Passion is being re-released

[Richardols]

stellina:

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.

It’s also enough for me. We don’t need the gratuitous “enhancement.”

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.

I called it sado-masochistic and it seems to be such. As I said, I went by my wife’s judgment. Keep in mind that that description is no reflection on the people who saw the movie, any more than seeing “Raging Bull” accuses the audience of being bloodthirsty.

 

[alekzander]

Richardols-Do you understand GOD could have chosen any way to redeem us and crucifixtion is what he chose? Is GOD a sado-masechist in your eyes? Do you know that Christ probably hung on the cross completely naked(no one really knows but it was a custom of Roman crucifixtions) I wonder what you would have said had Gibson not put a loin cloth on Christ. Christ was beaten and shamed because of what you and I have done in our lives…apparently you don’t get it.Crucifixtions were no picnic and i applaud Gibson for finally showing it how it really was…I walked out of that theatre humbled and saying"Who am I’ Man Lord". Apparently it doesn’t sink in for some people,that is sad! I will admit it is not a movie you watch and eat popcorn,but seeing it one time got the message ACROSS!

 

[mjdonnelly]

I think the representation of the scourging is very close to accurate.

I spent almost a year in GTMO with the Navy Reserves to provide security for the detainees. Towards the end there was alot of animosity against them, it didn’t matter of what they were there for. I was taken from my home and family because of those people and it was extremely hard to not start hating them.

Now with that, imagine being a legionairre (sp?), away from home for 9 years because of the Jews in Israel. Every time they turned around there was another uprising, and now they are told this “guy” is responsible for inciting the people there. I could see how they would be as brutal as possible and take out their frustrations on Jesus. If a person died in scourging who was already sentenced to death, their attitude was probably, oh well.

 

[MonicaPA]

My son & I went to see the 'Recut" version last night & I must admit that it is still a HARD movie to watch during the scourging scenes. But that is the intent & purpose, and it serves that purpose very well. Mel did a wonderful editing job though, & he has indeed made it more available to a wider audience.

I realized how blessed we all are to have this beautiful work available to us during our lifetime. It was such a beautiful experience to see & hear the truth up on the big screen for two hours. With all of the absolute trash out there in the secular cinematic world, it was humbling & profoundly moving to witness such a masterpiece again.

God Bless,
M

 

[OhioBob]

MonicaPA:

My son & I went to see the 'Recut" version last night …

Can you fill us in on what scenes were removed from the film? I would like to see the recut version, but it isn’t being shown anywhere around here. The closest theatre is about an hour away.

 

[MonicaPA]

OhioBob:

Can you fill us in on what scenes were removed from the film? I would like to see the recut version, but it isn’t being shown anywhere around here. The closest theatre is about an hour away.

Yes.

Please, if anyone has not seen the ‘recut’ version yet & does not want to hear about what is in the film…STOP READING here.

Mel said about 5-6 minutes of the scourging scenes were removed. I can’t verify the time of course, but it did seem that the more brutal scenes were missing from this version. You do still see a significant amount of the scourging though, it’s just that some of the moments are heard in the background or you know it’s happening but you don’t see all of it. Hope that makes sense.

Also, you will not see the nails actually driven into His palms in this version. You will see the nails, but only see the hammer raised & hear the sounds. The scene where the cross is flipped over is also removed from this version.

Other than that, the integrity of the film is absolutely there. It is still just as moving, IMHO, & my 12-yr old son was very thankful for having the opportunity to see the film.

M

 

[antiaphrodite]

i suppose it would help some people…

as for me, i’d take the uncut version any day!!!

 

[OhioBob]

MonicaPA:

Yes.

Please, if anyone has not seen the ‘recut’ version yet & does not want to hear about what is in the film…STOP READING here.
…

Thanks for the details. I was hoping they would cut out the part where the birds peck out the bad thief’s eyes. I never understood the purpose of that scene anyway. It always seemed unnecessary and gratuitous.

Anyway, if the recut version shows up nearby, I’ll give it a look. I already have the DVDs of the original (both formats), so I can see that whenever I feel the need.

 

[MonicaPA]

OhioBob,

Now that I think of it they did basically cut that scene out. You saw the crow land on top of the thieve’s cross, but you don’t see what happens after that.

M

 

[Richardols]

alekzander:

Richardols-Do you understand GOD could have chosen any way to redeem us and crucifixtion is what he chose?

Of course.

Is GOD a sado-masechist in your eyes?

Of course not, but an American filmmaker with an eye on the dollar might be willing to exploit extreme violence that comes close to sadism.

Do you know that Christ probably hung on the cross completely naked(no one really knows but it was a custom of Roman crucifixtions)

As you say, no one really knows.

Christ was beaten and shamed because of what you and I have done in our lives…apparently you don’t get it.

I don’t get it? How can you equate my faith with your apparent devotion to Mel Gibson and his use of violence?

Crucifixtions were no picnic and i applaud Gibson for finally showing it how it really was

Read Scripture and see what it had to say. It’s too bad that the writers of the Gospels aren’t the equal of “Mad Max” in relying on graphic depictions of violence to put across their message.

I walked out of that theatre humbled and saying"Who am I’ Man Lord".

Fine.

seeing it one time got the message ACROSS!

What message? I was raised and educated in the Catholic faith and my minor in college was Catholic philosophy. I didn’t need a commercial filmmaker to teach me my faith, and I don’t need to watch near sadism to appreciate what Christ did for me.

