Please don't let this turn into a religion debate as it will be closed by the mods.

I urgently want to talk about this movie. Curious as to why some people bash it even before they have seen it themselves.

I am hoping to see it this Sunday(only time I can get somebody to watch our son).

And I'd want to see a movie that's reportedly MORE violent than "Pulp Fiction" because....? Reports are that over 100 minutes of the 2 hours are devoted to showing Christ having violence done to him. Yum! Popcorn with that?

So do you form your opinion of all movies based on the words of others?

How else to avoid crap like "Gigli"? I'm not wasting my time or my money on something I don't want to watch.

Plan to see LOTR 3 this weekend, though!

I plan on seeing it at some point myself, and if you don't mind, Sleeper, I'd like to add an additional question to your thread asking people who want to see it for their reasons. My own reason is that this movie seems to be a very powerful movie, one that evokes strong emotion in people. I've seen and heard a lot of people who have pre-viewed the movie and all of them have very strong opinions about it, good and bad. Almost nobody I've heard has a "ah, it was an ok movie, no big deal though" kind of a review. One thing I have heard from all sides though is that if you don't know the story of the Gospel, don't bother with the movie - you won't understand it.

Good question.
I will not see this in the theater, though I may view it on home video when it is released. My reasoning, and I'll admit it is a bit unfair, has nothing to do with the artistic merit of the film (although I am not a fan of Gibson's hyperbolic grand guignol style as seen in Braveheart): the audience this seems to be made for frankly scares me and I'd rather not be in a dark auditorium with them.
I am not talking about Christians in general, the focus on violence this film apparently displays reminds me of those fundamentalist "hell houses". The audience that would want to see the violent torture of Jesus rather than the sermon on the mount...

I very much want to see this movie. The whole controversy is kind of funny in a way - it reminds me of the hoopla surrounding the release of The Last Temptation of Christ. Of course in that case, the uproar was by a lot of conservative Christians who apparently had absolutely no clue about the basics of Kazantzakis' Liberation Theology, and thought (wrongly) that the movie was heretical. This time, it's just another group of people who think the movie is bad. Whatever. The story of Christ is so compelling, whether or not you believe it is true. It has elements which speak to us on such deep levels - particularly the idea of ultimate sacrifice, of betrayal, of yearning and redemption.

As for your question, sleeper, that was the same question I was asking when the Last Temptation came out.

Is the movie going to be biased toward a particular theology? Well duh. That goes without saying.

One thing that strikes me about the level of violence in the movie - I'm betting that the same people defending this movie would be decrying it if it had been made by someone who is a known atheist. Maybe not, but if you are going to depict graphically and intensely the violence against Jesus, it helps if you are coming from a position of devotion!

I'm going to be particularly interested in what my grandfather thinks of this movie, as he happens to be a fairly well-known theologian and an Aramaic scholar. If I get any feedback from him, I will be sure to post it here!

Unless my husband wants to see this (he might), I don't. I can't stand violence without some sort of comic relief. I know the story, I'm certain it will be very well done...but this isn't my style of viewing material.

So many counting it out already, eh?

Heck, even if I wasn't interested in how the crucifixtion is depicted, I'd go just to see what the fuss was about (then again I watch a lot of movies...)

Violence in movies doesn't bother me much (as long as it's in "good taste") so bring it on. If Kill Bill can be a hit...

The opposition to the movie is rooted in the impotent wailings of a group of people who dislike any (non-satirical, they loved Dogma ) depiction of religion, especially Christianity. It all started with an editorial in the NYT by a Mr. Frank Rich claiming Gibson was a "jew-baiter."(I'll find that link in a bit...). A charge largely debunked but still perpetuated by Times in an attempt to kill the film.

It snowballed after O'Reilly picked it up and the media bided its time until release week.

It's easy to see in some of the more vitriolic reviews (one on NPR's "Fresh Air" was particularly egregious, claiming the controversy was all orchestrated by Gibson, and then of course, slamming the film)

Whine, whine...

