebrew. Even if Pilate spoke Latin to other Romans, he certainly would not have spoken it to Jesus. Furthermore, the pronunciation by all the actors is wretched.

2. Jesus' hair is too long for the period.

3. Cross posts were planted at the site where the crucifixions took place. There is no way Jesus would have carried the entire cross to the site, as it would have been too heavy for even one strong man to lift, let alone one weak, beaten halfway to death man. The most he would have carried is the crossbeam (as is shown in The Last Temptation of Christ).

4. The film makes a big deal of nails going through Christ's hands. As anyone who has performed a crucifixion knows, if you nail someone by the hands, the hand slides off. If you nail them through the wrist, the nail is locked in place between the bones, and it stays.

The biggest historical screw up, in my opinion, is showing Pilate to be a reluctant executioner. As someone else pointed out, even the Emperor Tiberius, considered to be extremely cruel, thought Pilate was exceptionally bloodthirsty. Killing another revolutionary Jew probably wouldn't have bothered him nearly as much as the film shows.

As for the charges of anti-semitism, we need to put the film in historical perspective. At this time, Judea was ruled by Rome. The Jewish response to this was to move into three factions: One was the priesthood, who declared that the Roman rule was a punishment from God because Jews strayed too far from the law, and that in order to be free again, Jews must be far more strict in the law. The middle ground were basically people who accepted Roman rule, although to both extremist groups they appeared to be collaborators. The other extreme group were the Zealots, who wanted a military revolution against Rome (this group led to the destruction of the second Temple).

I won't know until I see the film exactly how the Jews are portrayed, but it seems that the people most portrayed are the priest class, who were the most directly threatened by anyone claiming to be a messiah, and especially someone who was declaring a new law in place of the old one. To the priests, the law WAS god. I could see them demanding he be crucified as an example to other would-be false messiahs.

oldchuckles

Robert Rodat was credited for the screenplay of "The Patriot" (actually released in 2000, not 2002 as previously stated). He also wrote the screenplay for "Fly Away Home" (about the geese)! My understanding is that Mel Gibson (as the boxoffice star) has absolute approval of all scripts before he agrees to join a film production. Therefore, he shares accountability for the exaggerations depicted in the film (which purports to be truthful). The crucification of Jesus should not be portrayed as a horror freak show. Even Roger Ebert said this film had more horrific violence than any movie he had ever seen before (including Natural Born Killers, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Night of the Living Dead)! Where in the Bible does it describe the gore that Gibson depicts in his film? What purpose does it serve to portray the Jews as worse than the maniacal killers in the three aforementioned films? Does America need a blood-thirsty depiction of the crucification of Jesus? Is this entertainment? It will be interesting to see if this film will be this weekend's "date movie." Mel Gibson has invested approximately $30 million of his own money in this epic (not including another $15 million in print and marketing costs). It will be interesting to see if all of the Christians will flock to the theaters this weekend. Most Jews will not.

QuiGonJosh

thats the best review I've read and the one probably most indicitive of my feelings...

Supermallet

I don't know what Gibson has said about The Patriot, but it's not his responsibility as an actor to make the thing factually correct. It is the screenwriter and director's job, if that is their intention. Obviously Rodat and Emmerich felt the need to change things around, and they did so. Gibson's approval of the script really boils down to Hollywood politics. He doesn't want to be in a movie that will make his hero look bad (or, perhaps I should say, look needlessly bad), and because he's a big star, he gets to make sure his character is depicted in the way he wanted. He doesn't hold creative sway over a film he didn't write or direct. Your argument would have more validation if there were glaring historical errors in Braveheart, which Gibson DID direct. Furthermore, I pointed out the historical errors in The Passion Of The Christ and they are so minor that only scholars will make a fuss over them. So even if Gibson WAS personally responsible for the problems in The Patriot, the criticisms levelled toward that film do not apply to this one.


You neglected to mention that Roger Ebert also loved the film. Not only did he love it, he gave it his highest rating, four stars. And have you seen Night of the Living Dead? I'm willing to bet The Patriot was more violent than that film. Also, let's not forget that Roger Ebert has not seen every film ever made. I can say with a good deal of assurance (which will be cemented once I see the film) that The Passion of the Christ is NOT the goriest film ever made. For that, I would have to look at the Guinea Pig movies, which are essentially people being tortured. One film looked so realistic that people thought it was actually a snuff film and the filmmakers had to recreate the scene using the techniques from the film before a live audience to prove it was repeatable and not someone actually getting killed.


Gibson said he has used at least one source outside The Gospels to base the material on. It may have come from there. Religious visions by nuns and monks, if you've read any, can be quite vivid.

