Globe and Mail Review of 'The Passion.....' Posted without comment.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040225.wpassion0225/BNStory/Entertainment/

Milton knew it, Michelangelo knew it, but Mel Gibson has got it ass-backwards — the rule that even artists who are inspired by their religion must still be guided by their art. So where Gibson first goes wrong in The Passion of the Christ (and he later goes badly wrong in all sorts of ham-fisted ways) is in starting with an unquestioned belief that his tragic hero is divine. Now, that belief may be a comfort to him, and to many others; properly handled, it might also make for a great film. But the handling is crucial, because art has obligations that religion does not: It must explore Christ's character, and dramatically establish both his heroism and his divinity. Neither can be assumed. If they are, if aesthetic rules get trumped by dogmatic assumptions, then what's left is not a movie but a piece of catechism. Yet that's not nearly the worst of it — in this case, the catechism is so obsessively and so graphically bloody-minded that it comes perilously close to the pornography of violence.

Indeed, if you're a non-believer and bring to this non-movie none of Gibson's faith, this is essentially what you'll see: (1) In the first few minutes, a man called Jesus, claiming to be the son of God, gets arrested for blasphemy; (2) For the next two hours straight, the same man gets beaten and beaten and beaten again, scourged and flagellated with whips and chains, so savagely that his face and entire body become a striated mass of red pulp, whereupon, in continued gruesome close-ups, his hands and then his feet are nailed to a wooden cross, on which he suffers further agonies until his merciful death; (3) In the last 60 seconds, the man is glimpsed beside his empty tomb, restored to pristine health save for a stigmatic hole through his right palm.

Okay, you've got the body and you've definitely got the blood, but, as plot lines go, that alone makes for pretty thin gruel. Apparently, this is a story, set in Palestine two millennia ago, that recounts the last 12 brutal hours of a convicted man's life. But who is this pathetic victim, and is there a reason to care? There isn't, because Gibson gives us none, expecting (assuming) that we'll provide our own.

[Frank_Person]

1. a pre-emptive strike should be forth coming. WWBD

What Would Bush Do.

[NashVegas]

2. Not to Be Defensive, But

I strongly disagree with this statement:

"art has obligations that religion does not. It must explore Christ's character, and dramatically establish both his heroism and his divinity."

Art has one obligation: to adequately express whatever it is that the artist is trying to get across. A blockbuster movie, on the other hand ...

(FYI, I'm not terribly interested in seeing the movie, but at some point I'll be forced to.)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. "Art" as in the art of filmmaking...

does indeed have to tell/show us something about the protagonist, about who he is, what has made him that way -- we have to know these things in order to be involved with a character, to care about him and what happens to him. Without that connection to the character, the emotional pull of a film is lost. You generally also need some sort of dramatic/narrative arc to a story, otherwise the film runs like a rollercoaster with no drops, turns, or loops. In other words, boring. Andy Warhol's 8 hour film of someone sleeping has been called "art", but was it interesting? Did it make you care about the character sleeping? Did it pull you in emotionally?

From the many reviews I've read, many of the critics are pointing out that -- take out the gore, take out claims of anti-semitism, take out the director's background -- Mel just didn't make a good FILM, that his skills a director were just not there in the telling of "the greatest story ever told".

It appears Mel was simply too close to his subject to make a genuinely good film about it.

[NashVegas]

18. No We Don't

we have to know these things in order to be involved with a character, to care about him and what happens to him.

You're talking about traditional US-style commercial movie making for the less imaginative masses who've been taught to think they have to know those things. That's not art, that's technique. Many great films offer character backgrounds, most great films do. That however, does not necessitate that you do. There are several great film characters who remain enigmas - TE Lawrence is one example - throughout the picture, yet hold our interest.

Art is not obligated to make one think (although it's a nice bonus), it's obligated to make one feel. Art belongs to the senses, not the intellect.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. Art without intellect?

All emotion and no thought?

Not my kind of art.

And who said anything about "US-style commercial movie making for the less imaginative masses". There is plenty of good filmmaking out there that can "walk and chew gum" at the same time -- have emotional pull and intellectual challenge, and do so without resorting to the above mentioned dreck. "Breaking the Waves" is a great example of that. "Lost in Translation" also. A great director can tell you everything you need to know about a character/a situtation with little more than shorthand -- from all I've read Mel doesn't have the skills to do shorthand very well.

