The Passion - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

analog · 03-14-2004, 09:21 PM

Just saw it.

Incredibly powerful.

Every movie I have ever seen, I have seen at least a half-dozen or more times.

I will not need to see this movie again. Ever. It's burned in.

absorbentishe · 03-15-2004, 06:43 AM

Saw the movie yesterday. All I can say is wow, I left the theater emotionally drained. I think it was a great movie, but I don't think I'll ever see it again.

NoLa · 03-16-2004, 07:15 AM

Same here, I saw it a few days ago, very hard to watch. I don't think its the kind of movie that you keep going back to see.

InTeGrA77 · 03-19-2004, 07:30 AM

Its one of those movies that you HAVE to see once, but after that, you're done...

I don't think that I could bare going back and watching it all over again. I mean, I didn't cry when I saw it, but there were a few times when it was pretty close (the end, when he's getting his hands nailed to the cross). Alls that I didn't was constantly wince and cringe during the part where they're just WAILING on him...

This was the first time that after the movie is over, and everyone is supposed to clear out...everyone just sat there in silence, and stared at the screen. The people that I went with didn't even discuss it at all on the way home from the theater, we just kind of kept out own opinions to ourselves. There was quite a few people in the theater crying, and only 1 or 2 left, that I saw...

So I definately recommend it, but I guess that you either love or or hate it, and I can see why theres so much controversy.

RonPrice · 08-25-2004, 02:29 AM

The dust of reviews has settled on this film and so: the time has come, perhaps, for a more dispassionate, a more considered, a more reflective, little review---but no less provocative than the most provocative you’ve read thusfar....

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST: A Film Review by Ron Price

This film is not intended to be a masterful historical documentary as, say, Ken Burns' work on the Civil War or one of many others done in the first century of the existence of the cinema. Gibson's work is far from possessing what some might call an intellectual poverty in its pretensions at historical documentary. Shawn Rosenheim says all TV documentaries possess an intellectual poverty. If Rosenheim is right the visual media are simply incapable of producing historical documentary.1 Even if Rosenheim is wrong historical documentary of an event 2000 years ago is impossible. We simply do not know enough.

We all know that Gibson did not take his camera crew to downtown Jerusalem in some kind of time-warp to produce an anti-Jewish, anti Roman clip for the evening news. Even if he had and he then produced for us all an evening two hour special, spectacle, called "the crucifixion," there would still be questions about visual manipulation and the program's service in the name of directing popular thought toward a new religious movement. New reliigous movements have always had trouble getting popular exposure.

No one would claim that Gibson's is a neutral recording of objective events. It is a construct operating from a certain point of view. It is a rhetorical argument achieved through the selection and combination of elements that both reflect and project a world, a world view, a cosmology if you like. It is achieved by certain cinematic conventions that try to erase any signs of cinematic artificiality. An ideology is promoted by linking the effect of reality to social values and institutions in such a way that these values seem natural and self-evident. In the case of Mel Gibson's work, a work that I found quite stimulating in its own way, the ideology is simply and strongly: fundamentalist Christianity.

I've never been attracted to Christianity in any of its fundamentalist forms. But I liked this film. Film can often get to people in ways that words, ideas and simple beliefs cannot. It was not because of its historical accuracy that I liked it. I liked All the Presidents Men and a number of other films based on and rooted in some historical theme. Rarely are historical films accurate; the main reason they seem so is that the people watching them know so little about the theme, the event, that it seems plausible to them. Sadly, but truly, we know so little about the events of the life of Jesus of Nazereth that a good script writer, a good cinematographer and a big band of men and women can bring something to life that may never have happened at all.

Bertrand Russell wrote in his Why I'm Not a Christian that, in a court of law, there is little evidence for even the existence of Jesus let alone his manner of death. Historicity simply does not exist when it comes to the events in the life of a man who has had a profound affect, I believe, on history. But what I believe and what I know; what you believe and what you actually know about Jesus are in two different worlds. The distance between the pulpit and the academic chair of religion has been widening for at least two centuries. In fact for millions of men and women these days historicity is irrelevant to their beliefs. History has become, for those millions, what it was for Henry Ford: bunk or was it bunkum? Mel, you've given us a thriller. To hell with history! 5 out of 5.

