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

I'll probably go see it, and my friends will do what they did when we went to see "Braveheart," or "Gladiator," etc...elbow me in the ribs repeatedly when I start to nitpick.

It's an interesting question, george. When I think about it, I think it's the passive suffering. The martyrdom. I feel disgusted, guilty, resentful, controlled, made helpless by the spectacle of suffering which is blamed on not only me, but on the entire human race. To me it's a movie condemning the gratification of human pleasures. It makes me recoil and then, in my typical way, react with a push away from me.

At Easter time.....the churches around here have little signs in their front yards.........one in particular has little quotable quotes. At Easter it's usually something complicated like, "Jesus died for your sins." My response is always, "well, I never asked him to." And my next response is, "what have I done that is so wrong that I've caused such sacrifice and suffering?" I don't think getting what I want is a sin in and of itself. I think of it (going after what I want) as me being responsible to take care of myself, thereby being in a better, more satisfied condition to help others get what they want. But if a person insists on suffering and blaming me for it, my first response is to strike out at them. (There are some spectacular sufferers in my family.)

I think I respond in such a violent way for several reasons, not the least of which is a sense of helplessness to help a person so unwilling to allow help. It's very sad to watch self destruction. And I have always wished I could just try harder and thereby make it better. Chronic sufferers have a huge passive/ dependent/ hostile/ aggressive motive and it's devastating. All self-imposed sufferers are being passive aggressive and seeking to hide it behind self righteousness. Some are much more destructive than others. To me, Jesus is an example of a destructive sufferer. There's a meanness in suffering and blaming others. The way I see it, Jesus committed suicide, but would not take responsibility for his action or wish to destroy. So he hid it behind a supposedly benevolent motive. I actually prefer an active, directly aggressive person. At least he/she doesn't leave you feeling guilty when you try to defend yourself. I usually respond by turning my back on the disgusting spectacle and let the person die without me watching.

I'll admit I have a strong reaction to this scene of Christ dying, bleeding, supposedly innocent, suffering. To me it is disgusting. And very close to unforgivable. But I suppose I must find a way to forgive. But I will not condone it. To me it's a powerfully destructive and wasteful image that plays to human fear and guilt.

And I think you're right. There's nothing wrong with a profit incentive. However, this one is cheap. It's like selling arms to the terrorists. As I said, it makes me sick.

You know there's a huge church that I drive by regularly. It's been there for a long time. It has a giant projectile, phallic steeple. On it is a clock. And underneath the face of the clock is written, "Night Cometh." I've always wanted to take my spray can of black paint and write underneath it, "anyway." It's very true that night cometh, all the more reason to enjoy the day, while you can. Suffering will not delay the night. I think negative motivation is very destructive to the power and creativity of the human race.

Not seeing a film doesn't discard the ability to make a criticism based on the clips and from the testament (sic) of those who have seen it. I am beginning to see that the ADL isn't over sensitive about Mel's little drama -- that he would be pompous enough to present it in a language that is no longer universal (except in parts of the law) is unfortunate. I disagree that the film will even make back its 25M price tag.

BTW, may I reiterate that Mel is still steaming about the mass being given in English instead of Latin. Perhaps the next filming of "The Time Machine" can star Mr. Gibson and he can't be sent back in time to the good old days of the Spanish Inquisition.

I'll bet ya, LW. There are enough highly invested sufferers out there to make 25M. But we can't take just the box office. We'd have to include video tap sales and over seas income. And maybe Mel is so into suffering that he won't allow himself to profit from this work, but there are all the entrepeneurs who will make a bundle on this film and the free publicity. Guilt, remorse and punishment sells, maybe not as well as sex does (praise sublimation, blessed be thy name) but it sells very well. It's an industry.

george

I do think, as others have pointed out previously, that the main impetus for criticism of the movie arose out of a fairly aggressive posture by the JDL - let's term it a 'pre-emptive' strike. That is an organization whose raison d'etre seems pretty easily understandable, but who I think often go off the rails into sillyland.

And of course, if the portrayal is seen as, or hoped to be, a sensitive and moving portrayal of the cruscifiction by the Christian community (or parts of it), then an opposition between those two voices is predictable.

Other criticisms which have followed relate to some of Mel's unwise statements, and to the (likely) unwise language elements of the movie.

As Chief Secular Inquisitor (voting was held last Tuesday, down at the river, for a second or two it looked like Timber might be a floater, so I harpooned the evil bugger) I will be happy to answer any further questions you have on this matter.

Lola,

There are many things out there that can offend our sensibilities. I'm not very fond of hip hop music and I find much of contemporary entertainment both exploitive and offensive to my taste. I can no more avoid seeing these things than you can the signs on churches you describe. I do have a hard time seeing that the excesses and obsessions of religion to which you refer are in sum more harmful or even intrusive than are the many other coarse things that confront us every day.

It seems to me that you have some personal issues with religion and the psychological effects you ascribe to it. Not everyone shares that view - indeed many others see very much the opposite things in the very things you consider. The net effect may be an open question, but it seems hardly either fair or objective in an era which increasingly includes violence, destruction, many forms of sexuality ant other matters in its entertainments, to single out spiritual and religious matters which have been important to many people for a very long time as the chief example of things which ought to be somehow suppressed.

It's not just language and the perceived anti-Semetic viewpoint -- it's the clips showing Christ on the ground like a ground up minute steak with enough blood for an over-violent Tarantino film. Exactly what is Mel trying to prove? He knows the film will have to make $100 M to break even. I don't see that as possible. (A film has to make four times its basic cost to break even, paying distributors, advertising, and all the costs of getting a film to the public -- this isn't likely to show up at your local multiplex, believe me, and he is having a hell of a time getting a distributor).

