Mel Gibson's The Passion — Page 6

And that's what makes horse races.

son_of_a_gunn, the unfortunate "Jews killed Jesus" nonsense has been a sorry excuse for ignorant and fearful Christian minds throughout history to demonize and scapegoat the Jewish OTHER.

Updated On: 3/4/04 at 03:02 PM

Frank Rich's column this Sunday in the Arts & Leisure delivers the coup de grace on The Passion of the Christ and Gibson's hypocrisy.

I also can't believe I would read a justification on the boards of the writings of a virulent anti-Semite like Emmerich. The presence of this film has certainly been an eye-opener about the world around me...

---

Uh, Mister Matt and Jane2, have you ever walked through a comprehensive, world-class museum like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and taken a look-see at medieval, Gothic and Renaissance art? To your left, witness the Fra Angelico crucifixion which has Christ spurting blood from all his wounds. On your right is a fresco by Canavesio, The Crowning of Thorns, which portrays the exact moment two bestial torturers spit contemptuously into the face of Christ. Walking a little further, let's stop and meditate on the writhing, tormented Christ of Van Dyck's crucifixion.
But why stop at scenes of the Passion? Consider the fresco of the dismembered head of St. John the Baptist by the school of Giovanetti, the bloody Slaying of Holofernes by Judith as depicted by Caravaggio, the terrifying agony of the Last Judgment by Michelangelo in which St. Bartholomew displays his flayed skin upon which is represented the painter's face, Bosch's vision of hell, with every conceivable torture conveyed with the painter's obvious delight or any one of numerous representations of St. Sebastian? Are all these artists without ideas or imagination?
The graphic representation of violence in religious art has been a constant as long as men have had the ability and need to express themselves and reconcile themselves to the monstrous realities of existence and the mysteries of death. Artists' representations of life, suffering, sacrifice, death and rebirth, in whatever medium, not only reenact natural and human experience but also serve as a model for the spiritual life as well. I can't think of anything MORE necessary.

Updated On: 3/4/04 at 11:12 PM

Hardly. Your post was a general observation about contemporary films. But since it was, by extension, in agreement with MisterMatt's comments about Gibson's Passion, you'll forgive my pointing out to you that there are precedents. But can you blame me? With your nose so high up in the air, it's hard to get your attention down here.

'Nuff said.

Updated On: 3/4/04 at 11:47 PM

Besides all this debate...what it comes down to...is The Passion is a poorly made film. Everything goes over the top, from the violence and gore...to much of the acting. I mean those Roman guards were almost cartoon like at times. The scene with King Herod was handled with more grace in Jesus Christ Superstar. And (as I said before) Mel seems to only have one cinematic trick up his sleeve...slow mo. It's almost like he just discovered it and wanted to use it as much as possible. Let's see coins fly through the air to Judas (in slow mo) let's see Jesus fall to the left (in slow mo) now lets see Jesus fall to the right (in slow mo). But worst of all, the relentless violence never lets the viewer (at least this one) stop and FEEL anything. Just read the Time Out New York review and I have to agree when the reviewer says "Gibson's doggedly faithful, scrupulously brutal approach inspires little more than the recurring thought, Ouch, that's gotta smart."
It makes me think of a film like Schlinder's list, where atrocities are shown...but not shoved down your throat for two plus hours. There are quiet moments that let you sit and reflect of the enormity of what is happening. One moment that did touch me in The Passion is when Mary sees a beaten Jesus carrying the cross and has a flashback to when he fell as a child. It was in that fleeting, quiet moment that I thought of the powerful movie that could have been.

I also liked the flashback that showed, from Jesus's perspective, what it must have looked like riding into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. It wasn't touching, but it *was* a visually impressive moment juxtaposed against making his way through the crowd on the way to Golgotha.

Erik is right...there are moments that make you realize what the movie might have been.

---

Here, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, is the Frank Rich piece in this Sunday's Arts & Leisure: "Mel Gibson Forgives Us For His Sins". I hope those affected by the film and not, will take the time to read it.
Mel Gibson Forgives Us for His Sins

---

Also, do read the A. O. Scott piece about all the hate mail he's received from "Christians," complete with obscenities. I love all the turning of the other cheek. It's so moving the way people have taken the message of their saviour to heart.

