Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: House of Mustard on March 01, 2004, 12:49:34 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/01/offbeat.passion.ap/index.html
-
What has amazed me about this film are the number of Mormons wondering if they should go see it, and what the Church's stance is. It's rated "R," so whatever the depiction and interpretation, the Brethren have already counselled against seeing it long before it was even in the concept phases: They have counselled not to see any "R" movie.
Naturally, that doesn't stop many of us, as we go see movies like The Matrix anyway, but it never ceases to surprise me that Latter-day Saints have completely forgotten this counsel when wondering how our church reacts to it.
-
Actually, the brethren removed the "Don't See R-rated Films" from the Just for Youth pamplets. Mostly this was because the rating system doesn't exist outside of the US. It was also to place more individual responsibility on the members in choosing what media they see. And so people don't make the stupid excuse, "well, it's not R-rated so it must be okay."
However, most of the members I have talked to say that it sounds like the film easily surpasses their tolerance for violance, and thus don't plan to see it.
Though I have heard some people talk about purchasing a movie ticket and not seeing the film, just to support the making of a pro-Christian film.
-
Yeah, I was interested in this the other day and looked up on lds.org. There were at least thirteen different references from general conference saying to not go see R-Rated movies (admittedly, none of them were extremely recent--although I don't think that they have 'expired.')
Surprisingly, despite all of those references, there was an article on Deseret Book's website rationalizing going to see the movie. It quoted Robert Millet, a BYU professor (and we all know that BYU professors are going to lead us down the straight and narrow path).
-
Oh, yes, we must believe everything that comes out of the mouth of a BYU professor. ;D
Actually, watching the news reminds me how much I hate biblical historians and theologians. They just so often have a self-proclaimed prophet heir about them. Though I saw one on Fox news that was pretty cool.
What I'm most excited about is the academy awards next year. The script for "The Passion of Christ" is accredited to God. So I think it would be really cool, if not somewhat humerous, if the film won award for best screenplay. "And the academy award for best screenplay goes to God. God could not make it to the ceremony today because he heard what Jennifer Lopez was wearing. We thus accept the award on His behalf."
-
Hey wow. Ebert called this movie the most violent he has EVER seen (and that's saying quite a bit). He actually said that it would have been NC-17 if it hadn't been about Christ.
-
heh, nice 42.
Meridian Magazine also justified it.
My real reason for nto going to see it? Well, I already have a testimony. I figure I've already seen and heard things from people that deepen my appreciation for His sacrifice and put into to better context than Mel Gibson ever could.
-
I can't stand the mock crucifiction they perform in some latin countries. My tolerance for violence isn't very high.
One Utah film critic the film containing images that will scar any adult for life or at least be burned into your head for at least a week.
-
Which I DON'T need. My husband's tolerance for that sort of thing is much much higher than mine, and he really wants to go see it. I'm trying to think of a way to tell him I don't want to see it with him that won't cause a temper tantrum.
-
that's something I have to deal with every other weekend. My wife has a very low tolerance for violence and creepiness. She won't watch the Kevin Costner "Robin Hood" not for the acting, but because of the attempted rape scene. Anyway, just explain your low tolerance, he'll have to accept it eventually if you stay consistent.
-
I do have to say, I admire Gibson's...well, passion for making this movie, even if I never intend to see it. I see this movie as kind of like Shindler's List. Yes, I know some very horrible things happened in history. I don't think seeing them in their utter graphicness is going to make me any more appreciative of what Christ went through.
-
I saw this movie opening day if anyone is interested.
-
And what did you think?
-
I liked it, but it was also very difficult to watch. It wasn't as bloody as most pepole claim, a typical slasher flick has as much or more blood. So it wasn't that it had a lot of blood, it was that the blood happened to be from Christ. I am quite certain that even people who are not bothered in the slightest at the sight of blood could get upset seeing it, especially if they have a love for Christ. I think this is also in part because they did such a good job at making you feel like you were actually there watching it (with exceptional notice to Jim Caviezel who protrayed Jesus, I think he did a wonderful job). Also, if you want to see it but know it will be really emotional for you, I might recommend waiting to watch it at home on video because that could make it easier. I started crying several times and I'm not prone to do that sort of thing.
