Report: Wife Scratched Tiger Woods' Face, Chased His SUV; Update: Police Unable To Interview Couple Today
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
If you're not going to see The Passion of the Christ, at least read Times' A.O. Scott's review of it, because Scott begins by referring to the Simpsons episode with Mel Gibson:
There is a prophetic episode of "The Simpsons" in which the celebrity guest star Mel Gibson, directing and starring in a remake of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," enlists the help of Homer Simpson, who represents the public taste (or lack of it). Homer persuades Mr. Gibson to change the picture's ending, replacing James Stewart's populist tirade with an action sequence, a barrage of righteous gunfire that leaves the halls of Congress strewn with corpses. The audience flees the theater in disgust. I thought of Homer more than once, with an involuntary irreverence conditioned by many years of devotion to "The Simpsons," as Mr. Gibson presented his new movie, "The Passion of the Christ," to carefully selected preview audiences across the land, making a few last-minute cuts, and then taking to the airwaves to promote and defend the film.The review goes on to pretty much pan The Passion and praise its technical parts (acting, cinematography); the review also makes want Gothamist to say, all over again, "A.O. Scott, will you be Gothamist's friend?"
Rotten Tomatoes on The Passion of the Christ: So far, rotten. But Roger Ebert gives it 4 stars, calling it "the most violent film I have ever seen." Hey, Newmarket Films, there's your blurb to get the teenage boys in the doors!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Speaking of Times reviewers:
I particularly like the literate, analytical approach New York Times critic Stephen Holden brings to his reviews. His work challenges my thinking. I'm consistently irritated, though, by Elvis Mitchell's reviews...I feel that he's less interested in analyzing a particular film than in showing off how many cultural references he can make.
I love the way Scott deflates the pomposity of the whole project by starting his review with a Simpson's reference. In fact, every Times review should find a way to quote the prophet Homer.
Favorite Homer quote:
"Lisa, if the bible has taught us anything--and it hasn't--it's that girls should stick to girl sports, like hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Minus all the hoopla, the same comment that applies to most movies, applies to this one:
The book was better.
I second slipknot's comments and agree with Ziegfeld that Mitchell's reviews are over run with pop references. However, I did like Mitchell's bold statement that Battlefield Earth was the worst film of the century.
Anthony Lane of the New Yorker is tops for me, though.
Is Scott the same moron who listed "A.I." as top 10 movies of that particular year? Yeah... I'm not reading his reviews.
i doubt i'll see the movie, but that won't stop me from being entertained by mel gibson's antics, which were just ridiculous.
i liked AO Scott's reviews till his saccharine review of "mystic river" -- which was a good movie, mind you -- but his ceaseless praise of sean penn had me laughing. now i think of elvis mitchell as the sane and smart reviewer.
and scott's "we're living in the golden age of acting" article a week or two ago was also funny in that i suspect that he heard so much criticism over his "mystic river" piece that he felt compelled to write another article to defend it.
Homer Simpson for President!
Think about it--we don't need a particularly smart person to run this country. We need someone with good common sense. Down-home values. A sense of humor. And a violent streak is useful for American foreign policy. Besides, Homer is likeable and famous!
CrankyCritic.com gave it $1 (on a scale of $1 to $9) I particularly enjoyed this comment...
"Two hours of gruesome, sadistic, stomach-turning and hard core graphically violent torture detached from any background information is not something to expose kids to, regardless of religion. Kids of a slightly older age may ask "Mommy? Why is Jesus a punching bag?" and then you can explain all the stuff about "dying for your sins," and inflict enough psychological terror on the kid to require a good twenty years of therapy."
I always felt the Simpsons/Gibson episode mirrored "The Patriot" best, but okay, you can have it for "Christ," too.
Ebert's review was interesting; it's worth reading on the Chicago Sun-Times site:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html
I didn't agree with everything, but he says more than just that it's worth four stars.
Can anyone tell us if the theaters are actually full? So much of a big deal was made about pre-ticket purchases by church groups to ensure big box office ... I'm curious to see if the theaters are as full as the reports on Monday are going to tell us they were.
