Critics of "the Passion" switch gears

[The Laughing Man]

Before the movie was released, they condemned it as anti-Semetic sight-unseen. Then the movie was released. They finally saw it. The world finally saw it. Guess what? No anti-Semitism. Instead of apologizing for their lies, the critics have switched to other complaints instead. The primary complaint now is how violent the movie is. People who praised ultra-violent movies like "Kill Bill" and "Pulp Fiction" are saying that "the Passion" is the move violent movie they've ever seen. Come again? To be quite frank, these people are full of it. They have no interest in the film other than to criticize it. They're afraid of it and what it represents. Fortunately, as with the anti-Semitism charges, the average person who sees "the Passion" isn't going to agree with them.

[Ryokan]

Before the movie was released, they condemned it as anti-Semetic sight-unseen. Then the movie was released. They finally saw it. The world finally saw it. Guess what? No anti-Semitism. Instead of apologizing for their lies, the critics have switched to other complaints instead. The primary complaint now is how violent the movie is. People who praised ultra-violent movies like "Kill Bill" and "Pulp Fiction" are saying that "the Passion" is the move violent movie they've ever seen. Come again? To be quite frank, these people are full of it. They have no interest in the film other than to criticize it. They're afraid of it and what it represents. Fortunately, as with the anti-Semitism charges, the average person who sees "the Passion" isn't going to agree with them.
From what I've heard, The Passion has even more blood than Kill Bill. And Pulp Fiction wasn't really that violent compared to alot of movies. That said, it is unfair to criticise a movie just for being violent.

[AtheistArchon]

- Meh, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, The Passon... all bloody. Whaddya want with fiction? :teeth:

[Ryokan]

- Meh, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, The Passon... all bloody. Whaddya want with fiction? :teeth:
More sex. Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, and the Passion could use some gratutious nudity. :wink:

[Tfbandie]

First off, I really didn't think the passion was that violent (or, raather, more violent than other movies). Kill Bill was much more bloody, but it was cartoonish.
I don't know, I think it's people trying to demean the Passion for whatever personal reasons. Maybe I've become desensitized to violence and gore, but the Passion wasn't ultra violent to warrant such criticism

[Noesis]

So I saw it last night. I'll be on a diet of Adam Sandler movies for a year just to recover.

I can see how someone who has never read the gospels might think this is anti-semetic in the way it portrays the mob. But it also portrays the Romans as a bunch of neanderthal thugs too. I don't see how Christians seeing the movie would even notice the mob was Jewish or care. It is so not the point. On the other hand, Moslems, who regard Jesus as a great prophet, would, if they saw it, probably focus on the Christ-killing Jews theme.

I do think the portrayal of Pontius Pilate as an anguished nice guy who was too morally weak to stand up to the Jews was ridiculously sympathetic, certainly not a required interpretation from what little the gospels say. It reflects IMO the influence of non-canonical literature on the Catholic view of Pilate (the Abyssinian Church Canonized him a saint and has feast days for him and his wife Claudia Procula).

As to the gore: the difference between this and a fantasy like Kill Bill is the difference between a Road Runner cartoon and a snuff film. We are spared none of the real horror of scourging and crucifixion, and that was clearly the point of the film. It's designed to go for the emotions, and it left me shivering.

Other than that, I don't do well with subtitles. It made the movie less accessible for me.

Overall, this controversy is much ado about nothing, the main difference being an unrelentingly gritty and stark (probably most accurate we've seen) depiction of the times, such as wouldn't have made it past censors years ago. I think Gibson should be grateful for the unfounded controversy over anti-semitism, without which this could have easily been just an art-house film. It certainly won't replace "King of Kings" and "Jesus of Nazareth", at least not for me, and I would definitely adhere to the rating and leave the kids at home.

It is interesting to see how the pre-release critics are pulling a George Bush. Having seen the film and finding no SSDs, Scenes for Semite Defamation, they are now inventing other justifications for their attack ex post facto.

[Vorkosigan]

It is interesting to see how the pre-release critics are pulling a George Bush. Having seen the film and finding no SSDs, Scenes for Semite Defamation, they are now inventing other justifications for their attack ex post facto.

The film has been altered, Noesis, from the script that was leaked. A brilliant public relations ploy, that.

[Noesis]

The film has been altered, Noesis, from the script that was leaked. A brilliant public relations ploy, that.Wow! I'm impressed. That is real marketing savvy in action. Some will say altering it in the face of criticism was right, others will say it was wrong. others will assert it was a hoax to get more people in the seats. Any way the criticism flows, Gibson sold $125M worth of tickets in five days. I don't think any criticism will have much sting.

[Rahab]

I just came back from viewing the Passion ef the Christ. I recieved it thru the eyes of a christian. The theme of the Pharisees and mobs who were under their control was not so important to me. The Roman soldiers were not so important to me. I did not will to identify a human culprit. A spiritualy minded viewer would also notice the reoccurent theme of the presence of satan in various scenes. If any culprit to identify.

