He's the movie critic for Dark Cinema. He watches a lot of violent, gory movies. Here, in part, is what he said:
Well here`s a new genre that should get everybody hopping in the 21st Century!
SPLATTER JESUS.
It never ceases to amaze me how some practitioners of the Christian faith, who espouse so much kindness and love, are often so enamored in utterly violent imagery. ... So in that vein of Fangoria-style fundamentalism, comes a new flick from bible-thumpin` Mel Gibson. ... It`s called PASSION OF THE CHRIST and it`s all about hurting the Jesus. ... It deals less with what Jesus had to say and more with ... people getting nails shoved through their body. Poor Jesus just wails and whimpers and cries and loves and mopes and shuffles as he gets whipped and tortured and brutalized into a bloody heap of weeping, sorrow-drenched messiah goo.
I suppose all the horrible bleeding agony and despair is not without complete meaning. We`re all suppose to feel BAD, cause this poor Jesus guy is really nice and he`s important to some people and he`s suffering this brutal, unrelenting, hideous torture. And I felt bad watching it. But no less, no worse for the girl puking her entrails out in Gates of Hell. I`m not into the Jesus. I respect ... Christianity. ... I just wish this Jesus guy inspired as much out of Mel Gibson as he does out of my family.
Cause frankly? PASSION OF THE CHRIST is about as shallow as AZUMI and KILL BILL ... It is a PASSION PLAY, so naturally it`s all about emotional reactions. Mel Gibson ... claimed to have done oceans of research and for the life of me? I can`t see it in the film. Historically the entire film is completely wrong, right down to the clothes ... and the accents of the actors. ...
And I feel it`s slightly racist. For those people out there, rolling their eyes at the reporters in the media who have watched this film and claimed it was anti Jew? Well roll with this suckers. The original Gospels were written with the intent of converting people away from the Jewish faith ... Everything written on Jesus was done so 70 years after his death and the death of all his prophets and buddies. ...
Thing is, this is the 21st Century. Divide and conquer is a pretty lame, low-brow tactic, and blaming Jewish people directly for the death of the Son of God, ... is a pretty manipulative thing to do.
Every choice Mel makes reflects the agenda with which he approached the material. The true historical Pilate was universally agreed to be an astoundingly cruel and disturbed maniac. ... If Gibson has done any basic rudimentary research then he would know this ... So why then does Gibson choose instead to portray Pilate as a conflicted, deep and torn leader? ... Poor, innocent Pilate forced to kill the noble Jesus ... Aaawwww, what a misunderstood and tortured figure of history!
Give me a break.
And don`t tell me that Mel had to use that version cause it was in the books, cause each of the Gospels offers up a different version of the events. ... No, you see Mel Gibson CHOSE to blatantly misrepresent the truth of his own ideology. ...
I think this movie is not ... even about Jesus, it`s about special effects, hubris and being pretentious. ... The film is shot in the original language of the time and Mel didn`t want there to be subtitles (me thinks to hide his lack of writing skill), so that the film could appear "totally authentic". Now isn`t that a hoot? In Mel`s original vision you weren`t even suppose to understand what anyone was saying. You were just suppose to sit back and take in a good Jesus Whipping. But gosh, one would think that if Mel wanted to be a little more authentic, he would have (a) told the truth about Pilate and (b) made some of these guys who are constantly running around in the basking sun to be...oh I dunno...tanned? Not pale white? But then again being pale white makes the blood stand out more...and making Pilate a good guy lets you hate Jewish people. So y`know..DRAMATIC EFFECT!
But ultimately there is one good thing about this movie. It shows that we live in a society that goes into seizures ... over an exposed breast, and yet will simultaneously tighten up with tears and ... piety over a 100 minute non-stop orgy of hideously brutal graphic violence.
Someone I know has been referring to it as "Jesus Chainsaw Massacre"
I do keep hearing that it's NOT about the life of jebus or his message - JUST about his death.
I also keep hearing (on the radio, even) that there are a lot of churches buying out shows to give tickets away in an effort to convert them. As gory and violent as the movie sounds (and rated R) I have to wonder if they even watched it before deciding to buy the tickets.
"Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" comes from a reviewer; if you care, I'll track down which one. I stumbled across it and quoted it in a comment to somebody else's journal ... probably silmaril's journal, I think.)
As for being just about His death, well to be fair that's all it tried to be, all it ever claimed to be, and even exactly what the title says it is: our modern meaning for the word "passion" derives from an older meaning that meant "suffering", and in this context it means exactly what this movie portrays. So that's not a valid complaint about the job they did making the movie/telling the story (but it is a valid complaint about which movie they decided to make, which part of the story they decided to tell).
As others have pointed out, there's a long history of "passion plays"; at the same time (again, as others have pointed out), trying to use this to convert people instead of a telling of the larger story that makes this ending meaningful in the first place, is a bizarre choice. (And (again, not my own observation or research), denying the inflammatory nature of the movie given the historical correspondence between passion plays and anti-Semitic violence, is suspicious at best.)
I think that the churches giving away tickets aren't thinking "gory and violent" so much as "realistic and spectacular" -- think "shock and awe". But I still find it really odd to use just the ending, without the message part of the story, to try to win converts. For somebody who already believes, I can see an excruciatingly graphic depiction driving home just how much He suffered for us to give us the gift of Salvation (in other words, the movie is a reminder that it wasn't, "Oh okay, the point in the story when I die now -- see y'all in a couple of days, and have a nice weekend!", that instead it involved real suffering, torture). I can't see someone who doesn't already believe, reacting to a couple hours of brutality inflicted on a character they don't already have that personal attachment to, saying, "Gee, all that gore and pain has opened my eyes to how much God loves us!" or something.
So I think the Christians who say things like, "I dare anyone to watch this and not believe," are mistaking their feelings of having their existing belief emphasized and personalized, for the acquisition of new faith. Sloppy thinking. Grrrr.
Me, I'm already a believer but I'm not sure I really want to sit through this movie based on what I've heard. Further thoughts on the reasons for that might venture into TMI-land, but I may get around to organizing them into words eventually anyhow.
A friend of mine had to review it for his job...
Well here`s a new genre that should get everybody hopping in the 21st Century!
SPLATTER JESUS.
It never ceases to amaze me how some practitioners of the Christian faith, who espouse so much kindness and love, are often so enamored in utterly violent imagery. ... So in that vein of Fangoria-style fundamentalism, comes a new flick from bible-thumpin` Mel Gibson. ... It`s called PASSION OF THE CHRIST and it`s all about hurting the Jesus. ... It deals less with what Jesus had to say and more with ... people getting nails shoved through their body. Poor Jesus just wails and whimpers and cries and loves and mopes and shuffles as he gets whipped and tortured and brutalized into a bloody heap of weeping, sorrow-drenched messiah goo.
I suppose all the horrible bleeding agony and despair is not without complete meaning. We`re all suppose to feel BAD, cause this poor Jesus guy is really nice and he`s important to some people and he`s suffering this brutal, unrelenting, hideous torture. And I felt bad watching it. But no less, no worse for the girl puking her entrails out in Gates of Hell. I`m not into the Jesus. I respect ... Christianity. ... I just wish this Jesus guy inspired as much out of Mel Gibson as he does out of my family.
Cause frankly? PASSION OF THE CHRIST is about as shallow as AZUMI and KILL BILL ... It is a PASSION PLAY, so naturally it`s all about emotional reactions. Mel Gibson ... claimed to have done oceans of research and for the life of me? I can`t see it in the film. Historically the entire film is completely wrong, right down to the clothes ... and the accents of the actors.
...
And I feel it`s slightly racist. For those people out there, rolling their eyes at the reporters in the media who have watched this film and claimed it was anti Jew? Well roll with this suckers. The original Gospels were written with the intent of converting people away from the Jewish faith ... Everything written on Jesus was done so 70 years after his death and the death of all his prophets and buddies. ...
