My take on Mel Gibson's new Jesus movie, and his recent behavior

[thingfish]

THE CURIOUS CASE OF MAD MEL GIBSON

I hope you'll forgive yer old pal Jerky for wasting so many column inches on Mel Gibson's Jesus movie. I do so in the sincere belief that there's more going on here than meets the eye. Or less, depending on your point of view.

From the get go, this cinematic quest to accurately portray the final hours in the life of Jesus Christ has been a magnet for scandal. Early on, reports surfaced that the script contained controversial elements and characters not found in the bible. According to some, the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich - an anti-Semitic 19th century nun - played a role in shaping the narrative of Gibson's film.

When questioned, Gibson chose to protest too much rather than simply address the issue. It was clear, Mel claimed, that bigwigs in the "Anti-Christian" Liberal Media Establishment were "out to get" him, because… um… because the prospect of a historically accurate Jesus movie chilled them to their very bones! That's why!

Mel's hypersensitivity made many suspicious. And rightly so, it turns out, as a little digging uncovered some interesting and relevant facts. There was, for instance, Gibson's involvement with a traditionalist spin-off of the Roman Catholic Church. Gibson takes his religious faith so seriously that he single-handedly bankrolled the construction of a church for his "Holy Family" congregation. Whether parishioners are forced to wear Nike sneakers and drink Kool-Aid during communion, yer old pal Jerky has no idea.

And then there's Mel's father, Hutton Gibson. When journalists got a hold of Hutton and started asking him questions… Oy vey!

Back in the 1960s, Hutton was an avid Armageddonist who thought America was on the brink of Apocalyptic ruin. So he hauled his vast and growing brood - including Mel - to Australia, where they lived a happy, quasi-survivalist lifestyle, supported by Hutton's winnings from a big American game-show. Kinda puts the Road Warrior trilogy in a whole new light, doesn't it?

These days, the old man makes his son's character from Conspiracy Theory seem like PBS documentarian Ken Burns by comparison. In recent interviews, the elder Gibson freely discusses his belief that Kennedy was murdered by the Federal Reserve, that the planes flown into the Twin Towers were remote-controlled, and that the Holocaust never happened.

Strange cults… wacky survivalist upbringing… dad's nuttier than a Payday bar… Mel Gibson's credentials as a bona-fide cuckoo were starting to seem pretty impeccable. Clearly, there was fire under all that smoke.

Then, all of a sudden, he switched gears. Angry, accusing Mel became serene, beatific Mel. He started turning the other cheek, claiming to pity his poor, misguided critics. Instead of trying to sniff out scandals, Mel suggested, his attackers should be helping to bring attention to his film's moving and vitally important subject matter… because it's all about the Christ, after all. To reinforce this point, Gibson changed the title of his film from The Passion to The Passion of The Christ. Then he took his show on the road.

In Colorado Springs, he screened a rough cut for a sympathetic audience of religious leaders. In Nashville, he showed it to televangelists, the country music establishment and a handful of hicks, leading to the most unintentionally hilarious movie review of all fucking time.

In Washington DC, Mel screened his movie for a veritable 'Who's Who' of conservative opinion makers, precipitating a week-long deluge of highly sympathetic coverage on the right side of the nation's op-ed pages. Gibson's film became a conservative movement cause celebre. The fact that only a few small voices seemed to give any kind of shit about Mel's movie didn't prevent his increasingly militant phalanx of media defenders from launching an all-out frontal assault against them. Indeed, they redoubled their efforts and ratcheted up their rhetoric. Everyone from Jerry Falwell to Pat Robertson to Rush Limbaugh came to Mel's unnecessary rescue. Standard-issue accusations of "PC thuggery" were trotted out, despite nobody having suggested the movie be banned or censored in any way. Hints of zealotry and messianic fervor began to creep into the rhetorical mix. Incredibly, some who expressed concerns about Gibson's film were themselves accused of being part of an anti-Christian conspiracy. Thus did a vigorous defense against charges of anti-Semitism begin to slide into classical, old-school forms of anti-Semitism, itself.

