February 26, 2004

'Passion' and Death: Movie opens. Death ensues. Jeebus!
posted by anonymous 20 years ago
  • Darn - forgot to mention the marketing aspect discussed here.
  • i was waiting for someone to start this...i didn't see this review.. and here's another appropriate read from one extreme to the other.... (i hope my links work ok!)
  • guess i better practice some more...how do i delete and start again?
  • Behold! God = 1 Mel Gibson = 0 Game on!
  • From what I've heard, it seems mostly aimed at fans of the book. Not being flippant - it doesn't sound like it makes any attempt to appeal to anybody who isn't already convinced of the holiness of the Christ. It's seemingly being promoted by many evangelicals as a great tool for converting people, but I wonder at how true this is. Given that the apparent absence of normal storytelling techniques (little backstory, little in way of a story arc, little tonal variation) it doesn't sound like it would work without the audience already knowing and caring about the main character. Like if LoTR had just featured nothing but Frodo climbing Mount Doom. With Sam whipping him constantly.
  • my mom heard that mel gibson actually hammered the nails into "christ's" palms during the big crucifixion scene. hmm.
  • Amidst all the "Passion" hype, I am continually reminded of Bruce McCullough's "Baby Jesus" monologue from "Shame Based Man"
  • dxlifer, you can't delete, but you can jump in and try again :) The FAQ has excellent directions on basic HTML if you need a quick tutorial.
  • Oh, yeah, and didn't the Romans crucify people by hammering the nails through the wrist? On the grounds that you can't crucify people through the palm, because it won't support the weight of the body. The palms, well, rip. Or have I got that all cockamamie? A man told me in a pub, so I don't see how it can be wrong.
  • and why are christians mad at jews for killing christ, when the whole basis of the christian religion is the fact that christ died for them? without jews, no christianity!
  • I think that's at least 2 points for God now, naxo.
  • oy! don't get me started. I have no intention of seeing this movie, for so many reasons. flashboy, from what I understand, yes, the romans nailed thru the wrist to crucify, for the reason you stated. the jews did not crucify jesus (contrary to what this movie apparently depicts) the romans did. Judea was a Roman province, ruled by a Roman governor, during relevant time period this was one Pontius Pilate. Even other Romans were appalled by his cruelty towards the Jews, sorry I don't have a specifc reference. I will try to find one. The Jews were under the polical domination of the Romans, and sometimes oppressed by them. They did not have political power unless they were co-opted into the Roman power structure. So to say they crucified jeebus is ahistorical & ludicrous. The romans did it! the romans did it! /end historian rant
  • The actor playing Jesus was struck by lightning on the set.
  • One of the more interesting reviews I've read is this comparrison with medieval theatre.
  • I don't know if anyone else has posted this, but the CAP Alert rating is in. This film will fuck up your kid 1/5 as much as the South Park movie, apparently.
  • Well, I heard that they actually tied victims of crucifiction to the cross, rather than nailing them, as that way they would not die relatively quickly from blood loss. And my teacher told me. So it must be true.
  • I'd quite like to see this film: does that make me a bad man or a good man?
  • faq's and i have never got along, but i'll try again.. from the sacred to the profane, there are many ways to view christianity. (looks better, she says with fingers crossed)
  • I'd say "wrists and wropes" but that's derailment. Thanks for the link Sullivan, I'd forgotten that too. I wanna say "Just- Damn!" I have a problem with a millionaire film star forcing horrific violence upon society. Does that make me tiny . . you know . . down there? Not to mention the . . what is it . . Historical aspects? Medusa: werd up.