Thing is, this is the 21st Century. Divide and conquer is a pretty lame, low-brow tactic, and blaming Jewish people directly for the death of the Son of God, ... is a pretty manipulative thing to do.
Every choice Mel makes reflects the agenda with which he approached the material. The true historical Pilate was universally agreed to be an astoundingly cruel and disturbed maniac. ... If Gibson has done any basic rudimentary research then he would know this ... So why then does Gibson choose instead to portray Pilate as a conflicted, deep and torn leader? ... Poor, innocent Pilate forced to kill the noble Jesus ... Aaawwww, what a misunderstood and tortured figure of history!
Give me a break.
And don`t tell me that Mel had to use that version cause it was in the books, cause each of the Gospels offers up a different version of the events. ... No, you see Mel Gibson CHOSE to blatantly misrepresent the truth of his own ideology. ...
I think this movie is not ... even about Jesus, it`s about special effects, hubris and being pretentious. ... The film is shot in the original language of the time and Mel didn`t want there to be subtitles (me thinks to hide his lack of writing skill), so that the film could appear "totally authentic". Now isn`t that a hoot? In Mel`s original vision you weren`t even suppose to understand what anyone was saying. You were just suppose to sit back and take in a good Jesus Whipping. But gosh, one would think that if Mel wanted to be a little more authentic, he would have (a) told the truth about Pilate and (b) made some of these guys who are constantly running around in the basking sun to be...oh I dunno...tanned? Not pale white? But then again being pale white makes the blood stand out more...and making Pilate a good guy lets you hate Jewish people. So y`know..DRAMATIC EFFECT!
But ultimately there is one good thing about this movie. It shows that we live in a society that goes into seizures ... over an exposed breast, and yet will simultaneously tighten up with tears and ... piety over a 100 minute non-stop orgy of hideously brutal graphic violence.
Re: A friend of mine had to review it for his job...
Re: A friend of mine had to review it for his job...
I do keep hearing that it's NOT about the life of jebus or his message - JUST about his death.
I also keep hearing (on the radio, even) that there are a lot of churches buying out shows to give tickets away in an effort to convert them. As gory and violent as the movie sounds (and rated R) I have to wonder if they even watched it before deciding to buy the tickets.
Re: A friend of mine had to review it for his job...
As for being just about His death, well to be fair that's all it tried to be, all it ever claimed to be, and even exactly what the title says it is: our modern meaning for the word "passion" derives from an older meaning that meant "suffering", and in this context it means exactly what this movie portrays. So that's not a valid complaint about the job they did making the movie/telling the story (but it is a valid complaint about which movie they decided to make, which part of the story they decided to tell).
As others have pointed out, there's a long history of "passion plays"; at the same time (again, as others have pointed out), trying to use this to convert people instead of a telling of the larger story that makes this ending meaningful in the first place, is a bizarre choice. (And (again, not my own observation or research), denying the inflammatory nature of the movie given the historical correspondence between passion plays and anti-Semitic violence, is suspicious at best.)
I think that the churches giving away tickets aren't thinking "gory and violent" so much as "realistic and spectacular" -- think "shock and awe". But I still find it really odd to use just the ending, without the message part of the story, to try to win converts. For somebody who already believes, I can see an excruciatingly graphic depiction driving home just how much He suffered for us to give us the gift of Salvation (in other words, the movie is a reminder that it wasn't, "Oh okay, the point in the story when I die now -- see y'all in a couple of days, and have a nice weekend!", that instead it involved real suffering, torture). I can't see someone who doesn't already believe, reacting to a couple hours of brutality inflicted on a character they don't already have that personal attachment to, saying, "Gee, all that gore and pain has opened my eyes to how much God loves us!" or something.
So I think the Christians who say things like, "I dare anyone to watch this and not believe," are mistaking their feelings of having their existing belief emphasized and personalized, for the acquisition of new faith. Sloppy thinking. Grrrr.
Me, I'm already a believer but I'm not sure I really want to sit through this movie based on what I've heard. Further thoughts on the reasons for that might venture into TMI-land, but I may get around to organizing them into words eventually anyhow.