Can't wait for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ"
 

I think this movie will be great. I really enjoy movies that make people think.

I was sitting in church yesterday morning and the pastors are pushing ppl to go see this movie. I am tempted to go see it. plus i got free tickets that is always a good incentive too. :D

I plan to go see it. :)

I will be there. This is the first movie I've looked forward to seeing in a very very very long time.

I've heard that Mel's not going to put subtitles in it, and I think he's doing it for a reason. The purpose is that we see the horrors, so that we CAN think and interpret it in our own way.

wow, i didn't know that. i was miffed a bit it was in another language.....i understand the point and all, but that also might turn ppl away from seeing it who really should see it. ya know? but i am super excited about it all, anyway, and i hope it does great. mel gibson is fantastic and i hope after all the stink ppl have made over it, he blows all the other movies away. it opens the 25th, right? oh...and i believe tonite is his interview about it with diane sawyer....def watching it.

I'm interesting in seeing it.... but I do worry how some will receive it, which also seems to be the concern of my parish priest. He made sure to explain the stance of the Church on the film along with his own views (he apparently has seen an advanced screening).

If I remember correctly, Jesus and most of the other characters will be speaking in Aramaic. (I'm pretty certain they gotta include some subtitles... Aramaic is not an everyday spoken language. ;)) Otherwise, most everyone there will be thumbing through their Bibles to keep track of what's being said! :)

According to the official website. www.thepassionofthechrist.com :

"All the characters are heard speaking the languages they would actually have spoken at the time. This means Aramaic for the Jewish characters including Christ and his disciples, and 'street Latin' for the Romans. Greek, which was commonly spoken among the intellectuals of the period, was not quite as relevant to the story."

I'm thinking about going to see this - I think I know the story well enough that I'll be able to figure it out. My Theo prof is quite the language scholar so it'll be interesting to see what he has to say about it.

I just noticed that the role of Jesus is being played by James Caviezel, who was Ashley Judd's sociopathic husband in the movie "High Crimes". I'm just surprised because he seems to be a big, strapping guy and I've never pictured Jesus that way.

I'm sure this will be a powerful and moving film but I don't plan to see it. From what I've heard, it will be far too graphic for me. I remember being really upset the first time I attended Stations of the Cross when I was a kid; so I probably couldn't handle this!

I might go see it. it should be interesting.

Originally there were going to be no subtitles, but after some pressure (don't know from whom) Mel Gibson decided to add them after all. He originally was thinking that the emotion seen from the characters would be enough to get the story, that was why he wasn't going to have them.

From working at a video store, I KNOW people will come back and ask for a dubbed version once this comes out.

Stan-
Thanks America for your laziness, instead of enjoying the beauty of the director's vision.

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon dubbed SUCKS

I will rent the video!

Lot's of controversy around this film. I have a very hard time understanding that. It's not like we ALL haven't heard this story.
They say it's because it is so moving and of course the fear
of people blaming the Jewish all over again. Mel cut this scene-

"A scene in the film, in which the Jewish high priest Caiaphas calls down a kind of curse on the Jewish people by declaring of the Crucifixion, "His blood be on us and on our children," will not be in the movie's final version, said the Gibson associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The passage had been included in some versions of the film that were shown before select groups, mostly of priests and ministers.

"It didn't work in the focus screenings," the associate said. "Maybe it was thought to be too hurtful, or taken not in the way it was intended. It has been used terribly over the years."

Jewish leaders had warned that the passage from Matthew 27:25 was the historic source for many of the charges of deicide and Jews' collective guilt in the death of Jesus.

Gibson's decision to remove the scene could indicate that he was being responsive to concerns of Jewish groups that the film will fuel anti-Semitism."

