A leftist Canadian perspective: (Rick Salutin, The Globe and Mail, Toronto)

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/A.../TPColumnists/

To you guys saying that this is more violent that Kill Bill, I think we'll all have our relative perspective on the subject, and I personally didn't have a problem with either film on the violence end, but I found Kill Bill's to be far more gratitious than the Passion's. And I don't have a problem with that. But I do think the spectacle of the crucifiction has been soft sold in the last 50 years. We know it was a trial and painful, but until films like this and the Last Temptation of Christ, at least personally, I hadn't considered the actual physicality of such brutal actions. So to that end at least, I thought the violence had a place and purpose and the reason I don't think it's wrong if children raised in faith over the age of 10 see this film, because in the context of what Christianity teaches, it's not far beyond what is taught.

*Allow me to preface this post by saying that I have seen the both movies I am discussing*

With respect to the discussion of violence in the Passion, yes it is violent and visual.

I saw Kill Bill as well and it was also violent and incredibly graphic.

I think the problem people might be having with the violence depicted in the Passion is the fact that it's much more human and believable. There's something about watching the torment and vicious cruelty to a peaceful man than watching some hot chick in leather run around and avenge herself against her enemies. I'm not sure the two movies can be compared in anyway.

I saw the film and I cannot help but note that it depicts nothing more or less than what's written in the Scriptures. The hypocricy of the arguments about its "anti-semitic meaning" is stunning. Who is to convice anyone that any Jew living today is to be held personally responsible for the death of Jesus Christ? It's preposterous and ridiculous. I would just sum it up to this...truth hurts.
Also, the film being titled "The Passion of the Christ" why is to be presumed that anything else is "missing"?
I found this to be a problematic review. The reviewer, clearly rather disengaged from a film about JUST the passion and crucufixion of Jesus Christ (as is suggested by the film's title), wishes for himself a more biographical film. I find these personal assumptions rather naive. Just review what you see, that is your only job!

I agree 100%

I found The Passion of The Christ to be a little too derivative of Scorsese's film in some places, particularly the score. It even has some of the same musicians (Shankar) that performed with Peter Gabriel on the Temptation of Christ score.

My assessment of the film is that it is good but not excellent. Nowhere near my favorite religious film. I found Gibson's approach to be very similar to Dryer's approach in The Passion of Joan of Arc. Dryer could have depicted Joan's life in its entirety but instead chose to show just her trial, torture, and burning at the stake. Likewise, Gibson chooses to show only one very important day (or half day) in the life of Christ instead of his entire life from Bethlahem to resurection.

Glad somebody else noticed the similarities in the score. As for other similarities, I didn't see too many. Gibson stuck to the words of the gospel, Scorsese seemed to go more for taking the meaning and putting it in everyday English. The sets and costumes didn't even seem that similar, frankly. What similarities did you see?

As for the Passion of Joan of Arc, I feel that the content discussed in the trial rounds out the context of her life, whereas in Passion, the various trials and discussions he has with authority figures only give a vague idea of why he's in this position in the first place. We may not need a whole life story, but the film did feel a little like it was in a void, a feeling I never got from The Passion of Joan of Arc.

...In the mean time, Gibson's film will not be distributed in France where potential distributors are afraid to be associated with the supporters of the film, i.e. traditionalists (aka racists), death penalty advocates and anti-abortion militants (L'Express, 32/2/2004). The film still has not found distribution.

I don't understand this criticism. It was certainly subtle in the film, but it was also clearly all there -

This was a man who had gathered quite a following. He was considered a blasphemer, calling himself the Son of God, the Son of Man, King of the Jews, etc. He was preaching a radical doctrine and had threatened the temple elite - they said more than once that he "said he was going to tear down the temple and rebuild it in three days".

He was a revolutionary, and a considered blasphemer, teaching radicalism and threatening the elite.

How is that vague in any respect? That was all right there in the film. And it WAS all the reasons Jesus was where he was(all the secular ones, anyway).

