quote:

---

(And for those who piously refuse to see R-rated films, I can only say: There are movies that children should not see, and this is one of them. But for a Christian adult to refuse to see it as a matter of moral principle, as if this movie will somehow dirty you, moves you over into the category of those who let the letter of the law keep them from its spirit.)

---

I don't appreciate the insinuation that my decision is one of lemming-esque obedience. *frowns* Maybe I am being pious in my decision not to see it. Who knows? I only know that my decision is personal, doesn't hurt anyone else and it felt like I was being belittled by that sweeping judgmental comment.

[ February 26, 2004, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
I know I wouldn't be able to stomach the violence in it, so I'm not going to see it. I had to walk out of Cold Mountain because of the human suffering, there's no way I could handle this.

But curiosity might just get me to read Matthew
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Kasie, your post count is awesome!!!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't think OSC was chastizing people who chose not to see it. It seemed to me he was simply saying, "Don't make your decision based on the rating; take the context of the movie into account."

It sounds like you did that. I doubt he meant that label to apply to you.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
 
Narnia, I think what OSC was getting at in his special way is that to refuse to see a movie based solely on the fact that it is rated R is to imply that "Rated R" is always bad. It's not. There are many reasons movies are rated R, and all are perfectly reasonable. But there's a difference between a gory horror flick and a vivid and graphic depiction of a historical event. The truth isn't always pretty.

Now, I respect the fact that you don't wish to be exposed to graphic violence and sex. I just think that there isn't anything to take personally in what OSC said.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Narnia, I have big doubts about whether I'll make it through. I'm going, my husband bought the tickets for it, and we're discussing it in Sunday School so I am going.

That's not to say I'll make it all the way through.
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
(((Narnia)))

quote:

---

---

I wonder why Jesus's suffering is considered so important. Many have suffered more than he did, even if you believe in the Christian account of his death. So he got beaten a little, and cruicifed. Then he came back to life. Wow.

Did he spend his days in a cell, forced to stay awake for days on end? Did he have a hood forced on over his head, then specially placed on a rotating pedestal, so that all his senses were screwed up? Did he have his feet slowly crushed?

Did he have himself tied up, then have to watch his baby die as soliders tortured it? Was he rapped? Was he abused by his parents? Did he have hot needles stuck under his nails? Did he have his nails ripped off?

(And, oddly enough, most of these actions were done on "behalf" of Jesus.)

Yeah. I would like to know what exactly was so painful about his death that it attones for everyone's sins.

[ February 26, 2004, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I'm not seeing it. But I read the article knowing something it in caused you to raise an eyebrown. I was surprised it turned out to be that.

I believe ignoring the spirit of the law makes it as though you didn't live the letter. But following the spirit of the law doesn't excuse one from living the letter. I hope my way is right.

But I get some benefit from his description that the suffering is an expression of mental anguish, so that when I read about it now I can consider that.

Phanto, we (in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)believe he suffered infinite mental anguish and it caused him to bleed from every pore. We also believe he suffered the pain of every illness, injury, and insult ever suffered by anyone, whether they accept him or not. That's what I believe, anyway. And this happened both in the Garden of Gethsemane and again on the Cross just prior to his death. But in addition to the actual suffering is that he was sinless and half-God and didn't have to do it. So it was this exercise of free will that broke the spiritual law allowing us to have free will and still return to God if we choose.

[ February 26, 2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Okay, this thread just got way too graphic for me.



There's no way I could possibly sit through this movie.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

So he got beaten a little, and cruicifed

---

quote:

---

moves you over into the category of those who let the letter of the law keep them from its spirit

---

Does this strike anyone else as slightly ironic?
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
For the record, most of the things you [Phanto] described were done TO Christians also.

If you're interested, and not just trying to insult Christians, I can find a lot of literature explaining the significance of Jesus' death to Christians. In fact if you're actually interested it should be pretty easy for you to find a lot of literature explaining the significance of Jesus' death to Christians.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
*winks at blacwolve* You're right my dear!

pooka, I liked your explanation of spirit/letter of the law. That makes good sense.

