First critical reaction to "The Passion"...

[regnaD kciN]

...so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/movies/25SCOT.html


No child should see this movie. Even adults are at risk. Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/moviereviews/story/167446p-146309c.html


"THE PASSION of The Christ" by Mel Gibson is an obscene movie. It will incite contempt for Jews. It is a blasphemous insult to the memory of Jesus Christ. It is an icon of religious violence.

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2004/02/24/an_obscene_portrayal_of_christs_passion/


A profoundly medieval movie, yes. Brutal almost beyond powers of description, yes. More obsessed with capturing every holy drop of martyr's blood and sacred gobbet of flesh than with any message of Christian love, yes.

http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=5338


The Passion of The Christ is an evangelist's movie: It wants you to confront the depths of Jesus' suffering, until your only choice is to embrace him as the Messiah. But Gibson's zeal is so all-consuming that he makes it too easy to turn him off, to slam the door in his face and send him and his Bible packing to the house next door.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/special_packages/passion_of_christ/8028323.htm


This dark night of the soul becomes something closer to a biblical night of the living dead.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0402240015feb24,1,1637213.story?coll=chi-leisuretempo-hed


Gibson, as director, producer and co-writer, is fetishistic in his depiction of the pain Jesus suffered during the last 12 hours of his life. The beating and whipping and ripping of skin become so repetitive, they'll leave the audience emotionally drained and stunned.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/022404a_passion


But Gibson ultimately seems to be preaching to the choir, rejecting standard storytelling conventions such as introducing his characters, assuming his audience already knows everything he's about to tell us. (It was widely reported that Gibson originally considered releasing the film, in which the actors speak Aramaic and Latin, without subtitles.) And his fixation on horrendous violence robs the audience of what should be the whole point of the movie: the character of Jesus, as both Messiah and man.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2001864252_passion25.html


Despite Gibson's claim that he's finally telling "the true story," his movie strikes me as being much less faithful to the Gospels than the earlier Christ movies. It's crammed full of scenes and dialogue and minor characters that he's completely made up. His screen is loaded with special-effects demons and maggot-crawling corpses and Fellini-esque characters that are not even implied in Scripture. If they were alive, I think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would be looking for a good entertainment lawyer.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/161901_passionq.html


Gibson's 'Passion' is bloody empty. Controversial film simply 2 hours of brutality, gore.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4360578/


From a purely dramatic point of view, the relentless gore is self-defeating. I found myself recoiling from the movie, wanting to keep it at arm's length—much the same feeling I had watching Gaspar Noe's notorious "Irreversible," with its nearly pornographic real-time depiction of a rape. Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering, or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins. Others may well find a strong spirituality in "The Passion"—I can't pretend to know what this movie looks like to a believer—but it was Gibson's fury, not his faith, that left a deep, abiding aftertaste.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4338528/

[Corticoline]

1. But what else would you expect of Hollywood movie critics?

After all, they panned "It's a Wonderful Life" in 1946, "Miracle on 34th Street" in 1948, and "Ben Hur" in 1959. And these movies are all pretty much cultural icons.
"The Passion" will be a wildly successful movie despite the negativity of the Hollywood establishment press machine.

[Bridget Burke]

3. Not entirely true...

"It's a Wonderful Life" became well-loved, especially since it was out of copyright for so many years & TV stations could run it at Christmas for almost no money. "Miracle on 34th Street" is a bit saccharine.

"Ben Hur" is a leaden, overblown epic. I do enjoy the story Gore Vidal told--Stephen Boyd (Messala) couldn't find the motivation for his character becoming such an implacable enemy of Ben Hur & his family. Gore posited that Messala & Ben Hur had previously been lovers. Ben Hur didn't wish to continue that aspect of the relationsip; Messala was angry. They didn't tell Charlton of this background to the characters--even before his dementia, he was never very bright. Watching the film with this in mind does make it a bit amusing. As a kid, I did enjoy the spectacle, but thought the post-crash Messala looked horrible; I bet that was your favorite part.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Bridget Burke]

17. But you said it's a "cultural icon"

How can you not have seen it?