Yes, I am going to see this movie for three reasons:

1. My husband is Jewish, so over the years I've
experienced some of the religious and cultural aspects of Judaism.

2. Most of my family are Christians, and as a child I
attended Sunday School, so my first experience with religion was
learning about Christ.

3. Last Fall I took a History of Religions class that covered
the major religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Chrisitianity and Islam.
So, from an historical point of view it will be interesting to see what the
perspective of the movie is.

I'm supposed to go see it tonight. If so, I'll give my two cents worth.

One point I see glossed over by those criticizing the movie on this issue--although this may be more violence than you desire to see, is it not in fact accurate? I bring this up because I think accuracy was an important element in the idea behind the film--to downplay this aspect to appeal to sensibilities would have negated the very reason the film was made. Is it OK to decide not to see it because of the level of violence? ABSOLUTELY! But I don't think that detracts from its importance to the film. In fact, I suspect the level of violence enhances its religious aspects--can one truly appreciate the sacrifice Jesus made without understanding exactly what it entailed? I don't think so, and I think it was just this concept that was the driving force behind the film.

I'll catch it when it comes to the video rental market. I've read the books, so I know the story.

Crucification is a horrible death than many Roman subjects suffered. It was done to keep the masses in line.

But that's not the theologically important part. The Ressurection makes Jesus' death important. Otherwise, he was just another Zealot nabbed by the Romans for their immense pleasure.

The suffering was horrible. I know that and don't really need a graphic depiction, but the film might have something else to offer besides blood, gore, pain and death.

Actually, that is one of the most common criticisms of the film. Firstly it is excessively violent, but moreover, this is NOT reflected in the Gospels. In most of the Gospels the torment of Christ is either mentioned breifly or not at all. In all four Gospels, the scourging of Christ takes up a total of three lines, the movie does it in 12 blood-filled minutes. The brutality in the actual gospels is hinted at to be sure, but certainly nowhere near the extent that Gibson has 'Bravehearted' it up to be.

That's a bit presumptuous don't you think? I don't think it's fair to guess how long the scourging and other mocking took by how many lines it takes up. It's not like the Gospels where counting minutes (likely most of the disciples where giving the place a wide berth....)

Artistic license and all that nonsense...

The complaints about the violence are less routed in theological concerns that fear that it dominated the movie and may take away form it, I think (since much of the media is in attack-mode and reviews are suspect) I just check it out for myself.

I will see but I do not expect to like it much. It seems to me like it will be like the movie Dead Man Walking, socially important to watch, but not very entertaining and even difficult to watch.

Gibson definitely has a hit on his hands. I like the idea of a modern take on this subject. Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell are getting old.

In my opinion, I believe the secular portion of the population and the media is attacking this movie because they fear it will lead people to turn to reading the Bible or more attending church.

I went through and read each Gospel that was written about this account so I could familiarize myself with what I should expect.

I plan to see the movie as well, hopefully this weekend.

Be forewarned: The brutality must be horrific, a woman had a heart attack and passed away while viewing the film.

No, I dont think it is presumptuous. It was clearly not a focus of the gospels, yet it is the primary focus of the movie. If one of the four gospels does not mention his torment at all, and two of them mention it only in passing, it is not presumptuous to assume that the original writers did not feel this was the most important part of the tale.

Gibson spends so much time massacring Christ that it goes way beyond making the point he is being tormented, and turns into a nearly pornographic display of blood, far more blood than the human body holds, by the way.

No the gospels were not counting minutes, they were focussing on other parts of the tragic tale.

Of course, it's not the focus of the gospels you and I have already admitted that (I implicitly by accepted your statement that is was only three lines).

Your claim was this:


Not that it wasn't a focus of the gospels (something readily apparent) but that the amount of violence inflicted on Jesus was "no where near" the amount reflected in the Bible.

I pointed out that the Biblical account does not go into detail on this note, and therefore your assumption is largely unfounded.

Gibson chose to focus on this portion of the Bible, expanding it into a film, it's not about the Gospel of Christ, just his execution (events which have been known to include violence every once and a while...)