I guess I'm too sensitive. Yet that remark hit a snag in my calm perusal of that article...it could be that I read it wrong. I felt like he was saying that Christian adults SHOULD go see this movie because of all the wonderful things about it (which I do not doubt exist) and if we didn't want to because of violence or the R rating, then we were pious, archaic...

Well, anyway. Maybe I just took it wrong. But, if I wasn't sure whether or not I should go see a movie, an R rating would help to nudge me over to the "I won't go see it" side because of the counsel that we've received as members of the LDS church. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring the "Spirit" of the law.

And I guess that all I'm trying to say is that pooka's definition fits the best. Thanks for your words those of you that care.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
I just went to see the movie. It was a very traumatic experience for me.

First of all, i do not mind violence in movies, so long as it is not gratuitous. I have seen many R-rated movies. This does not bother me.

Second of all, I was raised in a christian household. My Dad was a pastor. My mom was a church musician.

I have therefore seen countless of movies about Jesus, most of them many times over. I was spoon-fed the bible stories till i puked. I always found it boring and annoying, and preachy. At best I was indifferent.

That being said, this is the very first time that the magnitude of the suffering that Jesus went through was really brought home to me. Which is maybe why it was so traumatic to me. I was horrified. None of the violence was gratuitous.

If you decide not to see the movie because you dislike violence and don't need it as a reminder of what it was really like, fine. I agree with you. I needed to see it, I think. For once, I was able to identify with Jesus as a real person, and not some sunday-school picture-book character. It was horrible.

Maybe this goes to show how jaded we are. Or maybe that's just me.

quote:

---

Yeah. I would like to know what exactly was so painful about his death that it attones for everyone's sins.

---

quote:

---

Was he rapped [sic]?

---

quote:

---

But, I've decided that I don't want to see it because I personally don't need to have that kind of violence placed in front of me to understand that what Christ went through was awful. I also try to follow the counsel of the leaders of the church when they encourage us not to watch R-rated movies because of violence and sexual themes. We become desensitized, etc. I've decided that this counsel is good for me in my life, especially in this case when I would probably be upset by this film.

---

quote:

---

Many have suffered more than he did, even if you believe in the Christian account of his death.

---

quote:

---

I think he was also trying to tell us what it was that he told his wife to convince her to not make him sleep on the couch for the next little while.

---

quote:

---

Let me address this R-rated issue first. I think it would be sad if you relinquished your agency to the MPAA and miss the film only on the basis of the collision between “rated-R” and Mormon doctrine.

Obedience is better than sacrifice. I encourage no one to do anything inconsistent with their faith. I believe in following the prophet. In 1986 President Benson told the Aaronic Priesthood, "We counsel you, young men . . . don't see R-rate movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive or pornographic." Every prophet since has reiterated that inspired advice.

The doctrine of R-rated evolved in the 2001 Strength of Youth Pamphlet.

"...choose only entertainment and media that uplift you. Good entertainment will help you to have good thoughts and make righteous choices. It will allow you to enjoy yourself without losing the Spirit of the Lord. Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable."

This doctrinal document does not include any reference to R-rated movies or the MPAA rating code. The responsibility is no longer carried on the shoulders of the anonymous men and women who rate the movies in Encino California. It is squarely upon us.

We can no longer say, “R it is bad”. “PG-13 is OK.” We must apply a different standard. It is easy to define the criteria. It is difficult to measure ourselves against them.

If you are tempted to attend The Passion of The Christ out of some sense of morbid curiosity or to be “entertained,” don’t go!

Consider seeing the film only if you are sincere in your quest to gain greater insight into the death of Christ. I say “death of Christ” because that is what the film is about.

Consider seeing the film only if you seek a deeper and historically detailed appreciation of the last 12 hours of a life that changed the world.

Consider seeing the film only if you can glean from the brutality of the images a better understanding of the ultimate purpose of His life.

Consider the film only if you are confident it will engender good thoughts, inspire righteous choices and allow you to retain the Spirit of the Lord. The graphic nature of the images notwithstanding, nothing I saw deprived me of the spirit of the Lord. To the contrary, seeing the Savior through the eyes of his mother touched the deepest part of my soul.

---

quote:

---

On the heels of the massive debut, 20th Century Fox announced it would distrib "Passion" on homevid in the U.S. Fox, which is releasing "Passion" in Latin America and Taiwan, has a first-look pact with Icon.

