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

This thread has gotten a bit arcane for me, but I thought Frank Rich had some interesting things to say about the controversy in yesterday's NY Times ("Mel Gibson's Martyrdom Complex"). Have at it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/arts/03RICH.html

Mel Gibson did not win but one Oscar (not deserved, in my opinion) -- "The Man Without A Face" being the only other film he directed besides "The Passion." Perhaps maliagar needs to do some homework on his filmmaking knowledge?

Check your statistics. My, I didn't realize measuring one's endowments would be relevant here. But perhaps maliagar drives a Corvette.

Hey, Lightwizard!

Thought you got me, eh?



Do you live in that oh so very little world in which the Oscar is the only film industry award that ever comes to mind? For I didn't say "Oscar", my dear. I said "awards". Perhaps you need to learn how to read? Or to become familiar with the many other possible film industry honors? :wink:

Mel Gibson's Awards:
· Won Oscar for Best Director, 1996 Braveheart
· Won Oscar for Best Picture, 1996 Braveheart
· Won Broadcast Film Critics Association Award, Best Director 1996 Braveheart
· Won Golden Globe Award Best Director, 1996 Braveheart
· Won People's Choice Awards: Favorite Motion Picture Actor, Favorite Motion Picture Star in a Drama
· Won Best Actor in a lead role, AFI (Australian Film Institute) 1981, Gallipoli
· Won Best Actor in a lead role, AFI (Australian Film Institute) 1979, Tim
· Nominated for Best Male Performance, The Patriot, MTV Movie Awards, 2001· Won Best On-screen Duo with Danny Glover, MTV Movie Awards, 1993
[http://www.femail.com.au/melgibsonss.htm]



It would be somewhat relevant if you were at least awake and paying attention.

Thanks for all the fun...

You said he won other "best director" awards. Sorry, you're diversion didn't work. I thought you might take the bait and I am paying attention. I'm paying attention to how a befuddled mind works and what's liable to transfer to the keyboard. You've also gave me a revelation of exactly who you are as far as formerly on this forum and other forums I won't mention. Thanks, this will be the last time we intereact as I am tired of your flippant and rhetorical syntax.

True, it didn't work 100%. He's won three "best director" awards:

· Won Oscar for Best Director, 1996 Braveheart
· Won Broadcast Film Critics Association Award, Best Director 1996 Braveheart
· Won Golden Globe Award Best Director, 1996 Braveheart

However, all of them are for the same movie ("Braveheart"), and I had said: "He's won "best director" awards for other movies, though (some of which I did like)."

So he's won two other "best director" awards, but on the same movie.

Now, let me prophesize something: Gibson will never get an Oscar for "The Passion" (even if it ends up being a great movie). Can you guess why? Hint: It's a kind of prejudice...



Yeah. Other people have also thought that I may be the reincarnation of someome... :wink:



Syntax???

This message made much more sense. Let's see:



Not exactly.



That's the purpose. The first few minutes of "Private Ryan" were, in my opinion, the most effective in conveying the confusion, panic, and senseless death of the battlefield. I felt like crying and running out of there. Seriously. Imagine how those soldiers vomiting and pissing in their pants felt.

Now, what might the purpose of a graphic description of the crucifixion be? To make us go through what Christ went through. Literally. And if you're a Christian, know that he went through all of it for you and for me.



The same happened to me. And in my case, the reason was that Jesus of Nazareth's depiction of the crucifixion was more realistic than anything I had seen before. Well, now we have a whole movie that seriously PRESENTS that very part of Jesus' life that moves you, and moves me.



Same here. Not only with Jesus, but with Mary. My impression is that the Mary character will be more solid than in Jesus of Nazareth. In the preview you see her face covered with her own son's blood... and a beautiful Pieta (aside from some others poetic passages). So maybe we can also go through what Mary had to endure seeing her son being tortured and killed that way.



Let's wait and see the movie. Remember: Christ was dead well before the other thieves. They had to break their legs to speed up their death, wheras they didn't have to do it with Christ. He probably was in a weaker condition than the thieves.



Yes, like in the Turin shroud.



The Romans were not as barbaric as one might think. Floggings and executions followed a procedure. The number of floggings was prescribed by law. They did not depend on the whim of the soldiers.