Does that mean Gibson is saying this in the most important part of the Bible, round up the psychics and let's find out.


How did you come to this conclusion?

Roger Ebert gave it a "thumb ... way up", but cautioned that the movie was not for children.

I don't watch many movies in the theaters, and I probably will not see this one unti it is out on DVD.

EDIT:

A range of quick reviews:

Yes, it's a conspiracy! OMG!! Someone might actually see all that violence and then WANT to read the Bible!! LOL!!!!!



Hmm.. and I'd want to see a 2-hour bloody execution, because...??

Still convinced that LOTR 3 is the better choice for this weekend's guilty movie pleasure.

You Might Not Want to Take Your Children

One thing that turns me off to Christianity is the behavior of some adult Christians where there seems to be no sensitivity on how the violence in religion could affect young minds.

But hey, there's no sex in this movie. So where's the problem?

As usual I take no stab at the final goal of the media critics, but how do explain the vitriol from the New York Times and other?

As far as motivation I say... irrational contempt for religion and the religious.


A million reasons depending on how well everyone does their job, I'll put them all under the heading of artistic value.

What makes you say that? I frequently ridicule The Ten Commandments, not for its religious content or implications for my faith, but for the fact that it is in my opinion one of the least watchable movies ever made, it is long, poorly acted, strangely casted, horribly directed and aggressively edited to the point of laughability.

Why is it so hard to believe that the motivations of film critics regarding this film are in fact based on their experience as film critics?

Excellent question!

Because of the anger in the text of some reviews and the coverage surronding them. After the New York Times runs an editorial that claims Gibson is trying to bait Jews, a claimed denied by many Jews who have seen the film did anyone really expect a positive review?

The LA Times ran attack editorials as well (net's on the fritz a bit so I'll edit in later)
their review? grrrr...

An interview run by NPR (some "Slate" reviwer) claimd Gibson orchestrated the controvery, I suppose he payed Frank Rich to call him a jew-baiter and the Pope to say "it is as it was" , eh?

I posted an article where the NYT continues to perpetuate the claim of anti-Semitism.

Don't misunderstand, I dont think all of the reviews are religiously motivated, but some of the most prominent are just sick.

There are a number of hokey Christianity movies, I agree, I've seen far too many.

I see somebody has seen it, would you mind giving us an idea of your personal feelings on the movie?

I saw it last night and it certainly lived up to all th hype about the graphic part. But is was in historical context which, even my squeamish wife, had to agree made it bearable.

Its funny how the same movie critics who loved historically violent themes like Saving Private Ryan and Schindlers list, suddenly abhor the violence of this movie. Makes me suspicious of their intent.

Yeah, I cried. As much for the subject matter as mans inhumanty against their fellow man.

I was riveted, saddened and, at the end, joyous.

I'm sorry, but what could possibly make you come to such a conclusion?!? Do you honestly believe that most atheists/agnostics care if more people read the Bible, if that is even an outcome of the film? You are merely slinging mud here. It's facile to assume that those who disagree with you are criticizing this film out of some fear that it will lead more people to Christ. Such a non-reason! Moreover, you are creating (or rather, perpetuating) a divisiveness which is purely artificial. We unwashed heathens may not want governmentally imposed religion interfering with our lives, but that doesn't mean we are jealously paranoid about 'losing' fellow secularists to evil grip of Christianity! Indeed, there is a much larger vocal minority of Christians who get paranoid about cultural ideas or traits leading people away from religion, than there is a vocal minority of atheists who are raising hell about people being deluded into religious belief.

There are plenty of atheists on this board; yet none of them are saying this, nor is it evident that any of them are even hinting at this as a subtext!

One of the flimsiest (actual) criticisms of the film that I have heard is the antisemitic critique. Some people must not have read the Bible closely enough! Of course it was the Jews who clamoured for Jesus' death. But it wasn't persecution of Christians, since Christianity was non-existent at the time - Jesus was born a Jew, lived and taught as a Jew, and yes, died without renouncing his Judaism AT ALL.

