# The Passion of Mel Gibson



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Described as “relentless, near pornographic feast of flayed flesh,” and “the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade” by varying critics.

Lets hear some heartfelt prejudice in this ramp up to the event!

And then even more after that!

Being squeamish about the flaying stuff I may well pass on it and rely on ehMac's brilliant critiques.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Apple "teaser" trailer with great sound can be found here.

Same Apple "teaser" trailer and extended theatrical trailer can be found here. 

Some small tidbits (not spoilers)

The opening scene that shows the legs and feet of Christ actually belong to Mel Gibson and not the actor who played Christ in the film.

The "hand" that holds the spike to be driven into Christ during the crucifixion also belongs to Mel Gibson.

Gibson felt he needed to be the one holding the spike as he feels that "we all had a part in the crucifixion of Christ" (Diane Sawyer interview)

[ February 25, 2004, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: MACSPECTRUM ]


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

the feeling i get from this movie is that its supremely biased. hearing interviews with mel gibson solidifies that. i wont see it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

what bias are you referring to as your reason to not see the film?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

The film is a fascinating project and i look forward to seeing it.

One thing though, while on set Jim Caviezel (the actor portraying Jesus) was STRUCK BY LIGHTNING. Not only that, but the Assistant Director was struck by lightning as well.

You'd think that two devout Catholics (Gibson & Caviezel) would see something in that...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I plan on seeing this movie for sure. I've watched the trailers and found the imagery very powerful. I've read many articles from people that have seen the movie in advance and the consensus seems to be its a moving masterpiece. Of course any film about Christ is going to be loved or despised by its critics. If you hate him and everything he stands for to begin with this movie will just tick you off, or maybe touch your heart. You can see just about every video available online for this movie at The MovieBox.net 
I look forward to reading the reviews and comments of all that will see it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

To be sure...the book is better


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

I'm looking forward to this movie.
As a fan of Braveheart and the Bible, I'll definitely be seeing this one with some friends.
I'm also hoping to watch Gospel of John and Jesus of Montreal sometime. I heard these mentioned on CBC Radio this morning. The most memorable comment about Gibson's movie was that most people who saw it described it as an "experience" or a "depiction". That is in itself attractive - why have a plot when we know what's going to happen? Lack of character development might be the only problem; in any case I'm going to see it. I appreciate movies with violence used to shock (Gangs of New York and Taxi Driver) violence as fun (Pulp Fiction), violence that sweeps you up in a glorious ride (Mission Impossible II), and violence that amazes you so much it makes you laugh in astonishment (Drunken Master, The Matrix series).
I myself have played and am playing Judas in "Godspell" and I hope this will help my performance.
I love controversial movies that make people talk and provide a new experience. If it's shot well, I will find it entertaining enough, but more than that I hope it will lead to interesting discussions with friends.
I think anyone going should probably be prepared to be challenged or changed in their faith, if not by the movie then by the following discussions. I'll be prepared.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Described as “relentless, near pornographic feast of flayed flesh,” and “the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade” by varying critics.*


Yeah, the world is full of critics. Most movie critics are the biggest bunch of self-absorbed idiots I've ever had the pleasure (not!) of having listened to or who's reviews I've read. How many dumb movies have you gone to watch that were a waste of time, but had received glowing reviews from these so-called experts?







This movie has received a lot of controversial comment, so I'm looking forward to seeing it for myself. Mel has done a spectacular job of getting lots of free press, it seems. It appears that a lot of people who have no clue what the Passion is about will soon become aware. For Mel, that's "mission accomplished".


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

FWIW, I just got back from seeing a preview showing a friend invited me to see (his lady friend wasn't able to see it, so I got her ticket.)

I'll leave any "religious opinon" out of it for now and I must say, it is most excellently done, and deserves it's R rating here in the States. The filmography is superb and the story very well done. Though the Catholic influence is very strong (Mary is prominently featured throughout the film), it in my opinion gives the story of Christ quite well. Sure some liberties were taken, but those liberties were often done because of other sources other then the Bible.

Also the film is entirely done in several other languages (Aramaic, Latin, etc.), and I never realized that, so you're always reading the subtitles, but they work exceedingly well and are very easy to read.

My only real beef about the movie would be that a church put it on, and they decided to do an altar call instead of showing the credits. Doesn't make too much sense to me since most of the people who went would have either been "born-again" Christians already and/or been part of the church that put it on. Kudos for their initiative and want to reach people.

That said, leaving the theatre, I saw a lot of wet faces. So it certainly connects with a lot of people.

I would recommend it as a decent movie, since the "gore" and accuracy of what a cat o' nine tails really does is quite high.

Peter Scharman - Right at the end, Jesus when he dies says, in the subtitles "It is accomplished".


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

> what bias are you referring to as your reason to not see the film?


im not gonna get into it.. im probably alone in my view in the majority of peoples opinions on here.. im just gonna sit back and keep out of it.. safer that way.


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

FWIW, you're not alone ...

Remember that this film was made by a right-wing Catholic with a VERY specific agenda in mind, one which has absolutely nothing to do with spreading the word of God (or even god); his only intent is to spread the word of Mel ...

Mike McHugh


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Funny, I thought he was trying to depict the last 12 hours of Jesus Christs' life.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Am I the only one who's willing to take Mel's reasons for making this film at face value—nothing more, nothing less?

It seems like some folk will try to find an ulterior motive or agenda in everything these days.  I'm glad that those religous groups that initially condemned _The Passion_ had it in their heart to open their mind and actually see the movie before passing judgement—and surprise, a lot of them love the movie despite the excessive violence.

I was raised as a Roman Catholic and attended Church and Sunday school up until I was the age of 13... I had absolutely no interest in following religon anymore (for my own personal reasons which I won't bother mentioning, I'm sure it would spark retaliation) and thankfully my parents were supportive enough to allow me to walk my own path—regardless, I'm very much interested to see this movie.

PB: I think the "message" (or the irony for that matter) would not be lost if Jim Caviezel (aka J.C.—coincedence?) was struck _and_ killed by lightening.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Mike,

What do you think the "Word of Mel" is that this movie is trying to spread? Is it biblically inaccurate? I haven't seen it yet so I'd love to here what you though of it and what bothered you about the movie.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Be sure to check out the official merchandise at www.sharethe passionofthechrist.com.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Am I the only one who's willing to take Mel's reasons for making this film at face value*

Nope, I am too. I will probably re-examine them after I see the movie, just because I like to compare what I felt with what was trying to be conveyed, but for the most part I don't see any ulterior motive right now.

*I think the "message" would not be lost if Jim Caviezel was struck and killed by lightening.*

Indeed, the message would have been a whole lot clearer if that were the case.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I just came back from seeing the film and it runs very quickly, is full of brutality and gore.

It does indeed show the "passion" (i.e. suffering) of Christ during those last few hours.

I found the use of Aramaic and Latin to be an interesting vehicle for the "reality" of the film.

for a 12:20 afternoon showing the theatre was 90% full with a line up for the next showing after we let out.

Not a film for the faint of heart.

Certainly a "must see" film.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Macspectrum,

Just curious but what was the audience reaction like to the movie? Did anyone walk out, were people emotional, upset, angry?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

MacGuiver,

I wasn't commenting on the film - I can't do that, as I haven't seen it, nor have I any interest in doing so. My comments related to what I know of Mel Gibson's religious beliefs, and comments he has made about his belief system, and about this film. I was raised Catholic, so I know that the version of Catholicism he chooses to follow is not that of the majority of Catholics, nor is it that of the Vatican, for that matter - personally, I would describe it as being much more evangelical in nature.

My issues with what I have read are many-fold; the almost-exclusive focus on the violence, for example. I refuse to see Hollywood "action" films because the violence therein really disturbs me, and strikes me as being completely gratuitous; I feel the same way about the violence in the Passion - what IS the purpose of showing such graphic scenes - WHAT kind of dialogue is this supposed to engender ? How is this in any way relevant to God's message ?

I could go on, but not sure that it would be constructive ... the only other point I wish to raise is that, issues such as those above aside, I would STILL not go to see a film made by someone who has spouted some pretty un-Christian remarks re. homosexuality in the past - in fact, I think the only Gibson film I have ever seen was The Year of Living Dangerously, which I saw long before I knew anything about him ... I won't knowingly give such an individual a penny of my money ... or, as we say in Scotland, I wouldn't give him the matter out of my eye 

Mike McHugh


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nobody walked out (at least that i saw)
i heard sniffling behind me
there were definite GASPS when Christ was being nailed to the cross
when the film was over, people made their way to the exits very slowly and very quietly
the theatre was dark and i didn't see faces when they were leaving during the credits, but it did seem to me to be a very solemn procession

about 1/3 stayed until the very end of the credits and the turning on of the house lights.


----------



## incubus_9800 (Feb 25, 2004)

I am not a religious person myself, but will probabley see the movie just to satisfy my curiosity. I have heard many bad things about it, but many movies I liked have gotten bad reviews and vice versa.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I'm most interested in the subject matter but not sure if I'm going to see it as not sure if I can stomach the depicted violence. I could never be a doctor as I can get pretty faint at the sight of surgical blood, let alone blood at the result of violence. 

As PG made a funny reference which made me laugh... I already read the book.


----------



## iLabmAn (Jan 1, 2003)

Geoff Pevere pretty well summed up the movie in his excellent review in today's Star.


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

Shouldn't it be a sin for one man to possess 40 million dollars?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just to clarify here...

I am a Scot, was baptised Catholic, but I have recovered from that. I honestly belive in God, and I "have read the book"...like PG.

I don't like violence in real life, but I understand that it is a part of life (I've certainly seen enough of it) and I don't mind it at all on the big screen.

I WILL see the movie. I will go in with an open mind, and I will be ready to be either dazzled or disgusted.

Either way, I bettin it will be a heckuva ride.

No question about it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

LGB...

I suspect that Mel Gibson has a lot more than forty million bucks in his sporran. Probably several times that amount, if truth be told.

But the fact that he is still married to the same woman after all these years, has five (or six?) children by that same woman, does not seem to be a slave to drugs and alcohol...and takes the time and effort to make a movie like this with his own money...should tell you a little something about the guy.

And, who knows? He might be like another famous Scot...Andrew Carnegie...and use his declining years to give away all of his massive wealth to people who really need it.

The bible says that it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

I'll bet that Mel has read this passage, as well..


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

mikemchugh,

*I refuse to see Hollywood "action" films because the violence therein really disturbs me, and strikes me as being completely gratuitous; I feel the same way about the violence in the Passion - what IS the purpose of showing such graphic scenes - WHAT kind of dialogue is this supposed to engender ?*

From the horses mouth (quote from page 4):

<blockquote>"I wanted it to be shocking," Gibson said. "And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge … so that they see the enormity — the enormity of that sacrifice — to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness, even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule."

Foxman hopes viewers come away with that sort of message, rather than anger or bias.

"I hope that most people see it, Diane, as a passion of love," Foxman said. "Maybe when it's all over, in a sobering manner, we'll be able to come back and look each other in the face and say, 'We have to deal with this hatred that's still out there.'"

Gibson, too, wants dialogue.

"Let's get this out on the table and talk about it," he said. "This is what the Talmud says. This is what the Gospel says. Let's talk. Let's talk. People are asking questions about things that have been buried a long time."

"I hope it inspires introspection, and I think it does,"</blockquote>

Personally, I believe that all movies deserve one look. There's only one person in the world that shares your tastes exactly, and that is you. I've never been able to rely on other people opinions or advice when it comes to enjoying/disliking a movie, I just have to see it for myself.

You're right about one thing though, a lot of the violence in action movies is pretty gratuitous, but I think this project is aiming more for realism than anything else. The Romans were not exactly a bunch of softies. Like I said though, I'll have to see it for myself and decide.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nicely put, PosterBoy.


----------



## rollee (Feb 26, 2003)

it is expected that this movie which touches the boundries of religion and faith is going to be very controversal.
from the reviews, comments and opinions expressed it will be very difficult to go in with an open mind.
as for me alone, i am expecting myself to be moved by the movie and liking it, because of the powerful depiction of the subject matter, and by the faith instilled in me.
from the trailer i am impressed with the cinamatography and music, that alone has made me want to see it from a big screen.
i will try to understand and appreciate it from an artistic perspective and will find out if i am proved otherwise.

Macnutt: very well written i enjoyed your posts.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I've been reading this discussion since it started and thought I'd put my two cents in.

To me, a film has to be accurate. Whether it is fiction or non fiction the film has to be believable. I'm sure Mel Gibson wanted an accurate portrayal.

That being said, this movie depicts Christ's last 12 hours, that involved torture and crucifixion. Bottom line folks, this stuff isn't pretty. This was in a time where brutality of this sort was common. The gore in this film may seem excessive to us, but it is probably pretty close to what it would look like if someone was whipped, wearing a crown of thorns and nailed to a cross, with open wounds.

PosterBoy wrote:



> The Romans were not exactly a bunch of softies.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the Jewish Priests that ultimately crucified Jesus? He was originally turned over to the Roman's but they decided to let the Jews handle the punishment. In that time it would have made more of a political impact to let the Jews punish the "self proclaimed" "King of the Jews". 

For those who would like to lear more about Jesus from an archaeological, historical and scientific viewpoint, I watched this over Christmas Jesus: The Complete Story 

Finally a quote from Upcoming Movies:



> One of the people that many were wondering whether he might get to see the film before its release or not was Pope John Paul II himself, and last week, it was announced that he had done just that. The pontiff gave one of the shortest reviews either, saying about the movie merely "It is as it was"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Foxman hopes viewers come away with that sort of message, rather than anger or bias.


For reference, Abraham H. Foxman is the National Director the Anti-Defamation League in the U.S.

By watching the film, one sees that it was only a few high priests that really wanted Christ out of the way. After all, he had called them heretics. The high priests then incensed the crowd into wanting Christ's crucifixion. What I saw was a politically motivated power play by a select few and not a general indictment of any one group.

The film shows the savage brutatlity with which the Roman soldiers treated Christ.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM,

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I must agree with what Mike McHugh has said. In the past Gibson has shown himself to be a misogynistic, right-wing catholic fanatic. This film makes me very uneasy as it seems to be one more example of what we're seeing all over the world - an attempt to make us join some kind of religious fundamentalist group, whether it's Islam, Bush-type protestanism or catholicism. These "religions" are all designed to keep us under control. Believe what you like but don't push your superstitious nonsense onto the rest of us. I'm only surprised that Gibson didn't play Christ himself. He proved himself to be an "actor" with no talent and massive ego when he played Hamlet and Wallace. Anyway, I won't be going to see this movie. I know how it ends.
"Religion is the opiate of the people"


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Macnutt; of course Gibson's still married to the same woman - he's a CATHOLIC. He has no choice - especially after all the spouting off he's done lately. And he WAS a "slave" to alcohol and drugs. That's why he turned to religion. There seems to be a common thread here. What other former alcoholic is now a religious fanatic?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macello wrote:


> Lets hear some heartfelt prejudice in this ramp up to the event!
> And then even more after that!


Wolfshead wrote:


> Macnutt; of course Gibson's still married to the same woman - he's a CATHOLIC. He has no choice - especially after all the spouting off he's done lately. And he WAS a "slave" to alcohol and drugs. That's why he turned to religion. There seems to be a common thread here. What other former alcoholic is now a religious fanatic?


Thank you for contributing your heartfelt prejudice.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Wow, Wolfshead, you're quite the cynic


> *of course Gibson's still married to the same woman - he's a CATHOLIC. He has no choice -*


Everyone has a choice....to assume he's still married because of religious binding and not because he has a working marriage is an unjust insinuation. He obviously has very strong religious beliefs and could have joined any number of religious denominations. He chose the one that fit his belief structure. There's a problem with that?? And I don't think he is " pushing his superstitious nonsense onto the rest of us" We have a choice to watch his portrayal of this few hours of history or to stay home. Like Mel, we all have a freedom choice. You can stay home, but then you have no validity when commenting on the movie's merits or shortcomings.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Shouldn't it be a sin for one man to possess 40 million dollars? ..."

It is not a sin to be wealthy. It is a sin to be wealthy and not to use that wealth to help others. That's what is meant by the "eye of a needle" quote from the bible. As to whether Mel has to worry about it, all I can say is it's not my decision and besides, he isn't dead yet.

I haven't seen the movie, but I suppose I will have to go and see what all the fuss is about. I have a hard time understanding some of the complaints I've heard; pretty much every early Christian was Jewish and it became the official religion of Rome within about 200 years. I don't see how anyone can claim to be Christian and miss the part about forgiveness.

We have publicly funded Catholic schools in Saskatchewan; students who are old enough were given permission by the Board to skip school to see the movie on opening day, and they will talk about it during the Christian Ethics class the following day.

[ February 26, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: gordguide ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I plan on having a look once it hits my tiny pacific island.

I like Mel Gibson. I like his stuff. Pretty much all of it. 

If he is so totally committed to this project that he faced down the ridicule of his peers and put up forty MILLION of his own dollars to make it...then I figure it is, at the very LEAST, worth a good hard look. Maybe two.

Just my dos centavos worth.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Surely each one of us is a mass of prejudices and contradictions? I know I am. Apparently Gibson is too. This is supposed to be a forum for airing one's views. I don't expect anyone to agree with me just as those who are prejudiced in favour of religion cannot expect everyone to agree with them. You are right, I don't have to see this film. I suppose I am uneasy about the effect this film with have on others, just as I am uneasy about the effect any kind of violence will have on people, whether we're talking about television, video games or movies. I'm simply expressing my sense of unease. I apologise if I offended anyone but cannot see any point in being anything but honest about my feelings.