Now I realize that the aim of this forum is to be somewhat humourous, or at least entertaining, and Jack was probably being purposely obtuse for comic effect, ie. he does not actually think the Jackson breast incident is really comparable to the violence of the Passion, but I think that comments like these are indicative of the type of scorn and cynicism that the bile-tipped tongues of normally tolerant people are uttering in response to the Passion, a film that, I'm guessing, most have not yet seen. Yes, the comments are more ridiculing the media hype than denouncing the movie, yet there is still something political there.
Whenever Ebert likes/loves a movie, I invariably end up disliking/hating it. So his reviews work for me, in George-Costanza-logic; whenever he gives a movie a big thumbs down, I'm ready to buy a ticket. If he's wishy-washy, I check out some other reviews.
Ebert, I've realised, loves exploitation films. Heck, he even made them (Return to the valley of the Dolls, IIRC). I look at the films he raves about (Monster's Ball and Monster come to mind) and they're all very crude, coarse, unnuanced, facile. If they're not exploiting sex and violence, it's, say, the misery of the poor and disenfranchised. It's all about sensation -- emotional money shots. Not saying that every film has to make one think, but I do like a little thinking with my films.
I haven't seen The Passion yet, but it strikes me as another exploitation film -- exploiting the pain and suffering of Jesus Christ, wallowing in the violence of his last hours.
Ebert and I disagreed on "Carrington" a while back, and I ignored him for years. Then, I caught his review of the other-Catholic-stinker, "Gospa" (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1996/02/1021408.html), and I found a lot of common ground. He's good at admitting his own agendas and biases, and separating them from his assessment of cinema on cinema's own terms.
He also spent a lot of energy touting "Invincible." Would that count as an exploitation flick?
Just saw it - 1pm show. The theatre was half-full, average age of movie-goers at least 40. No previews ran before it, and the blooper reel that was such a familiar feature in the Lethal Weapon films is strangely absent.
That said, it's an amazing film and about as un-anti-Semitic as it could be without changing the story and downplaying the Pharisees. Several of the Roman soldiers are the least sympathetic characters in the film - neither Judas nor the Pharises are portrayed as critically as two or three absolutely savage Romans.
The Roman soldier who is MOST sympathetically portrayed is the one who some believe to have been a local Romanized Jewish conscript, and who pierced Jesus' side with a spear: one foundation of the Wandering Jew myth. Further, any obvious Jewishness has been stripped from him - he is blonde, German- or Slavic-seeming, called "Cassius" and speaks only Latin in the film. In legend he is sometimes known as "Longinus". Cassius takes pity on Mary, and allows her access to Jesus when he is hanging on the cross. Further, it is Cassius who slakes Jesus' thirst with a wet sponge poised on a spear, and who objects to further harming the body of the dead Christ. When he does pierce Christ's side with the spear, reluctantly and after bowing his head to Mary, a torrent of fluid sprays down on him, which I took as emblematic of baptism. Thus Mel, without any note that I've seen anywhere else, takes a pass on one nasty (and easy) little anti-Semitic fable.
The film is far from the most violent I have seen - Saving Private Ryan and Blackhawk Down are both much more grisly. The Scouring is hard to watch, Mel humanizes the Pharisees and high priests (also Pilate's wife and deputy) by showing disgust even on their faces and in their responses. Satan is depicted moving among the Pharisees and the Roman soldiers, thus influencing them, and compelling them to their worst, rather than their best.
The only person in the film shown outright to be immune to Satan's call is Jesus, and even he is briefly ridden by doubt in the beginning of the film, and then again as he is dying on the cross.
Like it or not - this is a sign that Christians in America have found new confidence since 9/11, and are on the march trying to win hearts and minds. Subtle elements, such as Jesus stopping the stoning of Mary Magdalene and offering her his hand (depicted in flashback) are clearly meant for Muslim eyes. Likewise the actions of Veronica and Simon in easing Christ's suffering as he bears the cross, and the heavy use of Aramaic, seem to me intended to make this film compelling to Muslims. Christ's forgiveness and grace, after all, stand in stark relief against the martial behavior of Mohammed & Co. six centuries later.