You've got to be kidding me. I decided to check out Last Temptation of Christ again after not having seen it for numerous years. After watching Mel Gibson's gut-wrenching portrayal of Christ, I found the Great Martin Scorsese's version to be absolutely pedestrian. The reasons are numerous. The movie never seems sure of where it's going or how it wants to get across it's message in the first half of the film. One scene Jesus is loving, the next he's brandishing a sword with fire in his eyes, the next he's forgiving when the Romans appear at the wedding. Some of the dialogue is very weak, particularly in the scene where Jesus is arguing with Zebedee and first starts to preach his message. The introduction of John the Baptist is flat-out ridiculous, naked men and women writhing around like hippies on some serious acid at Woodstock. Willem Dafoe never seems to have a full grasp of his character and his Jesus is a pathetically weak character. His decision at the end to finally accept his role and die on the cross just because Judas berates him for a few minutes is unconvincing. And last but not least, there's Harvey Keitel. With ridiculous-looking red curly hair and a Bronx accent, Keitel is so spectacularly miscast he brings the movie down every scene that he's in SAVE for that one terrific scene where he is told he MUST betray Jesus. Add to that the too Western look and sound of the characters and you have a film that is full of fascinating ideas(Jesus doing the nasty!!) but the execution is lacking and never really comes into it's own. Peter Gabriel's score was terrific, however, and I liked the actual sequence of the last temptation of the title.

Never thought I'd say this, but Mel Gibson's movie puts Scorsese's interpretation to shame.

New signature! :-)

No I'm not kidding you. Most of the similarities were on a technical/film level rather than any kind of religious content level. The slow motion, the subjective point of view camera, the focus on faces twisted in scorn, the angle looking down from directly above to represent God's POV, the refusal to depict events in the Hollywood tradition of religious specticle, the simple sets/costumes/locations, the "contemporary regional music" influenced soundtrack, etc.

Basicly Gibson made a lot of similar technical decisions as Scorsese. When Scorsese did it it was original, no bodied ever seen it like that before. Gibson's going over old ground stylisticly, but it's still a good film

I only hope you're doing it as a joke.

I have to disagree with you on this one. While I don't think The Passion was derivative of Last Temptation in anything but the score, I think you're selling The Last Temptation of Christ short.

First of all, both movies are trying to do two very different things. Gibson is focusing on the physical aspects of Jesus' sacrifice, Scorsese on the mental. So in that case, it DOES make sense to show a conflicted Jesus, someone who isn't exactly sure of himself until the very last moment. I understood Jesus more as a human being in Last Temptation. When Jesus in The Passion says "Father, why have you forsaken me?" and then almost immediately, "It is accomplished" (which I presume is meant to be an affirmation that the crucifixion was supposed to happen), it didn't feel very real. When Jesus rejects Satan's great temptation and says "It is accomplished" in Last Temptation, it is very moving and makes a lot of sense. The entire film was working towards that moment.

I think Dafoe's performance is the most multidimensional portayal of Jesus that's been put on the screen. It felt like what he was saying really was coming off the top of his head, in the moment, and not just a platitude.

As for Keitel, well, it's no less hokey than watching Al Pacino play Richard III (in Looking For Richard). Some people can't get over the accent, while others can. Personally, I thought Keitel did quite a good job.

I'm sure this is true in many more ways than we even consciously recognize, regardless of our belief systems. On the other hand, however, I have no real knowledge of the story of Christ, beyond the grisly facts surrounding his death, and what Christmas carols have taught me about his birth. I don't think I'm unique in this; I know many Americans who, like me, have never attended a service beyond weddings and funerals, and have therefore never read or been taught the story.

I just got back from watching the movie, I have to say, wow, it's a powerful movie but it has too much violence but it's still a good film though.

For those that aren't too familiar with the rest of Christ's story, there's always the New Testament in the bible. And there are plenty of films that offer a more rosier side of Christ's existence on earth. If your interest has been piqued by this film, you should check out the films and the bible.

Thanks, next time perhaps he can try to review the FILM.

Actually its Mel's interpretation of the gospels with a dash of influence from extra-biblical sources. And I don't remeber anyone claiming tha there is "anti-semitic meaning" in this film. Most people speaking out in this manner speak of it as possibly fueling anti-semitic acts due to a selectively negative portrayal of the Jews in this film. But even if people were claiming what you said, I stilll don't understand why this would be hypocritical, wrong maybe, but hypocritical? As to your comment "truth hurts", not exactly, proclaiming you know the truth when you don't might though.

Just read your responses. Thanks for the thoughts on the unscarred criminals. All points made make sense.

