The Passion Of The Christ

Started by MacGuffin, January 28, 2003, 01:49:48 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ghostboy

He's against Vatican II, which sort of made the Catholic church more friendly and happy. Before the program was instituted, the Mass was still said in Latin, and there weren't any lame inclusions like the 'sign of peace' (in which everyone shakes their neighbors' hands). It started back in the -- well, I'm not sure if it was this Pope or the one before him that started it, but it was sometime in the past thirty or forty years. And on this topic, I agree with Gibson all the way (I'm Catholic, mostly lapsed but still opinionated). A lof of Catholics feel the same way, and there are a lot of churches that still operate old-fashionedly.

As for his homophobia, well -- sucks to be him, in that regard.

godardian

Quote from: GhostboyHe's against Vatican II, which sort of made the Catholic church more friendly and happy. Before the program was instituted, the Mass was still said in Latin, and there weren't any lame inclusions like the 'sign of peace' (in which everyone shakes their neighbors' hands). It started back in the -- well, I'm not sure if it was this Pope or the one before him that started it, but it was sometime in the past thirty or forty years. And on this topic, I agree with Gibson all the way (I'm Catholic, mostly lapsed but still opinionated). A lof of Catholics feel the same way, and there are a lot of churches that still operate old-fashionedly.

As for his homophobia, well -- sucks to be him, in that regard.

As far as modernizing all the beauty out of it, I guess I would agree with that, too. However, I get the feeling that Gibson would probably take the church back in other ways- ideologically, for example- to a point I wouldn't be at all in agreement with.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Ghostboy

That could very well be true, although I think his father would be more guilty of that than Gibson himself.

I'm only defending him because I enjoy his screen presence -- I'm still stuck on that childhood fantasy that all my favorite movie stars are perfect, damn it!

godardian

Quote from: GhostboyThat could very well be true, although I think his father would be more guilty of that than Gibson himself.

I'm only defending him because I enjoy his screen presence -- I'm still stuck on that childhood fantasy that all my favorite movie stars are perfect, damn it!

I understand. I'm equally embarrassed in many ways about Alec Baldwin.  :)
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Pwaybloe

Quote from: godardianIf it's based on a literal interpretation of the bible and no other sources, it's not what can rightly be called history; it falls more under the heading of mythology.

Wrong.  There are written documents and studies to prove Christ and the act of his crucifiction was real.  What you call "mythology" is the belief he was the son of God.   More info here.

Movie related, here are some clips from "The Passion of Christ."

SoNowThen

Quote from: Pawbloe
Quote from: godardianIf it's based on a literal interpretation of the bible and no other sources, it's not what can rightly be called history; it falls more under the heading of mythology.

Wrong.  There are written documents and studies to prove Christ and the act of his crucifiction was real.

Thank you, I was gonna jump in there, but you got it.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Ghostboy

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that the movie inherently adheres to the stance that he IS the son of God, and so at that point, calling it mythology is fair game. No doubt that it really happened. One of the most interesting things I've ever seen was the (supposed) nails from the cross, among other relics, in Rome.

godardian

Quote from: GhostboyYeah, but I'm pretty sure that the movie inherently adheres to the stance that he IS the son of God, and so at that point, calling it mythology is fair game. No doubt that it really happened. One of the most interesting things I've ever seen was the (supposed) nails from the cross, among other relics, in Rome.

Yes, that was quite obviously what I meant, but thanks for clarifying. Some people just like to jump the gun and say "wrong," I guess.  :)

I don't have any problem believing:

-In the crucifixion

-In the "Great Flood"

-In the story of David and Goliath

...as historically having "really happened." But though there may be ways to prove (and disprove) that many things in the Bible are historically accurate, there is no way to prove it was written by divine intervention (though we are certain that human hands are 100% possible for writing what's in there, wherever they claim to have gotten the inspiration from), there's no way to prove Jesus Christ was the son of God, and of course there's never any way to prove that anything is guided by mystical, supernatural hands.  I expect Mel Gibson is going in with the assumption that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so there goes any objectivity he may have had, along with any likelihood of the film being truly interesting for anyone not religious.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Pwaybloe

Quote from: godardianI expect Mel Gibson is going in with the assumption that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so there goes any objectivity he may have had, along with any likelihood of the film being truly interesting for anyone not religious.