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8
OK, though Biblically it stands correct, it was feared it would re-ignite anti-Semitism.
I don't think that holds too much water, but then, people often surprise and disappoint me...:(

When you think about all the Easter movies-The Robe, Damitrius and the Gladiator, the Ten Commandments...
The Musicals-Jesus Christ Superstar (TALK ABOUT A CONTROVERSY:eek: !) edited here to add-(I LOVED JCS, I think it is one of the best musicals and adaptations I have EVER seen!)Godspell, where was the uproar from the religious critics then?
I thought Dogma was horrifically sacrilegious but nobody screamed about that OR The Last Temptation of Christ...except the Christians and then-we were trying to practice censorship.

I would like to see it, as would Mr. ISUKappa.

Never in my 25 years did I ever think that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, but maybe that's just me.

Man, what to do on Ash Wednesday: Go to church, go to The Passion or watch The Bachelorette. :p

ETA: Well, in the historical/literal sense, maybe, but I don't carry that over to current times.

I'm probably going to go and see this movie. There is a lot of talk about Anti-semetic views in it, but I'll have to see it before I believe it.

It just seems like it's anti-semetics because they show the story as the bible tells it. We watch movies about WWII all the time and people don't get up in arms cry anti-germanic setimets will run rampant.

Then again... the anti-semetism tends to underlie the social current more than I think most of us want to believe. Last I heard, this wasn't true for the Germans.

Oh - justamom - I agree. JCS - best adaptation ever. It was on a few weekends ago and I just had to watch it again.

I thought Dogma did receive some controversy, especially because Alanis Morrisette was playing God. I don't know about JCS, but I was really surprised when my high school and the local boys' school did it without any complaints from the school chaplain.

Actually, there are a ton of historical inaccuracies in this and Mel Gibson is just plain old dumb or trying to sell a story for something it isn't. He not only kept in a part during the advanced screening that Jewish groups find inflammatory in which Jews are portrayed as evil both in image and in spirit (a part he said he wouldn't keep), but also made anti-semitic remarks about how Jews own Hollywood and are coming after him for it.

-Rudey
--I'm sure he can find enough outlets in Christian media along with the same kind of people who call Mohammed a child molestor so good for him.

Did anyone watch the Diane Sawyer interview with him? I missed it and was interested in what he had to say about it all.

He was getting ragged on by a talk show host for taking that "inflammatory" line out of the movie.

The Host was like: Well Mel wouldn't remove the line because all the groups protested but he removed it when a focus group was made uncomfortable by it.

Tell me something: If something is generally hisorically accurate is it really anti-anything?

I know its taught academically that the Jewish leadership at the time was instrumental in the death of the mythic Jesus.

I don't really care, I wasn't there at the time and he wasn't a relative or anything.

Why is that anti-semitic?

I am going to make it a point to see this movie! I watched the Prime Time special, and the whole segment was wonderfully done.

Do you always speak about things you don't know? Because I will tell you something, it's not historically accurate.

An MSNBC article on the movie: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212741/

From the ADL:
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.

Furthermore, the remarks made by Gibson and fans of the movie are anti-semitic. They include every wonderful theory out there such including conspiracy theories.

-Rudey

Rudey is entirely right. We've had some long discussions on this in my Theo class (I'm in a NT class and we're studying the gospels right now) and our professor is irate about some of the things they've included.

I have trouble believing anything Rudey has to say about anything Christian given that his hate gets in the way. Being "right" and merely agreeing with him are two very different things.

I'm also not taking opinions of anyone who has not yet seen the film.

If the ADL is an acceptable reference, then so should be the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights:

"The Catholic League's interpretation of the film is best expressed by Father Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He said that "each of the main characters contributes in some way to Jesus' fate: Judas betrays him; the Sanhedrin accuses him; the disciples abandon him; Peter denies knowing him; Herod toys with him; Pilate allows him to be condemned; the crowd mocks him; the Roman soldiers scourge, brutalize and finally crucify him; and the devil, somehow, is behind the whole action." Only Mary, Di Noia observes, "is really blameless."