  • ...Historical aspects... Okay, just out of interest, has anybody here read Robert Eisenman's James, The Brother Of Jesus? I started reading it a couple of years ago, but was daunted by the 1,047 pages. Opinion seems to be wildly divided - does anybody know if it's accurate in depicting "the early community of James as a nationalistic, messianic, priestly, and xenophobic sect of ultra-legal pietism", or if it's just a bit of a conspiracy theory dressed up in very long sentences? Certainly, it's always been my understanding that the portrayal of the Romans as oppressors is somewhat over-stated (they were a pretty tolerant, on the whole), the division between the Roman ruling class and the Jewish ruling class was a good deal more fluid than is generally portrayed (as is the case with most descriptions of Roman/local relationships), and that it's predominantly Pauline spin-doctory which has disguised the fairly reactionary nature of sects which had Jesus as their Christ. Am I way off base here, or was the man in the pub who told me all that reasonably accurate? Somebody? Anybody? Medusa? jb - you know everything, don't you? We now return you to the movie.
  • I couldn't believe a woman actually died during the movie, but it does appear to be true, after doing a google news search. That's just...really interesting. I'm sick of this movie already, even without having seen it, but I just found another interesting perspective: the Black Panthers condemning the film, since Jesus wasn't white. I say - right on.
  • Everything I know about Jesus the possibly historical figure I learned from Jesus of Montreal, the brilliant Quebequois film by Denys Arcand. Actually, watching Jesus of Montreal would be a very good alternative than going to see The Passion - it's in Montreal that you will find the true essense of Christ, and the best delivery of Hamlet's famous speech ever - in French no less!
  • And I do not know everything - I just act like I do.
  • Jeezy creezy, dad.
  • flashboy, my degree is in Medieval History, but I did study the Roman stuff a bit. I believe that the general Roman policy was fairly lenient or humane, whatever...they were generally quite tolerant of other religions & left you in peace if you paid yr taxes. from what I understand pontius pilate may not have been a prime example of this policy...he may have been a bit tyrannical or oppressive.(according to these mysterious roman sources whom I have yet to divulge!) also, the monotheism of the jews sometimes antagonised the roman overlords, who didnt mind if you had yr own gods as long as you made an appearance at the public holidays of the roman pantheon also. of course, this would have been antithetical to hebrew law...um, the first commandment, right?
  • Thanks, jb - I've been meaning to see Jesus of Montreal for quite some time now - can't remember when I first heard about it, but it sounds absolutely wonderful. And no matter what you say, I maintain that you know everything; we have to believe there's at least one omnicogniscent MoFi user... If you like this title, we also recommend... Exorcist, The (1973) Hmmm. Medusa - cheers for that. I guess I might have to just gather my courage and actually read the damn book... not fair... why can't somebody else read it for me? The Roman take on multiculturalism - everybody worship everybody else's gods as well! - is an interesting model for today, perhaps.
  • Uhh, the Romans were *not* tolerant of the Jews. Josephus goes into great detail about this. The Jews tried all sorts of things to get rid of the 'Kittim', and were not exactly peaceful about it. After, I think it was the first revolt, the Romans started getting pretty brutal. And by brutal I mean incredibly so. Crucifixion was indeed usually performed with nails thru' the wrists, for the reasons stated, but this greatly depended upon the amount of people being crucified, apparently, and the manner (posture). A lot of mass crucifixions simply had them being tied up, probably for reasons of practicality. We don't have a lot of archeological remains to give good clues, probably because nails from crucified people were considered great magical talismans, and were taken from the bodies to be used as charms. Not just the Jews did this, but many ancient peoples. Nasty stuff.
  • To paraphrase Spike Milligan: And God said let there be grass, and the earth produced grass and Mel Gibson smoked it.
  • That death elevates Mel up to the rank of The Goodies, then. Thanks for the extra history, 'damus. If it wasn't for generous people like you, I'd never be able to make it as a shallow-knowledged generalist bluffing his way through the majority of conversations. I was about to mention that what I was saying (re: Roman/Jew/oppressing stuff) was that, while the Romans were undeniably vicious when riled, it was basically the Jews who started it. And then I thought, that soooo doesn't sound good, given the current context. Instead, I'll just mention that it always annoys me slightly when the Romans are portrayed solely as an invading, conquering army who had to install vast garrisons everywhere they went, so as to keep down the local populace while some imported Italian govenor lounged around drinking wine and molesting the serving staff. Which is probably a better way of explaining what I was on about than saying "basically, the Jews started it"... Oy.