----------



## snowin (Sep 5, 2001)

MaxPower;
You are both right and wrong. 
Short Version:
It was the High Priest and certain of his cronies that handed Jesus (Yeshua by his hebrew name) over to the romans. However their laws prohibited them carrying out any punishment on him. So they whipped the mob into a frenzy, took him to pontius pilate, and said this man deserves death. Pilate said, no he doesn't, however the mob demanded his death, so Pontius handed him over to the local Roman garrison who carried out the torture and crucifixion of Yeshua. So both parties were responsible. For a fuller account read Luke 22:1-23:46, or Matthew 26:14-27:61 @
The Bible.com


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
February 24, 2004

BY ROGER EBERT - FILM CRITIC

If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.

The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.

I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:

At the Cross, her station keeping ...
Stood the mournful Mother weeping ...
Close to Jesus to the last.

For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."

This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.

This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.)

If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts.

The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo.

In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous.

Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.

"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."

This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.

A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.

This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.

Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it).

It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.

Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM, a small quote and a link would have sufficed ... tsk...tsk ....  

After reading the review, I am further resolved not to witness graphical depictions of torture. 

Torture is a common method of coercion in the furtherance of national political and economic agenda as taught in military and security establishments worldwide today.

I hope that no one thinks it a thing of the past.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

To a follower of the faith does it preach?
If so does it deviate from a norm?
If so how?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macspectrum...

Outstanding post. I carefully read every word. Then I went back and re-read it all. A couple of times.

My respect for you grows.  

I DEFINTELY plan on seeing this movie.  

Mel Gibson has gone from a faintly amusing Aussie-accented action hero...to a noteably good actor...to a major power in Hollywood (after Braveheart).

Now he presents us with THIS! 

Who knows? If he keeps on this track...our homeboy Mel might just end up being the next Stanley Kubrick.









Kubrick shunned the Hollywood elite, and made groundbreaking movies that confounded and baffled all of the critics. They had no idea what to make of THIS guy.

He took unlikely parts, and unwieldly scripts about outlandish subjects...and made them into milestone films that will be remembered for their brilliance many decades after their release. 

And he made a sh+tload of money in the process.

He was once thought to be a major loser by much of Hollywood.

Today...he is thought to be a seminal Genius. One of the giants of modern film.

Will Mel Gibson be thought of in the same light, twenty or thirty years down the road?

Yep. I think so.


----------



## rollee (Feb 26, 2003)

macspectrum, i thank you for the wonderful post, it is truly honest, objective and informative.

ps. or was it roger ebert's critic?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the entire review was/is roger ebert's
i posted his name and the source as the chicago sun-times
i apologize in advance if anyone thought it was my own personal review
i do not have such a way with words

the only reason i posted the entire article is that links have a nasty habit of becoming extinct

for those that want the original link;

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macello asked;


> To a follower of the faith does it preach?
> If so does it deviate from a norm?
> If so how?


i don't belive the film "preaches"
the language is in Latin and Aramaic with subtitles as a last minute concession

the film was originally to be released without subtitles - i believe the gore and violence was to help tell the story since very few viewers are able to understand the dialogue

it does deviate from the norm as almost all renditions of the Christ story gloss over the horrific violence of Christ's crucifixion

as for "other" horrors in the world - it is unfortunately true, they exist and they go, for the most part, unreported

the media and PTB (powers that be) spin and report what they find expedient and fruitful

perhaps in some small way the film brings to life the horrors of today's world in the form of a very old story - perhaps a metaphor for today's struggles and sacrifices

i do not consider myself expert in such a domain


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Perhaps Mel could apply his next $25 million to a project documenting the sexual abuse of 11,000 children by Catholic priests in the US since the 1950s and the complicity of their Bishops in covering it up. 

Here's a running title: "The Passion of Innocents." A case of practicing while you preach?

The Catholic church is ardently against same sex marriage. I guess that could be judged as being consistent at least, given that Priests are not allowed to marry.

[ February 28, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: used to be jwoodget ]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The Catholic church is ardently against same sex marriage. I guess that could be judged as being consistent at least, given that Priests are not allowed to marry.


please note an exception;

ukrainian catholic priests are not only allowed to marry, but encouraged to do so and have children
the current Pope is trying to wipe this out with various political machinations
the ukrainian community in north america has reacted strongly to the Pope's strong arm tactics to try to not allow ukrainian catholic priests to marry
this "deal" was cut when a faction of the ukrainian orthodox church broke away and recognized the pope WITH the agreement that ukrainian priests would still allowed to be married and that the byzantine right would still be practiced

something that the Pope and Rome seem to be trying to forget
this Pope was once bishop that oversaw my father's village and my father told me that the Pope closed down Ukrainian churches
i have no love for this Pope nor the papacy

i have only known of one ukrainian catholic priest that was not married. he had aspirations of becoming bishop


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Macspectrum, thank you for that review...it is more introspective and rational than most I've been led to. I am not a fan of movies with gratuitous violence, but am lured to see this one. There seems to be an experience and education that warrants the discomfort. Macello, I can't imagine anyone going to this movie because they enjoy watching torture...it would be perhaps both sick and sacrilegious. It would certainly raise awareness of its horror to those who have ignored its presence in the world today.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Exception noted









The Pope clearly has his priorities totally $%&#ed up. [edit to add link to Pope's opposition to same sex marriage]

[ February 28, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: used to be jwoodget ]


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

After reading a lot of reviews of this movie, I've come to the conclusion that unless you have Christian beliefs or background, the meaning of this movie could easily fly right over your head. All you may see is a man being tortured and executed without understanding what it all meant. After reading the user ratings and reviews at MSN, the majority have come away deeply moved, changed, renewed in their faith or challenged. Of 262 ratings given, only 19 are below 5 stars which totally contradicting the ratings of the media. 

I deplore gratuitously violent films (Kill Bill, Natural Born Killers, Pulp Fiction) but it does have the power to move you in the right context. Great example of that were Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. They were real eye opener although gut wrenching to watch. Without the graphic violence shown in them they'd be impotent at conveying their point.

I see The Passion Of The Christ the same way and I look forward to getting to see it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman, your point well taken here although I would like to see something like the opposite of a disclaimer informing viewers that state sanctioned torture as depicted in the film persists in the world today without actors etc....


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> I've come to the conclusion that unless you have Christian beliefs or background, the meaning of this movie could easily fly right over your head. All you may see is a man being tortured and executed without understanding what it all meant.


Agreed 100%. After seeing this movie, I could easily see how nothing in that movie would make any sense if I didn't already know the basic story behind it because of my Christanity and faith. A Christian background is pretty much recommended before you go and see this one (and if not that, then at least read the story of Jesus' crusification first to get an idea).


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

used to be jwoodget, please, let's not pull this thread off its theme. This stuff is for another thread if you wish to open it. Mel's depiction of the Passion, albeit from a deeply religious Catholic, has nothing to do with Pope or priest shortcomings. Let's not inject more of your noted religion bashing into this discussion, OK? I guess one could argue that "following the law" should not be encouraged because we have found numerous police officers to be corrupt and engaging in illegal activities.  
Macspectrum, thanks for the information and efforts to be objective. Good stuff!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

UTBjwoodget

Thank you for contributing your heartfelt prejudice. I didn't know Mel Gibson or Jesus Christ were responsible for the sodomizing of young boys in the priesthood.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Apologies guys..... I wasn't bashing believers, just "Organized Religion". I find it highly ironic that Christians are applauding a movie for its depiction of the enormous suffering of their Saviour while apparently looking the other way as decidely earthly abominations are conducted by officials of the Catholic church. Where is the outcry?

Christian groups are using the film as a vehicle to evangelize, recruit and to stir debate. Its been a huge success in that respect with widescale coverage. But clearly the darker sides of the Church are off-limits in that debate.... Perhaps that is why memberships continue to decline?


----------



## Alex R (Apr 6, 2003)

I think we need a little historical context here.
The Romans employed crucifixion as a standard means of detering unacceptable (to the Pax Roman) behaviour. During the slave uprising of Sparitcus they ran out of crosses. After the sacking of Jerusalem in 60 AD (or there abouts) there were more massive crucifixions, mostly jewish people. I think I was told that the Romans, as they did with most things, borrowed crucifixion from another culture.

The story of Christ is not a story of crucifixion but about redemption of a sinful world. In order for this to happen a sacrifice was needed, not as per mosaic law but because of the will of GOD. A sacrifice was required to move man from sin to GOD's side. The sacrifice was Christ, necessary because of our behaviour.

If this movie simply depicts a Roman crucifixion in Palestine then it is not about Christ. I am confident that many people physically suffered crucifixion in a greater or lesser extent that Christ suffered crucifixion. But the key point is that Christ wiped away our sins and took a more crushing blow than just physical crucifixion while on the cross. HE was separated from GOD while on the cross, something very few of us can truely understand.

My two bits worth.
By the way sin is a short word describing behaviour that is unacceptable to GOD and always hurtful to people.

Alex R


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> By the way sin is a short word describing behaviour that is unacceptable to GOD and always hurtful to people.


Actually Sin is short for sinister,
People that were left handed were considered to be sinister in
the eyes of the church and were persecuted.

As a child I was left handed and forced to be right handed by
my Catholic teachers.

As Dave Allen would say...
May your God go with you.

Dave


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hmm... that explains a lot. I'm left-handed.

Alex R - thank you for your clarification on crucifixion. Although its an example of the horrible things that man can do to man, the Passion of Christ is not about how Jesus died, it is about the way of His death. The cross is a symbol.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

So far there's no serious comment in the American press (or here for that matter) on the theological or scholarly integrity of the film.

It's possible that Americans are fearful of "getting it wrong" politically.

Not so in "Yerp"

_In Europe a string of major distributors have signalled they are not interested in the film. "We could have asked to see it but we haven't," said Jean-Claude Borde, director of Pathe Distribution. "The subject doesn't interest us. Usually we acquire the rights to a film well in advance after reading the screenplay, but with Gibson it's not our cup of tea."
Other companies have either dismissed the film as "rubbish" or voiced anxiety over its content. "I didn't even stay until the end of The Passion. It's rubbish, nothing but a huge marketing operation.
"There are already enough bad films in France," said one French distributor who saw an early screening in the US. 
The newspaper Liberation described Gibson's faith as "a Shi'ite version of Christianity ... imbibed with blood and pain" which "reduces the message of Christ to his death by torture"._

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/29/wpass29.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/29/ixworld.html


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

it's all myth and superstition as far as i'm concerned.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *"The subject doesn't interest us. Usually we acquire the rights to a film well in advance after reading the screenplay, but with Gibson it's not our cup of tea."*


I'm shocked and awed. No,...wait!...oh that fellow was from France....now it makes sense! I'm not much interested in most French movies either, and I suspect that Mel won't be too upset. The box office numbers tell the true story of a movies market success, not the opinions of the critics or the guys who missed the boat of opportunity.
As for the "theological or scholarly integrity", I'm not sure that's an issue. I would think the historical accuracy would be the most scrutinized. I haven't seen the film yet, but if I understand the commentary so far, it seems that the teachings, influence and theology aspects of Christ's life are not really part of the movie's theme, but rather just the last hours (the Passion) of his life. Mel has used license to drive home the brutality of this short period. Crucifixion is something that's easy to say or read, but it's true horror is only appreciated if actually seen. Whether this Hollywood portrayal is accurate is the issue, but the point seems to have gotten accross regardless. The pot certainly seems to have been stirred.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Scharman:


> I'm shocked and awed. No,...wait!...oh that fellow was from France....now it makes sense!


As Mary Walsh says, yer WITness Protection Program ain't gonna help ya 'tal dearie! 



> As for the "theological or scholarly integrity", I'm not sure that's an issue. I would think the historical accuracy would be the most scrutinized. I haven't seen the film yet,


You only put yourself up to public ridicule with bigotry towards the French ...... and then you admit to your own ignorance of the subject of discussion quoted.









*The French gentleman read the script before forming an opinion and you haven't even seen the movie!!!*









PS: ".... integrity", I'm not sure that's an issue.







... I'll let that one fester.









PS: " ... historical accuracy would be the most scrutinized." ... you have witnesses???









PS: " ... I haven't seen the film yet," ... as the French would say: "_ ... but of course!_"


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

macello, what a great example of how things are twisted when only partially quoted or taken out of context. Your commonly arrogant commentaries on postings that don't agree with your own viewpoint really don't warrant wasting time setting you straight. This thread shouldn't be derailed from its original discussion with idiotic jostling, so go troll for someone else. ( insulting emoticons withheld)
So far, anyone whom I've spoken to who has already seen this film has given it an excellent review. It is NOT for young people and for the faint of heart, but is very powerful. Some would have minor criticisms of certain aspects, but the overall rating is very high with them. One said he once read an account of a witnessed crucifixion. It was " blood, blood,...everywhere", so perhaps the shocking nature of the graphic portrayal in this film isn't so far off the mark. I wish to see it soon for a first-hand evaluation and hope it is not as gory as some have suggested. There is apparently (and thankfully) more than just a crucifixion, although you'd never know it from the negative commentaries. The character of Satan is apparently one of the best ever portrayed and the relationship of Jesus and his mother is quite touching. Anyone else out there who has seen this film who is brave enough to say how thet felt about it?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman, Thanks for the input from those to whom you have spoken who have already seen this film. 

I had no idea that Satan managed to get a part in the movie! Who's his agent?









I'm now even less likely to want to see Gibson's own frenzied and bloody vision of Christianity.

Interesting stuff here: The Gospel According to Mel Gibson.

Most commentary seems to indicate that the film is not at all accurate. Many people don't seem to care if it is or not .....


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

To pass a quote straight from the article you provided a link for macello;



> Some see the movie very much as the director's vision. "This is not by any stretch of the imagination an historical film - it's a very personal and passionate artistic statement," says Chet Manchester of Boston.


The purpose of the film is to show Jesus' last 12 hours, hence the brutal violence that was seen. This is a depiction of what He went through for those who believe in Him. For many, it is nothing more and nothing less.

I'm not saying it was perfect in every respect, but saying it is completely invalid (or at least insinuating this) strikes me as strange. It's no worse then say, Saving Private Ryan, not perfect, but it gives the story.

Besides, isn't discounting other viewpoints all the time, one of the root causes of conflict?

And FWIW, in a such a large "following" (hundreds of million of people) of Christianity, you'll get your host of jerks and some that are really good decent people. Don't discount a faith (or even ideological following) because of a few zealots. If you can't look for the best of a group, then how can you expect it from others? Or am I missing something? (If I am, please tell me.)

We all know that large organizations, things can get skewed by people who want their own ways. Or do their own thing, and do it supposedly under someone else's name in order to justify their actions. (See 9-11, Catholic Priest events as examples). Speak out against what is wrong, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water. That is all I'm driving at.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi all,

Just got back form seeing the movie and all I can say is it was an extremely moving experience. Thank you Mel Gibson for having the courage to make this movie. The reading of the Passion at Easter will take on a whole new dimension.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

The link that I posted contains a variety of views, the sum of which tell me that the film is Gibson's extremely personal view of an event that has no basis in historical fact.

I do believe that Christ's message is one of forgiveness and compassion.

So far I have the impression from all of your posts that Mel's message is exclusively that of graphic depiction of Christs torture solely for it's sensationalism and that alone.

If that turns your crank, .... go for it!

Since I work in the business I'm more likely to wonder how many onions they went through to get those tear jerking special effects.

So far you all have convinced me that I would prefer Christ's message to that of Mel Gibson.

Thanks for the tips.









Oh, if you like blood:
1 Bucket.
1 pkg. Red Food Dye
1 Bottle Dishwashing Detergent.

Pour the detergent into the bucket and add the red food dye to your taste.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Regarding the above response, I quote macellos earlier criticism of *my* post:

PS: " ... historical accuracy would be the most scrutinized." ... you have witnesses???








PS: " ... I haven't seen the film yet," ... as the French would say: " ... but of course!"























.....  ...so you actually agree with the first one, and you haven't seen the movie either.....(post edited/enhanced because it went over a head)

[ March 01, 2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Peter Scharman ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

You have just quoted Macello quoting Peter Scharman. Perhaps you did not notice that your words appear within quotes.

I have made fun of your hilarious suggestion that historical accuracy is even relevant when there never has been historical evidence. Still more funny is that you attribute your own comment to me. 

Your francophobia merely exposes your ignorance.


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

I wasn't going to post another message in this thread, and didn't visit it for a few days, but after reading some of the comments made over the last few days, well ... here goes !

Firstly, there is NO historical frame-of-reference for the events depicted in this film; there is NO historical proof that Jesus existed - you either believe or you don't ...

As for Gibson's wish to bring home to people of the horror (or "truth", if you will) of crucifixion, to make it more than just a word, by showing it in all it gore and violence, I am reminded of something I read years ago about crucifixion - at the time this was supposed to have happened, the crucified were NOT nailed to the cross (I don't remember if they ever were nailed, actually); rather they were securely bound by the wrists, because nails (either through the hands or wrists) would not have supported the weight of the body ... can anyone here comment on this ?

I - again - question the purpose of this film; if ever there was a case of a film "preaching to the converted" (pun intended) this is surely it ...

My last point is a little off-topic, but it was raised, and I do want to respond to it ... the comparison of Mel Gibson with Stanley Kubrick is risible; Gibson is a second-rate actor, "good" only in action films - to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, his emotions run the gamut from A to B. He looks good, which, in Hollywood, is really what matters (btw, as a "devout Catholic" I cannot understand how he can rationalise the glorification of violence in many of the films he has chosen to be part of, either in front of, or behind, the camera) ... He is not, in my opinion, an artist, he is a craftsman. Artists are not documentarians; literal "truth" is not art. 

Hollywood is not interested in art, it is interested in money. Hollywood is VERY good at formulaic entertainment; if it's art you want, look elsewhere ...

