Passion is being re-released

  • Thread starter Thread starter beckers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

beckers

Guest
MEL Gibson will release “The Passion Recut” on March 11 in theaters — a new version with about five minutes of the most violent footage trimmed from his controversial 2004 hit.

“There are no new scenes, and the cuts are limited to the more violent aspects of the film, if that’s the right term,” Gibson’s producing partner, Bruce Davey, told Variety.

“The scourging scene in particular has been substantially adjusted.”

The new version, which will open on between 500 and 750 screens around the country and run through Easter, will not be rated.

— Lou Lumenick

Anybody thinking about re-watching especial since it is less violent?

god bless,
Beckers
 
Cool, I think I’m the only person I know who has not seen it.
 
Outstanding!!! Even though I own several copies of the DVD, I’ll go just to support the movie in the theatres.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
I am disappointed that he trimmed the film.
Click to expand...
So am I…😦
 
JimO,

I don’t think the trimming will cause people to see it…
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
JimO,

I don’t think the trimming will cause people to see it…
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not, but I know of at least two people I’ve talked with today who haven’t seen it because of the “violence” who are reconsidering because it will be back in theatres.

I’m just excited because I believe that some souls will be touched if the movies spends even one additional day in theatres.
 
Jim,

I agree–it is a very good thing to have the movie back…I am just wondering why Mel thought it should be trimmed.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Jim,

I agree–it is a very good thing to have the movie back…I am just wondering why Mel thought it should be trimmed.
Click to expand...
Could be that he wanted a PG-13 rating.
 
I too am disapointed he trimmed scenes…I will not attend. What would have gotten me to go and support the film a second time in the theater would have been MORE (flashback) scenes to Jesus teaching or working a few miracles. For those who say, but its about the “Passion” of Jesus not his teachings or miracles, then I retort…okay… I agree…so then WHY trim scenes that deal IN and SHOW his PASSION? Mels entire stance was, Jesus suffered brutally and I am going to be as honest in depicting his PASSION. So for ME…the movie doesnt need trims, just a few more flashback scenes on teachings and/or miracles…would raise it to a Masterpiece.

I hope more go see it who are squeamish to violence, but this isnt the directors cut I had in mind.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Jim,

I agree–it is a very good thing to have the movie back…I am just wondering why Mel thought it should be trimmed.
Click to expand...
I heard an interview with Mel Gibson. He wanted to reach a larger audience.

I think this is great. Many people who did not see the movie because of the brutality can now experience a very moving depiction of Our Lord’s passion.

The original is available for those of us who can watch the brutality Our Lord went through for us and be, subsequently, humbled by His sacrifice. The recut version is available for those who can’t but still want to be moved in a deep way.

Yeah Mel!
 
If you check EWTN’s schedule for The World Over, you can find the interview with Mel Gibson. He said that he wanted to respond to the thousands of people who contacted him praising the film but saying that they wished their children or elderly friends & relatives had a somewhat less violent version to see. He said that nothing new was added & that a total of 5 or 6 minutes were cut. It still didn’t qualify for the PG-13 rating as the MPAA still considered it too violent - talk about irony.

I confess that I was disappointed at first & worried that Gibson was selling out, but then I talked to my mother & I understood his motive. She wanted to see it last year but she was concerned about her ability to withstand the most violent scenes, and she wanted to see it in the theater as opposed to renting the video. There must be a lot of people who, like her, will go ahead & see the re-cut as they were intimidated by the original version, so I now believe that his decision was a good one. I saw the original & I also admit that it took me a long time to summon up the courage to go myself, so I can identify with the people who asked him for a modified version. From what he described as the re-cut, I’m confident that he didn’t compromise the film’s message. He also kept emphasizing that his decision was in response to comments he got directly from the people, not his detractors.
 
40.png
JimO:
who haven’t seen it because of the “violence” who are reconsidering because it will be back in theatres.
Click to expand...
Well, it is actually violence, not “violence,” and I’ll be one of those who’ll go see it .

My wife was so repulsed by the sado-masochism of the original that she walked out of the theater, and I refused to see it on her experience.

I look forward to seeing it in a format suitable to more general audiences.
 