---

So NOW Fox, who wouldn't GO NEAR the US theatrical release of the film before, is really keen on getting the video rights. Beh.

[ February 27, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
 
Rakeesh,

Sherman is most commonly considered the originator (it was his commentary on burning Atlanta). It's been said a lot and chances are excellent that Halsey said it somewhere along the line.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 

quote:

---

The second part is a little between the lines. I think he was also trying to tell us what it was that he told his wife to convince her to not make him sleep on the couch for the next little while. Giving us a chance to use his arguement.

Easy as that.

-scottneb-

---

My, that brings back memories of grandma and grandpa . . .


 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

doctrine of R-rated evolved in the 2001 Strength of Youth Pamphlet.

---

I feel highly uncomfortable with referring to anything as "doctrine" based on the Strength of Youth Pamphlet. In 3rd, Christ clearly defines his doctrine, emphasizing that anything more or less than this is not of him. He most certainly does not say anything about R-rated movies.
 

---

Posted by The Wiggin (Member # 5020) on :
 
THe only thig I see reong in the review is that OSC says Jesus sufferd only what others of the time did. That is not true(and i'm not trying to be rude it's just that my mom has read alot about The Passion and has shared it with me.) judging from the barial cloth that was left behind it has been deturmend that he sufferd over a hundred blow during the scurguing, the average a man was given and still able to live was around 30 or 40.

Other then that I lsay good job to revierwer and crew alike.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
[side note]Rabbit, I've been taught to take the words and counsel of the prophet and apostles as doctrine. Right? The "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet was written, read, and released by them in the same way that the priesthood handbooks of leadership are. ?? I would call it Doctrine. [/side note]

Rakeesh, thanks for your post. My decision is personal and what everyone has said about it stands. I know that I don't understand the suffering that Christ went through at the crucifixion. I'm SURE that I don't and I'm sure that no one else does either. I'm glad that this movie has helped to make people think about and appreciate His sacrifice on a deeper level. But...in short, from what I've heard about the level of violence in this movie, I just don't think it would be good for me to see.

Taal, that was a great article. Thanks for posting it. That's kind of how I've felt and I've always tried to follow the 'spirit' of the law where all things are concerned. I was just taken aback at the possibility of someone insinuating that I wasn't able to do that...and after this thread and a couple days, I don't think that's what OSC was doing. *eats crow and mutters*
 

---

Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
 
this movie is Mel Gibson’s attempt to immortalize his name, read any of the 4 biblical accounts of the story and you'll find that saintin is never mentioned, the Jewish priest takes responsibility for Christ’s death (he does this in the movie, but Mel didn't put it in the sub tittles for fear of being accused of being like his father) over all Mel Gibson took a sacred story and made a billion or so people feel that they needed to see it in order to call themselves Christians. Further more, all of the controversy over it was started by his own production company in order to promote the film and to help people remember that Mel Gibson is not only a great actor, but a good director too, too bad he is a terrible human being who has no problem twisting a religious story to sell tickets.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

read any of the 4 biblical accounts of the story and you'll find that saintin is never mentioned

---

That may be. But Satan is mentioned numerable times

Honestly, though. Give 'em a read. You may learn something.

Also, did you see the film? Or read the article this thread was in reference to?

And do you have evidence to back up his studio intentionally causing controversy? What they tried to do was get the film made in the first place. Nobody wanted to pick it up. Mel had to pay for the entire thing out of his own wallet - a risky venture that could very easily have backfired.

Please don't just regurgitate something you heard someone say and state it as fact. Look into what you're talking about, state sources for accusations, and we'll respect your posts a lot more.

Oh, and welcome to Hatrack.

[ March 07, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Gibson has done an interesting "thing".

As a brief aside, I think that what he did by producing and distributing this film the way he did was brutal, cynical and possibly "genius".

I don't think that OSC's puppy-love letter to Mel does the film/phenom the justice it deserves.

