|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 3, 2004 22:07:47 GMT -5
Saw it tonight with some friends. Really not too sure what to think about it.
It's a pretty gory movie, but I'm not too sure as to how else you can depict the last 12 hours of Jesus's life.
Jewish holymen lead the masses against Jesus and bring him to Pontius Pilate for judgement. Pontius Pilate refuses to judge a man that has no legitimate crime against him and defers the responsibility on to King Herod. Herod sends him back to the Pilate where the Jews are given a chance to choose between Jesus and the murderer Barabbas. And you know the rest of the story.
The costume design was pretty good. Makeup was very effective and if you see the movie you'll know what I mean. The story followed what is written in the scriptures, but I can't say I'd go back and see it; big-screen, video, or otherwise.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 7, 2004 21:06:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 8, 2004 9:52:28 GMT -5
Isn't opinion grand? People can say just about anything they want with impunity -- as long as it is against the (for lack of a better term) majority. Dirty rotten Christians. But then again, rather than have an open and frank discussion it is much easier just to ridicule and belittle. a homoerotic "exercise in lurid sadomasochism" for those who "like seeing handsome young men stripped and flayed alive over a long period of time." indeed. Give me a break! These are the same groups who hold that Serrano's "Christ in Piss" (and other depictions of that genre) are acceptable art forms. Can't have it both ways, gents. The cinematic portrayal of an historical event (granted, one in which artistic license is used) should not engender such a vitriolic response.
There is no question that it rewrites history by making Caiaphas and the other high priests the prime instigators of Jesus' death while softening Pontius Pilate, an infamous Roman thug, into a reluctant and somewhat conscience-stricken executioner is no new thought -- this has been bandied about for centuries: that the early Christian canons softened the censure of Pilate so to appease the Roman government that the new religion might be tolerated (it wasn't). But I guess if you are going to decry a movie/book/thought you attack it every way you can, and being dogmatic ("there is no question" -- sure there is) leaves no room for debate or discussion.
As one commentator suggested, no one has ever asked how the Egyptians feel about the Jewish faith's celebration of the Passover. I'm not sure what the response to that would be .
What are the charges against the film? Is it graphic? Yes. Is it anti-Semetic? Only if you are pre-disposed to the view already. Mr. Rich: the fracas over "The Passion" will dissipate when you let it. If you think that the movie is receiving too much publicity then quit talking about it. Let it fade. Let it become a "cult classic", watched Good Fridays in evangelical Christian churches. And take your argument with Mel Gibson out of the media spotlight -- there are more important things happening in the world (like a Habs playoff drive).
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 8, 2004 10:38:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 8, 2004 10:59:42 GMT -5
Does TLTOC deal with Christianity? Or is it merely an interpretation/speculation of the life of Jesus? To be honest, I couldn't watch the thing -- I was quickly bored. Thought the filming was abysmal. But it has been a number of years, som maybe I should give it another try.
My favourite: Jesus Christ Superstar. Again, an interpretation of the story with the sole purpose of making money. Secondary was making waves, which it did. But then again, it didn't pretend to be anything but entertainment.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 8, 2004 11:42:10 GMT -5
Does TLTOC deal with Christianity? Or is it merely an interpretation/speculation of the life of Jesus? Christianity is the teaching of Christ. Last Temptation had spectacular cinematography. There are many sites dedicated to Nikos Kazantakis (the author of the book). I'm sure HA can provide some background here. My Israeli friend, who I saw the film with, said the cultural and political atmospheres were resonant with reality, only the cast weren't wearing modern garb. How could I have forgotten Denys Arcand's brilliant Jesus of Montréal? |
|
|
|
Post by patate on Mar 8, 2004 11:50:49 GMT -5