 

[stellina]

Richardols, you’ve made it quite clear that you’re “superior” to the rest of us, so perhaps you should move on. No one here worships Mel Gibson. Many of us admire him for bucking the Hollywood establishment and giving us a very moving account of the Passion, but that’s it. As many of the others have said, it was perhaps the first time in my life that I fully understood what my Redeemer endured for me - which. by the way, is after years of Catholic school, studying Scripture, and STILL not fully appreciating the magnitude of His sacrifice. As I said before, you’re entitled to your opinions but you have no business expressing them to insult those who disagree with you.

 

[stellina]

MonicaPA:

OhioBob,

Now that I think of it they did basically cut that scene out. You saw the crow land on top of the thieve’s cross, but you don’t see what happens after that.

M

Thanks for the report. My only quibbles with the film were that scene and the one with the goblin children chasing Judas - I thought they were a bit too theatrical in the horror-film sense. I’ve been wavering about seeing it again in the theater (since my parents have the DVD & I could see the original any time), & I think now that I just might go ahead & do that. You’ve satisfied my curiosity & I’m confident that the integrity of the original version wasn’t compromised. The visual impact was such that the big screen would be the ideal medium.

 

[Richardols]

stellina:

Richardols, you’ve made it quite clear that you’re “superior” to the rest of us, so perhaps you should move on.

Sure. May God forbid anyone from criticizing Gibson’s film!

it was perhaps the first time in my life that I fully understood what my Redeemer endured for me - which. by the way, is after years of Catholic school, studying Scripture, and STILL not fully appreciating the magnitude of His sacrifice.

Well, my Catholic studies did it for me; I am glad Gibson did it for you.

As I said before, you’re entitled to your opinions but you have no business expressing them to insult those who disagree with you.

I insulted no one. Scenes in the film seemed to border on the sadistic and I said so. So did many others. That is no reflection on the viewers who saw the movie or derived some benefit from it.

I would note that Gibson’s decision to excise parts of the film is an acknowledgement of the extreme violence that disturbed his potential audience.

 

[gilliam]

I think Gibson wanted to show us what is meant at Chruch when we talk about Christ’s agony on the cross. The Western world really doesn’t have a concept of what that means.

 

[stellina]

Richardols:

I called it sado-masochistic and it seems to be such. As I said, I went by my wife’s judgment. Keep in mind that that description is no reflection on the people who saw the movie, any more than seeing “Raging Bull” accuses the audience of being bloodthirsty.

If you weren’t so self-righteous, this comment would seem at list a bit sincere. Pornography is something that appeals only to a very base, disordered mind, and you have repeatedly called this film sado-masochistic pornography. It doesn’t take a graduate course in logic to understand what you’re implying, and it’s extremely insulting whether you admit it or not.

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

I think Gibson wanted to show us what is meant at Chruch when we talk about Christ’s agony on the cross. The Western world really doesn’t have a concept of what that means.

I think you exaggerate a bit. 19 centuries of Catholicism and no concept of Christ’s agony until Mel Gibson came along?

Don’t they have Stations of the Cross at your church? At my mother’s church in Brooklyn, NY, at the Polish services, those are translated “The Bitter Lamentations” and I don’t doubt that it is similar in other languages. I attended those services in both English and Polish and Christ’s sacrifice and agony were well explained and reflected upon.

 

[gilliam]

Richardols:

I think you exaggerate a bit. 19 centuries of Catholicism and no concept of Christ’s agony until Mel Gibson came along?

.

Westerners live in a sheltered environment. Look at the shock at beheadings. In Christ’s time, beheading was a merciful way to kill someone.

 

[Richardols]

stellina:

If you weren’t so self-righteous, this comment would seem at list a bit sincere. Pornography is something that appeals only to a very base, disordered mind, and you have repeatedly called this film sado-masochistic pornography. It doesn’t take a graduate course in logic to understand what you’re implying, and it’s extremely insulting whether you admit it or not.

I suggest that you show me where I referred to the movie as pornographic. Cite my statement.

As to sadistic, I don’t see how that is not an apt description of what those Roman soldiers were.

 

[stellina]

Richardols:

Sure. May God forbid anyone from criticizing Gibson’s film!

Well, my Catholic studies did it for me; I am glad Gibson did it for you.

I insulted no one. Scenes in the film seemed to border on the sadistic and I said so. So did many others. That is no reflection on the viewers who saw the movie or derived some benefit from it.

I would note that Gibson’s decision to excise parts of the film is an acknowledgement of the extreme violence that disturbed his potential audience.

You most certainly did. I’ll say it once and I’ll say it again, especially when you say you’re “glad that Gibson did it” for me & everyone else who happened to like the film. If the original version was so horrible and offensive, then why hasn’t it been withdrawn from the video stores? Ask those who saw the interviews with Gibson: he never intended the re-cut to be a replacement. Or will you rely on secondhand information for that as well?

Okay, I’m done. I’ll leave it to someone else to argue with you. It’s bad enough that we get this kind of thing from the secular press - at least we can expect it from them.

 

[Richardols]

stellina:

You most certainly did.

I have about six posts on this thread and I did not call the film “pornography.” Unless you can cite where I did.

If the original version was so horrible and offensive, then why hasn’t it been withdrawn from the video stores?

Is there anything sufficiently horrible and offensive to be withdrawn from video stores? Outside of child pornography, anything can get a showing in American theaters, howsoever violent.

Ask those who saw the interviews with Gibson: he never intended the re-cut to be a replacement. Or will you rely on secondhand information for that as well?

Were we discussing his intention in making the recut? I have no idea whether it was to be a replacement.

It’s bad enough that we get this kind of thing from the secular press - at least we can expect it from them.

Oh, Catholics aren’t allowed to criticize the movie?