  • You bein' snarky with me boy??? Step outside!! Good! Now while you're out there, let my cat in.
  • No... I was saying 'thankyou'. *sniff* Here's your cat. *runs away crying*
  • I love you.
  • *hands over cheese-coated banana*
  • I was interested in the comparison to medieval theatre (thanks for the link, homunculus). In some ways it fits in with what Caroline Walker Bynum has recently been arguing: that "we find in the later Middle Ages a new 'blood piety' .. leading to a new violence in religious imagery" which is still with us today. (Though to describe this as "sadism" is highly anachronistic and begs all sorts of questions.) My own take on the film, from what I've read about it (haven't seen it yet), is that it's firmly in the Counter-Reformation Baroque tradition. It draws on various forms of Counter-Reformation spirituality (e.g. detailed contemplation of the wounds of Christ, and imaginative identification with his sufferings), and to anyone outside that tradition it's going to seem pretty strange (hence the baffled reviews the film has been getting). Perhaps the best way to watch the film is to imagine that it was made by Spanish Jesuits in a parallel universe where the movie-camera was invented in 1600. In other words, try to watch it with the eyes of an anthropologist, and try to think of it as an artifact from a profoundly alien culture. That way, it may seem fascinating rather than merely repulsive.
  • I just don't understand it. And I don't want it. Or its effects. But - I'm getting its effects either way. I guess that's just my cross to bear. aaahhh??! Wakka wakka! Zzheyoowww!
  • Now that's what I call an elegant, articulate contribution, verstegan. Hats off (doubly for not apologising :-). It's an interesting distinction to draw; a lot of people are looking at it through the eyes of a psychologist, interpreting Gibson's personal motivations and obsessions. I think you're right that it's more interesting to examine an entire culture that - removed from it by several centuries though we are - is still causative of, attractive to, and maintained by those with such a psychology. And all the cultural ephemera and historical notes that go along with that. On preview: having said all that, mr best does make a good case for the dude being a total freak.
  • The completely buried news in this post and the comments is the death of Carl Anderson, he who played Judas. It's easy to let pop obsessions dominate our discussion. Certainly Jesus is the Superstar, but without the betrayal by Judas, there is no death and Resurrection.
  • (it's the "ensues" part of the FPP)
  • Why do most christians value so much the crucifixion of Jesus? Being a former catholic (from long ago and not an expert on religion anyway) I have two problems with it but both related to the priciple of Jesus = son of God = God himself. First, it is regarded that Jesus sacrificed himself to save the souls of all humans. But how that comes about exactly? Second, why it is such a big deal? Why it's regarded as a big sacrifice from the part of God if he's the Almighty and he could create as many Jesus as he wanted and make them all resurrect as many times as he wanted to? If Jesus = God, why then he worries so much about dying? He knows he's going to resurrect in the end and go straight to heaven literally. It's said that it's his human part who is suffering, but then he's just a man suffering. Maybe it's as valuable as Gandhi and any other martyr but not comparable to a really suffering omnipotent god, if that kind of god could suffer at all. To me, that act of crucifixion, is the ultimate act of proselyting. God knows his sacrifice doesn't mean nothing to him. An avatar dying, big deal! But he knows that would impress the puny humans with their fragile minds and bodies who can't grasp that HE is GOD, and death, with all the pain it could have come about, doesn't mean a shit to him. Sorry about the tone of my last paragraph. It is not my intention to insult anybody's beliefs but I use it expressly to remark how illogic this subject sounds in my mind and I expect some good defenses from those who are really into the subject. I imagine christian philosophers have reached the same doubts at one point in history and found good explanations for them. Sorry also for the derail, but I didn't wanted to do a Curious George just about it. Less with the snarky comment on it. Have a nice weekend!