Mike McHugh


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I can't help but notice that many of the negative comments on this and other boards about this movie are nothing more than a smoke screen for a the trendy distain of deeply held religious convictions. The attacks on the movie quickly evolve into attacks on Catholicism or Evangelical Christians or organized religion. Many of these attacks are made from people that haven't seen the movie. 

The charges of anti-semitism are unfounded. If you hated Jews before the film you'll likely continue to, but the words of Christ in the movie and his word condemn that. The irony of this is that the movie has generated more hateful comments about Christians than anyone else. One theatre operator even received a death threat if he ran the movie.

The sudden arousal of sensitivity to violence in film from the media is baffling? Have they never watched a movie from Quentin Tarantino where the violence was strictly for your "entertainment"? This movie is certainly not the most gory, violent film that has ever came out of Hollywood. At least the violence is not meant to titillate but to open your eyes to the reality of a Roman crucifixion and the suffering Christ endured voluntarily for humanity. 

I think the left dominated media are well aware of the power of images and word to change people, and fear this movie may reverse the "progress" they've made to shape the culture to their ideals. They should just relax and take there own advice they give to Christians concerned about the mass number of movies portraying religious people as sexual deviants, hate mongers, murderers and psychopaths. Its just a movie, relax!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Thank you McGuiver for giving us a fresh review and making me even more determined to see this movie. If that is possible.

Thank you Chealion for your ever present wisdom and even handed observations. You never disappoint.  

Macello...what can I say? You never fail to amaze me...

But in a different way than the first two.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

We certainly don't need movies about religious people as sexual predators as they reside in your community always ready to "console" the vulnerable.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Yes Macello and there are many priests, pastors, doctors, teachers, psychologists, boy scout leaders, camp councilors and atheists, that would like to do the same. There's a whole travel industry dedicated to men that would like to have sex with young asian boys but nobody seems too worried about that.

Cheers
MacGuiver

[ March 01, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: MacGuiver ]


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

MacGuiver,

My beef with organized religion - ANY organized religion - has absolutely nothing to do with a "trendy disdain of deply held religious convictions" - in fact, part of me wishes that I had such convictions myself ... My beef, pure and simple, is how organized religions have treated, and CONTINUE to treat, people who do NOT share those convictions, and the assumptions they make about "non-believers". It's an oversimplification, perhaps, but I do think there is a lot of truth in the saying that organized religion is more about power than about religion ...

As to the issue of whether or not the film is anti-Semitic, with all due respect I don't think it's solely up to a Christian to decide whether it is or not ... if a Jewish person feels that the film is anti-Semitic, then I think that that issue needs to be adressed head-on, not simply dismissed. It may be that the film has been mis-read by that viewer, or that something was unintentionally communicated by the writer/director/actor in question ... such confusions can only be cleared up by talking about it, not by a simple duality - "yes it is" vs. "no it isn't" ...

Finally, your comment that it's "just a movie" is disingenuous. Fundamentalist Christians are on record as saying that this film represents the best opportunity for evangelizing they've had in a long time.

Mike McHugh


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Mike,

How can anything in this world be successful if it isn't organized? Where would a school be without a principle, teachers, bus drivers or custodians? Without a curiculum, funding, text books and schedules? Would a child be able to learn anything left to his own? Why would a religion be any different? Could you give me an example of something that isn't organized that's successful? Without organization you have anarchy.

Is power an issue in religion? You bet. As with any worldly institution or group, It has power. The power can be used for good, sometimes for bad. We see it in politics, we see it in religion, we see it in the workplace, we see it in families. It all boils down to the hearts of the individuals holding that power.

My opinion on the anti-semitic accusations of the film are purely based on how it made me feel about the Jews. If the movie was made to stir hatred for the Jews it failed miserably with me and anyone I've talked to. Did the Jews have a part in his death? Certainly. Did the Germans kill millions of Jews? Certainly. Should we hate Jews and German's today because of it? Certainly not, we all have our own baggage to carry. The other thing that is overlooked is that the film goes to great lengths to show that Christ did this of his own accord. Lines in the movie and actions make it clear. He would have been killed by the people of any country had he been born to it. He came into the world to lay down his life. 

You're also right that I was being insincere when I said it was just a movie. Just as popular culture is disingenuous when they say the same thing about movies that degrade Christianity. This movie, like all movies has the power to touch your heart and maybe affect your opinions and beliefs. For Christians this film probably is one of the greatest tools of evangelization they've had in decades. Many Christians that have drifted from their faith have said this movie has renewed it. Like the dozens of porn channels on ExpressVu nobody is forcing anyone to watch it. You have the choice.

Have a great day.

Cheers
MacGuiver









[ March 01, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: MacGuiver ]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)




----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

Hi MacGuiver,

I never said that organizations were bad; my point is only that, from my perspective, organized religion is less about religion and more about power and control ... if the focus of an organized church was on the teachings of their god I would have no issue with that ... 

I agree entirely with your coment that Jews today are not responsible for Jesus' death. BTW, since it was always God's plan that his son give up his life, what about the argument that the Jews were simply his tool to achieve this, and that they bear no "personal" responsibility for it ... 

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Mike McHugh


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacGuiver, the school analogy is a good one. At 18, our schools have prepared us for life and cast us into the great beyond where we practice the principles we've been taught. Organized religion does the same but its school for life. Do the principles change or do we need the constant reminders of those principles?

Of course organized religion offers a lot more than teaching to its members. It provides a place to meet and discuss as well as providing a material manifestation of belief. It's an entirely personal decision as to whether one feels a need to join a church, to go it alone or to not believe in higher authorities at all. The church provides a few "recipes for life" but there are many other recipes in the book and they don't all involve ceremonies and cathedrals.

I think there is religious tolerance in Canada (although tolerance to Muslims has been shaky recently) but there isn't much tolerance for indoctrination. To use another analogy, I fully support gay rights but I'd probably be less enthusiastic if I was subjected to conversion attempts everytime I met with a gay person or they tried to tell me how to pursue my own sexuality.

To think that religion has to be organized to be effective is a view that is only held by someone who believes in organized religion. Belief is personal, as is exercising that belief. The rest is icing on the cake.


----------



## sjd (Jan 5, 2003)

Who cares how much money it has made MACSPECTRUM? There are how many christians in America? Look at all the other christian crap that people buy like sheep. Like Jon Stewart said, "Selling a pro-jesus movie in America, yeah that's hard." 

"Statements about God are meaningless since they are not even in principle verifiable."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i just provide information.
Don't shoot the messsenger.


----------



## sjd (Jan 5, 2003)

Sorry about that. You didn't include anything else with your post so I thought you were making a "see look at all the money it's made, so it must be good." type of statement.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

sjd, you may want to scroll back to the start of the thread for my own personal review


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi sjd



> Who cares how much money it has made MACSPECTRUM? There are how many christians in America? Look at all the other christian crap that people buy like sheep. Like Jon Stewart said, "Selling a pro-jesus movie in America, yeah that's hard."


I would have to agree with you on that. The reason this one is doing so well at the box office is because a Pro-Jesus film hasn't been made by Hollywood since I can remember. Oh there was The Last Temptation of Christ but it was Martin Scoresese's Jesus who barely resembled the Christ of the Gospels the majority of Christians believe in. Mel has tapped into a huge group of movie goers that Hollywood has ignored and ridiculed for years. He's taken a huge career risk to make this film and its paying off big time. As for Christians buying anything you throw at them, the market was starving to death until now. However I have to say this movie wasn't your average, right to tape, low budget Jesus movie. Its the first time anyone with weight in Hollywood has ever made an epic Jesus movie of this quality and Christians are thankful for it.

Cheers
MacGuiver

[ March 01, 2004, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: MacGuiver ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well put McGuiver!   

I think that this movie...which was made out of the Hollywood mainstream...is looked upon by many of the Moguls as a serious threat to everything they've been trying to teach us. For some time.

It also looks like it's going to make bucketloads of money, compared to it's initial cost of production.

That's kind of scary for them, as well.  

Depending upon how well it does in the long run..and how well thought of it is after the initial furor dies out...this could be a movie that changes how the Big Players in Hollywood look at the whole business.

Who knows?   

I should also note that Mel Gibson may be thought of as a "B" actor by some people here...but that was when he was working for the Big Hollywood types. Playing a part. In one of THEIR movies.

When he has direct input...like in Braveheart or The Passion of The Christ...we seem to end up with a bit of brilliance. Something memorable. Something incredible.

Hollywood hasn't exactly been making briiliant or memorable movies for some time. They've been churning out horridly expensive crap for a dogs age. The "promotional budget" for some of their more forgettable crap is double what Mel's latest movie cost to actually make!

Perhaps they should take notice.

I'll bet they already _HAVE_.


----------



## sjd (Jan 5, 2003)

Wow, too many fundamentalists on this board. 



> many of the Moguls as a serious threat to everything they've been trying to teach us. For some time.


What have "they" been trying to teach us? Mel Gibson's a crackpot and I will never watch anything he has to do with ever again.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> think that this movie... which was made out of the Hollywood mainstream...is looked upon by many of the Moguls as a serious threat to everything they've been trying to teach us. For some time.


They're moguls, not 'Moguls-' let's not make them high priests of anything, they're just fatcat producers. And they're not intent on teaching audiences anything - they're in it for a buck, period. I'm astonished you could suggest otherwise.

Made out of the Hollywood mainstream? Nope, not by my reckoning. Gibson's not exactly an unknown in Hollywood. Jim Cavaziel has been making his mark as an actor for some years now, too. A bit more casting about and I've a hunch I'd turn up quite a few more solid links to Hollywood gliteratti. Looks like more spin to me, really.

Macnutt, methinks you are trying to hard to make it seem as if this is a brave new celluloid vehicle, a cut above the usual cynical Hollywood offerings. I'll have to see for myself whether or not I agree with your assessment, but I also have to note that all of the hullaballoo over this film has suited Mel Gibson quite well. I'm sure he's raking in the dough over a controversy that's directly generating boffo box office. All of which makes him very much like any other big-time producer. After all, the bottom line is usually the bottom line.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Mel Gibson's a crackpot and I will never watch anything he has to do with ever again.


ignorance is bliss


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *they're just fatcat producers. And they're not intent on teaching audiences anything - they're in it for a buck, period. I'm astonished you could suggest otherwise.*


So what you're saying is that you've never seen a major video flick that had anything educational about it? I guess that doesn't say much about humans if all they care about in a movie is a story and some eye candy.  All those artistic people have no objective other than to spend long days for months on end for the sole purpose of making money??? I don't buy it. That's the equivalent of saying that teachers or doctors have no interest in in benefiting others...they just want to be in a good income bracket.
As for Mel's motive in making this movie...I suspect that to put out 25,000,000 bucks to produce a theme that is close to his own heart, with (according to macello's research) no European interest in the screenplay or distribution, he was taking a chance on a lobour of love. He could have afforded to lose a few sheckles if it wasn't received well, but I believe it was a challenge and a topic that he wanted to tackle and he put his wallet on the line. Since he professes to be real Christian, I would suggest to him to donate a chunk of the net profits to Charitable causes.

[ March 02, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Peter Scharman ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM, 

He got the title from the Australian:

"*HAVE A GOOD DIE!!!*"


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman,


> Since he professes to be real Christian, I would suggest to him to donate a chunk of the net profits to Charitable causes.


Excellent thinking .... sublime even!

But can we trust Mel on this ... 

[ March 02, 2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree. It's been a good ride so far and a lively discussion. Good stuff.  

(Don't worry...we usually give macello a lot of rope before we reign him in. He's an interesting character and is very much a part of our family here).  

Max....don't ever be afraid to step on toes or get people steamed up here at ehmax. We live for this stuff! Speak your mind, say anything you want to...politely...and you might find that we have even more respect for you.

It's pretty difficult to become "unwelcome" around here.

Honest.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Roger that, Macnutt... good to be getting to know all the players in here. Funny, when I first came in here it seemed too slow for my tastes. I avoided it for months at a time. Now I find I can dig it as a respite to MacCentral and it's more typically American-dominant perspectives. And now that I'm more familiar with many of the regulars in here, the pace seems no longer glacial to me. Also, anything which tries to knit together the various places in this fractured, fragmented country of ours has to be applauded.

Okay, time for this guy to turn in. You guys out west keep going... check back in tomorrow. Cheers, all.

->))


----------



## sjd (Jan 5, 2003)

> ignorance is bliss


As someone who is an atheist and has read Hume, Russell and Sartre I feel that I am FAR from ignorant. If I were to make a film inspired by Nietzsche writing "The concept "God" was invented as the opposite of the concept "Life" - Everything detrimental, poisonous and slanderous, and all deadly hostility to life, bound together in one horrible unit."
"Christians" would picket/botcott the theatres and burn my house down. If Gibson can make a film pushing his beliefs why can't I push mine? I recognize that everyone has the freedom to believe in whatever they choose, I don't push my "beliefs", or lack thereof, on other people as Christians are prone to do. Don't call me ingnorant.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

It's one thing to make a movie about your beliefs and ideals, it's another to slander a person and call them a crackpot without ever truly knowing that person or have any facts to your claim. It's also shortsighted to paint all religious (Christian) people as fanatical zealots who will protest and attack other's beliefs.

There are always going to be _someone_ who will hate you for what you believe in, regardless of their birthplace, education, religon (or lack thereof) or race. You can't define a specific type of person by any of these parameters.

But if you're going to confront people and push your values in their face, be prepared for a backlash—and don't act like you didn't think it was could happen.







There's nothing wrong with presenting new ideas in a positive manner.

Anyway, I just think that there's room for everyone to talk about ideas without needing to be confrontational or flippant about other's views.

If you want to make a film—go ahead. I don't see anyone stopping you, so why complain about not being able to do your own thing? The only thing stopping you, IMHO, is your perception of how people will react to your idea.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> As someone who is an atheist and has read Hume, Russell and Sartre I feel that I am FAR from ignorant. If I were to make a film inspired by Nietzsche writing "The concept "God" was invented as the opposite of the concept "Life" - Everything detrimental, poisonous and slanderous, and all deadly hostility to life, bound together in one horrible unit."


Where have you been? Hollywood has made hundreds of those movies in the past 30 years.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *If Gibson can make a film pushing his beliefs why can't I push mine?*
> 
> 
> > You can...just don't try to flame the audience. Pushing your beliefs on the populace is not the same as portraying your interpretation of something that is already widely accepted. If you don't agree with the subjest matter, ignore it...nobody is ever forced to go to a movie with a theme that they are not interested in or don't agree with. Gibson's movie is his portrayal of how he envisioned a historical (and religious) occurance. I wonder why some feel threatened by the subject matter.
> > Manny P...good points.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

> *Mel Gibson's only daughter opts to be a nun*


Maybe this runs deeper than some think. Mel "receives Mass in Latin in a chapel at his Malibu home, which is known locally as "Saint Mel's", and has made speeches condemning abortion and contraception."
Sydney Morning Herald

Prejudices can influence perception and I felt for Gibson when he was confronted (Diane Sawyer) over his father's unchristian prejudices in spite of the fathers fervent Catholicism.
His anger over the confrontation was thinly veiled saying "he's my father ... don't go there".

To grow up with such poisononous religious prejudice from his father and have to express alliegence to his father must be horribly conflicting for Gibson as it would be for anyone.

Is this why Gibson's Christian vision is so narrowly focused on his graphic projections of physical torture?

I am also getting a message that women are out or wish to be out of the picture in this discussion.

Am I correct?

*Is this a male dominated issue* since men have historically controlled the Christian religion? 

We know the female to be the life-nourishing sex and that though their grief is central to this story, they are given no power to act effectively. Even Gibson's daughter has opted for an infertile life.

Why?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

macello blurted:


> *He got the title from the Australian:
> "HAVE A GOOD DIE!!!"
> 
> 
> ...


You are truly incredible! You really are! Are you actually proud of your total insensity to others feelings or beliefs??? This didn't offend me personally, but I find it in the worst of taste and I suspect it would surely be offensive to others. I shake my head once again.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Easy, Peter S. I'm not suggesting that money is the sole raison d'être for movie-making. Hell, I'm in the business myself, and I know it's not for the riches... anyway, my comment was reserved more for Macnutt's allegation that Hollywood's producers all supposedly want to teach us things... I just don't see that being the case. When I say Hollywood, I'm talking about many formulaic, wannabe blockbuster movies - they're formulaic because the primary intent is to put bums in seats, not elevate us to higher attainment or enlightenment. Few films coming out of the kingpin production studios in contemporary America have any aspirations to go beyond this. 

Everyone has passions, certainly, but a producer is not the same kind of beast as a director. I think directors tend to have more altruistic motivations than the money men, but that's just me. And yes, things get grey in those instances where one individual dons many hats. I don't doubt Mel Gibson's passion. Excuse me if I doubt the passion for the guy who directs _Porkys_ or the next _Matrix_ prequel.

Sorry if you have the impression that I have little faith in humanity. I believe we're a venal lot, but that doesn't mean I don't occasionally harbour a shameless shred of hope. Cheers!
(;->))


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Thanks for the clarification, Max and I would tend to agree with you on this assessment. Now I can sleep better knowing how you really feel. Sorry to have rattled your chain.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's all good Peter! I know how easy it is to get hot under the collar sometimes, especially with strangers. I realize I'm a relative newbie in here and I have to test the waters a certain amount (with those who have been here far longer, I mean), lest I step on some toes and make myself unwelcome. It's not my intention to get people steamed at me for no good reason... life's too short for that nonsense.

Anyway, been there, done that; I've certainly done my share of jumping down people's throats... So - have a good one, man!