Such weak criticisms are as flimsy and ignorant as the criticisms certain Christian groups were levelling against The Last Temptation of Christ; of course they couldn't be bothered to actually read any of Kazantzakis' theological texts, which formed the basis of his novel, which was centered around the oft-ignored point that Jesus was fully man, and fully God at the same time...

First off, I have not seen it, but I want to. Probably sometime this weekend.

Gibson has vocally stated he exaggerated the violence for effect. However, if Gibson was going for realism, why the extensive use of slow motion? Slow motion can be an amazingly suspenseful filmic effect (see Panic Room for excellent use of slo-mo), but when used to emphasize the importance of a scene, it becomes pretentious. All the local film critics here in Utah gave the film mediocre ratings, including the Deseret News critic (the Deseret News being a newspaper owned by the LDS Church). "Cranky Critic," an online film critic whom I respect, has said that if you look at this film as an adaptation of a book, it fails. You can't remove the character development, the plot, and the story and still expect people to pay to see it. Nevertheless, since so many people are familiar with the "greatest story ever told," perhaps a little slack is in order.

How is someone supposed to understand the sacrifice Jesus Christ made if that backstory is left out? With so much usage of slow motion, one would think Gibson could have used that extra time to expand the story.

All that said, I am going in with as much of an open-mind as I can muster. It's rather hard when you are deluged with pre-release stories. Do I think Gibson orchestrated the controversy? Not entirely, but I think he did help it along. Controversy always gains interest in a film. Do I believe Christ was the saviour of mankind? No. I'm going to see this movie as a film lover, a movie based on a book. Just as I would any other movie based on a book.



Sorry to pick just one aspect of your response, Quark, but I have to agree with this sentiment. Here in Salt Lake City, many LDS-themed films are released into theaters. The big multiplexes will show them on two or three screens. We have had "The R.M.", "God's Army", "Brigham City", "Out of Step", "The Two Best Years", etc.

Recently, the film "Latter Days" was going to open in theaters here. But due to the Eagle Forum (a very conservative, usually LDS-complimentary group) threatening to picket the theaters showing the film, local theaters have decided not to run the film. Of course, they say it is because "Latter Days" just isn't a very good movie. I ask them, "Did they watch 'The R.M.'?" What frightens Christians so much? Is their faith so flimsy that a simple movie criticizing their religion is blasphemous and must be protested? I don't get it.

Whoops, sorry, got religious there. Many apologies. Now, back to the topic at hand...

I watched the movie on opening night. I thought it held true to the Gospel accounts of the crucifixation. The violence depicted was no more than any standard hollywood offering. It was very well acted, and it gave a good idea of the kind of man Jesus was, God made man in actuality. Mel Gibson has done a wonderful job of making a movie.

In response to quark...

There has to be a reason the secular community and media are bashing this film, even before its release. Why else would they, just because they want it to do badly? There is always an underlying reason.

I truly like to look at something from both sides. But those bashing it without even viewing it are obviously not giving each side a fair chance.

I have looked boths sides of the story of Christ. From 'the last Temptation of Christ' to The Da Vinci Code(fiction:but some information about Christ which introduces the idea of Jesus being married and having a child in the story line), and thought both were very well done. And now I want to see Gibson's movie, to compare to the others. If this isn't objective then I don't know what is

The agnostic members here may have not conveyed the sentiment I expressed earlier, but they are not representative of the secular segment of our population.


And amf I loved all The Lord of the Rings. The books, the cartoon, and the Movies done by Peter Jackson.

Yeah, you know us seculars... or maybe, just maybe we "fear" it will lead to unnecessary violence and hostility between Jews and Christians?

I'm not "attacking" the movie at all, and for you to blame the criticism of the movie on the "secular portion of the population" is absurd. The only people I've witnessed criticizing this movie have been Jewish, not secular.
As a secular person, I couldn't care less how many people read the Bible, and more people reading it is in no way a "threat to fear." Hey, the more people who read it, the greater probability that more people will realize how foolish it is and come to the secular side.

Your accusation that the "secular portion of the population and the media" have been attacking this movie is completely unfounded.

