The Passion of the Christ - POST WHENCE THOU SEES THUS

[Josh]

Aw Tay, change Pheno's title to something nicer. ;)

[moviegirl11]

speaking of titles - man of gondor? How long will I have to be a man of gondor?

[Josh]

Originally posted by moviegirl11
speaking of titles - man of gondor? How long will I have to be a man of gondor?
why did you get that title anyway? I missed the joke apparently.

[moviegirl11]

I assumed it was an auto-title. It's not?

If its a joke then I missed it too!

[Matt]

It's an auto title. Ya think the boss would know this. :lol

The next title isn't that far off.

[masterthes]

Anyway, sneaking in to say I'll probably see this Sunday.

[Cogito]

You are alles completely ferkopt, du hast anti-Semitism sehen where there is none -- nothing at all. We love der Juden very much, honestly. They are not hook-nosed, money-grabbing, thieving Christ-killers at all -- those are all lies. They are very nice people.

The Shire is a very peaceful Hobbit-land, and we wish for nothing more than what is right for our people -- Buckland has always been a part of the Shire, historically speaking, so the Shire-reckoning was by no account an annexation, or occupation, as our enemies claim. And the Westmarch joined our union of their own free will.

Don't be stupid, be a smarty -- come on, join the nazi-party!

[Josh]

Frodo, I'm frightened.

[Wiggum]

I reach the end of reading this long argument, and I get that. :blat

[Bordick]

So.....guys, honestly....what'd you think of the movie? :lol

[ReservoirSean]

I'm jewish (well, i choose to practice and follow no religion, but I was born Jewish), and the movie was in no way anti-semetic IMO. I don't hear Roman's complaining and if anything IMO the Romans were portrayed even worse than the Jews ever were in the movie.

[Josh]

Well Pilate was made out to be pretty nice, but every other Roman in the movie was pretty brutal and sadistic... yeah.

[TheRingbearer]

Hello Cinema Blend! Just wanted to say I'm new and this is my first time posting. . . because. . . well, I just want you to know.

I have seen "The Passion" (before even moving on I would like to touch on something that Ebert said that is SO true - and I don't agree with Ebert a lot: if there is any film out there that's title describes it perfectly, it is this one) twice already and I think it is a very fine film. Not a classic. Not perfect. Not even great. But very good. I don't even want to delve into the ridiculous political and religious arguments surrounding this film because frankly, I don't care. I will put down my opinions on Gibson's film in 3 simple paragraphs: The Good, The Neutral, The Bad.

THE GOOD
- Rosalinda Celentano's performance as Satan (with almost no dialogue, her eyes radiate lies)
- Beautiful cinematography
- Mostly superb direction by Gibson
- Powerful and moving upon first showing (I'm a devout Christian, so that might be a shaky one)
- Unflinching in its vision
- The music
- For all the controversy and hate surrounding this film, there IS a message and it is delivered SPOT-ON
- Artistic lisence works in this movie
- No initial backround information works perfectly (as it was meant to be seen by Christians) and the backround info. eventually given (through flashbacks) are perfectly timed and make the film deeper.

THE NEUTRAL (Adds to neither the triumph or failure of the film)
- The inclusion and portrayal of Satan
- The demons in Judas' mind (Jewish children or not)
- A lot of "just ok" performances in roles that aren't big enough to dramatically alter anything
- Mary being a prostitute (which she probably wasn't)
- Other historical inaccuracies (it becomes clear during the film this is not THE passion - it is Mel Gibson's PORTRAYAL of the passion. And it works fine that way).

THE BAD
- R E P E T I T I O N - we know it was bad for Jesus, I am thankful Mel was respectful of that - but on film it can be incredibly wasteful of time
- The omittance of Caiphas' saving grace (we all know what line SHOULD be in the film)
- The earthquake cracking the temple (maybe. . . but, I don't buy it - Gibson's vision or not)
- Jesus' CGI brown eyes - distracted the hell out of me
- Should've shown more of the Resurrection.

All in all, a good film. Could be better - much like FilmHobbit says in his review. On a four star scale, I give "The Passion of the Christ":
* * * 1/2 (or anywhere from 76 - 88%)

[Josh]

Originally posted by TheRingbearer

- The earthquake cracking the temple (maybe. . . but, I don't buy it - Gibson's vision or not)

I thought it was a reasonable way to explain why the curtain in the most holy was ripped in two.

[masterthes]

Well, the earthquake IS in the Bible ;)

[TheRingbearer]

Well, it's been a much-debated subject (historically - but yes it is in the Bible, I know) and I thought coming from a "story"-standpoint it just didn't work for me. I thought it was cheesy, whether it happened or not - plus the villain-like Caiphas crying after he realizes what happens. . . ehhhh, cheese.

[NotSoSecretAgent]

I went to the theater to see Club Dread (yeah, I have more interest in stupid comedy than Jesus, I'm a heathen...get over it) and this was sold out until late at night. That's insane.

...Yeah, that's all I've got. I'll see it eventually.

[Josh]

I bet it does it's biggest business on Sunday after churches let out.

[Valkary]

for the most part, the people who get to decide what is anti semetic is the jews.

By definition they don't buy the entire new testament. Therefore Any Idea that thier people are responsible for Christs' death is just hearsay.

Thereefore portraying them as the 'bad guys' is anti semetic.

It's only NOT anti semetic if you belive the New Testemant is a history book rather than ... well what it is. A conglomeration written and re-written to suit the political agenda of 1600 years of popes and even protestants lately.

And the Old testemant is even more suspect as far as I'm concerned.

All I'm saying is, if you believe the idea of the Jews betraying Christ to be propoganda agains the Jews, then the Passion indeed is anti semetic. If you belive the story of the Crusifixion is true, then the Passion is just history, and therefore not anti semetic.