I don't think being religious is a prerequisite for seeing this movie.  There are a lot of spiritual movies that others (as well as myself) find interesting.  

So you just don't like the obvious religious overtones?  Would you rather them be to be only implied?

People who just hate Mel Gibson have an altogether different argument.

SoNowThen

He proved it pretty good by rising from the dead....

8) sheesh, what more does a guy gotta do? Turn water to wine?

oh wait....
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

cine

Quote from: SoNowThensheesh, what more does a guy gotta do? Turn water to wine?

oh wait....
:lol:
And for the record, I'm not religious at all, yet I'm eagerly anticipating this film. I think it has tons of potential to be a very moving picture no matter where you stand religiously.

godardian

Quote from: Pawbloe
Quote from: godardianI expect Mel Gibson is going in with the assumption that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so there goes any objectivity he may have had, along with any likelihood of the film being truly interesting for anyone not religious.

I don't think being religious is a prerequisite for seeing this movie.  There are a lot of spiritual movies that others (as well as myself) find interesting.  

So you just don't like the obvious religious overtones?  Would you rather them be to be only implied?

People who just hate Mel Gibson have an altogether different argument.

I, too, really love spiritual movies.

But I have deep and sincere doubts about Mel Gibson being capable of giving us anything on the spiritual level of Diary of a Country Priest, The Sacrifice, Ordet, or even The Last Temptation of Christ, not to mention The Passion of Joan of Arc, all of which could be said to be "religious" films, and all of which are profoundly moving and beautiful whether you're religious, agnostic humanist (as I am), or a devout atheist.

I've found his other films to be unacceptably bombastic, one-dimensional affairs, and I don't see any reason that this one will be any different. The combination of his deficiencies as a director and the difficulty of the material do not bode well for this being one for cinephiles who aren't also churchgoers (I'll submit that my most sacred experiences have been in the cinema, but that's another story), or who are but are unwilling to let their religious faith trump their taste.

I will admit to having a strong dislike for Mel Gibson, but that's hardly the only reason for my mistrust of his ability to bring something like this to the screen with the qualities it needs to make it on a cinematic level.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

RegularKarate

Yeah... I like religious movies... I even liked Prince of Egypt.

But this is shit... almost completely garanteed.  I request that people who are really wanting to give thier money to Mel Gibson just to be disapointed just mail it to him directly with a note asking him to release it straight to video so you don't waste theater screen space or shit out the television noise that the resulting "controversy" will cause.

Ghostboy

Quote from: SoNowThenHe proved it pretty good by rising from the dead....

Arrrghhh!

Anyways, I'm agnostic, but I'm really looking forward to it.

modage

MEL'S 'PASSION' PUT TO THE TEST
Source: New York Post

November 17, 2003 -- The Post recently obtained a copy of Mel Gibson's controversial, still-unreleased biblical epic, "The Passion of Christ."
Although it has been seen by relatively few people, the film - slated for release on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004 - has revived fears of renewed Judeo-Christian discord after years of hard-won harmony.

"The Passion" has been denounced by some Jewish leaders as anti-Semitic and likely to incite violence. They claim it portrays the Jewish people as culpable for Christ's death - contrary to Vatican II's declaration that "what happened in [Christ's] Passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."

The film has been lauded by most conservative Catholics as a powerful and biblically accurate depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. And they contend that most of those who condemn it haven't even seen it.

Gibson, an ultraconservative Catholic who rejects the reforms of Vatican II, insists he made the film "to inspire, not offend."

To find out how viewers of wide-ranging backgrounds would react to the film, The Post held a private screening for a small panel: a rabbi, a priest, a professor of early Christianity, and a Post reader - a Baptist - picked at random.

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 likely.


READ ENTIRE ARTICLE ALONG WITH REVIEWS HERE... http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/10963.htm
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.