However the victory which is announced at the beginning as Christ "crushes the head of the serpent" in the Olive Garden is confirmed in the last scene.I was captivated by the ability of Gibson to send symbolic messages to remind the believer of spiritual warfare.


I was also moved by Gibson's projection on how important Miriam is.... I could sense his devotion to the catholic faith as he focuses on her resiliation to God's Will mixed with the agony of a mother following the last hours of her son. I related to her as a mother. Yet failed to comprehend her strength on the human level. The eye contact exchanges between her and Christ were particulary impressive. They seem to both strengthen one another.

I actualy valued the fact that original languages were used. I found myself repeating in my mind some of the words in Aramaic. It gave an authentic atmosphere to the film.
The lingering overall feeling or thought anchored in my being remains : none of us could have been worthy of such devotion on Christ's part.... yet He loved us so ,that He endured those last hours. Such sacrificial love can only be of divine origine.

[Piebald]

I don't know, I think it's people trying to demean the Passion for whatever personal reasons. Maybe I've become desensitized to violence and gore, but the Passion wasn't ultra violent to warrant such criticism

I'm with you, after having watched some great movies come out of hollywood - geisers of blood exploding out of people's torsos, women getting mutilated by samurai swords, the implication that a diseased newborn baby had to get shot in the face, people getting torn apart, cut in half, eaten, shot point blank in the head -- the violence in the Passion seemed really tame. The only part that made me cringe was when he had his arm pulled out of joint. Honestly, if you go to www.Rottentomatoes.com (http://www.Rottentomatoes.com) and read everyone who complains about the "NC-17" Level of violence in the Passion, it's enough to make you laugh out loud -- especially when you see the movies they did like. Apparently Jami what's-her-name from the New York Post has no problem with innocent people being torn apart and eaten, a baby getting shot in the face (-- Dawn of the Dead, she referred to it as "Wickedly gross" if I recall), but she'll be darned if she has to see someone get belted with a whip! I'm sure that in the majority of these reviews there was no political motivation for calling a movie sure to get those darn fundies inspired "pornographic." :wink:

[AtheistArchon]

- I think there's a implication with The Passion that isn't there in other gory movies, and that makes people cringe more: The Passion is portrayed as historical. The man that created it believes it really happened, and most of the people who see it share that belief. Dawn of the Dead and Kill Bill... those movies are presented as fiction right off the bat. People go 'eeek' but it doesn't sit with them that it's supposed to reflect reality. That's not the case with Passon.

- Now, personally, I haven't seen it, and I doubt I will ever be interested. But if I did, I would be watching it from the same standpoint of your average moviegoer watching DotD. It's a movie, an old story, Hollywood fiction, nothing more. So it probably wouldn't be anything but a blip on the radar. But for believers? I can see why it might freak them out.

[Blemonds]

- I think there's a implication with The Passion that isn't there in other gory movies, and that makes people cringe more: The Passion is portrayed as historical. The man that created it believes it really happened, and most of the people who see it share that belief. Dawn of the Dead and Kill Bill... those movies are presented as fiction right off the bat. People go 'eeek' but it doesn't sit with them that it's supposed to reflect reality. That's not the case with Passon.

- Now, personally, I haven't seen it, and I doubt I will ever be interested. But if I did, I would be watching it from the same standpoint of your average moviegoer watching DotD. It's a movie, an old story, Hollywood fiction, nothing more. So it probably wouldn't be anything but a blip on the radar. But for believers? I can see why it might freak them out.
Are you denying that Jesus is a historical character or are just that His crucifixion is a historical event? Which is it, you haven't been clear.

[AtheistArchon]

Are you denying that Jesus is a historical character or are just that His crucifixion is a historical event? Which is it, you haven't been clear.

- Neither, just that there's a connection between some guy being crucified (as happened frequently) and a god of some sort. It certainly could have happened, but I see no reason to believe it did, or if it did that it was at all significant.

- Jesus is portrayed in The Passion as, well, the son of god. A prophet. Blah blah. Virgin birth and all that Egyptian-originated stuff. That's what I don't believe in.

- Hmm, actually now that I've said that, I suppose "Jesus as a historical character" is right, I don't believe it if the character is said to perform miracles and such.

[Socrates]

From what I've heard, The Passion has even more blood than Kill Bill.
Nah -- splattered blood always looks like there's more than there is.

[Socrates]

Before the movie was released, they condemned it as anti-Semetic sight-unseen. Then the movie was released. They finally saw it. The world finally saw it. Guess what? No anti-Semitism. Instead of apologizing for their lies, the critics have switched to other complaints instead. The primary complaint now is how violent the movie is. People who praised ultra-violent movies like "Kill Bill" and "Pulp Fiction" are saying that "the Passion" is the move violent movie they've ever seen. Come again? To be quite frank, these people are full of it. They have no interest in the film other than to criticize it. They're afraid of it and what it represents. Fortunately, as with the anti-Semitism charges, the average person who sees "the Passion" isn't going to agree with them.
Whaddya expect? Just think of the Aesop fable of the wolf and lamb -- any excuse will serve a misochristic bigot.

