OT - The Passion.
Les D
red brethren, I also shed one or two tears a few hours ago.
<Les thinks hard, is that blasphemy>
;o)
Les D
--------------------------------------------
Strange, biblical movies, don't you think. I've read recently, a band of
critics saying that Ben Hur is chocker block with all things homosexual,
weird innit. Or, is that the truth of the matter?
People see, want they want to see, that's the way it is, and that's the way
it will always be.
You can watch Kill Bill, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars & such like, and sing
like a canary. Pretty straightforward, no problaymo'.You watch a Jesus movie
and it's a different kettle of fish. If you clam up and say nothing, does
that mean the film was dross? On the other hand, if you wax lyrical, does it
mean you're a Bible Basher?
The Passion Of The Christ, ain't a Walt Disney production. You already know
that, but does Mel Gibson have anything new to say, 2,000 years after the
event?
Well, it goes without saying, he's created certain film reel footage that
*he* has decided to manufacture himself.
Amongst a few, is the verbal explosion that Simon the Cyrene has with Roman
Guards. The Gospels do say, Simon was forced to carry Jesus' cross, but
there's no record stating a 'word for word' conversation.
No matter. I felt Gibson's dotting of the I's, and the crossing of the
Hollywood T's, worked.
Gibson seems to follow the earthy, John Gospel, well that's the impression I
got. The love and brutality are inseparable. He uses a clever Satan. One
minute you're convinced it's a man. The next, a woman.
Remember Mel having his dead wife mingle in the crowd scenes, in Braveheart?
He uses the same technique here, but swops his wife for this, devil figure.
What I did think was clever (unless my eyes deceived me), was;
It was absorbing the way Pharisees, the Saducees, and Roman soldiers/guards
act toward Jesus. You get the impression you're witnessing something that's
happening on another planet. The men who administer the beatings/punishment
look absolutely demented, there doesn't actually seem to be many sane people
in this movie.
The acting is superb. The look on Pilate's face when he realises Caiaphas
demands Jesus to be crucified is incredulous, and perfect.
You find it hard not to wince at the flogging scenes,and when James Caviezel
is finally given the cross to carry, he hugs it. Subsequently, when they all
reach Golgotha, Jesus purposefully, can't get on the crucifix quick enough.
He simply wants the torture to end.
Gibson, seems to copy Michelangelo's sculptor, the Pietá, at the end of the
crucifixion scene. Immediately after that, you see tomb 'body wrappings'
(the Shroud of Turin?) deflating, and a 'born again' Jesus, step into the
light.
All in all, a movie worth watching.
Robzinski
Cheers for that Les. I might go and see it next week, but i've never
watched a film where the whole thing is subtitled before.
Les D
;o)
Actually Robz, the subtitles is a bit of a masterstroke. What I mean is, I
was riveted listening to the strange tongues of the audible dialogue.
That added to the flavour of watching something from another planet.
Winslow
"Les D" <Baconf...@bacon.com> wrote in message
news:c41qff$2ecd1f$1...@ID-104315.news.uni-berlin.de...
The Dude
news:c41rpt$ouo$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Now come on is it really as good as people are making out?
I downloaded it so I miss the "big screen" effect.
Also my "copy" is very dark but I felt that gave a dramatic effect in some
scenes(??)
The endless violence is pretty grim it ruins the film imo but is there some
kind of religious edict or conotation in the violence that I don't follow
or am ignorant of??
Obviously I know the story of JC's betrayal by Judas Barmby,Barabas,the
Pharisees,Pilate etc and how he died to "save" us all.
It's no surprise it's violent,it a bloody(hehe) Mel Gibson film so we
expect that but the meticulous detail in the,for example,hammering of the
nails into his hands on the cross is horrible,it's surely not symbolic
because this is the very reason stigmata is revered.
I was really intrigued by the hype and reaction both here and in the states
also after reading reviews by several religious me,priests,vicars,rabbis.
One priest described it in a review in a UK newspaper as
"magnificent,beautiful" etc but again it helps if you're into religion/know
your bible and so on.
All in all it's kind of pointless though engaging,I'm glad he made the
film,it's better than fucking more Jennifer Aniston/Tom Cruise hollywood
shite.
IMO ;-)
--
The Dude
news:c41pl5$2djr0f$1...@ID-128402.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Cheers for that Les. I might go and see it next week, but i've never
> watched a film where the whole thing is subtitled before.
Is that a problem for you??
--
Pearcey
over my fetish for "biblical epics" after having "a thing" for a babe of a
catholic girl in my mid teens who watched them religiously - if you forgive
the pun !!
(BTW she was about 5'10" at fifteen, blond, beautiful with a body to die
for)
Nevertheless, after your thread Les I will certainly go and watch it, and I
am most impressed with your knowledge of biblical characters.
As for me, I am a confirmed (sic) agnostic. From a science point of view I
cannot believe in the Adam and eve creation, from a theological stance I
have problems with the Ark - both the one of the Covenant and Noah's !!
I will reserve judgement, just in case, when it comes to my own judgement
day !!
--
:-) Pearcey
You know what..............you can never get enough of a nice A.S.S.E
(another)Phil
eager to get to the end??) and I thought, "What *is* this guy on?"
"It's better than fcking Jennifer Aniston."
Now that would make it some film all right!!
citizenphil
Robzinski
I wouldn't have thought so.
Les D
Les D
Thanks for the compliment, Wayne.
;o)
>From a science point of view <
Scientifically speaking, that's why a threw the 'Shroud Of Turin' in my
typed piece.