[Josh]

So by definition, modern Jews are saying Christianity is anti-Semetic... which is something they ought to reconsider. Not the best PR move.

[Cogito]

You're still missing the boat on this one. The Passion has an enormous, monstrous, historical burden -- which has been recognized, and the official word is: When performing the Passion, don't EVER portray the Jews in a negative light, and don't EVER give the impression that the Jews as a general group wanted Jesus dead. The PREVIOUS pope said this -- not the current, hip-hop, cool, with-it pope. This is why it's such a big deal.

ChristianityToday.com explains why some Jews fear The Passion: (http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2004/feb20.html) It originated in 1634, a little Bavarian town called Oberammergau, where the town leaders got together and asked the Lord for a miracle: If he would spare them from the plague, they promised to perform a play to commemorate his Crucifixion once every ten years. It appeared to work, and the play is still being performed today.

During the Middle ages, enraged spectators of the Passion play would invade the ghettoes and exact their revenge on the Jews for killing Jesus. Even Hitler had an opinion on it: "It is vital that the Passion play be continued at Oberammergau; for never has the menace of Jewry been so convincingly portrayed as in this presentation of what happened in the time of the Romans" ... "There one sees Pontius Pilate, a Roman racially and intellectually so superior, that he stands out like a firm, clean rock in the middle of the whole muck and mire of Jewry."

The play in Oberammergau has been changed considerably, as as to adhere to the advice of the pope, and not portray Jews in a negative light -- but it still follows the Gospels. It is still controversial, and it will probably always be, of course.

[masterthes]

Saw it yesterday. Probably the most powerful movie I have ever seen. I was a bit put off seeing young kids in the theater. That girl who played Satan was major creepy, but what was with te thing with her towards the end? Another thing I didn't get was those kids bugging Judas. Other than that, a pretty good movie. Still liked Miracle more, but so far The Passion is the best movie this year.

[Josh]

Cogito... you realize that not all Christians follow the Pope right?

Only Catholics... and Gibson isn't technically a Catholic. He's some Catholic offshoot. So whatever edicts the Pope issues are irrelevant.

[garfield hates mondays]

Originally posted by Matt UGA
It's an auto title. Ya think the boss would know this. :lol

The next title isn't that far off.

LAZY!!!

[Matt]

what is lazy about it. You can't request a title until you reach a 1000. Smeagol you are doing a piss poor job of reading the handbook. :lol

[crappertay]

:fmj <(Back to bootcamp you ignorant ***-****ing ****-sucking piece of ****!!!)

[Cogito]

Originally posted by FilmHobbit
Cogito... you realize that not all Christians follow the Pope right?

Only Catholics... and Gibson isn't technically a Catholic. He's some Catholic offshoot. So whatever edicts the Pope issues are irrelevant.
Yes, I do realize that not all Christians follow the Pope.

The point is not that Gibson -- or anyone else for that matter -- is wrong to go against the word of the Pope... Gah... I dunno. If I haven't gotten the point across by now, maybe I never will. Didya read the article?

I'm not saying the movie is anti-Semitic. I'm saying I can see the point that those make, when they say that it can be taken that way... Because of the history of Passion plays.

Imagine if someone started a cult around Nicole Simpson, worshipping her as a martyr, and 1600 years from now, they ask for a miracle, are granted it, and create a Play where they reenact her murder... They perform it every ten years, and frequently, the white followers of this religion get so worked up over it, that they run into the black ghettoes and kill blacks, because "they" killed their goddess and saviour... Imagine that they launch crusades to "liberate" a city from a rival cult, which are launched by massacring every black Nichole-killer they can get their hands on... Imagine that this has been going on for pretty much ALL of the two thousand years that this cult has been in existance, and it was only the last century when a regime labelled them as sub-human, and rounded up six million of them and exterminated them as if they were some kind of pest.

Imagine if modern forensic evidence discovered that OJ didn't do it after all. Of course, to label blacks as Nicole-killers make no sense at all, but to discover that OJ was innocent, would be the ultimate irony.

And Imagine if a white NicholeSimpsonite leader said that hey, we oughta back off of those blacks, and even if our holy book says that OJ did it, maybe we should not make our Passion play look as if he did it...

And then imagine if a dude came out and made it out as if OJ did it after all... And everyone else said that it's OK, because it is written in our holy NicholeSimpsonBible that OJ did this and that...

I could see that people might be a bit uneasy about that.

[phenotype31]

That was pretty interesting to read.

Cogs, so you're racist then?

;)

[Josh]

I can also see how very stupid close minded people could find racism in the movie.

That doesn't make them right.

[garfield hates mondays]

Originally posted by Matt UGA
what is lazy about it. You can't request a title until you reach a 1000. Smeagol you are doing a piss poor job of reading the handbook. :lol
only joking ;)

[Witch King]

After seeing it I love it as a movie, even. I knew as a Christian is was something that would be interesting to see. Much like Lord of the Rings, it's a story I've read many times and I wanted to see it on screen (even if I do hate blood), but I really liked it as a movie, too.
As far as anti-semetism, I don't get it. Before hand I thought the fear of anti-semetism coming out of this movie might be founded, but now I think it's insane.

[Cogito]

Man, this thing is a monster -- $135 million, on a $30M prodction budget, and with only $15M advertising!

90% of the buzz from this flick has been just the controversy -- and that's just because of Gibson's severe form of Catholic faith; that's not a planned thing at all.

Thing is, the way Hollywood gets on a bandwagon, this ain't gonna be a nice trend, see -- they're gonna be doing emotionally charged Christian flicks, and during the publicity campaign, they'll hire people to dress up as orthodox Jews and run around firebombing churches in broad dailight.

[garfield hates mondays]

sweet irony :lol

[Evil Dead Junkie]

Did you like the movie Cogs?

[Cogito]

EDJ, yes I do. But I guess I like it in an odd way -- I don't really like it as movie per se, I like it because I take an interest in seeing where he got his material from, hidden meanings and such.

