BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

The Passion: Is Mel Bonkers?

  
  

Page: (1)2345

 
 
Foust is SO authentic
16:50 / 25.02.04
I know there's already a thread discussing this film, but it focussed on potential anti-semitism, and seems to have run its course.

So this is the thread where we talk about the film. Has anyone seen it yet? I'm going tomorrow night.
 
 
Simplist
22:43 / 25.02.04
I plan on seeing it late next week--will comment once I have. I'm somewhat of a connoisseur of religious cinema generally, and am tentatively optomistic based on my parsing of the various media coverage so far. Hopefully my reaction will be less severe than this poor woman's...
 
 
Hieronymus
23:05 / 25.02.04
I'll probably see it when all the evangelist fanfare dies down and all the Passion merchandise has been sold.

Though reviews like this one don't give me much hope.
 
 
Pants Payroll
01:41 / 26.02.04
I plan on seeing it this weekend. I haven't seen too many negative reviews, and I've been intrigued since I first heard about the movie, before there was any controversy. This one seems to be pretty balanced.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
11:26 / 26.02.04
I dunno, Mass - I think your reviewer was quite fair. He just couldn't handle the violence. Not necessarily even a criticism of the film itself...
 
 
Hieronymus
15:53 / 26.02.04
True. But it seems like the violence is a core, almost bludgeoning, element of the film.

Bah. I think I'll wait till I see it before I say anything.
 
 
Jack Fear
16:11 / 26.02.04
...it seems like the violence is a core, almost bludgeoning, element of the film.

Absolutely. I've not seen the film (yet) either, but the reviews I've read--mostly negative--focus on the centrality of the violence. Leon Wieseltier, writing in The New Republic, compared it to a snuff movie, and calls it the work of a "psychotic mind" that "hates life" (!). Andrew Sullivan, among many others, calls it pornographic.

What's most galling about this is that Gibson is wrapping himself in the Bible: "Critics who have a problem with my film really have a problem with the four Gospels," he says.

Which is disingenuous, to say the least. This film did not descend, fully-formed, to the Earth from God's throne: Mel Gibson made it, and in so doing he made choices as to what to include and what to leave out. He's put together a storyline drawn not from a single Gospel account--the four accounts vary greatly, and in some places contradict each other--but from cherry-picked bits from all of them. That in itself is enough to put the lie to any claim this film has of being a "definitive version."

But on top of that, he has also inserted new scenes that have no source any of the Gospels, and most of the new scenes--surprise!--lay the blame for Jesus's exceution squarely on the Jewish sanhedrin, rather than the Roman government, who are played as well-meaning but impotent patsies. (Wiesletier: "Watching this film, you'd think that Rome was a protectorate of Judea, not the other way around.") This is at odds with the historical record, which shows that Pontius Pilate was a harsh governor.

The extremity of the scourging is also at odds with both the Gospel accounts and the historical record (Talmudic tradition would probably have limited Jesus' scourging to thirty-nine lashes, as is believed in Orthodox Christian churches).

Most of all, though, the violence of the film seems to miss the entire point of Jesus' sacrifice: the thing about Him was not that He suffered more than anyone had ever, but that He did so willingly--and for a purpose. Gibbo has seemingly forgotten about the purpose and focused instead on the sheer scale of His pain.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:05 / 26.02.04
I saw an interview where it was revealed that the actress who plays Mary in the film is Jewish in real life, and she apparently didn't have a problem with it.

Unfortunatley Abe Foxman, head of the ADL, sees anti-Semitism EVERYWHERE. Which is not a good thing. If there's an over-reaction to something not of terrible importance, then it becomes a case of crying wolf. The danger of course being that if there is genuine anti-Semitism occurring, no one will listen. It becomes self-defeating. But then again, its the ADL's job to see anti-Semitism everywhere. (Check out the Disinfo book, "Everything You Know is Wrong", for some examples of their skewed world view.) BTW: I am a secular Jew, and no, we all don't share the ADL's viewpoint. Especially not their dirty tricks surveillance state attitude.

That being said, a more appropriate ending would have been to have Jesus vs. Mithras in a steel cage death match, and have Tarantino direct it. Now THAT'S entertainment.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
17:10 / 26.02.04
I can't wait for the sequel. "The Second Coming... 2006!"

