View Full Version : The Passion Of Christ
February 27th, 2004, 02:57 PM
Hi Chisum Itdo and Jen
Its strange we were talking about Gibsons new film, when my wife came home from work I got to read the Daily Mirror and under the banner of Christopher Hitchens who apparently writes for Vanity Fair his headline is
I Detest This Film With A Passion
Its a long article but to give you a taste one paragraph says:-
Now he has made a film that principally appeals to the gay Christian sado-masochistic community: a niche market that hasn't been sufficiently exploited.
If you like seeing handsome young men stripped and tied up and flayed with whips, The Passsion of Christ is the movie for you.
He then goes on to describe in great detail the torture scenes.
He also says:
Along with the protracted torture comes a simple-minded but nonetheless bigoted version of the more questionable bits of the Gospels, Its boring all right- much of the film is excrutatingly tedious - but it also manages to be extraordinary nasty
As I have said the article is long and I can only give a flavour.
as you so rightly say roland Freedom to pay your money and take your choice is all that matters in the end.
As for me. As I said in my earlier post in a country that is supposed to be the least god fearing in the world, I'll settle for DeMille's, Hustons or Steven's version of the Jewish history book.
February 27th, 2004, 10:00 PM
I totally disagree with that critics assessment of what its about. First let me say that I watched this at the local theater. It was a sell out. The youngest person in the theater was fifty years old.
The movie is graphic yes, it shows what we did to Christ. When I say we I mean all of us. I did not hear one single person place blame on the Jews or anyone else in particular. I did see a group of several hundred people who were so affected by the movie that they sat there and didn't get up. No one was telling jokes or poking fun. Some were praying, most were crying. I too grew up with the old movies of the cleaned up version of what Christ went through. But it in no way conveyed the actual horror of what took place. Like you, I have a much longer version of what took place and it does much better explaining the movie and the introspection that comes from it. Its not a fun movie, I didn't enjoy it. I couldn't watch it over and over again. It did cause me to think about my place in things and have I led a life that was what it should have been. The movie is not demeaning, it tells a true story of a true event. If this event were played out today would the outcome be any different? I don't think so. Remember a blind eye was turned during WWII and the extermination of millions. Even now you don't hear an outcry over the million people that Iraq eradicated over the past ten years.
The movie depicts a violent graphic hideous time in our worlds history. Should we sweeten it up so it doesn't offend. No. Do we gloss over Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Treblinka or Iraq. No we show what happened and mans inhumanity to man in hopes that we will change and make this world a better place to live.
My suggestion is that if anyone doubts the movie watch it for yourself. Don't let someone else fill your head with a bunch of stuff with no proof. It will cost you a couple of dollars and two hours and twenty minutes of your time.
Hondo Duke Lane
February 27th, 2004, 11:45 PM
The critics have been brutal about the film, but now that it's out in the states, they have been recanting thier comments about the movie. I find it ironic that some out there who feel threaten about something that they know nothing about should put in scare tatics about this.
I haven't seen the movie yet, plan to but haven't been able to yet. When I see it I will be commenting about. Gibson has been a target of great torment, and I almost feel that he can relate what Duke went through when making The Alamo. The comparision is they both tried to sell it to studios, financed it through their own money, and cirtized by those who didn't understand it. It does bother me that there are some out there who don't want the public to see a film.
Cheers, Hondo B)
February 28th, 2004, 12:27 AM
I have not seen the movie yet either but Hondo, some people just don't want to have something out there that differs with there opinions on life. Or maybe its so close to the truth that some cannot handle that as well.
February 28th, 2004, 02:02 PM
I to have not seen the movie but it has been accused of directing blame towards one section in particular. If this is true I would not be surprised because Gibson has a track record of this his portrayal of British people in both Braveheart and The patriot were simplistic, stupid,atrocious, false and offensive.
February 28th, 2004, 06:40 PM
Gee Robbie, being an American has its benefits. Everyone loves us and always portrays us as a positive role model for the rest of the world to look up to and love. Having no enemies just spoils us to death. Besides Gibson can you think of anyone else who has an axe to grind against the British? Maybe Mr. Bean?
