 |
| The Passion... |
|
Topic by: larbeck
Posted: February 26, 2004 - 9:01 PM PST
Last Reply: April 6, 2004 - 9:06 PM PDT
|
| author |
topic: The Passion... |
larbeck
|
|
post #1
on February 26, 2004 - 9:01 PM PST
|
|
I am a big fan of Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ". I was raised Baptist and then LDS, but since then I have strayed from the fold - but the Christian mythology will always have a special place in my soul (so to speak).
So, when I first heard that Mel Gibson was going to film his vision of the life of Christ in the actual language spoken at the time (Aramaic and Latin) I was excited. Then I heard that he was NOT going to have subtitles and I thought, what the .... - is he COMPLETELY MAD? Well, thank goodness, someone talked him out of that insanity.
Then all of the hoopla started and I saw picture after picture from the film on boardcast TV that were just GROSS! I read reviews that said it was a bloodfest and I decided, okay, there is about 10,000 other films that I have not seen yet that have priority. I have not even see "Big Fish" yet!
But then my friend calls and she wants to go and well, sometimes you gotta do what a friend wants right? And, and - this is a big deal with me - we are blessed with a great theater in Austin that children almost NEVER go to! It is by the UT campus and is (now) one those Landmark "arthouse" chain theaters and I did see "Babe" there and there was not one member in the audience under voting age! So, we went there and it probably was the only theater in town without braindead parents bring young children to see this gorefest.
It is a good film. GREAT music. GREAT cinemaphotography. I have some quibbles with the screenplay - but minor ones that fit under the umbellera of poetic license.
But is is an EXCRUCIATING film to watch. It is one of the most sadist film experiences you could have. Now, I do not mind being challenged by a film occasionally, as this did. And if there was such a "heretic" in Jerusalem 2000 years old, I fear he probably would have suffered as much as this is portrayed. Certain those in Spain just a few hundred year ago did. But, man, subtle it is NOT! Seriously, I have enjoy films by Cronenburg, Carpenter, Romero, Barker and others and this beats them on shear gross-me-out-gag-me-with -a-shovel sadistic torture! It is almost if the character Alex from "A Clockwork Orange" had a hand in the screenplay and art direction of the "ole ultraviolence".
Of course, snakes never get good parts in a Christian story, but the snakehandler hirself, Satan, was played in a very unique and androgynous way. Way Cool. And the film did move me. The long torture scenes made me think of all who have suffered oppression - in Central America, in the tiger cages of Vietnam, in the Congo and other parts of Africa, in Haiti at the hands of the Tonton Macoute and others, and in places like Afganistan and others. Of course, Europe during it's many wars and I am sure in the West when the natives were in the way of the conquering armies and thoughout the nation with the slaves and ancestors of slaves - hell, all over the world, throughout our sad human history. This moved me to tears several times, especially watch the reaction of the family and friends who so loved the man as he was tortured.
But Jesusgawdchirstonastick! Way a sick thing to base a religion on! My current faith seeks mythos of love and freedom and compassion and libration - not this sick tale of torture and sacifice. The Goddess needs not proxies! I just do not get that at all.
Eeek, sorry about that theology - this is a movie review. Well, I didn't see any real Anti-Semitism in it. The Pharisees are the bad guys, sure, but all of the good guys are Jewish and I was so glad to see Christ addressed as 'rabbi' at one point. Scorsese is the first one that I had EVER heard of showing Jesus being addresses as 'rabbi' and if you think about it, how else would you addressed a Jewish holy man? Say it with me, RABBI!
BUT more than anything I want this film to have an X rating. Screw this NC-17 crap. This is some SERIOUSLY sick crap and deserves an X. There is no justice that Bertolucci gets so much grief over sex and this sick stuff does not. And I wish that child welfare would have a talk with any braindead halfwit excuse for a parent who takes their small children to this.
And I do not plan to ever see it again. Too many really GOOD films that I have not see enough to last me a life time. But I might get the soundtrack. It is really nice.
|
|
artifex
|
|
post #2
on February 27, 2004 - 4:57 AM PST
|
|
Haven't seen it yet, and have decided I probably won't, or will only see it when it comes to DVD in the deluxe edition packaged with a blood-of-Christ-red-letter-edition of the gospels (GC will need bigger envelopes).
