Betty Bowers reviews Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Christ

Where to post, where to post...

Since this one was under "Film", I figured it was the most appropriate one to post this link under.

I think this says it all about the motivation behind the film.

http://www.sharethepassionofthechrist.com/

Perhaps my above comment is a bit harsh, but this is all about entertainment and making money. Having the film screened my religious groups prior to its release struck me as more of a marketing ploy than an attempt to gain the blessing of the Christian community.

If Mel were to personally contribute any profits of the film to charity, I would rethink my opinion of his intent. Otherwise, I'm remaining dubious about his motivations.

Ah yes! Did I tell you about my, erm...charity/investment opportunity called the Caprice Travel Fun? I would be much more gracious in my assessments if Mel contributed generously!

*j/k*

I agree with ya.

Actually I dosen't know what he could do to sway myself and many, many others that this wasn't just a pretentious ego trip. Not being able to get into his head and not wanting to play armchair psychiatrist I can only go by the exposition of the film. Overwrought and undernourished is all I can finally say.

He made the movie for the same reason all big box office movies are made...to make money...a lot of it.

Yes, I'm afraid the bad publicity will bring in many movie goers who enjoy the mayhem and cruelty but not really get any message. The story is too well known and Mel has cranked it up with special effects, a better than average choral background soundtrack (I guess there's something wrong with Bach, Beethoven and Brahms as writers of religious music), cinematography to emulate Romantic painting and a fixation on wounds which seem more clinical than dramatic. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel painting makes this look like the burnt offering it really is.

Or should I say bruised and slashed offering?

LOL

The film is going to be a bonanza for the shrinks, who will have to deal with the fallout that some children and young people will encounter after seeing that movie. For the truly religious, they may decide to send their kids to counseling with a priest, which may cause a whole different set of problems. Ugh!

Please explanin why the moralists, who were outraged that their children had seen a breast for one second on television, drag them to a movie depicting 2 hours of torture? Perhaps, to instill a deep sense of guilt. Is this child abuse? Why wasn't the film given an X rating, or at least a NC 17?

I agree with Phoenix; they're will be repurcussions for the children. Can you imagine the nightmares they're be having?

coluber2001- Welcome to A2K!

Just saw the film this after-noon
Positivas:
Monica Belluci est pulchritudinae est!!!!
Beautiful composition of shots.
Great use of colour.
Good score.
John the Beloved was a cutie...Yeshua had good taste in male lovers!!!
They got the Veronica/Mandylion in there.
Latin with an Italian accent...probably how the Vulgar Latin sounded.
I got to hear Aramaic!!! And I could decipher most of it. Yaaayyy!!!!
Loved the "Pieta" at the deposition!!!
Good portrayal of the "agony in the garden/" I have always though this is where the Christos is most approachable by the reader.
I liked the presentation of the Shaitan as a beautiful androgyne. Since it is supposed to be a fallen aggelos it makes a wonderful amount of sense (mental note: Might Annie Lennox be the anti-christ?).
The shots of the arma christi during the deposition.

Mediocritas
The bit with Judas and the kids reminds me of the horror stories my friend who teaches fourth grade frequently relates!
Pilate was not a wuss. This aspect was likely an attempt to make the gospels more acceptable to a Roman audience. I wish that Gibson had not followed this balderdash.
The "monsterization" of the centurions. Cheap and predictable, and not at all subtle. This was elementary school logic and detracted from the filmmaking.
The grotesqueness of all of the Jewish charachters.
The "wound suit" was horribly done, and looked too, too fake.
the falls were overdone. By the third one someone in the audience made the "falling whistling sound," and many laughed.
By the time the Christos had his cross tipped over I thought, "oh, come on!
this is silly!"
Costuming, etc.. were horribly historically inaccurate, but certainly on a par with most hollywood productions set in antiquity (i.e..: Gladiator).
The "action hero ending, with the view through the stigmata.

I liked it, but I am approaching it from a slightly different perspective than many. I found the identification of the Magdalen as the woman taken in adultery interesting. Usually she is identified as an amalgamation of Mary of Bethany, the woman cured of seven devils, and the woman with the heavy menstrual period. identifying her with the woman taken in adultery certainly supports the Magdalena Meretirces idea popular during the time of Katarina Emmerich (whose "visions" Gibson based the film on).

I also found it interesting from the point of attempting to understand the later medieval meditations on the passion, and particularly the emphasis on blood imagery (see Ross, The Grief of God: Images of the Suffering Jesus in Later Medieval England, (Oxford, 1989) and Rubin, Corpus Christi: Eucharistic Devotion in the High Middle Ages, (Oxford, 1987-ish, or thereabouts) ).

I was also stunned by the people in the audience "amen-ing" and "yessing" to themselves as they saw the film, As well as weeping conspicuously at parts. Some aging frat boy type accosted me as I left the theatre over "whether I was a 'krischin" (sic) and over the fact I have a button on my satchel with the face of Bush with a no-bozos symbol. I ignored him.

I would hope parents would have the good sense to not take their kids, as so many have indicated it is too violent for children. What is the rating?

It's rated "R". I have not seen the film, but have read many reviews. No matter what the religious stance of the reviewer, I think that there is a concensus that the film is overly gory, and as one reviewer wrote, "sadomasochistic". I remember one remark made by a reviewer that if that movie had been about anyone other than Jesus, it would have been immediately labled pornographic.

hobitbob -- a hoot of a review considering you could only manage to like the film. Mel would like you to love the film because if you don't, you are an agent of Satan. I tried to approach this with no bias considering Mel's fundamentalist extravagances (only thing I can think of calling it).
Did he manage to convert you?

Phoenix, it is pornographic violence. If this is what Gibson believes will bring people together, he is mistaken.

Nope. I found the excesses of the fundys in the audience vaguely embarrassing. I have studied too much of Christianity's history to be in any danger of believing in it!
Like I said, its a useful tool for understanding the mindset of fourteenth century female mystics! As entertainiment, well...lets just say there were too many scenes where I thought "Life of Brian did this better."

That's a great counter argument to use with all those "fundy's"

There were sooooooo many scenes that remindded me of the Python's take on jesus! From the scourging to through the via dolorosa, to the crucifixion. I even expected the Roman centurians to begin correcting grammar, and in the scene where Pilate's wife is moaning in a nightmare, I expected Biggus Dickus to be servicing her.

For the record, that last movie I had this much fun at was "Luther."