But that just falls right in line with the faults I found in what I thought was a good, but not great film. I really wish Gibson had done more to make it stand on its own and present the message of hope and kindness that Jesus was about instead of ramming so much violence and so little of the "why" on his audience. I guess what it comes down to is I don't think a film should require advance reading for it to "work." I would rather have a film that stands on its own as a powerful work of art.

That's my only problem with this film really. Gibson wanted it to play to those who are non-believers as a way to pull them more into the faith and I simply think on that level at least, he failed. Apologize for him all you want, but that's just how i saw the film. It's a great film for believers who have a lot indoctrination of the story of Christ and the Bible and it's a wonderfully filmed exercise, but it could have been even more. Shame really.

If you want a film that focuses on Jesus' message of "hope and kindness" you can always rent Jesus of Nazareth, Ben-Hur, King of Kings, The Greatest Story Ever Told, etc., etc., etc. Gibson decided to do something no other film on the life of Christ has attempted or achieved, he FORCES the audience to contemplate and see the true extent of the sacrifice Jesus made to atone for humanity's sins. His unflinching torture onscreen is what makes the contrasting flashbacks to the mountain, the Last Supper, etc. the most moving interpretations of these scenes I have ever seen on a film based on Christ. IT IS BECAUSE OF THE VIOLENCE that by the end of the film many people are leaving the theatre with a much deeper revelation of His unconditional love for humanity.

I just thank God that Kevin Costner did not decide to do this film, His last 12 hours would have lasted 16 hours!

Quotes from the DVD Talk review:

"Gibson's selective translation are only a part of the much bigger issues of the film. Gibson seems to want to go the extra mile to make it unmistakable his feelings about "Nostra Aetate" 3 and at many turns points his directorial finger at the Jews."

and

"[the film's] deplorable arcane view of Jews"

and

"[the film's]strong negativity towards Jews"

I think these comments basically qualify as saying the film is anti-Jew, albeit in a somewhat indirect manner. The reviewer does go on to state "Claims that The Passion has the ability to fuel renewed waves of anti-semitism are not unfounded," which is kind of a backhanded comment to say the least. I suppose I could just as validly say "Claims that the DVD Talk review characterizes the film as anti-semitic are not unfounded." To quote the reviewer, that would be "Cute huh!??"

A fresh French perspective...

This is an article from the French magazine L'Express which explains that Mel "Mad Dog" Gibson has been outed by Frank Rich of The New York Times (a Jew writing for a Jewish publication) as being a member of the ultra-rightist, ultra-conservative Catholic fringe sect called "The Holy Family", which he generously finances. His father is a known antisemite (he denies the Holocaust) and one of his children has taken the vows. Gibson has promised to "have Rich's entrails on a spike" for this. "He even wants his dog dead" (I quote from the article quoting Mel).

Gibson's script was inspired by the heretical writings of a XVIIIth Century German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), who accused the Jewish people of deicide, which is recommended reading among the "Holy Family"

Gibson and his sect also reject the papacy's conciliatory bull towards the Jews ("In Nostra Aetate"), are opposed to the forty-year-old reforms of the Vatican II council, to the (get this) "liberal" attitude of the present Pope and prefer to hear mass in Latin.

Gibson's film also portrays Mary Magdalene as a fallen woman (by equating her with the adulterous woman of the Gospels), a mistaken "tradition" - taken up by every Hollywood film on the subject - that the Catholic Church has apologized for years ago. When you belong to a religion for which "every sperm is sacred", it is understandable that all women should be classified as either saints or whores.

Gibson's film also did not yet find distribution in France where, due to the inflamed political climate, distributors do not want to be publicly associated with the defenders of the film which comprise the partisans of Jean-Marie Le Pen ("intégristes", antisemites, racists, anti-Muslims, anti-immigration activists), proponents of the death penalty and anti-abortionists. A lovely bunch of cocoanuts...

Gibson's film is also strangely reminiscent of the secular European tradition of staging grossly violent and bloody mystery Passion plays devoid of any true Christian message to inflame the populace against the Jews just before staging a pogrom. These Passion plays were a conspicuous feature of Nazi and Fascist countries until the end of WWII. They are still a tourist attraction - in a somewhat "cleaned-up" version - in Oberammergau, Bavaria, Germany, birthplace of the Nazi party.