Anyway, sorry Jen & Jake for writing a book here. Just figured it would be useful.
Is it blasphemy if I just want to see this film purely *because* of the gore? I'm particularly looking forward to how detailed the nailing effects will be. I want to experience it on a gigantic screen, and hear it in all its Dolby Digital Surround glory. I wonder if there'll be a "making of" special on E! Entertainment Television.
Jake - amen.
God
All those against the violence in this film surely must be against similar violence depicted in all those horrendous Holocaust documentaries. After all, this is a movie based on reality, as much as the gut-wrenching films of WWII attrocities.
smart people + great blog = fantastic commentary....better than most news orgs out there...very nice...
But back to A.O. Scott! I think he's one of the few film reviewers out there who also admires the work of the many behind-the-scenes artists. And he has a discerning eye for quality work. He gives decent ink to the work of composers, sound designers, production designers, DPs, etc. I wish more reviewers would devote less space to the shmaltzy actors and pay respect to the real artists.
'Thai whore addict (circa the time "Air America "was made)'
Whoa! Learn something new every day. Diane Sawyer should've questioned him on this (I think he talked about being an alcoholic and drug user, and contemplating suicide). Where did you hear about this?
The only gossip I'd heard about Gibson is his rabid homophobia. He practically sneers at gay actors when they're in the same room with him. He's not subtle about it.
Things that make you go Hmmm...
Just heard from a coworker of mine that a good percentage of Thai prostitutes are boys.
Any word on the gender of Thai prosties that Mel prefers?
This could explain the weirdly androgynous Satan tempting Jesus in the film.
First, how dare you say that Benji was an addict!! That dog was a saint!
second, I have already seen anti-semitic graffiti in this city twice now in the past 24 hours --when I never saw any in the previous 15 years that I lived in this city.
It's so creepy and infuriating to see "christians" acting as if this movie is another gospel of christ rather than a movie star's idea about what christ's last moments before he was killed were like.
What's with this '"Christians"' thing (that is: the word "Christians" in quotes) that keeps appearing in print in relation to "The Passion of the Christ"? What does it mean? Whether this sense is intended or not it seems to paint a picture of Christians as being disingenuous, which is quite damaging and not universally accurate.
Anyways, Jack, it seems you have some strong opinions, which is great. Some of them I agree with and others I don't. chief among those I disagree with is that it seems you are discrediting this film in large part because it was co-written /directed by Gibson. You say that Gibson is only an action star and that's right, he is an action star, but it appears as though he is trying to transform his career to reflect his convictions. Whether one thinks he's been successful and whether one trusts his motives is a personal choice, but at least give him the benefit of the doubt, reserve judgement on the film until you've seen it. If you have, and you're opinions are informed from having seen it, well then dash it all, hang me!
I guess my point is that perhaps Gibson is indeed a nutbar and an evil, fanatic, dangerous Christian, but don't discredit his film because of his politics. That's like when a few years back there was an uproar over Elia Kazan receiving a lifetime achievement award because he had ponied up names at the McCarthy Hearings House UnAmerican whatchamacallits (I'm sorry, I'm Canadian). Granted Kazan's films were not, as far as I know, overtly political or religious, as is "The Passion", but not everyone need take "The Passion" for the same thing. Christians who are into it may choose to experience it as some sort of "communion", while others may view it as art. You may hate the art for its politics, but don't hate it simply as a political statement.
Now, if I am naive then most others are cynical and personally I think the former is a much greater quality to have. It disturbs me that Christianity is seen as the evil empire, the religion you love to hate. But it isn't surprising given that in the West it's the religion people know best and in a society that delights in anti-authoritarianism it is the obvious choice for public enemy number one.
That's all, I'll shut up now. But before I do... No wisecracks about me apologizing for being Canadian!
Fair enough Jack. Somewhere in there you said:
"The Passion of the Christ" is a bad movie that has--literally--caused one death due to it's hyperviolent gore and brutality
I'm shocked. Is that true?
Lastly, what I meant by:
"...If you have, and you're opinions are informed from having seen it, well then dash it all, hang me!"
was that I was guessing that you hadn't seen it and that if you had, well then bugger me for making an assumption!