Or,

"The Passion 2: Son of Jesus."

I have yet to see the movie. But I've got an evangelical Christian friend who said it was deeply, deeply moving. I think he wanted to gush a bit more than he did, but thought I just might start rolling my eyes, on account of my atheism.

I was going to see it tonight, but my friends have bailed. They've fallen asleep, run away, betrayed me, the whole gammut.
 
 
raelianautopsy
17:19 / 26.02.04
I feel bad commenting on the film before seeing it, but everyone else is doing that so oh well.

What's wrong with showing the extreme violence of Jesus's suffering AND that he suffered it willingly?

But the main point should be that the movie is supposed to be based on the New Testemant, not on historical accuracy. All the arguments over historical accuracy don't make any sense. There are almost no historical accounts of Jesus anywhere. As stated, the Gospels all contradict each other and they were written hundreds of years after the fact. There are mountains of apocyrphal works that are even more contradictary but just as old and valid/or non-valid. I don't believe that their was a historical Jesus at all. It's just a story, and that is all the movie is too.

I read the Gospel of John recently, and it pretty much says that the Jews killed Jesus. So if there a trillion copies of that all over the world, how can making a movie of it be controversial? From my understanding the movie is just repeating the theme of the gospels, and you don't have to agree with them but what's wrong with making a movie of them?

But I still need to actually see the movie.
 
 
Lionheart
17:23 / 26.02.04
I hope that the Passion 2 will be about the Council of Nicea. I'd buy that ticket for a dollar...eh...8.50 dollars.
 
 
--
19:10 / 26.02.04
I'd rather see a Gnostic version of Passion: Jesus faking his death on the cross by trading places with someone else and then laughing about it later on.
 
 
Jack Fear
19:12 / 26.02.04
But the main point should be that the movie is supposed to be based on the New Testemant, [sic] not on historical accuracy.

Do those two criteria have to be mutually exclusive?

In fact, if you believe, as Gibson does, that these events truly happened, don't you as a director have a responsibility to hew as closely as you can to what we do know about the historical events and circumstances?

As a believing Christian, I personally find that my knowledge of Jesus' times, and the political and religious climate in which He flourished, enriches my faith--provides it with an important context--in fact, it's vital to my understanding of His teachings: scripture may be the Word of God, but even if it is, it's God's Word as revealed to mankind in a particular time and in a particular place.

It's God speaking to us, but He's speaking to us indirectly: if He were speaking to us now--urban professionals in 2004--He might speak top us very differently than He did to the rural Palestinian Hebrews and Hellenic Mithraists of His day. Jesus Himself said "Speak to each man according to his understanding," and that's what the Gospels do: their seeming contradictions stem from being spun to best reach different audiences. And knowing that, and knowing a little about the history of the early church, helps me to better understand the message, by understanding the filters through which I am receiving it.

In the light of "historical accuracy," one understands that what John meant when he said "the Jews" is something quite different than what you or I mean when we say "the Jews."

This is not a moot point or a side issue. I think it makes a hell of a lot of sense: in fact, I'd venture that considering the Jesus story without taking into account its political-historical-cultural context is what makes no sense. It may be Eternal Truth now, but it started as Today's News.

Besides, if you're going to go to the trouble of making the movie in frigging Aramaic, you've already demonstrated a commitment to "historical accuracy." There's no point in doing only half your research: might as well go whole hog.
 
 
raelianautopsy
20:37 / 26.02.04
I would argue that the New Testemant and historical accuracy are mutually exclusive. But that's a whole other arguement. Though I guess Gibson does believe it so it doesn't matter what I think.

Main Point: what John means when he says "the Jews" is very diffirent than what we mean when we say "the Jews." EXACTLY. There is a big diffirence between "'THE' Jews" killing Jesus and just "Jews" killing Jesus. Because many Jews had to be involved in the killing of Jesus according to the story. So what's the big deal about the movie?

I still think the idea of the movie being only what the Gospels says is at least a better idea for a movie than nitpicking over every little historical inacuaracy. For that matter, why is Jesus white?(someone should eventually bring that up) Shouldn't he be a Sephardic Jew, i.e. basically an Arab?