[AtheistArchon]

Just think of the Aesop fable of the wolf and lamb -- any excuse will serve a misochristic bigot.

- Irony meter: 2573 ironicrons. And counting.

[EvoUK]

It seemed pretty self-explanatory to me that the hype to do with the movie was a ploy to get it more popular with the masses. Nothing will work better than a so-called scandel, such as anti-seminism.

Personally, I don't think the movie was worthy of such critisism- I didn't think it was anti sematic, nor did I think it was that bloody- it just wasn't that good a movie alround- and that's what it should have been critisised for. IMO naturally.

[EvoUK]

Whaddya expect? Just think of the Aesop fable of the wolf and lamb -- any excuse will serve a misochristic bigot.

Quaint. It's back.

[Losvedir]

Heh... when I saw it I felt kinda bad because I was torn between witnessing the crucifixtion of my Savior in an authentic way, and marvelling at Monica Bellucci's beauty...

[ChrisChillin]

You are not alone...

[EvoUK]

marvelling at Monica Bellucci's beauty
Yes, she is definantly a MILF...

[Bob Jenkins]

Before the movie was released, they condemned it as anti-Semetic sight-unseen. Then the movie was released. They finally saw it. The world finally saw it. Guess what? No anti-Semitism. Instead of apologizing for their lies, the critics have switched to other complaints instead. The primary complaint now is how violent the movie is. People who praised ultra-violent movies like "Kill Bill" and "Pulp Fiction" are saying that "the Passion" is the move violent movie they've ever seen. Come again? To be quite frank, these people are full of it. They have no interest in the film other than to criticize it. They're afraid of it and what it represents. Fortunately, as with the anti-Semitism charges, the average person who sees "the Passion" isn't going to agree with them.

Is this Pol Sci?

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23804 no longer applies?

[Amazing Rando]

Is this Pol Sci?

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23804 no longer applies?

Bob, check your date stamps. Jinx posted that over a month ago.

[Bob Jenkins]

Bob, check your date stamps. Jinx posted that over a month ago.
My "bad"

[Gilgaron]

While there are other gory movies out there, I wouldn't put those Tarantino movies very high. When the Bride cuts off someone's arm in Kill Bill, a ridiculous amount of blood fountains out removing any sense of realism.

When Jesus was getting whipped, you could see tissue layers and hear sounds of rending flesh. It was all designed to make that gore more realistic and heavy hitting.

This difference is intentional, and I don't think the approaches Tarantino and Gibson take with blood in their movies is comparable. It's like comparing Braveheart's battle scenes with Monty Python's Black Knight from the Holy Grail.

That said, I'm getting tired of all of the hubbub about the Passion. I didn't see anti-semitism in it, a bunch of the jews seemed to disagree with what was going on. I think the gore overshadowed the message; in Gibson's Braveheart Wallace gets tortured severely and it is as engrossing without the distraction of overpowering disgust. It was an okay movie, and that's all that needs to be said.

[Xmansmommy]

I haven't read this thread through and I probably won't....but I can assure you there is just as much if not more blood and gore in "House of a Thousand Corpses" or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". :doh: Those are some SICK movies. :eww:

[Twilly Spree]

I haven't seen it. I don't do well with gore and blood. Not at all. I have seen Kill Bill though, seeing the 2nd one tonight. That is entirely different than a movie like the Passion. I know that I would spend a majority of the Passion with either my eyes covered or out in the lobby. I find it difficult to watch the tidbits on TV.

[EvoUK]

Odd- I don't even remember what I posted... I can't believe it was that different from my other posts on the passion...

[Pate]

- I think there's a implication with The Passion that isn't there in other gory movies, and that makes people cringe more: The Passion is portrayed as historical. The man that created it believes it really happened, and most of the people who see it share that belief.

Hmm.. Gibson's previous movie "Braveheart" was also a violent movie based on a historical character and it was probably less accurate historically, even if we judge the historical worth of gospels by rather sceptical standards. But I didn't hear those same people complaining about it.

[EvoUK]

Hmm.. Gibson's previous movie "Braveheart" was also a violent movie based on a historical character and it was probably less accurate historically, even if we judge the historical worth of gospels by rather sceptical standards. But I didn't hear those same people complaining about it.

Difference being that Braveheart wasn't portrayed as a historical piece- merely the wallace myth being a good subject to make a movie on.

So what is the difference between Wallace from Jesus? Why are we more skeptical of Jesus than Wallace? The biggest factor is that the stories of Wallace never claimed him to be metaphysical, the Son of God, or resurrected.

[yxboom]

Odd- I don't even remember what I posted... I can't believe it was that different from my other posts on the passion...
An obscene reference to one of the female leads in the movie, ring a bell?

[EvoUK]

Eh? Was that it? *shrugs*

I rarely use in the american pie way anyways- you do know that it existed prior to that movie, and that the original wasn't so crude?