->))


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman, how about: 

"*have a good daahheh!*" ?

better? ... as a pun though, it doesn't deliver quite like my original.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi everyone,

Remember Macello said:



> Lets hear some heartfelt prejudice in this ramp up to the event!
> And then even more after that!


Looking back over the threads I'd say we've had some heartfelt prejudices voiced but overall, cooler heads have prevailed. Some great dialogue has happened and we've gotten to know each other a lot better. Even Macello went about 5 pages providing negative feedback before the derogatory comments started and the emoticons were deployed. Not bad.  Lets keep it up.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

mikemchugh wrote:


> As to the issue of whether or not the film is anti-Semitic, with all due respect I don't think it's solely up to a Christian to decide whether it is or not ... if a Jewish person feels that the film is anti-Semitic, then I think that that issue needs to be adressed head-on, not simply dismissed.


Good point. Here are some thoughts from a "practicing Jew and active member of the American Jewish community", Dennis Prager, on how many Jews view the film:


> Jews watch Jews arrange the killing and torture of the Christians' Savior. ... for nearly 2,000 years, attacked as "Christ-killers," countless Jewish men, women and children were tortured and murdered in ways that often caused more suffering ... For Jews to worry that a major movie made by one of the world's superstars depicts Jews as having Christ tortured and killed might arouse anti-Semitic passions is not paranoid ... Every Jew, secular, religious, assimilated, left-wing, right-wing, fears being killed because he is Jewish. ... it is the only universally held sentiment among Jews.


As for how Christians view the film, he says,


> Christians watch their Savior tortured and killed. ... Christians -- Catholic and Protestant -- believe that a sinning humanity killed Jesus, not "the Jews." ... To the Christian, God made it happen, not the Jews or the Romans ... Imagine what Jews would think of a Jew who hated Egyptians after watching "The Ten Commandments," and you get an idea of how most Christians would regard a Christian who hated Jews after watching "The Passion."


I say, the movie was obviously going to create tension and Mel Gibson can't be surprised but I'm sure he feels it was worth it.

Read the full article here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/135/story_13565.html


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Macello, the fact that you assume everyone who has participated in this discussion is male speaks volumes.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Elmer,

Excellent points! I guess I can see if I were Jewish and had gone into the movie I could be uneasy about the depiction of the Pharisees, although many of the Jews were compassionate, the bad ones may overshadow the good. The Romans were by far the most brutal and violent. 
I think to get angry at the Jews would be about as stupid as getting mad at the Italians. When asked weather people felt animosity towards the Jews after the movie, the overwhelming consensus has been "NO". The majority express personal culpability. 
To the best of my knowledge, there really haven't been any incidences of hate against the Jews sparked by this movie. (with the exception of the Denver sign which was misfortunate.)
There was an incident where an image of the Virgin Mary was smashed to pieces in Clearwater Florida, but the Jews were certainly not the targets there. Seems hate has no borders.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Wolfshead, My concern about the gender mix in this discussion is rather clearly expressed as a *question* and *not* as an *assumption*.

I will quote from my above post:



> I am also getting a message that women are out or wish to be out of the picture in this discussion.
> 
> Am I correct?


Notice the *?* mark?

Got an answer to that question?

.... or the next one in my post above?


> Is this a male dominated issue since men have historically controlled the Christian religion?


You are welcome to join in on the discussion.

Thanks in advance ....


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

elmer, thanks for the URL posted.

Good information to have here even though I'm left with a feeling of real sadness in Dennis Prager's view and an impression of a rather massive ego in Gibson's obvious self-importance.

I have not yet read any suggestion here or anywhere else that Christ's message is offered in Gibson's movie.

This might indicate that Gibson willfully ignores Christ's message of peace, love and forgiveness in favour of a vanity saturated display of his own personal pain.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Actually, they do depict Christ preaching his message in a variety of flashbacks that are played throughout the movie at key moments—one of which is during the last supper where he preaches to love thy enemy as well as your brother and such.

I was actually surprised to see this movie wasn't as violent as it was hyped up to be (to me, at least)—for the most part it's contained in the initial whipping (which is pretty graphic) and then the crucifixtion. The rest is really the standard "Hollywood" violence that is made up of off-camera kicking, punching, etc.

However, I can't believe anyone would believe this movie is anti-semetic. Quite the contrary, I would say in the instance when a Jewish man is forced to help Jesus carry the cross and witnesses a brief portion Jesus's journey first hand.

My only beef with the movie, is that they used a massive amount of slow motion footage—so much that I personally would have preferred to have seen more "back story" to really build up the relationships between Christ and his follows. I know the movie is supposed to be about the last 12 hours, but when Peter denied Christ at the temple, it just didn't have the impact it should. That's just my opinion though, so take it for what it's worth—one man's POV.

[ March 03, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: « MannyP Design » ]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Don't call me ingnorant.


dismissing such an impactful film would seem a little bit like the ostrich

we're not talking about "Porky's III" here

i subscribe to Stephen Harper's e-newsletter and pretty much everyone knows i am not voting for him
just want to be informed and not ignorant (my words, not yours)


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

From http://boingboing.net/ :


> Here are some handy Aramaic phrases for those of us thinking of attending Mr Gibson's vanity film.
> B-kheeruut re'yaaneyh laa kaaley tsuuraathaa khteepaathaa, ellaa Zaynaa Mqatlaanaa Trayaanaa laytaw!
> It may be uncompromising in its liberal use of graphic violence, but Lethal Weapon II it ain't.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macello - As a mod, please stop the condescending attitude in some of your posts. You may mean well, but wording posts more optimistically is much easier to read and respond to then one that enflames. Thanks.

Personally, I think you miss the point of what Gibson aimed to achieve here. As said before, Gibson is showing the last 12 hours of Jesus' life and the payment he paid. (This is of course under the premise you'll agree for the arguments sake that the story of Jesus is real.)

The love, peace, etc. that Jesus preaches in the big 3 years of his ministry is not shown in the movie. Gibson has focused on showing what Jesus went through for people, rather then focusing on the teachings he gave.

The best reason I've deduced is that the crucifixion and the resurrection (the last scene of the movie) are what set apart Christianity from other religions/faiths. Most reiligions are centred around a person/people and deity(ies) or a combination. Near all religions have a similar premise in that their is/are higher power(s), meaning their is an afterlife and that one should live "morally" on the earth. This is established, and the basic moral lifestyle you should follow is pretty standard. (Really basic)

Christianity departs from this however when the leader dies (if applicable to the religion). Unlike other leaders, Jesus is said to have died and came back to live. Others have simply passed on. Also, unlike others, the Chrisitian faith is one where their God came to them, and gave himself up for them, rather then have them meet a standard in order to join up with him.

Judaism, which is the forerunner for Christianity has many laws that one is supposed to keep in order to go to heaven. Christianity, however makes the old need to keep all the laws all the time, never breaking them null and void. They are still there, as we all agree here, if we followed the 10 Commandments (and actually kept them) the world would be a nicer place, but is not a necessity to be accepted.

Gibson's movie focuses on the reason behind that. There are churches, groups, TV evangelists, and many other venues that can show you the meaning of the rest of what Jesus taught. Some may take it out of context, some may skew it, and some may show it properly, as after all people read things different and may have motives to see things certain ways.

I'm not saying Christianity is perfect, as many of the problems we find with Christianity today is not Christianity itself but people doing things and holding the Christianity "banner" above them in order to justify their actions.

Because of that background information, that is why I doubt this is for Gibson's own selfish gain, or a completely skewed version of what is believed to have happened roughly 2000 years ago.

Just my take on things. Not perfect, but understandably so.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well put, Chealion.

As always.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Well thanks Macello. I didn't know this discussion was by (your) invitation only. Silly me - I'd been participating all along without consulting you.
To answer your question: No, I do not think your assumption (or question) is correct.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Chealion, your request for "attitude correction" is vague ....please quote that which you find offensive. You have not specified any post or statement of mine. 

Mel Gibson's religious extremism, for which I provided ample proof arouses ridicule, derision and condescension from many quarters. If you wish to be shielded from such free expression however worded and exercise your powers as moderator, you would do well to close this topic.

Where I see willful intellectual dishonesty, I don't happily let it go unchallenged. I do research and verify results before the readers .... as some here do .... much of which does not give cause for optimism.

If my above post #1240 has offended you, it is a direct quote showing the wide variety of takes on the topic under discussion. It is not my opinion.

Your take on Mels movie and the Christian faith in general on the same post makes it appear that your displeasure is personal and partisan. I think it a good idea that moderators not take sides on an issue, Hiz Mayoral Lordship not withstanding.









Many people, Christians and other find Mel Gibson's movie to be an extremely offensive and negative product of his own personal vanity.



> Personally, I think you miss the point of what Gibson aimed to achieve here.


* It is the honest and well researched opinion of many that Gibson aims to (as you say) "enflame" his audience by injecting into his vision of the Passion scenes that are not accepted Christian belief*. 

Gibson, in my opinion is properly accused of vanity in the extreme by putting his own enflaming fictitious (if borrowed) fantasies before the public as gospel. (see below)

We know Mel to mix extreme right wing politics and anti-Papist sentiment with evangelistic zeal. 



> Gibson has focused on showing what Jesus went through for people, rather then focusing on the teachings he gave.


Gibson *does not* show what Jesus went through for people. Gibson shows *his own* version of the version of the German nun, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824).
That version is the


> basis of some of the more stunning, *non-biblical* scenes in Gibson's movie - from Jesus' confrontation with Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane to the explicit details of his scourging by Roman guards, to a crucifixion scene in which his arm is pulled out of its socket, according to a reading of her work.


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/0228passionseer28.html

Gibson certainly does not adhere to accepted Christian belief where the Bible and/or the Gospels are concerned. 
For him or anyone to put the film forward as gospel as some have done is thoroughly dishonest.

Gibson's *real passion* may concern the beliefs of his father:


> a notorious Holocaust denier and who claims the the World Trade Center was destroyed by remote control and not by al Queda; that the Second Vatican Council was a Masonic plot backed by the Jews and that all popes going back to John XXIII have been illegitimate "anti-popes".


http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp

Gibson himself unambiguously accuses Judaism of revising history where he in fact has done so in his own movie (I have provided the factual sources here):



> Gibson, who carries a relic of Emmerich in the form of a faded piece of cloth from her habit, vehemently rejects characterizations of the nun as anti-Semitic.
> 
> "Why are they calling her a Nazi?" he is quoted by New Yorker writer Peter Boyer as saying. "Because modern secular Judaism wants to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church. And it's revisionism. And they've been working on that one for a while."


So this is my take so far on this topic ... Gibson's movie version of Christ's passion looks to be biased in the extreme as it adds a confrontation of Jesus with Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane, explicit and fictitious details of his scourging by Roman guards and a crucifixion scene in which his arm is pulled out of its socket .... all contrary to the biblical account.

So for the sake of honesty, I titled the topic "The Passion of Mel Gibson". 



> This is of course under the premise you'll agree for the arguments sake that the story of Jesus is real.


Chealion, no "story" of Jesus can be verified as "real".

The "story" is immaterial to the teaching of Christ.

The *teachings are what's real!*, verifiable, effective and respected by all true faiths.

Action based on the teachings is real, verifiable, effective and respected by all true faiths.

Mel is a very angry actor.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Chealion, your request for "attitude correction" is vague ....please quote that which you find offensive. You have not specified any post or statement of mine. *


How many times and how many comments does it take before you realize how your "attitude" irks people?? You really should re-read your posts with an objective mind and pretend you are the person to whom you've replied. As for what you've just said in the last posting, I wish I didn't have to run...it's so open to rebuttal. Anyway, I've gotta go now.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman, I don't see you listed as a moderator.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Macello: How old are you? Five? BTW, that's a question, not an assumption.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman :


> a historical ........ occurance.


Is that not a wee bit debatable?  




> Gibson's movie is *his portrayal* of how he envisioned a historical (and religious) occurrence. I wonder why some feel threatened by the subject matter.


Gibson has said that he based his film in part on the visions of Emmerich recorded in The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 



> "There it is," biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan says. "Read the book. You could put a camera in front of it. She is the script for the film."


Peter Scharman:


> Gibson's movie is his portrayal of how he envisioned a historical (and religious) occurance. I wonder why some feel threatened by the subject matter.





> The bedridden visionary, who is said to have borne the stigmata and the wounds of the crown of thorns, is a particular source of contention for Gibson because of her depictions of Jews as bloodthirsty and venal.
> ....... In The Dolorous Passion, for instance, she "sees" Jewish priests passing out bribes to get people to offer false testimony against Jesus and even tipping the Roman executioners. She also describes seeing Jesus' cross being built in the courtyard of the Temple in Jerusalem.


Peter Scharman:


> .....not the same as portraying your interpretation of something that is already widely accepted ....





> Emmerich's 19th-century biographer, the Rev. C.E. Schmoe'ger, wrote about how she had one vision of an "old Jewess Meyr," who confessed to her "that Jews in our country and elsewhere strangled Christian children and used their blood for all sorts of suspicious and diabolical practices."
> 
> "Why are they calling her a Nazi?" he (Gibson) is quoted by New Yorker writer Peter Boyer as saying.


Widely accepted Mr.Scharman? ... not "flaming"?

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/0228passionseer28.html 

Gibson carries and reveres a relic of the racist German nun, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) in the form of a faded piece of cloth from her habit. This might explain his refusal to disavow his father's fervent and racist views.

[ March 04, 2004, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*your request for "attitude correction" is vague ....please quote that which you find offensive. You have not specified any post or statement of mine. *

Maybe he hasn't specified any post in particular because _all_ of them sound some combination of condescending, abrasive, dismissive and pretentious.

This is probably the same reason you've had so very many warnings.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Thank you PosterBoy.

macello - As a moderator, if I wish to join a conversation I need to play 2 roles. As you see in my post I differentiated. As a moderator I can not allow my personal "feelings" to guide my actions, and so to avoid it I do my best to not moderate threads I am involved in. I don't know how to explain it, but I really believe that the people here can trust me enough not to abuse my moderation powers, they are there to help, not to control.

I don't see why I can't take a side on an issue, so long as any moderating I do is fair. The biggest reason I said to please try and adjust your attitude/mood of your posts is because they come across a heck of a lot more negatively then they could. You are allowed to disagree with people and their "intellectual dishonesty", but there are better ways to prove a point without the extra overtones.

I know you can, and you have done so, but many other times you have thrown in barbs, and posts that tell people you hold other arguments in disdain. My displeasure with your post as to my belief you are missing the point of the movie is personal. My displeasure with the tones of your posts however stems not only from this thread but many others. As PosterBoy posted, ehMax has warned you. It's great to have multiple opinions, but useless when the other opinions treat each other like we've seen lately.

"Many people, Christians and other find Mel Gibson's movie to be an extremely offensive and negative product of his own personal vanity"

I disagree with them, as I made clear in my previous post. They see one way, I see another. I said that his movie wasn't perfect, but it is still very good with the general idea, and premise of the last 12 hours of Christ. That is simply my take. Not perfect, but darn good when looking at the big picture.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Chealion, since you have seen the movie, was Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich mentioned by dedication or otherwise credited?
As I am now even less likely to see it given the information below, it might be germane to the big picture.

I must admit to not have known of her existence before attempting to understand Gibson's gory vision. Her work and the obsessive extent of his devotion (he carries a relic of Emmerich in the form of a faded piece of cloth from her habit) to her goes far to explain this. 



> Not perfect, but darn good when looking at the big picture.


Best not to leave facts out of the big picture, for the sake of a balanced view, especially concerning Gibson's professed inspiration, Anne Catherine Emmerich:
http://www.belief.net/story/139/story_13958_1.html


> ...... The visions (of Emmerich) are quite detailed. "The Dolorous Passion" describes many non-biblical events--such as a conversation between Pilate and his wife--and non-biblical scenes, such as Pilate "reposing in a comfortable chair, on a terrace which overlooked the forum, and a small three-legged table stood by his side, on which was placed the insignia of his office, and a few other things."
> 
> ...Emmerich's visions of Jesus' suffering are very graphic. There is much more gore in her descriptions than in the gospels.
> 
> ...


As Gibson's film is based on the irrational "visions" of Emmerich, ignoring this pertinent information as a significant part of the "big picture" would certainly to me be disingenuous if not dishonest.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

is Mel Gibson going to now become a big time Hollywood producer?


_"I happen to know of two biblical projects that [were] on hold, basically to see how The Passion opens," reports Barbara Nicolosi, who gave up her plans to become a nun and is now a film industry veteran who teaches screenwriters how to bring spirituality to their work.

"I think there are a lot of people who would like to do Bible stories who will now have a doorway into studio offices," Nicolosi says.

Gibson has not ruled out making more Bible films: "There are good stories in that book - it's worth looking into them," he told Variety.

"It's not out of the question," his Passion coproducer, Bruce Davey, added. "The people have spoken. It's what they want."_

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/special_packages/passion_of_christ/8105735.htm


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

$200 million by this weekend?

_ Released on Feb. 25, The Passion of the Christ has grossed a record-setting $160.6 million through Thursday. It could hit the $200 million mark by the end of the weekend._

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,13642,00.html


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

is Mel Gibson going to now become a big time Hollywood producer?

...... or Arnie & Mel in 2008?


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

Dateline january, 2009

Actors/directors/producers/scholars Mel Gibson and Arnold Schwarzenegger passionately invite the movie-going public to attend Holywwod's latest icon-busting thriller - "The Perpetrator". The plot will make your blood boil, the special effects convert you and the finale will be talked about for thousands of years! Cast of billions!

The two superstars would like everyone to know they are staking a liitle of their personal fortunes on the success of this epic. Don't disappoint them! Attend twice!

