Mel Gibson's passion play

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So Mel Gibson has wrapped up production on his Jesus movie, his long-awaited follow-up to Braveheart and the first of his directorial efforts that he's chosen not to star in. It's entitled The Passion, which purports to be the most faithful put to film. The clincher? The film's dialogue is entirely in Latin, Aramaic, and Ancient Hebrew, despite starring Jim Caveziel, Monica Bellucci (and lots of other Italians), who I'm guessing were not Classics majors.

Mel Gibson strikes me as odious and I haven't seen Braveheart but this thing might be the kind of monstrosity that I could appreciate. I wonder if Gibson's Jesus (played by Caveziel, mind) will have any affinities with his other heroes: Lethal Weapon's Martin Riggs, or Mad Max, or Hamlet. What will this spectacle resemble most: Cabiria, Cecil B. De Mille, Ray's King of Kings, Marty Scorsese? Or Paul Verhoeven's would-be historical-materialist version?

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 7 July 2003 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)

NO, MEL GIBSON IS A CASINO'S BIG LEMON.

RJG (RJG), Monday, 7 July 2003 20:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm certainly excited about it. I'm really eagerly awaiting this film's release and will certainly try to catch it the day or the weekend it opens.

This post comes to you from a fairly devout Catholic, mind you. :)

*ignores RJG's post*

Innocent Dreamer (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 7 July 2003 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Did you take part in vigils outside The Last Temptation of Christ, which was about as tempting as a boiled sweet, wrapped in an old bus ticket?

Lara (Lara), Monday, 7 July 2003 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I seem to remember Gibson was set to play the lead, right up until Catholic groups complained about offensive depictions of Christ's bare ass.

Surely this movie has already been made, except with more bonecrushing, and it was called Braveheart.

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 7 July 2003 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)

sebastiane to thread!! no movies all in latin unless they entirely feature naked men yearning to have sex w.one another!!

mark s (mark s), Monday, 7 July 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

mark you apparently haven't seen the rushes.

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 7 July 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

also gibson himself is much too old to play jesus in a "realistic" film. of course they'd have to find some nameless palestinian actor if they were truly dedicated to realism.

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 7 July 2003 20:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Or Adrien Brody?

Lara (Lara), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Jesus was a black man!

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

So, Bill Clinton.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

That'd make Linda Fiorentino part black.

Leee (Leee), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Did you take part in vigils outside The Last Temptation of Christ, which was about as tempting as a boiled sweet, wrapped in an old bus ticket?

Quite honestly, no. I too didn't see what the big fuss was about. Same with Priest, because I thought it would be nice to see that priests are human too with their own human weaknesses and to revere them as godlike is to tread too closely to the whole "having other gods besides Me" type thing that God directed Christians not to do in the Ten Commandments.

Besides, both movies are works of fiction. It would make more sense to think real, true-to-life examples of anti-Catholic (or anti-Christian in general) sentiments would be a trillion times more dangerous to the faith.

Innocent Dreamer (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)

psuedo-interesting trivia: the co-writer of this film's last major credit was an adapation of flannery o'connor's wise blood for john huston. interesting b/c o'connor was a believer but the film is decidedly agnostic. perhaps that was huston's contribution.

is this going to be the sort of film which uses contemporary modes of realism to render a decidedly unrealistic/traditional story more palatable? or will it be an actual inquiry into the jesus myth? i think gibson is trying to convert people.

dan perry: "bill clinton is: jesus" only awaits oliver stone's participation.

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Besides, both movies are works of fiction.

See also The Bible

(ducks)

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Ok, "real, true-to-life" kinda sucked as phrasing, didn't it? Why not try "real, 'so nonfiction it hurts'" instead?

*ignores amateurist's post*

Innocent Dreamer (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

no see i meant the movie

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005NKT6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

(hedges)

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:08 (twenty-two years ago)

have we done "jesus flicks, s and d?"

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I keep forgetting about this one, because of Verhoeven's similar realism-driven project (he's been working with the Jesus Seminar, though; I have no idea who Gibson consulted). Good luck to them with the language thing -- that's the sort of bit that just invites nitpicking (like, for instance, if Amateurist didn't leave it out ... Greek would surely feature more prominently than Latin).