What swayed me not to see it was a review absolutely skewering the film, not necessarily on possible anti-semitic points, but mostly on it being a bad movie in general, and coming right out and calling it a very long snuff movie, with no development of characters, etc.
In direct contrast to this, I think The Last Temptation of Christ does a great job of showing Jesus as a person in context to his time, and at least tries to make sense of various anecdotal things in the gospels. It was also boycotted, not by jewish people, but by a lot of Christians who thought it was blasphemous to show "what ifs" and interpretations of the story personal to the novelist who envisioned the original work the movie was based on. For me, on the other hand, it actually made everything more tangible.
I've gone ahead and made an alternative list of films about Jesus' life (and yes, I included Life of Brian. Sure, it makes sport of religion, but the ending was bittersweet enough that I think it respects the underlying faith). If anyone has others to recommend, please let me know. Bonus points if you find any movie showing Jesus actually 'looking semitic,' or at least non-anglo. (Sorry, Black Jesus doesn't count) |
|
larbeck
|
|
post #3
on February 27, 2004 - 9:45 AM PST
|
|
> On February 27, 2004 - 4:57 AM PST artifex wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Haven't seen it yet, and have decided I probably won't, or will only see it when it comes to DVD in the deluxe edition packaged with a blood-of-Christ-red-letter-edition of the gospels (GC will need bigger envelopes).
>
It will probably also require refrigation or it could be a health hazard.
> ...calling it a very long snuff movie...
I cannot say that I can argue with that. It is so ironic that many fundementalists are lining up to see a film that has about an hour of footage that Cronenburg would only hint about in "Videodrome"
>
> In direct contrast to this, I think The Last Temptation of Christ does a great job of showing Jesus as a person in context to his time, and at least tries to make sense of various anecdotal things in the gospels.
YES! And Marty's commentary as well as the DVD extras provided some EXCELLENT background information - not just on the film but these times. I cannot recommend it enough - I just rented it a few months from Greencine! And my first impression, after I crossed that picket of bigots to see it was I had NEVER seen such a human vision of Jesus of Narazeth. I love Harvey Keitel as this alternative Judas! Peter Gabriel's excellent score did not hurt either.
And that point about the "Passion" having no character developement does ring true. Personally, I recall the characters so well from my Sunday classes and none of them are really any surprises EXCEPT, when, not to spoil it - it seems that the character of Pontius Pilate gets the most attention for character development! And I am surprised at now symphetic the film is to him - I much prefer David Bowie aloof and arrogant version. One of my BIG problems with Gibson's plot in this Pilate's wife, Claudia. I never hear of her! Yet, she is a major supporting character and very much a follower of Christ and that just doesn't NOT work for me!
And now, while I'm in spoiler mode, let say that the darking during Christ's death was not done to my taste - I always imagine it was like a total eclipse and here is it is more of a storm. I recall being taught that is "was as dark as midnight in the middle of the day" and you just do not get that from the film. And Gibson goes COMPLETELY over the top with an earthquake at the moment of Christ's death and that doesn't work for me either. And I just may have forgetten but he has this prophecy that "He will destroy the Temple and rebuilt it in three days. I do not recall the Temple suffering at all - it was some conquering army that destroyed the Temple years after Christ's death, I thought. And finally, the final scene sure does smell to the High Heavens (so to speak) of a SEQUEL SETUP!!!! And finally, for all you Eva fans, who's Lance is it? It is not suppose to be some dweeb named Cassis (or something like that) right? But Gibson did have a very Anno piecing of the Body with the Lance (i.e. a squirty shower of blood all over the place, almost like a red, red bukkake money shot. And I just now realized - doesn't the blood pressure like SERIOUSLY drop to zero when the heart quits beating? Man, these filmmakers are just about the most blood thirsty EVER!
