Passion : Bigger Longer & Uncut

[all_i_want]

HE is buying fiji!?!?


damn, he beat me to it!!


ok, i will buy the phiphi island then

frankly, having your own PUBLIC island must simply rule! ill do that when i have money to burn!

 

[deep]

the movie really tries very hard to recreate what a crucifixion probably looked and felt like; this is where the film succeeds the most. Speaking from personal experience, I never actually thought how much pain a crucixion could bring, and what it meant to be crucified. Oh sure, I knew that it was painful, but to actually devote two hours to the entire process is grueling, taxing, exhausting and utterly painful to watch.

on that basis

I can recommend "Irreversible"

for you

The infamous Monica Bellucci's (Magdalen) anal rape scene is truly brutal and sickening,but at least the film can't be accused of eroticizing,trivializing or glamourizing rape,something many mainstream movies are guilty of.It actually shows that rape is a brutal and disgusting act.Congratulations should go to this stunningly beautiful actress for her brave performance.

 

[Anthony]

I can recommend "Irreversible"

A truly fantastic film, and I agree with the comment you provided. Its an overwhelmingly powerful movie, and simply astounding in its delivery... so much so that I don't think I'll be able to stomach it again, its almost too powerful for me.

Great movie.

Ant.

 

[financeguy]

Surely if making a movie about the life of Christ it should be loyal to the Bible and not some other source? In the Bible it only says that Jesus was flogged, my understanding is the flogging scene in the movie is lengthy and violent?

I haven't seen the movie but if I wanted to watch a film about Jesus I would be more likely to watch one of the older ones.

 

[Dreadsox]

I thought the title here was about my sex life....

my bad.

 

[Do Miss America]

I thought the title here was about my sex life....

my bad.

Uncut heh?

 

[nathan1977]

Surely if making a movie about the life of Christ it should be loyal to the Bible and not some other source? In the Bible it only says that Jesus was flogged, my understanding is the flogging scene in the movie is lengthy and violent?

Roman floggings in this part of the world were 40 lashes minus 1. 39 lashes -- and not with a whip either, but with devices similar to the one Gibson depicted -- lashes with hooks on the ends, to ensure not only pain, but tearing of the flesh, which makes ensuing lashes all the more painful.

HE is buying fiji!?!?

He's not buying Fiji. He's buying a private island. Geez, people....

 

[nathan1977]

Did he cut out the footage of Caiaphas though? Doubt it...if he cut the "Jewish bad guy" out of the film, then I'd buy it. The most indelible image I had from the film (besides the opening Gethsemane sequence) was the High Priest leering up at the suffering Christ on the cross without a flicker of emotion or remorse on his face. He only seems to be wishing the torment was greater. If there was any doubt Mel was making a statement about "Jewish Guilt", this clinched it. He had to re-remind us who was "responsible" for all this. And "hos blood be upon us, and upon our children", was left in the film, it just had no susbtitles (from what I read.)

"From what you've read"? Have you actually seen the film?

Frankly, I think the Roman soldiers come off much worse. Caiaphas may have authorized the whipping, but it was the (Gentile) Romans who carried it out...and clearly took sadism to a whole different level.

A lot of money you made off of Christ's suffering, Mel, and you buy a large populated territiory with it, your own slice of empire. Every penny should have gone to Africa, let's say. I'm appalled. See what some "Christian" celebs are like, and others...

So you know what he did with his money then?

Yes, we should all believe everything we read in EW....

 

[coemgen]

I think the important thing to consider with this film is not how bloody it is, but the sacrifice itself. How much blood was spilled exactly doesn't really matter, but the fact that the sacrifice was made does. Is the movie 100 percent accurate to the actual crucifixion? No. Like it's been said, it's a movie. However, the movie does bring to life God's ultimate act of love made on your behalf and mine. I would encourage everyone to see it for themselves and make their own opinion, not just dismiss it based on someone else's. The Gospels are the ultimate source though.