I wonder if Gibson's beating Verhoeven to the punch, heading him off at the pass with -- as Amateurist says -- something more sermonizing, or if the projects developed entirely independently.

Tep (ktepi), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)

doesn't Huston do the voice of God in that film?

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)

(And Amat., to be fair, relevant scholars are as close to a consensus as you'll ever find that the Passion is the least fictionalized bit in the New Testament, especially in the broad strokes.)

Tep (ktepi), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

If it doesn't have John Wayne saying "Truly that was the son of gahd" I'm not interested.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Riiiiiiight, amateurist. ;)

And I have no idea. You're asking the new girl here. But I could do a lovely little search for you! *giggles*

btw, I saw when that Catholic cable channel did an interview with Mel Gibson about the making of the film and about faith life in general. Gibson is a man who is obviously operating from his own personal convictions when it comes to this film in a manner I haven't seen since Steven Spielberg decided to tackle the Holocaust in Schindler's List. I deeply admire both efforts.

Innocent Dreamer (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm always torn between the adolescent agnost's crie de couer "b-b-but it's NOT TRUE" and the more acceptable postmodernist-informed stance that it doesn't matter b/c so many people believe it.

anyway verhoeven isn't a believer and i think his film would invite a torrent of controversy for addressing jesus's charisma and the politics of ancient palestine and dismissing out of hand the son-of-god stuff.

has anyone ever read the script to dreyer's planned jesus film? dreyer was a nonbeliever who nonetheless made religious films of enormous integrity (and complexity, which is the same thing most times).

other films made by directors operating from their own personal convictions: glen or glenda?, hitler jungenquex, my son john, robin hood: prince of thieves

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I will certainly be dragged to this by my classics-degree-holding b/f.

Common Utterances By The B/F Whilst Watching The Passion, Broken Down By Percentage:

36% "That so never happened."
23% "They totaly fucked up the ablative there! Hahahaha!"
8% "What the fuck? What is that Aragonese-shit-ass construction?"
17% "Did a monkey write this? Is it ablative or dative, folks? Make up your mind!"
12% "You think we could fool around after this is over?"

teeny (teeny), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I'm curious to see if Verhoeven's film ever gets off the ground, especially with Gibson's coming first. The Jesus Seminar angle could do him as much harm as good, since it's come under such heavy fire from both the right ("dammit, you can't say Jesus didn't say that, it's right here in the Bible!") and the far left ("dammit, Jesus was a mythical figure created after the fact as a rhetorical device!"). I'm not sure how much of that will trickle down to the general public, nor whether they'll care.

Tep (ktepi), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:25 (twenty-two years ago)

also will this be like a kickass mad max movie as nabisco hinted or will gibson be overcome by "rigor artis"?

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I am OTM.

RJG (RJG), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not sure that either of them will happen, what with Bruce Almighty getting in first.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 7 July 2003 21:28 (twenty-two years ago)

While we're at it, any thoughts on Pasolini's version?

Girolamo Savonarola, Monday, 7 July 2003 22:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Gibson is not a real catholic but part of a dangerous and schismatic movement called the latin tridentines who are trying to crawl back to pius xii, ie before the massive and important (and god inspired) changes of the second vatican council.

this film is propaghanda for a christianity that is legalistic (which paul warns against)--by that legalism the view of the church as alive and interacting with its traditions is lost, with these things lost, there is also lost the progressive church inspired by a view and of Jesus as a radical and progessive social leader.

he is v. much informed as well by a political agenda that is as conserative as it comes.

i am not looking forward to this film, as i am not looking forward to the continued infulence of thoughts similar to Gibson, including Cardinal Ratzinger, who has met and disucssed the persavation of the family with our friend mel.

anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 02:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I crossed a Catholic picket line to see Godard's Hail Mary, which was something, given that I identified* as Catholic at the time

*"identified" = considered myself one though my mass attendance was spotty and I was generally more interested in whiskey sours than eschatology

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 02:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Anthony your revisionist view of Paul is touching considering that the man himself would have happily seen you in the hoosegow

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 02:43 (twenty-two years ago)

I.e., Paul's charming spiritual bent doesn't un-say his bit about how women have to cover their hair in church, ad infinitum almost

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 02:46 (twenty-two years ago)

anthony that is interesting!

amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 02:52 (twenty-two years ago)

but it also doesnt explain him speaking lovingly about Phoebe as deaconess ?