I'm working on a write-up...

[Cogito]

Well, here's my 'review' of The Passion and all that it entails. The goal of any serious movie is after all to make people think, and for them to discuss things. Even if the movie failed at everything else (which it doesn’t!), it certainly succeeds at this. So although we tend to steer off religious debates, I think it would be sensible to allow it, in relation to this movie.

I’ll discuss this movie as any other movie -- because it is just a movie. But to most people, it is far more than just a movie, so I will discuss the religious aspect of it also.

Mel Gibson makes a certain kind of movies, and I like them -- a lot. It’s action, violence, suffering, revenge -- okay, not very noble aspirations, but that’s alright. Schwarzenegger movies are further towards the Stallone territory. There’s heart in Gibson’s movies. Emotion -- passion.

This is a really hard movie to rate, against the rest of his work, since the material is so unusual. It seems like an extremely difficult subject – and I haven’t seen any other movies on the same theme (the passion; the last hours, that is), so I have nothing to compare it with. Hopefully, I’ll catch The Last Temptation this weekend though.

There were a lot of good things in there, and even some great things, but overall, I wouldn’t call it a great film, or even a good one. I’d say it’s just okay; nothing more. But that’s only as a film; as entertainment, mind you.

LIKES:
Peter’s denial was extremely moving. It brought tears to my eyes, and says something about what a powerful story this is. So did the scene where Mary runs to Jesus as he falls with the cross; the movie’s most effective use of flashback, btw, showing how she saw Jesus fall as a child, and her running to pick him up. Absolutely fantastic emotional moment. Jesus getting up and uttering those words, “See mother, I make all things new!” was very powerful.

Satan was fascinating. It was very subtle, when compared to the ghoulish levels of violence in the film. I liked this a lot. The worm, the Lord of the Flies reference (and I’m sure a lot more that whooshed by over my head).

The languages. Above all, I admire Gibson for this more than anything else. The people in the theatre behind me complained, “Why is it in Spanish?” which shows what a risky move this is -- if the movie had been about any other subject, it would have been an absolute, sure-fire recipe for disaster of course. But still, it took balls to do that. Kudos. By the way, "Da'ek teleyfoon methta'naanaak, pquud. Guudaapaw!" is Aramaic for "Please turn off your cell phone. It’s blasphemous."

DISLIKES:
The dragged-out trek to Golgotha. Jesus fell a few times too many. The slow-mo was one thing, but the constant falling over got very repetitive. Perhaps Gibson was making a point, but for the movie, it didn’t work.

And that is really it. I didn’t like or dislike the violence. It seemed over the top. Was it realistic? Maybe, maybe not – that’s up to the director. According to one of the Gospels, there was no scouring at all -- no violence except one punch and the crucifixion itself (but more on that later).

It’s a very short movie, since it covers such a short time-period. It just doesn’t have a lot to work with.

ON GIBSON
Most Americans don’t seem to see, or understand the anti-Semitic thing, which is both a good and a bad thing: good because the average American isn’t an anti-Semite, but bad because there are people who are... Even though this is a Christian film, I would not be at all surprised if it becomes popular in the Middle East -- that is after all where Mein Kampf sells rather well. He’s got the freedom to do what he wants of course. Hopefully, nothing ill will come of it, and all the drama will be over nothing -- except to increase publicity for the movie, hehe.

That being said, it was very cool to see a star put his money where his mouth is. Arameic and Latin, dang! And such exceptional violence – that’s ballsy.

Gibson has a martyr complex, I’ve noticed. Just saw the first couple of Lethal Weapon flicks – he’s beating the crap out of himself, dislocating his shoulder to get out of a straightjacket, to win a bet. He handcuffs himself to a suicidal man and jumps off a building with him, crazy stuff. And a shrink asks him, why do you do this to yourself? He replies with a joke: They won’t let me do it to them. Besides, I need the money. He doesn’t need the money, but he seems to love characters that are tortured.

He went from Mad Max’s straight-out ass-kicker, to Lethal Weapon’s tortured -- but prevailing soul -- to Wallace’s hung, drawn and quartered and ultimately defeated -- but then resurrected and brought to world fame by Gibson himself. Dang. And now he’s given a fair boost to Jesus -- only he’s dispensed with the heroic, and has distilled it down to pure pain, suffering, and gore. Wild.

As you’ll see below, Gibson has plucked things here and there from the bible to create his story, and that can result in any number of different versions -- it's the ultimate way of taking things out of context. So that should be kept in mind when reading the bit below -- but I think it’s a fair thing to say, that this goes against the impression I have had of Gibson, even if it is over someone bringing negative attention to someone you care about.
"I don't know where it's going to fall. And quite frankly... you want to hear something? I don't give a flying ****." … About the film critic Frank Rich had made mention of his father’s Holocaust-denial and other extremist views: "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick... I want to kill his dog."

The board breaks the url, it has to be cut & pasted manually:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F02%2F29%2Fdo2910.xml


ONTO THE GEEKISH BIBLE SPECIFICS, THEN

Mel’s knowledge is impressive. But he did not just use the Gospels as a source. He used other parts of the bible, and also sources not in the bible. He did not follow any one particular Gospel, but plucked from all four, to form a story that reflects old-fashioned passion plays -- from the days prior to the Pope telling his flock to clean the plays up and stop making the Jews out to be the bad guys.

Gibson took Pilate's washing of his hands, and his wife's dream, from Matthew and Herod's involvement from Luke -- no other Gospel mentions Herod. The unique sequence of a separate scouring, and an appeal on Jesus' behalf by Pilate only appears in John's Gospel -- all others have Pilate send Jesus off to be scourged and crucified -- except Luke’s, which does not mention any scourging at all.

