Mel Gibson's "Passion"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:
Fizz, you would be surprised by the message that can be conveyed without subtitles or translations.

I think of the time I attended service at a Presbyterian church in Cairo, Egypt - done entirely in Arabic. Our confusion was overshadowed by the message we received.

But then some may misinterpret, especially those who don't know the story that well. You can speak in the same language to some people and they will mininterpret. It can go both ways. Honestly I don't think it will get any type of distribution without subtitles.
I think he ought to put subtitles in, also. In fact, when he showed it to a group in Colorado, several people told him they think he should.
:yes: I hope it will end up with subtitles. Even if you know the story backwards and forwards you still want to know what is being said.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
I sort of agree with Angela. While I understand why the director chose to make the film entirely in Aramaic and Hebrew, I can't help but think it will discourage some people from viewing the film at all and make it needlessly confusing for others. Perhaps it would have been best for the film to at least have subtitles, or the option of viewing the film with subtitles to make the film more accessible to people.

I agree to that, people who allready know the full story aren't the only ones who should watch the movie.

But they could do the movie in various languages, at least here in germany you can switch with your tv remote from the translated german to the original language in some movies.

Wow, that was intense.

This really does look like a movie where we'll need to bring a lot of tissues with us.

BTW, that Jesus movie that was on TV a few years ago (that had Debra Messing play Mary Magdalene), the devil was a woman, too.
What's going on here? :scratch:

In regards to that article on Mary Magdalene in Mrs. Springsteen's thread, I wonder how Mel Gibson would portray her. She obviously has a big, important role here, and I wonder if Mel would portray her differently than other movies had.

Gosh, I'm so spooked by this

Last edited:
I watched the trailer yesterday - it is quite graphic, and it's so unique to see an "unsanitized" depiction of the Crucifixion. I certainly don't condone any anti-Semitic tones/statements in this film, if they do exist (that's just what I've read in articles/seen on news shows).

I do hope they will put out a version w/ subtitles
i saw the preview to this movie at the Harvest Crusade 2003. Mel Gibson had videotaped a message to the audience and greg laurie talking about his movie. it was very intense...broke out the tissues. i would have to agree, that this movie does need subtitles. im hard of hearing and i depend on it when i do watch tv or movies. i look forward to this.
I cannot wait for this movie. I've been hearing that it is probably THE most accurate story of Christ ever made. I guess I never knew that Mel was so fervent in his faith....good to know that Hollyweird hasn't run roughshod over *everyone* connected to it. :up:

As much as I enjoy foreign films, and as fascinated as I am to hear the movie spoken in *Christ's own dialect*, I do hope Mel relents and adds subtitles. Most people obviously know the story, but what about those that don't? I think it would be a wise decision on his part. I'm also glad the actors are not well known, which I think would be a big distraction (i.e., Tom Cruise in Interview with the Vampire)

The movie comes out when, around Easter? How appropriate. I *know* it will change lives!
As for the article about Mel's dad, I've heard that the press has been trying to dig up dirt on Mel (even going so far as trying to get his elderly dad to say bad things). This is totally on course if Mel is trying to obey God in making this movie, which I believe he is. When you obey and walk in line with God, you will be attacked spiritually.

As for who's to blame for Christ's death, that question is irrelevant to a large degree in relationship to the Jews. We are all to blame for His death, really. Sin is what brought Him to the cross, not the Jews. The answer is much deeper than the surface. He came to earth through the line of the Jewish people and they rejected Him, as was prophecied. God knew it would happen. Farther than that, everyone who doesn't accept Jesus' sacrifice rejects him. It's on all of our shoulders, in that respect. No blame needs to be laid on the Jews for Jesus' death - praise God He was sent, was crucified, and has made way for our salvation and redemption.
A nun mentioned this film the other night at a meeting at my church. Some people are very concerned about the "blame" thing. She said basically the same thing you did--that we all sin and our sin is to "blame" for Jesus' death, and at any rate He willingly did it to save us. There shouldn't be a "blame game" for this at all.
I agree. Getting all caught up in who's to blame is missing the whole point of the crucifixion, and even why Jesus came in the first place.

I wonder why Gibson hasn't brought that up. You know, instead of complaining that people think the film would inspire anti-Semitism, why hasn't he come out and say those who think Christ was killed (let alone by the Jews) have Christian teachings all wrong?

Last edited:
First, subtitles, from what I understand are not necessary due to the fact that the dialogue is very limited...

Second, this movie should be allowed to be made. Just like NWA, or Pulbic Enemy, or gansta rap has a right to be voiced, by the first amendment of the Constitution, this movie has a right to be made. Now, the messages are complete opposites, I acknowledge that fully, and it's true, this is a world issue, not just American, but I still think it should be made in whatever way Gibson wants.

That being said. It is a very dangerous movie, because it will cause feelings of anti-Semitism. To say we all killed Jesus with our sins may or may not be true, but that is just one personal opinion, just as every person's faith is their own individual opinion. So people will, inevitably blame Judaism. But I think that this is no different than those who viewed American History X as a pro-neo Nazi movie. That wasn't the message, but there were those who felt it glorified Naziism. Unfortunatly, that is the risk with something like this.

But, this is just my opinion. I am not Jewish, and I am in fact Catholic. Whether I like it or not, my opinions are rooted in a Catholic upbringing.

I often find the Catholic church's policies offensive, and I think they are blind to reality on these types of issues. Check out Jean-Luc Godard's "Hail Mary", a movie banned by the Vatican, probably the most beautiful, realistic, pro faith movie ever made. These types of foolish policies have soured the world to Catholicism, and I think this is what Gibson is experiencing. Someone wrote a book this year (I can't think of the name) discussing the fact that Catholics are the last group left that can be discriminated against, and it is not considered bigotry, or politically incorrect. I think that's true, and that is what Mel Gibson is experiencing.
Re: Here's something i found

theSoulfulMofo said:

That's very interesting, thanks for posting that

I think Michael Medved is an intelligent, thoughtful critic

I still don't know what to make of this controversy, except to say that it would make me very sad if any Jewish people were legitimately offended by it. I want to believe that Mel Gibson has absolutely no ulterior motives in making this movie.
Though I have zero respect for Mel Gibson, due to his comments on Bono's "Million Dollar Hotel" movie. This movie might be ok.

I just can stand Mel's disrespect:mad: :madspit:
He something like the movie was "boring" just as the movie was coming out
Top Bottom