As a sort of epilogue to this brief comment on the film: one of the main reasons I am a Baha'i is that historicity is important to me. In a religion that has grown up in the modern age historicity does not present major issues. At least not yet. The revelation of Baha'u'llah, confined as it is to only 6 million adherents, has grown slowly since the mid-nineteenth century.

The originating impulse for each of the major religions of history, an impulse that led to the phenomenon of revelation or some defining religious experience has receded so far into history as to be accessible to us in only a very limited and unsatisfactory degree. Far otherwise with the work of the Founder of the Baha'i Faith. The details of His life are massively documented. And one day film-makers will make films about this Life that draw on historical facticity, historical reality. But history has a thousand faces, a thousand forms, and Mel Gibson has given us some very stimulating ones in his film ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ They will serve for some of the millions who watched it to bring them closer to One whom Baha'u'llah said: when Christ was crucified the world wept with a great weaping.

1 The Historical Film: History and Memory in Media, editor, Marcia Pandy, the Athone Press, London, 2001.

Derwood · 09-12-2004, 07:42 PM

Just saw it tonight on DVD. I liked it (as much as you can like a film that is that hard to watch).

Only part I didn't like was Spoiler: All of the Satan imagery. It's not in the bible, and it was a bit over the top. I felt like saying "Okay, okay Mel, I get it. This guy is doing something evil. I'm with you buddy!" Didn't need to see Satan present every time someone was doing something against Jesus.

Don't think I could watch it again for awhile. The violence is very graphic, and though you ultimately get used to seeing Jesus as a bloody mess, there are still parts that I could barely watch. Hats off to Jim Caviezzel (sp?) as this role had to be extraordinarily draining both mentally and physically.

Rdr4evr · 09-12-2004, 08:09 PM

I thought it was absolute garbage. I did not find it moving in the least bit. It has that "if your not christian, you will burn in hell" message and that ruined it for me. I also think religion is absolute bullshit as well, so that factors in.

Derwood · 09-13-2004, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

I thought it was absolute garbage. I did not find it moving in the least bit. It has that "if your not christian, you will burn in hell" message and that ruined it for me. I also think religion is absolute bullshit as well, so that factors in.

Interesting POV, since I didn't feel that the movie was terribly skewed toward the spiritual side of things. I saw it more as a man who knew that dying in this manner would martyr him to his followers, and in doing so, propel his teachings farther and faster than he could do on his own.

Mr. Spacemonkey · 09-15-2004, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
It has that "if your not christian, you will burn in hell" message and that ruined it for me.

Wait a minute, are you sure you're thinking of the right movie!? Because I didn't get that message in the very least.

Amarth · 09-15-2004, 04:37 PM

I don't cry. I don't have emotion. But I cried at least 3 times during that movie. It was absolutely heartwrenching. It burns right through the soul.

Rdr4evr · 09-15-2004, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Spacemonkey

Wait a minute, are you sure you're thinking of the right movie!? Because I didn't get that message in the very least.

This isnt a spoiler really but several scenes that made me come this conclusion are Spoiler: the scene when the guy on the cross gets his eyes gouged by a crow just because he ridiculed Jesus. The man is nailed to a cross and he is supposed to be praising Jesus? He is going to burn in hell for that reason, yet the other guy who praises Jesus while on the cross gets a one way ticket to heaven. Or how about the devil children chasing whats his name till he hung himself. Or maybe Jesus' own words of "the only way to the lord is through me." Maybe you were watching the wrong movie.

MageB420666 · 09-15-2004, 04:56 PM

Haven't seen the movie and I don't want to.

inharmony · 09-15-2004, 05:03 PM

Will be renting this soon....know several ppl that have seen it, but I would like to have my own opinion.

Mr. Spacemonkey · 09-15-2004, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

This isnt a spoiler really but several scenes that made me come this conclusion are ..... Maybe you were watching the wrong movie.

Nope I was watching the same movie. And the two things you mentioned don't give me the impression that "if you're not christian, you will burn in hell." I did not think that was the point of the movie at all. The point of the movie was to show the story of a man who believed that by giving his life he would save humanity by dying for their sins. But then again, you did say that you felt that religion is absolute bullshit, so I'm not surprised you got that message from the movie.

