Will a recut Passion still stir debate?

Hey come on, somebody needs to keep an eye on those wacky freemasons.

 

Exactly. No shame in making a movie to make $$. I would hazard a wild guess and claim that that is why, in fact, movies are made.

Cutting 6 minuts from the film probably costs pennies and the "new" version will generate a nice profit.

Michael Moore made a load of $$ too from his movies. While I have my own negative feelings toward the man, he has every right to keep every penny he made.

Did he donate large sums of $$ to charitable organizations?

 

I'm actually a fan of Gibson's and really loved Braveheart, along with much of his other work. This sort of flick just isn't my cup of tea. Braveheart had quite enough gore, and this film far surpassed it, from what I've read. And I don't dislike the subject matter, really. I'm a fan of some of the epic biblical films of the '50's, like Ben Hur. Mel just went off the deep end with The Passion, imo. I find the reaction to it a bit distasteful as well, but that's just me being me.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

I've got no problem with making money, but I mean when you re-release a film, it's usually an anniversary event or a Director's Cut. This film has been cut back and released a year later. The purpose of movies is art, the studio is in it for the money. If you can make your art profitable, that is all gravy. But this is kind of hard to not be skeptical of. I mean what's the point of releasing this again? It's still rated R, so it's not like they cut out much.

 

how do you know if you haven't seen it???

honestly...given the hype about how bloody it was...i was expecting far worse than what i actually saw. his goal was to show what it actually would look like to be beat with a cat-of-nine-tails and crucified. that's exactly what he did. Christians talk of Christ's suffering as a measure of his love..what he was willing to endure for people; even those who hated him. That's why the movie looked this way...because from a Christian's perspective, that's part of the story. i winced once in this movie...i was moved emotionally throughout. but it was not nearly as bloody as others i've seen...and not nearly what i was expecting.

 

1. to make more money;

2. because Good Friday is two weeks away.

 

I would disagree wholeheartedly with this.

Real violence is nowhere near as pretty or stylistic is as that.

There weren't muscular toothless grunting Romans making pretty statuesque lashes, which result in super slow motion sequences of blood spraying, and sweat and flayed bits of flesh exploding everywhere, or muted voice groaning or any of those silly conventions.

Real violence, to the extent I have seen it on film, is a lot more banal, and chilling in a way (this somewhat ties in with that evil article you put up a little earlier this week).

It's not glamorous, it's just ordinary people, you see a puff of smoke or a confusing tangle of bodies and then somebody slumps over, and a life is extinguished. Granted there is a difference between seeing somebody get shot and somebody get flayed, but it was a relatively routine procedure for its day.

It would have been a lot more effective in presenting the way it "really was", IMO, had he just used plain video from a single hand held camera.

Rather than showing it the way it really was, I think he succeded in showing us the way it really was as envisioned by a hollywood action film director - which I dont' think gets us that close.

 

And great actor would of been really crucified. I kind of wish Mel would of played that role.

 

did you learn that from Buddha??

Sam -- i hear you. i guess my perspective is different as a Christian. i think you're absolutely right that the violence was not as banal as in action movies..maybe not the case in some horror movies, however. but that's the point. the violence, from a Christian's perspective, is purposeful. the suffering is purposeful. not to show how great the one committing the violence is...but to show how great the one is who took it...particularly if you believe he didn't have to.

 

I was keenly aware that I was setting myself up for that, max. Normally, I'd say the same thing to someone else, especially if I'd seen the film. One of the reasons I didn't post much about Michael Moore's movie dustup this summer is that I hadn't seen it. I still haven't seen it. In this case, however, I've read reams of stuff about the film, seen the trailers, etc. I think I can base an opinion on it.




Keep D&D Civil!!

 

ok

 

But then there is a collision of interests - you have realism on the one hand with violence the way it actually happens (depressingly drab) vs. accentuating the violence in order to show the purposeful suffering.

The problem is that when you make the violence seem unexciting and yet realistic, the suffering doesn't look as great either. So I don't really have a problem with the violence being stylized per se if that is the message you are going for, but I'm not sure it fits with the "way it really was" talk that we heard from MG ex ante.