On a number of levels, Gibson's relentless and innovative marketing campaign - making extensive use of alternative communications networks, going directly to the Christian Right and aggressively seeking out not only their patronage, but also their moral and rhetorical support - has been a smashing success. Many of the film's critics were unprepared for the ferocity of the organized reaction to their concerns, and were thus easily bullied into silence. Plus, with all the free publicity generated by the controversy, box-office prospects for The Passion of The Christ were starting to look pretty bright! It was time to seal the deal... It was time to call in the Big Guns.

A representative for Gibson's Icon Pictures was dispatched to the Vatican, where Pope John Paul II was treated to a private showing in return for an Ebert-worthy blurb - "It is as it was" - which His Holiness may or may not have said, depending on which Papal flunky you choose to believe. Then Gibson started telling people "the Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic." Along with the Father and the Son, of course, the Holy Ghost is part of the Holy Trinity, the tripartite manifestations which come together to form the One True God, kinda like how those five lions came together to form Voltron. Regardless, the point is that Mel Gibson was implying, in a roundabout way, that his movie was directed by the Lord God Jehovah, Himself. That's chutzpah on an epic scale!

At the time of this writing, things are definitely looking up for The Passion of The Christ, or, as I like to call it, "the little Jesus movie that could." One would like to believe there are limits to how far people will go to avoid answering honest questions. One would also like to believe that nobody, not even in the notoriously scummy movie industry, would be mercenary enough to play with the kind of fire Mel Gibson is playing with, here - at this dangerously volatile time in our species' evolution - simply to generate publicity and profits.

Unfortunately, Mel Gibson isn't making it easy for one to believe these things.

***************************************************

To read the most unintentionally hilarious movie review of all time, go: http://rense.com/general48/seeing.htm

[beawr]

1. Just Keep Repeating...

It's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie, It's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie, It's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie, It's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie, It's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie,

[thingfish]

2. So was Triumph of the Will.

Not that I'm comparing the two.

[UTUSN]

93. You Beat Me to It Right Out of the Gate

When the "reviewer" marveled about the emotional impact that a strip of magnetic film could have, it immediately brought to mind Triumph of the Will. I was going to say that Mel has a bright future as a wingnut propagandist. O'REILLY is proud to be his champion. Wingnuts love to latch onto somebody with greater cred or respectability than they have. O'REILLY duly mentions (boasts) that he's partners with Mel, that Mel's company bought an O'REILLY novel for potential movie.

As for the latching on part, LIMBOsevic, as he cruises up his own troubled waters, now loves to inject Michael JACKSON and Martha STEWART as being mistreated by "media Liberals", into whatever he rambles on about. Like he's in a priveleged group.

[thingfish]

97. Thank you so much...

...for not being an idiot! :-)

[UTUSN]

100. That's YOUR Opinion, haha.

There are plenty of my beloved DUers around here who do, indeed, think me an idiot--even a dastardly idiot, so beware of hanging with me. That said, your summary of Mel's pa and the whole background of the nun and the buildup to the making of the film was great, a very fairminded summary. At the bottom of the thread I added that the actor from SCORCESE's movie recently said Mel shouldn't be counting on gaining maximum audiences through controversy as such, that very controversial movies tend to go down the tubes, that above all movie viewers want to be ENTERTAINED, nothing more or less.

[thingfish]

101. I sincerely thank you for your support and understanding.

x

[Sterling]

3. I want to see it.

Before I form an opinion.

[thingfish]

6. I'm not saying you shouldn't...

...nor did I offer an opinion on a film I haven't seen. I was simply questioning Mel Gibson's tactics in defending/promoting his movie, and the trying to determine the sincerity/mercenary levels thereof.

[Must_B_Free]

4. This movie is Catholic truth versus Jewish truth

The crux of this iss ue is : Did the "Jews kill Jesus" as we have heard for so long.