Cynthetiq · 09-16-2004, 08:08 AM

just watched it the other day... i won't say masterpiece but having grown up reading the bible from cover to cover several times, it does cover that section very well and with good detail. I'm not sure about the authenticity of facts and such of the goods and garment available or the historical accuracies.

The tale is told well in a manner that the written word affected all those people back in the day has moved similar numbers in the new format of film.

I'll watch it again. The subtitles are always distracting to me the first go round.

03-16-2004, 07:15 AM	#123 (permalink)
NoLa Crazy Location: St.Louis, MO	Same here, I saw it a few days ago, very hard to watch. I don't think its the kind of movie that you keep going back to see. __________________ Through the warmest cord of care your love was sent to me I'm not sure what to do with it or where to put it

03-19-2004, 07:30 AM	#124 (permalink)
InTeGrA77 Psycho Location: the tangent universe	Its one of those movies that you HAVE to see once, but after that, you're done... I don't think that I could bare going back and watching it all over again. I mean, I didn't cry when I saw it, but there were a few times when it was pretty close (the end, when he's getting his hands nailed to the cross). Alls that I didn't was constantly wince and cringe during the part where they're just WAILING on him... This was the first time that after the movie is over, and everyone is supposed to clear out...everyone just sat there in silence, and stared at the screen. The people that I went with didn't even discuss it at all on the way home from the theater, we just kind of kept out own opinions to ourselves. There was quite a few people in the theater crying, and only 1 or 2 left, that I saw... So I definately recommend it, but I guess that you either love or or hate it, and I can see why theres so much controversy. __________________ 28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds...

08-25-2004, 02:29 AM	#125 (permalink)
RonPrice Upright Location: George Town Tasmania Australia	Film Review: The Passion of the Christ: The dust of reviews has settled on this film and so: the time has come, perhaps, for a more dispassionate, a more considered, a more reflective, little review---but no less provocative than the most provocative you’ve read thusfar.... THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST: A Film Review by Ron Price This film is not intended to be a masterful historical documentary as, say, Ken Burns' work on the Civil War or one of many others done in the first century of the existence of the cinema. Gibson's work is far from possessing what some might call an intellectual poverty in its pretensions at historical documentary. Shawn Rosenheim says all TV documentaries possess an intellectual poverty. If Rosenheim is right the visual media are simply incapable of producing historical documentary.1 Even if Rosenheim is wrong historical documentary of an event 2000 years ago is impossible. We simply do not know enough. We all know that Gibson did not take his camera crew to downtown Jerusalem in some kind of time-warp to produce an anti-Jewish, anti Roman clip for the evening news. Even if he had and he then produced for us all an evening two hour special, spectacle, called "the crucifixion," there would still be questions about visual manipulation and the program's service in the name of directing popular thought toward a new religious movement. New reliigous movements have always had trouble getting popular exposure. No one would claim that Gibson's is a neutral recording of objective events. It is a construct operating from a certain point of view. It is a rhetorical argument achieved through the selection and combination of elements that both reflect and project a world, a world view, a cosmology if you like. It is achieved by certain cinematic conventions that try to erase any signs of cinematic artificiality. An ideology is promoted by linking the effect of reality to social values and institutions in such a way that these values seem natural and self-evident. In the case of Mel Gibson's work, a work that I found quite stimulating in its own way, the ideology is simply and strongly: fundamentalist Christianity. I've never been attracted to Christianity in any of its fundamentalist forms. But I liked this film. Film can often get to people in ways that words, ideas and simple beliefs cannot. It was not because of its historical accuracy that I liked it. I liked All the Presidents Men and a number of other films based on and rooted in some historical theme. Rarely are historical films accurate; the main reason they seem so is that the people watching them know so little about the theme, the event, that it seems plausible to them. Sadly, but truly, we know so little about the events of the life of Jesus of Nazereth that a good script writer, a good cinematographer and a big band of men and women can bring something to life that may never have happened at all. Bertrand Russell wrote in his Why I'm Not a Christian that, in a court of law, there is little evidence for even the existence of Jesus let alone his manner of death. Historicity simply does not exist when it comes to the events in the life of a man who has had a profound affect, I believe, on history. But what I believe and what I know; what you believe and what you actually know about Jesus are in two different worlds. The distance between the pulpit and the academic chair of religion has been widening for at least two centuries. In fact for millions of men and women these days historicity is irrelevant to their beliefs. History has become, for those millions, what it was for Henry Ford: bunk or was it bunkum? Mel, you've given us a thriller. To hell with history! 5 out of 5. As a sort of epilogue to this brief comment on the film: one of the main reasons I am a Baha'i is that historicity is important to me. In a religion that has grown up in the modern age historicity does not present major issues. At least not yet. The revelation of Baha'u'llah, confined as it is to only 6 million adherents, has grown slowly since the mid-nineteenth century. The originating impulse for each of the major religions of history, an impulse that led to the phenomenon of revelation or some defining religious experience has receded so far into history as to be accessible to us in only a very limited and unsatisfactory degree. Far otherwise with the work of the Founder of the Baha'i Faith. The details of His life are massively documented. And one day film-makers will make films about this Life that draw on historical facticity, historical reality. But history has a thousand faces, a thousand forms, and Mel Gibson has given us some very stimulating ones in his film ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ They will serve for some of the millions who watched it to bring them closer to One whom Baha'u'llah said: when Christ was crucified the world wept with a great weaping. 1 The Historical Film: History and Memory in Media, editor, Marcia Pandy, the Athone Press, London, 2001. __________________ Ron Price is a retired teacher, aged 67(in 2011). He taught for 35 years and is now a writer and editor, a poet and publisher. He has been a Baha'i for 52 years(also in 2011)