Also remember that the Jews were celebrating Passover, and that it was Friday. It went against their customs to just leave a corpse nailed to a cross in such a religious season. Hence the need to speed up the death of the three (breaking up the legs of the thieves, for example).



Gibson did not direct The Patriot.



I didn't get that impression, but we'll see. I've heard priests who have seen the whole movie, and they were amazed by it.



At this point, we cannot but guess. And our guesses are better informed, for we have seen the trailer. I'm also waiting to see the movie, and I really hope that Gibson delivers a classic.

Take care.

scroll

I'm looking forward to the 'flashback' scenes. For example, some twenty years earlier, the camera picks up a pair of sandals (viewpoint of the walker) slowly trudging over a parched and inhospitable sandy surface. Change of camera angle to side view. We see Joseph, head down, moving with steps as desolate as the ground he walks. Suddenly, a short figure, an old wizened woman robed all in black, darts out from behind a mud brick structure and intercepts Joseph's steps, stopping him. It's Ruth, the Nazareth busy-body.

Ruth: Joseph! I heard the news...Mary is pregnant! It's a miracle! An immaculate conception...it must have been a wonderful moment!

Joseph: Why ask me? I wasn't there.

'Course Joseph wasn't there, Dr. Blatham. The immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary (by her parents), not of Christ. :wink:

There will always be people who like talk about what they don't know...

Fortunately, there are others who will them straight. Over and over and over at great length...

You bet!

Maliagar

Of course, you are correct. I confess that I chuck this term up a generation (my apologies to the Maryologists present) because I have some trouble picturing Joseph in high rut and Mary with her legs spread wide.

You mean, Mariologists...



Not the only problem you have...

(Pathetic)

Gosh...offensive? How insensitive of me.

Maliagar, you are a sitting duck, and in more ways than you dream, an unfortunate situation not aided by the breadth of your vanity.

What's the matter with you Blatham? Don't you know how to spell Mary-o-logists? where'd you go to school anyway?

I'll probably end up seeing the movie anyway, just for interest's sake, and to settle any controversy about it for myself. At the end of the day, it's just a movie, and the most one should expect is to simply say "I liked it" or "I didn't".

Mary Mary, quite contrary,
just how DID your garden grow...

I go for the high-rut theory, and the afterthought of "Hey, we're poor, we have nothing, but for some reason, it seems that people believe we just gave birth to the son of god...this could be good for us....okay, Mary, listen to me, just run with it, what could it hurt?"

Should Mary have thought about using Immaculate Contraception? Discuss.

At this site are some scenes from the movie (low- and high-bandwidth, Real and Windows devices):

Harvest Online

My limited knowledge of history and the Bible leads me to believe that Christ forgave his persecutors. His followers should do likewise, assuming any of those individuals who persecuted Christ are still walking around TWO THOUSAND YEARS LATER!

Some people are morons. That morons can find justification for taking stupid evil acts in art is no reason to ban art. This is crap, and the ADL ought to have better things to do with their time and money.

Tart - neither is more honest than the other. They are both equally disgusting vile acts. At least the church on a whole has apologized and condemned the acts of the few. You seem to be saying that since NAMBLA is open about it, it's ok. The very reason we have statutory rape and other statutes protecting children is because they cannot be deemed to have given their consent. Are you referring to the pitiful parents who consent to their child's molestation? That's complicity, not consent. Charles Manson was open about his acts, does that excuse it?

Please give me an explanation as to how in the world NAMBLA gets overlooked. Let me make my point clear - I am not defending the church for its sins and horrible acts against children. What I am trying to bring out, and no one has yet to respond, is why the church gets crucified for a few (albeit even one is too many) while a group like NAMBLA gets not a single mention. The answer seems clear to me - Let's just attack the church. Please prove me wrong. I am not being facetious, I really want to know how that discrepancy can be justified.

I'd have to agree with that -- because both organizations are or have been permisive doesn't make one any worse than the other. It's the secrecy, likely due to the shame involved, that's disheartening. I don't care if the NAMBLA supposedly commits acts with willing underage participants -- it's still against the law and should be.