In all likelyhood, they didn't as Jews weren't the ruling power at that time. Nor did the described proceedings follow messianic law. Also is was commonplace for the Romans to rewrite History and religion to suit their political cause.

[RapidCreek]

104. This is what I don't understand....

I thought Christs death was preordained by his father GOD. Jesus's death was scripted and those involved in it were operating via the will of his father. How can blaim for his execution fall at anyones feet unless one operates under the blasphemous concept that mans will can trump that of the "creator"?

RC

[aquart]

5. If Christ died for our sins, why do we have to worry about going to Hell?

Aren't we prepaid?

[thingfish]

8. That's a damn good question.

.

[CityZen-X]

7. Who Is The Maddest?

Gibson who you state, "Mel Gibson was implying in a roundabout way, that this movie was directed by the Lord God Jehovah.". Obviously your roundabout perception.
Who would you say is the Maddest, Gibson who works in the fantasy world, or Bu$h*t and Patterson, who claim that the GOD speaks directly to them?

[thingfish]

10. Want to try that again?

I couldn't quite discern your intended message.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thingfish]

11. Did you even read what I wrote?

Have you been following the story?

It's your opinion that there's no fire under all that smoke?

[beawr]

14. You know, this is a Controversial Film

And Mel wants it released and distributed. He's going to find himself a constituency for it. I believe that Marty Scorcese applied many of the same tactics to address the controversy over "Last Temptation of Christ"

If he wants converts to his particularly traditional Catholicism, I think he'll get about as many as John Travolta got for Scientology with "Battlefield Earth"

[supernova]

12. Reserving judgement until I see it

Perhaps it is a new "Triumph of the Will". Blech. Makes me sick to even type that.

Perhaps it is simply just a depiction of the gospel narratives using Latin and Aramaic. Interesting choice, since there are no native speakers anymore of either of those languages. Bottom line, we don't know what they sounded like as everyday spoken languages.

Regardless, since the Gospels are the interpretation of events from at least 3 different people 2 and 3 generations after the fact, the movie has to have some kind of synthesis of them if it is to be a coherent narrative.

I think it is in that synthesis of the material in which we will see Gibson's true thinking and whether or not he simply crucified Him all over again in the telling, without attaching any larger meaning.

[SpiralHawk]

13. The Passion Vs. The Da Vinci Code

This is where the most interesting action will take place.

the novel The Da Vinci Code was published in March, 2003 and already there are close to 7 million hardback copies in print -- and they get passed around a lot from reader to reader. A major motion picture is in the works, the paperback will be out soon, and thousands of women's circles are meeting in churches and homes across the fruited plains to discuss the obvious implications in the book.

To wit, the institutions of the Catholic Church and Christianity in general have systematically repressed the feminine aspect of divinity for over 2,000 years. The whole flipping YIN side of the spiritual equation has been deliberately subverted and denigrated, to perverse ends (witness the endless pedophilia scandals as the YANG side runs out of balance).

At any rate, when the passions engendered by The Passion meet the deep currents stirred by The DaVinci Code (and a thousand other Goddess influences), that is where the waters will roil -- and from those roiling waters, if we are true and lucky, may emerge a new and a saner spirituality.

In my view, such a new spirituality should include healthy relationship with the spiritual world free of institutional corruption. Each soul must be able to reckon with spirit freely, with the support of family, friends and associates. The inalianable soul right of free will would merit greater respect in all interactions. Manipulation and coercion would be recognized immediately as insults to and violations of other people's free will.

I think that's something we can hope for, and work toward as a next step of human liberation.

So mote it be.

[supernova]

15. I so hope this turns out to be true, SpiralHawk

and from those roiling waters, if we are true and lucky, may emerge a new a saner spirituality.

[thingfish]

16. Great. More mutating lies.

Just what the culture needs.

[supernova]

18. I don't know. I can't quite determine Gibson's motives yet..

To me at this point: Gibson is simply an independent film producer (albeit with a significantly larger budget than most indie films) trying to give his movie the best chance to find its audience. So he's screening it with sympathetic audiences first.