The Passion hardly springs whole out of Mel Gibson's imagination - numerous scenes are posed to match El Greco, Michelangelo & DaVinci renderings. Further, the film seems timed and paced to match the Stations of the Cross, a Catholic ritual abandoned in recent years, but still reflected in the stained glass windows of churches.
Like it or NOT, the crucifixation and resurrection of Jesus are central to Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general. Gibson has faithfully represented the former to my satisfaction - the film's rendition is as it was described to me as a boy, and as I always pictured it. The Church teaches and has taught for nearly 2000 years that: "[Jesus] was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead."
The Church has never made a secret of Christ's torture and crucifixion - Bibles are readily available even in hotel rooms and the Catholic Church has been aggressively teaching people to read since before Guttenberg. As I understand it, the horrible torture and disfigurement of the messiah was foretold in Isaiah (Old Testament), and Gibson shows Jesus willfully returning to his feet after being flogged, to taunt the Roman soldiers into giving him the full measure of their hatred, to fulfill the role God laid out for him. [Found it: "As many were astonished at him -- his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men" (Isaiah 52:14).]
And don't worry about Gibson not telling the whole story of Jesus in The Passion - I suspect we'll be seeing several more movies from him in this vein.
Link above but here are the last two paragraphs of the review in the Christian Science Monitor.
--
Gibson says he based "The Passion" primarily on the Gospels, and some theologians contend that the diversity and incompleteness of those books purvey a crucial insight in themselves: that the full spiritual wisdom of Jesus' revolutionary thought cannot be contained in recorded words and deeds. Gibson evidently disagrees, seeing so much meaning in the blunt spectacle of Jesus' tormented body that he finds it unnecessary to depict almost anything else.
"The Passion of the Christ" is at once a well-crafted film, a merciless excursion into motion-picture ultraviolence, and a regrettably cramped historical account that stays doggedly on the surface of its overwhelmingly important subject.
--
Jack - if you're saying that The Passion is strongly influenced by Mel Gibson's opinions, ideas, etc., that's true - JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER MOVIE EVER MADE.
The tradition of the Passion and Passion Plays is not about redemption - it's about sacrifice and suffering. The goal has historically been to show that Christ suffered and died voluntarily for humanity. At any point between his arrest and Pilate washing his hands, a few words to the Pharisees, to Pilate or to Herod would have saved Jesus' life. Christ chose not to take this path, even after the scourging, because God had assigned him the task of taking upon himself the sin of the world, dying, going to Hell, being resurrected and then ascending bodily into Heaven. Gibson chose to depict the physical consequences of Christ's sacrifice - just one part.
Some people seem to be clinging to the notion that because Christ didn't spout the Eight Beatitudes in the movie, it was somehow deeply flawed. But this movie wasn't about Christ's teachings, or his spiritualism, or even his resurrection - it was about the last few days of his life, and what he went through.
I get the feeling that you don't really know what you're talking about. You mention there are "many different tellings" of Christ's final days. To my knowledge there are four accounts extant: Mark, Matthew, Luke & John. Mark is believed to have been Peter's translator - so he got the story from someone who was there. I'm no Bible scholar, but I believe the other three were written later, but all before 150 AD. Gibson seems to have taken mostly from Mark and John, and also from Isaiah in the Old Testament. (Christ himself would have been following what Isaiah prescribed.) Additionally, Gibson has borrowed from Catholic artists in their depictions of these events.
I would prefer that if you plan to offer more criticism of the film, you use some facts, instead of attacking it ad hominem through Gibson's perceived faults, or through shady BS like "many tellings". I'm going to the trouble of basing my arguments on facts, and it's difficult to take seriously someone who is not.
P.S. According to Catholic doctrine, people of Mel's wife's religion are heretics and will go to Hell. The fact that he finds this joke-worthy indicates to me that he doesn't really believe it, which means he isn't the fanatic you're trying to make him out to be. Most religions place membership requirements on heaven.
(Oh, I meant every movie ever made is influenced by its director, not specifically by Mel GIbson.)