Paul cannot be explained away, and he is too complicated and ambigous to be used as fodder either way, and for that i apologize. also i am feeling patronized.

anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 02:52 (twenty-two years ago)

"Paul warns against a legalistic Christianity" isn't exactly a radical ground-up "revisionist view" of Paul, and implying that it's countered by his homophobia and misogynism is pointlessly reductive. John, in all honesty, and I don't mean this as an attack, do you get angry when people bring up Christianity? Because you seem to pounce on the slightest freckle to criticize aspects of it that weren't necessarily under discussion.

Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 02:54 (twenty-two years ago)

anthony i hope you do not feel patronized by me! i had no idea where gibson stood in relation to the catholic church, that he takes as reactionary a position w/r/t christianity as he does w/r/t to american politics.

obv we can cut out the chatter about paul, though, since gibson's forthcoming movie shall address this and other issues in a thorough and intellectually satisfying way.

amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 02:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm trying to decide if the Tridentines are who I think they are. There's a largish (well, surprisingly large to me) number of Catholics in Louisiana who consider all the popes since John XXIII to be antipopes because of the "heresies" of Vatican II, but I never knew what they called themselves (when I asked, various of them said only "the real Catholic Church," with more than a little indignation). That sounds like them.

Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 03:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Here's a link to the nytimes article that gives more details on the movie and the church Gibson belongs to.

Nicole (Nicole), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 03:15 (twenty-two years ago)

All in latin movie I would like to see = the Roman love elegy & epigram scene (Gallus, Sextus Propertius, Tibullus & Ovid)

Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 10:45 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah Tep I do have some major issues with Christiantiy. And great big hairy issues with bringing sophisticated theoretical skills to bear on Paul in order to make him look like a progressive.

Sorry for calling you "charming" Anthony I know that's what made you feel talked-down to and who could blame you. i still kinda meant it though (sorry!): Paul warns somewhat against legalistic Christianity, but also warns against the perils of disobeying civil authority, etc etc etc

but i'll shut up, this is a thread about the movie which has a thousand interesting things of its own without my ex-Catholic bile coming to bear on it

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 12:22 (twenty-two years ago)

john, i love your ex catholic bile, it keeps me on my toes.

anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 13:25 (twenty-two years ago)

And great big hairy issues with bringing sophisticated theoretical skills to bear on Paul in order to make him look like a progressive.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Pauline apologetic (well, technically, I'm secular about all this anyway, but even if I weren't...) -- it's just that not everything he said was horrible and damaging, you know?

I grok having issues w/ Christianity -- I've been thinking lately that essentially I handled mine by going into religious studies as a secular thing, so I can be all clinical about it. (Mine're ex-fundamentalist issues, not ex-Catholic, so there's that, too.)

Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Ditto for me Tep, only replace Christianity with Judaism.

s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 16:43 (twenty-two years ago)

one month passes...

Internet personality Matt Drudge told MSNBC: ``It depicts a clash between Jesus and those who crucified him and speaking as a Jew, I thought it was a magical film that showed the perils of life on earth.''

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 11 August 2003 16:50 (twenty-two years ago)

two months pass...
from the WTF department:

Lightning strikes Gibson's Christ
Friday, October 24, 2003 Posted: 4:40 AM EDT (0840 GMT)

ROME, Italy -- Actor Jim Caviezel, who plays the son of God in Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of Christ" has been struck by lightning during shooting. http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/24/gibson.passion/index.html

Skottie, Friday, 24 October 2003 14:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, God finally saw that J. Lo movie he did.

Tep (ktepi), Friday, 24 October 2003 14:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Next week: Carrot Top eaten by snakes.

Tep (ktepi), Friday, 24 October 2003 14:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Next week: Carrot Top eaten by snakes.
-- Tep
...Crowd cheers wildly!

