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

[Qui-Gon John]

Can you imagine if Mel did it real-time, in "24" style, with the ticking clock and all!

While I'm not very religous, I do consider myself a Christian. I honestly do not see how any Christian (or Catholic), who believes in the bible and that what Christ went through was part of God's divine plan, could possibly blame the Jews, (or the Romans), for what happened. If they believe that this is how God planned it, how can they be angry for those involved in actually carrying out his plan.

Could you imagine if the Jews and the Romans just said, "we're just going to ignore this Jesus, he's just the latest fad, wait it out and people will get bored of him".

 

[Seth Paxton]

Patrick,

its not so much that as the idea that were this a film about someone else's passion, solidifying a different group's faith or awakening their spirituality or just their humaneness, would the film's violence and gore be treated with kid gloves?

And following that, is that the fair, American (ideal) way to deal with the film arts? I say American ideal because other cultures don't align themselves with "justice for all" sentiments and so can't be held accountable to them within their own system, while our system is supposed to be about giving everyone an even break.


In every way you describe Passion, someone could describe the same violence and gore in other films, but that would not stop those films from being blasted, and normally that assault would be coming from the very groups supporting Passion's violence.

I certainly hope you don't think Aronofsky was just doing Requiem for a Dream as a goof, that it wasn't somehow very important for him to show the truth of those moments. The harshness of that film can invoke very serious emotional reactions, but the film is also criticized for going to far to the point of brutalizing its characters.

Hell, Lars Von Trier has spent an entire career fending off accusations of being intentionally brutal to his female leading characters. And Verhoeven is accused of using voyerism of both sexuality and violence simply to titilate the audience and to increase his box office take.


Drawing the line in the sand by saying "anything promoting the Christian or Jewish faiths can show violence or nudity, everything else is bad" is a very poor precedent to set IMO.


And my second question is how well the film aligns with the written account of violence toward Christ. Is it how it was written, or is Mel adding to it, spicing it up to a more intense level? And if he is, then why shouldn't he be giving the same scrutiny that is given to the directors who are accused of fetishing violence on screen?

How far can Mel go with it before it stops being a film about Christ and starts becoming "Birth of a Nation" for Christians? The comparison being drawn there is that for the sake of hype and emotional control, DWG did turn up the dial on how bad his villans were versus how innocent his victims were just to invoke the emotions of his audiences, and it was effective. But the film is also criticized for such depictions.


From what I have read (limited I admit) I see nothing in the Bible about endless torture or an uncommon cruelty put upon Jesus by his captors (basically the Romans). Perhaps those descriptions come from elsewhere. He was smacked a few times but that isn't the same as being beaten senseless, he was flogged only once which is horrible enough but again not a film's worth of violence, they put the crown of thorns on him, he was forced to carry his own cross, and then he was crucified. He was stabbed after death, which is certainly not as bad as the other two with him got as their legs were broken so that they would hurry up and die.

So if the soldiers are beating him with enthusiasm or he is flogged more than once and generally tortured throughout the film, what is the LITERARY source for that? Why does Mel put that aspect in, if in fact the film does go to the lengths I've heard described in reviews?

 

[Peter Kim]

While I've avidly followed the news leading up to this film's release, I'll probably avoid the rush and see this within the intimacy of my own confines upon its release on dvd.

I'm amazed at the volume of discourse this film is generating. I don't believe I've ever seen a film elevated to such a cause celebre of this magnitude. And in this respect, I think Mel Gibson must be pleased with its success, as he should be.

About the violence...it has been said that while many people claim to understand the theory of relativity, in reality only a handful actually do.

For those that criticize the graphic imagery as excessive or unnecessary since the sacrifice of Christ is merely presupposed, accepted, or believed, therein lies the crux of Gibson's argument.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I'm not sure I follow you Peter. Are you saying that if I say "hey, I get that crucifiction was horrible and that Jesus endured a painful death to sacrifice for humanity, I don't need to see Mel amp it up to new levels for effect to get that point" that I am making Gibson's point for him?

 

[Dave Miller]

Dave, I'm not sure I understand your point here.

