Is there a link for the reconsideration of providing English subtitles? Was it the distributor's condition? I would certainly believe that. It would be an interesting concession considering Mel's adamant disagreement with the Mass being given in English.
Free thinking Rabiis on NewsMax?
The film should not be censored, that is crucial -- it is whether it stands a great cinema or as mediocre cinema is more imporant than anyone it offends. We are also going to be seeing another film next year with the title not yet announced on the recent revelation that Christ could has been married to Mary Magdalene.
I'm sure Gibson did try to follow scripture but it's a movie -- it can't survive unless there is some entertainment value to it (it's not necessary that there is any cerebral inspiration if it is just relating the pages of the Bible in pictures and sound).
The Crucifixion has been presented on film in a great many films before this one -- those who feel compelled to see it as devout Christians (or for that matter, devout Jews) will take it for what it is and there is bound to be those who like it and those who don't.
The controversy is likely to help the film rather than damage it as far as box office.
Precisely. All this controversy is the best thing that could have happened to the film, which seems to be languishing in some sort of limbo. If it's not released soon, all the ink that's been spilled on the subject may be for naught!
Controversy Mel would like to keep alive until next April and I would seriously not doubt while making some judicious cuts in the film. The reason for a preview screening is to get an audience reaction then re-edit a film -- there is no other reason.
I can not give a link for the article which I saw a few weeks ago which mentioned both the distributor and the fact that there would be subtitles. I do have,however, a link from yesterday's "N.Y. Post" which refers to temporary subtitles.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11172003/entertainment/10963.htm
Portal Star--
I don't mind at all saying my historical record for the cruxifixtion is the Bible. I also said I'm aware it is not universally accepted.
I was hoping to draw opinions or information from others with other sources. There are plenty of people here with divergent opinions and beliefs. I was interested in hearing their viewpoints.
A distinctly interesting closing sentence in the article:
Here's what they had to say about the rough-cut version of the film that we screened - with temporary English subtitles, no credits and further editing changes.
It's difficult to get someone to go and see a sub-titled film but a film in Latin with no sub-titles? Is Mel setting himself up as a martyr?
Lightwizard wrote:It's difficult to get someone to go and see a sub-titled film but a film in Latin with no sub-titles?
That just means more popcorn and red-vines for me!
Exactly -- and I won't be plucking down the price of admission for this one. Depending on whether it gets a nod from some of the most respected critics, I may rent the DVD as a curiousity. I know you can translate the film so maybe you should have a movie party so you can recite the translation during the film? You'll get a lot more popcorn and red vines than you paid for I'm sure.
Lola talks about Christ's suffering, but we all suffer. Dying of cancer is worse, or having your own parents or ministers & teachers or priests sexually and otherwise abuse you?
Also, I do think the Bible a history book but also the history of ourselves, sort of the story of a soul's sojurn through "earth." There is a message there that each of us will learn when we need it. Myrtle and Charles Filmore, founders of the Unity (religion, tho the two didn't like to be included as one) wrote some amazing books along these lines, especially one on "Revelations" which speaks as many on this forum, that we help ourselves, save our own self, through enormous effort. No inspiration without perspiration, I sure did learn that.
Mel Gibson is just expressing himself thru a movie. Sometimes when we research a subject we end up with a view that can be quite different than when we set out. So, he can afford it.
Jesus married Mary Magdalene? Some have said that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' cousin, that most of the characters surrounding him were in fact friends or relatives. Magdalene was simply a young girl heading in a dangerous direction. Go and sin no more,,,sure. At any rate he would not have been a story if he had married tho he did love her.
There were numerous ways in which the Romans "crucified" people. Paul requested being hung upside down. Not much worse than women who were "adulterers" being hung from meat hooks during medieval times.
What a god-awful subject. The qualities of "Christed" people are within us all, but asleep in most. I have a problem with fundamentalists but those who think they are above them could just ignore them, no?
Jesus was not a passive man, a victim, but an example. He chose his life, as do we. We were not "assigned" the life we are in, having it forced on us, but given an opportunity to make a few things right. Can't see any way that I have "suffered." I learned some things, am still learning, especially about how not to moan about the tough times, or get angry.
I'm late in this thread but just seemed to "rejoin" A2K.
Depicting Christ's agony by making him look like a bloody minute steak might not do any more than pander for some unadulterated tear jerking. The other kind of jerking is against Catholic law so perhaps Gibson keeps his right hand busy by shouting through the director's megaphone. (He has a Cecil B. DeMille complex).
Too funny, LW. But, he has to keep busy and he's getting a little puffy around the face.
Doesn't look like he's had the nips and tucks like Ahnold -- is politics next? I thought he was awful in "Signs" -- about as convincing as if a goat had played the part. Someone should put a sign on him, "HAS BEEN."
His movie is bad.
Lou Lumenick is my uncle. I totally agree with his opinion. Gibson should get rid of this anti-semetic movie.
That article has been archived at the New York Post so I'd have to search for the new link. Welcome to A2K, MCarber.
Apparently the movie came and went with scarcely a ripple. While I haven't checked to be certain, its moment has passed - not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Would that it were so, edgar, but it doesn't open until 25 Feb. There have been a few private showings, one for the pope, who is said to have approved of it.
oh. My mistake.
Here in my part of the country it isn't getting any press just now.
The Pope is also a film critic -- would he dissaprove of any of the films depicting Christ's crucifixion? Perhaps he also secretely loves "Kill Bill?"