Aside from the pornographic violence, I was mainly disturbed by the lack of context and good storytelling. To the failthful, a reaffirmation and zoom-in focus on the horrors that free them. To the uninitiated, a bloodbath without explanation (go check out the bible?)

fallow
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Funny. I seemed to find a theme of constant Love in the face of Adversity throughout the film, and thought it'd be understood universally.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I have not seen the movie, but what I hear makes me think I would have some pretty big complaints about it. For one thing, it sounds kind of like propaganda - a movie based on our emotional reaction to violance, rather than the merits of Christ and his teaching.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The film isn't about Christ's teachings. The film is about how much crucifixion hurts, and how glad we should be someone cared enough to do it.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

I have not seen the movie, but what I hear makes me think I would have some pretty big complaints about it.

---

See the movie and then you can complain if you wish. Hyopthetical complaints are kind of..empty now that the film's out for people to actually see for themselves.

[ March 08, 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Hypothetical complaints save me $8.50 though.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Hypothetical complaints save me $8.50 though.

---

Ha! Winner!
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I asked my husband if he wanted to see the movie a few weeks ago, and he said he didn't because when Mel Gibson was giving interviews for "Signs" he indicated that he wasn't sure if there was a god.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Mel Gibson said he wasn't sure? *surprised*
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Laugh or tear of the week.

Last weekend I tripped over an argument between my brother and sister-in-law.

She is what I call a Poper Christian Parrot in that she cares more about parrotting what her minister says that week than in any deep Christian thought.

My brother is an Agnostic with Heart.

She was trying to convince him that he needed to see "The Passion" in order to "Truly understand the pain that Christ went through, to truly understand what Christianity is about."

My brother responded, "Then why don't you go see it."

She said, "You know I don't like violent movies."

He laughed, "Neither do I."

She looked confused, "But that doesn't matter."

I took my lunch plate and tip toed away at that point.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
"Poper Christian"

Mistype? Roman conspiracist? Only his friends know for sure...
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
It was probably something like this

quote:

---

"I don't know if I believe in little green men coming out of the woodwork to eat you or befriend you or make the universe a [better] place. I do believe in a realm outside our own that's pretty difficult. I think everybody's had an experience that's hard to explain exactly what it is, but it's otherworldly somehow."

---

quote:

---

The film is about how much crucifixion hurts, and how glad we should be someone cared enough to do it.

---

Tom,

I think it is interpretations like that which make it difficult for you in your search for faith. Many of us have repeatedly said that the Atonement is far more than the Crucifixion, we've explained it, yet I saw no reply from you.

The movie really can only show the crucifixion because the of the nature of the Atonement. For those of us who believe in the Atonement, the crucifixion is, as Card describes, metaphor for the real suffering Jesus experienced.

A lot of people responded to your questions about the Atonement in the first page of this thread: http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=021800#000047

What is your take on their answers?

[ March 08, 2004, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Their answers do an excellent job of making people who already believe feel okay about their belief, but are relatively meaningless to someone who not only doesn't accept the necessity of the sacrifice but the permanence of the sacrifice itself. When you're left with nothing but SPECULATION as to why the atonement was so awful, and are forced to deal with physical torture as an unnecessary metaphor for the emotional sacrifice, you're dipping into the realm of apology.

I didn't reply to those posts because the people involved made a genuine effort to explain their rationalizations, and they were obviously heavily emotionally invested in them. Sadly, they didn't move me -- but I felt it would have been rude to point that out, since they're certainly welcome to their own speculation.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
Toughen up.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I just read OSC's review and letter to Gibson, and I found it to be excellent. I don't agree with all of his points, particularly his rather heavy-handed view of the courts (America's state religion, as he calls them), but he is right about a lot. In my opinion, of course....I really like his idea of withdrawing the movie from any and all award races, as long as he explains why. That should put an end to most of the arguements about his turning a profit. After all, Oscar-winning films make even more money after they win, right? If Gibson was clear that he doesn't want or need Hollywoods recongition, then obviously he isn't just greedy.

The funny part of that is that if any of the studios had known how profitable this movie would be then they would have backed it in a second, and nobody would accuse them of profit-mongering; it's only when a man makes it without any other backers that Hollywood decides to raise questions about profits.....

Tom: I wish more people were as polite as you. I try not to preach, as I don't have the answers any more than than anyone else does, but it is a pleasure to be able to discuss this with someone who won't bite my head off just because they don't agree with my views. I use to bite others heads off when discussing religion, because I felt disapointed and disgusted with the state of the church, as I saw it. Then I realized that I was not only doing them a diservice by refusing to listen to their views, but that I was doing myself one as well. Now I try to listen with respect, unless they are being disrespectful of others.