Arnold would also like to thank those who elected him to the Presidency of the United States - the Melarnie party promises to deliver.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> ...... or Arnie & Mel in 2008?


is Mel an American citizen?

we know Arnie is, even though he is of the lesser "naturalized" citizenry, NOT to be confused with the much higher status "American born citizen"


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *It could hit the $200 million mark by the end of the weekend.
> *


Actually, $199,999,992......Macello's not going.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Neither as foreign born can run *unless* Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican is leading a push for a Constitutional amendment that would repeal the constitutional requirement 










the ex-terminator .....









... and the ayatollah.

[ March 06, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

actually a little hunch and some googling provided some interesting info. on mel's citizen status;

Born: 1/3/56
Birthplace: Peekskill, New York 
http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0154754.html 

so it looks like mel could run for president of "these you-nited states"

macello, now if the ammendment passes, it makes way for your theory of arnie/mel in 2008


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman:


> Macello's not going.


...... the words of a keen observer.  

Everyone here knows that I'm not a fan of anti-semitism or brutal violence and I have never chosen to see a movie that exploits either or both as this movie does. I also feel that the graphic depiction of both are not appropriate to Christ's message of unconditional love.

I have learned so far from the good folk at ehMac and my researched diligence that Mel's personal "Passion" is based on the extremely violent and the anti-semetic vision of the 17th century German nun, sister Anne Catherine Emmerich to whom he has built a 4 million dollar personal reliquary shrine for the use of his family and 70 followers of the Gibson family faith. Since racial prejudice is a learned hereditary disease, it is also obvious that Gibson's nazi-sympathizing father's influence looms large in Gibson's psyche where he obviously has serious problems with Christian type love as well as love of women  . 

Observe this:


> Mel Gibson, Christian. “I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick…I want to kill his dog.”
> 
> (New York Times columnist Frank Rich, the target of Gibson’s wrath, told the Daily News through a spokesman that he doesn’t actually have a dog.)
> 
> According to the News, Gibson “reluctantly” removed, from his weirdo ultramontane Jesus movie, a particularly lurid scene involving Jewish high priest Caiaphas. “I wanted it in,” he said. “But, man, if I included that in there, they’d be coming after me at my house, they’d come kill me.”


Observe this .... 


> "Go and ask an undertaker or the guy who operates the crematorium what it takes to get rid of a dead body," Hutton Gibson told The Times. "It takes one liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now six million?" .... Said Joye Gibson: "There weren't even that many Jews in all of Europe."


...... and a special quote for the evangelist/misogynists among us ...... a real cute remark of Gibson's (what would the Holy Mother think?):


> Mel Gibson's own words, interviewed by Playboy in 1995:
> IBSON: Women are just different. Their sensibilities are different.
> 
> PLAYBOY: Any examples?
> ...


http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/003472.html 

Character witnesses for the "Producer" are invited to comment.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> Everyone here knows that I'm not a fan of anti-semitism or brutal violence and I have never chosen to see a movie that exploits either or both as this movie does.


I'm sorry but there is no evidence of anti-semitism in this movie what so ever, that I have seen. But if you want to trust someone else to give your opinion for you without ever seeing the movie, I guess that's your choice to live life.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Great point. No use taking sides on a movie that you yourself haven't given a decent chance - simply by opting to view it. See it, then judge it. This should be obvious.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macello,

Just curious, do you scrutinize every movie producer that makes a blockbuster film like this? Must make it tough to go see a movie if you spend a week looking for dirt on the producer and his family. If not, what is truly motivating your relentlessly attacks on Gibson and this film, especially when the majority of people that have seen it think it was a great movie if not a masterpiece? I don't recall you voicing this much concern over other violent flicks. I also don't recall you being too concerned with the integrity of scripture in movies. You must have thought the Last Temptation of Christ was diabolical.

I also had no idea Mel's father was a movie producer. I thought it was Mel?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Everyone here knows that I'm not a fan of anti-semitism or brutal violence and I have never chosen to see a movie that exploits either or both as this movie does.*

Interesting. The director of the Anti-Defamation League in the US has a different take:
<blockquote>Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told Sawyer in remarks broadcast along with Gibson's interview that he doesn't believe Gibson is anti-Semitic. But Foxman still has concerns about The Passion of the Christ.

"I do not believe it's an anti-Semitic movie," Foxman said. "I believe that this movie has the potential to fuel anti-Semitism, to reinforce it."

"This is his vision, his faith; he's a true believer, and I respect that," Foxman said. "But there are times that there are unintended consequences."</blockquote>

To summarize, Gibson is not anti-Semitic and neither is the movie but there are some people who will probably read anti-Semitism into it. You can read all the reviews you want, but until you see the movie you will never know for sure about how you feel about it.

In terms of the violence in the films, how exactly would you rather it shown? Considering the story only follows the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, they'd have to cut right from the first scene to him on the cross basically to not show the violence.

So in conclusion, It's a little presumptuous to be ranting opinions from second hand sources about a movie you haven't seen. If you don't want to see it, fine. But until you do I don;t believe you can reconcile it with your own beliefs, no matter what people on the internet tell you.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

The topic is about Mel Gibson's "passion" and the endemic prejudices that might arise out of his own (prejudices).
I have no personal opinion of the movie. It looks like I won't have one and won't tell anyone not to or to see it.

Four friends left the theatre because of the gross violence, others looked away and still others love gory movies anyway.

I started this topic to harvest opinion and prejudices.

As opposed to opinion, the published facts submitted here about Gibson's own prejudices in my opinion overrule any pretense he might have to piety. This is to judge him, not the movie.

With all due respect Manny and Max, I don't jump into the water to see how deep it is. So far this policy has allowed me greater choices in life than otherwise and I won't see the movie to find out how gross it is. I am also loath to throw my money at an evangelist.


So far those in favour of it are saying that on the one hand that it's just a story and on the other that it is history .... rather confused. 

Knowing nothing of Gibson before now, (I avoid the hero/villain genre on principle) his character profile seems surprisingly consistent with his profile as a "B" actor and certainly fails the test of christian principles ("she's a c***" ..... " I want his intestines on a stick" .... etc... see my previous post) and this makes his motive highly suspect to the rational mind.

Information from here tells me that Gibson rewrites the bible to spice up his take on it. 

So for now, I'll take the advice of these folk who having seen the movie for professional comment probably know more of this than we do:
(any oversight of anti-semitism in the movie is answered to here).


> Rabbi James Rudin, senior inter-religious adviser to the American Jewish Committee, said he also planned to speak out on the Fox News Network on Wednesday night.
> 
> 
> "I was just stunned when I heard Gibson say this week that he was unaware of the harsh anti-Jewish stereotypes in Emmerich's book," Rudin said. On Wednesday morning, Rudin said he was comparing the film, which he has seen twice, with sections of Emmerich's "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ."
> ...


I am now far more interested in the bizzare facts surrounding Mel's strange personal proclivities.

That movie I'd love to see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

_
The actress who plays Mary in Mel Gibson's passion-stirring biblical epic "The Passion of the Christ" says her parents were Holocaust survivors but she does not consider the film anti-Semitic. 

If there is a message, it's more about how people can be manipulated by their leaders, Maia Morgenstern said Tuesday. 

"Mel Gibson is an artist, a director. He never imposed his religious convictions on anyone," Morgenstern, who is Jewish, said in an interview with The Associated Press, rejecting criticism that the film will fuel anti-Semitism. 

...

Morgenstern, whose grandfather died in the Auschwitz death camp, spoke glowingly of Gibson, praising his professional abilities and the kindness he showed when her daughter became ill in Romania. Gibson sent her home to spend time with the child, and then allowed the 3-year-old to join her on the set.
_
http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/0204/123788.html

_
Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern plays Mary. Morgenstern, who is Jewish and the daughter of Holocaust survivors, finds no anti-Semitism in the film.
      "It speaks for all of us about love and tolerance. It has a strong social message — and a tough one. Don't let yourself be manipulated by your leaders. They aren't always fair. The Jewish people of that time were very poor and very oppressed and terrorized by the Roman occupation. When someone tells them, 'This man is evil; this is why you suffer,' they don't think for themselves."
      "Many people have criticized the film before seeing it," she says, "That bothers me."
_
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590044698,00.html


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Macello's not going. 
---------------------------------------------------------------
...... the words of a keen observer.  
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

More than you realize!.....  

From what I've read so far, the anti-semitism acusations are from a very small percentage (including Jewish viewers) and the violence is not being perceived as purely gratuitous, as macello believes. Neither of us has seen this film, although I would like to.....maybe when my wife is feeling better. 
The quotes provided above certainly seem to paint Gibson and family in a questionable light. What's the chance the quotes from Mel were taken out of context? Maybe Mel has a bit of a sarcastic or dark humour and a snippet of a longer conversation were conveniently edited out for prejudised/biased purposes. (Like we don't see this sort of thing happening every day). Even some members of ehMac have shown to be quite skilled at this from time to time.   
As for Joye's quote, that doesn't meam she denies the holocast, but may be one of those who disputes the figures. She's not alone. Even some Jewish scolars question some of the holocast accusations. Freedom of speech and thought *does* allow people to question the claims of others. I found this website to be intersting.
Back to the topic at hand.... I still believe the movie has a message and is worth seeing (and ctritiquing) and anyone who hasn't seen it or has a pre-determined bias has no right to condemn it based on assumptions. (When we _assume_........)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Being Jewish, I have found that those who have shown any extreme form of anti-Semitism towards me, or my family, were already feeling overt dislike/hatred towards Jewish people. This film might be an excuse to set off feelings of anti-
Semitism, but an anti-Semite does not need an excuse. While I have not seen the movie, I do not feel that its intent, directly or indirectly, was to unleash overt/covert feelings of anti-Semitism.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Posterboy:


> To summarize, Gibson is not anti-Semitic and neither is the movie but there are some people who will probably read anti-Semitism into it. You can read all the reviews you want, but until you see the movie you will never know for sure about how you feel about it.


I know *exactly and for sure* how I feel about extreme violence and anti-semitism. Your opinion is not a selling point.
(You have to buy the swamp before you build on it?)

I hope you don't consider your summary authoritative in any sense but personal. These matters are contentious by nature and Foxman's


> "I believe that this movie has the potential to fuel anti-Semitism, to reinforce it."


ADL qualifier that talks of the inflammatory (the source of which usually pleads "not intended") is precisely my point.

That Gibson blends Emmerich's gross and anti-semitic vision onto his is factual according to the theologists whom I would sooner trust over you.



> In terms of the violence in the films, how exactly would you rather it shown? Considering the story only follows the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, they'd have to cut right from the first scene to him on the cross basically to not show the violence.


We know any account of the last 12 hours of Christ to be unverifiable and therefore fictitious whether condensed or not.

The purpose of the story is to sell Christianity as a religion by ritualizing and dramatizing an hypothesis of these last 12 hours. 

I have little interest in false premises posing as truth never mind movies based on them.

This as well is disputed by biblical scholars:


> Gibson points to the gospels and claims they are historical truth and the foundation for everything that is in the film. Those who critique Gibson are then cast in the role of those who would critique the historical veracity of the gospels. Unbelievers!
> 
> 
> I think it is about time someone called Gibson's bluff. Like all literature from the past, the gospels need to be understood in their historical context, or else you are in very grave danger of totally misinterpreting them. Over the course of Christian history, very little was known about the 1st-century Roman province of Judaea, in which the crucifixion of Jesus took place. But Gibson has no excuse for omitting the evidence, given what we now know.


Religious studies scholar Joan Taylor 

There's Gibson's lack of concern for historical truth.

With so much verified lying in his script it must be the blood bags, gore and other FX that whips the fans into such a frenzy. One movie fan said "it was just like they were hitting me!"  

That a movie showing Jesus ceaselessly beaten for a couple of hours ........ hmmm .... if the Republicans can get Mel on board Bush can play the *Jesus Card!*


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I read somewhere that Mel also used the Shroud of Turin for clues of what Jesus underwent during his crucifixion. I came across an interesting article that highlights the scientific evidence acumulated over the years about the Shroud. Either this is the real deal or its one of the most amazing hoax ever accomplished in the history of mankind.

Shroud study 










If the man on the shroud is Jesus, and I personally believe it is, Gibson's depiction of the scourging is not far from reality.



> Blood stains also appear across the back, alternating right and left shoulders, and on the buttocks due to scourging. In scourging, usually two Roman soldiers would alternate striking the victim from two directions. The scourge wounds fan-out, which makes sense since the flagellum used by the Romans had two or three leather throngs with small lead balls or hooks at the end to gouge the flesh of the victim. Clearly, the victim was whipped very methodically, and over 120 wound sites are present.


For those of you saying there is no historical evidence Jesus existed or was crucified, maybe you can explain this.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacGuiver, the only thing is: a man of faith asking a man of science to either prove or disprove an article of the former's faith is a hopeless process... as I see it, the process, however good-willed in its intent, will soon bog down amidst profound differences of experience. Faith and science are two entirely different kinds of 'knowing.' Unfortunately, they are also usually irreconcilable.

More to the point of your post, however; I don't know much about the shroud of Turin, I must confess. However, I am sceptical that it is what you believe it to be. I think it's likely it was a burial shroud for a crucified man, but I understand many were sacrificed in this manner during that era and surely a number of the victims were accorded the dignity of a burial shroud.

We are talking, after all, of events which occurred two thousand years ago. Establishing the provenance of such a shroud is, to put it mildly, exceedingly difficult. Nonetheless it remains a fascinating relic, all the more so for the haunting impression of its silent wearer.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

From the writer Frank Rich whom Gibson said, 


> “I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick…I want to kill his dog.”


http://nytimes.com/2004/03/07/arts/07RICH.html




> the message of his film. "The Passion" is far more in love with putting Jesus' intestines on a stick than with dramatizing his godly teachings, which are relegated to a few brief, cryptic flashbacks .....
> 
> With its laborious build-up to its orgasmic spurtings of blood and other bodily fluids, Mr. Gibson's film is constructed like nothing so much as a porn movie, replete with slo-mo climaxes and pounding music for the money shots.
> 
> ...


P.S.  
If you're not savy in the film business you are likely to become extremely enthralled and emotionally controlled by the blood spurting over young and naked male actors, weeping women, sweating villains, slow-motion special effects and pounding music described above.

*With such blow by blow accounts, I won't have to $ee the movie at all!*


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I know exactly and for sure how I feel about extreme violence and anti-Semitism. Your opinion is not a selling point.*

Macello, as pointed out above the I was referring to the movie, not the extreme violence or your feelings. To put it in your analogy, you have to know it's a swamp before you buy it.

The fact remains though, that since you haven't seen the movie nor are willing to go see it, you are in no real position to be criticizing it (or the people behind it) at all.

If you do decide to go see it do yourself a favour: clear your head of any pre-judgements you've made about it or Mel Gibson. If nothing else it might let you form an objective opinion.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Speaking of Shrouds, fans of the "Pa$$ion of Mel" will not want to miss this officially licensed Nail Pendant on 20" leather cord. Nail is pewter, 1-7/8" long, and oval tag near clasp engraved with "The Passion of the Christ". 







(not exactly as illustrated)

A *real* relic of the Hollywood prop .... and it's really shiny too! Only U$ 35.00 ..... Deal or What!  


The controversy surrounding Mel Gibson’s new movie The Passion Of Christ has now spread to the official merchandising which features a new piece of devotional jewellery: a crucifixion nail made into a pendant. 

The replicas of the nails used to crucify Jesus are part of the official merchandise for Gibson’s controversial and violent new movie, released this week on Ash Wednesday. The movie has been attacked for stirring up anti-Semitism – an allegation Gibson angrily denies. 

Some Christians believe the nail may become a new sign of faith superceding the cross. Others say it is just macabre. 

The necklaces are selling like hot cakes across the US in Christian bookshops and other Christian stores. 

The nail bears the inscription Isaiah 53:5 – an Old Testament verse which reads: “He was pierced for our transgressions.” Hundreds of stores across America are getting approval to sell items linked to the movie, such as books, lapel-pins, key chains, coffee mugs and T-shirts. Religious shops in the UK will follow suit soon.

Gibson has licensed a Californian company to make the nail necklaces and other merchandise. Charles Houser, of the American Bible Society, said: “The cross has become such a benign jewellery item. The shock of its original form is lost to modern people. 

“Choosing the detail of the spike would be to reinvigorate the image. They’re really trying to capture that this was that day’s form of execution.” 

http://miami.craigslist.org/for/24895550.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

actually the full quote from Gibson in the Noonan interview is;


> Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."


Analysis from the Jerusalem Post in direct reference to the above quote;


> Is this famously intelligent actor really so dense as to equate horrible casualties of war with a government program of genocide that turned more than six million people into ash, soap, and lampshades?


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1076506711165&p=1006953079865

I notice the Jerusalem Post failed to acknowledge the Famine-Genocide of 7-11 million people in Ukraine,1932-33, instead trying to link it as a loss during wartime.

With all due respect, ignoring one genocide is no way to remember those that perished in another.

[ March 07, 2004, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: MACSPECTRUM ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Posterboy,


> The fact remains though, that since you haven't seen the movie nor are willing to go see it, you are in no real position to be criticizing it (or the people behind it) at all.


Au contraire mon ami, I am in a very real position here criticizing the premise of the movie and the integrity of the people behind it for the last 11 pages in case you haven't noticed. 

I am under no obligation to you or anyone else to see the movie. 

"The Passion of Mel Gibson" is the subject of this topic, not the movie, again in case you haven't noticed.

I restate: I care not a fart about the movie since the start of this topic .... geddit?  