[saigon68]

13. It will desensitize children to violence

That must have been what affected CHIMPANZEE McSHRUB.

That is why the ape needs shock and awe to obtain arousal.

[OneBlueSky]

14. one more time . . . it's all about context . . .

portraying the crucifixion in this savage way without the context of the Christian message of love, compassion and redemption leaves nothing but ugliness, brutality, and the self-indulgence of Mel Gibson . . . I'll pass . . .

[regnaD kciN]

28. Not true at all...

Despite the myth that It's a Wonderful Life was a flop upon its release, the fact is that it got very good reviews and a number of Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture.

Likewise, "Ben-Hur" drew largely raves when it came out.

(Don't know about "Miracle on 34th Street.")

By the way, it's a little prejudicial to knock a selection of critics from papers across the country as "Hollywood movie critics" (undoubtedly meant to bring up images of the "Hollywood liberal elite"...which, of course, if often used as a euphemism for "Jewish").

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. of course you're right

The Corporate Media doesn't like he Passion. Why would they?

[DrWeird]

41. Here lies a disruptor...

nt

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. One consistent theme I noticed throughout was the fixation on violence.

As opposed to the actual message of Christ. I think that should be a red flag to anyone regarding the motives of this movie.

[mediaman007]

4. Thanks for putting all of this together J.D.

I just finished reading "The DiVinci Code." It seems to me that the "truth" maybe a lot more illusive than most people realize.

While I attend a church, and I am "God fearing," I also feel that I do not know enough about the Bible, Christ and the Church. I have a hard time believing that "God's Word" is given to us by a select few. Christ was the Son of God. All of his followers are mortal. Each is capable of the range of human good and bad.

So I "get" the the idea behind "DiVinci" and can't accept Gibson's effort as the Gospel.

But it is entertainment, isn't it. What a cool way to make money. Capitalize on the World's Christian zealots. Perhaps we can have another film which capitalizes on "DiVinci" viewpoint.

[DennisReveni]

7. Try the original

"I just finished reading "The DiVinci Code." It seems to me that the "truth" maybe a lot more illusive than most people realize"

So now go back and read the books that started it all, Holy Blood Holy Grail by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh.
That is what DiVinci is based on.

[mediaman007]

10. I guess I have my summer reading

Thanks

[DennisReveni]

21. A couple of others.

Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh did a whole series that Ended with The Temple and The Lodge. All worthwhile reading.
Their idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen ( sp) was used in The last Temptation of Christ. Well, maybe they didn't come up with it, but I only know of it through their work.
The Messianic Legacy Is the second, The Temple and the Lodge, third and I have never read this one, DEAD SEA SCROLLS DECEPTION.

One of the interesting claims they make in Temple and the Lodge is that Friday the Thirteenth fear was due to the fall of the Templars. The Templars had a banking system allowing for safe commerce across great distances.
"Without a warning on Friday morning of October 13th, 1307, the date specifically selected for the symbolism of the evil of the original Good Friday, the agents of the King of France seized and imprisoned all Templars they could find in the country on suspicion of heresy. Within the next seven years, out of the one hundred and forty knights arrested in Paris, thirty-six died under torture in that city alone, fifty-six were burned at stake, and many more faced life imprisonment. Within a mere decade one of the most distinguished, respected, and wealthiest organizations in European history perished into oblivion."
Thus ending safe commerce.

[muchacho]

5. What is the friggin big deal?

I'll pass on Gibson's "Passion...", not my cup of sacrament.

For entertaining mythology might I suggest Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy? Now that's something to worship!

;)

[DennisReveni]

6. I smell Oscars

Best picture, Best Director, multiple Oscars for Mel.

[OneBlueSky]

12. not a snowball's chance in hell . . .

won't even be nominated . . . take it to the bank . . .

[Bridget Burke]

18. I smell something, too.

But it's not Oscars.

[LeftHander]

44. And the Oscar for best torture scene....

The Passion of the Christ...