I hadn't read any reviews of this movie before I saw it, but afterwords I wanted to see what other people had though. So then I started checking out the reviews and such. One thing I noticed in quite a number of them was how such and such person or event was protrayed differently. I sort of made mental note of these, not purposely but they just sort of stuck in my mind I guess. Then I felt like rereading Matthew, Mark, Luke, John on Sunday (yesterday) and noticed a lot of those things that some reviewers had said were different actually weren't. For example, one review commented on Pilate's wife caring about Jesus was taking liberties with the story, but then while reading Matthew I noticed that actually mentions that she did. There were others along the same lines, like how the high priest reacted, how Pilate was protrayed, etc... even the earthquake at the end which it does mention in the Bible several times. At any rate, I would question a reviewer who mentions liberties or changes made to the story as it seemed many of them were comparing it to other movies about Jesus they had seen rather than how it is told in the king james bible; I think they did an exellect job in making it just as you would read in the Bible. There were many details I didn't notice until rereading Matthew-John, which I found really interesting. Now I want to see it again, to really pick up on all of them.
-
Fuzzy--one way you could get out of seeing it is to let J.T. go with Chris.
Chris really wants to see the movie too, but I don't really want to. That way they can both be happy, and we wouldn't have to go with them.
-
Ok, I'll tell him that. I actually told him this afternoon that I'd decided I didn't want to see it. We can get together and do something else while they're watching it.
-
I've got this thing about movies where they use a whip with hooks on it and graphically show a good man suffering for no real reason...
I dont like em so I prolly wont go.
-
There's arguably a very good reason, but I know exactly what you mean. I don't even like watching the news--I'm sure not going to watch somebody torture Christ. I don't think it's wrong to portray such a thing (I actually think it's a great idea, because I've heard countless people say that it made the concept more "real" to them), I just know that I wouldn't like it.
-
yeah I agree nice concept, but not for me...
which is a shame because I really like the Aramaic/ Street Latin angle...
But they showed a small clip on some cable news show and showed bloody chunks of flesh coming off the Christs back as he was being whipped by a cat o nine tails with hooks attached and I realized that 2 hours of that would mess me up but good.
-
I'm totally with you on that, Jeffe. I think it's definitely one of those situations where for some people it will be a great movie, and for others it would be something that does more harm than good.
Then I read articles about a woman who took her daughters, ages 11 and 14 to go with her and I wonder about people....
-
I think what I don't like is how much it focuses on the suffering of christ and not the message of christ...
Granted thats not the movie Gibson set out to make... but its the one I wish he'd made.
-
"To This End Was I Born" does a really good job focussing on the message, without the graphic violence. I think that movie makers have lost that artistic touch. Starting with Saving Private Ryan or thereabouts. They substitute graphic imagery for suggestive imagery which in the end can be much more powerful, you just have to use it effectively, in the right places and times. I don't care for the whole catering to people with no imaginations.
-
My lit teacher who is very liberal, (for a Mormon professor) said this. It's good that they show the truth of the physical pain, but the sad truth is that a LOT of people were tortured and crucified by the Romans. No one else went through Gethsemane, and the spiritual anguish of suffering for the sins of humanity.
-
So, on a note of being myself, who wants to help me remake "The Ten Commandments?"
-
You can't replace Charton Heston! Who else has the right face, as well as being right-wing and scary enough to do the job?
-
Yeah, there's just a lot that's missing from their approach that I'd like to see. We could do that.
And Gemm, let me know when you have a budget big enough to do it justice. Right now it's still a magnificent film I don't feel needs remaking.
-
I dono if Gemm re-grew his beard he could have kinda a "I'm trying realy hard" think going. But to be true Gemmness I think Stop motion would be the way to go.
Anyway I got a link to Scott Cards review of the passion of Christ (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-29-1.html), thought some of you might find it intresting.
-
Hmm, Stop motion. What is that, exactly?
-
It's like claymation, except with people and such. You take a picture (with your digital camera or what not), move/add things to the shot ect, and take another picture. Another way you can do it is film with a camcorder like normal, then useing something like flash or adobe premeir remove half the shot frames.
Here's an example (http://www.timewastersguide.com/VG/NickelCade/Animation/Moto.swf) that I made useing pictures of my sister from our trip to Vegas. It's kinda large (570k) since I didn't bother reduceing the picture size and such.
-
Hrm. Wierd.
Reading that review, the only reason i can think of to watch the film... is to hear the languages. I'm kinda a sickler for hearing ancient languages. I know how important the story depicted therein is to Christians, but since i'm not one, i'll pass.
Apart from anything else, i know how it ends ;)
-
I think what I don't like is how much it focuses on the suffering of christ and not the message of christ...
Granted thats not the movie Gibson set out to make... but its the one I wish he'd made.