Eh. I may agree with it or not. But whatever I think about it, it'll be because of my direct experience of the film, not because I'm easily swayed by some goofball televangelist. Ricky Scaggs plays a mean fiddle, but I don't go to him to explain theology to me.

[SpiralHawk]

58. So, you "believe" the culture is static, thingfish

And that vision should be eliminated as a guide to the spirit of human culture? Urrrk. No comprende, hombre. How, flat, how dull, how material, how banal.

Could you possibly be a Lampedusian?

"If we want things to stay as they are,
things will have to change."

- Giuseppe di Lampedusa

[thingfish]

67. To the contrary. It is highly volatile.

Especially now. Which is why I think Mel Gibson is doing both his faith and the culture a grave disservice.

[scarface2004]

17. according to karl rove...

bush is jesus, problem solved!!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thingfish]

20. You have GOT to be kidding me.

.

[Edge]

21. I've always thought Mel Gibson was a whacko.

[camero]

22. More of tha same controversy

Pretty much the same was said about:

Jesus Christ Superstar
The Last Temptation of Christ
Bruce Almighty

Hard to make a film about Christianity these days.

[supernova]

24. Don't forget "Godspell"

Geesh. The fundies went around the bend over "Godspell." Now, they can't get enough of it. :eyes:

Good point camero.

[camero]

25. Didn't get to see that one

Maybe I should. Thanks for telling me. :)

[thingfish]

27. I think you're both missing the point.

You're talking about totally different issues, here. Sure, some people got upset over the theological implications or "sacriligeous content" of Jesus Christ Superstar, The Last Temptation of Christ and Godspell.

Mel's film is different. It seems to be geared towards and pandering to precisely those people who allowed themselves to be offended by those other movies. As such, Gibson is taking an antagonistic stance - both implicit and declared - towards the wider culture.

I fear that, for some people, The Passion of The Christ is intended to be be more than just a mere "movie."

[camero]

30. Any subliminal messages in it?

Like he's trying to brainwash us. :eyes:

It's simply a counter-attack so he can get his film seen. That's all.

[thingfish]

33. I guess there's no point in trying to get the blind to see.

Willful ignorance wins out every time. Good luck to you.

[camero]

34. I think you are trying to see things that are not there.

To convince others of your own opinion. I can filter out propaganda.
You should try it once. It's liberating.

[thingfish]

36. The first step to filtering out propaganda is identifying it.

That's what I was trying to do with Mel Gibson's shady shenanigans with the shock-troops of the organized Far Right in this country.

Unfortunately, doing so has gotten me accused of shilling for the ADL.

Go figure.

[camero]

39. The person doing the review

is also guilty of propaganda. Why would they not want this movie to be seen? Let us decide for ourselves, huh? :eyes:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. yeah because Mel Gibson is the big propaganda threat right now

Forget the Corporate Media, forget their coverups for Bush. The real threat is Mel Gibson's indie film about the Bible. Foxman called it anti-semetic before he even saw it.

If you want a conspiracy theory - the ADL must be working FOR Gibson, giving him so much advance publicity. The ADL is behing anti-semetic filmmakers!

Can't wait to go see it now.

[supernova]

40. No, I'm not missing your point

My answer is that I'll wait and see. And yes, partly based on what has happend with previous works. Initially villified and then later accepted.

The point is anytime anybody even mentions doing an artistic interpretation of the Jesus narrative, somebody will get their hackles up. The subject matter itself is inherently controversial. It's controversial if you're xtian (which interpretation are you using?), and it's controversial if you're not (how much of this fairytale is the general public gonna swallow?). Anybody who takes on this subject matter is on the hot seat no matter what.

Regardless, as with any other work, this is one person's vision. This time it happens to be Gibson's. As such, it will be open to wider scrutiny from outside the cozy confines of the xtian conservative community, in its general release. And that's a good thing. Passion will sink or swim on its own artistic and theological merits in our marketplace of ideas.

