 |
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:19
|
|
.. and I can't figure out why so many people got outraged and all hyped up about it. To go so far as to bash Mel Gibson for it somehow.
Could someone explain me the major arguments made by those who say the movie was stupid? I don't see what's stupid about it.
Some say it was a splatter fest. Well.. are you supposed to put the last moments of Jesus nice? In my opinion and view of the world, greater is respect when the suffering is showed in its true nature, which is, suffering. I bet it wasn't a nice trip for him at the end, so why put it nice? So that the people wouldn't feel disgusted about it? What's the point of that? People should then choose the easy movies like comedies if they want to feel nice throughout the whole movie. I think it was kind of the point of the whole movie anyway, so it was done very good. It built up great for the whole crucifixing part, since even I was kind of like 'ohh.. so now it comes...', just watching it in silence, having a blank brain and no thoughts. Because you knew it wouldn't be 'not shown', because the whole movie up to that point was mostly him getting beaten up anyway, so put few big nails through the palms and ankle should be kind of painful too, the climax of the beating part.
I thought it was a great movie. But not a movie for children.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Nuclear
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
.. and I can't figure out why so many people got outraged and all hyped up about it. To go so far as to bash Mel Gibson for it somehow.
Could someone explain me the major arguments made by those who say the movie was stupid? I don't see what's stupid about it.
Some say it was a splatter fest. Well.. are you supposed to put the last moments of Jesus nice? In my opinion and view of the world, greater is respect when the suffering is showed in its true nature, which is, suffering. I bet it wasn't a nice trip for him at the end, so why put it nice? So that the people wouldn't feel disgusted about it? What's the point of that? People should then choose the easy movies like comedies if they want to feel nice throughout the whole movie. I think it was kind of the point of the whole movie anyway, so it was done very good. It built up great for the whole crucifixing part, since even I was kind of like 'ohh.. so now it comes...', just watching it in silence, having a blank brain and no thoughts. Because you knew it wouldn't be 'not shown', because the whole movie up to that point was mostly him getting beaten up anyway, so put few big nails through the palms and ankle should be kind of painful too, the climax of the beating part.
I thought it was a great movie. But not a movie for children. |
Some people say it portrays Jews in a negative light, but being as though I have not and will not see it, I can't really back that up.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:19
|
|
I am going to defend this movie against any arguments that it was too violent, or that it portrayed some people negatively. I guess the fariseuses were nice then? No they weren't. I guess there weren't any people in crowd, expecting a great kill spectacle and wanting to see some action? Of course there were. That doesn't make negative portray of Jewish people.
Who blames, truly blames, the killing of Jesus on them? I mean you have to be a bit of a nut to be pissed off about it to a whole bunch of people. I think that the common feeling is that humans as entire race is to blame and not to blame. If we are talking about censoring a movie because some people might get upset, well that's blasphmey beyond any of my nasty jokes and thoughts and deeds. What is more disrespectful than to censor what happened? That is blasphemy if something has to be. It's not a scene people are supposed to like. It was nasty what happened, so that's what it should be all about.
It's another movie if we want to see what he did in his life etc.. this was the last steps of his. Different thing.
It wasn't even that violent. He got some skin torn off, some whipping and the crown put on his head and crucifixion. According to what has been written, he was beaten up more than that, so that it was difficult to tell who he even was. It was brutal, but the whole act was even more brutal in real life. And people were brutal in those days and they still are.
That was common in those days. Brutality of punishments. Even today, you can go to DP fan gatherings, have waive your own signs and posters, scream in extacy how you wish the convicted will fry tonight, cheer, and not even know yourself what happened. Just assume. YOu read it from the papers. Someone said he is guilty. THus it's OK that you go there and cheer for it. This happens today. So don't tell me, that it was exaggarated that some people gathered to cheer for the killing of Jesus. It was even more backward days then, and sense of justice.
You tell me it didn't happen like that but was more easy, and I can't but wonder why you would make that claim. Or that it was too violent. Heck, it was violent. WHy would you censor, most of all if you believe in Jesus, why would you want it to be censored. I think it's important to show it as it was.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Well, it is important to realize that there is absolutely no reason to think that Gibson's recreation of Jesus's torture is at all accurate. All the Gospels say is that Jesus was scourged. No early source we have says, or implies in any way, that Jesus was flayed with the variety of nasty implements in the movie. That is all invention.
Gibson's movie is, in fact, manifestly a modern retelling of a medieval passion play. While these sorts of plays undoubtedly generated some genuine religious feeling, it is probably safe to say that their main purpose was not religious instruction so much as to put "bums on seats". Instead of dealing with the boring and inscrutable details of Jesus's moral teachings, they focus on the more exciting drama of his death---- frequently with an noticable focus on the whipping.
Passion of the Christ is unified in its artistic idea and is effective in presenting a passion narrative in an emotionally affecting manner. But I think critics are justified in pointing out that this is not a documentary---- it is a highly constructed story, with many fictional elements. It derives most of its impact from the long torture scene for which there is no strong testamentary evidence. Given this it is an arguable point whether the torture in this film is anything other than exploitative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Also, are you sure you saw the full version?