  • Zemat: Excellent question. The crucifixion wasn't the only part of the sacrifice, just the (for lack of a better word) highlight of the sacrifice. The essence of the sacrifice was for God to become human, to live and walk among us, dealing with the pain and torture of existence in a human form. Face it: to leave heaven, a place of sheer bliss without pain and suffering, and live on earth with all the politics and suffering and strife would be an enormous sacrifice in and of itself. As presumably the most intense manifestation of his entire life of suffering and the climactic emblem of that suffering, the crucifix serves as a more meaningful symbolic rallying point than, say, loaves and fishes. Also, for those of us who grew up in Sunday School learning John 3:16, we're taught we're supposed to admire God for sacrificing his son. Yet how are we supposed to admire a God that would let allow his own child to be tortured like that [not to mention the mother of said child who had to sit back and watch it happen]? Or is it all okay because Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are all the same entity, thus it was just God doing it to himself? Maybe the suffering of the torture of crucifixion was tolerable only because Jesus understood that death was the payoff.
  • Somewhat related since it's a big movie (trilogy) with religious and political themes: Is Arwen pro-life?
  • That's IT! That's what's been on the tip of my typing tongue. Thanks to Faze over at the 'Fi for expressing that.
  • i suppose it isn't really relevant, but i personally met jesus several years ago...he was serving thirteen years for rape in a maximum security pen and having some difficulties i was asked to help him with. first of all, he kept torching his bed and cell. he said god told him to. however when i asked, he couldn't figure out why he was being told to commit such harm upon himself. secondly, he wanted a transfer, but couldn't get one because his paperwork was in the wrong name! he insisted on filing his applications under the name jesus and the powers that be simply told him that he would be refused until the names matched. otherwise he was rather personable in a schizophrenic sort of way. it always left me wondering how many centuries this kind of belief in being the son of god has been around....left me with some serious doubts about a lot of things.
  • I think Roger Ebert said it best. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.
  • I agreed with Faze, too.
  • Bunson interviews Mel Gibson's Jesus.
    Bunsen: What do you think about the Christian groups who are renting out theaters and organizing mass viewings of the movie to ensure a healthy box office opening? Mel Gibson's Jesus Christ: I think that they're incredibly savvy about the realities of the entertainment industry. If I don't open huge, it's really going to hurt the next picture, where I'm resurrected so that I can get the shit kicked out of me for a couple of more days before I return to heaven.. FOR THE LOVE OF DAD, IS THAT REALLY #$%$## NECESSARY? This other guy just dumped salt water all over my open wounds, while someone held open my mouth and put a nine-volt battery on my tongue. In any case, I hear that they're going to read the projected box-office grosses at Mass this Sunday.
  • "This is the most violent film I have ever seen" (thanks for the link Sulilvan) And this from a film critic - he's seen a movie or two. Why not make it a freakin snuff fi- . . oh wait. Huh.
  • From the Post - scenes from the film shown to sixth graders at a DC public school.
  • I read that article. I was surprised to learn that there is a school called Malcolm X Elementary.
  • 200 million. What gets me is the last line: While it's true that many of the Bible's most familiar stories have been mined by Hollywood in the past, producers who now address the same material the way Gibson's done in his R rated "Passion" could find themselves satisfying the moviegoing appetite of this newly emerging audience. And to think I thought SUV's were a fad that would pass too.
  • And the Hits just keep on a-comin'! Yeeeha!
  • Lawdy Lawdy. For some reason this film and all it's attendant crap remind me of that press conference quote from Chief Wiggam; "Fat Tony is a _cancer_ on this city! He is the cancer and I am the . . . umm . . what cures cancer?"
  • I concur. Wow. Fucking hell, thats amusing.
  • is Passion the new goatse?
