ok, let me start out by saying the passion is awesome. even with some of the cheesier hollywood elements. although, i am sure that mr. gibson will be spending some time in purgatory for the bridge sequence. seriously, even if there is no god, some sort of reprimand needs to be doled out for that piece of scifi teenage b-movie schlock spat into an otherwise amazing film.
there is a lot of hype around this movie, you'll keep hearing that it's "anti-semitic" and i read an article in time criticizing some historical inaccuracies, mainly pontius pilate being some sort of classical version of bill clinton, he feels your pain. but the movie clearly portrays him as an imperial governor who is trying to prevent a revolt because caeser himself had told him that if there were any more revolts he would be killed.
there's also been a lot of talk about this movie being a "medieval passion play". to anyone who is even remotely familiar with catholicism they will immediately realize after viewing this film that this movie is just a filmed version of the stations of the cross. this is one of the most roman catholic things i have ever seen. it appears that mr gibson wanted to make the bloodiest most goriest interpretations of the stations of the cross ever seen. and he throws himself into this hardcore s&m affair in a fanatical manner that could only be done by an obsessed roman catholic.
seriously, this movie has enough fake blood in it to make the members of gwar proud. when i was in catholic school the nuns told us that after christ died, his side was pierced by the spear of a roman soldier and water poured out because christ was completely drained of blood. when this happens towards the end of the passion you'll wonder if the reason is because mr gibson ran out of red dye.
after saying all that i want to bring up something that's really not being discussed in the media or by movie critics. there's a couple of weird scenes in this movie and i've been racking my brains to try to remember if they are actually in the gospels. they seem sort of familiar, and it's possible that they are in john, which mr. gibson might have given more credence to because it was written well before matthew, mark and luke. and john has weird things in it, it doesn't agree with the other three gospels and is closer to some of the stranger apocryphal gospels. i also want to state that i'm not sure that they are completely made up by mel such as the bridge scene or the scene in which one of the jewish priests asks where the other members of the sanhedrin are.
i am going to list these scenes now, so if you haven't seen the movie and want to be surprised, stop reading now. firstly, after judas turns in jesus and confronts caiphas, he develops sores on his mouth and face, and is chased out of jerusalem by a group of children where he finds a dead and rotting cow. he takes the rope of the cow to hang himself. now the confrontation of the priests and the suicide are in all four gospels but the children and the cow? it's possible that mr. gibson made this up, but i'm not sure. does anyone know if this was in john? i don't even think this was in the gospel of thomas which the gnostic christians still use. it really looks like something out of the apocrypha. regardless, it is my favorite part of the movie. then, there is the scene while jesus is being whipped, pilate's wife comes down and gives the virgin mary and mary magdelene towels. after jesus has been whipped they mop up his blood with the towels. is this in john? thomas? and lastly, when jesus is on the cross, one of the thieves laughs at him. a crow flies out of the sky and plucks one of his eyes out. i'm pretty sure that this is a medeval crucifiction myth, but i'm not sure. i like all three of these scenes and think they were good in the movie. kudos to mr gibson if he made them up or inserted them to help the movie. i would like to know where he got them from, though. can anyone help me?
art said at 10:40 AM 02-26-2004: I remember a scene in Excalibur where a lynched knight had his eye plucked out by a crow (or raven). Maybe he hijacked the scene from there?
sonny [email] said at 11:40 AM 02-26-2004: The bridge the towels the crow not in the Bible. The temple didn't split it was a curtain. I can give you the Judas answers tonight after i get off work and do some study. It wasn't children i recall a madness or taunting demons. The bridge was silly I agree with you. Maybe the crow has some interesting roots from somewhere else. the towel offered to Jesus where he wipes his face and his bloody image is transferred to the towel. Not in the Bible but I assumed that it was to establish some obscure relic I don't know about. I am not familiar with Catholic teachings so some things in the movie were like, huh? I like how the devil (who wasn't hott as promised was a well done genderless character lurking in the shadows the whole time) was used at the beginning in a scence that is synbolic of the Jesus crushing the head of the serpent. This is Biblical but not literal as in Jesus+foot+snakehead=smash but it sets up Hey this is a movie, I 'm Mel Gibson just take it all all in. Man i gotta go to work.
See ya
Sonny
kiche [email] said at 12:00 PM 02-26-2004: the bridge was just hollywood crap. and it was total crap.
the crow, i'm pretty sure wasn't in the bible. the judas thing i'm pretty sure wasn't in the bible along with the crow. but they may have come from somewhere else.
i think we're getting our wires crossed on the towels. the woman who wipes jesus's face is part of the catholic stations of the cross. i don't know if anyone ever claimed to have said towel which supposedly had the imprint of christ's face on it. but i wouldn't be surprised if they did, or if more than one person claimed this. during the middle ages there were enough splinters of the true cross floating around to build enough crosses to crucify an army.
i was speaking of when pilates wife comes down and gives mary the virgin and mary the whore towels and then the marys wipe up jesus' blood.
mr. gibson definitely added some things.
i think the devil was hot in some scenes. although having maggots crawling up her nose was not hot.
ed [email] said at 9:03 PM 02-26-2004: Out of, then in.