Sidebar: I sort wish he had called it "The Passion of Jesus". "The Christ" did not get attached to Him until afterwards.

[thingfish]

46. Yes you did, and this post proves it.

You write: "My answer is that I'll wait and see." Then you go on and on about artistic interpretations, and how any Jesus movie is bound to be controversial, yadda-yadda-yadda.

In other words, you missed the point.

You don't have to "wait and see." I passed no judgement on the movie, itself. It might be a cinematic masterpiece for all I know. My problem is with Gibson's willingness to tap into the potentially dangerous shock-troop mentality of the organized Far Right in this country, in order to defend and promote what is, in essence, a commercial property.

Why are so many DUers having a hard time understanding that simple, basic concept?!

[camero]

49. Maybe because we're not judgemental

Until we have ALL the info. It's called thinking for yourself.

[thingfish]

51. Whatever.

I've said what I had to say.

[camero]

53. Good for you

And you get to see your handle in print too. Oh boy.

[thingfish]

55. Print?

That explains everything.

[camero]

59. Should it be cursive?

I don't think they have a cursive font. :eyes:

[thingfish]

62. Are your eyes getting tired...

...from all the rolling?

[camero]

66. No, I just outed your depth of perception

That maybe words can have more than one meaning. But you're doing a good job of defeating you own argument on your own.

[thingfish]

68. Explain how, exactly.

.

[camero]

69. If you can't see that print has more than one meaning.

:eyes:

[thingfish]

75. That's not what I meant.

I meant explain how I've done "a good job of defeating you own argument on your own," as you stated.

Please explain in detail - referencing my words - exactly how I've defeated my own argument.

Heck, at this point, I'd be impressed if you could just explain exactly which argument of mine it is you think I'm undermining!

[camero]

78. Your personal attacks on others

Who do not agree with you. Calling people "blind" is not going to convince them of your point of view.

[thingfish]

82. ...have absolutely ZERO impact on the validity of my arguments.

x

[camero]

83. They have every impact

Noone will see my point if I call you a fat bastard.

[thingfish]

85. How did you know?!

x

[camero]

89. Lucky guess.

[supernova]

56. Ha. Ha. This is getting rediculous

You are not bothering to understand anything Cleita or Tinoir, or myself are telling you.

No, in fact he's not doing anything that unusual to market his film. Michael Moore first showed his films where they would be find a warm audience. Why isn't Gibson allowed to do that with a group that is initially guaranteed to be sympathetic to his vision?

I don't know. I can't see The Passion recieving a discussion/airing (for all the reasons I just mentioned in the other post) at say... Sundance this week. Cannes? Perhaps.

Or maybe The Passion will simply go the way of that loser of a film "Left Behind" with dorky Kirk Cameron.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

92. supernova exactly!

[thingfish]

95. I'm not failing to understand. I simply don't agree with your assesment...

...that there's nothing untoward about Mel Gibson's behavior in this case. I think there's plenty to fault him for, and I think it's setting a dangerous, polarizing precedent.

[Cleita]

23. There's the Mel Gibson one hears about from people

who have worked with him. This is the Mel Gibson who is kind to the crew, the Mel Gibson who likes to play practical jokes on his fellow actors and the Mel Gibson who exchanges dirty jokes with Jody Foster.

Then there is the other Mel Gibson that one reads about. This Mel Gibson who is involved with a religious cult, but then aren't other Hollywood personalities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta, who don't make a single move without permission from their religious gurus, in this case the Church of Scientology also involved with a religious cult?

I really don't understand the problem. Religious people will take what they want from this film, much as many did in the past from films like "The Ten Commandments", which many of us who weren't bible brainwashed found unintentionally funny. Will this film be the same? No doubt it will be, but I think there is much ado about nothing here.

After all he is only making a re-creation of an event many think happened two thousand years ago. He's not trying to convert the world to Christianity and from what I have read in the New Testament, the blame is a small group of Jewish priests who file a complaint with their Roman masters about him, not the whole Jewish nation. It is clear in the bible that the Romans executed him not the Jews.