  • Again, from my point of view, only, lets get this straight. Yehwah sent his son, or came here as his son, to be sacrificed for all who came to believe but needed an extra boost. GOD killed him (no, not the truck) for some reason that is completely foreign to my way of thinking. Doesn't matter, it was GOD who did it, not the Romans, not the Jews. They were just tools in the hands of the "supreme being" or he couldn't be "supreme." He decided to send his only begotten son to die for (some of) us. Or, maybe the Osiris myth just recirculates, without Isis. I think the crucifiction was GOD's personal Iraq. Maybe he didn't realize what the consequences would be, but they've lasted since the event took place. Crusades, pograms, holocost, man, he's really spent a lot of time pissing off potential converts. If he really is counseling GWB, he doesn't seem to have learned from that mistake. Omnipotent? Omsniscient? If so, why do people blame mere mortals for the death of Jebus when they had to know that GOD decided on a sacrifice, as he had done a time or two before? Poor Job! Okay, this is not my usual persona, and I'm not comfortable with hurting folks who really believe in all this, so if you can counsel me on all the reasons I'm completely wrong, I'll listen.
  • Nostrildamus: Sure, but the situation with the Jews vis-a-vis the Romans (on religious matters) was primarily a clash of monotheism and polytheism. Rome was quite unfazed by differing religious traditions (consider how quickly the legions took to Mithras). Monotheism caused huge problems for a world in which it had been accepted that conquered people would, as a matter of social cohesion as much as anything else, integrate aspects of Roman religion into their lives. Romans didn't care that Egyptians continued to worship along their traditional lines, so long as they showed up to the odd event in the Roman calender; this wasn't a problem for most other polytheistic faiths. The whole "jealous God" of monotheistic Judiasm made a significant problem for the model on which the empire was based, and later wreaked havoc on the post-Constantine empire when Christianity infected the Empire.
  • Oh, and a couple of articles on some Arab reactions to The Passion: one from Salon ("It was screened for the Lebanese president, who rendered a very strong verdict in favor. He attributed all the controversy to Zionist conspiracy.") and the Christian Science Monitor.
  • beauty link t r a c y - thanks! I was hoping for a scholar to take it down and (as one or more ppl have said around here) was too lazy to do it . .
  • good review, thanks, tracy....those were wise words of insight into all of this...passion.
  • I fail to see what this has to . . uh do . . with . . . oh. Gibson Resurrects 'The Passion' with Less Gore Which is a shame, because I think Al Gore was really good in it.
  • LOL!
  • Registration required.
  • sorry, true: bugmenot says: user: theferaleye pw: cartoons1
  • He seems like such a nice man. A nice man chock-full of issues. But, I don't understand, isn't God on HIS side?
  • That may very well be one of his bigger issues, GramMa. If God's on your side, who can be against you? Could it beeee . . Oh, I don't know . . .
  • Max Gleason's new movie, "Apokathary" features unknown Mexican actors speaking in an ancient language. The film's title, "Apocalypto," a Greek word for an unveiling or new beginning, "just expresses so well that I want to convey," Gibson said. "I think it's just a universal word. In order for something to begin, something has to end. All of those elements are involved. But it's not a big doomsday picture or anything like that." Yeah no one would mistake it for a doomsday picture. It's not like You're some hyper-religious violence freak or anything, Max.
  • "Anthropological journey" my arse. In the same way Disney's The Road to El Dorado was an anthropological journey, maybe. Just because he's read the Popol Vuh doesn't mean Gibson is suddenly an expert on pre-Spanish Mayan culture. Gibson is getting weirder. Next he'll be making a movie in some 2nd-century regional Mongolian dialect. Gah! [insert incoherent swearing]
  • Nice pic in the article too - He looks like he's been sleeping in the garage.
  • Mel Attacks!! OMGWTFLOL!1!!
  • Shoulda had Jesus as a co-pilot.
  • Mel Gibson is the Tom Cruise of catholicism.
  • Mel Gibson is the Al Capone of rationalism.
  • Mel Gibson is the Sandy Duncan of my masturbatory fantasies. Oops, wrong thread.
  • Wheat Thins are the Graham Crackers of MCT.
  • Ralph is the Dogg who let the Others out.
  • I'd like to dog Ralph, if you know what I mean. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink
  • MMMMMM, sugar tits! *drool*
  • They dissolve on the tongue. Heh. I made a dirty joke.