There's no mention of the SOT, in the movie. But again, cleverly, Mel Gibson
introduces 'Veronica's Veil' as a taster, just before the crucifixion
scenes.
The Shroud seems to be the only evidence (I think?) of what a man physically
looks like, after he's been flogged then crucified to death.
Seeing the injuries that James Caviezel(Jesus) endured, and then looking at
the Shroud, you can see where Mel got his thoughts from.
piablo
you can't have an opinion about the movie, without having an opinion about
the religion.
I've read half a dozen reviews for this (including yours), and yours was the
first not to focus on the anti-semitic overplay of some of the scenes.
You can't expect historical realism from a hollywood movie - U-571 for
instance. The latest evidence suggests Pilate was far from weak, only a year
after crucifying Jesus he put another messiah and 4000 followers on crosses
beore being recalled to Rome for being excessively cruel during his rule in
palestine. If this was a film intending to offer a new historical
perspective of a well known story, it would have been told differently. It
seems, as you say, to simply be Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Gospels.
I'll probably watch it sometime, but I'd like to be able to divorce my
opinions on religion from my opinions on film before I do.
Thanks again for the review.
"Les D" <Baconf...@bacon.com> wrote in message
news:c41oqt$2dqitd$1...@ID-104315.news.uni-berlin.de...
Roo
>
> Gibson, seems to copy Michelangelo's sculptor, the Pietá, at the end
> of the crucifixion scene. Immediately after that, you see tomb 'body
> wrappings' (the Shroud of Turin?) deflating, and a 'born again'
> Jesus, step into the light.
You bastard Les, you have just given the end away!!! *8^)
Ahem...
Seriously though I think I will be giving it a go, looks interesting.
BlueRoo
--
Get to fuckery...
www.efc-online.net
www.vanburenbrothers.co.uk
piablo
http://www.crankycritic.com/archive04/passionofthechrist.html
Always like this fella's reviews, even when I don't agree. He did 3 years
of 1st century christianity and religious history, so he knows alot more
about the religious/history side than I do.
The Dude
news:Zq49c.3973$th4.36...@news-text.cableinet.net...
http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/welcome.htm
Take a looksee.
As the film centres as much on the physical pain rather than character
building,explanation or dialogue as your friend the crank suggests this
maybe of interest,I wonder why Mel Gibson actually made this film.
What did he want to portray or display?
Much has been made of anti-Semitism but we ALL know he was betrayed by his
own as a rebel,troublesome "prophet" so other than emphasise this there is
little to reveal here.
I wonder if the physical pain and horrific torture and eventual death was
what MG wanted to display.
Lets face it 50 years ago this sort of film couldn't have been made,Ben Hur
etc was as violent as it got,for religious films.
Are there any other graphic portrayals of Jesus death??
BTW fascinating fact (for me) Pilate crucified another "messiah" and 4000
of his followers shortly afterwards.
How do we know we "got " the right one and was there another bible we could
have been bored by in school?? ;-)
--
Les D
;o)
Yep, I'd go along with 'interesting'.
;o)
Les D
> Cheers for that, Les. You're dead on, throw in religion, and it
> seems like you can't have an opinion about the movie, without having
> an opinion about the religion.
> I've read half a dozen reviews for this (including yours), and yours
> was the first not to focus on the anti-semitic overplay of some of
> the scenes.
>
> You can't expect historical realism from a hollywood movie - U-571 for
> instance. The latest evidence suggests Pilate was far from weak, only
> a year after crucifying Jesus he put another messiah and 4000
> followers on crosses beore being recalled to Rome for being
> excessively cruel during his rule in palestine. If this was a film
> intending to offer a new historical perspective of a well known
> story, it would have been told differently. It seems, as you say, to
> simply be Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Gospels.
>
> I'll probably watch it sometime, but I'd like to be able to divorce my
> opinions on religion from my opinions on film before I do.
>
> Thanks again for the review.
Thanks for the response, Piabs'. You seem to know your history.
;o)
>You can't expect historical realism from a hollywood movie- U-571 for
instance.<
I have seen, U-571, but I can't remember much about it, sorry, young fella.
IIRC, from a book I read a while back, I agree, Pilate *was* far from
weak...I agree.
In the Jesus era, Pilate was totally fed up being in that particular trouble
spot, and wanted home. Pilate was vying for a position closer to Caesar, and
was in fierce competition with another high ranking Roman. Claudia (Pilate's
wife), used to travel to Rome frequently, and kept Pilate constantly
informed on Roman developments.
;o)
Les D
Interesting reading.
;o)
Cheers Piabs.
--
Barney Tabasco
> > Went the flicks and watched the passion of the Christ tonight, and
> > like our red brethren, I also shed one or two tears a few hours ago.
> >
> > <Les thinks hard, is that blasphemy>
> > ;o)
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
Thanks for the review Les.
Hmmm, this is a film that I been quite tempted to see but because of
my non-existent religious beliefs felt that I wouldn't appreciate it.
You have got me tempted again though.
Did you know? The film was to be spoken in Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew
but *WITHOUT* any subtitles. This was because Gibson believed the
performances would speak for themselves.
Les D
No mate, I didn't know that, about the subtitles. Barns', if you *are*
tempted to watch it, you may well re-evaluate my review as utter tosh.
D'yer know, I can't get the movie out my head!
I haven't a clue what that's supposed to mean, but I'm finding; it's one
hell of a colossal uber thinker.
;o)