|
|
Ondo
|
|
AReviewer
|
|
Ayato
|
|
post #6
on February 27, 2004 - 8:04 PM PST
|
|
| Not sure yet if I want to see this, im usually pretty tolerant to gore though. Its not as bad as say, Ichi the killer is it? |
|
ALittlefield
|
|
post #7
on February 27, 2004 - 11:19 PM PST
|
|
Thanks for blacking out the spoilers...I couldn't possible figure out how this one ends ;)
Seriously tho' I have a dilemma with this movie, I'm curious about seeing it, but I don't want to PAY to see it. Seeing as how the only real way that the American public can vote on the kind of films we want made is to pay to see them (film business is, afterall, a business), I don't want to give this movie my money because I don't want more movies like it to be made, but I am curious...even tho' I'm an athiest, I still find religous films interesting... |
|
larbeck
|
|
post #8
on February 28, 2004 - 6:08 AM PST
|
|
> On February 27, 2004 - 8:04 PM PST Ayato wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Not sure yet if I want to see this, im usually pretty tolerant to gore though. Its not as bad as say, Ichi the killer is it?
>
I have not seen Ichi, the Killer. But the main difference between this film and other gorefests that I have seen in the past is the way it will linger and linger and linger on the gore. And it just keeps on coming, with few breaks and never a single episode of comic relief. I don't believe this is a spoiler as it as been mentioned in interviews and reviews but there are but a few flashbacks to the past life of Christ; over 90% of the film is the final 12 hours. But more any film I have ever see, the gawdawful suffering is driven home like a freight train thru the living room - the suffering of the family and friends and followers as well as Jesus along with the heaviest music imaginable. It is one of the most pronographic films I have ever seen.
I can understand not wanted to support the film with your money. I have done much work myself to forgive the ole Church and the horrible nonsense, the psychological torture they have infected so many of with the self-hated of our reproductive system and the intolerence it teaches and it's hypocrisies that number like grains of sand on the beaches of creation. Of course, I am sure that there are illegal alternatives if you have broadband. But if you wait, I am sure that it will appear the discount houses. I would not be surprised if after Gibson rakes in $100 million or more, that he or perhaps some of the evangelists around arrange some free showings. But I have no ill will for the filmmakers. I support all sort of films and occasionally like to see a film that does push the envelope. And more than anything, being able to hear the original language (or what is thought to be the original language - nothing certain after 2000 years) is perhaps the best thing the film has going for it.
But as Robert Anton Wilson said, you are never going totally overcome the effect of your "milk religion". Obviously, the film has need an impact on me, judging from my kilobytes in this topic. It is strange, sometimes, when I talk to some people who have never had the Sunday School experiences that I have and know little of the Bible, my first thoughts to "whoa, how could they not know, as flawed as it is, one of the most important works of literature in Man's History" - sexism intended as it is rampant in this work. But then I think that I am like a victim of abuse that cannot imagine those who grew up with that horror.
Still, I quite angry that a film like "The Dreamers" is nailed to the cross of an "NC-17" rating while this film gets a "R rating" pass. But I have been thoroughly disgusted with the insanity of the MPAA for sometime now.
I am so conflicted as whether I would recommend this tramua to anyone. But you are free and you have free will.
And finally, once again, I hate that any child's ticket is be sold to this most adult of films. THAT I would call sin! |
|
artifex
|
|
post #9
on February 28, 2004 - 9:23 AM PST
|
|
> Seriously tho' I have a dilemma with this movie, I'm curious about seeing it, but I don't want to PAY to see it. Seeing as how the only real way that the American public can vote on the kind of films we want made is to pay to see them (film business is, afterall, a business), I don't want to give this movie my money because I don't want more movies like it to be made, but I am curious...even tho' I'm an athiest, I still find religous films interesting...
Here in my area, a local businessman spent $42K buying up all the screens and showings of a 20-plex on Wednesday morning, and gave out tickets to mostly one local church, etc. The church put it in some prime time advertising, I saw. Ugh. It's known by many around here as "God's Country Club." By the way, if you see a chance like that, and don't want to take advantage of it, remember that things like this often get written off by the guys that do them as donations to their churches, so go ahead, your taxes are already at work. :)
Someone who has seen both this film and Viva La Muerte should compare gruesomeness, please. That film was absolutely disgusting and psychotic... and I'm wondering if Mel's film is the same way. |
|
kamapuaa
|
|
post #10
on February 28, 2004 - 2:55 PM PST
|
|
> Not sure yet if I want to see this, im usually pretty tolerant to gore though. Its not as bad as say, Ichi the killer is it?