 

[mistyrose]

I don't think he should have cut anything out of it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well said, Coemgen.

 

[Irvine511]

I think the important thing to consider with this film is not how bloody it is, but the sacrifice itself. How much blood was spilled exactly doesn't really matter, but the fact that the sacrifice was made does. Is the movie 100 percent accurate to the actual crucifixion? No. Like it's been said, it's a movie. However, the movie does bring to life God's ultimate act of love made on your behalf and mine. I would encourage everyone to see it for themselves and make their own opinion, not just dismiss it based on someone else's. The Gospels are the ultimate source though.

i pose these questions more out of naivete than anything else, but if you want to make a movie about the sacrafice, why not focus on Jesus's life and deeds instead of the brutal pain of his death? i've also read that the scouring, which is the centerpiece of the movie and, i'm told, functions just like any setpiece in any B-level horror movie -- i.e., just when you think it can't get any worse, it does -- isn't even mentioned in one of the four gospels.

i haven't seen the film, so i'm trying to be open minded, but i've seen other Gibson films, and they are all preoccupied with suffering, pain, and torture. film is a director's medium -- could it be that the blood and gore are Gibson's artistic decisions as opposed to historically accurate renderings?

i do agree with the crux of your post, though -- it is the sacrafice that it is important for Christians, and if a movie can dramatize that the way, say, Schindler's List dramatized the holocaust, then that's one of the many ways in which film can be a powerful medium.

and while i've not seen the movie -- don't want to sit through violence like that, i'm quite squeamish -- i have read about it extensively, because it was such an interesting phenomenon.

 

[melon]

The thing to keep in mind, though, is that "The Passion of the Christ" isn't meant to be a generic and melodramatic name about Jesus. "The Passion" is a Catholic concept that focuses solely on the suffering and death of Jesus. The Resurrection, technically, is no longer within the Passion, which ends with his burial. Hence, if any of this deviates from the Gospels, look no further than the Catholic concept of the "Passion" and, of course, Emmerich's blood lust of a book.

But a movie is still a movie, and that's how I see it. I see nothing especially wrong with making the movie, but I do get squeamish when people take it too seriously.

Melon

 

[coemgen]

Irvine — that's the point of making the movie about the — to show the brutality of the crucifixion. The truth is, and Gibson has acknowledged this, that the movie actually wasn't bloody enough. According to historical accounts of the practice of crucifixion, it's much worse than the movie showed. We're talking the ultimate form of death here. Torture. Humiliation. Starvation. Dehydration. Suffocation (A lot of "ations" there, huh?) The scouring is a major part of the movie and it's supposed to be. I would argue that Gibson didn't simply put this movie out though to squirt blood though, you know? It's is far from a B-level horror movie. It's actually very well done. Very poetic. Ebert and Roper even said so! : )
The whole thing that separates Christianity from other faiths is that God became human, not the other way around. In doing so, Christ, like I said, went through the ultimate death. In doing this, you not only have Christ (both fully God and fully man) going through what we go through (or could potentially go through), but because of his nature of God and man, he was able to beat death, which is "the wages of our sin." As cheesy or trite as it may sound, this was done for you, me and everyone else. We all fall short of the glory of our holy God. The movie ends with the resurrection (hope I didn't just give anything away!) which is how Christ beat death. Would you expect anything less from God?
Gibson's artistic decisions don't take away or conflict with the historicity of the Gospel, they're instead story telling tools.
And why didn't Gibson focus more on Christ's teachings? Well, first of all, he does focus on some important ones. However, it could be argued that following Christ's teachings on life aren't enough anyway. You have to believe in the sacrifice that was made, know why it was made, seek forgiveness of your sins (and this can only be done because of the sacrifice) and then acknowledge that he was raised from the dead and is the Lord of your life today.
The crucifixion, in all it's gore and glory, is the very outstretched arm and extended hand of God to you and me. All we're asked to do is grab onto it. To me, it was tough to watch the film. I cried. I got to visualize what was likely done to my Lord. The hardest part of the film for me wasn't the blood though — it was coming to a clearer realization that it was done because of my sins and so I may be cleansed of them.