Sterling,
I really have no "passion" to debate this. But in the case of Mel's mental state, the quality of his film and his families general insanity all topics are valid in criticism of the film.
Please consult the myriad of reviews over at MetaCritic; durrent MetaScore is 45 out of 100 (ie: very bad).
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/passionofthechrist/
Regarding this statement:
"The fact that he finds this joke-worthy indicates to me that he doesn't really believe it, which means he isn't the fanatic you're trying to make him out to be. Most religions place membership requirements on heaven."
Mel Gibson did not say that as a joke; where did you get that idea from? Please check out this statement from Mel Gibson. He's never disputed what he said and defends it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/
"Gibson was interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, and the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”
He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”"
Jack, everyone knew that "Passion" was going to be a violent movie, why did you go see it if you hate violence so much? And who is dragging their kids to go see it? If you are under 17 you need an adult with you anyway, which means your parent believes you are mature enough to watch it. From what I hear, Saving Private Ryan had more gore in it. If you can't handle violent movies, don't go. I also hear that if you think it's anti-semetic, then you are one of those people that feel Italians were betrayed by the film The Godfather or that people in the south are seen as racist rednecks from the movie Mississippi Burning. This is a movie about bringing peace and love everywhere.
Jack - I don't even really consider myself a Christian, although like 98% of the population of this country, I'm a "cultural Christian". I respect what Gibson has done - he's showed real guts all the way down with this. Is he nutty? I don't know, and don't see where it's relevant.
Four is "several" - I'd even give you "about a half dozen" - but it is not "many". And if you're not interested in arguing about this, why did you start being contentious in the first place? Do the research before opening your mouth.
Of course I would take someone under 18 to see this film. I wouldn't take a small child, but 12 and up? Sure.
Jack, I don't have the energy to argue most of what you said because frankly I don't have the time to do the research. But one thing I want to ask you is why do you report (on more than one occasion) that Gibson's father was a holocaust denier? It has no bearing on the film or for that matter on him. Yes, it may have informed his viewpoint as all influences in one's life may, yet Gibson has clearly tried to transform himself, going as far as to become what some are calling a born-again Christian. What his father's influence is on him is on our part only a guess and you can not stigmatize a man based on a guess. Does man die for the sins of his father? (The clever biblical scholars amongst you will surely respond with Deut 24:16 and Ex 20:5.) I think this fact you wave around is simply an example of your flamboyant style of rhetoric and not at all relevant.
Because I am Hutton Gibson! Kidding!
I think, Jack, if you reread what I wrote I did not in any way defend Gibson's father. And any defense of Mel was simply from your tactics of argument. I have no love for Gibson; I never said that he is a saint or better than me or even a good person. I'm just saying that you may think he is insane, but don't think he is insane because you think his father is. Just because Hutton is a holocaust denier doesn't mean Mel is as well (or perhaps he is and you will spout a url for that too!).
In general, what my point was, which I think you missed, is that some of the facts you are using to criticize a film are tenuous and peripheral to the argument. Stepping back and being completely honest, don't you think that criticizing a film because its director's father is a holocaust denier sounds somewhat ridiculous?
Jack, of course I changed my "tactic". Otherwise I would be guilty of believing only what I want to believe. You said your opinions are based on having seen the film. Fair enough; I did not pursue that angle. I'm sorry if that does not seem reasonable.
"If someone were to make a film that was racially charged against African Americans and his/her father dismissed the issues of slavery..."
Your above statement is true but is not relevant to the argument because "The Passion" does not claim that the holocaust did not happen.
Your urls don't upset me. I just found your energy and commitment to the facts commendable. It was also a kind of "rueful chuckle", if you will, about how you'll probably find something somewhere to discredit me.
Jack -
I think you are insane. I can't believe you are that upset over a movie. Maybe Mel is just trying to show what he thinks really happened. We should see how brutal the death of Jesus was. If you're not Christian, I can how you won't give a damn, but why get so upset about it? If kids see a film full of blood, is it the end of the world for them? It wasn't for me when I was young.
And I do not care about Janet Jackson's boob coming out.