Accepting the award is Mel Gibson....his second the first being Braveheart!

[HydroAddict]

8. Where are all the fundies?

The ones always bitchin about graphic imagery of the entertainment industry being the downfall of mankind?

Oh, I guess it doesn't apply since it's THEIR story being told. sheesh. Freaking hypocrites.

But to be honest, I really wanna see this movie now. I sometimes like the violent ones (Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, etc.), esp on the big screen.

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. They're Waiting for the Rapture

I kind of like to see it too. But I think I'll wait for HBO.

Given the extreme violence, at least I don't have to worry about having it become an Easter tradition on TV with mandatory viewing...yet.

[anarchy1999]

9. Love your "Echelon Bop"

n/t

Can I share it?

[regnaD kciN]

29. Go right ahead...

:evilgrin:

[Junkdrawer]

16. The Limbaugh inspired coalition between Fundy Christians and..

Fundy Jews will definitely be strained by this movie. Terrible, just Terrible.

[Sgt. Peppers]

19. I loved it. (special viewing) But have you seen it yet?

My point is, why hate it, if you have not viewed it.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. None of these critics seem to understand what

Mel and his cast were doing in making this film.

One says "violence robs the audience of what should be the whole point of the movie: the character of Jesus, as both Messiah and man."

NO, NO, NO! The POINT of the movie is to illustrate the SACRIFICE of Christ and its meaning for all humanity. Illustrating the character of Jesus, as both Messiah and man, would be a different movie.

It's important to judge a film for what it IS, not for what you WISH FOR, or would be more COMFORTABLE with.

The whole message of the Passion story -- whether in this movie or in a play of painting -- could be summed up with one Gospel verse:

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that all who believe in Him will not die but will have eternal life."

The Passion is about sacrifice, not about what Jesus taught, except that he said he would die for all.

Another critic calls Gibson's film "an icon of religious violence." From what I've read about it, it is supposed to be an icon, in the sense that the Eastern Church (Orthodox) has always used icons as representations of truth, but an icon of sacrifice, not violence.

I'm sure the film is brutal because crucifixion is a brutal form of execution.The condemned were scourged until they were half dead. Only then were the nine inch nails driven through their hands and feet to attach them to the cross. The victims of crucifixion could hardly breathe because of the weight of their body pulling down while their hands and feet were attached. If they didn't die quickly enough, the soldiers broke their legs to make their bodies pull more on their arms, making them suffocate more quickly. I imagine Mel showed this, and the soldiers deciding Jesus was dead already but sticking a spear in his side to make sure.

Painters and sculptors and writers have graphically portrayed Christ's suffering for centuries. A critic on CNN last night assured Paula Zahn that painters hadn't depicted the crucifixion with so much violence, which showed that the man knew little about art history.

One critic made a particularly revealing comment:

"Others may well find a strong spirituality in "The Passion"—I can't pretend to know what this movie looks like to a believer—"

I don't know that you'd have to be a believer to find spiritual meaning in this film, but I think you probably have to be open to experiencing it as possibly having a spiritual meaning. If you already have a negative attitude about the topic of Christ as sacrifice, or about Gibson, you'd probably waste your time and money to see it.

[regnaD kciN]

30. Maybe they did "know what they were doing"...

...but, and I say this as a Christian cleric, I ain't buyin' what Mel's sellin'.

And if I have no desire to see two hours of Jesus-as-divine-punching-bag, I would doubt that many people without prior religious beliefs will want to either...unless (like Alex in A Clockwork Orange) they get off on seeing Jesus tortured.

