Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

What muddy waters this thread has stepped into! maliagar is quickly becoming one of my favorite posters, even though I completely disagree with him on most everything.

Personally, I didn't like Mel as Hamlet, so I doubt I will buy him as Jesus.

Thanks for the homework assignment, maliagar -- very presumptious of you (talk about prejudice!) I've read all the literature on Oscar Wilde including all the biographies. His witty and flippant comments about the church are difficult to decipher as far as his true, deep feelings about the church. I believe he would be proud of his stature as a homosexual martyr but that's putting words in a dead man's mouth. I would suggest you go and study for yourself -- your assignment today is to study ways to convince people you know what you're talking about. That will likely take several years so I don't expect you to be back soon.

Infrablue -- finally saw the same trailer and I thought it self-indulgent, Hollywoodized, over-the-top hype for religion. If the rest of the film is like this, it's in deep trouble with anyone with an iota of intelligence.

For those interested, there's a long, funny descriptive article of the making of the film and of its content in Saturday's New York Times. Mel is not in the film. Jim Cavaziel plays Jeez.

cav - it's Jim Caviezel as Jesus, not Mel (he directs). He was adequate in the last remake of "The Count of Monte Cristo" but still has some way to go if he is to become a great actor. Only Max von Sydow could be called a great actor as far as playing Christ, although it was the high point in the career of Jeffrey Hunter. Directors have usually cast someone not easily recognized for the part of Jesus. To be true to what Jesus may have likely looked like, Danny DeVito may be more believable than most who have tried to tackle the role. I know why the producers want to have a Jesus who is achingly handsome but why directors want to go along with it is based almost entirely on their own religious bent.

Tartarin -- a link, maybe? (hope it isn't archived by now).

Thanks for the correction LW.

That's okay, cav -- Tartarin also noticed the error. Mel is no longer pretty enough for the role. Besides, he's busy stoically battling those aliens armed only with a loss of faith on DVD. An absurd, self-conscious premise. I'm beginning to intensely dislike Shyamalan's films -- they certainly don't hold up on a second viewing for me. I don't think Mel's new twist on the Passion is looking like it's watchable the first time (I mentioned and someone else mentioned the "Private Ryan" "let it all hang out" methodology in filmmaking and it also shows up in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." :wink: )

Everybody would agree that the graphic violence of "Private Ryan" served a purpose. I remember how disturbing those very first minutes of the movie were... and how effective in achieving their purpose. The same with "The Passion". The only problem is: You don't see the purpose. But that's your problem. Other people don't have that small but key problem.



Yes, yes. Most likely.... :wink: (how do you know, may I ask?)

Infrablue -- Just wanted to extend to you my profound sympathy with respect to your "small but key problem." Many of us may have noticed it but it took Maliagar's courage and honesty to point it out. Thank GOD we have someone of this calibre to set us straight.

Thank you... :wink:



Did Gibson direct Hamlet? I think he did not, but I'm not sure. He's won "best director" awards for other movies, though (some of which I did like).

Sometimes previews are more appealing than the actual movie. I hope this is not the case for this movie. The 4-minute preview I've seen was awesome, extremely moving (it touched my faith, and the ONLY other Jesus movie that has done this was Jesus of Nazareth, which is now permanent part of my movie collection).

In telling the story, Gibson seems to take some theologically grounded poetic liberties that Zeffirelli didn't take. To me, that's the most promising aspect of the movie. The preview shows some powerful symbols... (of course, we need to be prepared to recognize them). I believe the role of the Virgin Mary is going to be much more powerfully central than in Jesus of Nazareth. Hence, to make sense of this movie, I SERIOUSLY recommend reading the New Testament accounts of the passion of Christ, and more importantly, the Hebrew Scriptures' prophesies on the coming of the Messiah. Only then will we be able to fully appreciate Gibson's work. But if we go with a popcorn bucket and an oversized soda ready to trash the movie... well, you know what to expect from it (unfortunately, that's exactly what some people in this forum are getting ready to do).