All Gospels have Jews arresting and abusing Jesus, except John’s where a combined force of Jewish and Roman soldiers seize him. According to John’s Gospel, Jesus is not abused at all, with the exception of a single blow -- which from a Roman soldier, who was upset because Jesus did not respond to the high priests with enough respect. Gibson decided to not use John’s account of Jesus’ arrest, but he still depicted soldier’s act of violence, and dialogue -- only it was a Jewish soldier who did it.

No Gospel describes the incident where they throw Jesus over the bridge. Where this came from, I don’t know. The line from that powerful scene where he gets up after falling with his cross, and his mother rushes over to try help him -- “See mother, I make all things anew” is connected to Revelations.

He paid great attention to detail -- the reed that they placed in Jesus right hand came from Matthew, and is only mentioned in that Gospel. Jesus' last words are, according to Matthew and Mark, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Luke: “into your hands I commit my spirit,” and by John, simply “it is done” -- Gibson managed to work all three in fairly seamlessly -- fair dimkuns, or whatever they say.

The swarm of flies that suddenly show up when Judas is about to hang himself is because Satan is the Lord of the Flies. There are bound to be countless other things that went right over my head.

I'm EXTREMELY CURIOUS about this aspect: I haven't found a transcript of the dialogue, but I'm quite certain that Caiaphas said "He is not our Messiah," or "He is not the Messiah," to Pilate, when demanding His crucifixion. This is not in the Gospels. Mel is known to have a wild sense of humor -- could he have put that in, as a bizarre tip of the hat to Life of Brian? I doubt it because I think religious people would feel betrayed by this. But man, I could just hear that cackling voice in my head when he said that, "... he's a very naughty boy!"

The anti-Christ thing was a little odd, compared to how close some of the other material adhered to the Gospels, but it was very effective. Mary Magdalena was not a prostitute, even if it is a common misconception.

Two specific aspects betray the old-school roots of the Passion: the nails through the palms of the hand, and the carrying of the cross. The nails go through closer to the wrist – we know that from the bodies of the crucified. Two nails in the palm of the hands cannot carry the weight of even the slightest human, even as small as people were in those days. The palm is just a powerful symbolic part of the body. The convicted only carried the crossbar -- which the two thieves incidentally did. Ie., Gibson knew all this very well, but he took artistic license -- just like he probably knew that kilts didn’t exist at the time of Braveheart.

Finally, it bears pointing out that Gibson COULD have created a Passion that depicted Jesus being treated completely differently. No spitting, no crown of thorns, No Herod, not even any scourging – just a single blow from a Roman soldier, and a crucifixion; no violence from any Jewish persons whatsoever -- and still remained absolutely true to the Gospels... He could also have incorporated the historical evidence we have today, from contemporary writers, that shows Pilate to be completely different from what the Gospel writers portray him like. Today, we known that the Roman killed Jesus.


ON RELIGIOUS MOVIES

A lot of Christian leaders complained that The Exorcist was evil, Satanic, etc. -- and say the same about horror movies in general. Well, flash news for ya, Father: Passion is a horror movie. It’s more than that, it is a gore-filled, ghoulish, nasty horror slasher straight out of Fangoria.
Torture has been depicted in film many times before, but almost always in a spirit of protest. This film makes no quarrel with the pain that it excitedly inflicts. It is a repulsive masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film, and it leaves you with the feeling that the man who made it hates life.
- Leon Wieseltier, The New Republic.
And you know, that’s cool. The most interesting review I’ve seen on Passion so far was from a church-going (“Church of England, unconfirmed”) horror-fan in Manchester’s Guardian. It may seem like it was poking fun, but it was written sincerely. The man described watching horror movies as a form of sadomasochism -- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. The same experience could also be had from The Passion -- the added, heightened religious experience adds another dimension to it, but it is in essence the same experience. So now, he felt that he could defend his love of horror movie to his fellow churchgoers -- which I thought was a good thing.

And the point here is of course the hypocrisy that those who are of a religious nature, and are flocking to see this movie would very likely find it positively Satanic, if this exceptional levels of violence was visited upon anyone else except their religious Lord and Savior. And imagine if a parent took their six year old child to see a movie like THAT?! Seriously, I think that would be a good cause for social services to look in on things. But because it’s a religious movie, it’s okay. That’s strange to say the least.

As Roger Ebert pointed out, if it was anyone but Jesus, it would have been a certain NC-17.

When I think of Jesus’ message, I generally think of love, compassion, and forgiveness – those kinds of things. “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.” Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. He is the Prince of Peace. I’ve come across Christians who’ve insisted that loving your enemies means you are supposed to lull them into a false sense of security, and that turning the other cheek is to show them that you’re so tough that you can let them have TWO free punches before you kick their face in, heheh... Seriously. Now, I don't mean to besmirch Christians by making this statement -- there are plenty of intelligent and peaceful Christians around, and there are plenty of violent, and stupid atheists, breaking church windows or even burning them down. I just think that people who have such enormous resources as Gibson should take care to consider what impact their work has on the world -- of course, I don't know what impact it will have. I guess we'll see.

I think the most important message of Jesus is love. You could argue that The Passion’s message is also love -- that Jesus must have loved humanity to an extent that is nearly impossible for us to comprehend, to be willing to endure such torture of His free will.

But I think it is very easy to miss that message, and instead feel sympathy for Jesus’ agony, rather than gratefulness for His love.

And then the message becomes one of martyrdom. That’s a little scary.

[Matt]

I still haven't seen it. It might have to wait another week or so..cuz Starsky and Hutch are higher on the list for this week.


Dang... I'm gonna have to explain that one to St. Peter one day.


St. Peter: "Matt, it says here that you were quoted as saying Starsky and Hutch were a bigger priority than Jesus"

Matt: "Dang, does this mean I don't get a cloud with a view?. DOH!"

[crappertay]

"C'mon Pete, Snoop Dogg as Huggy Bear or a scary lesbian playing Satan... you know it made sense!"