But anyways, I just find it hard to beleive that Mel Gibson is racist against Jews(don't get me started on the term anti-semetic that I wont use) and want everyone to hate Jews based on his movie.

Let's be frank: it is the Jewish-run media that gave such validity to the ADL who would be out of the job if they admitted that anti-Jewish racism is a not a problem in America at all.

Again, I do need to actually SEE the movie to justify any of this. I would have seen it on opening night if my loser friend didn't prefer to stay home and watch cartoons. Interesting how many posts there have been so far with no one saying they saw it.
 
 
Hieronymus
20:53 / 26.02.04
Let's be frank: it is the Jewish-run media that gave such validity to the ADL who would be out of the job if they admitted that anti-Jewish racism is a not a problem in America at all.

Oh boy.
 
 
Jack Fear
21:14 / 26.02.04
(a) I would argue that you cannot separate the "story" of the Gospels from their historical context. The events have passed into myth, yes, but the myth has roots in the politics and faith of a particular time and place. No story exists in a vacuum: you cannot tell "what the Gospels say" without an understanding of the history any more than you can tell, say, the life story of George Washington (more recent historically, but also steeped in myth and fancy) without taking into account the politics and culture of his time.

(b) These are not "little historical inaccuracies" we're nitpicking over: these are issues that are central to properly understanding the doctrines of one of the world's great religions.

(c) You've got an obvious ideological axe to grind, and it's making you want to have it both ways.

(d) You lost all credibility with me the minute you started talking about the Jewish Media Conspiracy (TM).
 
 
Simplist
22:20 / 26.02.04
I'm sure something along these lines was said in the previous thread; pardon the repetition if so...

[semi-threadrot]
I've just never quite gotten the logic of the whole "The Jews killed Jesus" meme. Jesus and his disciples were themselves all members of class "The Jews", for one thing. For another, if you read the gospels Jesus & Co. spend most of the story wandering all over Israel and Judea being quite well-received by the (Jewish, obviously) locals. Crowds flock to see him, Rabbis and businessmen have him over to dinner, etc. It's not until he arrives in Jerusalem, home of at most a small minority of the total Jewish population of the time, that he runs into significant trouble. Even there, it's unclear what percentage of the population actually participates in the events that subsequently unfold. The local religious authorities are implicated, obviously, but that's hardly surprising given the situation. And crowds of possibly a few thousand stand around jeering and throwing things, apparently having been whipped into a frenzy by the rabble-rousing of said local religious authorities. How it's possible to generalize from that to "The Jews" as a class being responsible, despite the fact that the vast, vast majority of them wouldn't have known these events were even occurring until much later (if ever), I fail to understand. Not to mention the continuing attribution of responsibility to the descendants of same, which is even more ludicrous...
[/semi-threadrot]
 
 
Jack Fear
23:07 / 26.02.04
Actually, yeah, this was covered in the previous thread on the film--which got really good towards the end (once the Flyboy proclaimed Sunday school in session... heh) and I encourage everyone interested in the movie to read it.

That's pretty much what I'm driving at when I say that when John spoke of "the Jews," he meant something very different than what you or I would mean when we speak of "the Jews."

(Which in turn is something else again from what raelianautopsy means when he says "the Jews," but that's neither here nor there.)
 
 
Malle Babbe
23:46 / 26.02.04
I've just never quite gotten the logic of the whole "The Jews killed Jesus" meme.

Of course you don't, you are applying logic to the situation. Vatican II tried to address the issue, but Mel belongs to a church that left after Vatican II and its rejection of the whole deicide thing.
 
 
raelianautopsy
00:37 / 27.02.04
I am saying the same thing that there were Jews involved in it but it does not make sense to say that all Jews are to be blamed. But it also does not make sense to say that no one is allowed to show any Jews involved in murdering Jesus. I never even understand why anyone would be mad at whoever killed Jesus because didn't God want him to die for our sins; isn't his death crucial to the saving of mankind?



It's fun to be offensive.
 
 
raelianautopsy
00:46 / 27.02.04
Yes well, wasn't this whole controversy started by The New York Times editorial page? Didn't they declare this movie evil? The New York Times is owned by a Jewish family the Suzbergers. You can't deny that Jewish people run a lot of the media and that must be something of a factor over the media being so against this movie. It is an undeniable fact.

