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

Which seems to be consistent with the conservative mindset. The all knowing, patronizing "I know better than anyone else what is right for them" mentality. Rolling Eyes

Making such comments when one has neither
a) Seen the film in question
and
b) does not listen to the music used as a comparative example
Is the height of hubris.

Well, George, those of us who have seen the film are probably better able to comment on it than you are. Have a nice day.

0 Replies

You are mistaken. I am not passing judgement on either the film or the music. I am merely noting that all the hyperventillation here over the film is out of synch with the levels of both violence and artistic flaws that are ubiquitous today and generally left uncriticized by those who are so evidently exorcised over this film. This strongly suggests motivations that go beyond the particulars of the criticisms offered here. No one has yet addressed this basic point. Perhaps your more direct knowledge will enable you to comment on that.

No hubris at all: just common sense.

0 Replies

It's true of any zealotry although you've given no examples of secular zealotry at all. You haven't seen the film and if I'm not mistaken were criticizing others earlier for opining on a film they haven't seen. Gibson was releasing on the Internet and to other media many of the crucial images revealing the intensity of the brutality. Although I do agree with hobitbob that the wound suit is barely passable. In fact, the makeup was done by Jackson Pollock I believe (Mel likely was able to resurrect him as a make-up tech).

0 Replies

Sorry George, but you are wrong. I am not the least bit religious but usually love religious films like "Ben Hur". You cannot make a film about a crucifixion without showing the ugliness. However; you can do so without dedicating 95% of your energy to presenting the ugliness. Go see the film and see for yourself. Pure shock-value violence passed off as a religious story is what is. The biggest problem; there was almost no story at all.

0 Replies

It's like the crowd who pulls over to see a traffic accident -- they won't admit they want to see if there are any mangled, bleeding bodies about. The Italian Realism classic "The Gospel According to St. Mathew" using local, non-actors is far superior to this Hollywood overblown trash.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

It's true of any zealotry although you've given no examples of secular zealotry at all.

I can if you like, but that might make for a whole discussion of its own.

Lightwizard wrote:

You haven't seen the film and if I'm no mistaken were criticizing others earlier for opining on a film they haven't seen.

You are mistaken. (Which is okay, I've been mistaken once or twice recently myself.)

I think if you check my comments on this discussion you will find that I'm not so much commenting on the film as on the absurd reactions some people are having to it and ridiculous things some people are saying and writing of it. I didn't have to see Janet Jackson's nipple to be entitled to comment that people are making too much of it, and I don't need to have seen Gibson's movie to recognize that lots of people are carping about its violence who make no such complaints about other movies, which leads me to suspect that their real complaint is that Gibson made a pro-Christian movie during a period of open hostility to anything Christian.

I do recognize that your complaints are better informed than most and respect the fact that you are largely criticizing the artistry of the movie, having found it lacking. That's a perfectly reasonable point of view, and I have no argument with it. When I see the movie I may disagree, but I also know that I'm not the most discerning moviegoer, and often enjoy movies at which others turn up their noses.

0 Replies

I may be mistaken here, but i rather think LW was responding to O'George, and not to you, Scrat.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I may be mistaken here, but i rather think LW was responding to O'George, and not to you, Scrat.

I specifically asked him a question regarding types of zealotry. I suspect you are wrong.

0 Replies

So i see . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

and I don't need to have seen Gibson's movie to recognize that lots of people are carping about its violence who make no such complaints about other movies, which leads me to suspect that their real complaint is that Gibson made a pro-Christian movie during a period of open hostility to anything Christian.

Wrong again, Scrat. The violence is very over the top in this film. The complaints about the gore are just that: complaints about the gore. It is violence for the sake of bloody, messy, disgusting violence. The closest comparison would be the sort of underground blood porn the Japanese produce that is supposed to mimic the elusive "snuff films."
If anything, I see the violence, and the far right's defence of it, as representative of the far rights fondness for violence and killing.

0 Replies

Scrat was correct -- I was responding to him. How do you know, Scrat, if it is an absurd reaction if you haven't seen the movie? Answer: you can't.
Now is the time to do your homework, or cineplex work if you will.

This discussion was originally in Politics but was moved to Film because it is about the film even if the original intent was the sociological impact of the movie. I don't see a positive sociological impact -- the film will unlikely convert anyone, in fact it is likely to repel a secular person and especially young people. A perception of the success of the film based on how it stacks up to other films in the genre is important. Since the genre is populated by many mediocre films and some classics like "Ben Hur," it's criticized not only in comparison but what the intent of the director is suppose to be. I can see no sensible person perceiving that the intent is anything but to shock. But is it in a positive way or a negative way. I vote for negative.