People often get all worked up on all sides of these type of issues because the reasoning is so intangable that the sides can be seen as mutually exclusive. I have found that listening with repect only hurts me when the other side isn't doing the same for me. Then I just tune out and walk away.

I am always interested in your opinion as it is always respectful of mine......at least it always has been so far ; so please feel free to disagree with me whenever you feel you have to.....not that you need my permission....lol

Kwea
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Couple folks raised an interesting point - Signs.

The "passion" does look quite a lot like braveheart from a shooting perspective. This isn't surprising since it's the same eye behind the camera.

I was kind of curious during my viewing of the passion about how nicely the story (if there is one?) of Signs dovetailed into this production.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
First of all, thank you for your consideration. I appreciate it.

Tom, it is that the film used that metaphor, not that it actually was a metaphor. Though for some humans, unable to grasp the emotional/spiritual nature of the Atonement, they take into their hearts what they can understand: the human suffering of Christ.

The emotional sacrifice is not apologetic. Even though the physical suffering did happen, LDS theology pays little attention to it. That was merely the means to death. The spiritual/emotional sacrifice is the central to the Gospel. This is why you will never see a cross on an LDS building or pulpit. You won't see anyone LDS wearing a cross. To us, this is a meaningless symbol. There are many pictures displayed in our buildings, but none of them are of the crucifixion.

The pictures you see in an LDS building of the Atonement are of Christ kneeling in the Garden of Gesthemane. To us, this was not a dedicatory prayer, it was The Atonement. It went on for longer, he probably suffered through it during his trial, torture, and crucifixion. But in that garden, as he bled from every pore was where he suffered for our sins.

You say you also have a difficult time believing in the infinite nature of the Atonement. You are thinking too linearly. If God created the universe, do you not think he has access to all time, to every instant, no matter where in time he appears to us?

You may wonder why God chose to do that. Can't God just forgive the people himself and get on with it? Isn't that what he asks of us?

He would if He could.

This is where we get to the point where God is governed by certain causal laws. God is perfect, pure. If we are not perfect and pure, we suffer in God's presence. He cannot change that. To do so would eliminate our own free will. Who we really are would cease to exists.

None of us who have lived long enough to put our will into action is perfect or pure. Thus, we do need an Atonement.

But there is more to it than simply that Jesus understands us enough to cause us to be cleansed. It is a payment, an erasing of the sin. All existance ceases to recognize the sin, and so it is truly gone. Not only because we've been able to get over the sorrow and shame, not only because we have changed ourselves and now do not commit the sin atoned for (essential to repentance), not only because we feel the intimate understanding of Christ and therefore the forgiveness and love of God, but because it is no longer part of the cause and effect. It is erased from the universal mind, to put it crudely. Karma was balanced. Someone suffered for the sin, but because they themselves were clean and without sin, they had no guilt. They could still abide the perfect love of God.

The Resurrection was not a reward. It was absolutely necessary for the completion of the Atonement, but that is yet more theology.

I'm not trying to convince you or anything. I just sense a deep misunderstanding of a theology that is absolutely central and necessary to my religion and I want you to understand.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 

quote:

---

That should put an end to most of the arguements about his turning a profit.

---

Sadly, the merchandising has already begun...

I went to see the Passion twice. To me, this was a really important film. And usually, I have no problem with making money from derived products. Movies are made to make money, right? But in this case, I feel that it cheapens it... I'm beginning to doubt Gibson's motivations with this film...

Help me out here, what do you think?

[ March 09, 2004, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: digging_holes ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
I think you paid for what you saw. Anything beyond that is your own... and that's exactly what Gibson will take to the bank.

cynical fallow.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Tacky doesn't even begin to describe it.

I don't have a problem with selling shirts, or hats....if he didn't licence it, someone will, and these thinks could raise a lot of money for good uses....but the necklace with the nail pendant was a little too much for me.

Well, I don't have a problem with it, although it's in horrible taste to say the least. How is this different from walking into St. Patricks in NYC (I think it's St. Patricks, help me out if it's not pls) where, IN THE VESTUBULE OF THE CHURCH ITSELF, there is a gift shop!!! A gift shop???

