Passion : Bigger Longer & Uncut

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
CULTURE DIGEST: 'Passion Recut' has less violence

By Erin Curry
Feb 23, 2005

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--In an effort to appeal to a wider audience including those kept from viewing "The Passion of The Christ" because of its depictions of brutal violence, Mel Gibson is releasing a tamer version of the film March 11 called "The Passion Recut."

Gibson has edited at least six minutes out of the original film and is substituting different camera angles to show less blood and gore in the graphic scenes of the torture, scourge and crucifixion of Christ, according to The Dallas Morning News.

Bob Berney, president of distributor Newmarket Films, said he and Gibson are aware that "some people felt the gore overshadowed the message of the film." The subtle changes will emphasize the sacrifice of Jesus rather than just the suffering, he told the newspaper.

Even with less violence, the MPAA still gave the new Passion version an R rating. The film's production company, Icon Productions, has opted to release The Passion Recut without a rating.

"Exhibitors can decide for themselves how they want to handle the situation," Berney said. "Some may choose to still treat it as an R and not let teens see it, unless accompanied by adults. Others may be willing to treat it as a PG-13. The film is still probably too intense for children, but Mel hoped to make it more available for teens."

The Passion Recut will be carried in theaters on 500 to 750 screens nationwide beginning just before Easter. After The Passion's February 2004 release, the film about Jesus' final hours on earth grossed more than $370 million domestically and more than $611 million worldwide.

During the upcoming Oscars Feb. 27, The Passion will be sidelined to nominations only in technical categories, illustrating what film critic Michael Medved called "Hollywood's profound, almost pathological discomfort with the traditional religiosity embraced by most of its mass audience."

Medved said the Academy shut out one of the year's biggest box office hits and instead nominated for the major categories a list of films that "went out of their way to assault or insult the sensibilities of most believers," notably �Million Dollar Baby� with its portrayal of assisted suicide as heroic and �Kinsey� in its depiction of sexuality without limits.
 
unosdostres14 said:
Maybe they'll add an alternate ending to the DVD??

There is a theory that Israeli archaeologists found the tomb.

And the Israeli government threatens to reveal the remains
unless they get unconditional support from the U. S.
 
deep said:


There is a theory that Israeli archaeologists found the tomb.

And the Israeli government threatens to reveal the remains
unless they get unconditional support from the U. S.

That sounds like BS to me.
 
I saw it for free during an obvious Christian conversion fest. I high-tailed it before the minister started doing his needless commentary, and I refused to fill out their "information card."

Melon
 
If I was a film director, I'd claim the movie was less violent, but secretly release one that was 10 times more violent than the original. Just for laughs. :wink:
 
i have no desire to see this movie. a friend of mine summed up my attitude towards this movie when he told me about when he went to go see it: "after about 10 minutes of torture, i went outside, smoked two cigarettes and made a phone call. i went back into the theater, and they were still torturing him."
 
I personally think the way Mel Gibson presents himself and his faith is reprehensible, and try not to think too much about the man behind the film. Having said that, I thought the film was actually quite brilliant.

At the risk of sounding like a voilence-junkie, the whole point of the film was the extreme violence, and releasing a violence-light version of the film is pretty self-defeating.

Ant.
 
I would recommend anyone to watch it. Only then would you be able to catch a glimpse of what the man endured. I like the fact that the flashbacks remind you of what he taught and what he stood for and the reasons why he is taking on that ordeal.

I am very critical and if there was something that I wouldn't have liked I would've complained but in this case, it was nothing short of brilliant.
 
Last edited:
BrownEyedBoy said:
Are you?

About Gibson portrayals, to say the least I'd be willing to say: It's close enough. Quit exaggerating entirely out of proportion.

Really BEB, you are honestly saying anyone can sit here and even guess what Jesus was thinking before he died?

Wow

Like Melon said, it's just a movie. And a shitty one at that.
 
i thought passion was way too light violence-wise. there needed to be more violence, blood, gore and actually simultaneous torture for crowds of at least 10. and no sea of blood? not impressive. please, mr gibson, tell me that you will include more brilliant violence and torture on this version, because i want to see someone's guts ripped out really badly!

:mad:
 
Actually, some believe that the crucifixion was much worse than what you saw in The Passion (if you did see it, that is...)
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Actually, some believe that the crucifixion was much worse than what you saw in The Passion (if you did see it, that is...)

exactly, my point!
 
Whether it deserved to be more violent or not is not the point. It's a movie. Plain and simple. Plus, it wasn't even based on the Bible directly. It was based on the book, "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," by Sr. Anne Emmerich (1774-1824), a looney Augustinian nun from Germany. This is where we get Satan carried through most of the film, which fully deviates from the Gospels. It was Emmerich who made the Passion especially bloody, and this book was decried as "anti-Semitic," which is likely why Jewish groups protested this film from the start.

If you want an "official text" for this film, read that book, not the Bible.

Melon
 
The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," by Sr. Anne Emmerich (1774-1824), a looney Augustinian nun from Germany

Yup, and its also a looney book at that. I do think that she was a devout nun, but judging from the actual text she really was disturbed - flip to the back of the book and even her biographers (who seem to have some ecclesiastical connection), who attempt to make her sound remotely sympathetic, confirm such a judgement. She was a complete raving lunatic.

Its a shame that Gibson based it on the text, because 80% of 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. For those who can watch and feel Christ's pain, well, the movie is succeeding. It is, in a way, quite a masochistic experience, but then again we Catholics are a masochistic bunch to begin with.

But anyway, Gibson was doing well - but the fact that the movie is based on the teutonic madwoman's ravings really weakens it, with 20% of the film dedicated to utterly hysterical imagery. An androgynous Satan cradles a deformed baby, a Night of the Living Dead extra runs arouns screaming after Judas and (my personal favourite) Satan loses her hair (literally) in Hell while she has a fit (you half expect Godzilla's cry of agony amidst all that screaming) after Christ dies.

A real shame.

Ant.
 
Last edited:
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.)

And what;s this, BTW, about his buying Fiji!!@?!? The whole island of Fiji??? EW had a blip about this????

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...
 
Back
Top Bottom