1
   

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

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 01:12 pm
Ah, yes -- I had almost forgotten. From Dracula's bride to...
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 01:15 pm
There was a wonderful short story, whose author and title I can not remember, where the "resurrection" was actually an "embrace" as it were. It was told from the viepoint of the now 2,000 year old Jesus, preparing to expose himself to the sun after tiring of life.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 02:06 pm
Was it Paul Thoreau's "The Second Coming?"
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 02:35 pm
No, Thoreau didn't write vampire stories!
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 04:32 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
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.


Those who leave it up to the viewer's are afraid to show their point of view, in my opinion. So what if they put the bible somewhere other than history? That is the categorizing of imperfect people. Just because the majority say it is true doesn't make it so. There is no 100% fact someone can say the Bible is Fantasy. As for the movie being fantasy that is only so to people who dislike people in religion and therefore want it to be something less just because they don't believe. Not that that isn't rude.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 04:40 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
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.


There is a difference in sex and violence and it is funny how everyone thinks they are the same. Violence in reference to war, torture, or anything factual (such as Jesus' being whipped) isn't the same as sex. Piolte and his wife must have had sex but what is the point in showing that? You know how sex is done and therefore there is no need to have any graphic sex--in any movie. Violence is different because you can say violence but you don't know what kind. You say that they had sex and you know exactly what went were, you don't know how long. Anal sex--self exclamatory. Oral sex. Again you should know.

Then there is Rape. It is a combination of the two. What should be shown? Well since you already know the sex part the only part that would be need is how the rap victim was put into submission enough that the rapist did his/her thing. After that showing the actual sex is not needed considering you already know how it works.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 04:42 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
...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....

This is what the Bible says about Pilate's role and attitude, according to a source I just found on Google at http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/pilatepontius.html . I have cut and pasted from that source:

After his trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus was brought to the Roman procurator, Pilate, who had come up to Jerusalem as usual to preserve order during the Passover, and was now residing, perhaps, in the castle of Antonia, or it may be in Herod's palace. Pilate came forth from his palace and met the deputation from the Sanhedrin, who, in answer to his inquiry as to the nature of the accusation they had to prefer against Jesus, accused him of being a "malefactor." Pilate was not satisfied with this, and they further accused him (1) of sedition, (2) preventing the payment of the tribute to Caesar, and (3) of assuming the title of king (Luke 23:2). Pilate now withdrew with Jesus into the palace (John 18:33) and examined him in private (37,38); and then going out to the deputation still standing before the gate, he declared that he could find no fault in Jesus (Luke 23:4). This only aroused them to more furious clamour, and they cried that he excited the populace "throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee." When Pilate heard of Galilee, he sent the accused to Herod Antipas, who had jurisdiction over that province, thus hoping to escape the difficulty in which he found himself. But Herod, with his men of war, set Jesus at nought, and sent him back again to Pilate, clad in a purple robe of mockery (23:11, 12).

Pilate now proposed that as he and Herod had found no fault in him, they should release Jesus; and anticipating that they would consent to this proposal, he ascended the judgment-seat as if ready to ratify the decision (Matt. 27:19). But at this moment his wife (Claudia Procula) sent a message to him imploring him to have nothing to do with the "just person." Pilate's feelings of perplexity and awe were deepened by this incident, while the crowd vehemently cried out, "Not this man, but Barabbas." Pilate answered, "What then shall I do with Jesus?" The fierce cry immediately followed. "Let him be crucified." Pilate, apparently vexed, and not knowning what to do, said, "Why, what evil hath he done?" but with yet fiercer fanaticism the crowd yelled out, "Away with him! crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate yielded, and sent Jesus away to be scourged. This scourging was usually inflicted by lictors; but as Pilate was only a procurator he had no lictor, and hence his soldiers inflicted this terrible punishment. This done, the soldiers began to deride the sufferer, and they threw around him a purple robe, probably some old cast-off robe of state (Matt. 27:28; John 19:2), and putting a reed in his right hand, and a crowd of thorns on his head, bowed the knee before him in mockery, and saluted him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" They took also the reed and smote him with it on the head and face, and spat in his face, heaping upon him every indignity.

Pilate then led forth Jesus from within the Praetorium (Matt. 27:27) before the people, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, saying, "Behold the man!" But the sight of Jesus, now scourged and crowned and bleeding, only stirred their hatred the more, and again they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" and brought forth this additional charge against him, that he professed to be "the Son of God." Pilate heard this accusation with a superstitious awe, and taking him once more within the Praetorium, asked him, "Whence art thou?" Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate was irritated by his continued silence, and said, "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee?" Jesus, with calm dignity, answered the Roman, "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above."