[Matt]

cue trap door to hell.


AHHHHHHH

[JulieDisaster]

Hands vs Wrists...check out these websites for some insight as to why it is portrayed the way it is.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article16.htm

http://www.apu.edu/infocus/2002/03/crucifixion/

[garfield hates mondays]

reading those makes me cringe. On a similar note... Is anyone familiar with the book The Case for Christ? I had to read some of it in school. It covers all of the scientific aspects of the crucifiction. Pretty interesting...

[garfield hates mondays]

ALSO: Cogs, you gotta write shorter remarks... I cant focus that long :lol

kidding of course...

[fafhrd]

Saw the movie yesterday, and I have to say that I was impressed overall with it. As a Jew, I won't view the Gospels as strictly religious works, but I also don't disavow them completely. I'm also not a Biblical scholar, so I can't completely vouch for it's authenticity. I will say that I can vouch for anyone who says that there's no anti-semetism in the film; one could concievably find anti-semetism in the film, but one could also do that by watching a Tom Clancy movie. Nitpicking the film is the only way that anyone could possibly find any sort of anti-semetism in there.

The Passion of the Christ is a film that is largely told from a outsider's viewpoint, that of a fly on the wall watching the events unfold. Occasionally the film segues with flashbacks to events that the particular scene right before the flashback gave reminiscence towards. While the actual storyline of Jesus' crucifixion was very linear, the flashbacks add a sense of opening the storyline up into a unconventional pathway. It helps frame the whole story of Jesus without any large scale exposition and keeps its central focus on the actual events that are unfolding. Jesus meeting with Peter at the Last Supper had import for the scene with Peter at Jesus' initial meeting with the High Priests.

The story itself is well told by Gibson, although there are some minor glitches in the film. Some scenes have slight editing problems- they jump too fast- and are framed poorly. Peter getting up from being clocked in the beginning of the film was not well executed. Neither was some of the scenes with Judas being chased by the "children". Occasionally, there were some scenes that were done in slow-motion effects, and at times there was a slight overuse of them. But, overall, the technical quibbles asides, the film was very strong. The scenes with Lucifer (or Satan, if one prefers), were an interesting suprise, and one of the strongest points of the movie. The visual sense that Gibson imparts to the film truly shines in these scenes. Obviously, the whole Crucifixion scene was also a visual matter, since there is very little dialouge within those scenes- and Gibson lets the scene take its path as it will. He stays out of the way, largely, as a director, and lets the actors and the moment play themselves out.

Besides the somewhat unconventional structure of the film (due to the flashbacks), the biggest contributions of Gibson are how he handles the atmosphere of the film, and on that count, he succeeds brilliantly. The visuals, set design, and the musical score (highly underrated), all conspire to truly bring one into the time of Jesus. The fact that the film is spoken in Aramaic and Latin also lends an air of authenticity, especially because the languages are spoken so fluently. The dead languages and the subtitles are neither a hindrance or a distraction from the film, but rather, heighten the viewer's ability to understand the film. The sets and the costumes are also integral to this point, as they give Gibson the freedom to frame the film as he sees fit to- and in this case, the greatest boon that the film has is its acting.

Jim Caviezel (Jesus), Monica Belluci (Magdalene), Maia Morgenstern (Mary), and Hristo Shopov (Pontius Pilate) all wonderfully portray their characters in the film. Caviezel pulls of a tragic and resilient Jesus with deftness and calm that few actors can manage. e is the emotional and physical center of the film. He becomes Jesus, and the viewer forgets that they are watching an actor preform the role. Maia Morgenstern also does a powerful Mary, who has to watch as her son goes to his death before her eyes. Her haunted nature throughout the film is intense, and heartbreaking. It's a sharp contrast with Jesus' willingness to see his own death through to the bitter end. The Romans, with the exception of Pilate and Abdener, were weak points of the film- they were overly enthusiastic about torturing Jesus, almost to the point where they stopped being humans and became sadistic caricatures of human beings. If the film is anti-anything, it is anti-Roman, and anti-political wrangling. Pilate himself is handled well, from an acting and directing standpoint, as he straddles the age-old political line of not making any definitive standpoints on anything, and letting others make his mind up for him (while maintaining his distance from their decision). At times he's a pained figure, while at other times he's a commanding presence- but at all times, he's gauging the reactions of the crowds, and the political turmoil inherent in his position. Across the board, the actors and actresses let themselves fall into the role, rather than make the role their own.

All in all, The Passion of the Christ does it's job- tell the story of the last 12 hours of Jesus of Nazaraeth's life- and it does that job in a very powerful way, both on a visual and emotional level. This is a film that reaches out to non-Christians as well as true believers, and gives them the story without any pretentions to grandeur. Jesus is both humble and definant, and the film goes to extrordinary lengths to keep it's focus on this aspect of the story. While the film is violent, it's well within contextualization of the suffering that Jesus was forced to go through on his path to the crucifixion. It's largely realistic, rather than overdone, and catcalls of the film being excessively violent ring hollow. Excessively violent would be Scarface, or any number of teen-horror flicks. Gibson seems to strive for realism in the action in his films, and this is just another example of that. The film isn't perfect from a technical standpoint; there are too many slow motion replays and editing problems, but they are more than offset buy the powerful acting, directing, stunning cinematography, and atmosphere that the film brings to its audiences. Gibson should be lauded for making a very powerful film, and Caviezel should rightly be honored for his portrayal of Jesus. It's a film that doesn't attempt to be anything more than it is on the screen, and it's accesible to non-christians as well as christians. At the least, it's generated a great deal of discussion about the film, and the stories that they are based upon. And at the end of the day, that's a good thing.

3.5 to 4 rings out of 5

Fafhrd

[Josh]

Nice review Faf. Very nice. Glad to finally get your take. :)

[garfield hates mondays]

is this thread coming up superwide for anyone else?