Nahhhst-ee.
I could not think of the devil as hot after that scene (which was the first one on which she appeared). And what was up with her hirsute progeny?
Yes, a little more Hollywood treatment than (*I* thought) the story deserved. But I still give it my highest recommendation, inconsistencies notwithstanding.
sonny [email] said at 10:32 PM 02-26-2004: I am unfamiliar with the "stations of the cross". Could you lay some info on me i know you and Brandon have discussed it before. What is up with the woman suplling the towel to his face I am unclear on that. The towel part about pilates wife is what i was refering to as not being in the Bible. I REALLY need to do some hardcore study on some very serious points. There is a friend of mine who does not believe that Jesus ever said he died for our sins and he also believes that Jesus never said he was the Son of God and this is difficult cause he doesn't trust the writings of John. So man this weekend I gotta buckle down. As for right now i gotta eat some Fruity Pebbles and play Counter Strike
(Judas ?s answered soon sorry for the procrastination)
art said at 10:45 PM 02-26-2004: The stations of the cross represents Christ's trial and resurrection in 15 'steps'. Go to any Catholic church and you will see plaques or pictures on the wall representing these steps.
As kids we would walk from station to station during Easter week as the priest would chant or say something at each step. Sometime we would choose a Station and draw a picture or make something representing it. As adults, sometimes the priest would lead a sort of re-enactment where the congregation takes the role of the 'prosecution' saying 'Crucify Him', etc.
FIRST STATION: Jesus is condemned to death.
SECOND STATION: Jesus takes up his cross.
THIRD STATION: Jesus falls the first time.
FOURTH STATION: Jesus meets his mother.
FIFTH STATION: Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus carry his cross.
SIXTH STATION: Veronica wipes Jesus' face.
SEVENTH STATION: Jesus falls the second time.
EIGHTH STATION: Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem.
NINTH STATION: Jesus falls the third time.
TENTH STATION: Jesus stripped of his garments.
ELEVENTH STATION: Jesus is nailed to the cross.
TWELFTH STATION: Jesus dies on the cross.
THIRTEENTH STATION: Jesus is taken down from the cross
FOURTEENTH STATION: Jesus is buried in the tomb.
FIFTEENTH STATION: Jesus rises from the dead
This is how I remember it in parochial school. I am sure Brandon and Kiche can add something more.
craig [email] said at 12:17 AM 02-27-2004: the reenactment of the trial with the priest as pontius pilate and the congregation as the jewish mob is the mass for good friday.
on holy thursday, there is a reenactment of the last supper with the priest as jesus and 12 selected parishioners as the apostles.
art said at 10:06 AM 02-27-2004: ah yes, you're bringing back memories now. I couldn't remember the sequence, but I do remember going to church four straight days
brandon [email] said at 12:07 PM 02-26-2004: The children I don't know about. But, in the AOTA (Attack of the Apostles: Episode II) there are accounts of Judas's death that contradict the gospels. St. Veronica, who is not in the bible, is a vapor-saint invented to explain a certain Catholic relic, a towel said to bear Jesus's image. The crow I've never read about. And the bridge? What happens at the bridge?
ed [email] said at 9:07 PM 02-26-2004: I didn't remember the crow (raven?) either, but it was a powerful and (even though I semi-expected the end result) startling thing when it did the whole eye-plucking manuever. I jumped (as much as one can jump while seated) like I had been hit with a cattle-prod.
neilbert said at 1:20 PM 02-26-2004: They're called it "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" now. It's even killed somebody; a woman died at one of the screenings, just when Jesus was getting nailed to the cross. As per your query, Teddy, I was always told that Judas actually died many years later while working in a field. He supposedly tripped and split his guts open on a plow. As far as the deformed children and sores on the mouth, maybe Gibson was using another metaphor for the devil, I dunno.
jeff [email] said at 12:39 AM 02-27-2004: One of the gospels says he fell down upon his sword. A non-Catholic friend of mine was discussing this gospel inconsistancy today and mentioned in the book of Esther that a man is condemned to be "hanged", which in that case was to impale him with a spear. Perhaps a translation issue, perhaps not.
tim said at 5:19 PM 02-26-2004: This still sounds like a video rental to me. I don't want to deal with all the uber religous people on the way to see this thing. But before you start breaking this movie down, wait for all the half ass copycat versions of this film to come out. Im sure Kevin Costner will want to do his version of jesus, some sort of "Dances with Jesus". And then there's the made for television movie that's will probably get made. Followed by, a full hollywood production with "the Rock" as jesus who wants revenge this time. Salma Hayek can play his so called virgin mom. And if you want a true genderless devil, that dude from the crying game will fit right in. And finally, if we are lucky enough, several highly entertaining porn spoofs with Ron Jeremy getting sucked off on the cross. Amen.
tim said at 9:33 PM 02-26-2004: Yes he would, and it would suck hard, like all his other movies. The best you can hope for in this situation is a Jesus saturday morning cartoon, or some really militant christian rap. My vote is for the rap, at least it would be funny.