Now, Gibson is not playing Christ (too old for that). Jim Caviezel is. I believe both of them are going to be interviewed in the next "The World Over", a TV news magazine aired on Fridays (8 p.m.) at the Catholic channel (EWTN).

Take care.

the keeper of the keys

I know, I know. Prejudice and presumption are the monopoly of religious types. How daring of me to suggest that you could be prejudiced or presumptuous...



All of it???? Wow!!!! Sorry for presuming that you didn't... :wink: By now you must have a clear understanding of his faith, then.



Difficult? Maybe, if you are prejudiced and just assume that somebody like Wilde could not but reject the very Church to which he converted. You see: You can read a lot, you can even read it all (as you claim to have done ), and yet, understand nothing.



We finally agree on something. So I take it that you're withdrawing a previous comment on this. :wink:

Take care.

Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam. Et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit legatum et in coelis; Et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis.

Mt 16, 18-19

About my small, but key problem,
The purpose of the graphic portrayal of violence of war is to protray the graphic violence of war. Right, maliagar? That purpose as conveyed by Spielberg's movie was not lost on me, let me tell ya. I got the shakes, the hair on my body stood on end, and my jaw dropped to the ground. I was utterly stupefied.

I find the portrayal of the Passion in the NT very moving. Its portrayal in Jesus of Nazareth is also very moving, tears well up in my eyes just thinking about it. Robert Powell's meekness and pacifism was a close embodiment of Jesus', in my opinion. Tears welled up in my eyes when I saw the trailer for Mel's movie, as well. But, after the moment subsided, I started to think, someone flogged in the way that this Jesus was in Mel's movie would have eventually lost conciousness. I mean, this guy had lacerations and welts all over his body, not just his back. I think he had a welt across his eye. The blood loss portrayed is enormous. This is one sturdy fellow, seeing as how someone of lesser fortitude would have gone into shock by this time. And then, he shuffles to the place of his execution outside the city walls--all the while dragging his very own crucifix on his back!

I'm sure the Romans were as bloodily barbaric as the next ancients, but I think they'd have the perspicacity to hold back on the zealous whipping enough to ensure the condemned would be able to walk, dragging the means of his death on his back, to the place of his execution. The point would have been to make him suffer a slow, agonizing death on the cross, not by the prefatory hiding, in my opinon.

That's why I say Mel is over the top.

Like in The Patriot--how much more cartoonishly evil could the Brit bad guy have been portrayed? The guy was straight out of a comic book.

Just by seeing the trailer, I can hypothesize that the movie is more about gore than about plot substance. This is a guess, maliagar. I'll wait to see the movie in it's entirety to make a full assessment.

Hey, Lightwizard,

As the media insistently reported, Bob Hope had converted to the Catholic Church several years ago. Since you've certainly read all his jokes and biographies, you sure understand why he did such an outrageous thing... [Maybe he was a closeted homosexual looking for the masochistic pleasures of bottomless guilt... :wink: ]

The philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, one of the glories of 20th century existential atheism, converted to Holy Mother Church as well. You may find a clue in his anguished works on "nothingness" and existential nausea (all of which, I'm sure, you've read).

King of anguish may be Graham Greene.

Jean Paul Sartre is hardly worth reading in todays world, he was indeed a product of his times and those times passed him by. Quite likely the only "radical" of the french existentialists that remains relevant is Albert Camus. Bob Hope, on the other hand makes a great catholic in todays world, that is if you live in the '50's father knows best, poodle skirts and making it to 2nd base in the back seat of your Chevy. But then, the catholic church is also stuck in a time warp still thinking they are colonizing the new world and gaining conquest by threats of death vs conversion. Even in those central and south american countries, we are beginning to see disinterest in the "church" as the education levels rise. The "church" has historically relied on the subjugation of its flock by means of fear and power ritual. The mother church has eaten its young and has passed by its fecundity becoming sterile in a new world. btw take care.