After this Pilate seemed more resolved than ever to let Jesus go. The crowd perceiving this cried out, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend." This settled the matter. He was afraid of being accused to the emperor. Calling for water, he washed his hands in the sight of the people, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person." The mob, again scorning his scruples, cried, "His blood be on us, and on our children." Pilate was stung to the heart by their insults, and putting forth Jesus before them, said, "Shall I crucify your King?" The fatal moment had now come. They madly exclaimed, "We have no king but Caesar;" and now Jesus is given up to them, and led away to be crucified.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 04:46 pm
the thing is, however, the historical record paints a different picture of the man than the NT. This is likely due to a need to make the new religion acceptable to the Romans who were becoming its most numerous converts. In addition, it was likely undertaken to avoid subjecting the new Christians to the sort of scrutiny Jews had been under since the uprisings in Judea. In essence, blame was shifted and Pilate's character saccharinized in order to say "look, we have nothing to do with those participating in revolt."
The Bible should never be viewd as an untarnished historical record. It has far too many historical innacuaracies for it to serve as a reliable record of anything other than philosophy.

BM, your defence of violence was not overly convincing. If you enjoy violence that is your perogative. The question many of us have is why so many self-identified "Christinas" have such a love of violence and cruelty and an equally intense fear of sexuality.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 04:49 pm
Or your "historians" were being Bias and didn't like Pilate and therefore put him in harsher light saying it would be impossible for him to be "nice" as he was to Jesus. And you are in love with the idea that they changed it so that more Romans could become christians. Even though Romans were the ones that put the bible around people's necks as the lions ate lunch.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 04:53 pm
Actually, the Roman accounts of Pilate's cruelty mix apprehension with admiration. Your argument fails again. As for the "Bibles around christian's necks," etc...you are better off reading something other than martyrology. Most of what the public thinks it "knows" about Christianity in later antiquity is innacurate. Herrin's The Formation of Christendom, and Peter Brown's Chrisitanity in Late Antiquity might be good places for you to begin.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 04:57 pm
You say it is inaccurate but what you are giving me to read is that 100% accurate? If not I am better off sticking with what I know.

Plus unless you are 100% sure that I am wrong about Pilate I disagree with what you said, and if you wonder why I have already posted as to such.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 05:02 pm
BM, there is no such thing as "100% accurate." It doesn't exist. What does exist is the preponderence of evidence. there is overwhelming evidence that Christianity spread fastest among the non-Jewish population of the Roman empire. By the end of the first century the largest population of Christians outside of Asia Minor was in Rome itself. This is in itself reason for those who composed the gospels to edit them to suit the tastes of their audiences.
As for references to Pilate, Josephus, Pliny,and others wrote of him. In addition political records of the era refer to the character of his procuratorship.
You are free to 'believe" whatever you wish about the period, but you should probably realize that many wil not take your views seriously if you display such hostility to the historical record, and to reasonable discussion. Your signiature line seems to say it all.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 05:11 pm
Aw you are hitting when all we are are discussing. If you wanna spar I am more than happy to. But I will let that sig comment go by.

So you are telling me that Pialte was mean all his life? Because you are saying that Pialte was mean and not once nice. I can tell you that isn't true. There isn't one person who was born on this earth who was always mean. Everyone has a soft spot no matter what.

Also you are telling me your historical evidence isn't bias?

And your right there isn't "100% accurate" so it would be nice of you to quit talking like there is.

And just for you I will chang my sig. All for you.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 05:16 pm
BlueMonkey wrote:
Aw you are hitting when all we are are discussing. If you wanna spar I am more than happy to. But I will let that sig comment go by.

useless ad hominem

Quote:
So you are telling me that Pialte was mean all his life? Because you are saying that Pialte was mean and not once nice. I can tell you that isn't true. There isn't one person who was born on this earth who was always mean. Everyone has a soft spot no matter what.

I'm sure Pilate loved his moomy, but I doubt he had muich sympathy for a political revolutionary, which is what Jesus was.

Quote:
Also you are telling me your historical evidence isn't bias?

No, I am saying that one must read more than one source to make up for these biases.

Quote:
And your right there isn't "100% accurate" so it would be nice of you to quit talking like there is.

I have never implied that there exists "100% accuracy."

Quote:
And just for you I will chang my sig. All for you.

I don't really care what you do. Your argumentative tone tends to detract from anthing you have to say.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 05:24 pm
hobitbob wrote:
BlueMonkey wrote:
Aw you are hitting when all we are are discussing. If you wanna spar I am more than happy to. But I will let that sig comment go by.

useless ad hominem.


What? Do you want me to say that your's wasn't?

Tone. If you don't talk as if you know all that is right then I don't talk as if I have a tone. Plus you don't know my tone. You are only assuming.

You don't get what I am saying. Is it not possible that Pilate was nice to others--excluding his wife and mother--. A person isn't always mean. That would get tiring. Just like a person isn't always nice. Or a person isn't always thinking.--go ahead and use one of your, as you would say it, "useless ad hominem." Because if you are going to say no it isn't possible it means you are 100% sure that he was never nice to anyone.