There are two, one which has five minutes of the most graphic torture cut out. Most critics were responding to the first, more graphic, version.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
Allow me 
quote:
Some say it was a splatter fest. Well.. are you supposed to put the last moments of Jesus nice? |
They've done it "nice" plenty of times in the past, so the audience had to use their imagination.
quote:
In my opinion and view of the world, greater is respect when the suffering is showed in its true nature, which is, suffering. |
Why is it respectful? I don't have to watch someone die violently (or any other way) to be respectful of what was just lost. It ain't how they died, its how they lived - that's what counts.
quote:
I bet it wasn't a nice trip for him at the end, so why put it nice? So that the people wouldn't feel disgusted about it? |
Umm...yeah...
quote:
What's the point of that? People should then choose the easy movies like comedies if they want to feel nice throughout the whole movie. |
To not be disgusted? Many do choose movies based on such sensibilities.
quote:
I think it was kind of the point of the whole movie anyway, so it was done very good. |
I'm not one to be offended by violence on TV but watching some guy get flayed for ~2 hours doesn't appeal to me.
quote:
Jews in negative light? What's that all about? |
Jews have been cast in a negative light for centuries culminating with the gas chambers, they're a bit sensitive to unpleasant images of Jews murdering God
quote:
It built up great for the whole crucifixing part, since even I was kind of like 'ohh.. so now it comes...', just watching it in silence, having a blank brain and no thoughts. Because you knew it wouldn't be 'not shown', because the whole movie up to that point was mostly him getting beaten up anyway, so put few big nails through the palms and ankle should be kind of painful too, the climax of the beating part. |
How do we know this even happened?
Hey, show some real respect and walk around smacking your head with a plank of wood like in Monty Python.
Last edited by Berzerker on 07-07-2005 at 07:32
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
This is my review of the film from IMDB. I wrote this right after watching the film on March 8, 2004.
A Two Hour Snuff Film
This could have been the greatest Jesus film ever made, if only we were allowed to get to know and identify with the character of Jesus first. It really needed another half hour to a full hour at the beginning to establish his character. I feel this was necessary so that we could sympathize with Jesus more easily when he is being scourged and tortured. If his character was established, I think we would have seen people breaking down in the theater with tears in the eyes, but instead it was more like spectators at a car accident.
We need to get to know Jesus first. Instead the `story' jump starts with his doubt in the Garden of Gesthemane and his subsequent arrest. I put `story' in quotes for a reason. There is no story. This is the greatest story ever told without the story. People who are not familiar with story of Jesus had no idea what was going on in this film and were totally aghast at this spectacle of horror and torture being performed for apparently no reason whatsoever. Mel Gibson is preaching strictly to the choir here. He is obsessed with the flesh. The mutilation of it, but not the spirit within it. This sort of mindless mutilation is far more at home in a David Cronenberg film. The only back story we get is a two or three minute flashback when Jesus was building a table and his mother tells him it is time to eat. There are a few other flashbacks, but they are all about the sermonizing and are very short. They illustrate nothing about the man or the sermons for that matter. When the crucifixion finally comes, it comes as a relief from the horror of the previous hour and forty five minutes and there is something fundamentally wrong with that.
Crucifixion was a barbaric form of execution, yet I could not wait for it since it would mean an end to Jesus' suffering and this terrible film. Watching this film is almost unbearable. If you want to watch a man be tortured non-stop for over two hours for absolutely no reason, and then watch him die slowly, you have found your film. Instead of a sympathetic portrait of a gentle man, we get a horror film. I felt dirty when I left the theater. We deserve better and the story of Jesus deserves better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
They've done it "nice" plenty of times in the past, so the audience had to use their imagination. |
Then there are plenty of options out there in the market now. If people want a nice, Disneyfied version they can find that. If they want what happened in a more graphic, realistic presentation, then Mel Gibson gave them that option.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Why is it respectful? I don't have to watch someone die violently (or any other way) to be respectful of what was just lost. It ain't how they died, its how they lived - that's what counts. |
Actually no, how Jesus died is actually important to the religion. How he lived gave us a groovy dude with some cool ideas about love that we should model our lives after. His death gave us the more spiritual, metaphysical things to actually believe in. Why did Jesus die? Because through it he destroyed death. Why did Jesus suffer? To prove the incredible extent to which God loves us. It actually is important.
And it does reinforce his teachings about love, forgiveness and peace. The fact that the son of God endured such brutality when at any point he could have called down God's wrath upon his tormenters shows the superhuman restraint and love he has. It is an impossible ideal for us to strive towards always. When Jesus said turn the other cheek, he really meant it. When he said love your enemy, he really meant it. His suffering and death was the ultimate test and proof of this.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
To not be disgusted? Many do choose movies based on such sensibilities. |
Good, as free people they have that choice.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
I'm not one to be offended by violence on TV but watching some guy get flayed for ~2 hours doesn't appeal to me. |
Then don't watch it.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Jews have been cast in a negative light for centuries culminating with the gas chambers, they're a bit sensitive to unpleasant images of Jews murdering God |
If it happened, it happened. It doesn't have any commentary on current day Jews, or even on all Jews at Jesus' time (he and all his supporters were obviously Jews too). It no more preaches hate against Jews than Schindler's List preaches hate against Germans.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-07-2005 04:23
.. I'm tired.. Freudian? Or Jesusian? I don't know why that happened..
After one hour, I was like Elaine watching The English Patient. Die! Die! Die!
Take a stand against me and you stand against THE TRUTH! VERITAS! TOTUUS!
|