I also do not believe that women died from watching the movie, it was her time. The heart attack would've happened sooner or later.
If this movie gives people more faith in God, more power to them.
Matthew 22:36-40
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love he Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Yesterday I was on a bus in Brooklyn on the way home and a woman standing next to me got a call on her cell phone. She said "yes, I saw it. Oh, I cried so much for my Lord. All i know is, the Jews did it. Yes sir, they killed Him."
Having been raised Catholic, I was taught that Jesus was about love and forgiveness, about reaching out to and protecting those that others would shun or stone and yet it seems that many people are getting a message of intolerance and even hate from this film.
Matthew 22:36-40
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love he Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Yesterday I was on a bus in Brooklyn on the way home and a woman standing next to me got a call on her cell phone. She said "yes, I saw it. Oh, I cried so much for my Lord. All i know is, the Jews did it. Yes sir, they killed Him."
Having been raised Catholic, I was taught that Jesus was about love and forgiveness, about reaching out to and protecting those that others would shun or stone and yet it seems that many people are getting a message of intolerance and even hate from this film.
Jack-
A perfectly healthy person did not have a heart attack from the movie, I'm sure there was something physically wrong with her. It's a f-ing movie! It's not like we are actually seeing this on the street.
So, are you saying you don't want people to have more faith in God?
Mel Gibson didn't lie about the violence. You act like it was some big surprise. Close your eyes occasionally if you can't handle it.
From what I've heard, it's not anti-semetic, but I will be the judge of that tomorrow when I go. People who believe that already hated Jews and want another reason to hate them.
Gibson and the other followers of the anti-2nd Vatican council are entitled to their opinions. I kinda wonder if that was the political thing to do shortly after WWII. I personally do not blame the Jews for his death. But I do understand if people want the Church back to the way it was. They're not holding a gun to anyone's head saying you must believe this or that.
If the Jews are so pissed about this, then they can make a movie and call it "The Crusades."
Jack - Arguing over whether there are "many" gospels or "four" is not semantics. It goes to the point of whether you know anything about the New Testament, and you clearly don't.
Your whole argument about the film not representing Jesus is a canard, because you don't care enough about what Jesus was about even to read the Biblical record.
One more thing, Jack - you just don't have any standing to make these complaints. If you're not a Christian, and you never bothered to even read the New Testament, then you've got no business butting your head in and telling Christians what they ought to believe, which is what you're doing.
As for Hutton Gibson - I'm sure if we put 85-year-old members of your family on television, they wouldn't say anything about politics, ethnicities or religions that would shock or offend.
What I am saying is that it is pointless to debate the merits of the film based upon the facts relating to the personal lives of the director and related individuals. Can't you see that any research I conduct relating to the Gibson family can not inherently support my argument? I take for granted that your sources are reliable, but they do not convince me that the film is without merit. Where I have been "lazy" is in not having gone to see the film for myself. You claim that the director's anti-semitic background necessitates that the film itself is anti-semitic, but not everyone who's seen it has found it so. I will see the film for myself and not take your advice that evil director equals evil film.
I repeat, in 15 years of living in this town, I never saw anti-semitic grafitti before Wednesday when the movie opened. Just a coincidence? Maybe, but judging from comments I have overheard in the last day or two, it really does appear that this film, if not spawning anti-semitism, is certainly emboldening those who already had those feelings--and that is a something that can be blamed on the filmmaker. Should the movie be banned?--of course not--but it's not unfair for people to point out that the movie is creating an atmosphere that makes people feel ok to let their anti-semitism out. Should those who dare to criticize mel's creation be called "insane"? It seems as if a new religion is springing up, one where Mel Gibson is the pope and a movie focused not on Jesus' message of love and forgiveness but on violence is the gospel. Makes me sick. That's why I put those "christians" in quotes-- if Mel's movie has now become a holy "text" for someone, they do not fit my definition of a christian.
How about a movie called "The Passion of the Jack" in which Jack faces the persecution of the pharisee DrewBug and others?