 

i think he meant, "way it really was," in that no one had actually depicted the blood and gore of that kind of a beating and a crucifixion, before. that in prior movies about Christ, they avoided that sort of thing. he felt compelled to show it. as you say, he made it more "stylized." but reading his thoughts on it before he even started filming, tht's exactly what he was going for. to him, the suffering is the very drama of the movie...of an actual event, for him. and not just an actual event, but, to him, THE event in history.

 

Hmn. OK, since we bring up this damned movie.

I gotta agree with Sam Fisher on this.

So Mel Gibson cuts 6 minutes of the goriest gore so that more people can experience the movie's "message of love." I'm generally quoting from the ad I saw in the Chronicle.

I don't care how much you cut the movie, Mel. You're still just patting yourself on the back, you're still just padding your bank account, and if anything, your film is a message of extreme anger and hatred.

I'm not going to jump on the "this is so anti-Semitic!" bandwagon out there, although to be sure, Mel gives Pontius Pilate a too-too-human face, with the Jews bellowing "kill Jesus!" from within their black robes. But that's secondary.

This film is devoted to loving slow-mo shots of the Romans flagellating Jesus and pounding the stakes through his hands, again, in slow motion (if I remember correctly); and then, because that's not bad enough, that didn't elicit enough anguish from the audience, we have to FLIP OVER THE CROSS and hammer down the stakes.

OK, the Bible's versions are rather abbreviated. The apostles weren't the wordy type: "The Romans lashed him, spit on him, then nailed him to a cross."

But Mel fills in the gaps with the worst sort of gory imagery imaginable. Why do I harp on this? "Message of love." What hypocrisy. Mel doesn't even adhere to the Council of...uh, Nicea? Forgive me here, my schooling doesn't stick with me...where Christians basically distanced themselves from (if not quite exonerating) saying the Jews are bloodthirsty heathen murderers. OK, fine....Mel's opinion.

But, Message of love?

And was I the only person in Houston who said, Man, this movie is crap. Jesus was all about love. He had to die for mankind. Seems the message he left behind was, Quit hating.

Then, this movie.

 

Perhaps it was me reading too much into it from watching other movies, but the note he stuck seemed to be more of defiance rather than love - like most of the last few Gibson epics.

The last scene where steely eyed, naked jesus determinedly marched out of his tomb (ripped off from Terminator) didn't make me think he was going to go love, it looked more like he was going to kick some ass.

 

His good pal Bill O' Riley must've thought it up....

As for the film, if you think Gibson is double dipping here, don't forget about DVD sales. For those who really buy the Directors Cut angle, they might as well buy both copies, just to double check on accuracy.

I took the movie for what it was and even then it has its own measure of power behind it. The anti-semitism is very implicit even though history has evidence that Pontus Pilate was a master manipulator of the public and clergy. The human mind naturally searches for the root for what caused this suffering on the protagonist. Even more with movies, which is why the villain is concealed until he can't be any further.

I guess if he portrayed Pontius as one of the villains, there would be a strong anti-state undercurrent going on there, which is a no-no to his political affilitiation. With the intent of delivering a powerful message upon the film, Gibson either left the anti-semitism angle on purpose or he's a bad director.

 

I am quite aware that you enjoy starting threads. You seem to acknowledge that this is a D&D topic which is OK by me and it is probably in the right place.

What you aren't realizing is what D&D stands for:
<b>Debate & Discussion</b>

If I want to read news articles ...I can go here:
<a HREF="http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us">Google News</a>

If I want to read Blogs......there are many to chose from:
<a HREF="http://www.startribune.com/viewers/blogs/polblog.php">Political Blog List</a>

If I am come to a Forum labeled: <b> BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion</b>, then my expectation is to witness and perhaps participate in some <b>Debate & Discussion</b>. If you aren't interested in <b>actually</b> participating in <b>Debate & Discussion</b>, then perhaps you could discuss with the BBS <i>Management</i> about renaming this Forum:

<i>Blogs</i>?
<i>Controversial News Clippings</i>?
etc

If it is renamed to something that doesn't imply <b>Debate & Discussion</b>, then my expectations will be changed when coming to this Forum.

