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

Well it's about time!

I'll be seeing this tomorrow at 10AM.

Can't wait to get back in here and discuss it.

I sure hope everyone remains civil and this thread doesn't degenerate with uneccesary comments like the last one.

I'll be watching it in a few hours. I don't know how long discussion will stay civil because we have a film with a huge amount of controversy based on religion.

Interesting array of quotes on this thing, both positive AND negative. I'll probably see it, but my interest is waning--not JUST because of the above quotes, but because of this...

According to everything I've seen and read about this film--the only thing really setting it apart from the myriad other adaptations of this same story, is this:

This is bloodier.

That's basically it. I'm going back and forth over this. Normally I don't check critics and reviews for more than an idea of what to expect and what might be happening on the screen...but in this instance, it's a story i've heard about 3 million times already. A story drilled into my head, detailed and in depth, since I've been six. It's ubiquitous--everyone knows what happened, everyone knows how the story goes, we wear it on 16k Gold around our necks, yunno? I have an idea how this movie is going to unfold, and there will be no twists, no surprises.

So what's the hook? The pure craft--and the violence. This will apparently be the most beautifully shot, and most blatantly violent depiction of the Passion. And even people who PRAISE the film can't seem to get away from the fact that this movie is shockingly violent, and most, if not ALL of it's power, comes from this violence done to this character. It's a movie that draws almost all of it's strength from abusing the main character, apparently. I'm hoping this isn't the case.

And it's not that I'm squeamish, or afraid of violence--or even afraid of religion and biblical tales--it's just that if all this movie really has to offer, to set it aside from the other versions of this story that have come down the pipe over the years, is that it's unflinchingly violent--then what's my real motivation to go see this?

It just seems mildly sadistic to me. I'm not going to learn anything new, and I doubt I'm going to appreciate the gorefest simply for it's artistic merit.

I'm hoping to hear from you guys soon, to let me know if I'm missing out, or if there's anything more to this particular retelling of the tale besides watching a man get blamed, sentenced, abused, tortured and then killed, without any surrounding context or background.

I'm still interested--but it's waning fast.

I cant see it until sunday

For those interested,Orielly Factor has a in depth interview with Mel Gibson tonight(Tues Feb24)

I'm sure the moderators will make sure it remains civil, as the guidelines proclaim. I especially like this guideline:


...which I will be one in about 14 hours.

So, why are you all posting comments without having seen the film

Well, I haven't seen the movie yet but the theater that I work at has already sold $20,000 worth of advance tickets. This is unheard of and was enough for the local news to do a report on it last night. I personally am not looking forward to this weekend because this means that it's gonna be extremely busy and probably not very fun for theater employees. I've already heard the old "herd 'em in and herd 'em out" line from one of our managers to a few of our ushers in preparation for this weekend. So for those of you going in the next few days my advice is to get to your theaters early because you're gonna be standing in line.

But that does seem to be Gibson's intention for the film: for people to have some understanding of the depth of his sacrifice by portraying the excruciating pain he went through. The violence seems to clearly be linked to the focus even though it will likely make most extremely uncomfortable. That has seemed to be his singular vision throughout the project.

I work in a theater showing this, and I screened the film last night.


To me, this seemed to be the case.


I will completely agree that Gibson has accomplished just what you suggest, however, I will argue that this does not make for a compelling film in itself.

My feeling about "The Passion of the Christ" is that it only tells part of a story. The film is almost exclusively concerned with the arrest, condemnation, torture and crucifixion. Those who are looking for a religious experience that will build on their faith will be rewarded - and the film comes by this completely honestly. But the film lacks context for other viewers. The backstory is all pre-supposed and that made me feel like the first two acts of a three act story were missing.

This is one of the reasons that I think the movie will ultimately be less controversial than many had initially thought- Gibson doesn't seem to be trying to make any major statements or profound revelations. Its presented in a very matter of fact way so that, even if you don't belive in the spiritual side, there is a certain power that comes from witnessing someone endure so much torment just on the human level. As you said, any spiritual feelings are likely to be a direct result of what you bring into the theater with you. I don't think Gibson is trying to convert anyone here.



Very true. There really isn't any story or plot here, at least in the conventional sense.

I saw it over the weekend. As I'm sure Scott did...but, I haven't seen him posting too much. He's eagerly anticipating "Dawn of the Dead".

I can't say I thought much of it. As blunt as a jackhammer, as shallow as a puddle. I purposefully chose not to bring in any of my religious pre-conceptions...maybe that hurt me. But, objectively - just as a film - it has little to offer other than a crap load of violence that goes so over the top as to make its point bluntly, then barrel past that into numbing pandering.

But, the cinematography is beautiful.

"...But the film lacks context for other viewers."

Sort of like The Phantom Menace.

Well, the film covers roughly the last 12 hours of Christ, so that's the focus. Perhaps Gibson has too much faith in the viewers by assuming that the viewers can provide the context themselves as to how Christ comes to this point of his existence.