As I said in another thread, I have no doubt that this will appeal to already-convinced Christians of a certain emotional bent -- just as "A Doctor Looks At The Crucifixion" seems to gain a number of devotees with its clinical summary of the tortures inflicted on Jesus. But, since Mel's publicity campaign has dealt heavily with the notion that The Passion is "the best outreach opportunity in the last 2,000 years," I would assume that what he thought he was doing was making a film that would win converts to his faith. And, personally, I don't think that a movie that appears to be an exercise in ultra-violence with little characterization or portrayal of Jesus pre-Gethsemane is going to do the trick. As I pointed out earlier, the most I would expect from non-Christians would be the sort of sympathy one might feel for a particularly horrific mugging or murder victim, but not anything that would make you want to commit your life to him. At worst, I would think that the extreme and unremitting brutality described in the reviews would make those who were not yet believers become disgusted with Christianity for its apparent savagery and fixation on blood and violent death. So, in short, if Mel and Company were only making the film for believers, they might be said to succeed or fail depending on the reaction of such an audience. If, however, they were truly imagining this film as a tool for evangelism, I would suggest that they made a hideous miscalculation.

[Rich Hunt]

42. it's supposed to portray a 'sacrifice'

...that doesn't mean he does so effectively.

There are many, and more subtle ways to portray such a thing besides showing gallons and gallons of gore.

[Sgt. Peppers]

22. Why does this stuff not get locked out?

What was this post ment to do? Insight a loving conversation, of make a point about Christians? Never mind I get it.

[Lars39]

23. Why should it be locked?

Just because you don't want any criticism of the movie or Mel Gibson or the fundies who drag their kids to see a very violent movie?

[Forkboy]

24. You're just mad because your own silly thread got locked

[SaddenedDem]

25. Typical behavior

Look, your buddy, Mel, opened the door to this conversation and the fundamentalists are inviting everyone in.

The conversation turns to the violence, the gore, the misconceptions and you want to slam the door in the face of those who disagree with you.

Just because you don't like the light being shed on the objective of the movie (recruiting more fundamentalists) doesn't mean you'll be allowed to close the discussion.

[Az]

26. This is not about Christianity

This is about a film that may have a very strong social impact on our society. Or it may flub. The imagery and impact of this movie are based on its violence. Unlike a typical hollywood film that simply uses violence to raise the titilation factor this movie uses violence to insense people. Without the message of love and peace being stressed this could well insite people to hatred and violence. Or it may simply be seen as a movie. The trouble is we do not know how it will be taken. But there are bus loads of church goers complete with children ariving at the theaters right now to watch this thing. I fear what may come of this. Children already seek what differences they can find to pick on their fellow children about. Add this level of violence and a difference of opinion and what may result?

[Bridget Burke]

27. Some Christians have come out against the movie.

Mel's not even representative of mainstream Catholicism. Many US Catholic churches were built in the 19th century by immigrants and filled with religious art in questionable taste--shipped over by the boatload from Europe. Here's an example from the Franciscan Monastery in Washington DC:


(Not that I have anything against the Franciscans--they've been doing good work for centuries--it's just that the garish reliefs in the monastery church are a bit old-fashioned. If you visit, tour the reconstructed Catacombs--really cool!)

The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception--not far from the monastery--is a more recent example of Church architecture. It's neo-Byzantine, with Christ in gold-mosaic glory:


You can find the Stations of the Cross in the Basilica, but the dominant image is the Risen Christ. Of course, all the images of Him are outnumbered by those of his Mom--Mel's new fundy pals would probably get a bit nervous. Drop by when you visit DC.

[DrWeird]

34. Wow, look at the Buddhist influences.

Looks like the First Amalgamated Church from Futurama.

[rocktivity]

31. The road to Mel was paved with his good intentions

...relentlessly focused on the savagery...
...Brutal almost beyond powers of description...
...It wants you to confront the depths of Jesus' suffering...
...biblical night of the living dead...
...simply 2 hours of brutality, gore...
...the relentless gore is self-defeating...
...Gibson...is fetishistic in his depiction of the pain Jesus suffered...
...(His) fury, not his faith...
...(His) zeal is so all-consuming...
...his fixation on horrendous violence...