So, I think it would be best to wait until you see the movie before you pass judgment.

[thingfish]

29. For the last fricking time, I DON'T GIVE A F*&K ABOUT THE G-D MOVIE!!!

I was simply questioning Mel Gibson's tactics in defending/promoting his movie, and the trying to determine the sincerity/mercenary levels thereof.

[Cleita]

31. I still don't understand the problem.

Why can't he promote his movies the same way everyone else does? Did he piss on your Pansies or something?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thingfish]

47. Thanks for the threat, Cleita.

Much appreciated.

[Cleita]

52. No threat from me, but your posts have broken several

rules. I think you should read them.

[thingfish]

54. But accusing me of secretly working for the ADL...

...that's acceptable, right?

[Cleita]

64. I didn't accuse you of that.

:shrug:

[thingfish]

76. Elsewhere's Daughter did.

Not you. Sorry if anybody thought that's what I meant.

[Bunny]

41. Wow! Great attitude!

Welcome to DU! :eyes:

[Touchdown]

45. Can I jump in here?

His problem with it, if I can glean into his meaning, and with Mel's actions... is that nobody in Hollywood goes to Jerry Fatwell for ANYTHING, much less an endorsement for a $100M movie. If I was a catholic, the last person I would want endorsements from is a man who thinks I'm in a Hell-bound cult, and calls me a "Mary-Worshipper".

Get his drift?

Gobson has always tried to sell his films with by making it more than it really is...Braveheart, with the gay bashing meme is another prime example.

[thingfish]

48. THANK YOU!!!!!!

I was beginning to think I was stuck in a bad re-run of the Twilight Zone or something.

[thingfish]

74. You're right about that.

If you understood the problem, you wouldn't have asked: "Why can't he promote his movies the same way everyone else does?"

Newsflash: The ENTIRE POINT of my article was to delineate the extraordinary and unprecedented ways in which Mel Gibson has promoted/defended his movie.

[camero]

79. You could say that about any movie

With a large advertising budget. Given the content, it's not surprising that he is defending his work. Any artist would.

[thingfish]

80. No, Camero. You could NOT say that about any movie.

x

[camero]

81. Yes you could

[camero]

87. All movies are screened to the target audience

http://users.aol.com/aleong1631/filmdis3.html

Word-of-mouth publicity is the most powerful form of promotion for films, particularly the upscale film. The audience segment responsible for generating word-of-mouth is the avid moviegoer, the 'early adopters' of the moviegoing public. Though they only make up 8% of the population, they see more than 24 movies per year, and as a result, purchase over half of the movie tickets sold. They also constitute up to 75% of the audience for a film in the first two weeks of release. Canadian distributors use two tools to pursue this segment to build positive word-of-mouth for their films: advance screenings and festivals.

Sampling is the technique by which tickets to sneak previews and premieres are given away. A film distributor would make a deal with a radio station (selected for its demographics to deliver the film's target audience) to provide a determined number of announcements inviting listeners to phone or write in to win tickets to a special advance screening (the distributor pays for the theatre rental and invitations, but not the air time).


All movie-makers do this. Since his target audience is religious it would be safe to say that you screen the movie with religious people.

[supernova]

88. The whole point of the article is that Gibson

is doing something unusual in his marketing tactics.

IMO, he really isn't being unusual. In so far as the attention to the fundies goes, The Passion follows in the footsteps of "The Omega Code" (Made with, marketed to, and seen by fundy evangelicals -- and starring Michael York(!?) ), and "Left Behind" (Ditto, 'cept starring the aformentioned Kirk Cameron). edit: You can find both of these at Blockbuster this very evening.

As far as the "I got my orders direct from GOd stuff"... well, deeply religious people talk like this. And so do creative people. When creative people get the ole juices flowing, they often talk in terms of just taking dictation or merely being a convenient vessel through which the information just flows. Again, not surprising that Gibson would combine the two.

