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

I do love what you find to entertain you, hobitbob!

I was so repelled by the graphic and gratuitous violence that I lost out on appreciating some things that may have been good about the film.

Mel was on Leno last night and when Jay asked him about where all the virulent criticism was coming from, Mel asided under his breath after saying he didn't know that, well, he did know where it was coming from (in his best coyly ominous voice). Meaning again, of course, that how dare they not love my film -- Satan is guiding them.

Then he was asked by Jay (who liked the film!?) about the cinematography looking like old paintings saying specifically that the scene where Christ falls backwards with the cross that it looked like something he had seen before. Oh, yes, we were informed, there was an effort to emulate paintings by Caravaggio and other classical painters. Artsy fartsy imitation of great art.

Caravaggio? Certainly not! Hmph! More like Grunewald!

Grunewald on Ecstasy.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0225/p13s01-almo.html

I saw the movie tonight or if you want technical I saw it Friday night. I know how it is told in the bible.

There are minor liberties. But for the most part it was as it was when read from the bible.

This movie made me think of how Mary must have felt seeing her son going through so much and she was not able to protect him as a mother wants to and does.

I admit that I did shed tears. How can't you. Never have I seen a movie where the person is being attacked and it felt so personal. And yet at the same time I did not want revenge upon the attackers. It is remarkable ability to rely information through visual means and have it so full of emotion that seeing it once will forever be engrave upon your soul.

Thank you Mel for eyes into the past to see what one man endured so that all men (& women) may be spared from sin's grasp. It was a grand sight and never shall one forget the visual pain and suffering that cascaded the screen. Well done.

Quite easily, in fact. It was horribly historically inaccurate, but it does give some insight into the mindset of those who fervently contemplate the suffering of the Christos as a method of personal salvation.

It was the devil taunting him for what he had done.



How do you know? Because of what history says? Well history was written by bias people. There is no way anything is accurately told unless it was done by a force which is greater. Humans are imperfect and for everyone to claim they know what occurred is absurd. They don't know for 100%. They only have what one imperfect human passed down to the next. So it was history told by people who did not like the romans or did not like Pilate. He may have been a evil man. But all evil men have done something that was not evil. Something that was caring. And that was Pilate's. You cannot deny it as not true. You can only say you don't believe it happened. But there is a strong possibility that it did. "An attempt to make the gospels more acceptable to a Roman audience"--that, in itself, is 'balderdash'.



They were mean. Not the Jews as a whole. No. But the leaders were.



The falls were not, in my opinion, over done. They appeared to you as over done because of the slow motion that was used. He fell a few times. Which would be the case if someone was butchered as he was.



It is a good thing you are not trying to be rude.--the costuming was not "horribly, historically inaccurate."



Why? If you were truly stunned why did you even go? You should have known that was going to happen with all of your "knowledge" that you have. Stunned you shouldn't have been.

Could you please post a link to this quotation? Haven't seen the report of him saying this or something similar to this. I'm assuming you didn't just make this up.

I haven't seen the film, but reading Hobitbob's review, it also reminded me of Grünewald's (who was a Gothic, not Medieval, painter) crucifixtion--"commissioned for the Antoinite monastery at Isenheim and was intended to give support to patients in the monastic hospital. Christ appears hideous, his skin swollen and torn as a result of the flagellation and torture that He endured. This was understandably a powerful image in a hospital that specialized in caring for those suffering from skin complaints" WebMuseum, Paris Grünewald, Matthias --and the importance the Catholic Church has placed and continues to place on its passion theology, the suffering aspect and personal identification thereof. Mel's seems to be an extension of this vision.

BlueMonkey,
you say the Jewish leaders were mean, but the Gospel of Luke and Acts also portray the Jewish leaders as benevolent to Jesus and the Apostles:

Luke 13:31 portrays the Pharisees as trying to save Jesus' life.

Acts 5;33-40 has Gamliel saving the lives of the Apostles.

A whole lot of contradictory messages can be read from the Bible, both Old (Tanakh) and New Testaments, and it takes an equal amount of faith to hold those together.

Another inaccuracy, I think Hobitbob pointed it out earlier in another thread, is that if there was any actual dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, it would most probably have been in Greek, not Latin.

But I'm sure it gave the Latin scholars something of a rush. Does anyone know what's the take on the film's use of Aramaic by the its scholars? Hobitbob seemed to get a kick out of it.

Yeah it was "certain" Pharisees. And it is true that some, very few, did help. Which would mean not all of them were mean. interesting because if they were not all mean and there were some that did see what the majority were doing as wrong so could it be possible that Pilate would show some heart. Every evil man who has lived has shown heart.

The bible is not contradictory.

And what they speak, so what? What language this or that. What a minor detail that only nitpickers would care to point out. But again you have no 100% proof that he didn't speak the way they portrayed it in the movie.

There's no doubt that each person will get from the movie what they will get. Film can manipulate a lot of emotion -- one cries in Bambi. Again we have those who would make the Bible into a history book yet is sits in the Mythology section of the library, not the History section. The Apostles writings and historical records do not agree with Mel's twist on the story. One commentator said Pontius Pilate came off as Phil Donohue and I agree that is one of the most egregious alterations (Mel is acting not only as a minister but as an editor of the Bible and the history books, just like he did in "Braveheart"). All historical record from derived from Roman writers as well as the Gospels do not ignore Pilate's dasterdly past. He liked sending people to death, especially by Crucifixion.

Christians have the perogative to swoon over Mel's effort (although as far as sect, he's as far away from Protestentism as Rome is from L.A.). Why they sit through the fetish of focusing on the blood and horror is quite frankly beyond me. They rationalize and justify in giving it a pass. I believe that is wrong but that is my opinion (okay, the opinion of learned and respected critics around the world, including Christian reviewers as linked above).

My Episcopalean Priest friend says it is way over the top but it wouldn't be something he'd proclaim to his flock, only to warn of the graphic violence and especially not to take young people under 17. If theaters are letting them in, it's back to the drawing board on how well the rating system works.

I have always had a lot of reservation about how filmmakers interpret the story of Christ. The directors and the actors are not impartial. "Ben Hur" and "The Gospel According to St. Mathew" are still the two best films. "Ben Hur" handles it well because a lot is left to the viewer's imagination but the final scenese are very potent each time I watch the film.

Mel doesn't believe in leaving anything up to one's imagination and this is such a sensitive subject (it's not LOTR but in places it comes off as fantasy) it has to be approached by discerning, intelligent creative people. Mel doesn't reach the mark.

What's ironic is that violence is much, much more acceptable to the general American theatergoing audience than is sexuality. If this film's graphicness had been sexual rather than violent it would have garnered an NC-17 with nary an afterthought, but because its theme is violence, it merely got an R rating.

I wonder if there was even a debate within the MPAA about how to rate this film.

Okay, I admit it, I was praying fpr a Monica Belluci nude scene!

Didn't get it huh? It's obvious your a heathen if your pryers weren't answered.

Sigh, I must be.

Oh my god I loved that scene where Monica Belluci makes out with Jesus in the bathroom of that club when they are trying to save Zion . . .

She already has a respectable filmography and I can't come up with the films where she has appeared nude but she has.

You know, I have still yet to see episodes two or three of the Matrix.

One was in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Sweet.