[Josh]

Yes! I can't figure out why.

[garfield hates mondays]

it's not a banner thing...

[Matt]

somebody posted some large photos a couple of pages back.

[Cogito]

Nice review Fafhrd -- I'll give it 3.5 out of 5. Need to clear up one thing though -- Lucifer is not a name of the Devil. I don't remember the exact details of where it arose, but the Devil is never called by that name anywhere in the bible. The name is used to describe a prince in the bible, who is known as the prince of light; not prince of darkness, lies, Satan, Beelzebub or whatnot.

Sweden has a festival around Christmas called St. Lucia, which is for the feminine counterpart of the thing, girls dressed up in white walking around with a crown of lit candles and singing hymns. Mind, it could be Satan's big plan to land a bunch of Swedish blondes with burnt hair :)

But Lucifer really isn't a valid name for Satan.

[Into]

Finally saw it yesterday afternoon. Great film.

I really cannot comment much about the religious aspect of it (as funny as it sounds, being that this IS a completely religion based film).

As for the violence and brutality, I'm a big horror fan..I love watching some good gore, blood splattering, etc. So, this really had almost no effect on me, sadly.

The few scenes that did get to me a little bit were:

- The first big beating scene, when they started up with the metal claw weapon, and when it stuck into his side, then the guy ripped it back out.

- The crucifiction scene, when they were hammering the nails into his hands and feet, and watching Mary just tear apart inside watching her son be crucified.



Overall, great film. Mel did a great job in capturing Jesus's last hours of life, and his passion for the world.

I respect the film for what it is, even though I do not believe what the story tells completely, or at all.


And for the record, the people that think there was too much blood in it, IT IS A REALISTIC PORTRAYAL OF WHAT SUPPOSEDLY ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

If a man were to go through what happened in this film, he would look a lot worse probably than Jim Caviezel did by the end of the crucifiction scene. The blood that squirted out of his hand when they were nailing his hands to the cross would have actually squirted out to some degree, and there would be more blood than there was in this film.


I don't understand why people get so up in arms about the violence and blood in this film, when in all actuality, if that really happened, that IS WHAT THAT MAN ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH.

I don't see why people are afraid of seeing what actually happened, or they have jaded themselves into thinking their saviour died without any bloodloss.

Just doesn't make sense to me.

[Witch King]

I agree with you on the violence. Too me it has to be that violent. I don't like it, but it's the way it needs to be. I don't understand why people trash it for that.

[Into]

Yeah, it should be a realistic depiction of what supposedly actually happened. Essentially, Mel did exactly that.

[Bordick]

Anyone else notice the bad teeth continuity....one scene he's all bloddy gums, and in the next they're there......that seemed a bit odd

[masterthes]

Ok, just curious, was my showing the only theater without trailers or was that for all the theaters, and if so, why?

[Cogito]

Originally posted by Intolerance
And for the record, the people that think there was too much blood in it, IT IS A REALISTIC PORTRAYAL OF WHAT SUPPOSEDLY ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Originally posted by Witch King of Angmar
I agree with you on the violence. Too me it has to be that violent. I don't like it, but it's the way it needs to be. I don't understand why people trash it for that.
Realistic or otherwise, it is a portrayal of one possible version of events -- out of many, as described by the Gospels. Gibson picked the most violent aspects possible, wherever the Gospels differed, and added in extra violence that was never described in the Gospels at all -- such as the bit about throwing Jesus over the bridge.

Had Jesus been arrested without violence, judged by the Jews without violence (except being struck once, by a Roman soldier), and crucified (without any scourging whatsoever), it would have been just as accurate, and realistic portrayal of what supposedly actually happened. The Gospels also describe these events.

Don't get me wrong -- I think most who complain about the violence, are just people who are always complaining about violence, no matter what. But some may actually know that the Gospels do describe a less violent version of events.

[B1ade Runner]

Okay, I've read through about two pages of all your comments for the movie, and I'm not going to try to get into any one discussion, so I'll just say what I thought.

First of all, my credibility here is pretty bad since I walked in about twenty minutes late. I showed up around the same time Judas was being hounded by those little devil children. Probably a few minutes before. But I doubt I really missed much, considering that the focus is the lenghty portion of the film dedicated to the torture of Jesus.

So let's get to that first. The torture scene alone has to be not only the most violent scene I ever seen, but it is reason enough to label this the most violent movie ever made. I don't know how they did this, but it was brutal, vicious, disgusting, and painful to watch. It was close to nauseating. It was so violent that my girlfriend was breaking down into tears with almost every lash. The odd thing is that I found that to be the most awful part of everything. Not the violence onscreen, but what it did it her. And that just made me mad.

But the movie itself, outside of the endless, endless, endless violence? Well, without said violence, there really is not much of a movie to embrace. I don't think this was so much about Jesus as it was about what he endured. The truth is, if you knew nothing about him going into the movie, you wouldn't walk out knowing much more. Is the purpose of the film to show what man is capable against a misunderstood man, or is the pupose to show what man was capable agains Jesus? The truth is, the torture scenes would have been vicious no matter who it was happening to, unless of course, it was someone who truly deserved it.

But the flashbacks were more like footnotes than anything. It seemed like they were only there to remind us who this man was before his life became a neverending torture.

It is for this reason that I can only come to two conclusions: 1)that this was made for shock value alone, because it is shocking. 2) that Gibson wanted to give an account so accurate of what he endured that it would give a new appreciation to everyday life. I'm not a religious person at all, but I wasn't really changed by this. If anything, I will cringe to myself everytime I say "Jeez" or "Jesus Christ!" as expressions of anger.