Skottie, Friday, 24 October 2003 14:19 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...
trailer: http://www.apple.com/trailers/newmarket/thepassionofthechrist.html

El Santo Claus (Kingfish), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 05:26 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~scs273/01.mov

Colin Saunders (csaunders), Friday, 16 January 2004 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, I sort of half-smiled...

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 16 January 2004 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I just saw that somewhere else, Colin. I'm with Dan... I wanted it to be much funnier than it was. I can't help but approach the movie with the same sort of dead seriousness of the built-in audience (just from the opposing side ready to loathe it and its becoming... how did I put it... a continuing and defining moment for a minor trend of hyper-uber-fundi-retro reactionary Christian pop-culture hijacking).

Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Whevah the quality of the movie, Mel's made a movie that strongly divides people. I might have to love it.... but seriously, provoking dischord is hardly a strong Christian virtue... or maybe it is and I just suck at being a Christian.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 17:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Here is brilliant letter to editor. I must share!

Concerns misplaced about Jesus movie

Why are we so afraid that Mel Gibson's movie might have a backlash against the Jews?

You have to remember that the Jews only handed Jesus Christ over to the Romans, who killed him by crucifixion. The Romans -- now called Italians (the name change does not excuse the crime) -- are the ones who technically killed Jesus. Now that the true culprits are out in the open, it's the Italians who should be afraid fo the potential ransacing and burning of every pizza parlor in sight.

The question is not who killed Jesus, but why he was crucified. ACcording to Scripture, the crucifixion plan was laid out by God before the beginnings of the world, way before Jews and Italians populated the Eart. Jesus was the sacrificial lamb for my sins and yours. If you really want to know who killed Jesus, look in the mirror.

If you blame the Jews or the Italians, you miss the message.

M!ke Westerh0use
Fremont, CA

Leee Majors (Leee), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 19:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Mel Gibson's Do the Right Thing.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 19:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Whoops... apparently the Pope didn't give it the thumbs-up after all.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=4168331

Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)

whoa! it is as it wasn't!

s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 01:00 (twenty-one years ago)

it wasn't as it is!

Colin Saunders (csaunders), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 01:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Turns out the Pope prefers Life of Brian.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 01:36 (twenty-one years ago)

The Romans -- now called Italians

hahahaha


anyway has anyone ever written about the staging of the passion in the history of the cinema. some of the first and most ambitious films did exactly that, and now we have yet another version professing to authenticity. and then you have many centuries of painters and illustrators who tackled the very same scene with varying and gradually evolving variations in its intended symbolic or "reality" effect...

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

"Dirty Roman!"
"I'm from Venice."
"SHUT UP, CHRIST-KILLER!"

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

So when is this bitch being released?

@d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 23 January 2004 07:25 (twenty-one years ago)

on the eve of the resurrection duh

amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 23 January 2004 10:07 (twenty-one years ago)

d'oh

@d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 23 January 2004 10:08 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah mel gibson is sort of the cnn of the millenarianist set

amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 23 January 2004 10:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Boy, the P.R. folks aren't going to let one single day go by without reminding us all that this is the most controversial movie ever made of all time period end of discussion folksies. Here that ugly "dad's a Holocaust skeptic" story being drug out...

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/liz.htm

Mel on the Defensive

January 30, 2004 -- 'YOU'RE GOING to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?" Peggy Noonan asks of Mel Gibson in the Reader's Digest for March.

Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

Gibson sat down with conservative Catholic writer Noonan to speak of his controversial film, "The Passion of the Christ," to explain his faith - which he says became a strong force in his life after years of being "a monster," having become "spiritually bankrupt" in the thrall of success. And Gibson admits his spiritual life is "nowhere complete yet. I'm still so full of flaws." Noonan pushed him about the Holocaust because of accusations that the actor's father questions the attempted extermination of all Jews by Hitler. Of his dad, Gibson says, "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."

Gibson talks eloquently about his passion for "The Passion," the gospel and what he wants to do next - "something light and funny and nobody'll be angry at me!"

Noonan: "Give me the headline you want to see on the biggest paper in America the day after 'The Passion' opens."

Gibson: "War Ends."

Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 31 January 2004 01:45 (twenty-one years ago)

That bastard.

@d@ml (nordicskilla), Saturday, 31 January 2004 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.