Can you say moneylenders in the temple anyone?

Kwea

[ March 09, 2004, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
People wear crosses all the time that they buy. Sometimes these crosses are very expensive, made of diamonds.

Why is the nail pendant any more offensive than the cross?
 

---

Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
 
A cross, though expensive in some cases, is a display of one's faith (theoretically). Crosses have been used in jewelry for a millenia. Though, if you read some of Jesus' parables, he says that one should pray and practice their faith while alone, so I suppose one could say wearing a cross is like touting your faith to the masses, but I digress.

The nail necklace, however, is different. Whereas crosses were incorporated into the Christian faith to help convert the Pagans who used it first, the nail is a product of the movie. It's a part of a money-making scheme of the MOVIE. Not faith. Not religion. Not even the Bible. Mel Gibson's cinematic intepretation of the Gospel.

I did really like OSC's review, though.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Actually, I just read an article (admittedly linked from the place selling the merchandise) where someone reasoned that for so many, the cross has become a cliche, and that it's time for a new Symbol that hasn't lost its meaning - which is where the Nail might come in.

Believe it or not, I do see some sort of logic in that, whether I choose to hold to it or not.

I was never a Cross-wearing Christian (too afraid of commiting hyopcritical actions while wearing one, for starters), and really don't see myself ever being one. Or a Nail-wearing one either.

Here's the article, it's in pdf format: Here
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Not being one to beat a dead horse, or goat, or camel, or whatever that fly-ridden monstrosity was...

the basis for my cynicism with regard to this film has a lot to do with the "run up" prior to the film.

"THE BEST OUTREACH OPPORUNITY IN 2000 YEARS!"

My eyes misted over during the film. It WAS heartwrenching. The scene where Mary runs to Christ and we get the flashback of Mary running to pick up her fallen boy? I was a goner.

But, being jerked-around, emotionally, by graphic depictions of sadistic violence abutted against family sentiment. This is gross. and deserving of the "pornography" label.

It's a long stretch to claim this is spiritually educational in any way. I didn't learn anything. I wasn't inspired. I was horrified and pissed-off at having fundamental emotional strings being jerked at for 2 hours in the name of "genius" capitalist marketing.

*blech*

I can't wait for the sequel.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
How was the family sentiment gross? It was showing how much Mary wanted to run to her son to help him up like when he was a boy, and how now she couldn't. It was one of the most impactful parts of the movie, and I didn't find it exploitational at all. In fact, I found it incredibly truthful and powerful.

[ March 10, 2004, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
I really don't know what to think about this. Sure he's making money, but is making money Gibson's main goal? I think it may be a bit pretentious to think of the nail pendant as replacing the cross as a symbol for christianity.... But maybe selling the merchandise really is an attempt at spreading the gospel, so to speak... He's certainly not the first to make Jesus books and T-shirts, or jewelry for that matter...

But regardless, i'm buying the soundtrack
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Taalcon,

That imagery isn't "gross". My point was about the juxtapose.

fallow
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Fallow,

quote:

---

I can't wait for the sequel.

---

quote:

---

Christ. He's Back!

But, strangely, He's not really all that upset...

---

And then there was something about Him trashing both Freddy and Jason...
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*whoa*
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Fallow: I think the Juxtaposition is what MADE it powerful.

Steve:
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
*whoa* ?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The parts with Mary were the ones that created the most emotion. The violence didn't, because I couldn't watch it.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Taalcon,

The juxtaposition is what made it emotional pornography.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
The more I think about it, it was all the juxtopisitions that MADE the film, really. Him being beat to a flashback of Him telling people they need to love their enemies. Peter denying he knew Christ with a juxtaposition of a flashback of him telling him he'd never leave him.

The more I think about it, the film was very much about how others saw the suffering, and how it affected them.

EDIT: In that case, I have no clue what you mean by 'emotional pornography'

[ March 10, 2004, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
[snarky]Isn't 'Emotional Pornography' an Oxymoron?[/snarky]
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Amka, I wanted to point out something in response to an earlier post of yours. You said 'To us, the cross is a meaningless symbol' ('us' meaning members of the LDS church.)

