H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
So, you find that Mel was able to keep his views out of the passion but tgT same guy is not qualified to make a sequel to his movie?
- Status
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Right because what someone says in a drunken stupor and rape are in the same ballpark.
It seems you have no problem with Mel making a religious movie and think he is capable of doing so without antisemitic parts creeping in but you cringe about how others might view it. Is that right?
G
gracepoole
Guest
Oh, dear. And ick. I hesitate to inquire further about the justifications you accept for rape.Right because what someone says in a drunken stupor and rape are in the same ballpark.
No, that’s not right. I have serious doubts about Gibson’s ability to keep his antisemitic views out of any future biblical film. I also take the views of those whom he maligned very seriously and am significantly puzzled as to why others don’t.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
So what protected the passion or braveheart for that matter? Or is it your contention that his views are newly founded.
I’m not sure what your first comment meant?
G
GEddie
Guest
I don’t even know who he is, and have no interest full-stop in watching any film about rape.
Whereas, Gibson has shown long ago that he knows what he is doing on a Biblical movie set. To me, movies are **all **about what meets the eyes.
ICXC NIKA
G
gracepoole
Guest
I said that I don’t see The Passion as antisemitic. Clearly there are those who strongly disagree.
Sadly, no, it seems his antisemitic views have been long entrenched.
As for Polanski, he was convicted of drugging and raping a thirteen-year-old girl. What distinction are you making between this and “what someone says in a drunken stupor”?
T
Todd977
Guest
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Oh when someone mentioned Mel you brought up Polanski as a viable contemporary. Equating what Mel did (saying something while drunk) to Polanski, (rape). Those are not in the same ball park.
I’ve never been a rapist, but I have said some pretty dumb things back in my drinking days. I find it odd in the culture of Hollywood where sin, pro murder (abortion) sexual sins, and even worse are always forgiven. If you look at affable tom hanks, his movie was more damaging to a religion than Mel’s was. Yet mr hanks seems to walk around unscathed and apparently Mel has found the one unforgivable sin.
G
gracepoole
Guest
You’re back to forgiveness and as I’ve said, this has nothing to do with forgiveness. It has to do with responsible film-making. He can go right on making non-biblical films. In this niche, however, he has tarnished his name (not just once, mind you, but many times over). The difference between you in your “drinking days” and Gibson is obviously that you didn’t rattle off antisemitic slurs and then proceed to engage in depictions of Jewish people.
C
chero23
Guest
Oh no doubt. Your speaking about one of the true heroes in Judaic history, with Maccabees.
I sure hope he gets to this movie.
C
chero23
Guest
I like itPassion II: This time it’s personal.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
This could be a good thing…if he can avoid scandals like in the past. 
I do hope they use Jim again. He made a good Jesus. He is truly a devout Catholic from what I read. He may be getting too old though. Hard to look in your thirties when your pushing 50.
I do hope they use Jim again. He made a good Jesus. He is truly a devout Catholic from what I read. He may be getting too old though. Hard to look in your thirties when your pushing 50.
P
patrick457
Guest
That’s not necessarily a drawback, I mean, the actor H.B. Warner played Jesus in Cecil B. DeMille’s The King of Kings back in the 1920s, when he was already 51. In fact, there’s a recent trend to use forty-something actors for Jesus. I think Jim could still pull it together if they gave him the chance.This could be a good thing…if he can avoid scandals like in the past.
I do hope they use Jim again. He made a good Jesus. He is truly a devout Catholic from what I read. He may be getting too old though. Hard to look in your thirties when your pushing 50.
P
patrick457
Guest
My two cents about The Passion of the Christ.
The biggest fault of TPotC in my opinion is that there’s really no context for the Passion. Mel, in choosing to depict only the last twenty-four hours of Jesus’ life (before the resurrection), sort of skimmed over that. Mel apparently took it for granted that his audience already knows the story and could fill in the gaps, but for a non-Christian who only barely knows the story of Jesus (or not at all), the whole film would be nearly incomprehensible, I think. It’s one guy being bullied to death by a bunch of dark-robed old men and a lynch mob for some reason.
The Jewish leaders and the crowd want Jesus dead, but it is never clearly explained why within the film. Yeah, you do get this flashback of Jesus saying that He is laying down His life, but that’s hardly an answer as to why Caiaphas and company is so bent on having Jesus crucified.
I think that’s what really engendered the accusations of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. IMHO Mel could have done better by inserting a flashback of say, Caiaphas saying his “better that one man should die for the people” line (John 11:50). That would have made some difference.
