Amna
The Fly
Because it is considered to be offensive to God.... not necessarily to Muslim people....... but to God, Allah.... the same God that created the Bible, the same God that created the Torah... The God that created the Quran......
The Passion
- Thread starter Basstrap
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
The God of the Bible is Jesus Christ. The God of the Quran is Allah. I think you've answered my question.
Amna
The Fly
I did? Dude, your not making any sense...... To you, the God of the Bible is Jesus Christ... but not to everyone.... The question in the first place has nothing to do with what you just said...
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Amna, I'm not sure I understand the article. Do the people in Bahrain and/or other Moslems object to the *visual* depiction of Jesus? In other words, do they object to imagery, which, as I understand it, is forbidden by Islam (as in the case of pictures and statues and such)? I'm sort of groping here. I'm not sure exactly what it is they don't like.
~*Buffalo*~
War Child
melon said:
This is very true, Melon. I wasn't planning to see the film, mainly because films I've seen in the past about the Passion and other aspects of Jesus' life have disappointed me in their amateurism, I suppose. But, my sister talked me into seeing it (because she wanted to go again) and I did find it to be well-made. Not as violent as I had anticipated - although maybe I have been de-sensitised - and certainly the violence was what I would imagine it to have been like for Jesus. And it was good to get a visual representation of what Calvary, Gethsemane and the other places looked like.
But I agree with your points. I think I was fortunate to have gone to see the movie on Easter Saturday, because the story was fresh in my mind having read it on Good Friday at church the day before. Had I not, I would have been completely lost because as you said, there wasn't much of a plot, and many characters weren't identified (and they all looked very similar anyway). Also, my sister had told me before about the role of Satan, so I recognised him (her, rather) - but if I hadn't known, I would've had no idea who he was.
I am glad I saw the Passion. I'm pleased it was done in Aramaic and Latin, and with subtitles. I didn't think it was anti-Semetic as such, more anti-authority; the humble Jews, like Veronica and the two Marys, were shown in a very positive light. I can understand people's reactions to the film, because it is a heavy topic and does inspire a lot of debate because everyone has a different idea of what happened. But it was good for me, at least, to really get involved just in the essential idea of the Passion and reflect on my faith in doing so.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
I never thought the MTV generation would even see this film
MTV Movie award nominees
It probably would have garnered more nominations if the scourging had Matrix-like effects.....
MTV Movie award nominees
It probably would have garnered more nominations if the scourging had Matrix-like effects.....
BrownEyedBoy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
It has an enitre book's worth of plot...
pub crawler
New Yorker
As I've stated earlier in this thread, I was repulsed by the film. Nevertheless, I found Quentin Tarantino's assessment of The Passion, oh I don't know, mildly amusing I suppose...
Journalist: So you saw The Passion of the Christ?
Quentin Tarantino: I loved it. I?ll tell you why. I think it actually is one of the most brilliant visual storytelling movies I?ve seen since the talkies ? as far as telling a story via pictures. So much so that when I was watching this movie, I turned to a friend and said, ?This is such a Herculean leap of Mel Gibson?s talent. I think divine intervention might be part of it.? I cannot believe that Mel Gibson directed it. Not personally Mel Gibson ? I mean, Braveheart was great. I mean, I can?t believe any actor made that movie. This is like the most visual movie by an actor since Charles Laughton made The Night of the Hunter. No, this is 15 times more visual than that. It has the power of a silent movie. And I was amazed by the fact that it was able to mix all these different tones. At first, this is going to be the most realistic version of the Jesus story ? you have to decipher the Latin and Aramaic. Then it throws that away at a certain point and gives you this grandiose religious image. Goddamn, that?s good direction! It is pretty violent, I must say. At a certain point, it was like a Takashi Miike film. It got so fucked up it was funny. At one point, my friend and I, we just started laughing. I was into the seriousness of the story, of course, but in the crucifixion scene, when they turned the cross over, you had to laugh.
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/21/features-powers.php
Journalist: So you saw The Passion of the Christ?