Attacks disguised as movie reviews like this one are proof enough.

Some quotes from the 'review'





Noooo.. Those aren't attacks at all..

I figure if I can deal with Kill Bill Vol. 1 watching Christ being slowly beaten to death should be a walk in the park.

An excellent source for a cross-section of reviews, pro and con can be found at Rotten Tomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ThePassion...Christ-1129941/

I didn't care much for The Last Temptation of Christ and Martin Scorcese is a much better director than Mel Gibson. I don't plan to see the flick until it reaches the second-run theaters.

Hey, it's not like I don't know how the story ends.

But first of all, you are leaping to conclusions a bit. One, it's not the 'secular community and media' bashing this film. Do you have any proof that the critics of this film are secular? I suspect that there are as many reasons for criticism as there are critics. Now, I, like you, want to keep some level of objectivity here - I am sure that there are some critics of this film who are against it merely because it is religious; but I have yet to read a review which feels this way to me.

I don't think there HAS to be an underlying reason (of the type you mention) for criticizing a movie. Someone might criticize The Matrix because they didn't like it, or because it is too violent; it doesn't have to be because they fear it will lead to more people believing reality is an artificial construct.

And to the poster who said that Jesus Christ, Superstar is getting old: shame on you!!! Have you seen the latest production film? It is awesome, and in my opinion superior to the original film version. Check out the voice of Caiaphas in the new one. Unbeatable!!!

I haven't seen it yet but I hope to soon. I want to see it on the big screen!

I would consider myself Agnostic yet, like Quark stated, the story of Christ is compelling. I will view this movie with an open mind and closed eyes during the really violent scenes. Knowing me I will probably never want to see the movie again. American History X was another movie I could never watch again (because of that one horrific scene) but its story stayed with me forever. I suspect that the same will happen when I view this movie.

Overall, what I have seen, in the previews, it appears to be a well made and gripping movie.

First of all, Sleeper, the article was written by a Jew.

Dictionary.com defines secular as: "Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music."

Judaism isn't a religion? That's news to me. All your example did was reaffirm my statement that the criticisms of the movie are mainly coming from the Jewish community and not the secular. The author may not be a big fan of Christianity, but even being anti-Christian (I'm not saying the author is, but if he were) does in no way imply secular. Your comment implied that the secular community is responsible for most of the outcry against the movie, because of the irrational belief that we care if people read the Bible or not. And then to back up your declaration, you link an article written by someone of the Jewish religion. Nice try, but no, that in no way supports your conclusion. Care to try again?

Those are pretty standard tones for film critics who are panning a film. Here's what Roger Ebert, a pretty well respected film critic has said about several films:







The only difference in sentiment that I can see between your selected passages is that you happen to like the movie these people are criticizing; and they are spoken by the "liberal" media which you rail against when they say something you disagree with.

I will definitely be seeing the movie with my parents. I don't expect to be too impressed. I'm already familiar with the story, and I doubt it will introduce any thought-provoking or surprising twists. I expect it to be filled with gratuitous displays of violence and religiosity. Not that there's anything wrong with that. That's its role.

I'll probably see this when it comes out on video, there are a number of other things I want to go to see at the cinema around the same time, and my local cinema is 25 miles down the road so I only go once a month usually. I am curious, though, and would never write off a movie before I've seen it myself.

I have seen it (I manage a movie theater and we screen all films prior to showing them to the public to ensure the film is assembled correctly and there were no errors in it's physical production) and felt that it was a very powerful film. I saw a man who believed in what he was doing and was willing to die for it. I saw his friends and family being impacted by the actions of the ruling power. It is difficult to watch at times as it is very bloody and graphic. It's a historical reenactment, and so it is necessary to show the brutality and methods that were used. It is not violent just for the sake of being violent, it has a purpose. I would recommend the film to everyone, as it is well made. I would recommend watching it yourself before taking your children to see it, the violence is extreme, to make sure you think your children are mature enough emotionally to handle it.