That doesn't mean that all Jews are evil run the world. Just the ones that own the media. And the Israeli government.(half-joking)

And we don't know how big or little the historical inacuracies are because we haven't seen it. I need to see it tomorrow so I can justify the purpose of this post.
 
 
Krug
02:08 / 27.02.04
//I'd rather see a Gnostic version of Passion: Jesus faking his death on the cross by trading places with someone else and then laughing about it later on. //

The Islamic version of the crucifixion from what I remember goes on about how God had a stuntdouble switch places with Jesus at the last point and Christ will return forty years before the end of the world and that he isn't really dead.

I liked Vonnegut's version better where he went about how Jesus was a bum in Kilgore Trout's version of the Gospel and everybody was happy to see him go. So God said "I ADOPT THIS BUM!" and was furious. THe point if I recall correctly was that people should be better connected if they want to get somewhere.

I really love Kilgore Trout/Kurt Vonnegut.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
02:51 / 27.02.04
"It's fun to be offensive. "

... unless you're the offended.
 
 
raelianautopsy
03:13 / 27.02.04
"... unless you're the offended."

Oh quit whining and get a sense of humor. Are you really being persecuted? Boo-hoo
 
 
raelianautopsy
03:18 / 27.02.04
Maybe I'm being mean, but what's wrong with being controversial? I'm just trying to add different point of views to the debate. Nothing should be taboo and screw political-correctness. If anyone is really offended my reccomendation is to learn to not be as offended so easily.

I'm not going to post anything else until I see the film. (as should everyone else)
 
 
Raw Norton
03:52 / 27.02.04
err...can we start posting actual responses to actually viewing the film now?

I happened to like it, but I'm in disagreement with the rest of the brood of mockers with whom I saw it. I'd say it succeeded as an emotional appeal through a graphic, unflinching portrayal of brutality. In a sold-out opening night audience, only one person was cracking up during the 15 minute scourging sequence. Personally, I couldn't help empathizing with Jesus's suffering and at no point became de-sensitized to the violence. Although a friend of mine had the opposite reaction.

Be warned, though: nothing anyone said could've adequately prepared me for the psychedelic carnival ride that was the Judas subplot.
Actually, the Judas thing was pretty typical of what may've been the movie's biggest weakness: resorting to banal cinematic conventions when relating a supposedly sacred plot. You can't expect me to take this film as a high-fidelity reenactment of Christ's last day if you're going to serve up scenes that will no doubt turn up on VH1's Supersecret Movie Formulas (Use characters in a historical setting to ironically comment on today's commonplace customs: "People eat seated at chairs? Jesus, you nut, that'll never catch on!").

And then there's Satan. I never thought I'd say it, but couldn't we have had a little more Son of God and cut out Satan altogether? Honestly, send Mel's Satan back to Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey, from whence He came.

As for the anti-Semitism, I honestly have to say those charges are just a little valid. To be sure, the Jews in the movie (ie, pretty much everyone who ever appears on screen) receive a mostly even-handed portrayal. As Jesus bears his cross, there seems to be one sympathetic Jew offering water for every rock- and invective-hurling Jew in the crowd. The Pharisees, though, come across as plain old wicked. What's shitty is that Mel could've spent a minute or two on characterization with that crowd and they would have been complex, human characters rather than angry Christ-killers in funny hats. Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a conflicted man faced with an inescapable dilemma. This works. To me, the story would've been much more poignant if the Son of Man dies at the hands of real, well-developed men, rather than hateful animals. That Pontius Pilate receives sympathetic treatment, though, that is denied the Pharisees is unfair and arguably anti-Semitic.

Oh, hey, I'd like to turn this movie into the next Rocky Horror. Suggestions?
 
 
Baz Auckland
05:27 / 27.02.04
I find it odd that Satan is in the movie at all... he's not mentioned as being present in the Gospels is he?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
06:47 / 27.02.04
Not that I remember...

I'm probably gonna see this, but once all the hysteria's died down (ie when there're sod all people in the cinema who I may accidentally offend if I think it's shit).

