You know, I just have to take issue with this comments and all the similar ones about Geoff's criticism of lack of character development. Not everybody who is going to see this film will know the details of Christ's life. Period. That is simply unavoidable. As others have been saying, if Gibson was making an excercise just for those who devoutly believe, why release it as a major motion picture in commercial theaters? If he was going to do it this way, he should have known that others unfamilar with the story of Jesus would be seeing his film.

Whether or not we are a nation "founded on a Christian background" is beyond the point. I was raised Catholic and still remember much of the teachings but I am now somewhere in between agnostic and something else but I have studied several religions. That being said, I am not familiar with much of the story of Christ's life and I actually had that background. To assume that just because you have that knowledge that everybody else does is kind of foolhardy if you ask me.

Finally, the comment about other religions and questioning why someone of a non-Christian faith would see this movie just astounds me. So because you happen to believe in Hinduism, Taoism, Bhuddism or so on you shouldn't be interested in seeing this film? I simply don't agree. As someone who doesn't really subscribe to any religion in particular, I was very eager to see this film and was glad I did, but I shared many of the same concerns that Geoff expressed in his review.

It really is a great exercise in faith for the already faithful, but speaking as someone who does not necessarily believe, I feel it will fall short of being a truly moving experience (which I was hoping it would be) for those who do not believe. If Mel had just worked a little harder, he could have had it work for both groups of people and I think that is what Geoff was trying to say.

just curious,

would it have been more or less moving for you had it not been subtitled (as originally intended)?

personally, i intend on watching it without subtitles when it is realeased on DVD and i suspect it will be just as moving for me.

but then, i believe so...
it might be different for someone who doesn't.

Re: Re: Re: "The Bible" according to Mel
 

Let me mention that I am not claiming historical inaccuracy, I am simply repeating the claims made by scholars who have seen the film and know a bit more about the period than I do, and I'm willing to bet a bit more about it than you do, too.

For number 1, there are many people who still speak Hebrew (ever heard of a country called Israel?). There are also people who can speak ancient Hebrew, as the Bible is still written in ancient Hebrew and people have to read it. Also, Latin was taught at my high school, so, yes, I imagine that some people would be able to speak it.

Again, the complaints came from scholars who have studied the period, and others who can speak the languages presented in the film. The hair thing, is, I agree, completely nitpicky, but it's historically inaccurate.

Again, my claims come from scholars. Take it up with them.

Let's not forget that the Gospels were written when Rome was still in power. I have heard it argued that the authors of the Gospels made the Romans more sympathetic as to not draw the ire of any Romans who might read it. Also, does Pilate say in the movie, "Gee, Caesar already reprimanded me about killing so many people, maybe I should let this Jesus go because of that"? No one has mentioned that. It seems more like Pilate doesn't really want to kill Jesus, and is forced to by the priests.

I think the biggest problem is that Mel has tried to pass this off as "truth," which is absurd. Even documentaries aren't "the truth," and this is certainly not a documentary. Mel could have said "Most accurate to the gospels" and he would have had far less flak thrown at him. For my part, since I don't really believe in the divinity of Jesus anyway, the claims of truth don't mean much to me, and won't when I see the film.

so when did this become a dictatorship? A country founded on Catholicism? I thought there was freedom of religion and speech here? Guess that went out da window eh?

Re: Re: Re: Re: "The Bible" according to Mel
 

Actually he does mention being reprimanded twice by Caesar and it's obvious it factors into his reluctance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "The Bible" according to Mel
 

Well, color me corrected. :o

When I saw SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, I wasn't thinking "what is this war about? why don't they explain more about who is fighting who and why?" - I mean duh! Does Gibson have to give the audience ALL the answers and act like they are complete idiots - I guess maybe he does! Read the damn bible after you see the movie and then you can get your context if it is so important to you! That's what it's there for - to be read, not just shoved in a drawer of a hotel room somewhere!

Sorry for my ranting and raving, but I just felt I had to get that off my chest....

Nah... if that book was any good people would be stealing it from hotel rooms instead of towels and bars of soap. :)

Thank you friend for answering the question directed towards me. To WillietheShakes, I just meant Mel made this film for all fellow people, but more so for Christian. I have studied all Woeld Religions and respect and honor them (I believe all religions are like roads, so many different ones, but all go to one destination), but I assume a Buddha probably has little interest in a film that is about Christianity's Christ. I also assume, that I would have little interest in a film about Buddha. I respect that you say that the character development point is valid, that issue might be to each thier own viewpoint. You say it is so, I say it doesn't harm the film. We might have to agree to disagree.

That's just assinine.
Saving Private Ryan isn't about World War Two in toto, it's the story (story implying a narrative through-line and dramatic arc) of a company of men and their commanding officer in particular. There is plenty of character development, especially of the Hanks character. A better analogy would be if they had released the last ten minutes of SPR, without any of the character development or narrative through line.
Of course, that's only if you're viewing The Passion as a film (read: work of artistic intent)...