I don't see anyone actually trying to suppress the film -- they are pointing out the objectives of the film and what is perceived as an Anti-semetic, over-the-top self-indulgence by Mr. Gibson.

LW - wow just your comment - I want to see it for myself. Tarantino \ ((Cronnenburg(sp)(I added)).
I'll reserve my comments until I can see the movie for myself.

Lola - IMO - you are projecting a passionate hostility if I ever seen one again IMO - no worry


no blood no foul! (wonder if I should be saying that here :wink: )

george,

Of course we all have personal, idiosyncratic responses to everything in our world. I wasn't suggesting that you should experience it the same way as I. But you asked what I (we) thought it was. As since I can't speak for anyone but myself, for the very reasons you site, I told you my own personal reasons. I'm sure you have your own. So it's disingenuous and not very consistent in your argument to say:



That is, it seems disingenuous if you meant to imply that I am the only one with personal issues. If you didn't mean that, perhaps I can ask you the same question. What are your personal reasons (issues) for preferring religion. I was speaking only for myself. How it seems to me. It seems we spend a lot of time on these threads speaking about the motivations of each other rather than for ourselves. I just thought perhaps we might buck that trend just a little. I thought your question was an honest one. I hope I'm not proven wrong. If I am, I'll be disappointed. But I'm sure I'll make it through.

I'm still thinking about the spin-offs Lola mentioned. I can't even imagine what kind of figurines McD's is going to tie-in to this.

It has to do with aesthetic issues for me -- there have been dozens of Crucifixion portrayals and I think the best is in "Ben Hur" where actually little is shown. I don't think it needs to be graphic -- are we all considered so depleted of imagination and emotion that we have to have it all blantantly smeared in our faces? It's like toys -- once a kid had to build things and use skills, now they are presented with a full-on, detailed, working model (and a Ken doll who is an amorphodite).

But, and I understand I am in the minority here, this was the preferred model for contemplation of thr Crucifixion in the 13-16th Centuries,especially among female pietetics. I may learn more from watching the crowd than the film

Beth,

Look for items like books with pix from the movie, for instance, embellished with evangelical "expert" wisdom of some sort. The God business is big business.

LW

I just had an interesting thought. There are those who don't want blatant, explicit sexuality rubbed in their faces and others who don't care for bleeding masochism. To each his own, I would say. Perhaps that's the more balanced view. Give me the porn any day. Is it exploitive? I think that's an important question. But some room must be allowed for personal preference. I don't want to see any child pornography for instance. Or anything which involves actual coercion or injury. But that said, perhaps we're all being a little to pilgrim about all this. If folks want to see this film for whatever it means to them, I can see no reason why they shouldn't. As long as it's not forced on me, I'm happy to let them do their thing. But it should go both ways. I should be allowed to do my thing too.

If Gibson does opt for the usual promotional products and as an attempt to ligitimize the film as well as make money, it wil certainly lay out his motives for all to see. I think he's terribly confused right now as to what to do, considering the predominance of the Jews in running Hollywood.
Historically we know little about how Jesus did die -- it's all in what John and Mathew wrote and they didn't even write all of it. It was also written a couple of hundred years after it happened.

I'm not thinking about Mel doing the merchandizing, although he'd have to approve of the use of any likenesses from the picture, I suppose, but he also might have to bend to the wishes/demands of a distributor, if he finds one, which I think he will. I mean independent entrepeuneurs will make money. I suspect that Mel himself is confused at this point and, I would wish, maybe, questioning his motives.

Lola - I'm biting my lip - to keep from making funny \ humorous remarks - forgive me!
weird day here. Now I was thinking about that conversation we had on spanking

Husker,

you may make funny humorous remarks, as long as they're sensitive humorous remarks. :wink: Spanking, yes......funny.

It's interesting to me that you picked up on the hostility (and it's surely there) in my explanation above and didn't seem to notice the sadness and sense of vulnerability that is there as well. I'm not saying you should have. I'm saying simply that it's interesting that you didn't. Because it is there. I don't deny feeling hostile. But I admit it freely and do not seek to hide it behind a guise of self righteous purity. And I realize I should clarify, I'm speaking about religious fanatics, not the plain vanilla version of religion.

You do seem to have it in a way I appreciate, however. Feel free, because you are free, to respond to my statement of feelings with an honest, direct version of your own. We can be friends, as you so admirably point out, regardless of any disagreeable feeling we may have for each other. That includes, but is not limited to anger. Again, my hostility is not for anyone but the fanatical, in my opinion, destructive version of religion which emphasizes self destructive martyrdom. For me, there is absolutely nothing redemptive about suffering. (unless it's sublimated, then.......well ) But I realize, others see it differently.

Lemme go re-read it, maybe I was speeding to much.

How fanatic is it to install a Catholic chapel on your property so that you can give Mass in the original Latin?

Lola,

I don't mean to suggest that you are either alone or to be faulted for your particular idiosyncratic views on these things, any more than I or others should be. Further I will readily concede there are many manifestations of religion that offend my sense of proportion and even esthetic values. My only issue had to do with the relative impact of this film (which none of us has yet seen) and all the many other coarse, tasteless, and even offensive things out there which constantly confront us all. I am, however, suggesting that there is a bit of a double standard being applied on this and related matters.