It's a tangent, but I would pay good money to see the story of Jesus, as told by Takashi Miike.
It's shocking that with 2000 years of Christianity, it isn't more the subject for movies with over-the-top irreverence. There's some examples I can think of: Life of Brian (a movie that should have been a lot better), Italian Nunsploitation, Orgazmo. But it seems like a prime subject for stupid B movies and cult comedies. |
|
ALittlefield
|
|
post #11
on February 28, 2004 - 7:04 PM PST
|
|
| Somewhere out there floating in the nether regions of cinema, there's supposed to be a porn version of the Jesus story simply titled HIM...I'd be interested in finding it. (no luck in various web searches I've tried) |
|
larbeck
|
|
post #12
on February 29, 2004 - 2:07 PM PST
|
|
> On February 28, 2004 - 9:23 AM PST artifex wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Here in my area, a local businessman spent $42K buying up all the screens and showings of a 20-plex on Wednesday morning, and gave out tickets to mostly one local church, etc.
>
That is the kind of corruption of Christianity that made me leave the fold. I believe that a much more Christian act would have been to use that money to feed some hungry people or get some homeless people a clean, warm place to sleep tonight. And to do it quiet, anonymous, without ego. What a rube! |
|
kamapuaa
|
|
post #13
on February 29, 2004 - 6:39 PM PST
|
|
> That is the kind of corruption of Christianity that made me leave the fold. I believe that a much more Christian act would have been to use that money to feed some hungry people or get some homeless people a clean, warm place to sleep tonight. And to do it quiet, anonymous, without ego. What a rube!
I disagree. I think viable religions have to proselytize some - from the religion's perspective, the ultimate end is remaining viable and sending plenty of people on to eternal happiness, not feeding the hungry. Also, good deeds can/should be done by anybody, so specifically blaming this as a corruption of Christianity isn't fair. By the same logic, our $20+ per month for the luxury of DVDs, could be helping against famine, and our time spent on the message boards & arranging queues, we could be working at homeless shelters. But talking about the corruption inherent to Greencine would be odd. |
|
artifex
|
|
post #14
on March 1, 2004 - 4:13 AM PST
|
|
> I disagree. I think viable religions have to proselytize some - from the religion's perspective, the ultimate end is remaining viable and sending plenty of people on to eternal happiness, not feeding the hungry. Also, good deeds can/should be done by anybody, so specifically blaming this as a corruption of Christianity isn't fair. By the same logic, our $20+ per month for the luxury of DVDs, could be helping against famine, and our time spent on the message boards & arranging queues, we could be working at homeless shelters. But talking about the corruption inherent to Greencine would be odd.
I won't say it's corrupted, though I do wonder about the motives of some people. But everyone has different priorities, anyway. Make a chart that shows where you'd place saving the whales, making-a-wish, relieving disasters, feeding kids, researching diseases, spreading your faith, getting us the heck off the planet before the next meteor strike or global war, and funding transplant operations, and it's probably different from most other people here, and even people you're friends with in the real world. This is a GOOD thing, because nobody would be out there taking care of the bottom of your list, otherwise.
Also... the world currently makes way more than enough food to keep people from starving. However, food is a political weapon, and as such, is never distributed as freely as you'd like to think. That truckful of grain you donated to that country on the other side of the world could be and often is stopped at a roadblock, and all the bags sold on the black market or given to the leader's friends. If you can't go after making the delivery mechanism more secure, it's actually of more benefit to the world to do something else instead. I'm not trying to pick on this particular effort, just showing that there are times when any of these choices are suboptimal. |
|
hamano
|
|
post #15
on March 1, 2004 - 5:43 AM PST
|
|
> On February 29, 2004 - 6:39 PM PST kamapuaa wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > That is the kind of corruption of Christianity that made me leave the fold. .... What a rube!