I too would like to see a movie on Christ's ministry done as well as Passion, but I think it is important that I say this movie was not to focus on his suffering but to focus on the single most important thing Christ did.
Could the movie had shown more on Christ's ministry? I think I should quite St. John who says it well, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
I just wanted to point this out for those who want to see the movie, because you will get more out of it if you look for that deeper meaning. There are many subtle details in the movie that are really quite important to understanding the story. Just for example, in one scene a lady offers Jesus a cup of water while he is dragging his cross to the hilltop, but a soldier kicks the cup out of her had before he can drink. I didn't catch on while watching the movie, but that is actually important. During the Last Supper, Christ said he wasn't going to drink after that until it was over. So then later when he is on the cross, Jesus says "I thirst" which really takes on a new meaning, only one of which that it was finally over.
-
I think it is important that I say this movie was not to focus on his suffering but to focus on the single most important thing Christ did.
see, that's the thing. To a lot of people maybe this was the most important thing he did, but to me and other Mormons, the most important thing Christ did is apparently not in the movie. It was the suffering in Gethsemane. And in the words of my dad, "How do you portray something like that?" Imo, you can't. Not really, because it's a level of suffering that isn't comprehensible without the Spirit.
-
Local Mormon cynic Eric Snider wrote a surprisingly introspective review:
http://www.ericdsnider.com/view.php?mrkey=2043&PHPSESSID=15d5bcd4e7401cf28c27c2cedb0dd169
On a lighter note, on Leno the other day he made the comment that "Passion" was doing so well in theaters, that they've decided to make it into a book.
-
best quote from that review: "The dialogue is in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin, which were the languages of the day, with the addition of English subtitles, which were somewhat less common"
hey, maybe I'll read the book. Usually when I can't handle the images, I can read it just fine :)
-
Yeah and I understand Mel Gibson gets all the royalties from the sales of that too.
-
man, i'd love to get royalties from sale of the Bible.
So long as that didn't condemn me to hell or anything...
-
and your concerned about me... talk about priestcraft
-
yeah, well, i said "if"
-
see, that's the thing. To a lot of people maybe this was the most important thing he did, but to me and other Mormons, the most important thing Christ did is apparently not in the movie. It was the suffering in Gethsemane. And in the words of my dad, "How do you portray something like that?" Imo, you can't. Not really, because it's a level of suffering that isn't comprehensible without the Spirit.
Yes that is very important also, and sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was including it. In fact, the movie opens with Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane and blood begins to leak through his skin and drip off his face. I don't wan't to preach to you, and yes I am also LDS, but Gethsemane wasn't the journey. It was the first step of the journey that ended when Jesus was ressurected (they also show that in the movie). As awesome of a thing as it was to take on all the sins of the world, that alone wasn't enough. He also had to amend the Law, and the only way he could do that was take on all the sins of the world, then be cut from the Holy Spirit, and then die and be reborn.
I agree that it is impossible to show everything Jesus really went through, in any medium, but the movie does about as good of a job as you could. One of the things I liked about it was how they did their best to make it seem like you were just there watching it. Again I'm not telling anyone to go watch it, I just happened to watch it and found it enlightening, and have wanted to talk about it but there hasn't been anyone around to talk about it with.
-
double post
-
i was under the impression that it didn't show Gethsemane. at any rate, that's what I had been told.
Anyway, I disagree with you. Not essentially, I think that all of that was necessary. But Gethsemane was, if one can categorize it that way, more important than dying on the cross or even being resurrected.
It's almost unfortunate that chronologically the physical resurrection happened last, since that leaves it as the obvious choice for anyone's narrative apex, even though spiritual death, for me, seems a more important obstacle.
-
Gethsemane is in the movie
-
According to Bruce R. McConkie, Christ actually suffered all of the pains of Gethsemane a second time while he was on the cross. I'm not sure of his source on that (although I don't know how much apostles need to show their bibliography :)).
Even in LDS shows though, the resurrection seems to be the climactic moment (such as Lamb of God, or To this end was I born). Not only is it more movie-friendly (you've already said how hard it is to depict taking the world's sins), but it also is the ultimate completion of the atonement--overcoming both physical and spiritual death.
-
Thought you guys might find Michael Medved's review interesting. The movie has been discussed to the point of nausea on a children's lit listserv I'm on, and this is the first balanced review I've heard from a prominent reviewer.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/passion-prejudice.html
-
I find this no end of funny.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/18/passionate.dispute.ap/index.html
-
I personally think we don't hear about enough cases of domestic violence where *both* parties are beating the crap out of each other.