Haven't seen it and never intended to, but I'm not surprised. The way he was hyping the movie, Gibson was literally martyring himself--"they hate me, they hate me, because I'm telling the truth!" Just because the movie is about Christianity, does that mean it's infallible and beyond criticism? It sounds like he was so busy trying to make a instant epiphany of a movie that he forgot, or didn't feel obligated, to make a interesting one. And it certainly doesn't sound like something a child should see. Is the fact that it's the Messiah being ground up instead of a top-heavy blonde supposed to make it okay?


rocknation

[JPZenger]

32. Well-written review in Philadelphia Inquirer

Here is a great review of the movie "The Passion." It seems as if Gibson was so obsessed with the pain and the suffering, he forgot to leave time for the teachings, hope and the redemption.

One movie theater owner said "Don't take your kids. If this movie wasn't about Christ, we'd be calling it a horror flick."

http://ae.philly.com/entertainment/ui/philly/movie.html?id=125346&reviewId=14449

[oneighty]

33. I got a feeling deep inside

that Murdock has a finger in this pie and a few dollars. This is all politics, not God stuff.

IMHO.

180

[Lars39]

36. If Murdock is backing Gibson, it's probably with his own money.

"Mel's usual distributor, 20th Century Fox, owned by media mogul Rupert Murdock, has turned him down flat. None of the other studios will back it."

http://www.ocmetro.com/metro111303/viewpoint111303.html

[oneighty]

40. I had no idea

there really was a connection! Interesting. Thanks.

180

[Bridget Burke]

35. Houston Chronicle gives it an "F"

"We've known for some time that Mel Gibson has a martyr's complex. In film after film, he's subjected himself -- or, rather, his characters -- to gruesome tortures that stretched past the point of entertainment. He threw himself into these pummelings, disembowelings and symbolic crucifixions with such fervor we saw a deep-seated need we dared not question. It felt private, embarrassing to watch.

"Let us pray that making The Passion of the Christ helped him work through those issues. It's a stylish and visually polished re-creation of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus -- unrelieved suffering and martyrdom, in other words. Controversy over whether it will inflame anti-Semitism guarantees huge audiences, and many people may be profoundly moved. But as a film it is quite bad."

Read the rest here:

www.chron.com/cs/CDA/moviestory.hts/ae/movies/reviews/2418357

NOTE: The same reviewer gave "Gigli" a C-.

[Suspicious]

37. An acquaintance of mine attended

a special viewing, and of course, I had to ask him - how bad was it (referring to the violence)?

When I saw Braveheart, I had to walk out several times during the film, and I left that evening feeling downright disturbed, emotionally. From my Braveheart experience, I know that Gibson has a knack for depicting violence with such unnerving realism as to leave a definite emotional impression, one which has not left me to this day. I still can not watch that film, though I thought it was a remarkable story. I wondered how Passion compared.

The acquaintance informed me that this film blows Braveheart out of the water in the violence department, and that I would be wise not to waste my money if I found Braveheart disturbing.

If it is, indeed, that graphic - I can not begin to imagine allowing young children to view it.

I guess I will be stuck waiting for it to be released on DVD, so I can (attempt to) watch it in the relative comfort of my own home (where I can run out of the room whenever I feel the need to - without disturbing everyone else!). :)

[SaveElmer]

39. You are only showing one side

I have seen plenty of good reviews too:

Ebert and Roeper, Washington Post, CNN, Rolling Stone among others

[JohnOneillsMemory]

43. Blood Works. Humans react. 10,000 Iraqis and 540 GIs up on crosses...

We are stuck with the enormity of the efforts to create a Hitlerian theocracy that displaces humanist democracy so let's use the 'Passion' of THOU SHALT NOT KILL against the PNAC cabal who are just trying to inflame their base of support with religious issues.

Imagine the public reaction to seeing Lord Bush's carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This illustrates the point that people have empathy for the
humans that they can actually see, not abstract numbers of foreigners being hidden from view by the corporate press.

What if we take the horror and resensitivity to suffering (last seen on 9/11) and make it an anti-war film, the way the teachings of Jesus would lead us?

The theaters showing this movie would be good places to hold demonstrations and link murder with war. Imagine the symbiosis!!