For this and other reasons, this film is - and will remain for a long time - a major embarassment to the Catholic Church which has not yet managed to publicly distance itself from it.

http://www.lexpress.fr/express/info/...asp?ida=404885

My own perspective: Gibson has been pathologically obsessed with the idea of bloody self-aggrandizing martydom/suicide in every one of his films from Lethal Weapon to Braveheart to Hamlet. This is what he does best and they don't (yet) give out Oscars for that particular psychoid behaviour. I personally think he is the Antechrist.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, you understand...

P.S.: Mel's marketing machine has also maliciously targeted the very same US church groups towards which Canadian producer Garth H. Drabinsky (a Jew) had aimed the distribution of his very own and vastly superior (i.e. non-pornographic, non-hate-mongering) Gospel of John (2003), in order to steal his thunder, his hard work and his profits, of course.

I'm sorry, but that's one whacked out post. The guy made a movie based off of the Gospels. It follows them very closely, and fills in some of the blanks as you'd have to in a movie. It fills in many of these blanks with history - the scourging and crucifixions scenes are completly realistic in their depictions of the terrible violence and pain of such an act - and it fills in the others with Gibson's imagination and a few other sources. Gibson makes Simon of Cyrene a far more heroic character than his just-mention in the Bible.

But basically, the guy made a movie. Big deal.

The French are some of the most intolerant people on the planet in many ways - they have NATIONAL LAWS banning the wearing of Muslim head-scarves, for instance - something you'd never find in the United States. They've also thrown authors IN JAIL for having passages in FICTION BOOKS that were deemed "negative toward Islam". The French are also very fond of thinking(as an incredibly stupid high percentage in their country do) that George Bush "staged" 9/11 for political gain, and we're only going into Iraq "for oil", even though there's not a single shred of evidence to support that conspiracy theory and THEY were the ones illegally profiting off the "oil for food" program in support of Sadaam and at the expense of the Iraqi people to the tune of BILLIONS - those billions being the real reason they did not support the war.

The term "rabid" should not apply to a guy who simply made a movie. It is a far more applicable term to those who are attacking this film and its director with foam flying off of their mouths and high-pitched squeals shrieking out of their twisted-with-hate faces.

The Gospel of John came out here MONTHS ago. About six months before The Passion came out. I'm sorry, but in the movie business, that's not "stealing thunder". That's simply ridiculous. Advantage usually goes to the FIRST film that comes out in a situation like that anyway - think Dante's Peak versus Volcano, etc.

So two movies about similar subjects were made close to the same time. "Damn that Mel Gibson for actually trying to promote his movie! What a sinister madman!" Give me a break. They waited until MONTHS after the release date of Gospel of John, which simply could not have affected that films theatrical run in any way - if anything, it would stir up MORE excitement to see Christian-themed films. And the Gospel of John will no doubt do FAR better selling videos now that The Passion has come out an gotten the country so in the mood for this kind of thing - many who would never have thought seriously about watching Gospel of John beforehand, including myself, will now see it because of the interest The Passion has generated. Video is where I'm sure the filmmakers of Gospel of John had planned to make the lions share of their revenue in the first place, as, pre-Passion, that's where Christian films made their real money. Gibson's film will change all of that, however.

The criticisms of this movie that go beyond a simple criticism of a film are so paranoid and nutty that I'm shocked an otherwise civilized society has engaged in it.

It's a movie. Based largely off the Gospels. Mel's father has some wacky beliefs. So what? None of that is in the movie in any respect. Attack the artistic merits of THE FILM - not a guy's family. Attack what's IN THE FILM if you don't like it - not what Church a guy goes to.

And I'm sorry if you think Gibson is "obsessed with Martyrdom", but you kinda can't make a film about "THE PASSION of the Christ" without concentrating on, well, The Passion, can you? Again - talk about the film and what's in it.

But it's kinda hard to do that and still be as "rabid" as you are trying to be, right? Because there is simply not a single thing in that movie that's politically shocking, or racist, or anything of the sort, so merely talking about the merits of the film isn't enough to those who want to visciously attack the phenomenon and bring the film and the man down for the sin of making something that has so affected many on the "taboo" subject of Jesus Christ.

HATE MONGERING??? What in that film does that at all? Do you realize how serious a charge that is? Can you point to ANYTHING in the film that actually supports "a willing desire and provacative strategy to stir up hate"?

It seems the real people guilty of "trying to stir up irrational hate" are the ones that are saying/posting/shouting the ridiculous, unsupported tripe that you are here.