Why not try a Mel Gibson fan topic?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *"The Passion of Mel Gibson" is the subject of this topic, not the movie, again in case you haven't noticed.
> 
> I restate: I care not a fart about the movie since the start of this topic .... geddit?
> *


REALLY???!!!   
You mean you waited until now to tell us we've been wasting our time with you (as if some of us hadn't already come to that suspicion). Let's go back to your *opening post* for the premise of the thread:


> *Described as “relentless, near pornographic feast of flayed flesh,” and “the
> Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade” by varying critics.
> Lets hear some heartfelt prejudice in this ramp up to the event!
> *


You mean you weren't referring to the film?? We're so-o-o stupid, guys








It doesn't matter, anyway, macello is determined that he will only believe the commentaries of the extreme, off-the-wall critics or anyone else who flames the fire of negative feedback. 
To those who have seen the film, thanks for your personal, unbiased opinions. I am convinced I want to experience it for myself now. I don't suspect this movie would ever persuade a person to become a Christian, as previously suggested, but it might bring to the surface some rekindling of faith to those who have been dormant. Jesus was the best role model to ever walk the earth...I can't see a problem with people following his teachings. It certainly beats following the guy with the horns and pitchfork., I think


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Au contraire mon ami, I am in a very real position here criticizing the premise of the movie and the integrity of the people behind it for the last 11 pages in case you haven't noticed. *


I interpreted the word "position" in Posterboy's comment as meaning "person of authority", not "the place occupied by a physical object". If that's correct, you're both right!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> It certainly beats following the guy with the horns and pitchfork., I think


yeah, i don't think Bill Gates is a good role model either


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hey, MacGuiver:

*There are some points about the shroud that leave me little doubt it was anyone but Jesus. However, this in no way proves his divinity but I feel it proves his existance and the nature of his death.*

I'm cool with that... your belief that it was Jesus, I mean. I still don't follow the logic myself.

*The man of the shroud bears every detail of the Biblical account of Christ's crucifixion. The wounds on his head from the crown of thorns (The crown was placed on his head to mock his claim as King, this wasn't standard practice). The wound in his side from being pierced by a sword, which was done to him instead of breaking his legs as was the norm. *

These are more substantial points in your favour. However, since it was 2000 years ago and we're all familiar with the concept of 'broken telephone,' I'm sure you can see how easily a measure of distortion and fabrication can creep into texts that are handed down from teller to teller over the generations.

*Another interesting thing is this, if this had been produced by an artist, biblical accounts and tradition always referred to the hands. Had an artist of the middle ages produced this, why the nail holes in the wrist? It wasn't until recently that scientists discovered that the nails were actually put through the wrist in crucifixion. *

I never contended that the shroud is a fabrication or hoax painted by an artist. I tend to think it's a burial shroud for a man who was indeed crucified.

*Also, no scientist has ever been able to explain how the image got on the shroud to begin with. I find it hard to believe someone in the middle ages could produce a fake that would baffle modern science. Could it be someone else? I guess but what are the odds of someone having the exact same manner of crucifixion?*

I don't know, to be honest. I wasn't there. I have no idea what the norm was back then. But I know this much; there are scholars alive today who would be at loggerheads over the matter of the shroud's provenance and/or authenticity. In much the same manner I have known art history professors who have dedicated their adult lives to researching artists and their works from the middle ages and they *still* get into strong disagreements over who did what painting, where, when and why. I fail to see why the Shroud of Turin should be exempt from this sort of healthy scrutiny and scepticism.

Like I said, faith and science... we come full circle again. Great topic, however. Have a good one, man!


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

Well, this thread certainly has "legs" ...

For the past few days something has been bothering me about this thread, but I couldn't put my finger on what that was ... however, I think I've realised what it is, and I'd like to try to artculate it in this post ...

Firstly, whilst the first issue raised in the thread was the film itself, the discussion quickly broadened to include issues such as Gibson's own beliefs and motivations for making the film; so, not having seen, or never intending to see, the film doesn't preclude anyone commenting, IMHO.

Since I'm in the lattter camp, I have nothing to say about the film itself; the broader issues are what interest me.

This film has obviously touched a lot of people, it deals with something which a lot of people hold dear, and which forms the core of a belief system for many.

However, I don't think you can always separate the message from the messenger, and it's this part of the discussion that has troubled me. Gibson is on record as having made, over the years, remarks which I think can fairly be labelled misogyinist, hompohobic and possibly anti-Semitic. A minority of participants in this thread - including myself - have raised such things during the discussion, since these are the issues that interest us, not so much the film itself. It seems to me that "our" issues have been - not ignored, but rather put aside, because Gibson has made an "important" film, and so can be excused these troublesome little opinions ....

Previous discussions on this board lead me to believe that the majority of members (though by no means all, of course) do not condone discrimination based upon gender, race or sexuality; yet when Gibson is shown as holding some of these same views the issue is deflected ... 

So, I guess the issue I'm trying to think about here comes down to this - can you admire/appreciate/support the work of someone who holds personal beliefs which might be in direct conflict with your own, and can you separate the art from the artist ? 

This is not meant to be a flame ...

Mike McHugh


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *I know exactly and for sure how I feel about extreme violence and anti-semitism. Your opinion is not a selling point.
> (You have to buy the swamp before you build on it?)*


Posterboy said, "You can read all the reviews you want, but until you see the movie you will never know for sure about how you feel about it." The "it" refers to the movie, not your feelings. 
(You have to know that it's swamp before deciding whether to build on it)


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The Shroud of Turin is very interesting. Personally, I don't think it matters whether it is the true burial shroud or not. Indeed, I find it somewhat odd that God would have left something of material evidence when the entire philosophy of Christianity (and most religions) is based on faith. If one cannot believe in something in the absence of "proof" then religion is not for you. The problem with evidence is that it is always arguable. See this site for a skeptic account of the shroud. Faith needs no proof since it is just that: faith.

As such, objects such as the Shroud play a contradictory role. Since there is no way to absolutely authenticate them (allowing for persistence of skeptics), they are presented by both believers and skeptics as proving their respective case.

I do not question a persons faith. Only they can (and should) do that as it is necessary to question everything in order for anything to be meaningful. I happen to believe that "belief" is highly personal but I tend to resent many of the physical manifestations of belief, namely organized religion.

Simply a personal view and not a flame (thanks Mike!).


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macello - I was wrong. It wasn't until you explained it that what I saw as Gibson filling out the story (as the Gospel's are not a script) rather then a Catholic nun. Not that it couldn't have happened that way, but needless to say the depiction can be said as circumspect if you so wish to take it that way.

As said by others, I disagree with the belief that this movie could be Anti-Semitic. (Anti-Jew is a little more meanigful though. As it isn't a clean word to make the action seem less horrific).

Having just also watched Braveheart last night, I can see where you come from, but Mel is still only trying to give the story as he sees it, and as he said in the making of Braveheart featurette, he means to provide the story in the best way possible. But even good intentions can go to the wayside.

I don't see any prejudices that Gibson makes apparent in his film. If anything his only "failure" is that of basing much of his movie on the shroud and the Catholic nun's vision. It could have very well happened that way, but there is no way to prove it.

It is the story of our history. Like Braveheart, one where concrete facts aren't always complete but a storyline is there to follow if you will.'

I would not say that Gibson has rewritten the Bible, put rather implemented what would have likely happened anyway. It being passed from a Catholic nun's vision, as I've said before makes it circumspect for many people.

Besides the Pharisees and the Romans together killed Jesus. The Romans did the work, the Pharisees orchestrated it. That much is apparent in the New Testament. The Pharisees d Jesus, he was the one who threatened their livelihood, and more importantly had broken their most serious laws. (Saying he was the Messiah, tearing down the Temple and rebuilding it in 3 days, etc.)

Just because something is unverifiable, does not mean it is not true. If you are the only one home, and have no way to prove it when someone is ed, does that mean it isn't true?

Not a perfect movie, but well done, and has good intentions.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Max

There are some points about the shroud that leave me little doubt it was anyone but Jesus. However, this in no way proves his divinity but I feel it proves his existance and the nature of his death. The man of the shroud bears every detail of the Biblical account of Christ's crucifixion. The wounds on his head from the crown of thorns (The crown was placed on his head to mock his claim as King, this wasn't standard practice). The wound in his side from being pierced by a sword, which was done to him instead of breaking his legs as was the norm. Another interesting thing is this, if this had been produced by an artist, biblical accounts and tradition always referred to the hands. Had an artist of the middle ages produced this, why the nail holes in the wrist? It wasn't until recently that scientists discovered that the nails were actually put through the wrist in crucifixion. 
Also, no scientist has ever been able to explain how the image got on the shroud to begin with. I find it hard to believe someone in the middle ages could produce a fake that would baffle modern science. Could it be someone else? I guess but what are the odds of someone having the exact same manner of crucifixion?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Mikemchugh, you make some excellent points, and in a very polite way. When you mentioned separation of artist and art, for some reason, Woody Allen came to mind immediately. I don't know why. I guess I've always thought of him as a very strange duck, yet can appreciate some of his filmaking genius (like it or not). I fear that if we really knew most of the well known artists of this world, we might find many of them not to our style, but still be able to appreciate or even admire much of their work. So, I guess we can separate the artist from the art, and yet we can't if the art is a direct reflection of personal belief or taste rather than an unbiased piece of work. 
I suspect that this movie is a bit of both. I think Mel is trying to get accross the impact of what Jesus actually went through, but is also driven by his personal intense perception of how the events took place. The Gospels don't give a minute by minute account of the Passion, so there is some room for Hollywood embelishment. You have to take it with a grain of salt.



> *Previous discussions on this board lead me to believe that the majority of members (though by no means all, of course) do not condone discrimination based upon gender, race or sexuality; yet when Gibson is shown as holding some of these same views the issue is deflected ...
> *


You're right on the first point. On the second point, I think that this may be perceived by you because of the natural backlash to the tone and severity of the condemnation of Mel. It's so easy to take quotes out of context or quote only the descending viewpoint. The man isn't here to defend himself and shouldn't be branded in such a negative manner by quoting or introducing heresay. That doesn't make it fact. He deserves some level of defense from the lynch mob (no pun intended)


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman ... check the title! ...







and cool thy jets! ... we do seem to agree on substantiative matters if not style. 



> I don't suspect this movie would ever persuade a person to become a Christian.


agreed! .... or one who seeks Christ's message. 



> I can't see a problem with people following his teachings


agreed! .... You might suggest this to Gibson.

We might however differ also where the "charismatic evangelism" of Gibson is concerned. 

Charismatic evangelism induces extreme emotional and delusionary psychological states into it's subjects. The history of the Christian religion is rife with flagellation, torture, forced conversion, mass murder etc., in the name of Christ.
They didn't have movies back then.

Mel has provided today's evangelists with realistic looking simulations of the flagellation and torture along with his seemingly countless lies for distribution in the mass media. 



> (my comments in brackets) * Gibson’s film contains gross errors when judged by the biblical account.*
> 
> For example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, the devil is depicted with Christ, whereas the Bible says nothing about this.
> 
> ...


http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/melgibson-thepassionofthechrist/melgibsons-film.html 

(end parenthetical remarks.)

For those weeping for the now crucified millionaire Mel







:



> There is also a mighty strange inversion of reality. America is 82 percent Christian, and 60 percent of the population believes the Bible is historical fact.
> (The Jewish population is 2 percent.)
> The president of the United States has endorsed Jesus as his favorite philosopher, and
> Mr. Gibson's movie had almost as large an opening week as "The Lord of the Rings."
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/arts/07RICH.html?pagewanted=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1078681922-CiRWT9BkrCwRnMITdZoVMg


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

mikemchugh, a good and  post, however the topic, as one can see on the top of each page by title concerns Mel Gibson.

Since (surprisingly) no one has started a topic on the movie itself, this one is having to carrying the extra baggage. 

I have strongly suggested before that someone start a more comforting "POTC" fan topic a la "LOTR" where all this contention would be absent.

I have posted and highlighted discussion of the merits of Gibson's peculiar brand of Christianity rather than reviews of the movie.

As to Scharman's complaint


> It's so easy to take quotes out of context or quote only the descending viewpoint.


.... Where I highlight aspects of a reference, I do without exception provide the entire context via URL for those who care to read further. This is normal literate practice.

It should be known to Mr. Scharman and all that ehMac policy frowns upon  and the law expressly forbids  entirely quoting copyrighted material without permission from the copyright  holder.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macello



> ("If Hitler did a movie with these numbers, we'd give him his next deal," one Jewish mogul told me in a phone conversation this week.)


WOW! Speaking of offending Jewish people.  
Sort of perpetuates the "Jews love money stereotype" doesn't it. I know you are hyper sensitive to offending people so I'm sure it was a mistake.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MacGuiver, The statement is not mine .... it is a quote from the well known Jewish journalist Frank Rich who writing for the NewYork Times, I sourced and credited in my post.

This is normal literate practice. I suggest you read more thouroughly before getting all excited.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *As to Scharman's complaint
> 
> quote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


If an observance is a complaint, well....I guess I'm guilty of that.
Regardless of URLs being provided, partial or out of context snips are posted for the purpose of slanting the the debate. This can be done within a URL backed quote from a third party or by editing quote from a posting from this thrtead. BTW, some of the URLs provided require a membership procedure before being able to be read them....not interested. It's no secret that you like to twist peoples words around to suit your perspective...it's done every day in courtrooms and in business where winning is the only game. But it can sometimes be annoying when a friendly discussion or debate is being attempted. It adds an attitude that sometimes brings out the worst in people, 
Anyway, this thread seems to be getting about as far as it can. My role as 'devil's advocate" to macello must give way to other time-consuming priorities now. Have a great snowy Sunday, everyone.


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

macello wrote:


> ...Bush can play the Jesus Card!


This is a remark from a most cynical mind!

The same thought occured to me.









Re: Mr Gibson. I have not seen or heard of any programme in place to redistribute to the needy the profits from his cinematic venture, nor have I seen or heard of any plan to disburse his current wealth. Subject to change if the stated actions are undertaken, my view of this man is not flattering. He is hypocritical, dishonest, desperately egotistical, manipulative and corrupt.

A third statement of intent - I will not be viewing his "movie".


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *MacGuiver, The statement is not mine .... it is a quote from the well known Jewish journalist Frank Rich who writing for the NewYork Times, I sourced and credited in my post.*


That's true, but you're the one who dug it out and brought it to everyone's attention. The messenger gets the blame sometimes.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

LGBaker, careful .... Mel Gibson has the devil on his side in the above post:
Scharman


> My role as 'devil's advocate"












(object may be closer than appears in view)

[ March 07, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *LGBaker, careful .... the above post is from the devil's advocate:
> 
> (object may be closer than appears in view)
> *


.......and watching!!   

(Note to self....Macello made me smile...help!)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Gibson's next project?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/lifestyle/orl-livmelnext06030604mar06,1,7239032.story 


> With record box-office receipts for The Passion of the Christ rolling in, now might be the time to ask: What will Mel Gibson do for an encore?
> ...
> The most intriguing speculation centers on two heroic Jewish struggles that bracket the historical time frame of the filmmaker's current biblical blockbuster.
> ...
> ...


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Evangelical? You really aren't paying attention, are you?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *You really aren't paying attention, are you?*


I suspect he glances over the posts in a rush to type in his rebuttal, that he misses or twists the meaning on occasion. It's very frustrating. Intentional or careless?....who knows? Maybe "the devil makes him do it".. 

[ March 08, 2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Peter Scharman ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Another reason to avoid Gibson's crap:



> BY DAVID CRUMM
> 
> Volunteers passed out tissues to 530 members of Bethesda Christian Church as they gathered for a preview of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" at a theater in Sterling Heights.
> 
> ...


http://www.freep.com/news/religion/crumm25_20040225.htm


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Info for ehMac readers:

Those who believe Gibson's religious views to be without racial prejudice do so understandably for very personal reasons, however beyond these are views of groups outside of the ultra- conservative christianity represented in Gibson's personal faith that add tremendous value to forums such as this.

The American Jewish Committee has published for readers a .pdf guide to concerns of the Jewish community regarding Gibson's religious views. 



> What are our issues?
> • The script and initial version of Mel Gibson’s The Passion looks and sounds like the medieval Passion Plays that often incited Christians to violence against their Jewish neighbors.
> • We are concerned that the story of the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus could be used as a source for anti-Semitism, not only in America, but around the world.
> • There are many ways to tell a great religious story. A movie that inspires some by unnecessarily denigrating others is unacceptable in twenty-first-century America.
> ...


You can download the .pdf here (no subscription required):
http://www.ajc.org/


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I interpreted the word "position" in Posterboy's comment as meaning "person of authority", not "the place occupied by a physical object".*

At least someone is reading my posts.

If you want to not see the movie because you have problems with the guy who made it, fine. But until you see the film I don't think you can really judge the merit of the film.

You can cite all the web sites you want, but bear in mind that the people who have a problem with The Passion are in the minority. Not only that, but a lot of them seem pretty determined to hate it.

Of course, some people here seem pretty determined to hate it, too. Birds of a feather I guess.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

> I interpreted the word "position" in Posterboy's comment as meaning "person of authority", not "the place occupied by a physical object".


*No one* here is in the position of a "person of authority" regarding the subject at hand.

.... while *everyone* here is in a real position to post their thoughts freely on "The Passion of Mel Gibson".


> At least someone is reading my posts ........


Cheer up! ... surely you wern't expecting to actually sell the evangelical crap ... were you?


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

O.k. - I'm not playing any more. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion and not a series of lectures from Macello. He has ruined this thread for me. I'm sick of this now...