February 29th, 2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Chisum@Feb 28 2004, 07:40 PM
Gee Robbie, being an American has its benefits.* Everyone loves us and always portrays us as a positive role model for the rest of the world* to look up to and love.* Having no enemies just spoils us to death.* Besides Gibson can you think of anyone else who has an axe to grind against the British?* Maybe Mr. Bean?
I wouldn't say everyone loves you yanks as there have been many anti-American movies portraying the country in a very negative light. Being pround of your country is no longer all that common. Mr. Bean however is cool and a true Brit especially the actor who plays him!
A Girl Named Jen
March 1st, 2004, 08:57 AM
Whoa - down, boys. Let's not get too nationalistic or anything here. We were talking about Mel Gibson's film. :huh:
I would tend to agree with Chisum as to what this film is all about. But I have to bear in mind that Chisum and I seem to have a certain set of beliefs that not everyone has. And that means that not everyone is going to react the same way.
I haven't seen it yet myself. I don't know if I ever will - not sure that I can handle it, quite frankly. I have heard that it is almost unilaterally the most violent and graphic film anyone has ever seen. Well, that's what crucifixion was all about; it was ugly and horrific and unspeakably brutal. Gibson was just trying to give us some idea of the magnitude of what Jesus Christ went through for all of us. I realize that not everyone believes this but for those who do it's very real.
I do however get the impression that in failing to show more of Christ's ministry that Gibson missed a very big and precious opportunity to reach more people in a real way. In other words, from what I've heard, if you go into this film as a "non-believer," you are probably going to go out of it feeling much the same way, only a lot more exhausted and emotionally drained. It's too bad because this is the first time a first-class filmmaker with a huge budget has attempted to accurately and realistically portray the gospel message.
I read the Christopher Hitchens piece from Vanity Fair and I have to say that he is certainly not a believer and as such he simply doesn't understand the motivation behind the film. I'm not trying to sit in judgment on him (Lord knows I'm unfit for casting stones!), but just to relate a fact that cannot help but play a role in the way he views this film. The film is meant to be nasty and unrelenting. I just wish it had shown a bit more in the way of redemption so that those who don't already know Christ would be more drawn to Him.
March 1st, 2004, 01:35 PM
A Girl Named Jen. I agree with you. What I did was try to get Robbie away from the typecasting of someone. I think the answer from Robbie did that.
There are some flashbacks during the film but since it was the last twelve hours it was more about those that denied him, even Mary who initially denied him but then turned and went to him. Graphic, yes, horrific yes, unbelievable brutal yes. But that was what it was like. I think that some would rather watch the film within their church and others at home. I could never buy the film because I could not stand to watch it over and over.
I believe that by showing the brutality we best depict the reality. It continues today. If we clean it up we take away the impact of the lesson to be learned. I don't think it was gratuitous violence.
And yes it does leave you with hope.
The biggest thing is don't let others make the decision for you as to whether to watch it or not. We have the ability to make that decision for ourselves.
March 1st, 2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Chisum@Mar 1 2004, 02:35 PM
A Girl Named Jen.* * * I agree with you.* What I did was try to get Robbie away from the typecasting of someone.* I think the answer from Robbie did that.*
There are some flashbacks during the film but since it was the last twelve hours it was more about those that denied him, even Mary who initially denied him but then turned and went to him.* Graphic, yes, horrific yes, unbelievable brutal yes.* But that was what it was like.* I think that some would rather watch the film within their church and others at home.* I could never buy the film because I could not stand to watch it over and over.*
I believe that by showing the brutality we best depict the reality.* It continues today.* If we clean it up we take away the impact of the lesson to be learned.* I don't think it was gratuitous violence.
* * And yes it does leave you with hope.
* * The biggest thing is don't let others make the decision for you as to whether to watch it or not.* We have the ability to make that decision for ourselves.
Hi Chisum and Jen
Hope my post above didn't annoy you or anyone else my point is simply that I don't understand when countries like the UK and the USA are constantly portrayed in an negative light simply because some star wants to make a statement usually to boost his or her ego.