As for the charges of anti-semitism, I have given at least one reason why a sect of the Jewish people at the time might be portrayed the way Gibson portrays them in the film. Again, I need to see it to fully debate it.

If Gibson's intention is to make people feel the extent of Jesus' sacrifice, then the bloodletting is probably justified (personally, I think most violence in films is justified, anyway, but that's under the jurisdiction of Robochrist, I believe). Being crucified (and, note, crucification, at least according to dictionary.com, is not a word, the word you should be using is crucifixion) was not a nice event. The Romans WOULD beat people half to death, and then hammer their ankles and wrists into a wooden cross. Gibson has decided that the focus of his film will be this process of crucifixion. He believes it is the most important aspect of the Christ story. Or would you rather have Jesus beaten repeatedly with nary a scratch on his body?

I agree that this film shouldn't be touted as truth, as Gibson is trying to do, but from what I've heard, it sounds like an artful, if bloody, interpretation of the gospels (with a few religious visions thrown in for good measure). The Bible has been interpreted countless times. Why should this one be put down simply because it has more blood?

Tyler_Durden

I almost laughed out loud at the complaint that the film contains "too little character development". In a film about the final hours of Jesus, of all things!

Groucho

Based on the remarks in the "Negative Reviews" thread, I imagine that Geoff's review would have been much more harshly received had it not been written by the founder of this site.

bboisvert

Geoff, I assume that you wrote that review? I may be blind, but there doesn't seem to be an author listed anywhere. Something you may want to correct in future issues.

ephesix

i saw the film last night and i am speechless! it wasn't perfect, there definitely were some things not found in the Gospels (Gibson has admitted to "artistic liscence" in his film), but I think it gives viewers a much closer picture of exactly what Jesus suffered for humanity's sins.

Which is the point of this film! not to give people a whole picture of Jesus' life, teachings, ministry, death, Resurrection, founding of the church, return, setting up of His Kingdom, etc. it's all about the SACRIFICE... so that's what you get!
it is the single most important event in History and i think Gibson has portayed it in a way that will either repulse or inspire. personally, it has made me strive to be closer in my relationship to God. it will defintiely drive some away. but that's the choice set before them... what will YOU do with Jesus?

dave-o

It just so happens that this extra-biblical source is widely thought of as anti-semitic. Although your reason for why the high priest's of the time may be portrayed in a "bloodthirsty" manner is valid, it doesn't address the concerns that only certain passages depicting Jews as 'evil' were selected for use in this film (posing an anti-Jew bias) and other passages showing the Romans as sympathetic and ambivalent were also included. Wheras the many passages that paint the Jewish people of that time in a more favorable light were not included, this is where the concerns about anti-semtsim are rooted.



It is being so harshly criticized because of Mel's repeated claims that this will be the most accurate telling of the Gospels and will finally reveal the one and only truth. If Mel simply marketed this film as his own interpretation of these events (based on his research, understanding, and long held beliefs) I think that the crticism would be significantly smaller.

ephesix

i agree that Gibson should have been more forthcoming about this being his version of the events (which he did in the Diane Sawyer interview. decidedly a little late but...)

as far as the Jews being depicted as evil... i assume you mean the Jewish leaders, not all Jews, since Jesus, Mary, his dicsiples and the many who are shown weeping and agonizing over what is being done to Him are ALL JEWISH.

the Jewish leaders at that time were as much a political force as a religious one and had much power to lose if the masses followed Christ. as with all power-holding individuals or groups of people (including "Christians" through the ages), many evils are carried out in an effort to maintain that power.

some on this board, in the review and in many other reviews and forums have stated that there is something wrong with the people who can't see why there is concern with the way Jewish people are portayed... my response is that you would have to be a simple-minded fool or already anti-semitic/bigotted to come away with hatred after watching this film.
just my opinion though...

also, i wanted to add that this film is not meant to be "entertainment" as someone above complained that it wasn't. i personally wasn't entertained by Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List... were you? all 3 are meant to be informative and force you into an emotional response.

GeoffK

I submitted it both to the DVD Talk Review Server which automatically adds the by line and cinemazing which doesn't... I've added the by line on the cinemazing version.

taa455

I've seen you post these complaints before and I would like to address them.

As for #1, I dare say none of us speak Latin, Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew. Therefore it really doesn't matter. Average movie goers won't notice incorrect pronunciation of these language nor will they care.

As for #2, can you get any more nitpicky about insignificant details? It doesn't matter.

