***Official THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST Discussion Thread (including THE PASSION RECUT) (1 Viewer)

[ChrisMatson]

From the Box Office thread:

It looks like the experiment failed to stir up much of an audience.

Any explanations?

 

[Patrick Sun]

Minimal marketing, plus the DVD is also available for rental/purchase nowadays. Expect a little more business during the Easter holiday weekend.

 

[Bill Williams]

From what I've been able to glean about "The Passion Recut", another sequence that had some footage trimmed from it was the Crucifixion scene (as written and published in People magazine), as well as the scourging. Can anyone who has seen the recut version provide further info on what's been trimmed? And despite different views on a PG-13, R, or no rating, it's definitely out there with no rating on it. That's a first for me, seeing a shorter recut version get no rating, as opposed to a longer version with an R rating.

As for a SE DVD with the recut on it, Mel Gibson said in a radio interview last week that he hasn't thought that far about it at this time, so it could be possible, though the above comment from Newmarket Films is also valid. We shall see what happens.

As for which version I prefer, the original or the recut, again, I can only wait to see it before I comment on which one works better.

 

[Craig S]

Except with those kind of numbers, is it going to be able to hold onto any screens through Easter weekend??

 

[Malcolm R]

It got a rating; it was still an "R". So they released it unrated.

 

[ScottR]

Did The Passion have any logo for Newmarket Films at the beginning?

 

[AlexCremers]

The majority of people want more gore, not less. 'The Passion of Christ, The Version You've Never Seen Before' would've scored a lot better.

 

[BrettB]

No, just Icon Productions.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Off-topic discussion has been removed. This thread is about The Passion of the Christ, and the original guidelines still apply. Thanks for your cooperation.

M.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Really? Who?

 

[AlexCremers]

The die-hard fans of 'Passion of the Christ', of course. What else is there to like about this film?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Alex, stop trying to provoke.

 

[Ernest Rister]

What else is there to like about this film?

The Acting
The Music
The Cinematography
The Production Design
The Language
and
The Message

 

[AlexCremers]

Most of what you summed up is supplementary and, let's be fair, a lot of films have great "packaging" these days. Okay, what is the message? And most importantly, how come I missed it? Or, is the message that Jesus' last hours on Earth were anything but a picnic? Honestly, could it be that for some of us the message is burried under the film's endless repetitive display of violence? Could it be that for some of us the film's masterplan has, in fact, the opposite effect?
"In my personal view, the eternally, articulatory filming of severe pain infliction works as a macabre "attention grabber". I think it's sad that the film's overly excessive character is nothing more than a formula trying to capture the attention of modern audiences. Through the use of the voyeuristic exploitation of torment Gibson reached the hearts of a public that has become mute to subtleness. This is why so many people, who are otherwise not quickly drawn to drama, suddenly felt addressed. IMHO, Gibson made a gory roller coaster ride. He made "drama" successful again! The alarming thing is, show it long enough and you'll find that "inflicting pain" gets tiresome too. What will the future hold for us? What will we do next to tinkle our senses? What dangerous and "exciting" spectacle awaites us? Will we personally participate in it so that we don't fall asleep in front of the TV?

Jack, you may ban me when ready.


------------
Alex Cremers

 

[Chris]

I'll try to answer this, but I feel as though you're just aiming to provoke.

Part of the fundamental belief of many Christians is that Christ's last hours were terrible because he is enduring the "sins of the world". Many christian hold the belief that their sins directly correlate to the suffering of Jesus Christ in his final hours. Therefore, as a matter of effect, the "terrible beating" Christ endures within the movie is meant to convey the crushing weight that he endured as a means to cleanse the world of sin. This is the fundamental belief of all Christianity at it's core, that Christ suffered & died in order to save the world.

Now, as to the assertion "it's overly bloody, etc." part of the thought of many from early on is that the crucifixion, etc. was designed to be portrayed in such a way to be completely unpallatable to an audience.. to convey to the audience that their sins are the driving factor behind the difficulties Christ suffered; this dates back hundreds of years in the portrayal of Christ's last hours as it is recounted to followers.

The message is: look how much he would give for you.

The cinematography and acting, etc. stand on their own, incredible works as they are

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

The message of the film is not within the confines of its 127-minute running time. That's why you missed it. If you really want the message, you'll need to invest more time than that.

~Edwin

 

[Cees Alons]

Why do you like it so much to get banned? And why does it have to be Jack in particular?


Cees

 

[AlexCremers]

I believe that a certain amount of fans likes this film because of the "grave nature" it propagates. There's no denying that it does its best to impress. The film is forcing itself upon the viewer. It leaves you no choice. We can only witness and absorb what Mel wants us to see, because Mel has personally put the lidlocks on our eyes, pretty much in the same brainwashing way they "treated" Alex de Large in Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange'. 'The Passion of the Christ' is clearly a film about serious matters. The focus on pain is so central and so enduringly, it simply must be important. For that very reason alone people will think they have seen a good film, a mature film, a film that, for once, wasn't made solely to entertain. This film was about something. It meant something. And now that we've seen it, we've cleared our conscience. By feeling some of his pain, we have paid our dues. Therefore, we can make ourselves ready again for another year of fun but mindless popcorn rides. We deserve it!

What I'm trying to say is that not everybody accepts the message of this film the way you see it. I, for one, didn't like how it kept hammering on only one aspect of Christ. I've gotten the "how he suffered and how cruel mankind is" message half way through the film. And that's when I wanted to see if there was something else about Jesus that Mel wanted to share with us. Where was the good in people? I waited and I waited but the director didn't deviate from his bloody course. He keeps telling us over and over again that we're 'bad'. That's when it hit me! Gibson is making a cramped view spectacle out of misery. And that's precisely the moment when my thumb went down, after initially liking this film. It did not place us in a position to discover things, to see things for ourselves, to make up our own minds about it, you know, the way good films usually do. By repeating the message too long it created a adversary effect. Hey, maybe it's what Mel had planned all along ... Maybe he wanted us to stand up and shout, "No, we're better than that!!" If he did, well, then my respect for Gibson will certainly increase.

------------
Alex Cremers

 

[Andy Sheets]

I can understand that point of view but the thing is that the movie wasn't really designed to illustrate much other than His suffering. And with Gibson being a Catholic, part of the most visceral interpretation of Christianity, that basically means BLOOD in a big way. I can't help feeling that when people watch the movie and basically say "I don't get it...it's just some poor guy getting killed for two hours..." that just means they're not Catholic, or at least not Christian, and there's nothing wrong with that. It just means the movie isn't aimed at you.

 

[Brandon Conway]

This is a movie with a very specific point to a very specific audience that is required to have prior foreknowledge of the context. While it may be very odd for a film to do this, it doesn't make it "bad filmmaking". Rather, it simply makes it very unique filmmaking. As a viewer you need to be prepared for a viewing of this film, and I'm not talking about the violence. This film works best if you have faith in Christ as your Savior, and that's just the way it is. The less you believe that, the less one is likely to appreciate what Ernest termed as "The Message" - a message I see as very clearly present in the film; the thing is, one needs to have the equivilant Rosetta Stone to understand it properly.