My point was simply that, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, etc. were very painful movies to watch b/c I know that the events in those movies are based on actually occurred. As those events are represented on screen, they emotional resonate with me. Friday the 13th didn't happen; therefore, that type of violence is something I can't watch. There is no emotional resonance with me.

I believe Christ actually lived, suffered and died for me and as a result, the violence against him resonates with me emotionally and spiritually. And similar to SPR, I benefit from that sacrifice.

I realize the context is different in these movies, but I hope I've clarified my point.

Peace,

DM

 

[Kevin Grey]

Seth,

I fail to see how this film is getting a pass. Its rated R. Maybe it should be NC-17 but as others have pointed out its hardly the first film to squeak by with an R due to subject matter/power of director. Most of the media focus has been focused on the brutality of it and its mentioned in all of the reviews. You can debate whether the level of violence is appropriate or went too far
but its Gibson's right to film it this way.

Sure, people didn't take carloads of kids to Requiem of a Dream. Maybe they should have. There are a lot of families that are going to be viewing Passion but that isn't Gibson's concern- its the parents who bring them. Each parent has to decide if they think its appropriate for their kids to see. The best thing for them to do would be to see the film on their own first and then make the decision.

If it turns out to be too much for the kids then its the parents' fault, not Gibson's. The word is out there on exactly how intense this movie is.

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean when you say this film is getting a break. Its intensely violent and is being criticised for it.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Kevin,
He means it is getting a RATING break, meaning MILLIONS of DOLLARS...HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS. Certainly, based on the "standards", it's content is NC-17. Ebert even points out that it is yet another example of the corrupt and biased MPAA. Why should this film get the R, while The Dreamers gets an NC-17? Even worse, many of the people who protested TLToC and Dogma are the same people who would scream and shout if this film was rated NC-17 and thus legally prevented their children from seeing it.

I understand his concerns. I put no blame on the director. He knew, and worked, the system. Good for him. But it does not bode well for the system itself.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[JonZ]

"Once the actual eye-witnesses have passed away, I'm not sure anyone can claim to know the "reality" of any situation at which they were not present."

More and more Bible scholars are thinking that the Gospel of John was handed down by Lazarus, who was there first hand.

 

[Eric Fisher]

It's funny how violence suddenly became a concern with the introduction of this movie into the theaters. "Kill Bill" didn't receive 10% of the vocal concern in the press that this is generating. why?

 

[george kaplan]

Well I also don't particularly care for Saving Private Ryan, I saw it once, I wouldn't want to see it again, and I don't think I would have sat through 2 hours of the beach scene.

I am a bit disturbed by the idea that the violence is OK due to the context. I'm not necessarily talking about anyone here, but I do know some people who lash out at violence and sex in films and tv and videogames, who have worked to ban books like Harry Potter from the local library because of the 'occult' influences they see in the book, but who are praising this film because of the violence. I see some hypocrisy in these folks.

I will also say that I am a Christian who focuses much more on Christ as a loving, forgiving God than a Martyr, just like I prefer New Testament 'turn the other cheek' to Old Testament vengeance and 'an eye for an eye'. Frankly, I think being outraged at his treatment at the hands of the Romans is the wrong reason to be a Christian, but I know some local clergy are hoping that this film will draw people to the faith, and I'm kind of baffled at what other message this film will be giving to these new converts.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I agree with this. But the fact that the quip can be applied to other films does not make it less relevant in this instance.

You are right that no one can say definitively whether the film's reality is accurate, but no one can say it is not accurate as well. For many Christians, I suspect that an honest attempt to realistically portray an important part of the New Testament will be highly valued.

Regardless of one's beliefs, you really have to admire Mel's financial and personal commitment to making such a provocative movie.

My guess is that it leads to more understanding and healthy discussion all around.

In spite of the large number of denominations, this final 12 hours of Christ is important to probably 99.9% of them.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I appreciate your view George, but it seems to me in Mel's recent interviews that he is perhaps trying to create the shocking violence in part to demonstrate not only reality (as he personally sees it) but also to show in the resurrection that the grace of forgiveness is all the more remarkable and magnanimous following such a punishment.