The supposed anti-semetism. I could somewhat see it, but not really. Truthfully, I find it nearly impossible for a film to be rascist because it is usually the actions of the characters, not the film-makers, that I pay attention to. But what I could see is that the Jews give it no second thought. They are portrayed as cold and determied to see Jesus crcified. Where as that Roman guy was conflicted, and yet he sent Jesus to his death without a problem. I'm sure this is the way it went down, and I'm not going to defend the jews, but the slightly warmer approach to that one Roman could help me see what people are talking about.

Then again, it wasn't the jews that savagely tore into Jesus' flesh without mercy or remorse. So who's to blame? The jews who abandoned their supposed leader and insisted he die? Or the romans who destroyed his body before they finally killed him. Both, I think.

This was more hype than anything else, just as I knew it would be. There's not much interesting drama, and no real reason to feel enlightened. This is not uplifting, but oppresive. It's more painful than anything else. When Jesus rises at the end, am I supposed to be happy? Sad? Appreciative of life? I don't know, and frankly, I don't really care.

And by the way, the last shot was very Terminator-esque. Someone explain something to me, though. Why did his hand still have a hole in it?

I'm not disappointed. I knew this would end up being all hype. What I didn't expect was the violence. This was not a bad movie, but I can't think of a single reason to say it was good, either.

**1/2 (out of 4)

NOTE: Because I missed so much, I will not be categorizing this into my best of 2004 post, because it would be unfair. I can only judge the 100 minutes of the film that I did see.

[Josh]

Originally posted by B1ade Runner
And by the way, the last shot was very Terminator-esque. Someone explain something to me, though. Why did his hand still have a hole in it?


It is part of the biblical account. When he was raised, he still had some of the wounds from his death and used them as proof to his disciples that he really was Jesus risen from the grave.

[B1ade Runner]

Okay, that makes sense. Gracias Hobbit.

[Cogito]

Originally posted by B1ade Runner
But the movie itself, outside of the endless, endless, endless violence? Well, without said violence, there really is not much of a movie to embrace.
Good point, actually

[B1ade Runner]

Thank you. :)

[Matt]

Originally posted by B1ade Runner
Thank you. :)

Yeah from what I've heard about it, I'd agree with Brody's points! Write it down, baby! ;)

[Witch King]

Funniest thing I've read was this woman today in the paper saying that it's "sad that we're going to remember Jesus by his death. . ."
Now um. . . forgive me, but. . . isn't that, you know, the most important part?

[Matt]

Originally posted by Witch King of Angmar
Funniest thing I've read was this woman today in the paper saying that it's "sad that we're going to remember Jesus by his death. . ."
Now um. . . forgive me, but. . . isn't that, you know, the most important part?

:lol dumbasses

[crappertay]

:lol

Who says you guys don't get irony

:lol

[Josh]

LOL

Yeah that was pretty much Jesus entire reason for existing.

Someone doesn't pay attention in Church.

[Cogito]

Certainly, that comment was most likely made in ignorance, but some similar arguments have been made against this movie, that aren't quite so ignorant -- namely that there were other aspects of Jesus' life than his martyrdom, that should be paid attention to.

[Josh]

Why are you making a movie about Pirates? There are other aspects to high seas adventure that should be paid attention to!

[B1ade Runner]

Originally posted by Witch King of Angmar
Funniest thing I've read was this woman today in the paper saying that it's "sad that we're going to remember Jesus by his death. . ."
Now um. . . forgive me, but. . . isn't that, you know, the most important part?

I'm feeling the love, people. :D

[Witch King]

I think the argument about other parts of the Gospels being left out are just. . . bad. This isn't a movie about the Gospels, it's a movie about Jesus's death. I'd LOVE to see a movie, or movies, based on the other stories of Christ (and Gibson has said he'd like to do that, his pockets probably agree right now), but that's not what this movie was about. I don't see how you can penalize a movie on what it's not.

[Taln Hess]

Finally Taln has seen this. It took the threat of today being the last day the local theater would have it (although that proved to be wrong, it's sticking around at least another week) but finally the fiancee and I got off our arses and watched this.

I've read 9 pages of comments and have seen some interesting thoughts. Some I agree with, some I don't.

I thought it was interesting that my fiancee and I went into this with different backgrounds, for different reasons, and both came to the same results for the most part.

Overall I think it's a great film. It's another Important film that people should see. Unfortunately with the graphic nature of the movie, it'll be along with Saving Private Ryan in movies a lot of people will pass by regardless of how Important it is.

I think Gibson did a good job of keeping the film from being anti-semetic. To me it almost seemed like he went out of his way to make the Romans the bad guys. Yeah, the Jewish Council asked for the death of Jesus, but the Romans were the ones to torture and kill him, and yeah, the Jews watched on as the torture happened, but then so did Jesus's followers.

I felt while the score was good, it was a bit over the top at times. We walked in about a minute late and the scene in Gethsymene was already in motion but the music was a bit overkill, at least for my tastes, and my fiancees. I really enjoyed the score though and thought it was appropriate most of the time.

All of the acting I thought was fantastic. Not only Caviezel, but particularly Maia Morgenstern who's performance was just astounding. There was a lot of potential for being over the top, but I think everyone played their roles really well. I didn't agree with all of the interpretations, but that's not the actor's fault, that's Gibsons, and that's the joy of interpretation.

I had a lot more to write, but over the course of the last hour being interrupted I've forgotten my train of thought, so I'll leave it at: A good Important film.

[Matt]

I might be the last Baptist on the planet who hasn't seen The Passion. :lol

[Josh]

You never saw it Matt? For some reason I thought you had. Taln too.

I think it is a movie everyone should see, just to understand what all the controversy about, even if I wouldn't call it one of the greatest movies ever made, nor put it on par with something like Saving Private Ryan as that kind of "important" movie.

[Taln Hess]

I had planned to see it after a week or two to avoid the masses, then we just never found the time to get to it. As I said, it was the incentive of "see it now or you'll miss it" that finally got us to the theater.