I will be seeing it this weekend. I believe it is paramount that it be violent to show exactly how it happended. It's too bad that non-believers think this part of the story (true, its a very small part of the story) has to be nin-violent. Read the Gospel...this is what really happend

I don't think anyone is saying it shouldn't be violent; the problem is the level of violence which many critics are reporting as overwhwelming the movie to the point where it actually repels people and makes its message appear to be a harsh, wrathful and unforgiving one.

this is that new Mel Brooks movie, right?!

In all seriousness, I think the film is a brother to Saving Private Ryan in that it employs shocking gore and violence to bring the full impact of the event to modern viewers. Like Ryan, it is shockingly violent, but it is not, I believe, cynically violent -- this isn't a case of gore used to sell tickets a'la a modern horror film like the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The creative team is in search of truth, and attempts to show audiences what those last 12 hours might have actually been like. From the authentic dialects and languages to the costume designs and period sets and art direction, the attempt here is to provide as "realistic" a portrayal of Christ's crucifixon as possible.

I'm confused by reviews written by critics who raved about the sophisticated use of extreme violence in Saving Private Ryan but who are now trashing the violence in The Passion. Gibson is using Spielberg's strategy. Just as people walked out of Ryan feeling as if they had just experienced the Normandy landings, the goal here was to make audiences feel as if they had just witnessed the Crucifixion of Christ.

That's the entire point of the movie, to bring the sacrifice home to the individual heart in a way never before seen. Does the use of violence cause the film to fail in that goal? Well, there were those thought the use of extreme gore in Saving Private Ryan obliterated the points *that* film was trying to make. At the end of the day, we are going to have to form our own individual opinions, but from where I sit, what Gibson was trying to do is readily apparent.

Of course it is going to be hard to watch. Of course it is going to be agonzing. Of course it is going to be a punishing experience for everyone to sit through. It is not a film that you should take lightly, and do not be surprised to see people heading for the exits with their hands over their eyes. Same thing happened with Ryan.

I've only seen pieces of the film, and like many film buffs, I have followed the film's path to tomorrow's release date with great interest. But from what I've seen and from what I've heard from Gibson's own mouth, what he was trying to do seems crystal clear to me. Remember the whole "It is as it was" controversey? That's exactly what the film is trying to do -- make you feel like you're witness to the martyrdom of Christ, the most seismic event in all of modern human history.

"It's too bad that non-believers think this part of the story (true, its a very small part of the story) has to be non-violent. Read the Gospel...this is what really happened"

well, it's not that I'm a non-believer: I was born and raised Catholic. And I'm not even looking at it from the religious aspect. The thing is--I know how it really happened, I've been told. If I'm going to spend money on this as a movie, if I'm going to appreciate it as a film, it's gotta offer me something more than a purely visceral representation of a violent act. And I'm worried, from reading both the positive AND the negative reviews, that the above is EXACTLY the extent of what I'm going to get. I'm not needing a movie to spell out for me exactly how brutally he was beaten and tortured, and ONLY do that. Ernest mentions "Saving Private Ryan" and mentions the landing at Normandy and the battle at the end. But from what I'm reading, this would be like starting the movie--and then ENDING the movie, at the battle of Normandy. There should be more to it. Early trailers had me thinking that would be the case. Sure, there'd be a focus--a fairly large focus--on the brutality itself, but I was expecting something else to offset it, to give the storytelling something to contrast with, something to add depth. Because like I said--this is a story I'm already VERY familiar with, a story I grew up with, violent imagery and all. I want to know there's something unique in the telling of this story aside from just "Lots of flesh flies off when they whip him." I don't want the hook to simply be "This is the bloody Jesus movie."

I'm not especially sure that I want to pay money to see that. I've heard this thing described as the final part of a trilogy that's never been filmed, an exercise in sadism rivaling "I Spit on your Grave" and a forceful, powerful treatise on the heroism of Jesus. Maybe it's all these things. I know it's just about the last 12 hours of Jesus, but I guess I was hoping someone could tell me if there's more to this movie than simply watching him suffer and die. If there's anything Gibson added, any subtext, any reference to the reason he's being put through all this, any attempt at characterization beyond "The Martyr Suffering."

Because that movie--AS A MOVIE--sounds kind of one sided.

I'm not closed minded, I'm just in here looking to see opinions that describe their reaction to the movie and their analysis on what Gibson brought to the table.

Thanks again.

Is it possible that the film is a presentation asking all of us to come to our own conclusions, as opposed to a work that tells us what to think about it? I mean, that's the great flaw of Saving Private Ryan in my opinion -- Tom Hanks staring up at Matt Damon and telling him (and therefore, the audience) "Earn this". Did we really need Spielberg and Tom Rodat telling us what the point of the movie was? The point of the film was achingly clear after the first half-hour. We didn't need the film to explicitly state its theme in the closing moments.

Same thing with Schindler's List -- the only false note Spielberg hits with that great film is the closing moments between Schindler and Itzhak, where once again, Spielberg and the screenwriter felt that we needed to have the point of the film explicitly stated and dramatized. "I could have got more. One more. One more person....a person, Itzhak. I could have got more, and I didn't..."