 

[melon]

The crucifixion, in all it's gore and glory, is the very outstretched arm and extended hand of God to you and me. All we're asked to do is grab onto it. To me, it was tough to watch the film. I cried. I got to visualize what was likely done to my Lord. The hardest part of the film for me wasn't the blood though — it was coming to a clearer realization that it was done because of my sins and so I may be cleansed of them.

Maybe I've studied TV/film too long, but I found myself mostly saying "What cool special effects!" Really, the cinematography was brilliant, and there were only a couple instances where Caviezel was clearly wearing a very tight suit with fancy makeup to show a chopped up Jesus.

But for the vast majority of the intended audience for this film, I could definitely see the power in using violence. It's truly an exceptionally violent film that not even most secular films do (minus "Irreversible"), so for an audience that probably watches mostly tame films, this would definitely be quite a shock.

Thankfully, my desensitization only extends to TV/film. 9/11 shocked me quite awfully when it happened--although I fear that 9/11 itself may have desensitized me against feeling anything from future attacks.

Melon

 

[coemgen]

Melon, I didn't even notice the things you noticed with the film. I'll have to look for those next time I watch it. The important thing to remember is that the film wasn't made even to be art, it was made for you and me to see Christ. To know him better. And...here comes the witnessing...you can know him without seeing the film by doing what I said earlier — seeking forgiveness of your sins, acknowledging the sacrifice Christ made and his resurrection, and accepting him as Lord of your life. Just call out to him. He listens. He listened to me. He still does...and I love him for it.

 

[BVS]

We're talking the ultimate form of death here.

See this is the problem I have with people who glorify this movie. It's that no one can tell me exactly why.

We have some that say it tells the great story of Jesus. It didn't. The movie didn't even have much of a plot. So this argument holds no water.

Then we have others who, like this statement, thinks it's great because it shows the pain and suffering he endured. Well anyone who knows the story, even just the basics, know he suffered. Knows that dying with nails in your hands and being humiliated is pain and suffering that most couldn't go through.

But this is not the ultimate form of death. This is the problem with this movie. It explored the violence so much that it's tried to elevate it to the point where people think Jesus went through more than any other human. This is simply not true. Not only is it not true but it was never the intent or the reason for Jesus sacrificing his life.

There are people who are slowing dying over years of pain and suffering from disease, prisoners tortured for months before dying, victims of sick serial killers who've died from "inventive" means of stretching out their deaths as long as possible, and many others who've lived through and suffered more.

This is not the ultimate form of death, this is not an insight to what Jesus was thinking before dying, and no way is it a great story. This movie just has nothing redeeming. I think so many wanted "a great Jesus movie", and just settled for anything that would make it to the big screen.

 

[coemgen]