Yeah. The fact that he became a Christian makes him irrelevant.



'Course! He wasn't a Christian!!! :wink:



Check the latest figures on the growth of the Church worldwide and in the U.S.



Yeah, "those" countries. "Disinterest"? Always, among a minority. The same minority whose loud voice dominates U.S. "democratic" outlets.



Sure. 'Cause we all know that only "ignorants" (as in "those" countries) can be believers.



Check your statistics...

Take care.

Maliagar, while i am only guessing that you would allow your reasoning to concur that actual attendance is more relevant the a membership list, I offer:
"empty-pew syndrome," especially in metropolitan areas where religious groups are closing and consolidating parishes. In Boston, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church will be shutting down 60 churches in the next several years for lack of money -- and parishioners.
According to the 1996 Catholic Church Life Survey less than 5 percent of young Catholics aged 16-25 attend Mass regularly. The drop-off in young people attending Mass has now persisted for some decades resulting in a "greying" of the Mass attending population. As of 1996, Mass attenders in their twenties and thirties were substantially under-represented, making up just 20 per cent of all attenders, although they constitute 39 per cent of the Catholic population.
Fewer Catholics, 38 percent, report attending church on at least a weekly basis. Men are the reason: As noted, 26 percent of Catholic men say they attend church that regularly, compared to 42 percent of Protestant men. There's no such difference between Protestant and Catholic women ?- about half in each group say they go to church at least once a week.
The pollsters tell us that 9 out of 10 people do indicate a religious preference, and about 70 percent say they attend church occasionally. Others say religion has a major role in their lives. Yet actual attendance on Saturday or Sunday is below 40 percent of the population.
51 percent of Catholics said they attended church in the previous seven days. Follow-up questions designed to find out what people meant by "attending church" revealed that a few were counting things other than attending worship service. Some people were counting weddings, funerals, committee meetings, Sunday schools and choir practice as church attendance. An actual head count showed 24 percent of Catholics attended Mass during an average week.
Overall church attendance among Catholics -- who comprise 25 percent of the adult population -- has risen 7 percent over the same time last year, the BRG study said. Among parents of children under 18, attendance rose by 10 percent. In contrast, the level of all Catholics "absolutely committed" to Christianity fell from 39 percent to 30 percent -- the lowest level in BRG's 10 years of research. Those describing their religious faith as "very important" dropped from 70 percent to 64 percent.
From Australia we get these numbers; In 1986 - making allowance for gaps in the newsletter's listed figures for individual population centres - there were about 11,500 at Sunday Mass (during one or other of the diocesan counts taken in March and September) out of a total Catholic population of probably around 65,000. This produces a weekly attendance rate of 17.5%.

In 1991, the number at weekly Mass had fallen to about 9,000 (allowing for one missing location). This was out of a Census total of 69,241, and gives a rate just short of 13%. In 1993, with the Catholic population presumably further increased to somewhere over 70,000, the total at weekly Mass (allowing for the aforementioned gaps) totalled around 8,500, giving a rate of close to 12%. The latter figure is confirmed in the newsletter: "The total figures for our diocese indicate that almost 3000 people who used to worship in 1986 are not doing so in 1993. Will the next seven years bring a similar drop in numbers? How many will be worshipping in the year 2000?" A similar rate of decline in Townsville could see a Mass attendance rate of 6-8% by the year 2000. In secular life, bureaucrats and politicians have to resign when their policies fail. This is not the case in the Catholic Church, for as Mass attendances continue to fall all over Australia, the usual response from those in charge is not to admit to any fundamental policy mistakes, but to insist that existing policies only need to be further radicalised to overcome the problem. This seems to be the case in Townsville.

In many Latin American countries, protestant missionaries are making serious inroads. Fundamentalist churches in my area of Texas have ongoing programs, people learning Spanish, children spending summers in Michoacan, etc. etc.