>
> I disagree. I think viable religions have to proselytize some - from the religion's perspective, the ultimate end is remaining viable and sending plenty of people on to eternal happiness, not feeding the hungry.
> ---------------------------------
I agree with larbeck that this guy is a rube! It's his business what he does with his money, but hey, he got the "charitable" act covered by the press probably for self-promotional reasons... Why didn't he just give all the money to that church and let the church decide what to use it for, whether to buy movie tix or to fund a missionary effort or feed the hungry? No this is the act of one man who decided for himself that he would make it easier for members of that church to subject themselves and their children to violence porn. I agree that viable religions have to proselytize, but I don't see this as an example of that. It's the act of one man imposing his ego on his community. The Passion may be self-funded, but it's still a commercial enterprise and a successful one at that. The media hype machine was ready and willing to put the film in everyone's minds even without grandiose donations of tickets.
And I think if larbeck was turned off to Christianity by how the religion has come to manifest its beliefs and practices in the state of Texas... it certainly turns me off when religion and religious people are manipulated by the wealthy and socially ambitious. If you are Christian and it feels like it would be futile to try to change your religion's local culture but you don't like that culture, it's time to move somewhere else and/or seek an alternative spiritual home. |
|
NLee
|
|
post #16
on March 1, 2004 - 11:31 AM PST
|
|
> On March 1, 2004 - 5:43 AM PST hamano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
... it certainly turns me off when religion and religious people are manipulated by the wealthy and socially ambitious.
> ---------------------------------
Somebody once said religion is opium for the poor. So it make sense for the wealthy and socially ambitious people to hand it out freely. |
|
larbeck
|
|
post #17
on March 1, 2004 - 3:52 PM PST
|
|
> On March 1, 2004 - 11:31 AM PST NLee wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Somebody once said religion is opium for the poor.
>
I believe that was Karl Marx. As a Marxist/Lennonist, I forever Groucho and John over Karl and Vladimir, but I think Karl did make an rather good observation of a certain kind of Christianity that serves to make some people to accept a measure of oppresion and wish for a better eternity. My prejudices are toward a more earthly theology of liberation and a universial view of the afterlife that is applied to all without prejudice. I do believe in eternity and in the words of Lisa Gerrard (who sings in an unknown tongue - you've heard her in "Gladiator" and "Whale Rider") - I believe we all with be reborn into an "existence that so much better than any we have ever been promised". I just have to believe in a forgiving Divine, as I define the Divine as a Love and Forgiveness that is so much better than any human experience. But that is just me.
I probably should not be judgement to that businessman - there *is* not scarity of resources in our world - that is a fallacy, a consensual hallucination that everyone refuses to reconsider and it is probably no more encourged by the people who profit from it than the people who suffer from. But I still have a long of anger that I can never seems to let of myself.
So it goes. Silly humans - silly human race. Hey, I am one, too. |
|
MrMiscreant
|
|
post #18
on March 1, 2004 - 6:50 PM PST
|
|
I've pretty much decided not to see it. Imight catch it when it come sout DVD, but I'm not seeing for the the same reason I decided that I would see it in the first place. The controversy. I'm a sucker for hype. I guess I learned nothing from Star Wars ep 1. But every review I've heard or read so far basically calls it a big budget snuff film. Call me crazy but I like laughs with my gore. What really amazes me is that if its truly as bad as people say it is how did they manage an R rating? American Pie had to shave down the pie f*cking scene to avoid an NC17. its an amazing country we will live in when fornicating with baked goods is considered more dangerous than two straight hours of a man being tortured to death.