That, ultimately, is a unparalled message of love and forgiveness. And might I say more in line with your image of a graceful, "turn the other cheek" loving God.

 

[Kevin Grey]

And does Seth also complain about Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan? I know he mentioned them but unless he considers their ratings unjust then it isn't fair to single out The Passion.

As to the same people protesting TLToC and Dogma being the same people viewing the Passion- you're right but its completely irrelevant to this discussion. Those movies weren't protested on their ratings or even violence, but soley on their controversial content. I'm willing to bet that many of those same protestors had no problem with the content of Schindlers and Ryan.

Bringing up The Dreamers just serves to prove the point that the MPAA has always been more lenient on violence than sex. Nothing new, and once again its unfair to single out The Passion in this regard, particularly only a few months from the release of Kill Bill Vol 1 which should also have received an NC-17 with these standards.

The MPAA has always been lighter on violence than sex. Its also is notorious for being more lenient on ratings if they are in a historical context and/or have powerful industry figures behind them. I'd love to see this changed but the Passion has put up enough other topics for discussion without acting like its an injustice that this movie is R-rated, not NC-17.

 

[Malcolm R]

Because a lot of families with young children are expected to attend this film because of its subject matter. "Kill Bill" does not draw the same families-with-young-children audience.

I think the critics are making a point to emphasize the violence and gore in order to get parents to think about whether they really want them to see this.

Even if you feel it's an important movie, is it really important that your 8-year-old see it now, or could you wait to share it with them in a few years? I think they could probably wait until they're at least in their teens and get the message with greater understanding.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I doubt BHD or SPR have the same level of violence as The Passion. Certainly not the fixation on it. They fit into the norms of R films, though they might skirt it.

Which makes them even worse hypocrites, as they are protesting different trains of thought, not just what's on-screen. I think it's completely relevant to the notion that there's a double standard at work. I don't want The Passion to be NC-17. I didn't want School of Rock to be PG-13 either. Or Almost Famous to be R. The standard seems to be that visual violence is OK if you can attribute it to real life events. No one is attacking The Passion in this regard, just the system itself. This is the easiest and most celebrated example, as it targets the people who are the most egregious ratings complainers as it's intended audience.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Except the villains is us! Which is why Mel uses his own hands to hold the nails. Plus, it's pretty hard to get a more innocent victim than Jesus, who, according to the Gospels, led an umblemished and sinless life. I doubt Mel's amped that up any.

I've heard Mel say on numerous interviews that this is not a film for kids and he doesn't believe that anyone under 14 or 15 should go. I heartily agree, I'm not a parent yet, but I can't see taking a child into this movie at all, regardless of their maturity level. I've not heard anyone I know say that they are going to take their children, and as a matter of fact, our pastor warned people not to.

 

[Peter Kim]

Nice review, Tino. I have also not practiced Catholicism for over 20 years, so it will be interesting to see how I'm affected.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I was also going to thank Tino for his review. I appreciated him addressing some of the raised concerns. I look forward to other member reviews.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Nick Sievers]

I don't do reviews because i'm hopeless.


I would say The Passion is the most violent out of those two films. I know I wouldn't be taking 8yr olds to see this film.

 

[Kenny Goldin]

Qustion for all: what are your opinions of this come Oscar time? From what I am hearing the direction, music, cinematography, acting, and editing, costuming, etc. are superb. But, if this is truly a "worthy" Oscar film, do you think it will be nominated? Does it stand a chance at all at the Academy in which some members may or may not be biased one way or the other to some degree?

Also, on a side note, and this is silly, I am hoping for a very tasteful DVD of this hopefully around July or August. I hope that they leave critic blubrs and what not off the cover. This should be very tastefully done. I don't want some silly quotes all over the cover like "astounding!" or "you have to see it to beleive it!" or "two big thumbs up!" or something (now I don't list any of the negative quotes b/c the obviously would not put those on the cover of any film ). A nice, simple box set would be nice, maybe the CD soundtrack would be a nice addition, I just hope it doesn't come with some gimmick like the replica nails that are being sold.