This basically sums up how I feel. Mel Gibson has no obligation to cater to what everyone thinks should be in his movie. It's been said before, the purpose of this movie is to show Christ's Passion, or suffering. To do this he focuses on the last 12 hours of his life. He made this movie for himself, and for those of the Christian faith. By focusing on events prior to the "passion", he would have been dwelling on parts of Jesus' life that for Christians, are very well known. The movie then would have fucused less on what Mel wanted to emphasize and the whole purpose for him making this film: the horrible suffering that Jesus endured.

Perhaps this is grounds for criticism, as it is a film that does not stand on its own for all people. But the film assumes that you do have this background information going into it, or that you are willing to learn more about it on your own when you are done viewing it, which I think is one of its main goals. If not, you wont be able to get everything out of the film that many people are. But I don't think Gibson should be blamed for leaving this information out, as it was not necessary, from his point of view, to include it for what he wanted to accomplish with the intended audience.

Here Here!!!

If he expected everyone to know all about Christ before going in, then why not just send prints to Churches? Why have a major nationwide release?

The United States is comprised of more than just Christians. And even many Christians don't know the details of Christ's life. It's silly for Gibson to presume that everyone will know beforehand, or to even expect them to look it up afterwards. Peter Jackson made The Lord of the Rings a self-contained story. You could learn more about Middle Earth by reading Tolkien, but the films didn't leave you confused as to what has just happened. The same could be said for any good adaptation from a book.

Again, I haven't seen the movie, but since this seems to be such a common criticism, Mel may have done his film a disservice. If he had scenes of Christ's life before being captured by the Romans, he may have made non-Christians connect more with Jesus as a character, and thus make his suffering have more of an impact.

If Mel made this just for Christians, he wouldn't have bothered to release it nationwide in theaters. He's even said in interviews he hopes this film makes non-Christians look more into Christianity.

IMHO, a person would have to have absolutely ZERO knowledge about Jesus to not be moved by this movie, at least to some degree. I'm sure nearly every single person who goes to see this movie will have at least some knowledge of who Jesus was, and what his life was about. And I think that right there is enough to appreciate and be moved by this film.

Anyway, Gibson <i>does</i> show us parts of Jesus' life. They're just short flashbacks with little setup, but I feel they put Jesus' suffering in just the right amount of context to appreciate the rest of the movie.

Why not?

The film is all about HOW Jesus suffered and died, but not WHY. The "why" part wasn't the intention of the film, but without it, the "how" just feels hollow and exploitive.

I'd have to agree somewhat. There is some why, which helps.

But the HOW of "how Jesus died" isn't that relevant, especially in COMPARISON to the why.

I mean, he could have fallen out of an airplane and gone splat, in a different world, a different time. But Gibson obviously is very interested in the "how".

Well, I disagree with your opinion. :)

I'm sorry, but I think a film that skips over those parts is perfectly valid. Jesus is a well known figure, and relying on some knowledge of his audience is fine on my part. So you argue he shouldn't be releasing this in commercial theaters. Well, geesh, it's getting such a wide release because lots of people want to see it. And honestly...I imagine most people who walk into this movie know what it's about, and have heard of Jesus. And not to be rude, but to those who see this movie and are confused because they don't know who Jesus is...sorry this film isn't pandering to you. You should try leaving your cave and learning about perhaps one of the most famous figures in human history. This is a personal independant film that has gotten a lot of interest henceforth the very wide release. The demand to see this Passion is high. And the demand is there by people who obviously have heard of Jesus. I'm not saying the film works, I haven't seen it...but the argument that he should have put it in there because people might not be familiar with it is inane. In that case, he shouldn't have made it bloody so it'd be more suitable for kids. Neither of which seem necessary to me. Heck, it should've been done in english because you know, some people can't read! How dare he not consider those people!

Moved my review to a more suitable thread...

See the movie please. You've been pretty active in commenting on it to have not seen it. Because what little I had heard about this and what I saw were drastically different experiences. Why should he release it to only Chruches? If you don't want to go to the multiplex, don't go. Why release any movie that isn't going to speak to all people at all times?

And to everyone who says there is no character development, That is character development straight out of a great Western, and says it all with very few words. I really think some people are trying to be extra nitpicky with this film.

This was posted on AICN's talkback on the Passion by "Sheik Yerebouti" and I find it to be a quite interesting take on the online reaction to the film and it deserved to be reprinted. It was in reply to a column by Moriarity:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "The Bible" according to Mel
 

I never said nobody speaks Latin and Hebrew. I said average movie goers don't, and most won't care about nitpicky inaccuracies in pronunciation. And don't you think Gibson had some "scholars" working on the script? Scholars can disagree, you know, on what is "accurate."

Can Appreciate
 

Your comments on the movie and I was concerned unless somebody is very intuned and a practicng Christian this could be boring and not understood. It sounds distanced and snobbish and coming from a lay persons view it is acceptable. However this film was not meant to be snobbish or distanced but has lacked to communciate to those who wish to learn more or feel more?
I do not want to push my beliefs here and I am a Christian but if anything else what is missing in todays society is Passion so from that prospective a small value to take with you but a good one!