Miike does Jesus Christ. Man, that I'd pay to see...Fallwell would have a conniption. |
|
icaruswantedtoburn
|
|
post #19
on March 2, 2004 - 10:55 AM PST
|
|
I saw the film the day it came out and I needed the time away from it to allow it to properly settle and meditate on the bludgeoning effect the film does have: though I would argue (and it may be because I have a tolerance for extreme cinema Salo, El Topo, Ichi, etc.) that it is more of a cumulative effect of subtle (yes, subtle!) but unremittingly severe filmmaking (and my argument for subtlety is laid out below). I am a little disconcerted by some of the critical tactics (not neccessarily the positions, you can hate a film but let it be because of the film or hate the film but be wary of ascribing a dark pathology to the makers just because it didn't speak to you as it does to others) of what I've read in this forum. Now, I am nowhere near a traditional christian and really only am de facto christian as it is what I was raised and could easily be muslim, jewish, or hindu. My own views on the church and christianity probably could get me excommunicated if I were a public enough figure. I know the church and I know the bible. And one thing struck me as I was watching the film, that the film is in essence devoid of the church. And this would make sense as the film exists before a single "Christian" in the modern sense walked the earth (now this is a point that could be argued). The idea of the church is only expressed in one scene of the film, the flashback to the last supper where the bearded one says that the only way to the father is through him. Now once again Jesus' words could be taken a few ways. Literally it is the seeds of what would become the church. But the line before Jesus turns himself into a metaphor saying he is the truth and beauty and love, so he may still be speaking metaphorically (ie that it is through truth and whatever that you get to the father). Of you want to be technical I think what is at work in the film, and I point to its time placement, is a radical form of Judaism. Now here is where you can argue where since the source material, the gospels, were written years later in the context of Christianity that you can argue about the true bias. But I still feel that even though the film is pro-jesus I strongly feel that the film isn't really pro-church in the sense of advocation. I only bring these points up because I think it is a disservice to the film to allow criticism of the church (which is the church Gibson openly criticized for years anyway) to taint or become a substitute for what should be criticism about the film.
Okay, the film is VIOLENT BRUTAL VIOLENT BRUTAL BRUTAL. Roger Ebert has said that it is the most violent film he has ever seen, and he's one of the few people I think we'd all have to admit has seen more films than us. It should be rated NC17. It is not a family film and the promotion of it as such is as someone here said "a sin". Where does the blame lie? Gibson (where I think it's probably more of a misplaced sense of sentiment--Gibson forgets we are not all as medieval as him in respect to violence, I probably share this trait with him, but I still recognize its innappropriateness) or the church or the distributor or probably a mix of all three. When zeal and commerce meet--be wary. In terms of the violence however, Gibson managed to visualize aspects of the concept of the Crucifixion that hitherto have been ignored by film. And I was pleased to see some of my own concepts about the Crucifixion refelcted back to me (about the sadism of the image, which isn;t mel but the image itself). In the end, the film is as much about the violence as it is anything else and this is where you can either bow out of the discussion or argue your point on these grounds. But this means being ready to accept the film as violence and seeing it in an Artaudian sense. Theatre of Cruelty has been invoked frequently with respects to this film, but the precepts which justify said theatre aren't allowed into the conversation. And these justifications extend to other films as diverse as action movies or works of cinematic oppression like Eraserhead or Schindler's List. The concepts of catharsis and "signaling through the flames" (an image from Artaud meaning in this case the value of the actor being subjected to awful
torment to communicate the experience and dialectics of it) are at work in all these films. Now, Gibson's film represents a sort of conceptual ultimate in terms of violence. I think the film has great value in this respect. Like Brakhage (for experimentation), Snow (for technical excercise), or Tarkovsky (for anti-literary cinema), Gibson's two violence films are important in the discussion of film as film and film as art and the very long and very successful traditions of religous art and violent art.
The real discussions should be about the ratings thing or the films placement in terms of religious art or its value as an essay on the syntax of violence in film. I'm glad that for the most part the anti-semitic thing has faded. Having seen the film, I do have my issues with parts of it. Caviezel is at least a step (albrit a small one) in terms of ethnicity towards the region. I mean go from Von Sydow to Defoe to Caviezel and at least we are heading in roughly the right direction. And of course everything gets muddled because the film has to work not only as devotional art but mainstream film (and that is an interesting synthesis that could be looked at--the meeting of art film and movie) so there is some dramatic liscence. This leads to the old discussion about film's relation to the depiction of history. The satan stuff in the film is quite unusual for a film that has prided itself on accuracy. It is the artistic liscence once again that people seem to have a hard time taking when talking about this film. And this is a valid point, but one I don't think can be solved--it will remain a matter of opinion.