Quentin Tarantino: I loved it. I?ll tell you why. I think it actually is one of the most brilliant visual storytelling movies I?ve seen since the talkies ? as far as telling a story via pictures. So much so that when I was watching this movie, I turned to a friend and said, ?This is such a Herculean leap of Mel Gibson?s talent. I think divine intervention might be part of it.? I cannot believe that Mel Gibson directed it. Not personally Mel Gibson ? I mean, Braveheart was great. I mean, I can?t believe any actor made that movie. This is like the most visual movie by an actor since Charles Laughton made The Night of the Hunter. No, this is 15 times more visual than that. It has the power of a silent movie. And I was amazed by the fact that it was able to mix all these different tones. At first, this is going to be the most realistic version of the Jesus story ? you have to decipher the Latin and Aramaic. Then it throws that away at a certain point and gives you this grandiose religious image. Goddamn, that?s good direction! It is pretty violent, I must say. At a certain point, it was like a Takashi Miike film. It got so fucked up it was funny. At one point, my friend and I, we just started laughing. I was into the seriousness of the story, of course, but in the crucifixion scene, when they turned the cross over, you had to laugh.
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/21/features-powers.php
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Tarantino has an interesting defense mechanism....
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I haven't seen the Passion, but I find it very odd that he would laugh at that and find it funny in any way. Whatever floats his boat...
he's a strange guy in my humble opinion. Maybe it's all pent up frustration from his lust for Uma Thurman 
he's a strange guy in my humble opinion. Maybe it's all pent up frustration from his lust for Uma Thurman 
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
BrownEyedBoy said:
What? A whole book? I'm not sure what book you're reading. What about those who aren't familiar with this book you speak of, would they find a plot?
I know the story and I found little plot.
AvsGirl41
New Yorker
A CNN film critic laughed hysterically at that part too, so it isn't just Tarantino...surprisingly. 
But I can't really criticize, I've been known to do the same thing--though not during The Passion.
But I can't really criticize, I've been known to do the same thing--though not during The Passion.
BrownEyedBoy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Melon, if there were no book then there would be no movie...you see?
and BVS, I'm sure everyone who saw the movie had a slight of idea of what they were watching and that was good enough to capture the message.
As far as Tarantino goes I think his comments are so childish. There was nothing funny about the cross being turned over. Even if it weren't Jesus it would not be funny at all. Tarantino spoke with the words of a 13 year old.
and BVS, I'm sure everyone who saw the movie had a slight of idea of what they were watching and that was good enough to capture the message.
As far as Tarantino goes I think his comments are so childish. There was nothing funny about the cross being turned over. Even if it weren't Jesus it would not be funny at all. Tarantino spoke with the words of a 13 year old.
BrownEyedBoy said:
That's no excuse at all. It would be similar to excusing the flaws in "Great Expectations" (1998) on the basis that there would have been no movie without the book. That's not how it works, and Roger Ebert, I believe, berated one of his guest hosts after Gene Siskel died for making a similar comment.
Take it from someone who has taken film studies: you judge a film on its own. If you need an outside book to make sense of it, then it is a bad film, plain and simple. If you read my earlier comments, I don't think the film is completely terrible and nor do I think that all the criticisms of it are justified. But this is one criticism I stand by.
Melon
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
We do not agree frequently Melon , but here I have to say you are right. I liked the Passion, but believe that the movie misses the whole context of his life. I know the purpose of the film was his death, but what is his death without his teaching? The two go hand in hand. Someone who is not familiar with the life of Christ will not be able to place the event in the proper context. Though the 1979 film "Jesus" often used by Campus Crusade is not a great film, it does a better job of explaining who Jesus was and what his life was about.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
nbcrusader said:
Defence against what?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
BrownEyedBoy said:
If there wasn't a book there wouldn't be a movie?! What kind of logic is this? So every movie made from a book can lack all true context of events because everyone should read the book first?
Slight ideas don't excuse for poor movie making. And if this movie had a "message" to capture if was totally lost on me.
