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

We can't know what motivates the public even if we poll them. It doesn't validate the picture nor devalue the picture. Gibson if he is anything is no dummy. I wonder if he will ever make a mainstream movie again. The industry likes to perpetrate the myth that anything that goes over 100M is a "block buster." The truth is that the box office is split approximately three ways depending on the contract with the studio distributor. The local cineplex gets one third, the studio/distributor gets one third and the producers of the film get one third of the box office. In the Hollywood grapevine, it's now being quoted that Gibson spent in excess of 25M and the highest estimate of that figure is 40M. Unless he had a deal with Newmarket that is unique, he is going to start making money at likely around 130M. For a studio to operate, they have to make new films from the profits and hopefully continue to make profits. We all know that doesn't happen. The studios put our their share of failures. It is really a tough business and those that are in it are in it for the love of making films, good or bad. It's certain to me that no A2Ker or a critic will convince those who like "Passion" to not like it. It's the same with any movie, book, sport, et al. There's now a TV movie telling the story from the point of view of Judas. Sounds interesting and this probably means that Hollywood will now pick up on the marketability of religious movies and begin flooding the screens with stories told time and time again. If one needs the Bible as moving Classics Illustrated, that's fine. I think the book will always be better.

Then why is the question "why they went to see it"?

Lightwizard,

The various Arabesques which you have contrived to either criticize the film or denigrate reports of its financial success and the satisfactions at least some of its viewers have expressed, strongly suggests (to me at least) that your motives go beyond mere artistic taste.

There are many excessive portrayals of violence on entertainment media, including many with no objective or content based rationale whatever. There are equally many portrayals of villany and mere moral weakness and compromise that can be construed as directed at this or that group of people. These are all commonplace failings, but they are usually ignored.

You are dead wrong -- I approach all films from an artistic viewpoint because that is my background. I can definitely say that Caleb's cinematography is as good as any he's ever done -- it has a look of a tapestry in most cases. When the CGI effects and the slow motion intrude, it falls short. I don't feel the bloodbath was effective other than making me feel numb after about forty-five minutes. It just doesn't work on a dramatic or spiritual level either. I'm sure many Christians are going to this film and crying but I'm wondering just who they are identifying with?

http://www.theonion.com/news/

That is funny and archaelogical finds shows that crucifixion nails were driven through the wrist, not the palms. This is not another ballet move or intricate pattern but fact.

Yes, it's true: A nail driven through the palm of the hand would rip out when the weight of the body was hung from it. The practice was to drive the nail through the wrist anterior to the point where the thumb metacarpal and the end of the radius meet. The juncture of the two bones worked to "lock" the nail in place.

Another fun fact about crucifixion is that the victim actually dies of asphyxiation. The muscles of the chest become weakened over time by the constant, upward/outward pull of the arms, and the victim eventually loses the ability to exhale. All in all, a pretty nasty way to die.

If you watch closely, the movie gets around this by having his wrists tied to teh crossbar prior to the nailing. This way Gibson could retain the iconographic aspects that are probably important to him. After all, if the tradition says palms, then it must have been palms, right?

The tradition doesn't "say" palms.

And it was also common practice to bind the victim in place.

Scrat, read Catherine of Siena, Margery Kempe, Francis of Assisi, Jacobus de Voraigne, Umberto of Cortina, Julian of Norwich, Thomas a' Kempis, St. John of the Cross, Brigitte of Sweden, Hidegard von Bingen, Ignacious Loyola, and, of course, Mel's fave Anna Katerina Emmerich. You will find long detailed meditiation on the wounds caused by the nails throgh the palms.
Catherine and Julian even report "nursing" at the still bleeding wounds, whose blood was (From the "Shewings of Julian") an swiche licoure suche as woulde mete not fortasted.

In addition, I would suggest you consider the iconography of the crucifixion. The overwhelming majority of representations of the event depict the crucified Christ with the nails pounded through his hpalms. Do please enlighten us how this is not "tradition."

HB - Point taken, but the inaccuracy of reporting on an event does not alter the actual event. (BTW, my intention was to point out that I wasn't aware of biblical references to the palms, though I admit it's quite possible they exist and I just don't know of them. I am no biblical scholar.)

I saw the film last night and was terribly disappointed. Mel Gibson's Braveheart was one of my favorite movies of all time; so perhaps my expectations were a little high... but with all the hype and all... If I'd of seen an accurate advertisement; I wouldn't have seen the movie at all: WATCH CHRIST GET TORTURED FOR TWO HOURS! Mel Gibson virtually ignored everything beautiful and focused in on shock value violence. If you didn't know who Christ was; you may just as well see any gory movie. Watch Ben Hur instead. I can only assume that those who liked the film must feel they owe it to Christ to watch a depiction of his suffering. It was a sad waste of talent and an enormous budget. Both thumbs down!

A friend of mine who is a bit turned off to religion and does not go to church went and saw it, and she said she would recommend it to anyone, thought the complaints about the violence were hype--that the violence was central to the story, not gratuitous entertainment--and generally thought it was a good, thought-provoking movie. Shame you need to classify those who disagree with you as being too devoted to think rationally, Occom. Just maybe there are other brilliant people like yourself who happen to think differently about The Passion... ??

Recommend it to anyone? A six-year-old perhaps? Does this person have any children?
Hype is used to falsely encourage people to do something. What exactly are they being encouraged to do? Many very respected critics are not writing their reviews as hype. If you want to used that catch-all terminology, be sure you know how to use it. It rings false. Gratuitous entertainment doesn't make any sense either.

Don't offer moronic ideas. The movie has a rating. Only someone behaving as I suspect an idiot would would jump to that "would she recommend it to a six year old" crap. You clearly have a hard-on against this movie.

(This post has been sanitized for your protection.)

....or maybe - just maybe - this personal anecdote is in no way representative of most non-religious peoples responses.

And maybe, just maybe, OCCOM BILL's was likewise just one person's opinion. In fact, maybe every opinion about this movie is just one person's opinion...

Of course, if one person's opinion is of no consequence, what the hell are we all doing here?

I wouldn't dream of taking your position, Scrat. People are taking young children to see it. The ratings system is another debate. It's your use of language that is in questions. Your attack with words like moron and idiot are in violation of the TOS.

So now I'm responsible for what some people I've never met are doing? Well, please let me write more clearly for those inclined to infer the most ridiculous meaning to my words:

My friend commented that she would recommend it to anyone. I of course took this to mean any adult capable of making rational decisions for him- or her-self, located near enough to a theater showing the movie that it would be possible to actually see it and having sufficient discretionary funds on hand to afford the ticket price.

I'm not good at mind reading when people are in the room, let alone miles away on another PC. Unless, of course, you're using a MAC. You're going into explanations which aren't far removed from Gibson trying to explain the intent of his movie. Pretty bad when you have to explain it.