But to be serious, Honey, if I understand you, I think you are saying that this film is tantamount to the film equivalent of hate literature since it has been inspiring hate. And if this is so shouldn't it be banned? From the fact that you don't think so leads me to believe that you think it has some redeeming qualities. In other words it has the potential to inspire both good and bad. In this way it is like art in general and therefore the responsibility lies on the shoulders of both the filmmaker and the audience. Which I guess is your point?
Yet again, Jack you are missing my point. I'm not arguing about what is *in* the film, but whether it is valid to label the film crap because Gibson is crap. I take no issue with you saying the film is crap because you've seen, but you're not limiting it to that. When I see it perhaps I will agree that it is far too violent etc., but till then I reserve judgement.
Come on Jack! I was not chastizing. I was agreeing.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1598&u=/fwd/20040226/en_fashion_fwd/zeffirelli_1&printer=1
Zeffirelli Brands Mel Gibson's Passion Anti-Semitic; Calls Director “Bloodthirsty”
Thu Feb 26,12:12 PM ET
Godfrey Deeny
Fashion Wire Daily February 26, 2004 - New York - Franco Zeffirelli, the last person before Mel Gibson (news) to direct a major feature film on the life of Christ and someone who has himself directed the actor as Hamlet, has lambasted Gibson's controversial film The Passion as anti-Semitic.
"They tell me that in America, despite the ban on minors, that mothers absolutely want their children to see the film, in order to understand the suffering Jesus underwent to save us,” Zeffirelli wrote in Thursday’s edition of Corriere della Sera, Milan’s leading daily newspaper, continuing, “I am of a completely different opinion: what conclusion can one reach (from the film), in particular young people, other than that his blood was shed because of the Jews?"
Zeffirelli, who directed Gibson in his 1991 version of Hamlet, adds that "once I knew that Gibson had decided to make a film on the Passion of Christ I began to get worried. I knew well that the family culture in which he was raised, dominated by a father who considers the Vatican (news - web sites) councils the tomb of Christianity, and suspected already that rather than the divine message of Christ, what pushed Mel into this difficult project was (an obsession) with strips of flesh, his own torments and blood."
The veteran Italian director also recounts his own curious experiences of working with Gibson, recalling one scene in Hamlet where Gibson intervened on the set when British actor Ian Holm (news), playing Polonius, acted out his character's death with his eyes closed.
Zeffirelli recalls Gibson saying: "A wounded animal about to die does not stay with a fixed look, but rolls its eyes in the final spasms, first together, then in the opposite direction, like a cross eyed person. It's almost funny."
"And how would you know?" responded Holm, according to Zeffirelli.
"I've seen plenty die,” replied Gibson, Zeffirelli claims. “When I can, to relax, I go to my farm and kill a lot of calves on the days when they are slaughtered."
The Italian director further stresses that, unlike Gibson's life of Christ, his own 1977 film "Jesus of Nazareth" was written by the famed English author Anthony Burgess with Suso Cecchi D'Amico taking into account the principles laid down by the Second Vatican Council, "To render justice to Jews and unburden them of the accusation of Diocide.” Zeffirelli finished his article with a question: “And now where have we gone back to?"
Jack - Not only haven't you read the Bible, you haven't even read this thread. My first comment was my reaction to the film, which I saw at 1pm on Wednesday.
Jack -
After 9/11 I went out and bought a copy of the Koran, and have read a big chunk of it. I've read limited extracts of the Talmud, but have made no real study of it.
The reason I read the Koran is so that I could a) see for myself what it's really about and b) competently engage people in discussion.
See, when I don't know anything about the subject matter being discussed, I sit quietly and try to learn something. I don't go preaching about things I know nothing about.
You might want to try that sometime.
Jack - finally saw the movie. Not nearly as gross as you said it would be. Sure, it's violent, but I've seen worse. Maybe you helped prepare me for it. I had a very hard time finding the anti-Semitism in it as well. Us idiots with our MPH have a hard time doing that I guess. Once again, I don't blames the Jews for the death of Jesus, even if they did in fact do it. It's like black people blaming whites today for slavery. It was all Prophesized in the bible that Jesus was going to be betrayed by his own people. So, what's the big deal?