Wether you're christian or not, you must be amaze at the debate surrounding Jesus. He's certainly the most talked about person in world, ever (at least in the western world). The guy " died " 2000 years ago and he's action still resound in our ears. Sadly, no one will remember me in 4004 (and neither of you...hmmm...maybe Mr.Bozo) As for the movie itself, I thought it was excessively gory, and the only way you could be moved by it is by being some kind of fundamentalist, which I'm not. It's beautifuly shot and is by far the closest we've come to depict Jesus life as it was. But still, it brings nothing new to the table, as I was mislead by people who told me it was the greatest movie of the decade ; they told me the same thing for "Starship troopers"  . Anyway, go see it, it still worth the $12,50. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 8, 2004 11:53:54 GMT -5
Christianity is the teaching of Christ. Kind sir, I beg to differ. You might be able to make the case that in its purest form, Christianity is the teaching of Christ. But we do not have the purest form. What we have is something to the effect of Paul's interpretation of how a follower of Christ should live/act, and the Church's subsequent interpretation of the theological significance of the life and (more pointedly) death of Christ. Would that "the people of the Way" (as they were first called) follow Christ's teachings and apply them to their own lives. [rest of sermon deleted] |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 8, 2004 12:02:31 GMT -5
Kind sir, I beg to differ. You might be able to make the case that in its purest form, Christianity is the teaching of Christ. But we do not have the purest form. What we have is something to the effect of Paul's interpretation of how a follower of Christ should live/act, and the Church's subsequent interpretation of the theological significance of the life and (more pointedly) death of Christ. Would that "the people of the Way" (as they were first called) follow Christ's teachings and apply them to their own lives. [rest of sermon deleted] Absolutely. You caught my meaning. All great teachings are corrupted over time by adherents, and consequent institutions, that knowingly or unknowlingly introduce their own agendas. I nominated The Gospel According to St Mattew, The Last Temptation of Christ, and Jesus of Montréal as my filmic favourites precisely because, IMO, they embodied the spirit rather than the letter (whatever one's interpretation may be) of the Law. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 8, 2004 12:45:38 GMT -5
The guy " died " 2000 years ago and he's action still resound in our ears. Sadly, no one will remember me in 4004 (and neither of you...hmmm...maybe Mr.Bozo) Set to music: I must be mad thinking I'll be remembered. Yes, I must be out of my head. Look at your blank faces. My name will mean nothing Ten minutes after I'm dead. As for the movie itself, I thought it was excessively gory, and the only way you could be moved by it is by being some kind of fundamentalist, which I'm not As to the gore, there is debate as to how realistic the crucifixion scene was. Were nails used? And there was a limit to the amount a prisoner could be whipped -- it seemed to go on and on and was only stopped at the soldiers' whim. And you don't have to be a fundamentalist (a term often used derogatorily to mean "someone who disagrees with my more liberal veiwpoint") to be moved by it. It was meant to evoke emotion and it did. It's beautifuly shot and is by far the closest we've come to depict Jesus life as it was. It had little to do with His life and everything to do with depicting His death. But still, it brings nothing new to the table Its purpose (speaking for Mel Gibson here, though I have no right to do so) was not to bring something new to the table but to remind of the old. I was mislead by people who told me it was the greatest movie of the decade ; they told me the same thing for "Starship troopers" . Definitely not the greatest movie of the decade! (Starship Troupers??). Meant for a specific crowd; that crowd (for lack of a better word) enjoyed (no, can't use that word) watched it. If they were inspired to live a (Mr. B's term) Christian life then great. but if it was purely Christian entertainment then it is just another in a long line of movies that will make money for actors, producers, and those poor stunt drivers and lackeys that beg us not to download movies from the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 19, 2004 8:22:47 GMT -5
Am I the only person who sees the irony in all this flack? Christians (those who aspire to follow the teachings of Christ) have little problem with this movie (although there will be facets of every society that have problems with everything) yet Jews (who do not even regard Jesus as the Messiah, only as a historical figure) have the greatest problem with it.