As for the Pope, I fail to see what's so apocalyptic about an 87 yo man getting a preview.

Sorry, nothing about his marketing tactics is alarming to me at this point.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

94. whoah! talkin bout "PASSION"?why are you so "Passionately attacking Mel

and his motives for his movie ...it is NO secert that he is a devout Catholic....SO WHAT?...have a :beer:

:shrug:

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IowaBiker]

26. He's enjoying his freedom of speech and religion.

There is no law requiring him to answer your or anybody elses religious inquisitions.

We have Tom Jefferson to thank for that.

You want to produce a movie that reflects your own point of view, then do so.

You want to blither away and make Rush Limbaugh's job easy for him, then you're free to do so, too.

Enjoy your rights before Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft take them away.

As for anything being easy to believe, since when should matters of faith be easy?

--Brian

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selwynn]

65. There's also no law stopping me or anyone else from commenting on it

So get over yourself.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. I didn't find the review funny at all.

After watching what Christ went through for me -- I was ready to knock someone in the head!

Not laughing here...

[Tinoire]

37. Can't wait to see it. It's supposedy 100% per the Bible

That's all I care about. I loathe biblically inaccurate films about the life of Christ the same way I loathe other Hollywood films that mix fact with fiction when portraying someone's life.

It seems that the fact that Gibson stuck to the Bible is what has so many people frothing at the mouth. Let them froth. The book and the Word still stand.

Can't wait to see it. I have no problem with God or the Bible. I do have a problem with people who would want to erase and/or remake both.

It is interesting now to hear critics blaming Gibson for how he went about marketing it when he was simply forced to defend his film because the ADL raised such an unecessary hoopla about it and critics (with nothing much to criticize) started throwing in things about Mel's traditional beliefs which have nothing to do with the film.

I find the entire hoopla befuddling.

[Devlzown]

50. That's what I hear, too.

The movie is supposed to follow the gospels' account precisely. It seems to me that if a person is going to make a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus, the gospels would make the good basis for a script.

[Selwynn]

61. There is already a movie that does that: it's called Matthew --

And you don't get any more "close" the Bible, than having the only dialogue in the movie be scripture verses.

Anyone who says their movie is "exactly from the bible" and doesn't do that is lieing - its not "exactly" from the bible, its "exactly" one man's interpretation of the bible.

[Devlzown]

73. Is that movie as controversial as this one?

I'm not a Christian or anything. My parents took me to church when I was growing up, so I'm not ignorant about the Bible, but I'm not any particular religion at all now. Why is this film so controversial?

[Selwynn]

91. I'm not saying it is or isn't... I'm just skeptical of -

- claims to be 100% biblically accurate unless you are doing a word for word recreation of the text. Otherwise, there is a larger interpretive element there, which is not necessarily wrong, but should at least be acknowledged.

[FlaGranny]

70. You and me too.

Mel's ulterior motives for defending and/or promoting his film? I find that I care very little. Even if there were some dark motive behind his promotion of it, how many of us are going to fashion our existence based on a movie? If he has some evil plans that he is going to implement to force everyone to accept his brand of Christianity, then THAT would affect me and then I would care.

As someone above said, "it's only a movie." No matter what Mel's motives for making the movie and his methods of promoting the movie - it's still only a movie.

I too am befuddled by peoples' reactions to Mel's reactions to critics' reactions. ???

[supernova]

72. Individual interpretation

Is all anyone can do. Anybody who claims to have "the difinitive version" of the story is really blowing smoke. For every 100 people who read the Gospels you get 100 different stories.

I think people try really hard to hold up the concept of biblical inerrency, that the bible is factually correct down to every jot and tittle. Perhaps Gibson is one of those. His background leads me to believe he is. And the association with Falwell doesn't look promising either.

I'm about as far from biblical inerrency as you can get. However, in the spirit of trying to understand my more fundamentalist bretheren, I'll reserve judgement until I see it. I look to be surprised.