As for Lawrence -- he was meant to be an enigma, it wasn't that he ended up one because of the director's lack of skill. And with that the film STILL had character development, a dramatic arc, a context, etc. that kept you invested in the film.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

3. Interesting point from CBC review I didn't see elsewhere...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_browndan/20040225.html

More about the gore later. I'd be remiss if I didn't first address the most contentious aspect of the film, the so-called "blood curse." This is the line - "His blood be on us and our children" - attributed in the Book of Matthew to a Jewish mob, and taken by some to be a blanket condemnation of Jews for the killing of Jesus. According to some news reports, Gibson had initially included the line in his movie, then thought better of it and had it excised.

When I attended a press screening, I watched carefully to see if this was indeed the case. I saw no evidence it had been retained.

Afterwards, however, I spoke with a couple of people who understand Aramaic (the movie is entirely in Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles). They said the line had been spoken, but it had not been subtitled. If this is the case, it seems to me like a weaselly compromise on Gibson's part: to Biblical purists, he can say he was being faithful to the source material; to those who have accused him of being anti-Semitic, he can say he tried to avoid fostering hatred against Jews.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. Toronto Star Review - Not good.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1077664212870&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630

The brute piety informing Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ insists not only that there is something spiritually uplifting in witnessing the meticulous, lash-by-lash and nail-by-nail re-enactment of the Messiah's physical torture and crucifixion, but that we share in the experience as closely as contemporary movie technology makes possible.

Every inch of Jesus' earthly flesh is ripped in this movie in full surround sound, and every drop of blood spilled with digital realism.

Because the film so lavishly — I would even call it perversely — relishes in the real-time spectacle of inflicted pain and ripped flesh, His pain and ours are unavoidably and mercilessly synched.

But for what purpose? As unavoidably deliberate as this strategy of shared on- and off-screen torture is — the movie opens with a quote from Isaiah 53 that concludes "By his wounds we are healed" — the sheer systematic brutality of its unfolding will also act as the axe by which responses to this singularly blunt viewing experience will be split.

If yours is a spirituality, as Mel Gibson's must certainly be, based in the presumption that salvation is only possible after suffering, you might well find something like grace lurking in Mr. Gibson's dark and bloody spectacle. If not, you're in for one of the most unremittingly cruel movie experiences this side of the (considerably less pious and certainly more fun) remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

[teknomanzer]

5. With all the hype and controversy surrounding this movie...

what if it just turn out to be a stinker? What if the film just plain sucks? The last Gibson movie I saw (directed by him) was The Patriot. That movie stank. It was a period flick with an over abundance of bloody violence. What if the Passion is just more of the same?

Also I think the idea of focusing on the death part just brings up the old question concerning Jesus. Which is more important the teachings of the ministry of Christ or the sacrifice of God's only son? In my opinion the sacrifice would be meaningless without the ministry. That may become evident to anyone watching this movie.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. I am concerned that Gibson is only interested in portraying Christ

as an Action Hero who could Take It. That worries me.

[Az]

7. Human psychology hinges on doubt

We do not know what may come of this movie. We do know that religious fervor has been responsible for much pain and suffering in the past. We know that the passion has a history of imflaming this violence. We know that this is the most violent and bloody version of the story ever told. We hope that people are civilized enough to not turn to violence but we fear they might. And it is this doubt that causes us to discuss the matter and voice our concerns.

[truth2power]

13. I share your concern, AZ

Our local paper has already run pictures of distraught people being comforted by relatives after having seen the movie. (a pre-screening, I think) This behavior is being hyped to the extreme.

And no one here has mentioned that one can now purchase nails on a chain, sold at christian bookstores according to what I've seen on the news.

I have a bad feeling about this. I have witnessed, in my own community, what happens when the Fundies get stirred up over some alleged insult to Jeezus. And it isn't pretty.

I don't mean to minimize the anti-semitism issue, but I think that's only part of it. The religious fervor you describe could easily get out of hand, and in that event you won't have to be Jewish to be targeted.

I think I'm gonna bookmark this thread for future reference.

BTW, I saw Gibson's interview and he acted like he was on something....don't know what. And the film clips they showed were, IMO gratuitously bloody.