You can't judge a movie on these assumptions. I know people who go to church who don't know the complete story. You are right most people who saw the film knew the basics. I know the basics of Babe Ruth's life, but if someone made a film and it used 'The Passion' as a model of how to build plot I wouldn't know anything more about this man's life than I already did, and it certainly wouldn't turn me into a baseball fan.
BrownEyedBoy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
So many people "got it". So many people were moved and inspired by this movie and you are here trying to say that if we "pretended" that the there was no Bible the movie would be terrible... 
It really is a beautiful movie.
It really is a beautiful movie.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
BrownEyedBoy said:So many people "got it". So many people were moved and inspired by this movie and you are here trying to say that if we "pretended" that the there was no Bible the movie would be terrible...
It really is a beautiful movie.
I never said to pretend anything. This may come as a suprise to you but not everyone has read the bible, those that have little or no knowledge of Jesus' life will not leave this movie with a better understanding of what he stood for or why he did what he did. They will walk away knowing he suffered much pain and humiliation and that's about it.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
BonoVoxSupastar said:
And that he rose from the dead . . .
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
That is if they don't blink before the credits.
stammer476
Refugee
%@#*#%!!! Why do I get involved?
Very true, melon, but we have to take into account the context surrounding the movie. A great literary work (Tale of Two Cities, Lord of the Flies, Brave New World, etc.) does not have the same following as the sacred texts of a major world religion. Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.
Still, (picture me now jumping to the other side of the fence), I agree that the writing does nothing to help those who haven't made some serious study on the life of Christ. I've grown up in the church, took 12 hours actually entitled "the Life of Christ" at seminary, and I spent time shaking my head afterwards in frustration thinking "the average person is not going to understand."
My point is (leap back over to the other side), I don't think this is a flaw in the movie, I think it was a flaw in the marketing. It's a movie best suited for "insiders," and the push toward evangelical movements was a mistake. If you don't already know the context, it's not going to have the impact it was intended to make.
Compare it to the wonderful song, "American Pie." Great song, deep lyrics, catchy tune . . . but I just don't get it. It speaks of a time well before I was around, and without the cultural context out of which it was born it doesn't make a lot of sense. Does that make it a bad song? Of course not, it just makes it more important to those on the "inside" who will truly understand its depth. Same thing with this movie. It can be watched and enjoyed and appreciated by those whose history with Scripture, the Church, and Christianity is minimal, but its deepest meanings and emotions for which the movie was intended probably only happen with those whose faith in Christ runs long and deep. That doesn't make it a bad movie, it just means it was sold with the wrong intentions.
Very true, melon, but we have to take into account the context surrounding the movie. A great literary work (Tale of Two Cities, Lord of the Flies, Brave New World, etc.) does not have the same following as the sacred texts of a major world religion. Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.
Still, (picture me now jumping to the other side of the fence), I agree that the writing does nothing to help those who haven't made some serious study on the life of Christ. I've grown up in the church, took 12 hours actually entitled "the Life of Christ" at seminary, and I spent time shaking my head afterwards in frustration thinking "the average person is not going to understand."
My point is (leap back over to the other side), I don't think this is a flaw in the movie, I think it was a flaw in the marketing. It's a movie best suited for "insiders," and the push toward evangelical movements was a mistake. If you don't already know the context, it's not going to have the impact it was intended to make.
Compare it to the wonderful song, "American Pie." Great song, deep lyrics, catchy tune . . . but I just don't get it. It speaks of a time well before I was around, and without the cultural context out of which it was born it doesn't make a lot of sense. Does that make it a bad song? Of course not, it just makes it more important to those on the "inside" who will truly understand its depth. Same thing with this movie. It can be watched and enjoyed and appreciated by those whose history with Scripture, the Church, and Christianity is minimal, but its deepest meanings and emotions for which the movie was intended probably only happen with those whose faith in Christ runs long and deep. That doesn't make it a bad movie, it just means it was sold with the wrong intentions.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
BrownEyedBoy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
That is great news. I hope many people become acquainted with the gospels throught that decision.
BrownEyedBoy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
And what is so wrong about that?
Similar threads