40.png
Richardols:
My wife was so repulsed by the sado-masochism of the original that she walked out of the theater, and I refused to see it on her experience.

I look forward to seeing it in a format suitable to more general audiences.
Click to expand...
Sado-masochism? You are right about one thing: the word “violence” should not be in quotes because the Crucifixion was truly violent. But to say that the film was sado-masochistic is really out of line. What do you think really happened at the Crucifixion? That the Romans beat our Lord with wet spaghetti & then duct-taped Him to the cross? The reality, the ultimate sacrifice upon which our faith is founded, was indeed violent, brutal, and ugly, and “The Passion of the Christ” is the first film to capture it. To equate it with sado-masochism, which is really a form of sexual perversion, is to characterize the real Passion and thus the essence of Christianity as such. Are you prepared to do that, as so many of the movie critics did?

I can understand you & your wife having problems with tolerating the visual depictions of the scourging & Crucifixion, but I regret to tell you that you will still have a hard time with the re-cut. Gibson himself said that while he tempered the scenes of the scourging, etc.somewhat, you will still see the horrible aftermath. I still shudder just from seeing the clips. I don’t fault anyone for not having the wherewithal to tolerate the violence, but I do fault those who call it sado-masochistic. That’s pretty much the same as calling it pornography - which, if I recall, is exactly what some of the reviews did.
 
40.png
JimO:
Could be that he wanted a PG-13 rating.
Click to expand...
He didn’t mention that in the interview, & they didn’t give it to him anyway. He said that essentially he would have had to remove every scene of Christ from the scourging onward to get the different rating.
 
40.png
stellina:
Sado-masochism? You are right about one thing: the word “violence” should not be in quotes because the Crucifixion was truly violent. But to say that the film was sado-masochistic is really out of line. What do you think really happened at the Crucifixion? That the Romans beat our Lord with wet spaghetti & then duct-taped Him to the cross? The reality, the ultimate sacrifice upon which our faith is founded, was indeed violent, brutal, and ugly, and “The Passion of the Christ” is the first film to capture it.
Click to expand...
Capture what? What Scripture said about the scourgings or Gibbson’s near-pornography?
To equate it with sado-masochism, which is really a form of sexual perversion, is to characterize the real Passion and thus the essence of Christianity as such. Are you prepared to do that, as so many of the movie critics did?
Click to expand...
Read John 19, Luke 23:16, Mark 15:15-20 and Matt 27:26-31 and compare it with Gibson’s depiction. I’ll follow the Gospel account and leave the graphic whippings to rough-sex homosexuals.
I don’t fault anyone for not having the wherewithal to tolerate the violence, but I do fault those who call it sado-masochistic. That’s pretty much the same as calling it pornography - which, if I recall, is exactly what some of the reviews did.
Click to expand...
Gibson dished up some sado-masochistic violence and it bordered on pornography according to many, including my wife, whose judgments I trust.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Capture what? What Scripture said about the scourgings or Gibbson’s near-pornography?

Read John 19, Luke 23:16, Mark 15:15-20 and Matt 27:26-31 and compare it with Gibson’s depiction. I’ll follow the Gospel account and leave the graphic whippings to rough-sex homosexuals.

Gibson dished up some sado-masochistic violence and it bordered on pornography according to many, including my wife, whose judgments I trust.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
stellina:
Your understanding of history leaves something to be desired - to say the least. For a fine, thoroughly documented treatment, please read “Pontius Pilate” by Ann Wroe - the text and bibliography includes several contemporary sources that would explain, perhaps even to your satisfaction, that scourging & crucifixion as practiced by the Romans were incredibly brutal and bloody forms of punishment. It was enough for the writers of the Gospels just to use the words “He was scourged” to strike terror into the hearts of their original audience. I’ve heard more than one priest (people who surely know the Gospels as well as you think you do) opine that “The Passion” might have even held back a little from the truth about what Christ suffered. It’s a free country & certainly nobody is forcing you to see it, but by calling it “sado-masochistic pornography”, you are implying that those of us who saw and acclaimed it are a bunch of cheap perverts. That’s just as bad as the openly anti-Catholic/Christian bile that passed for the average movie review last year and just as deeply insulting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top