BTW, we have shown the film 6 times over the last 2 days and it has sold out all 6 shows. No protestors to speak of. At midnight last night we had 2 people sleeping in front of the building, waiting to buy tickets for tomorrow's shows when we open at 10:30 in the morning! On a local level, I have not heard a single negative word about it.

You're right. There is an underlying reason for secular "bashing" of this film. I have not seen the film, so I'm not bashing it, but I do know the story it relates, I have read "the book". One of the reasons I probably won't like it:

To those of us who don't believe in supernatural beings - all the bible is to us is just a story. It's an epic story, but overall, as far as stories go - it's not a very interesting story. At least to us youngins who have far more interesting epic stories to enjoy (Lord of the Rings, The NeverEnding Story, Star Wars, Beowulf, The Canterbury Tales, etc). Of course "interesting" is all subjective, but to me the story about someone having to die for others' sins is kinda a boring plot. It does speak a bit towards "ideal" human nature, but as far as fables go - the lesson isn't very profound. If you look at this film as just a scene from a literary play - the violence doesn't mean anything to me. It isn't inspiring. So what is left? Just the fragment of a plot and a lot of blood.

Do you know David Edelstein personally? Just because someone has a Jewish name does not mean they are practicing the Jewish faith.

Almost a year prior the New York Times printed a piece from Frank Rich which lambasted Gibson for The Passion, calling him a jew-baiter.

No, I don't know him personally, so I cannot verify that he is Jewish. Nor can you verify that he's secular.

Are you going to address any of my points about the so-called epidemic of secular citizens attacking this movie, or turn this into a side debate about the religious nature of that article?

You stated that the secular community is responsible for the attacks on this film. I called you on that completely unsubstantiated claim. You responded with a link to a single article, written by someone with a Jewish last name. In that article, he displays his "secularism" and "anti-Christian agenda" by the following phrase you identified as an "attack" on Christianity: "I know, it sounds like a Monty Python movie. You're thinking there must be something to The Passion of the Christ besides watching a man tortured to death, right? Actually, no: This is a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it's an act of faith." I don't see how that comment is in any way, shape, or form an "attack on Christianity." It does make light of the most prominent figure of Christianity, but that doesn't qualify as an "attack" on the entire religion.

You still have yet to prove your claim that the secular community is responsible for the criticisms of this movie. Instead of harping over the religious identity of that one author of that single article in which he said nothing "anti-Christian," surely you can provide many, many more valid links to prove this abundance of the secular agenda?

I do hope I can have the opportunity to see it in the theatre. It's been years since I've even been inside a theatre. I'm the type that would rather spend the money on a DVD than just go watch it one time in the theatre.

I'm interested in going to watch it for the audience reaction and also to see it on the large screen. Though being in packed audience is not something I care for.

Also, in case this thread does get closed or you want to discuss this on a religious angle, there is a thread at my forum to discuss the movie.

Well since I'm not of the Christian faith, and haven't read any of the gospels, I think I'm going to skip this flick even though they say it's filled with gore. Staying home and renting the Lion King 1.5 should be fun enough for me and my lady. (I hope Simba kills something )
Anyways, those of you that who plan on seeing "The Passion..." should call your theater first to see if any shows are still available. Here in MA & CT a lot of theaters are already booked out of tickets. (one of them has been sold out since release) Just a heads up for y'all.

Whoa! I just listened to a converstion Rush had with James Caviezel, the actor who played Christ in this movie and it was incredible. The things that this actor went through while making the movie, including being struck by lightning at one point, would make in themselves, a fascinating movie. Another reason for me to want to see it I think.

For those who want more info on Jesus being struck by lightning here's the link:
I hope this doesn't mean god won't be seeing it.
Lightning struck the same crew twice, ain't that against the laws of physics?

If links are what you want....


http://www.ravingatheist.com/

http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_2644.shtml

posting these now... have to get back to work... will post many more


Edit: I was going to post some more links then I started to think.. this is starting to become too much of a debate about Religion vs secular. I don't want to see this thread closed so I will cease..

Has Gibsen, or any one else said why this film was made? Why does it only focus on the Passion?