[Matt]

religion to me is very personal and I wanted to avoid the freakin masses. I also wasn't sure I was ready for that much violence. :lol

Maybe I'll get around to it in the next week if it's still on.

[Cogito]

Originally posted by Taln Hess
I think Gibson did a good job of keeping the film from being anti-semetic. To me it almost seemed like he went out of his way to make the Romans the bad guys. Yeah, the Jewish Council asked for the death of Jesus, but the Romans were the ones to torture and kill him, and yeah, the Jews watched on as the torture happened, but then so did Jesus's followers.
Gibson didn't have any Jewish characters loansharking or swindling anyone, or selling crap at inflated prices, or generally "Jew" anyone -- so hip, hip hooray for that... But to understand the anti-Semitic angle of the passion, you need to put it into perspective with the history of the tradition behind passion plays...

Can you at least understand how people might VIEW it as anti-Semitic -- considering the history of passion plays?

[Josh]

Originally posted by Cogito
Can you at least understand how people might VIEW it as anti-Semitic -- considering the history of passion plays?
But then you aren't REALLY talking about the film anymore, but a variety of outside factors.

That would be like basing my review of Star Wars on George Lucas personal life.

[Matt]

Originally posted by FilmHobbit
But then you aren't REALLY talking about the film anymore, but a variety of outside factors.

That would be like basing my review of Star Wars on George Lucas personal life.

wearin' that much flannel probably does rot his brain though...

[Taln Hess]

Originally posted by Cogito
Gibson didn't have any Jewish characters loansharking or swindling anyone, or selling crap at inflated prices, or generally "Jew" anyone -- so hip, hip hooray for that... But to understand the anti-Semitic angle of the passion, you need to put it into perspective with the history of the tradition behind passion plays...

Can you at least understand how people might VIEW it as anti-Semitic -- considering the history of passion plays?

But that's the thing Cogs - I'm the perfect example of someone judging the movie simply on the movie. I've never seen or honestly even heard of "Passion Plays". I didn't realize such a thing existed. I know there's the Pagent Play around Christmas time, but that's the extent of my knowledge of Christianity and plays, other then Lloyd-Weber productions.

In the context of the movie, I don't see it as anti-semitic. I think people who were accusing the film of such either didn't see the movie, or were grasping for straws.

[Josh]

Or they are basing their opinion on things which have nothing to do with what ACTUALLY WENT ON IN THE MOVIE and instead basing their opinion of the film on Passion plays from hundreds of years ago.

[Cogito]

Originally posted by Film Hobbit
But then you aren't REALLY talking about the film anymore, but a variety of outside factors.

That would be like basing my review of Star Wars on George Lucas personal life.To not count "outside" factors into a movie about a two thousand year religion, is absurd. The outside factor of this movie is enormous. The flick is a personal, religious statement.

Originally posted by Taln Hess
But that's the thing Cogs - I'm the perfect example of someone judging the movie simply on the movie. I've never seen or honestly even heard of "Passion Plays". I didn't realize such a thing existed. I know there's the Pagent Play around Christmas time, but that's the extent of my knowledge of Christianity and plays, other then Lloyd-Weber productions.

In the context of the movie, I don't see it as anti-semitic. I think people who were accusing the film of such either didn't see the movie, or were grasping for straws.
I didn't know anything about passion plays either, but once I learned of it, I could put it into perspective.

Now, please do realize that I don't think the movie can create anti-Semitism in America -- I don't think you are anti-Semitic, if you think that this movie is NOT anti-Semitic.

[crappertay]

Finally saw this.

Yeah, rather brutal, though the only part I **really** winced at was when one of those barbed lashes tore a strip out of his side. Yuck.


Anti-semetic, bah, yeah right whatever. I didn't see it.

Good film, not great, but good.

I'll post more later.

[Bordick]

Originally posted by Tay
though the only part I **really** winced at was when one of those barbed lashes tore a strip out of his side. Yuck.
Same here, but that was it. The rest was stuff that if you've seen any gory horror flick, it's not really a big deal.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Originally posted by Bordick
Same here, but that was it. The rest was stuff that if you've seen any gory horror flick, it's not really a big deal. What made it tough for me to watch was that it was so personalized. It was one person being brutalized in a very real way.

A lot of the violence and gore you see is so outlandish that it doesn't really sink in. With Passion though, there's just something really tangible about it that makes me wince a little bit more than most movies, especially during those scourging scenes.

[Matt]

I still haven't seen it. Happy Easter, Jesus!!Maybe one day!

[Captain Murphy]

Wuss... :D

[Josh]

Sweet jesus.

[crappertay]

Most boring torture porn flick yet.

The only bit I truly liked was the "sequel-bait" ending. That made me laugh. :lol

[Matt]

Oh don't be revisionist, Tay. I read your old posts :lol

[crappertay]

I don't. :lol

I rewatched it late last year.

[Volante]

Most boring torture porn flick yet.

The only bit I truly liked was the "sequel-bait" ending. That made me laugh. :lol

Seconded. Prefered Greatest Story Ever Told.

[Captain Murphy]

Well, I don't really think anyone enjoyed the torture in The Passion... Unlike Saw and Hostel where people go to see it just for the torture and titties. What I'm trying to say is... Tay, you are a scum-bucket. :p

[Svoboda]

When Jesus was rising from the dead, there should have been a bad ass guitar riff.

[Cup of Jabba]

It was a bit gruesome here and there, but not as bad as some folks make it out to be. Then again, they probably don't watch a lot of movies anyhow (which is neither good nor bad).

Never the less, I thought The Passion was a very touching and moving film.

[Captain Murphy]

Me and Svoboda were discussing a film we might make after we make Willie. It would be about Jesus's return... With a vengeance.

[masterthes]

Family Guy already did it :lol

[Volante]

They're all pale copycats of Gandhi 2 though.