It's not meaningless to me. I think it is a very sacred symbol. I even had one of my institute teachers go so far as to say that this is why we don't display/wear it. It's a symbol of the suffering Christ went through for us on Calvary and that is a very special and sacred thing. It's TOO sacred to be worn on the earlobe of a movie star wearing almost no clothes and a tattoo of an explative on her arm. Just for an example. But I don't think it's meaningless.

Just some more 2 cents.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
The images are powerful. The scene of Mary running to Jesus made me cry.

But, I didn't feel that scene illustrated a mother's love for her child, even This child, in an illuminating vs. choke-collar yanking way.

difference of taste.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I think it made the movie all the more meaningful, as it showed Mary's torment on several different levels.

Most of us who saw the movie were moved by the violence, and the suffering Christ endured, but this movie showed a mother whom loved her son not just as the Christ, but as her little pride and joy. It wasn't just a random tugging at the heart strings, it was a deliberate attempt to show Jesus as a human being. It is all too easy to think of Jesus as the son of God and to unconciously belittle his sacrifice by saying that the crusifixcion and Atonement were what he was born for, but this film showed the other side of him. It showed that while he feared his fate enough to ask God if there was another way , he also loved and trusted God enought to say "Thine will be done, not mine". It shows Jesus as a man who was not above the world, but who was a part of it as well.

Also, it showed the anguish his followers and family felt, not understanding that this was Jesus choice. Mary understood that it was his choice, and bore the full knowledge of his suffering and pain not only as God's chosen one but as a flesh and blood mother of a child she had raised.

I felt it made the movie, and my mother said it was one of the most difficult scenes she had ever witnessed, even more so because I was sitting right there beside her while she watched it.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Kwea,

I would agree with you that it was not random, but deliberate. This is the nature of filmmaking and story-telling in general, if the storytellers know what they are doing.

Do you feel that what you saw was necessary to tell the story? Do you feel like you got the full story?

fallow
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I don't know if anyone actually knows the real story, but I feel that that is a part of the story that often gets glossed over, if it is mentioned at all.

I do feel that part of the reason I found the movie worthwhile is the connection between Mary and Jesus. I felt that she succeeded in humanizing his character within the context of this film.

Other movies that tried the same thing didn't succeed as well. The Last Temptation of Christ was a very good movie but it humanized Jesus to the point that it interfered with the movies' message.Temptation was actually very well thought out, and well made too, but people got so riled up about the thought of Jesus having sex and raising a family that they missed the whole point.....these events never happened! They were, as the title indicates, temptations that the Devil used to sway Jesus from his path. The Devil was saying "Look what you will miss if you die now. Wouldn't it be nice to raise a family....to be a husband.....to live a life without these burdens?" To me that makes his sacrfice all the more impressive and agonizing. I wouldn't be impressed with a Jesus who was too stupid to realize what he was sacrificing....I AM impressed with one who thought out every step, and still treaded his path through to the end, and beyond.

Passion didn't make the same mistakes, but used Mary's suffering to show his connections to this world and to his family and friends. That makes him a multi-dimentional character to me, and one who is far more engaging to the viewer. The more emotional resonance in the moment, the greater them movie, as long as it doesn't pull the viewer out of the context of the scene.

Now for a flim that overplayed the emotional card....the made-up scenes in ROTK, the near death of Aragorn and the false goodbye of Arwen, these all were over the top to me, as was the homecoming of the hobbits. From a movie standpoint, Passion did it better as the play on emotions was far more obvious in ROTK. I KNOW that is not how it was suppose to be, because there is only ONE account of those events (forgetting for a moment that LOTR is pure fiction), and the movie doesn't match them! However, Passion is drawn from 4 different, often conflicting, very very old accounts. I think that Gibson did a wonderful job of interpeting them and making a movie of the events he wanted to highlight. To me, he did it far more skillfully than Jackson did; and I am a huge fan of Tolkien, so I hate to say that. Jackson did a great job, but there is a fine distinction between drama and meladrama that he missed, and Gibson did not.

I was impressed dispite myself, and that isn't very easy to do.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Incidentally I know people who have been wearing "nail" jewelry for years out in CA. It isn't anything new. The people who purchase those are normally are the sorts who are also wearing "His Pain Your Gain" shirts and ties.