tim said at 10:29 PM 02-26-2004: Ed, I just don't like Kevin Costner movies. I know that Dances With Wolves, Field of Dreams, and a couple of other of his films are considered great movie sucesses, but i personally just don't like them. Actually, except untouchables...that was good. So my opinion is not uniformed, you can just say I have bad taste in movies. I just say I don't like Kevin Costner.
ed [email] said at 10:35 PM 02-26-2004: It must just be a difference of opinion, then. If you can like The Untouchables but dismiss Field Of Dreams, then there are likely inherent differences that cannot be resolved.
josh [email] said at 9:34 AM 02-27-2004: Waterworld is a LOT better than Swordfish. Swordfish is ONLY better than the Postman because it's like an hour shorter.
rick [email] said at 9:51 AM 02-27-2004: I have to disagree.
"Swordfish" was bad because it was basically a dumb film with a lot of gratuities. And it was offensive.
"The Postman" was bad because it was slow, it had very bad dialogue, went on way too long ( yes, you have already mentioned that), and the story was bad too. I cannot think of anything that offensive in the film BUT it had a lot of plain bad scenes.
"Swordfish" was not boring. And not boring counts for something.
rick [email] said at 10:03 AM 02-27-2004: "If Swordfish was an hour longer, but that hour was just padding, it would be just as bad or worse than the Postman."
Once again, I must disagree. If I had about fifty million dollars to blow, and was told to add an hour to "Swordfish," I could have made it much better with no scenes from the rest of the film cut.
Possibilities:
-More detailed explanation about Project Swordfish ( this could be a thinly veiled reference to some real-life skullduggery).
-Ninjas
-A greater look at Mr. Jackman's character's relationship with ex-wife and child. Much nuance and introspection
-A subplot of some sort of double-cross with Ms. Berry's character
-More Mr. Cheadle ( I think he is a good actor).
-Heavy metal bands that are also covert operations on the side
rick [email] said at 10:05 AM 02-27-2004: To have made the film itself better, there would need to be a fair amount of editing of certain scenes. But the basic premise I did not think was so bad unlike "The Postman."
josh [email] said at 10:38 AM 02-27-2004: Before I even consider the movie not being bad, you would have to remove the scene where Hugh Jackman wrote 1000s of lines of code from memory, apparently, to crack into a top secret, super secure computer, while getting a blowjob and with a gun to his head, in the matter of 30 seconds.
rick [email] said at 12:11 PM 02-27-2004: "you would have to remove the scene where Hugh Jackman wrote 1000s of lines of code from memory, apparently, to crack into a top secret, super secure computer, while getting a blowjob and with a gun to his head, in the matter of 30 seconds."
I figured that you, like me, had been inoculated against that, after seeing "Independence Day" in which Jeff Goldblum hacks onto the system of an ALIEN spaceship with a Macintosh. I know their motto is "It just works" but even that spiel made me feel insulted.
josh [email] said at 10:35 AM 02-27-2004: "If Swordfish was an hour longer, but that hour was just padding, it would be just as bad or worse than the Postman."
Once again, I must disagree. If I had about fifty million dollars to blow, and was told to add an hour to "Swordfish," I could have made it much better with no scenes from the rest of the film cut.
Again, you aren't disagreeing. You are saying the same thing I said.
NOTE that I said "if that hour was just padding".
"if that hour was just padding"
"if that hour was just padding"
"if that hour was just padding"
"if that hour was just padding"
"if that hour was just padding"
"if that hour was just padding"
"if that hour was just padding"
You aren't disagreeing with me, since you are saying if you added an hour that WASN'T padding, you might have made it good.
rick [email] said at 12:09 PM 02-27-2004: Again I disagree because I think, as I tried to explain, "The Postman" was an intrinsically worse film.
And I bet if the director of "Swordfish" was told to add an hour to the film, he would have put in some more car chases and explosions and gun battles which are not often high art but are not boring.
rick [email] said at 8:23 AM 02-28-2004: YOU SAW IT?!?!?
Was this before or after you met Josh because I have made it one of my duties and I guessed that Josh did the same, to warn people never to see that film.
milky [email] said at 10:09 AM 02-28-2004: I retract my previous statements about liking Araki's stuff. A few weeks ago, I tried to sit through some of it.
josh [email] said at 9:36 AM 02-27-2004: It was "just okay". Nothing special. Full of really unbelievable sequences, and sequences lifted from other films. It's just weird how much people talk about it... I think mostly because people are glad Sean Connery made a film that wasn't terrible, and De Niro was good as Capone.
andrew [email] said at 6:42 PM 02-27-2004: whenever a bullshit movie like this comes out my brother always says "andrew, you've got to see this movie, it's really important tha you see this film" (not seriously). not to be impolite, but i don't see why i have to accept mel's passion. i really tried to get into it, but it just didn't really move me. i sneezed during the crucifiction, it just wasn't my thing. i like christianity, but as far as movie aesthetics, well i could take it or leave it.
