0
   

Mel Gibson--In Vino Veritas?

 
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 07:53 am
http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/4eaf340c7f.jpg
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 08:07 am
The Bible states that Christ was scourged. That's it. Mel had his researchers look into the Roman historical time for how many ways a person could be scourged. Mel pulled every trick out of the bag. I was surprised that Christ was not also boiled in oil, hung up by his nuts and had Herod's scepter shoved up his ass. This is not accurate to history -- the various methods of scourging were never described as used in unison and Christ would have been dead by the time this slasher film violent gore ended (complete with blood flying through the air). Don't give me that he was holy, so could survive it -- he didn't survive the cross. Did his Dad decide to use him as a lesson and wanted the public scouring to resemble Freddy doing away with a victim (that's actually much milder gore). Was the original story of the Crucifixion staged by God to resemble a Cecile B. Demille movie? I'm sure it made the devout audiences cry, but it nearly made me vomit. It did not make me drawn to Christianity, it repelled me. The film is an unabashed tear-jerker but really revealed little about Christ himself. It was made to thwart Vatican II which discourages passion plays, prolific at one time in Europe and America. The Crystal Cathedral (which looks like a Lincoln auto showroom) near my house has presented a live, very sanitized version of a passion play for many years. It's as corny as Kansas in August.

Mel made a basically old Hollywood, traditional Biblical epic with all the trappings. The Crucifixion was best depicted in "Ben Hur" and the graphic horror is unnecessary. The film relinquished no more understanding of Christ than a Classic Illustrated.

The film, of course, although some Gibson publicity manager managed to get out a rumor, later proved false, was not endorsed by the catholic church nor the Pope.


BTW, one of the weakest part of the film is also the lighting. The cinematography was outstanding but the lighting was uninspired and pedestrian.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 08:14 am
freedom4free wrote:
http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/4eaf340c7f.jpg


The image link is blocked by the site.

Right click on the red X, copy and paste the Properties .jpeg address and paste it into the Explorer address bar.

That's funny and quite true.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 08:17 am
Now, the religious right will hear Gibson's name mentioned or see a picture of him as Braveheart and mumble, "Mel Who?"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 05:22:55