The Passion of the Christmovie
Posted 05 March 2004 - 06:32 PM
Moderators, please remove this post if you feel that it is inappropriate in any way.
That said, I am very interested in Gibson's stated claims that he is "reproducing the Gospels" and the critical response. Frankly, I have not and do not want to see the movie because of certain aspects which have come out in the reviewing.
Personally, as a classics Ph.d student I wonder why the whole movie is in Latin and Aramaic, as opposed to Greek and Aramaic (which is much more likely).
This casts doubt on the whole project (as I understand it) speaking fron a simply historical perspective.
I wonder what those of us who have been (or not been) have to say about the presentation, the message and and the impact of this (dare I say) world changing movie?
Posted 05 March 2004 - 07:18 PM
As Gibson has pointed out, it's a meditation on the Passion, and he doesn't get everything right. It does not "reproduce the Gospels", and adds some subtextual things that the screenwriter felt, but is never stated in Christian scripture.
I believe that it also is highly dependent on the familiarity of the viewer with the rest of the story. The portrayal of Pontius Pilate has been dragged over the coals by some critics, stating that his procurature was "particularly violent", but they don't seem to be borne out by people writing closer to the era, like Suetonius, who liked nothing better than a good piece of gossip to write down as history! Pilate seems to have been just another one of the Imperial service who got moved around by Tiberius in the last year of his life, when he was especially cranky. Some evidence suggests he went to Lugdunum, and there the thread on him ends, except for very unreliable rumor. If anything, Pilate's administration was informed by a "bread and circuses" policy, and he WAS expensive!
Likewise, watchers unfamiliar with the subsequent parts of the Bible, "Acts of the Apostles" in particular, might think that the story does live up to its reputation for anti-Semitism. Passages in "Acts" act against this theory, but they aren't a part of this film.
Gibson's comment that he might make a few more movies on Biblical plots is a good one. ("There are a lot of good stories in there!) At least he seems to want to read more of the book than he's presented here. Maybe his point of view will mature with time. What he's got here is very close to an adolescent slasher movie.
Posted 06 March 2004 - 08:18 PM
Posted 06 March 2004 - 10:02 PM
Posted 07 March 2004 - 03:54 PM
Posted 07 March 2004 - 05:13 PM
What is really interesting me is Gibson's insistence on the "literal re-telling" aspect, and what so many critics have pointed out as the flaws/self-contradiction/ruder-synonyms in that approach.
Pilate is an interesting case; he forms such a focus in later tradition. I think Tacitus (more reliable than Suetonius at any rate) just records that Tiberius reprimanded him for his intollerance. My favorite portrait of Pilate is in Bulgakov's Master and Margarita.
Posted 07 March 2004 - 06:48 PM
Posted 08 March 2004 - 11:35 AM
I've spoken with people who liked the film, and they say they found it sincerely moving and the violence not slasher-ish, at all. As for the box office – many people predicted the movie would open big, drawing in the curious and then fading quickly, but this is clearly no flash-in-the-pan audience. Like "The Passion" or not, it has clearly struck a chord, and I think Hollywood is going to have to take notice.
Note: as Board Hall Monitor, I will be keeping a close eye on this thread for any posts that venture out of the realm of civilized discussion. This is a movie that's excited more than one kind of "Passion," and while there's no way to talk about this film without acknowledging that, we need to keep things polite and respect the views of others. Thanks for your understanding.
Posted 08 March 2004 - 02:55 PM
Posted 08 March 2004 - 03:19 PM
I felt pressured to see it on the big screen and wish I hadn't. I'm not a horror film fan, not even the ridiculous Scream films, but this felt more Freddy Kruger than anything else.
I was struck by how much I've learned from reading about the controversy and lack of "factual" in the film.
Then again, this is a Hollywood film. Jesus is still portrayed as in the Da Vinci paintings, except I did read they changed Jim C's eyes digitally from blue to brown.
I don't feel it was as controversial as it has been made and I can't help but wonder if some of the controversy was simply PR machinery.
But it was an extremely violent film spending far too much time on the horror of the death as opposed to the meaning of the death.
Posted 08 March 2004 - 11:01 PM
Very little of it addresses the controversy of its content.
In one note the studio exec thinks that Jesus should turn water into wine at the Last Supper--it would be a great trailer moment and would brighten up the scene.
Another is "I'm assuming 'The dialogue is in Aramaic' is a typo for "American." :grinning:
Posted 09 March 2004 - 06:05 AM
If it is supposed to be merely a historically accurate recreation of the events of the Gospels, then why is a main source those mystical visions?
If it is supposed to be a recreation of the Gospels, well, why isn't it?
Or is it some third thing that I don't know about?
I guess I just don't understand the basis of the film. I'm not sure I want to go contribute my $10 to it's success either. I wish there were a way to see things like this without inadvertantly expressing one's financial support, at least not until it's over.
Posted 09 March 2004 - 09:47 AM
As a general comment, most movies depart from the historical record in some respects -- some more than others. I actually think that contemporary movies are held to a much higher standard in this respect than they were in the past.
Posted 20 April 2004 - 01:02 PM
Mel had to take 4 versions (Matt, Mark, Luke, and John) of TPOTC and combine them into one story.
I was really perterbed by those who claimed anti-semitism before the movie was released and before those complainers actually saw the movie. I'm a very big fan of letting time be the judge of great art.
Crying wolf in the name of bigotry dampens your cause.
CB DeMille's Masterpeice, the 10 commandments, took liberties with historical fact, but it is a beutiful film showcasing cinematography.
Mel will become a billionaire over this movie, he owns it 100%, used his own film company to produce it.
The big question on my lips is, will it be nominated for any Oscars? It might be nominated for best original score, since Mel had little to do with that.
Posted 21 April 2004 - 07:27 AM
And don't think that a lot of the negativity doesn't come from major moguls who now wish they'd invested their mercenary interests in the film.
The one flaw I did find with the film, and am quite surprised to not hear mentioned anywhere is the use of the special effects in certain portions that I found very distracting. Mainly, the faces of the children who were taunting Judas becoming Satanic, and even worse, that adult midget that Satan was carrying during the scourging. If the film were to be completely authentic, those additions should have been, in my opinion, eliminated. They were a cross between avant garde art film and horror film, and quite distracting during scenes that clearly held their own without them.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases. (If it doesn't appear below, your computer's or browser's adblockers may have blocked display):