09-12-2004, 07:42 PM	#126 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Just saw it tonight on DVD. I liked it (as much as you can like a film that is that hard to watch). Only part I didn't like was Spoiler: All of the Satan imagery. It's not in the bible, and it was a bit over the top. I felt like saying "Okay, okay Mel, I get it. This guy is doing something evil. I'm with you buddy!" Didn't need to see Satan present every time someone was doing something against Jesus. Don't think I could watch it again for awhile. The violence is very graphic, and though you ultimately get used to seeing Jesus as a bloody mess, there are still parts that I could barely watch. Hats off to Jim Caviezzel (sp?) as this role had to be extraordinarily draining both mentally and physically. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

09-15-2004, 04:56 PM	#132 (permalink)
MageB420666 <Insert wise statement here> Location: Hell if I know	Haven't seen the movie and I don't want to. __________________ Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

03-14-2004, 09:21 PM	#121 (permalink)
analog Banned	Just saw it. Incredibly powerful. Every movie I have ever seen, I have seen at least a half-dozen or more times. I will not need to see this movie again. Ever. It's burned in.

03-15-2004, 06:43 AM	#122 (permalink)
absorbentishe Boy am I horny today Location: T O L E D O, Toledo!!	Saw the movie yesterday. All I can say is wow, I left the theater emotionally drained. I think it was a great movie, but I don't think I'll ever see it again.

09-12-2004, 08:09 PM	#127 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	I thought it was absolute garbage. I did not find it moving in the least bit. It has that "if your not christian, you will burn in hell" message and that ruined it for me. I also think religion is absolute bullshit as well, so that factors in.

09-15-2004, 04:37 PM	#130 (permalink)
Amarth Loser Location: About 50,000 feet in the air... oh shit.	I don't cry. I don't have emotion. But I cried at least 3 times during that movie. It was absolutely heartwrenching. It burns right through the soul.

09-15-2004, 05:03 PM	#133 (permalink)
inharmony Psycho Location: happy place	Will be renting this soon....know several ppl that have seen it, but I would like to have my own opinion. __________________ "You can't shake hands with a clenched fist." Ghandi "Things do not change: We change" Henry David Thoreau

09-16-2004, 08:08 AM	#135 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	just watched it the other day... i won't say masterpiece but having grown up reading the bible from cover to cover several times, it does cover that section very well and with good detail. I'm not sure about the authenticity of facts and such of the goods and garment available or the historical accuracies. The tale is told well in a manner that the written word affected all those people back in the day has moved similar numbers in the new format of film. I'll watch it again. The subtitles are always distracting to me the first go round.