passion pg 3
Satellite TV wrote - I'm sure that 2000 years ago public crucifictions were probably pretty brutal.
bob - Indeed but they would not have that brutal because, like mentioned earlier, there was enough flogging to kill a person ten times over. The film was unrealistic on that score. And after you have admitted that you have to then ask what purpose all that extra violence served. A lot of people believe that it served to cater to people's violent fantasies and in a film about Jesus that is awfully goddamed hypocritical.
Dr_Zoidberg - bob wrote:
... there was enough flogging to kill a person ten times over. The film was unrealistic on that score you have to admit.
I couldn't say if it was or not, I have never witnessed a flogging. Or, in this case, a scourging.
bob wrote:
A lot of people believe that it served to cater to people's violent fantasies and in a film about Jesus that is awfully goddamed hypocritical.
Indeed, they may be right; but that was not the intent of the producers. Neither are they responsible for what fantasies people conjur in their own minds.
Again, it goes back to the fact that if we didn't want to see someone being put to death in that fashion (and we all knew what the movie was about before we saw it) we should have stayed away. Complaints about Roman scourging and crucifixion being too violent is like going to a porno theatre and complaining there was too much sex.
bob - The film was not shot in real time and yet covered the last day of Jesus life. It is left up to us to imagine how the other hours were spent on the basis of what information the film provided. The film gave us no reason to imagine anything but more of the same scourging in those intervening hours. Jesus would have bled to death.
Neither of us knows with any certainty what the intent of the producers was but we can guess that part of it's motivation was to make money selling violent images. That seems a fair conclusion based on what they presented to the world.
By the way I don't believe that it is simply a case of "if you don't want to see it don't watch it". I am interested in film. I see it as something that simultaneously reflects and creates the global community in which I live. It is my right, perhaps even my reponsibility, to see and criticize a film like this regardless of whether or not I want to be exposed to those sorts of images.
Cybergeurilla -
- The film portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish "mob" as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for the crucifixion.
- The film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity.
- The film relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate.
- The film uses an anti-Jewish account of a 19th century mystical anti-Semitic nun, distorts New Testament interpretation by selectively citing passages to weave a narrative that oversimplifies history, and is hostile to Jews and Judaism.
- The film portrays Jews who adhere to their Jewish faith as enemies of God and the locus of evil.
And if you believe that Gibson's intentions were pure and true:
Quote:
Gibson is a passionate member of the Catholic Traditionalist movement, a minority (but growing) Catholic sect that rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in 1964-65 - in particular the abolition of the Latin Mass. The Passion is nothing short of a party political broadcast for this movement, if only in the crude way Gibson's earlier Braveheart was propaganda for the SNP.
How influential is this Traditionalist movement, and what might it do with a multi-million-dollar war chest from Gibson? The publicity surrounding The Passion has fed all sorts rumours - particularly of an anti-semitic nature. Much of this has been provoked by the increasingly bizarre public comments of Gibson's 85-year-old father, Hutton. Gibson senior is a self-confessed anti-semite and Holocaust denier. In one recent radio interview, he claimed there were no Nazi extermination camps: "They [the Jews] simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney, Australia, and Los Angeles."
"They're after one world religion and one world government. That's why they've attacked the Catholic Church so strongly, to ultimately take control over it by their doctrine."
Gibson senior belongs to the extreme fringe of the Catholic Traditionalist movement which has gone so far as claiming that the Church in Rome has been taken over by a weird coalition of Jews and Freemasons acting for Satan.
bob - Indeed but they would not have that brutal because, like mentioned earlier, there was enough flogging to kill a person ten times over. The film was unrealistic on that score. And after you have admitted that you have to then ask what purpose all that extra violence served. A lot of people believe that it served to cater to people's violent fantasies and in a film about Jesus that is awfully goddamed hypocritical.
Dr_Zoidberg - bob wrote:
... there was enough flogging to kill a person ten times over. The film was unrealistic on that score you have to admit.
I couldn't say if it was or not, I have never witnessed a flogging. Or, in this case, a scourging.
bob wrote:
A lot of people believe that it served to cater to people's violent fantasies and in a film about Jesus that is awfully goddamed hypocritical.
Indeed, they may be right; but that was not the intent of the producers. Neither are they responsible for what fantasies people conjur in their own minds.
Again, it goes back to the fact that if we didn't want to see someone being put to death in that fashion (and we all knew what the movie was about before we saw it) we should have stayed away. Complaints about Roman scourging and crucifixion being too violent is like going to a porno theatre and complaining there was too much sex.
bob - The film was not shot in real time and yet covered the last day of Jesus life. It is left up to us to imagine how the other hours were spent on the basis of what information the film provided. The film gave us no reason to imagine anything but more of the same scourging in those intervening hours. Jesus would have bled to death.
Neither of us knows with any certainty what the intent of the producers was but we can guess that part of it's motivation was to make money selling violent images. That seems a fair conclusion based on what they presented to the world.
By the way I don't believe that it is simply a case of "if you don't want to see it don't watch it". I am interested in film. I see it as something that simultaneously reflects and creates the global community in which I live. It is my right, perhaps even my reponsibility, to see and criticize a film like this regardless of whether or not I want to be exposed to those sorts of images.
Cybergeurilla -
- The film portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish "mob" as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for the crucifixion.
- The film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity.
- The film relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate.
- The film uses an anti-Jewish account of a 19th century mystical anti-Semitic nun, distorts New Testament interpretation by selectively citing passages to weave a narrative that oversimplifies history, and is hostile to Jews and Judaism.
- The film portrays Jews who adhere to their Jewish faith as enemies of God and the locus of evil.
And if you believe that Gibson's intentions were pure and true:
Quote:
Gibson is a passionate member of the Catholic Traditionalist movement, a minority (but growing) Catholic sect that rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in 1964-65 - in particular the abolition of the Latin Mass. The Passion is nothing short of a party political broadcast for this movement, if only in the crude way Gibson's earlier Braveheart was propaganda for the SNP.
How influential is this Traditionalist movement, and what might it do with a multi-million-dollar war chest from Gibson? The publicity surrounding The Passion has fed all sorts rumours - particularly of an anti-semitic nature. Much of this has been provoked by the increasingly bizarre public comments of Gibson's 85-year-old father, Hutton. Gibson senior is a self-confessed anti-semite and Holocaust denier. In one recent radio interview, he claimed there were no Nazi extermination camps: "They [the Jews] simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney, Australia, and Los Angeles."
"They're after one world religion and one world government. That's why they've attacked the Catholic Church so strongly, to ultimately take control over it by their doctrine."
Gibson senior belongs to the extreme fringe of the Catholic Traditionalist movement which has gone so far as claiming that the Church in Rome has been taken over by a weird coalition of Jews and Freemasons acting for Satan.
posted by david at 3:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home