BVS — Do I think this is the greatest movie ever made. Nope. Do I think it has flaws. Sure I do. Do I think it's a substitute or equal to the four Gospels? Of course not. It's still important to me as a Christian and to millions of others who saw it around the world. It's being "glorified" because it has told the story of the crucifixion in a more real way than has ever been done before. It's made it more real to people. But you're right, it's just a movie.
It does tell the great story of Jesus, and you're right, not the whole story. That was the whole point of it though. Gibson wanted people to go back and read the rest of the story themselves. He wanted them to have questions. It does however, tell the most important part of the story — Jesus came to die for our sins, he did so, and we can have eternal life through his sacrifice. It's all there. I'm not sure about your "no plot" comment. I think most people picked up on it. Besides, it wasn't supposed to be like every other movie anyway. It was supposed to be experienced, not so much told or watched.
As you know, the crucifixion is central to Christianity. A movie just about Christ's teachings would've made him out to be like any other person who claimed to be God.
The movie IS great because it showed the pain and suffering Christ endured. That was the point of it. Did Gibson do that to prove he could make a bloody movie? Of course not. Like I said, he wanted us to know Christ. He wanted us to understand him more and what he went through and the scope of the sacrifice. For me at least, it put my relationship with Christ in perspective. He died like that FOR me. He also died like that BECAUSE of me, or because of MY sins. It's one thing to hear it or read it, but seeing it woke me up (even though it wasn't exactly like he died).
Maybe calling it the "ultimate" form of death is a bit subjective. When you study everything that went into the crucifixion, it's easy to at least see it as one of the most horrific ways to go. The word "excruciating" actually means a pain "from the cross."
By calling it the "ultimate" form of death, I am in no way making light of other's demise. I guess you could simply say it's amazing that Christ, being both God and man, didn't just die of old age. He experienced torture and suffering and immense amounts of physical pain and humiliation. It's comforting to me that he went through that and knows some of the extreme pain we can feel here on earth. I know it's comforting to persecuted Christians around the world who are tortured for their beliefs to know their Lord went through it too.

Sorry that was so long.

 

[BVS]

Coegman,

That's a little more honest.

But basically you're saying you needed 2 hours of seeing him tortured(because yes it lacked everything else as far as plot) to know that's the sacrifice he made, even though it may not be historicly accurate. So really you just needed to know he was tortured. A lot.

Ok that's being honest. And I'm not judging you.

But this is the problem I have. Without a plot, without accuracy it really comes down to a snuff film.

All I need to know is he died for me and didn't even know me. I don't care how. I don't care if it was quick and painless. All I need to know is he died. I would have perferred a film that showed why, when, who, what, and it didn't have to completely focus on the how.

 

[coemgen]

Hey BVS, that's totaly cool. If the film didn't work for you, that's fine. I never said anyone has to like it to be a Christian or to have a relationship with Christ. I'm glad to know you know that Christ died for you and that's enough. That's all that matters anyway!
Let me just add though that I don't need the flim (which didn't include 2 hours of torture, more like 45 minutes ) to know that Christ was tortured a lot. That's not what I'm saying. Like I said before, it simply helped me understand the sacrifice that was made for my sake.
I did a story a few years ago on a woman whose son was killed by a drunk driver, while he was being a designated driver himself. (They burried him on Christmas Eve.) She told me as gruesome as the details were, she had to know them because it helped her feel closer to her son. It helped her make sense of what happened. That's all I'm getting at. And that's just me.

In terms of the plot, it was taken right from the Bible! The story's there — he claimed to be God, the religious leaders thought this was blasphemous, he said "I am the way, the truth and the life, nobody gets to the Father, but through me," and he fortold his death, etc, etc. You know the story. Did it focus on Christ's whole life, no. That's not the point of it.
As far as accuracy, it was actually very accurate. The most accurate film of Christ to date. Yes, Gibson took creative liberties to tell the story visually, but they didn't take away from the historicity of it or what the Gospels tell us. The only part with accuracy I would bring up is that the crucifixion wasn't brutal enough according to what we know from historical texts. Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ" goes into this in detail. (Amazing book by the way.)

In the end though, I think we can agree that it's just a film. It doesn't substitute for the Gospels and in no way does it come close to how we can know Christ through prayer and the Bible and through serving him. I'm just saying it was enriching for me.

Holy crap I'm rambling tonight.

Peace

 

[Do Miss America]

Wrong thread.

 

[BVS]

That's cool, I understand what you are saying. I think I'm just one of those people that doesn't need it, but I know some people do. Me, I don't even take a look at open caskets, I want my last visual memory of them to be alive. But my mom needs every detail.