This film is very important in terms of it placement in the history of religious art. Gibson's work doesn't just reconfigure Carravaggio. But Everything from Giotto and Cimabue all the way up to modern artists like Nolde and Francis Bacon. The composition get more modern when the film reaches Golgotha and one would be hard pressed to deny the similarity in those lingering close-ups of the bloody Jesus and a Nolde print. And I was consciously aware of the similarity in the theme of sadism with Bacon's crucifixion series and what Gibson was working with. There is a kinship and a basic conflict with the contemporary tradition and Gibson's film. But I felt that gibson even tackling sadism and the crucifixion in his film was audacious even if his reasoning was more in tune with medieval sensibilities. The film whether or not it will be remembered as great film (which I think it will) will be important in terms of religious art and the tradition. That alone should garner some respect.
Also, one can't forget that a big point of the crucifixion was that Jesus suffered for our sins. Okay whether you believe that or not or think it should be relegated to a tertiary role in the faith compared to lessons about compassion or what-not, Gibson has the right and he feels duty to examine it (even wallow in it). Michaelangelo was controversial in his fleshy images of God. I daresay Gibson is in good company. I always was surprised with how people carried crosses around their necks; even as a child I was struck with how violent the crucifixion was and here there were little old ladies with icons of violence and sadism around their necks. Gibson gives voice to this sentiment. Maybe that wasn't his intention. One can be pretty sure he did share the atheistic leanings of that other poet of violence the painter Bacon, but the relation is too hard to ignore.
The violent in art has been around since caveman depictions of slaying mammoths or whathaveyou. So, I think that the severity of Gibson's work isn't at all unfounded on artistic tradition and in fact in examining the film in terms of Hollywood Blockbuster, it creates several schisms (haha) between the "clean" concept of violence being easy to take when perpetrated on soulless bad guys and the morality of the viewer. Should this subject have been treated so violently? I don't see why not in terms of the subject (it was a violent event) and since the subject has been so often visited and this kind of take has never been made--it was almost inevitable someone would have eventually done something similar.
The danger is in the marketing the film as a family film and also in the possible inspiration of copycat films. Other overly bloody religious epics might be the result, whereas here I think the nature of the project justifies the excess, you can spot the ingenuine fascsimile a mile away. Remember in the 90s when practically every (promoted) independent debut feature was a Pulp Fiction rip-off?
I think where Gibson has failed film is in this ratings thing. It perpetuates the current trends and supports the kind of censorship that has plagued cinema since the mid seventies. Extreme cinema needed a new champion. One who could make a strong argument for adult subject matter and this film would have been a great blow for this cause. Showgirls was not what the Passion could have been. And the R rating here also sets up a dangerous precedent, where the Christian sacred recieves special considerations. It doesn;t take Orwell to follow this train of thought through to the possibly awful end.
One last thing, someone mentioned derisively the whole ressurection scene at the end as the opening for a sequel. First, think how bleak it would have been if we ended with the death of Jesus. Second, the resurrection is almost more important than Jesus' death! To not of mentioned it would be a great insult to an audience who has suffered along with Christ for two hours. But more important, I would want to see that sequel. I can't think of a single nonanimated mainstream feature that deals with the post resurrection christ. That is a big hole (I can't help the puns). There is really a lot more to talk about this film, which is why I think if we can actually stay focused on the film as a film, more insight is possible.
Please disagree with me. |
|
icaruswantedtoburn
|
|
post #20
on March 2, 2004 - 11:05 AM PST
|
|
Big typo in my previous post:
One can be pretty sure he did share the atheistic leanings of that other poet of violence the painter Bacon, but the relation is too hard to ignore.
That should be:
One can be pretty sure he DIDN'T share the atheistic leanings of that other poet of violence the painter Bacon, but the relation is too hard to ignore.
Sorry, I typed too fast. |
|
|
Your cart
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®,
a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.