Personally, as a (very lapsed) Christian I was a huge fan of The Last Temptation of Christ- its so-called "blasphemous" elements made me actually think more on the subject (and read the book... not The Book again, but the Kazantzakis novel) and did a lot to rid me of my (then) knee-jerk "oh fuck off" reaction to Christianity. From what I'm hearing, here and elsewhere, I'm not sure this will do the same.

What I loved about LTOC was the humanity it gave Christ- right from the start, where he's basically Travis Bickle in sandals, you know this is one tormented guy- okay, the use of voice-over may have been a little heavy-handed, but you got the sense of the thing without recourse to Grand Guignol.

I'll post more when I've actually seen the thing.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
08:46 / 27.02.04
Gosh, if we start a little collection box with 10 pence contributions from everyone who posts "[my opinions here]...back with more to say once I've actually seen it", we could start our own religion.

With the funds we collect by the end of this page, we can pay Peter Jackson to film a trilogy of stories about our Historic Past...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:55 / 27.02.04
How did you find it, then, M$?
 
 
The Folk King Idiot
13:34 / 27.02.04
I find it odd that Satan is in the movie at all... he's not mentioned as being present in the Gospels is he?

*HE* tempted Christ, calling him down from the cross. I believe John has the account of it...
 
 
Jack Fear
13:54 / 27.02.04
Well, no, *HE* didn't.

Actually John's is the one Gospel account in which nobody says, "Come down from the cross," or words to that effect. Matthew puts those words in the mouths of the chief priests, scribes and elders (Mt 27:42), as does Mark (Mk 15:32). Luke attributes them to the soldiers (Lk 23:37).

The death scene in John is pretty brief and quiet, focussing more on the division of the garments and the "Woman, behold your son" bit.

Satan does appear in the Gospels, most notably Matthew, while Jesus is fasting in the desert.

But he doesn't tempt Jesus on the cross--except in Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation of Christ, which is not exactly Holy Writ.
 
 
pachinko droog
16:13 / 27.02.04
Saw another interview this morning with the actress who plays Mary. Her name is Maya Morgenstern, and yes, she IS Jewish and her parents are Holocaust survivors. She said that she would NOT have auditioned for the role if she thought it was in fact, anti-Semitic. She said that one of the major themes in the film that seems to have been lost on everyone, Jewish and Christian alike, is the inherent danger that exists in the abuse of power and the manipulation of beliefs, and how a downtrodden people can be easily misled.

Off-Topic: I might add that there are interesting parallels here with the Roman occupation of Palestine and the US occupation of Iraq...How would the American military and interim govt./Iraqi governing council handle a Muslim prophet with a sizable following?
 
 
Bed Head
18:36 / 27.02.04
Interesting piece in the Guardian today about the historical inaccuracies in this film. Just to add to the sheer number of links in this thread to articles by clever academics...
 
 
h3r
21:09 / 27.02.04
raelianautopsy sayz it best.
go see the film already.
then lets talk.
i posted b4 about having been involved in the post prod if the flick, and i have obviously followed all the press and it's mostly BS. cinematically, its a masterpiece. and the sound kicks ass (*pat on my back*)
i dont agree with the motivation behind the film, but i have come to notice that nobody ( WHO HAS SEEN IT) picks up on what the film is intended to be anyways, but rather interprets it in ways that fit their own world view, often in beneficial ways (rather than runnning to church and converting to the NEw World Religion as intended)
Especially the character of Pilate is interesting, I thought he was the star and cool guy of the film, his tragic situation of being unable to make up his own mind due to his codependent loser -dom and weakness has been so moving and he is my favorite aspect of the film ( and his armor looks so cool too). STrangely enough it turns out the mel thinks he is the evil guy in the movie, and an example of the archetypal negative person. i think this example demonstrates that all the mindcontrol and ELF waves directed at gibson DID drive him to make this propaganda piece, but (like many other plans of the NWO) this shit will backfire we're getting closer to 2012 everyone...
obviously this film IS NOT historiucally accurate, propaganda rarely ever is!!!
as far as i am concerned jesus's name was jmmanuel and he lived a long and prosperous life in india with his family after the drugs wore off and his followers took him off the cross .
 
  

Page: (1)2345

 
  
Add Your Reply