It's been awhile sense I've seen it. From what I remember it only takes place during the last 36 or 48 hours or something like that. My only thing with plot is that I tried to watch it from the point of view of not knowing the story, and it didn't quite work for me. It's like seeing any movie where you've already read the book, you notice the discrepencies but you don't always quite notice the holes. Well I noticed holes, and thought that this movie isn't really going to do anything for those who don't know the story.


I've only talked to one person who's seen the movie who doesn't really know the story. I mean they knew a guy was nailed to a cross and then rose again, but that's it. His comment was that none of the stuff leading up to the crucifiction made a lot of sense to him and that he was shocked that the resurection played such a small part. His comment "isn't the fact that this man rose from the dead and then ascended into heaven like a large part of your beliefs?" My reply

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

St. John the Damascene writes in Treatise 1 on the Divine Images:
"How therefore shall we not depict in images what Christ our God endured for our salvation and his miracles, so that, when my son asks me, what is this? I shall say that God the Word became human and through him not only did Israel cross over the Jordan, but our whole nature was restored to ancient blessedness, through which that nature has ascended from the lowest parts of the earth beyond every principality and is seated on the very throne of the Father."

found this at http://www.livejournal.com/users/chaz_lehmann/

 

[coemgen]

I see your point BVS. I guess we just have different perspectives. Thanks for the discussion though.

 

[Irvine511]

just pondering some things ... due to the nature of religion, and the central role a belief system plays in someone's life, do you think it's possible for a Christian -- and here, let's use it to mean one who identifies as Christian, as in, it would make one of your Top 5 Words used to describe yourself -- to evaluate this movie on filmmaking alone?

it seems to me that reactions to this movie are hugely split upon religious identification. Christians seem to view it as akin to a Schindler's List for Christianity -- a document of how horrible it was, and why it's so important. for non-Christians, it appears to be more of a rather cruel film who's violence is not justified.

but is it a good movie? or is that not the point? is this a movie that can be viewed objectively, or is it by nature impossible to do so?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

it seems to me that reactions to this movie are hugely split upon religious identification. Christians seem to view it as akin to a Schindler's List for Christianity -- a document of how horrible it was, and why it's so important. for non-Christians, it appears to be more of a rather cruel film who's violence is not justified.

I would say for the most part, this is pretty accurate. Let's not forget though that there are some Christians who aren't touched by the movie and are turned off by the fact that it's strictly about Christ's last 12 hours before the crucifixion; and there are even some non-Christians, like Monica Bellucci for example, who found this movie to be a great story. I don't know if it's fair to use someone who was in the cast as an example, but yet, even some horror film websites were applauding it.

For most people, they don't watch it to be entertained, that's for sure.

 

[coemgen]

Of course it can be viewed objectively. It's just a movie. I thought it was well done, but I'll admit, maybe I brought in certain feelings or whatever that many other people didn't, you know? I didn't see it as a movie like I see other movies. I wasn't going in to be entertained. I was going in to experience it. There were parts I didn't like. I thought the "teardrop" falling from the sky when Christ died was corny and should be left to corny Creed videos. There were other things I didn't like, but they were simply Gibsons's story telling techniques. I thought it was a beautiful movie though. Maybe I'll have different views when I see it again. I'll be honest though, since you mentioned it, Schindler's List is a much better flim.

 

[BVS]

but yet, even some horror film websites were applauding it.

This should tell you something.

 

[Teta040]

OK< so the first I heard about the island was in EW. I'm glad that was false, I'm glad it;s just an island.

And yes, I did the film, and for me, the s most indelible images of the film were Cavielzel weeping on the cross, the charming interplay between Jesus and Mary when she told him to wash his hands after working, and Ciaphas leering up at the cross.
Go back and watch the film, it is in there.

 

[melon]

Me, I don't even take a look at open caskets, I want my last visual memory of them to be alive. But my mom needs every detail.

I grew up with open caskets. I think there's something wrong if the casket is closed...lol.

Melon