[Susang]

77. Problem is, which bible is he accurate to?

There are quite a few bibles running around out there. Which version is "accurate"? As far as I can see, it's all interpretation at this point, since even biblical scholars don't seem to agree which bible is the most "accurate".

I do understand the concern over his marketing strategy, as how often do you see movie makers who are known for their portrals of extreme and gratuitous violence (lets see, there's the Mad Max series, the Lethal Weapon series), naked asses (Mel's shown his bare butt in almost every movie he's made and indulged in some pretty hot sex scenes as well), and very un-christlike behavior on screen. For him to turn to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Now do you see the point that's trying to be made? It's not that the movie is a representation of the bible, it's the fact that Gibson is looking to the people who until The Passion, would condemn him for being a Catholic and would ban his movies for their violence and sex. He went to the Pope to get an opinion, when his sect of Catholism doesn't recognize the Pope and actively denounces him and his views.

Personally, I believe if this movie was indeed divinely influenced, then Mel would be using his own ridiculously large fortune to give it as a gift to the world. He wouldn't need to promote it if it were free, a donation to Christianity. But, as usual, it's more about commerce and making money than God.

[Selwynn]

57. This Just in! God's Review of "The Passion of Christ":

WTF, Mate?

[thingfish]

60. Sorry.

My bad.

[supernova]

63. LOL! Good one, Selwynn

:D

[TrogL]

84. Movie projectors use magnetic tape?

http://rense.com/general48/seeing.htm

I saw them wipe tears away, stir in their chairs at the impact that a piece of magnetic tape rolling through a projector had on them.

I thought they used celluloid.

[thingfish]

86. They use celluloid!

That's a big part of the hilarity!

[RandomKoolzip]

90. I am so embarrassed that I live in Nashville right now....

Thank fuckin' GAWD I'm moving to Chicago next week.....to hell with this pious pit of sanctimonious horseshit...

[UTUSN]

98. The Actor from SCORCESE's Movie Just Said

that Mel is on the wrong track with his previewing tactics, that the most controversial movies like SCORCESE's have gone down the tubes, that controversy doesn't link to reaching maximum viewers, that most of all movie viewers want to be ENTERTAINED.

[DrBB]

99. Faith means getting to beat people up

Great quote from the "hilarious review"--hope they run it as a blurb in the advertising:

"Better than an oxycontin rush!" --Rush
"I laughed, I cried, I was semi-comatose!" --Pope John Paul II
"After watching what Christ went through for me -- I was ready to knock someone in the head!" --Chonda Pierce

[petrock2004]

103. *sigh*

silly xtians...

i'm glad someone else caught that, thanks dr

[camero]

105. Mel's movies tend to make you feel that way.

I felt like that after seeing Braveheart and The Patriot.

[Malva Zebrina]

102. there is no history here--let us not adopt that meme

because the prospect of a historically accurate Jesus movie chilled them to their very bones!

There is no "historically acurate depiction of the death of Jesus, who in and of itself is conjecture that he even existed at all.

It is all based on hearsay and the hearsay words of witnesses which we do not even know existed and no one knows who wrote the narrative. Further, the narrative in the bible is full of inconsistencies. Very bad inconsistencies that hurt the eye and the ears of one who who can think.

Whatever anyone or whenever anyone, such as Gibson, wants to make a movie about it, it will all be conjecture. Any movie whether negative of positive is bound to be all conjecture because of all the vagueries and inconsistencies.

It looks to me, actually, that Gibson is trying to tweak his career and it seems to him that this might be the right time to do it since we have a religious maniac as a president and there is a lot of push toward dismantleing the concept of separation of church and state--something many of us consider holier than the vague depictions of a saviour who is used today to stand behing the wars, murder and killings of innocent people.

As an artistic endeavor, it may be entertaining. but it is not and cannot ever be considered historical/

There is no history behind this fable except for the confusing, fantasies , and the inconsistances written for effect, who knows what effect, in the bible.