[pink_poodle]

10. Look at these cultures where the men drag crosses and..........

wear a crown of thorns every year (Philipines, Portugal???) and they are the "stars" of their villages for doing this. sigh.

[IrateCitizen]

8. My thoughts exactly concerning the hype around this movie

Which is more important the teachings of the ministry of Christ or the sacrifice of God's only son? In my opinion the sacrifice would be meaningless without the ministry.

That's exactly what I was wondering. I guess it all comes down to the alternatives of heralding simply the deification of Christ (as Gibson seems to do) or focusing instead on the TEACHINGS of Christ and the lessons he taught about how we should live our lives and treat one another.

When I heard that the movie focused solely on the short period of his arrest and crucifiction, my initial thought was, "That's it? Who in their right mind would want to see such a graphic, vapid movie?"

Judging by this review and comments of others here, I'm not alone in that respect.

[pink_poodle]

9. Catholics, for some reason, really relish the whole......................

crucifixion process. I went to convent school so therefore I know what I speak of. So yes, the very "holy rollers" and especially the Catholics or extreme Catholics will really dig this movie, especially all the gory details - like they are actually suffering along with Jesus during his last hours - experiencing lash after lash, blow after blow. Believe me on this one - this is what the appeal of this movie is all about - they will "endure" those last hours of Jesus along with him, through this movie.

I for one, will not be going to see it and have no interest in it whatsoever.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

11. I think it builds on the 'original sin' which Catholic dogma covers.

I think the fixation on the punishment of Christ by interpreters like Gibson is part of a guilt complex. That's the message I'm getting from Gibson. He seems to relish the guilt.

[regnaD kciN]

12. A key point about all this...

...is something I hadn't even thought of until last night. Gibson has marketed this film among fundamentalists as a great evangelical opportunity, and many of the megachurches are building campaigns around its release to "win souls for Christ."

From what I've been reading since yesterday, this is a serious miscalculation.

If Gibson's movie is so thoroughly centered on Jesus-as-victim (and not much else), it may have a great deal of appeal to professed Christians of a certain emotional bent, since they already know the "backstory." But expect non-Christians to convert based on two hours of beatings and execution, presented in graphic detail? I would think that, while potential converts might come away with a great deal of sympathy for Jesus, it would be much like the sympathy one might have for a victim of a brutal mugging or worse. Unless you already know who Jesus was and what his ministry was, I would think that there would be very little reason, after witnessing this film, to want to commit one's life to following him -- just as one would not expect a series of new volunteers to the cause of civil rights to emerge from a film that only shows the last twelve hours of Martin Luther King's life, without covering what came before.

[seabeyond]

14. messy email to friend

I found the place that was bothering me with passion too,. They are talking everyone talking die for our sins that is the big that is what we have to value, and bottomline and value of jesus and I am a no, but couldn’t find it. it isn’t that he died for sins, thanks and all…………but that leaves us to wussify for me………the much bigger thing in it for me and that I have yet to hear, is thru all this the anger and the hate and the fear and jeering it is not the dying for sin, it is the thru all that, jesus understood jesus took it and still loved……..that is our lesson in this, and this is not getting out of the work we have to do, cause he died for our sin. this is the work, to love the hater, and exactly opposite I think is what is going to be pulled from this on the extremist that are in hate, goes to movie chocolat, the obsessed man wanting to control behavior and gets a guy to reform, classes and recite over and over and feed and the man thinking doing right in hate and judgement of these people was to burn down there stuff, and then the horror of the screams and then the controller realizing what he had created this man to do………………..that is the sacrifice of jesus, see what he went thru to feed the hate and see what you all did, missing all of what jesus did, that he did this in love, and not so much the love that we would be forgiven for sin, the love of these people doing this to him



Do you see what I am saying.

[pink_poodle]

15. Pardon me? What is this saying? -nm

:

[chiburb]

17. No.

Please explain if you can...

[Malva Zebrina]

19. I think this is a good review by the Globe and Mail

never would it appear in this way in any American nespaper of any import.

I say, bravo to the Globe and Mail.\


I have no interest in this movie. First of all, the movies that I have seen that feature Mel Gibson have not been particularly interesting or intriguing. They seem more like a cheap paper back novel than any work of art. I like Mel, but hie does, imo, have a tendency to overdo it.

[htuttle]

21. Mel Gibson? Overdo it?

You don't say...