We didn't need that, and in fact, it was unconvincingly played and staged. The moment wasn't even in the shooting script, it certainly wasn't in Keneally's book -- the scene was written by Zaillian during shooting at Spielberg's request.

So, maybe Gibson isn't trying to tell you what to think, and wants to merely present, and let you come to your own conclusions after bearing witness.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not really asking for an "Earn This" moment. I disliked that in that movie. But like I said--using the Private Ryan analogy, this appears to be lining up to be the Battle of Normandy--and then that's it. I'm sure if Spielberg wanted to, he could have stretched that out to 90 minutes, knowing that most of us understood WHY we went to that war and then what happened afterwards--but would the movie been anywhere near as good? "Earn This" tarnished the ending, and the old man bookends were overkill, yes--but it's what happened on the way to finding Ryan that made the movie, to me. The Battle of Normandy was great, compelling, unflinching filmmaking, yes, but the rest of the movie balanced it out, gave it a sense of scope and weight that I don't think it would have had were it just 90 minutes of "The Battle of Normandy"

I guess I'm afraid it's going to be, as someone above quoted: "Shallow"

I'm not asking for Gibson to TELL me what to think--it's not that I'm unfamiliar with the story or don't understand what led up to or what happened before or after--but as a moviegoer and a film fan, I want to know that this movie is a complete storytelling work in and of itself, and not just a "true crime dramatization" with infinitely better production values. Because I'm not so sure there's any real "Conclusions" the movie can ask a viewer to come to at the end of this. Are there any questions being posed? Can there BE a question being posed if it doesn't present the premise LEADING to the moment in the film?

maybe my faith is presenting a unique problem in that I know the story, and I know how it turns out, I know the meaning and I know the depth--so I'm looking for something unique in the manner the story is told, something to differentiate it from the 30,000 other adaptations that came before it. And if the ONLY thing that's really differentiating is Graphic Violence, I'm skeptical that it's worth the time.

But then again, maybe there IS more to it.

I guess I just want to make sure my curiosity isn't being misunderstood here.

But wouldn't a 90 minute Normandy movie be just as valid? The Longest Day is pretty much just that (only longer and far less violent) and its a classic.

Now 90 minutes of Normandy filmed like the first 20 minutes might be too much for an audiences to handle but that doesn't mean its not a valid movie.

Take Black Hawk Down- it pretty much details the operation and how it happened with very little in the way of commentary. There is some setup but that was necessary mainly because it couldn't take for granted that audiences would know the background of the operation but there really was no plot or story arc. At least no more than The Passion.

That's a pretty good point

But then again--I'm worried that this movie IS "90 minutes of Normandy filmed like the first 20 minutes"

I'm not saying it's going to be an invalid movie, and I'm not saying it's unworthy to be filmed--just that if that's all there is, I'm not so sure I, personally, want to watch it.

I'm sure tomorrow I'll get my answers as to the substance of this thing.

The best cinematic interpretation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is still Jesus of Nazareth. Robert Powell's portrayal of Christ was beautiful and eerie, almost supernatural in itself. The image of Jesus entering through a door with nothing but light behind him still sends chills through me. This was a big movie, and I can't believe no one is talking about it this week (although the Jesus miniseries and Greatest Story ever told have been brought up.) I am seeing Passion this weekend, but I doubt that it will even come close to having the impact on me that Jesus of Nazareth did.

My family and I purchased some online tickets and we'll be seeing it on Saturday.

I had the opportunity to see a making-of special on TV (I forgot which channel it was on...TBN?) and it really looks amazing. The buzz is amazing... some of my college professors have mentioned it, the pastor at my church (I'm Catholic), and a lot of my friends are really looking forward to the movie.

After reading some reviews of the film... a lot of reviewers seem to miss the point of the film. I'm also afraid that some reviewers are using this film for an agenda. For example, one reviewer gave this film an F while he gave a D to Charlie's Angels 2. Another ranks the film at the same level as The Cat in the Hat and Gigli. I honestly find it hard to believe that this film could be worse than that kind of box office fodder.

However, a 4-star review by Roger Ebert meant a lot more to me.

I'll write more once I've seen the film on Saturday.

My review is up

Mark McLeod reviews The Passion of the Christ

"I'm sure tomorrow I'll get my answers as to the substance of this thing."

I'm walking on extreme eggshells when I say this - but sometimes, the substance is found within the viewer. Cinema is like many other forms of visual arts in that it is viewed in a communal setting, yet interpreted on a person by person individual basis. That's why Aristotle listed the audience as a chief componet of art. Without the audience, you don't have art. Art happens not on the stage or the screen or the canvas, but in the individual mind of each individual viewer.

In other words, it is quite possible that you get out of the film what you put into it...I'm not sure the *film* is shallow, if you catch my drift, which is why I'm walking on eggshells suggesting such a thing...especially for a film I won't be seeing for another 12 hours.

My only question is; how are they going to make "The Passion of Christ II" if it makes loads of money?
I'm skipping the movie since I know the ending already.....unless Mel made some artistic changes??!?!

Ba-Dum-Pump. (rim shot)

Come on, dude.