Time to relax, and enjoy life, and stop worrying (but never forgetting) about something that happened 2001 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 19, 2004 9:00:52 GMT -5
Jews (who do not even regard Jesus as the Messiah, only as a historical figure) have the greatest problem with it. Why do Jewish people have a problem with the movie? Because (some -- and I repeat that some) spokespeople say that it depicts their leaders as callous and heartless and the Jewish people in general as shallow sheep, and that the movie is anti-Semetic. On the other hand, others see it as acurately depicting an historical event. We see in it what we want to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 19, 2004 10:50:09 GMT -5
We see in it what we want to see. True. Too foolish to argue about for me. The only thing we have to go by for the history of Christ's life is The Bible. The Bible itself is ambiguous, and leaves open tons of room for interpretation. Then there are the missing years. It always befuddled me how we have so much knowledge about Jesus' birth (0-5 years) and Jesus' death (33) ...... but what happened to all those years in between? I haven't seen the movie yet. But when I go to a movie I go to be entertained, it is afterall a movie, and even movies based on true stories stretch the truth, or modify it for the purposes of making the movie better/entertaining/easier to understand. Take the movie "Miracle" for instance. I haven't seen that either, but I bet you they don't mention about how a healthy Tretiak did not play in that final game. And the movie "Hoosiers", they probably didn't say "Coach stays I play, Coach goes I go".... but it made for a good movie line. Nobody said this was exactly what happened, it is only "The Scripture according to Mel". And we are all entitled to tell a story and have opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 19, 2004 22:37:02 GMT -5
On the other hand, others see it as acurately depicting an historical event. We see in it what we want to see. Well said, franko. I don't delve into the scriptures all that much and consider myself an non-practicing christian. However, when I get the chance I try to make the best of it. The story line was extremely accurate, but consider this. I was talking with a buddy of mine who majored in history with a minor in religion. We started talking about the bible and when it was written. Now, if I get my timelines mixed up bear with me please. I've been told that most of the bible was written while the Israelites were a conquered people. The Romans were particularly brutal but they took great pride in their conquest of Judea. More specifically, old Roman coins often depicted Roman scenes, emporers, etc. There was only one other series of coins ever minted that didn't depict a Roman theme. In fact these coins depicted Rome's conquest of Judea. Like I said, the Romans really did take pride in that. However, consider this. Rather than butcher an entire race into submission why not commission specific leading citizens to write and publish a journal of religious rules by which these people can live by. This was only one theory studied in the making of the bible. It's contentious, granted, but it does have reason. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, insomnius, but I believe that the Talmut provides Jewish folk a very ancient set of life guidelines. And that publication has been around well before Christ was born. It differs from the bible insomuch as it isn't a religious text. Anyway, it's a contentious viewpoint, blasphamus to some I dare say, but it's food for thought nonetheless. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 19, 2004 22:49:28 GMT -5
The Bible is the word of God as perseived by Man. That's why there are mistakes in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kareem on Mar 22, 2004 19:24:33 GMT -5
I saw it yesterday, I thought it was pretty good when you talk about cinematographic(?) art. The stares and silences were amazing, the fact the movie was made in a small radius was also impressing. The violence, IMO, was needed, your going to see the man who killed himself for everyones sins, not fluffy bunnies running around. Actually, its the first time I've seen people leave the theater because of overwhelming emotions(and disgust).
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 30, 2004 11:14:39 GMT -5
Well said, franko. I don't delve into the scriptures all that much and consider myself an non-practicing christian. However, when I get the chance I try to make the best of it. Ok: I’ve been trying to figure out what it is but can’t so I need your help on this one. What in the world is a “non-practising Christian"? Is it something like a person who eats a double-bacon cheeseburger and calls himself a non-practising vegetarian? Aside from my sarcasm, I am serious as to wanting to know what non-practising Christian means. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 30, 2004 11:17:49 GMT -5
The story line was extremely accurate, but consider this. I was talking with a buddy of mine who majored in history with a minor in religion. We started talking about the bible and when it was written. Now, if I get my timelines mixed up bear with me please. I've been told that most of the bible was written while the Israelites were a conquered people. The Romans were particularly brutal but they took great pride in their conquest of Judea. More specifically, old Roman coins often depicted Roman scenes, emporers, etc. There was only one other series of coins ever minted that didn't depict a Roman theme. In fact these coins depicted Rome's conquest of Judea. Like I said, the Romans really did take pride in that. However, consider this. Rather than butcher an entire race into submission why not commission specific leading citizens to write and publish a journal of religious rules by which these people can live by. This was only one theory studied in the making of the bible. It's contentious, granted, but it does have reason. If your buddy is a history major, then we’ll “blame” (sorry) the time-lines on you (I most certainly hope these weren’t his with a history/religion background). My understanding is that the Jewish Talmud (the Christian Old Testament, though slightly different in form) was passed down via oral tradition (word of mouth) for generations, but that during the Babylonian exile (approximately 400 BC) scribes collated and wrote down the history and law so that it would not be forgotten (the prophetic writings were written at the time of proclamation). This was well before the Roman occupation of Israel. I believe that the Talmut provides Jewish folk a very ancient set of life guidelines. And that publication has been around well before Christ was born. It differs from the bible insomuch as it isn't a religious text. Jewish people would, I imagine, disagree with you (how dare I speak for them?). While the Talmud is indeed an older set of life guidelines, many still follow it today as a workable dogma. And indeed, there are many religious instructions found therein. Christianity follows some of them, although New Testament teaching supersedes or builds upon some of them. The Christian Bible includes both Old Testament (Talmudic) texts as well as New Testament (Christian) texts. |
|
.