As for #3 and #4, you speak as if you were there. You sound very certain about things you could not possibly be certain about. Historical records regarding crucifixion are vague and contradictory. You cannot say for sure how Jesus's crucifixion was carried out. There is evidence in the Bible that says another man helped Jesus carry the cross. The Bible also states that the nails were through the hands. Mel Gibson used the Bible as his primary source material so it stands to reason that the movie would depict these details as the Bible says they were.

As for the Pilate thing, it is true that Pilate was a bloodthirsty, brutal man. In fact, Pilate had been called back to Rome twice to be reprimanded by the Caeser for his brutality. Maybe Pilate was afraid of Caeser and was trying to change his ways. We don't know. What we do know is what the Bible says about him. From every report I've heard, what happens in the movie is precisely in line with the Bible.

John 19:1-6
1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, 3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. 4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. 5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! 6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

Groucho

I would say #1 and #2 do matter since Gibson has stated again and again how historically accurate the film is.

dave-o

True, but this point hardly seems to be emphasized in this film. Also, after they started following Christ they are no longer following, what was then, the Jewish faith, and many people will not view them in the same way that they view the other Jews of the time. The Gospels speak of many Jews who supported Christ and there were many Jews who were sympathetic to his suffering(who were not in his inner circle and were not his followers), but these images are selectively not placed or emphasized in the film.

Although they were a political force, their power was minimal compared to that of the ruling Romans. As you said, these leaders were probably concerned about losing their following and having their limited power reduced even further. However it is important to note that the Jewish leaders of the time were also fearful that Jesus' movement would cause the Roman empire to persecute them at a greater rate (this point is important, b/c the Romans were not exactly cordial to the Jews).

Although I would like to agree with you, I think this is a dangerous assumption. It is easy to imagine someone who is anti-semitic as 'simple-minded' but this only serves to minimize the level of anti-semitic thought and the danger it poses. Many anti-semites are probably intelligent (at least in most other areas of their life) and 'normal' hard working citizens, not the foolish bufoons we would like to imagine. In fact, I do agree with you, in the sense that no one will view this film and be converted to a life of anti-semitism, if they were not bigotted to begin with. However, it is the more subtle and indirect forms of anti-semitism that are the most dangerous. This is why I am so concerned that someone could view this movie and not be able to understand the concerns that many Jews hold.

taa455

I think it is accurate on what is relevant to the story/message of the film. Plus, I believe to Gibson and to believers in the Bible, biblically accurate = historically accurate.

ephesix

dave-o:

good point about bigots, and the concern of the jewish sector over what some may be influenced (incorrectly) to think by what is portrayed in the film.i defintely don't see this as a reason to ban the film or remove it from being seen, though. any time any church in the world teaches about Jesus' life and death you run the risk of some bigot picking up the thread and arriving at an anti-semitical viewpoint.

Groucho

Then why did Gibson feel the need to go outside the gospels as the source of the film?

taa455

I don't know.

chanster

I don't know if the movie is anti-semitic or not, but the old argument "but they were all jews at the time so it can't be anti-semitic" is a lame cop-out and doesn't address the historical issue of "passion plays"

The reason Jewish folks are edgy about this movie is not this movie. Its that throughout history, whenever people wanted to go out and mess with Jewish folks, they would put these passion plays on and make the Jews look like satanists.

Most of us haven't lived in those type of conditions but they did exist.

So if you want to talk about history, then thats the history.

I am for artistic and religious freedom. So I support the film and Mel Gibson. But there are some signs that Mel Gibson's worldview (including the use of non-Gospel sources that are known anti-semitic works) and his rejection of Vatican II Conference are signs that everything is not "so kosher"

ephesix

Quote:

"I am for artistic and religious freedom. So I support the film and Mel Gibson. But there are some signs that Mel Gibson's worldview (including the use of non-Gospel sources that are known anti-semitic works) and his rejection of Vatican II Conference are signs that everything is not "so kosher" "


not to catholic-bash, but i disagree with some of what the Vatican 2: Electric Boogaloo says... does that make me anti-semitic?
after seeing the film, i do not believe that it in any way suports or promotes anti-semiticism. Gibson has stated over and over that it it his and mine and your sins that put Jesus on the cross, not the Romans or Jews. it was God, Jesus' Father, who put Him there.

this movie is not an anti-semitic Passion Play and shouldn't be viewed that way. having said that, i do understand the FEAR of how it COULD be used, and the historical context.

stating that they were all Jews isn't a cop-out, it's a fact. a fact that should be interpreted as "anyone who sees this film or reads the story of Christ and THINKS about it, should not result in hatred of anyone but shame upon themselves for their own sins."

again, just my opinions...