People keep saying Mel's film will "bring people back to Jesus." If only.

---

Papa, I especially look forward to your post on the film.

---

all righty then, mrs. mambo and i just returned from seeing the passion of the christ and i thought i might take a moment or two and try to capture my thoughts for those who care to hear. and for those who don't care to hear, well, duh, i just said what i was gonna do, why are you still reading? move along, nothing to see here.





***this post contains spoilers***





anyway, to begin with, i can't say i enjoyed the film, but i don't think that it was meant to be enjoyed as one would apply the connotation to a film say about dating or the fall of a popular politician. however, i did appreciate the film as a piece of art much as one would a painting. in fact at several points it reminded me of graphic art not seen since some of the florentine stuff of giotto and company with it's pendant viscera and exposed bowels. i find it interesting that people never mention the horribly graphic work of the italian religious artists when they point out the graphic nature of this movie. christian art has always been a theatre of the grotesque. a friend of mine who's agnostic by nature told me of the time she ended up quite ill from a tour of florentine churches and their attendant art. but i digress.

i was moved to tears on a few occasions and found that the flashbacks were not nearly as brief or as infrequent as described, but perhaps that was just my feeling. they managed to convey more than once the idea of forgiveness, of love and of hope that was jesus's message. again, that's just me talking.

i was annoyed by a few things. the slow-mo at the beginning in the garden annoyed me (although i totally blame erik for making me hyper aware of it) although later on it didn't bother me at all. the temple splitting after jesus's death was so freakin' cheesy i kept waiting for a robot to pop up at the bottom of the screen and yell, "moses, the red sea, you bonehead, not the altar!!" the devil character left me pretty cold as i guess i'm not as literate in my bible studies as i should be for some of her/it's appearances left me wondering, "what the hell?"

as far as the anti-semitism goes, man them pharisees came off pretty bad. but as he got to the top of the mountain he says "i am the shepherd. i give my life for my sheep. no one takes it from me. i give it willingly." this is intercut with shots of caiaphas and is clearly meant to absolve any human from blame. the effectiveness of that scene i think is open to interpretation. but it is clearly an attempt to show that christ was born to die and that this death was his father's will, not the fault of any mortal. many will say, too little too late, and i can sympathize with them as the pharisees and their followers are cast in a bad light throughout the film. but not all jews are caught in this spotlight as the further the blood brigade gets out of town on its way to calvary the more sympathetic the people along the way become and the more brutal the romans. i found that to be an interesting dynamic.

blood blood blood. yep, there was plenty of it. i think that some of the dripping blood towards the end was over the top. not the part where he was stabbed, but the blood pouring through when they nail him to the cross. the blood that frames the corner of the lens when he looks at mary...mel, we get it, it's already bloody enough. but other than that, i had no problem with the violence. it was appropriate to the story i felt.

the performances across the board were strong and moving. what maia did without words was phenomenal and should earn her a best supporting actress nod, but will not. the film looked gorgeous but that's caleb deschanel, he's a wizard and always has been. all in all, i am glad to have seen this film. i'm glad that it was made. and i feel that it was a success more as an artistic moment than as a film. i feel that mel gave life to the story that i knew from childhood and brought an ugly reality that i perhaps might never have imagined to the sacrifice that i believe jesus made for all humanity.

---

Updated On: 3/6/04 at 07:56 PM

Papa: Very thoughtful take on the film. You've almost got me in a seat. Almost. I was particularly relieved to read that the flashbacks do have more weight and utlimately provide more clarifying balance. Personally, I'm less worried about the violence per se, and more fearful of ending up ... what? ... just left bereft, feeling ... hopeless. Maybe it's this season, maybe it's mid-life crisis that tends to spiral downward during winter, but I am literally afraid of the film's "power" -- over me -- if said power is used to focus on destructive energy alone.

You have whetted my appetite, a poor choice of words perhaps, but I much appreciate your reminding us of the italian tradition of focussing on the extreme suffering in the Passion. And other artists have always looked to the darkest elements for inspiration, i.e. I'm a big fan of Bach's "St. Matthew's Passion," and actually, the Master's music is suffused with pain.

---

Updated On: 3/6/04 at 08:09 PM

Well, papa. we are in agreement about the Passion. Check out my posts above.