(No, I haven't seen the movie yet, I react very badly to graphic violence and don't want nightmares. I plan to rent it when it comes out on video)

AJ
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
kwea,

I think it was a little disproportionate. Pretty heavy on the violence (in my terms "porn"), and pretty fluffy on telling a compelling story. This isn't the case, if you know the story, but it certainly is, if you don't. Therein lies the invitation for criticism and controversy (and the ka-ching! we'll no doubt be reading about for days in the coming news).

fallow
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I would succeeded at what it was attempting to do, and did it very well. It didn't claim to be the complete life of jesus, just the last 12 hours of his life. If you don't know who Jesus was, or care, then this movie probably wasn't for you. (I am not speaking of you specifically, fallow, just a basic statement about the target audience for this film)

It was heavy on the violence, but I bet that what was shown was nothing to the reality of it, even if you weren't the one being beaten. It was graphic deliberatly, which I prefer to random film violence created to increade the almight "body count" need in slasher films.

We are closer to agreeing on that than you might guess.....remember, it bothered me too,, to the point that I don't ever need to see it again. However, I am very glad that I did see it at least once, becaure it was moving. It wasn't comefortable, but it was thought provoking, and has opened up some good dialogue, including some people who haven't examined their faith/beliefs in a long time. I think that is a good thing, and I don't really care if people end up converting to or moving away from the Catholic Church.....I just think that people need to revisit these issues periodicly in their lives.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Kwea,

My criticisms of the film were somewhat of an attempt to be objective about filmmaking and storytelling. I think the film fell down in a couple of very important ways. Mainly omissions.

Those omissions are the cantilevers of controversy that are generating the $200MM revenue for Gibson.

how quickly did tradition, history, and spirituality become eclipsed by $ figures?

I hope things aren't as they appear to my cynical eye, but nothing in my viewing of the film suggested otherwise. It didn't seem sincere.

fallow

[ March 14, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
You see, that is actually where we disagree....to me it seemed very sincere, and very well thought out.

It's hard to tell if it was cynical movie-making or faith based. Gibson has never been shy about his beliefs, even before he wanted to make this movie, so I am more likely to give him the benifit of the doubt. He is, and has been for some time, a very conservitive Catholic, and that is the viewpoint he is trying to show.

According to the Vatican, "It is as it was." Considering the Pope said that quote, why is anyone suprised that the movie is very traditional?

Kwea
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Kwea,

I think that quote from the Vatican was disavowed, at least according to my superficial scanning of news articles.

fallow
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Kwea,

whether one or another advocated or disliked the film has little to do with my response or desire to discuss. those points of view are points for discussion. I think.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Wait a second, I never said that the Popes review even mattered! I simply used that to show how conservitive Gibson's religious views are,that's all!

I agree that what the Pope said (or didn't say) should have little or no influence on what we say about the movie.....unless he came here to Hatrack and posted his views (in which case we would treat him like any other nOOb and ignore it....lol....).

I simply was making a point about Gibson's religious views, and I feel that it was a good point. His views were very conservitive well before he ever considered making Passion , and that not only affected the viewpoint of the movie but who the target audience was; it was made for people who believed as he did.....

If he can turn a profit on what was an incredible risk, then good for him....

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Fallow, what ommissions during the actual 12 hours covered by the film are you referring to that were done for the sole purposes of marketability?

The film was always intended to be a depiction of the Passion (read: Suffering) of Christ. That was the story Mel went about telling. This specific narrative period. YEs, there were flashbacks, but the flashbacks were used to give deeper meaning to individual moments and reactions in this specific period. It was not called "The Life, Death, and Resurrection of The Christ", is was called "The Passion of The Christ."

I think claiming that Gibson made ommissions early on for 'marketability' is a pretty cynical one. In fact, most people's complains are that it shows MORE than is described in the Biblical account, not that it shows LESS.

This whole movie was a marketing nightmare from day one - no Hollywood studio would touch it... until its opening weekend. Then EVERYONE wanted the video distribution rights.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Heck, I want distribution rights.

And I haven't even seen the flick yet.

Mamma didn't raise no fool.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
lol
 

---