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Sorry to see you go and thanks for your contribution.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *O.k. - I'm not playing any more. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion and not a series of lectures from Macello. He has ruined this thread for me. I'm sick of this now... *


It's a shame when contributors get to that stage. Macello delights in pushing all the buttons, but don't let it get to you. I wish I had the free time to scour the net for opposing quotes. I'm sure there are lots. It's is very interesting to me that so many so-called "expert" critics (the Blackwells of the movie critics) are so upset and negative about this flick, and yet the populace is flocking in droves to see it and I have yet to find any serious criticism from any ordinary person I know who has experienced it. I guess it has opened a can of worms and the lines are drawn for debate. There are camps for both sides regarding the merits of the film and it sure has people talking. That alone is an accomplishment.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Personally, I rarely listen to the critics when deciding what film to watch. I'd rather hear positives or negatives from people I actually know and trust. This is what works for me.

But there are a few critics out there whom I listen to from an inverse pespective. If they loudly pan a movie, then I just KNOW it will be good. If they say "watch this film!" then I avoid it at all costs.  

And, since macello has argued long and loudly against this particular film....then I am absolutely determined to watch it ASAP.

He is one of the critics I listen to, on a number of subjects. Intently.

And from an inverse perspective.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

I won't be reviewing the movie .... trust me on this ...


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

You already did....and you haven't seen any of it or looked for any positive reviews. Go figure!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

for all of macello's "research" on the web, i am confused why he refuses to do his own research by actually seeing "The Passion of the Christ"

macello, $10 is too much, let me know. perhaps i could front it for you.

at least then you would be making up your own mind as opposed to quoting "sources"


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

*Watching the Hollywood version of the whipping of a human being or any other living creature to a bloody pulp and then nailing what's left onto a cross is just not to my taste.*

Nor are any of Gibson's sadistic homoerotic fantasies.

Others do however find this kind of entertainment *arousing*







... go figure!









We are free to choose ...  

I certainly wouldn't put my money in Gibson's pocket.




> " Stations of the Crass"
> 
> You should come out of the theater suffused with charity toward your fellow man. But this is a Mel Gibson film, so you come out wanting to kick someone's teeth in. By MAUREEN DOWD
> 
> ...


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

You just don't know when to quit, do you? I really don't care that you've not seen it and aren't going to, but until you do you're can't bad mouth it (or praise it for that matter).

Well, I guess you can if you base all your opinions on hearsay.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> Others do however find this kind of entertainment arousing


I repeat once again...." You truly are incredible"

I've come to the belief that the people whos quotes macello provides are really looking for something else than the rest of the general population. It's like someone going to a fantasy film and not being able to get past the "unrealistic" premise or setting. I can't find anyone who shares these conclusions of the Passion. If one views this a merely the brutal beating of an ordinary human being, then the movie went over their head. BTW, after watching Braveheart, which was violent, I had no inclination to beat anybody....I just pondered the story line and was thankful I didn't live in that time of history. That reviewer has mental problems, in my opinion.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macello,
i used to think the NY Times was a decent paper, but ever since they don't think it's a bad thing to keep a pulitzer given to walter duranty and the NY Times for his lies (read: Ukrainian Famine-Genocide denial), they have fallen far down my list of "things to read."

Why don't you email Maureen Dowd and ask her how an alleged "world class newspaper" feels it is ok to deny the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide? Where is her outrage? Where is yours?

You believe that Gibson is promoting anti-semitism and this gets your knickers in a knot. Here is the same newspaper you are quoting that is denying an horrific event that is on par with the Holocaust.

What's next, a Pulitzer for Mein Kampf?

Ms Dowd et al obviously have a very myopic view of what is "horrible."


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM, I can't find any writing of Ms. Dowd concerning Walter Duranty.

I am only too aware of your concerns. My family in part managed to escape three pogroms in the Ukraine, the others were slaughtered trying to escape to the east. 
Stalin's Chechnyan Holocaust is still hidden from view.
The Armenian Holocaust is officially denied by Washington to appease Turkey. 
The mass murder of millions of North American people in the nineteenth century has always been portrayed as a victory of the white race as well as being the most profitable genre in the history of the movies in America until recently.

Holocaust denial is a very profitable business in the history of political economies as it cloaks after the fact of genocide the underlying fact of appropriation of the victim's property.
The denial attempts to maintain the property rights acquired by the perpetrators of mass murder.

News is private for profit enterprise that exercise formidable political force to curry favour with the public. For example, there was the coining of the term "anti-semitic" to put the brutal fact of "jew-hating" into more palatable language for consumption by white mainstream North Americans.
The term "semitic" describes a class of languages known as: Afrasian, Akkadian, Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Canaanitic, Ethiopian, Hamito-Semitic.

To give him credit, Gibson's myopic frenzy is consistent:



> It began with "Braveheart," the 1995 movie in which the dashing leading man plays Sir William Wallace, a 13th-century Scottish nobleman who fights to free his people from British rule. Next came "Conspiracy Theory," released at the peak of the militia movement, in which Gibson plays a bumbling but likeable conspiracy nut not unlike many in the movement. Finally, there was "The Patriot," with Gibson drawn into the American Revolution when his son is murdered by the British.
> 
> Gibson did nothing in these movies to win the admiration of the neo-Nazis, Klansmen, militiamen and survivalists who make up the extreme right. It was enough that he was white, strikingly handsome, and playing noble characters who risk all to fight "the system" — whether that be oppressive Britishers, government bureaucrats or freedom-hating monarchists. Nevertheless, the libraries of those on the radical right today are bulging with copies of these Gibson films and others.


http://web1.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=50


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> MACSPECTRUM, I can't find any writing of Ms. Dowd concerning Walter Duranty.


exactly my point
the NY Times new motto should be; "All the news 'they see' fit to print."

_

PULITZER PRIZE COMMITTEE SHELTERS "THE GREATEST LIAR"
Nov. 21, 2003

Responding to the announcement made today by the Pulitzer 
Prize Committee, which decided not to revoke the award won by 
Walter Duranty of The New York Times for what is now widely 
recognized as his mendacious reporting about events in the 
Soviet Union during the early 1930s, Dr Lubomyr Luciuk, of the 
Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said:


" Walter Duranty knowingly covered up the Great Famine of 
1932-1933 in Soviet Ukraine. Many millions were murdered 
during this politically engineered famine, arguably one of 
the greatest acts of genocide in 20th century Europe. It is 
a documented fact that Duranty was Stalin's apologist, a 
shill for the Soviets before, during and after 1932-1933. 
For the Pulitzer Prize Committee to render this tartuffish 
decision and announce it on the eve of the fourth Saturday 
in November, a day officially set aside in Ukraine for 
national mourning, is base. All who hold a Pulitzer Prize 
should think about whether what was once the most prestigious distinction in journalism still is. Duranty's Prize soils all Pulitzer Prizes.


We have done what we could to hallow the memory of the many 
millions whom Stalin and his minions starved. We have tried to
expose the greatest of the famine deniers, whom a contemporary, the journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, described as "the greatest liar of any journalist I have ever met." Our objectives were achieved, internationally. We also prayed the Pulitzer Prize Committee would do the decent thing and revoke Duranty's ill-got award on the 70th anniversary of the Terror-Famine. They were granted a unique chance to champion truth. Instead they have rallied around a liar and by so doing have further slighted the sufferings of millions of innocents. They will be remembered by history for what they have done today. As for Duranty, he will 
no doubt be pleased to be in their company."


The Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association initiated the 
international campaign to have Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize revoked or returned. UCCLA still expects that The New York Times will return 
Duranty's Pulitzer.
_

I would strongly suggest that Ms Dowd look in her own newpaper's closet to clean up the mess left behind and still covered up with arrogance.
Genocidal denial is one of the most heinous of crimes.

NY Times is exactly guilty as charged.
They make me sick.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Miami Herald, March 11

_
The Mel Gibson-directed Passion has earned *$213.8 million* in less than two weeks and, in the process, has turned the domestic box office on its ear. It is largely credited with pushing year-to-date ticket sales from roughly 7 percent behind 2003's pace to approximately 2 percent ahead.
_

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/movies/8148629.htm


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Well, I decided to take a few moments to find some reviews of this movie to see how prevalent the types of examples that macello has provided are, and to see if there were any truly objective, non-flaming critics to be found. Alas, I found many favourable (and sometimes biased) reviews and some neutral, open-minded ones as well. This fellow from the Dallas Morning News seems to share my belief that
"Viewers of any creed, faith or denomination will be shaken (this is not a movie for kids). But where some will be profoundly moved, others will be chilled to the bone. This is not a film about Christian teachings of peace and love. It's an invitation to a horrifying beating that seems to stretch to infinity. *What you take from it depends on what you believe coming in.*"
So, the agnostics and atheists will rip it apart as gratuitous violence, the Christian believers will be moved, the anti-semetics will be anti semetic and some of Jewish faith may feel singled out or targetted. I guess anyone's perception is their reality. But some people are just off the wall, from mt point of view.

http://www.guidelive.com/profile?fid=12&id=358897


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Peter Scharman


> the Christian believers will be moved,


Correction: *Some* Christian believers will be moved, some not.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Correction: *Some* Christian believers will be moved, some not.


2nd correction: Some *people* will be moved, some not.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Steve Martin's notes on TPOC from BoingBoing.



> * Love the Jesus character. So likeable. He can't seem to catch a break! We identify with him because of it. One thing: I think we need to clearly state "the rules." Why doesn't he use his superpowers to save himself?
> 
> 
> * Does it matter which garden? Gethsemane is hard to say, and Eden is a much more recognizable garden. Just thinking outloud.
> ...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macello...

You have spent considerable time, and not a small bit of effort, to try and convince anyone who is listening that Mel Gibson's " The Passion of The Christ" is a terrible movie and not worth seeing. Under any circumstances.

It is now above the quarter BILLION dollar mark in sales and still rising.

In a period, BTW, that ALL of the major Hollywood movie types try to avoid because...according to common wisdom... "no one is watching movies in early spring".

And virtually ALL of the people whom you have been arguing long and hard with, are pretty much certain to go and see this movie. Perhaps twice. AND to buy it on DVD. Including myself.

Does all of this tell you something?

It should.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It tells me there are a lot of Christians in the world but not a lot else.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

used to be jwoodget , would you be wiling to clarify that comment? It seems very shallow on the surface and I'm sure you're not trying to troll or flame.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

_
As of Wednesday, Passion's purse had grown to $228.1 million, and it ranked No. 39 among all-time domestic box office grossers. If its momentum holds this weekend, a 35%-40% decline would see the film pick up another $32 million-$36 million. That, in turn, will boost its cumulative grosses to the $265 million range, kicking it up the all-time chart by at least 15 notches.


In the process, it will surpass IFC Films' 2002 My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which has held the record as the most successful independent film ever with its $241.4 million tally. For Bob Berney, who oversaw Wedding's rollout, and now, as president of Newmarket, is handling the Passion play, it should be a particularly sweet weekend.
_

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=Celebrity&oid=46862


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

_
*Vatican sermon criticises Passion*
The film has passed the $200m milestone

A Vatican sermon has made a veiled criticism of Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion of the Christ.

Father Raniero Cantalamessa said if the film spread the belief that all Jews were responsible for Christ's death, it should be criticised.

But he said in a Lent sermon that "if it restricts itself to showing an influential group of Jews" were to blame, it could not be criticised.

The film has been accused by critics of being anti-Semitic.

Father Cantalamessa said: "The Jewish people, as such, are not responsible for the death of Christ.

"The Passion is a film to be criticised if it seeks to advance the belief that all Jews at the time and in succeeding generations are responsible for the death of Christ."

But "the film cannot be accused of betraying the real story if it restricts itself to showing an influential group of Jews at the time playing a determining role" in the death of Jesus Christ, he said.

The film has taken over $200m (£108m) at the North American box office after two weeks.

It remains at number one and is just short of the returns enjoyed by Oscar-winning epic The Return of the King at the same stage in its box office run.

It opens in Italy on 7 April, during Holy Week, and in the UK on 26 March. 
_


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3506754.stm


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Macnutt, Mel has a penchant for turning history into a pack of lies .... like "Braveheart" and "Patriot".

My decision not to see the movie is personal.

I don't mind packs of lies as fiction, but when they pretend to even a vague semblance of veracity, they are for fools to believe.

The influence of the Gibson family religion exemplified by his nazi sympathizing father and Mel's refusal to disown it speaks loudly to his views.

In no post have I suggested that you or anyone else not see the movie. 

Your "gross equals quality" pitch only exposes your own conceptual failings as usual.

It tells me that according to your own "thinking" MacDonald's .... anyone for McTurds?









used to be jwoodget ....


> It tells me there are a lot of Christians in the world but not a lot else.


.... fair comment given global media domination by US interests and the narrow view that evangelical organizations have of the rest of the world. .... I don't understand Scharman's problem with it.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

I didn't have a "problem" with it. You said that, not me. 
I found the statement odd, but that's because I mis-read it originally. I took it as "........ a lot of Christians in the world but not a lot else." as opposed to "It tells me ........... but not a lot else. " 


> *Macnutt, Mel has a penchant for turning history into a pack of lies .... like "Braveheart" and "Patriot".*


That's a bit extreme (not like you) isn't it? So, now any movie that uses history as it's guide but is embellished or altered for whatever reason is not just slightly incorrect, it's "a pack of lies"?? That means I can never go to any movie that has a historical background, because almost none is ever really accurate. Even novels aren't the same as the movie interpretations and much of history has only a small fraction of the detailed information that a novel does. Do we condemn all movies that use interpretation of information?



> *In no post have I suggested that you or anyone else not see the movie.*


Except that anyone who actually finds merit in it must be either a mis-guided Christian or a sicko. 
You're too much.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Scharman


> Some gain satisfaction by looking for only the negative aspects of everything instead of any of the good.


Precisely the point .... Criticism aside, all seem to agree, Gibson's message concentrates exclusively on the torture of Christ:



> *A snuff movie for Christians.*
> 
> The Passion Of The Christ is a pointless and sick film. It has been mired in controversy ever since devout Catholic Mel Gibson first announced that he was making a movie about Jesus Christ’s Crucifixion. At first the project seemed praiseworthy: unknown actors were to be cast (instead of buff starlets with impossibly perfect teeth), the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were to be consulted and the dialogue was to be rendered in Aramaic and Latin.
> 
> ...


http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=139&art_id=iol1079174071473P256&set_id=1

Scharman


> Some gain satisfaction by looking for only the negative aspects of everything instead of any of the good.


.......

Quite right! Mr.Scharman.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, macello...but aren't you a major fan of Michael Moore and his wild flights of fancy that masquerade as "factual documentaries"?

You claim that you would never waste money by going to see a movie that is a "pack of lies".

So...I just gotta ask...

Have you ever paid to see a Michael Moore film?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

That's the second topic you've veered off course tonight macnutts.

Snortin' the suds too much are ye?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

speaking of m. moore; bowling for columbine has been on the movie channels this week
never mind that i saw it (and paid for a ticket) in the theatre, but am now watching it again and again on the small screen

charleton heston really comes off as a racist...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It's hardly "veering off topic" macello.

You have publicly stated that you would not go and see any movie that was "a pack of lies".

But you have also openly admitted to spending money to go and see "Bowling for Columbine" and several other of Micheal Moore's self-admitted political parodies.

And...if memory serves...you treated these comedies as if they were actual fact. Even though Michael Moore himself has said, publicly, that they are just parodies.

But you agressively attack a movie that is currently setting sales records and enjoying massive public acclaim because you claim it is "not factual".

Care to explain your rather obvious double standard on this matter?

Or are you just going to fall back on your old standby position when you are cornered with inescapable logic, and accuse everyone around you of "being drunk"?
















Please feel free to explain yourself. Lots of people are listening, and anxiously awaiting your reply.

Trust me on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*charleton heston really comes off as a racist...*

despite the "we have more ethnic issues" comment Heston made, which is debatable in itself, I really think that Moore went to far with him.

Having just seen the film for the first time, I have wonder why he can't make his points without sensationalizing them so much, most of it would sell itself without his spin.

Of course, that is a whole other tread, and Macnutt has a point. If Macello is unwilling to see The Passion based on the personal spin Gibson allegedly gave it does seeing (not to mention praising it) Bowling for Columbine, which is full of spin from Michael Moore, make him a hypocrite?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good point, and a valid question PB.

Macello....care to defend yourself from this accusation of hypocrisy? Care to explain why you are so loudly against Mel Gibson's movie while loudly applauding Michael Moore's political parody? As if it were fact?

Please enlighten us on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Try not to load the question too much Macnutt.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

macnutt, your question is off topic and in any case not worth my consideration.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hi Peter, I was responding to macnutt's comment " Does all of this tell you something?". I think the box office numbers reflect the fact that many Christians have gone to see this film. Indeed, the film has become a must-see for Christians and an experience to be shared with fellow Christians. It would be interesting to know the proportion of the audience of the film who are not Christians. 

I think the somewhat polarized view of people (love it or hate it) in part reflects the fact that Christians see the movie in a completely different way to non-Christians. Christians also (erroneously in my view) seem to regard criticism of the movie as criticism of their faith.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Peter - you said


> There is apparently (and thankfully) more than just a crucifixion, although you'd never know it from the negative commentaries. The character of Satan is apparently one of the best ever portrayed and the relationship of Jesus and his mother is quite touching. Anyone else out there who has seen this film who is brave enough to say how thet felt about it?


Ok - I just saw the film last night and you are correct on all three counts.
There are innaccuracies but not too many, and some hollywood cheese/glitz but not too much.

Overall if it was trying to display Christ's Passion, to put you on the spot, it was very successful as a film. There _were_ moments during the flaying where the camera cut away leaving the worst to your imagination. That tells you it was not an 'orgy' of violence. There was a lot of violence, but it was presented in the appropriate way needed to achieve shock, loss, sorrow, an appreciation of the suffering Jesus endured.

Robin Wood, in describing Martin Scorcese's films, notes that his way to present violence is to


> make it as explicit, ugly, painful, and disturbing as possible so that it becomes quite impossible for anyone other than an advanced criminal psychotic to enjoy it.


