The Passion of The Christ

I'll concede it's not quite a documentary, but I think it's a lot closer to one than anything else. Yes, there was some artistic license taken, but a very minimal amount. A handful of scenes were borrowed from other parts of the Bible, but they weren't fabricated.

Off the top of my head, I can think of three parts of the movie that were fictional add-ins: the flashback scene with Mary while Jesus was carrying the cross down the Via de la Rosa, the Satan and baby scene during Jesus' scourging, and Judas being tormented by demons.

But I don't agree that three brief scenes out of a 2 hour movie put it on the same level as Titanic, Pearl Harbor, or Saving Private Ryan. POTC certainly had more historical integrity than Peter Jennings' Jesus and Paul broadcast last night.

Muff, as far as your "Movies are for entertainment" generalization goes, for the most part I agree with you. But there are exceptions. Think of how many films have been made to "make a statement", not entertain the masses. There have probably been dozens of them. Some do well at the box office, some don't. How much money they make or don't make doesn't change their original purpose, does it?

But if you and others are right, and Gibson's purpose to this whole thing was no loftier than making huge amounts of money, he's blasphemed the Gospel worse than an atheist ever could.

 

How could Gibson have KNOWN he'd even get his money back?
I'm not talking about you Hasbeen, but isn't it funny everyone wants to talk about "judging others" and yet those same people want to judge Mel Gibson as just money hungry instead of accepting the fact that he's spiritual?

 

From an interview with Gibson:

‘I Wanted it to Be Shocking’

Asked whether he considers his film the definitive depiction of the passion, Gibson said: "This is my version of what happened, according to the gospels and what I wanted to show — the aspects of it I wanted to show."

Some critics wonder if Gibson chose to portray the story too graphically.

Gibson admitted his version is "very violent," but added, "If you don't like it, don't go. … If you want to leave halfway through, go ahead."

"I wanted it to be shocking," Gibson said. "And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge … so that they see the enormity — the enormity of that sacrifice — to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness, even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule."

Is he keeping the money?

One other thing. Did you notice the disclaimer at the end of the film?

 

Doesn't mean it was embellished or historically inaccurate in any way. The gospel movies I've seen don't come anywhere near the historical reality of what Jesus went through. The audience has been spared so the films would be more widely applicable and family friendly. Gibson wanted to change that standard with POTC.

No idea. I haven't heard any plans to do anything with it. Frankly, I'd like to believe it's been a shock to Gibson that it has made so much money. My impression was that he was expecting to take a bath on this one, financially.

I don't remember. What did it say?

 

i'm guessing it was the standard disclaimer -- work of fiction, similarities to reality coincidental. i wonder tho.

gibson talks about how he's an artist and used his artistic license to make things how he envisioned them. i don't doubt the general story is accurate, but i'm certain there were plenty of decisions made to sell the film (for example, cutting out the line where one of the jews says that they have jesus' blood on their hands -- at least, it was cut from the subtitles). you can't make an entertaining movie without trying. was this movie entertaining?

 

If that was it, then they would probably be required to put it in by the lega department. Otherwise, if someone got one small detail wrong, they might be able to be sued for libel or misrepresentation or something.

 

i don't know that was it, but those disclaimers are always there for legal reasons. if that was what it says, it's just a sorta funny thing to end the movie with.

 

For the record, Spud, I agree people are getting way too pissy over this movie being made, just because they don't like the idea of a movie that promotes religious faith. I guess they're afraid that an overall return of religious zeal will lead to discrimination and intolerance like at times in the past. But I think they're worrying too much.

I belive in creator's rights and freedom of expression. Therefore I support Mel Gibson's right to make any kind of movie he wants. He's already proven he's a masterful filmmaker in the past, and this for him is a labor of love. In a perfect world, every movie made would be a labor of love. To me, that at least beats the cookie-cutter crap that usually comes out.

 

I dunno, I think you're downplaying the effects of the movie in reinforcing the attemps by others to promote religious zeal and intolerance. As far a gibson being a masterful film maker that one is up for grabs. If blood and guts = masterful then yeah I'll agree; but on the whole his movies are simple story telling and usually only work on that plane. His characters are never really greatly developed as doing so would leave less time for blood and guts, it's much easier to go with and reinenforce existing sterrotypes. The movie was entertaining as that is the first goal of any filmaker outside of Warhol. If your literary background is epic fantasy and scifi then this movie will seem deep otherwise it's just a good story.

 

Thanks Fro.