If people are treating it as a Blog site or Controversial News Clippings site and it is named along those lines, then I would be out of place by complaining about the lack of <b>Debate & Discussion</b>.
<hr color=green>

It is something of a given that a thread starter in the D&D will take a side/viewpoint/position/agenda, but since you seldom post here, then you wouldn't realize it.

As far as an obligation for a person (thread starter) to defend their position in threads that they start in this Forum, the lack of accountability & enforcement of such is my biggest irritation with this Forum.
<hr color=green>

Interesting that you feel that you should have rights to do as you wish:

Mango, I like posting articles on the BBS - anywhere on the BBS. If I feel this is a D&D topic, I'll post it here.


yet, are trying to discourage my right to post in your thread.

Why are your rights superior to mine?

 

debate and discussion is healthy.

1. For everyone who saw the film and find the violence a problem- consider this- we all should have a place where at some point the dramatization of violence creates a problem for us. For instance I did not let my 7 yr. old son watch the film. But don't be so critical of the violence. It was a historical and significant event that was violent and disgusting. Gibson has dramatized the events recorded in the Bible for us and it is good to have someone do this because it is easy to read 40 lashes or blows to the face and lose the impact of the suffering. Reading the paper headlines- Thousands died in tsunami doesn't carry the impact of the suffering like witnessing news footage of women and children drowning. Many people read things about the tribulation of slavery and then saw the epic ROOTS and found themselves moved by the dramatization of those events. This movie has depicted the sufferings of Christ.
Maybe the next director to attempt such drama will please or disappoint us in different ways. But let's not be so high and mighty that we focus on the "stylization and interpretation" and miss the true value of this work- one man's picture of the punishment Chirst finally put in a film. Just go back and read the accounts in the Bible and visualize your own "pictures" they will be disturbing and violent.

2. The whole "anti-sematic" theme is so weak. I talked to Jews who saw the film. Be honest, how many of you that saw the film walked out feeling any hatred towards Jews. Does anyone really believe that someone went into that movie liking Jews and left hating Jews. That is sick and not consistent at all with the lack of outcry from Jews after the film ran. I saw the film 3 times with 3 different church groups and not one person's view of Jews was affected by the film. That's like saying that Pearl Harbor was a hate film directed at the Japanese. Braveheart was a hate film directed at the English. The Ten Commandments was a hate film directed at the Egyptians. I never heard any of those groups protesting those movies. Looked like the priests were pretty devious in the movie. Read the New Testament, it looks pretty obvious in the Bible account that there was constant conflict with the priests during the life of Jesus. None of that kind of mud stuck on the wall with this film so go after something else.

3. I am not sure why the violence had to be toned down unless it was for kids. If Gibson is doing it for money God knows and that will hurt in the end. If the motive is good then God can judge that also. Why a re-release- ok to put the best possible light on it- It's Easter season and there is a sincere desire for more people to be able to experience the film.

4. OK- the message of love thing. I don't think that message is given as effective as is should be in a movie depicting the passion of Christ. There is the love we see in Jesus life and in Mary His mother, but not the love that can be seen in the extreme mercy God is offering in Christ's crucifixtion. We never see the justice of God and the righteousness of His judgments towards man. If God would let just one sinner into heaven he would be the most wicked God one could imagine. To allow evil into heaven is horribly unthinkable. And yet man is selfish by nature. Every person has broken God's commands numerous times. No man can ever fully understand the depth of love to sacrifice His only Son with the purpose that men and women's hearts would actually respond in broken, humble repentance.

Yet God because of His love laid down His own life for ours and those who repent find a faith that saves living in their hearts.

That is amazing grace.

 

Can I change "Cadre of Back-slapping Liberals" to "Cadre of Hollywood Liberals" in future references?