  • The report says Gibson then launched into a barrage of anti-MonkeyFilter statements: "F*****g MoFi... The MoFites are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a MoFite?"
  • The deputy responded, "The first rule of MoFi is that you don't talk about MoFi."
  • What does this have to do with dogging Ralph?
  • The second rule is, if asked if you are a MoFite, there is only one answer: "You bet your sweet ass I am."
  • His name is Robert Paulson.
  • Ask him again, and he'll tell you the same.
  • The second rule is, if asked if you are a MoFite, there is only one answer: "You bet your sweet ass I am." Unless you're on probation. Never answer yes to that question if you're on probation.
  • I just know there's theological implications to be staggered by all of this...
  • Frankly, I wish he'd get back to making the kind of movies we can all enjoy, like "The Drinkin' of The Night" in which a persecuted mega-millionaire sex symbol movie star shoves bibles up the quivering sphnincters of unbelieving sinners. Now that's just good cinema.
  • Rehab!
  • From the above link: Money Quote: Mel Gibson, during a January 1992 interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais, on his thoughts on gay men: "They take it up the ass." [Then, bending over and pointing:] "This is only for taking a shit." (via Working for Change) Gibson on "Good Morning America" later that month, offering a non-apology regarding the above remarks: "I don't think there's an apology necessary, and I'm certainly not giving one. [Those remarks were a response] to a direct question. If someone wants my opinion, I'll give it. What, am I supposed to lie to them?" (via Answers.com)
  • Yeah, he can't deny that he spewed all of that anti-Jew crap when he was arrested, so he's going to appeal to the Jewish leaders to help him heal. What a load of ass.
  • Now that's just good cinema. Don't you mean that's good enema?
  • It's sad, really--no matter how much Mel tries, nor what heights he achieves, people still think Tom Cruise out-crazies him. What's a dude have to do, huh?
  • Oh no, my money's on Mel. Mel's horse has almost 2000 years more of bizarre conscience-mangling history behind it.
  • I like Mel. He reminds me of Crusty the Clown.
  • Mel Gibson, during a January 1992 interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais, on his thoughts on himself: "I'm a bigot and a moron." [Then, bending over and pointing to his foot:] "This is only for sticking deep into my mouth."
  • Russell Crowe = BasilDrak? I never knew! I wondered why Basil hadn't been around much lately. Must be shooting a movie.
  • I like Mel. He reminds me of Crusty the Clown. Hee hee! He's talkin' funny talk!
  • Top Ten Mel Gibson Excuses 10. "Did I say 'Jews'? I meant Scientologists" 9. "Food poisoning from a bad knish" 8. "Uhh, hello? I'm famous" 7. "Shouldn't have been drinking with Hasselhoff" 6. "Any press is good press" 5. "I refer all questions to my Jew attorney" 4. "Tired of Britney Spears getting all the 'crazy celebrity' attention" 3. "Oh like you've never gotten drunk and accidentally said, 'Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world'?" 2. "Researching upcoming role as insane washed-up movie star" 1. "Hoping to be named People Magazine's 'Sexiest Anti-Semite Alive'"
  • Celebrity Justice wins again! The system works!
  • 'Mad Mel' Is Sick With the subtlety of several thousand flying mallets and arrows, here comes Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto," a two-hour plus torture-fest so violent that women and children will be headed to the doors faster than you can say "duck" when the film opens on Dec. 8. Indeed, "Apocalypto" is the most violent movie Disney has ever released, with so much blood spurting out of orifices that even Martin Scorsese would blush. If you've ever wondered what it would be like to see heads and hearts removed without anesthesia, then this is the movie for you. "Grey's Anatomy" it is not. . . . "Apocalypto" surpasses "The Passion" in every way as a movie about pain, flagellation and wounding. The grotesqueries are almost numbing, and at some point they become laughable. Nice work, Mel. You've made a difference.
  • I have never paid money to see Mel screaming "Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom", and I never will. Oh, except the Chicken Run, but that doesn't count 'cause he was only the voice-talent on that one.