Then you are being narrow minded--which is your tone if you would like to know.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 05:37 pm
I wouldn't be calling people narrow minded when one believes the Gospels to the letter but gives little credence to the historians of the period who were writing the history as it happened, not decades later. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Mel Gibson is a filmmaker (I would not rate him as an auteur even if aspires to be one). He used many cinematic tricks, some to excess (the slowmo belongs in Kung Fu movies). Suffice it to say that those on either side will not meet in the middle. I still feel the blood and brutality in the film is not inspiring but distressingly pornographic. If you want to see the comprehensive film that Gibson tried to emulate but cranked up the volume to ear splitting levels, see "The Gospel According to St. Mathew." A beautifully realized and artistically unassailable movie which is and will always be a classic. This one will be remembered for its over-the-top blood and gore.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 05:37 pm
BlueMonkey wrote:

What? Do you want me to say t]hat your's wasn't?

I have been known to resort to them, but I haevn't used one toward you yet. Oh ,wait...here's one...hows the weather under that bridge?Wink

Quote:
Tone. If you don't talk as if you know all that is right then I don't talk as if I have a tone. Plus you don't know my tone. You are only assuming.

BM, my time is spent evaluating sources and synthesizing them. I'm a history grad student, this is what I do. I don't pretend to know everything (haev you actually read my signiature?). I am sorry if you take disagreement to be criticism. Therapy might be beneficial for you. I have seen your consdescending, belligerent manner on many threads besides this one, and frankly don't feel you have anything of substance to add to any discussion in which you choose to enter.

Quote:
You don't get what I am saying. Is it not possible that Pilate was nice to others--excluding his wife and mother--. A person isn't always mean. That would get tiring. Just like a person isn't always nice.

I do get what you are saying, and I disagree with its relevence to the subject at hand.


Quote:
Or a person isn't always thinking.--go ahead and use one of your, as you would say it, "useless ad hominem." Because if you are going to say no it isn't possible it means you are 100% sure that he was never nice to anyone.

Again, "nice" has nothing to do with it. Pilate ruled the province of Judea with an iron grip. The Pilate of the gosples is a fictional construct, nothing more or less.

Quote:
Then you are being narrow minded--which is your tone if you would like to know.

No, I am rejecting the accounts presented in the bible, which are contradicted by all other available evidence. For the record, I don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Clause either. Have a nice evening.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 05:39 pm
I don't think it matters to what extent the Bible is historically accurate, since I assume that Gibson's intent was to make a film version of events in the Bible, not events from history.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 05:48 pm
hobitbob wrote:
BM, my time is spent evaluating sources and synthesizing them. I'm a history grad student, this is what I do. I don't pretend to know everything (haev you actually read my signiature?). I am sorry if you take disagreement to be criticism. Therapy might be beneficial for you. I have seen your consdescending, belligerent manner on many threads besides this one, and frankly don't feel you have anything of substance to add to any discussion in which you choose to enter.

Again, "nice" has nothing to do with it. Pilate ruled the province of Judea with an iron grip. The Pilate of the gosples is a fictional construct, nothing more or less.


So you are saying that he was never "nice" to any one? It doesn't matter how he ruled. The statement I want you to agree or disagree with is that you think he was never nice to anyone. He was always mean.

As you can see I have not made one rude comment to you. But it is apparent that you like to do such. You keep it up if that makes you feel better. You are resorting to what you think I am "always" doing. You are mad, not me. You are mad because I pointed out that you don't have 100% accuracy and therefore there isn't any reason I should believe that you are more right than the Bible. That is all I am asking for and you can't give it to me because you don't have it. Which is fine.

Another thing, I never said you knew everything. It is a good thing to read before you reply. I said that "your tone" is in that way.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 05:52 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
I wouldn't be calling people narrow minded when one believes the Gospels to the letter but gives little credence to the historians of the period who were writing the history as it happened, not decades later. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I have "little knowledge". Cause that is such a nice thing to say. Makes you look all the better. And I never called anyone "narrow minded" I said tone.

Lightwizard wrote:
Mel Gibson is a filmmaker (I would not rate him as an auteur even if aspires to be one). He used many cinematic tricks, some to excess (the slowmo belongs in Kung Fu movies). Suffice it to say that those on either side will not meet in the middle. I still feel the blood and brutality in the film is not inspiring but distressingly pornographic. If you want to see the comprehensive film that Gibson tried to emulate but cranked up the volume to ear splitting levels, see "The Gospel According to St. Mathew." A beautifully realized and artistically unassailable movie which is and will always be a classic. This one will be remembered for its over-the-top blood and gore.


It will become a Classic. People said that Titanic wouldn't become one and it already is. You can't dictate what is and isn't a classic. Because you are the first to mention "The Gospel According to St. Mathew" as a classic.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 05:56:03