That is the method used in TPOC.
Why was it important to present this violence in this way? To allow the viewer to _viscerally_ experience being there to see Christ's suffering.

But that's not all there was to the film. The flashbacks showed me what Jesus might have been thinking about at the time. It was so powerful to see Jesus' thoughts turn to when he had washed the disciples' feet, while the soldiers nailed his own foot into the cross. How human, to filter one's experience through one's past experiences. What Godly compassion, to make a connection between this hurt and the loving service he had performed.

We were also invited to be with Judas, the guards, Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and impressively, Simeon (the man who helped Jesus carry the cross). Mary Magdalene's flashbacks showed how much she loved Jesus for saving her - which connects you to Jesus motivation for dying. Jesus wants our love. He'd do anything to get it.

The focus on Mary the mother of Jesus was touching, and I am thankful for it even as I know it relates to Gibson's Roman Catholic viewpoint (worship of Mary), because I can now agree with it emotionally if still not logically. The only time I cried was for Mary. But it's easy to draw parallels with Braveheart and The Patriot to see what Gibson had to bring to this subject besides his Catholic religion. We are not just invited to feel sorry for this man. It's not like "A Time To Kill", where you cry just from a description of an attack on a young girl. It's like Braveheart and The Patriot, where you see a man with his eyes set on his goal - steely eyed, unstoppable. A man who has reached the defining day of his life.

He sees his life flash before his eyes because his whole life has been leading up to this moment. Pilate speaks philosophically as he struggles with his momentous decision, "What is Truth?", "I only know what my truth is ... that Caesar will kill me if another revolt breaks out" (paraphrase). Jesus' Truth is that he has come to die for his beloved humanity. Satan, portrayed as a beautiful asexual figure, seeks only to discourage Jesus from this path.
I found the characterizations plausible, and Simeon in particular was very insightful.

If all one saw was the violence, my guess is that the violence was too much, being a relative thing. Either that, or the flashbacks did not draw you into contemplation of Jesus' life and character as they were meant to. The flashbacks were short and didn't give much context, so that's not too surprising - it depends partly on your familiarity with, and interest in, those stories and how they relate to the drama.

It was a good drama. I have ceased to be surprised by 95% of the plots in movies these days, so the fact that I knew the ending was no big loss. But then I enjoy watching movies even when I remember them so well I can recite all the lines. Like the Matrix, I plan to see this one again, to experience it with different people and to notice something new.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *I think the somewhat polarized view of people (love it or hate it) in part reflects the fact that Christians see the movie in a completely different way to non-Christians. Christians also (erroneously in my view) seem to regard criticism of the movie as criticism of their faith. *


I don't think there's any question about people having totally different reactions to this movie, As I quoted earlier, "What you take from it depends on what you believe coming in." Many people are looking for something that is totally twisted from the director's intent. No wonder they don't appreciate it or understand the meaning. 
I don't really feel that criticism of the movie is a criticism of one's faith, but it may be taken as an insult to their faith if the real meaning is twisted and degraded as a bunch of balogna created to stir up the gullible and flame notions of anti-semeticism. I see it as a gut-wrenching portrayal of what Christ may have gone through in the fulfillment of the prophecy. It may have some slight historical errors, as do most historical films, but the overall story and intended effect have been a success. People are moved and are talking about it, something that hadn't been accomplished with this particular topic before. Criticism aside, Mel wins. People who gain a positive experience from it also win. Those who don't get it and work themselves up have waisted their time and energy for no benefit. Some gain satisfaction by looking for only the negative aspects of everything instead of any of the good. That's the way it is!
Cheers!


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Elmer:


> Like the Matrix, I plan to see this one again.


Not surprising that some equate Mel's POTC values with "Matrix".



> Gibson digs out all sorts of special effects and imaginary characters, one of whom looks a little like the Emperor in The Empire Strikes Back crossed with Darth Maul from Episode IV. Why does supposedly the greatest story ever told need gimmicks like John Woo-style slow motion or children’s faces morphing into screeching devils? Why do we need stirring music all along (was it just my imagination or was the soundtrack “Arabic” when something sinister was afoot and “European” when some happy was happening?)
> 
> The Bible for the Terminator generation. Expect the computer game soon.


http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=139&art_id=iol1079174071473P256&set_id=1


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Perhaps Dreamworks SKG could make an attempt at the Christ story.
Must be too busy entertaining scripts for androids and America "feel good" movies.

Why is it that the Hollywood machine hasn't been able to make a good and popular moive about Christ?
Ten Commandments seemed to make a lot of money. Big stars in it too. The argument about religious films not being financially viable doesn't hold water.
Not like Hollywood to miss out on an opportunity to make a bundle.

So why hasn't Hollywood produced a good Christ movie?
Things that make you go, hmmmm.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Elmer, thanks for that thoughful review. Obviously you're part of the majority that understands the meaning and impact of the movie. A perspective such as yours is a thousand times more valid and credible than that of "critics" who seem to be looking only for the negative "details" instead of the "substance". I wonder if much of the fuss is from those who find the topic uncomfortable in relation to their own (or absence of) religious beliefs. I know my kids get very defensive and critical when confronted with issues that they are in conflict with.
The comparison of the inaccuracies of Michael Moore vs. Mel is interesting. There is one big difference though....Mel's movie is an artistic impression of a limited historical account; Michael's is a manipulation of actual video footage and well documented facts. That would leave Michael as the more serious offender, and yet his movies get praise for getting people to think about issues. Does that make them :A- bad, B-open to scrutiny, C- worthy of condemnation or D-meaningful despite the creativity of the producer?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Well Scharman, unless you're a hard-ass catholic to the right of the pope *according to Gibson you'll fry in hell anyway!*  


> Mel Gibson has come under fire for being hard on Jews in his film “The Passion of the Christ” — but apparently, he feels that Protestants are also doomed to damnation. In fact, it looks like Gibson, a conservative Catholic, believes that his Episcopalian wife could be going to hell ... the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”


There's a pack of lies ....







.... now let's talk about virgin procreation!









..... I'm waiting for someone to lie to me ....


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *..... I'm waiting for someone to lie to me .... *


I think you're a really nice guy and a pleasure to debate with. Happy??    

My mother-in-law is very old fashioned Catholic. She may think I might go to hell for not being devout, but she loves me anyway.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

How is Braveheart considered a pack of lies offered by Mel Gibson, when the screenplay is written by Randall Wallace, and The Patriot was written by Robert Rodat?







Mel may have produced and directed Braveheart, but he only starred in The Patriot—someone needs to get their facts straight.

Come on guys, stick to the facts and leave the assumptions and conjecture at the door—a lot of non-Christians have seen this movie. In fact, I can name at least 20 (and some are even *gasp* Jewish!) who have seen this movie and enjoyed it beyond what the sarcastic-types believe the movie is a 2 hour S&M flick. And oddly enough, not a single one believe it to be anti-semetic, however they all agreed that they wished there had been more to the movie than just focusing around the last 12 hours of Jesus' life.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

> THE PATRIOT
> 
> Historical accuracy
> 
> ...


http://www.geocities.com/tommay_e17/patriotaccuracy.html


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macello: You didn't answer my question.



> Macnutt, Mel has a penchant for turning history into a pack of lies .... like "Braveheart" and "Patriot".


How did Mel "turn history into a pack of lies" in the Patriot? He didn't write, produce, nor direct it—just acted. Please explain because it would seem to me that the writer and director of said movie would hold responsibility for the movie's content.

As far as Braveheart is concerned—he directed it, but it was written by another. Let's share the blame and include Randall Wallace in that instance rather than call Mel a lone gunman for that film (why not include the team of producers as well?).

How can one use the above claim as a fact when it's both innacurate and so broad that it can't stand on it's own? Comments like this only harm, not help your position.

[ March 15, 2004, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: « MannyP Design » ]


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> MannyP asked:
> How is Braveheart considered a pack of lies[?]
> Braveheart isn't that inaccurate, but it does over blow the William Wallace's part in the Scottish freedom movement. It was the Scottish price (Robert the Bruce) who did the bulk of the work in the end, Wallace just got the ball rolling by winning the first few important battles (and losing at Falkirk). At least according to the two text books I have read regarding the period.


True, but one could say the movie is really about William Wallace's life, not Robert the Bruce although the latter has just as much historical importance. I hadn't known until some time that the final scene where Robert the Bruce was to pay tribute to the King of England happened (3?) years later (or something to that effect); I forget the actual details or the timing of the events, as it was almost 10 years ago that I read about it—I'll have to re-acquaint myself with it again sometime, if I can find the book.

However, I still believe it's not a "pack of lies" offered by Mel (and Mel alone). Very few movies are the sole creation of one person, let alone to be absolutely accurate to historical fact—there are always embellishments made, and artisitic license exercised by those involved. To paint accusatory comments with a broad stroke only highlights the inaccuracies of their POV, IMHO.

[ March 15, 2004, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: « MannyP Design » ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Interesting.

*Mel's movie is an artistic impression of a limited historical account; Michael's is a manipulation of actual video footage and well documented facts. That would leave Michael as the more serious offender, and yet his movies get praise for getting people to think about issues. Does that make them :A- bad, B-open to scrutiny, C- worthy of condemnation or D-meaningful despite the creativity of the producer?*

While Michael Moores' films are an entirely different genre, does it really matter? The question is that if Macello is unwilling to pay money to see The Passion because it is a quote "pack of lies", is he a hypocrite for paying to see Bowling for Columbine, a movie full of inaccuracies and half truths?

I think though that his unwillingness to address the question is answer enough at this point though. FWIW, I would answer your multiple choice with both B and D, in other words you should be willing to listen to the points Moore makes, but scrutinize his facts afterward.

*Not surprising that some equate Mel's POTC values with "Matrix".*

Wanting to see The Passion again because you can pick up on and learn new things from it each time, similar to the Matrix which is best viewed at least twice, does not equate the values of one film to the other, just that you might be better served from seeing The Passion more than once.

Or in your case macello, seeing it at all.

*according to Gibson you'll fry in hell anyway!*

Lots of Catholics think they're the only ones who are going to get into heaven. That doesn't make the Passion any less worthy of it's ticket price.

MannyP asked:
*How is Braveheart considered a pack of lies[?]*

Braveheart isn't that inaccurate, but it does over blow the William Wallace's part in the Scottish freedom movement. It was the Scottish price (Robert the Bruce) who did the bulk of the work in the end, Wallace just got the ball rolling by winning the first few important battles (and losing at Falkirk). At least according to the two text books I have read regarding the period.

The Patriot is a different matter entirely (but it was also for the most part entirely fictitious), macellos' list covers the most important points. It's interesting though, that when asked directly about one film he answers regarding another, and the only list he can find is on a geocities site.

Not that all geocities sites are without merit, it's just that if you used it in a real debate or paper you'd be laughed out of the room.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

MannyP, just for the record, I'm aware that Gibson only _starred_ in "The Patriot". That still gives him experience in the subject matter of "The Patriot". Lets not get off topic, people.

And, for the record, I am not equating this film with The Matrix because of the special effects. I'm just saying that my reasons for going back to see it again are similar. It's interesting to see different people's reactions to both films. And there are many details in both movies which the makers attached deep significance to, and it can be fun to find them. eg. the title of the book Neo hides his illegal discs in.

Can anyone tell me what was up with Satan's baby? That was weird.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Elmer—I wasn't referring to you with my comment regarding Gibson's involvement. I was pointing out the fact that Macello's crucifying (wink wink) of Gibson for skewing history was in fact (in this particular instance, _The Patriot_) was unjust and incorrect—he had nothing to do with the movie's historical flaws, it was the writer. To me, it seemed unfair to focus on Gibson as the sole reason for skewed historic movies, 'tis all. Contrasted to _The Passion_, Mel had little to do with the historical references.

As for Lucifer's baby... I'm assuming it was the antichrist?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> As for Lucifer's baby... I'm assuming it was the antichrist?


that would be Bill Gates or George W. Bush


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

_
The movie's box-office success has been chewed over in studio staff meetings and at pricey watering holes all over Hollywood, echoed in interviews with numerous executives in the last week. In marketing departments the film is regarded as pure genius; its director, Mel Gibson, is credited with stoking a controversy that yanked the film from the margins of the culture to center stage, presenting it as a must-see.

There is little doubt at the studios that the movie will affect decision making in the short and the long term. Some predict, as one result, a wave of New Testament-themed movies or more religious films in general.

"Will there really be scriptural pictures — Old Testament, New Testament?" asked Peter Guber, a producer who formerly ran Sony Pictures Entertainment. "The answer seemingly is probably so."
_

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/movies/15PASS.html?ex=1079931600&en=1f6554274524404c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

_
As receipts from Gibson's depiction of Jesus's final hours soared through the [U.S.] $300 million (£163 million) barrier after its third week at the box office, studio executives who originally refused to finance The Passion were left wondering how best to exploit the new trend.
_

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/21/wpass21.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/21/ixworld.html


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Estimated take for Mel Gibson personally, is 700 million, not bad for a "hardcore" catholic spewing lies and misinformation. Seems all the contoversy is paying off.









Haven't seen the film yet, I can wait for the DVD...this is not on my "must" see list but I do want to see it..


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"wondering how best to exploit the new trend."

Recycle all the similar movies on Pay per View. Guess that explains the sudden "deluge" on satellite.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Where have you guye been?! .... 










Christ is so "last month" in America ....


















> 'Dawn of the Dead' Debut Tops 'Passion'
> 
> 'Dawn of the Dead' Debuts With $27.3 Million, Ending Reign of Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ'
> 
> ...


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

TPOTC .....








TDOTD ......









Both crap ... I could care less ...


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

macello,
thank you for helping me illustrate how appropriate the presentation of violence was in Gibson's movie.
Your pic: laugh, stick out tongue
TPOTC: gasp, turn away
 

I'd like to add more positive commentary. The choice of having the chief priests enter Pilate's area was innaccurate since they would not defile themselves by going there. Therefore I see this as an attempt to lower the anti-semitic quality, by showing visually that the condemnation of the innocent man was led by those few with an interest in His death (an almost honest and upright interest, at that!). A lot of people say there was no attempt to moderate the "inherent anti-semitism" (really just Jesus' opposition to the status quo of his own society) of the Gospel, but I think there were many attempts. It was highlighted that Jesus and Simeon were Jews, as another example. No-one says it's an anti-Roman movie; why not?
macello, I don't see what's wrong with this movie being Hollywood-esque. It's just one artistic style that leans heavily on everything that manipulates your emotions. Big deal. So are a lot of church services, and that's considered a good thing by those involved. I still think this is not an evangelistic movie - it is a Passion Play for Christians to watch during Lent. (Watch the movie before you decide to take your friends to it to "convert" them, and you'll realize that would be a bad idea.)
As a Christian, I found this Passion Play one of the most moving I have experienced. If it happens to also be entertaining for some people in other ways, that's unfortunate. Mel Gibson gets rich instead of more worthy causes (all those people could have gone to some other movie! oh, the shame!), that's unfortunate. Somehow though, it was probably worth it. We had a good religious experience.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

> thank you for helping me illustrate how appropriate the presentation of violence was in Gibson's movie.


"À chaque à son gout" ...... eh?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macello

That looks like a “relentless, near pornographic feast of flayed flesh,” to me. You must be outraged! However, for some reason I don't think you'd dedicate a minute to bash this movie or its producer since I suspect it was not violence but your obvious hate for Christianity that was the true motivation for your numerous negative and degrading posts on TPOC.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macello, 

You've got me a little confused here. Since all the writings in the new testament are composed by Christ's apostles, what is your source for his teachings?

Also, you say you're faithful to Christ's teaching of love, forgiveness and peace on earth when you ridicule a movie that depicts the ultimate act of love for mankind. Freely giving up his life for our salvation. The movie also contains the most significant of his teachings on loving your fellow man.

You espouse forgiveness? He never raises a hand at no one while they beat the heck out of him and in fact he plead to his father for their forgiveness to the bitter end. It was the most moving portrayal of forgiveness I have ever seen in a movie.

As for peace on earth, if we all earnestly strived to be like the Christ as he's depicted in this movie, the world would be a peaceful place indeed.

Of course since you refuse to see it for yourself and rely on others to form your opinion you will never see that those teachings of Christ are so powerfully depicted. 



> Both crap ... I could care less ...


Your hours of digging for dirt and endless smear campaign says otherwise. I'd hate to think of how much time you'd waste on something you do care about.  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Macguiver, ... my numerous negative and degrading posts are amed at Mel Gibson's stupid Hollywood brand of faux religiosity. I remain faithful to Christ's teachings of love, forgiveness and peace on earth .... not Mel's,, not pope's, not apostles', not religions', and certainly not your's. 

To each their own ......


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Thanks for that lovely shot from Dawn Of The Dead, macello. The alarmingly high turnout for this movie must have been due to the large numbers opf people who were whipped up in a frenzy and thirsting for more blood after watching the "pornographic" brutality of the crucifixion of Christ.  I mean, how else could anyone bring themselves to watch such worthless trash...it's probably not even historically exact! I say we all not bother seeing it and yet extoll the virtues of such a creative and thought provoking experience. I think the special effects alone would be worth the admission price, wouldn't you agree?  
(and here I thought this thread had quitely faded away)


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I would like to start a new thread. One where we can discuss those annoying phrases - you know the ones - where people use catch-phrases but get them wrong, as in "I could care less" when what they really mean is "I couldn't care less". Nice to see your responses are up to their usual standard, Macello.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

As to MacGuiver's preaching ...... I could care even less.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> As to MacGuiver's preaching ...... I could care even less.


Sorry Macello, I wouldn't want to confuse you with the facts.  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------