And that’s another problematic area of the film in my opinion: the character designs and the characterizations. Case in point: Caiaphas and Pilate. Caiaphas is portrayed as a sort of grumpy, smug, unkempt old man (with bad teeth
) in a long, dark, opulent robe, whereas Pilate is a clean-shaven, contemplative philosopher. And by comparison, his wardrobe isn’t as gaudy or bejeweled as Caiaphas’ is.
Pilate gets some character development - for example in that scene where he talks to his wife - whereas Caiaphas (along with the other Jewish leaders) remains a two-dimensional baddie right to the very end. He doesn’t get ‘extra’ scenes like Pilate does where he contemplates about what’s happening or his motivations or anything. When he appears, he’s always a nasty piece of work. That lack of character development on the part of the Jewish antagonists is I think part of the problem. If Pilate gets it, why not Caiaphas or Annas?
So while I appreciate Mel’s film in many ways, I wouldn’t elevate it to the position that a few Catholics out there I’ve seen have, and I’m not hesitant to say that there are problematic elements in the film.
The biggest fault of TPotC in my opinion is that there’s really no context for the Passion. Mel, in choosing to depict only the last twenty-four hours of Jesus’ life (before the resurrection), sort of skimmed over that. Mel apparently took it for granted that his audience already knows the story and could fill in the gaps, but for a non-Christian who only barely knows the story of Jesus (or not at all), the whole film would be nearly incomprehensible, I think. It’s one guy being bullied to death by a bunch of dark-robed old men and a lynch mob for some reason.
The Jewish leaders and the crowd want Jesus dead, but it is never clearly explained why within the film. Yeah, you do get this flashback of Jesus saying that He is laying down His life, but that’s hardly an answer as to why Caiaphas and company is so bent on having Jesus crucified.
I think that’s what really engendered the accusations of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. IMHO Mel could have done better by inserting a flashback of say, Caiaphas saying his “better that one man should die for the people” line (John 11:50). That would have made some difference.
And that’s another problematic area of the film in my opinion: the character designs and the characterizations. Case in point: Caiaphas and Pilate. Caiaphas is portrayed as a sort of grumpy, smug, unkempt old man (with bad teeth
) in a long, dark, opulent robe, whereas Pilate is a clean-shaven, contemplative philosopher. And by comparison, his wardrobe isn’t as gaudy or bejeweled as Caiaphas’ is.Pilate gets some character development - for example in that scene where he talks to his wife - whereas Caiaphas (along with the other Jewish leaders) remains a two-dimensional baddie right to the very end. He doesn’t get ‘extra’ scenes like Pilate does where he contemplates about what’s happening or his motivations or anything. When he appears, he’s always a nasty piece of work. That lack of character development on the part of the Jewish antagonists is I think part of the problem. If Pilate gets it, why not Caiaphas or Annas?
So while I appreciate Mel’s film in many ways, I wouldn’t elevate it to the position that a few Catholics out there I’ve seen have, and I’m not hesitant to say that there are problematic elements in the film.
P
patrick457
Guest
Yes, .The Passion Recut It was released the next year (2005) after the original version, flopped at the box office and then pulled out after just three weeks. It was supposed to have a PG-13 rating, but it was still too violent for that, and so it was released as unrated (the original was rated R).
P
patrick457
Guest
I think that the best depiction of the resurrection appearances to date is in the 2008 BBC/HBO miniseries The Passion, where the Jesus who appears to Mary Magdalene and the Jesus who appears to the two disciples in Emmaus are played by two actors who are different from the actor that plays Jesus in the series (Joseph Mawle). Fittingly enough, when the Emmaus disciples finally recognize that the guy they’ve been travelling with is Jesus, it is Joseph Mawle’s Jesus again.
G
gus
Guest
That died because of creative differences on the interpretation.
Mel wouldn’t touch .
This film is pretty much a go and anyone who doesn’t think Mel is a great director never saw Apocalypto. Totally unknown actors all in a foreign language
Even if you have negative Passion views
The speculation is whether this story is just about the 40 days or will include the first few chapters of ACTs
But the 40 days that transformed 11 scared pretty ordinary defeated men into a force that changed the world might be the greatest story in history.
J
John_Lazarus
Guest
Maybe they could do a movie about the Apostles being persecuted by the Romans.
You know: The Empire Strikes Back.
You know: The Empire Strikes Back.
- Status