0 Replies

LW - I don't need to see any movie to know that it has a right to exist, that if someone has a heart attack while viewing it, they were probably due for a heart attack, that people who are anti-semitic will find justification for their stupid hate anywhere, and those who are not will not be moved to be so by any movie.

I don't need to see the movie to know that it is just a movie.

But I will see it sooner or later, thanks.

0 Replies

And the ever important: "I don't need to know anything about a subject to discuss it, because understanding the subject under diuscussion would ruin my reputation as a belligerent know-nothing who just likes to see his own words on a screen."

0 Replies

A railroad spike through the hand award for Mel -- likely the only award he'll ever see for the film. Jim Cazieval who played Jesus called Gibson a genius on Leno's show. Of course, I guess what Hollywood stars have to say about anything is discounted by the right.

0 Replies

(Except, of course, Moses himself Charlton Heston whose "take this gun from my cold dead hands" was promptly answered by some higher power -- whatever one's concept of a higher power should be).

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

And the ever important: "I don't need to know anything about a subject to discuss it, because understanding the subject under diuscussion would ruin my reputation as a belligerent know-nothing who just likes to see his own words on a screen."

That's not what he said. This is a fallacious ploy.

Examples:

"How can you criticize Bush without meeting him?"

"I am in the military so my praise of the military is more relevant than your criticism."

Scrat's comment was about a general issue of media's responsibility for copycats and was not contingient on the content of the movie.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I didn't have to see Janet Jackson's nipple to be entitled to comment that people are making too much of it, and I don't need to have seen Gibson's movie to recognize that lots of people are carping about its violence who make no such complaints about other movies, which leads me to suspect that their real complaint is that Gibson made a pro-Christian movie during a period of open hostility to anything Christian.

Imagine if you will; that they showed 10 minutes of football and spent the rest of the time showing the offending boob from every possible angle.
The fact that Hobitbob and I are in complete agreement Shocked

on this, in my mind, constitutes absolute proof of our correctness. This is very seldom the case.
I think Ben Hur is probably the best movie I've ever seen, so your anti-Pro-Christian angle just doesn't work. See the film.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Scrat wrote:
I didn't have to see Janet Jackson's nipple to be entitled to comment that people are making too much of it, and I don't need to have seen Gibson's movie to recognize that lots of people are carping about its violence who make no such complaints about other movies, which leads me to suspect that their real complaint is that Gibson made a pro-Christian movie during a period of open hostility to anything Christian.
Imagine if you will; that they showed 10 minutes of football and spent the rest of the time showing the offending boob from every possible angle.
The fact that Hobitbob and I are in complete agreement on this, in my mind, constitutes absolute proof of our correctness. This is very seldom the case.
I think Ben Hur is probably the best movie I've ever seen, so your anti-Pro-Christian angle just doesn't work. See the film.

OB - I did not write that your position is anti-Christian. I wrote that I believe that many people's opinions are, or perhaps it is even more accurate to write that I think this is getting so much media play, so much discussion, because being anti-Christian is considered perfectly normal and acceptable in America today.

I could certainly be wrong about that, but that is the way it looks to me.

0 Replies

I believe you are wrong about most of the negative response to the film being any more anti-Christian than the film itself being inherently anti-Semitic. The fact that one can find an underlying anti-Christian conspiracy is very telling. In other words, it's just as disingenuous to find comments on the film as anti-Christian without seeing the film as it is finding the film anti-Semitic without seeing the film. Churches being reported as putting up signs like "The Jews Killed Christ" are just the tip of the iceburg. That doesn't make me believe that Christian church (or actually churches or sects) are inherently anti-Semitic. It does cause me to believe their are more religious zealots and fanatics out there who are. It's not easy to make the assessment of Mr. Gibson and I don't believe he is smart enough to know his disavowal of it is making him look any better. "Some of my best friends are Jews -- I love them and pray for their salvation" is some more of his self-gratifying sophistry. Not to mention a dislike for their influence in the industry which he is barely successful in hiding.

0 Replies

LW - Would you argue that someone who did not experience the Iraq war personally has no right to an opinion on what is being said about the Iraq war and the reasons people might have for what they are saying?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know