When asked point-blank whether the movie is anti-Semitic, Di Noia said, "There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish about Mel Gibson's film."
"

Let me just say this: It was a BAD idea for Mel to do this movie about such a religious figure. If his interpretations of the Gospels are not COMPLETELY accurate, then alot of people who haven't studied the Gospels will be mislead.

Personally, my mouth dropped open when Diane asked about his dad talking about the pope and calling him "Garrulous Karolus, the Koran Kisser¡± :eek: :eek: that was a bit much!

I see a problem with this sentence. INTERPRETATIONS is the key word here.
There are so many interpretations of the gospel and every denomination thinks theirs is the right one. No body knows for sure what really happend, unless of course you were there. So as far as Mel is concerned, his interpretations are COMPLETELY correct.
Maybe he's right, maybe he isn't, but can anyone say for sure?

Very ture... one can say that Mel's interpretations are based on one particluar politcal/theological branch/movement of the Church; but then we don't know all the facts yet.... until we see the film we can not make a judgment either which way, all we are doing now is voicing opinions on other peoples interpretation of what they have heard or seen......

>>For Rudey>>

I agree that some Jews are not going to lok good in the film, but that is because of their role not their religion/culture... after all Jesus and most of his followers and disciples are Jewish as well.
It's just you love to throw down the "anti-Semitic" accusations a little to easily....

Of course the Romans are going to look bad too....

Honestly, do you enjoy having me make you look foolish thread after thread? I didn't throw down anti-semitic accusations too easily fool. Not only that, but you can't even respond to my earlier post so you say dribble...garbage.

-Rudey
--What a joke.

If MY post instigated this, I'm sorry.

Supposedly it's BIBLICALLY correct. I did not mention historically correct. (We're still trying to find proof of Noah's Ark and the Shroud)

Within the Bible there are several versions of the same story.

The thing is, the Irish weren't around the area. Who knows, they may have tried to get in line too. To "blame" anyone today for what happened then is CRAZY! I liked the example

adduncan-"The Catholic League's interpretation of the film is best expressed by Father Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He said that "each of the main characters contributes in some way to Jesus' fate: Judas betrays him; the Sanhedrin accuses him; the disciples abandon him; Peter denies knowing him; Herod toys with him; Pilate allows him to be condemned; the crowd mocks him; the Roman soldiers scourge, brutalize and finally crucify him; and the devil, somehow, is behind the whole action." Only Mary, Di Noia observes, "is really blameless."

taualumna-Yes, I did hear that about Alanis. That didn't sit too well with me either, but it was the whole project, not just that. You should have seen the picketing against JCS. All these ministers and their congregation lined up. It was the first time I ever heard of the conservatives rallying around an issue with enough anger to picket!!!

I saw the interview-GREAT. His Dad is nuts. The media knows it. Mel wouldn't take the bait.

Basically, until any of us has seen the movie I don't think we can give our educated opinion about it.

So if you weren't in the Civil War, you can't give your "educated opinion about it"?

-Rudey

I'm going to see this movie with a coworker of mine that really wants to see it. I'm bringing a box of tissues with me because I just know I'll need them. If I cry at the end of Jesus of Nazareth, and this movie is much more graphic, then I'll need tissues.

My only hope when this movie comes out, is that nut jobs/fanatics wont take certain things the wrong way and inflict harm and hatred or anything else against the Jews or any other group of people.

I honestly don't think this is a concern. Certain activists have planted this idea in the minds of the public as a way of protesting the film. But there's nothing to indicate that it's a real possibility

Passion plays go on every year at Easter time. (Kiddie Easter pageants at churches, parades and processions in ethnic neighborhods, etc.) You mentioned Zefferelli's "Jesus of Nazareth". Then there are old time classics like "King of Kings", "The Robe", and "Barrabas", each taking a different degree and direction of poetic license.

Has any of these ever caused increased violence against any American Jewish community? No. Thus, I dont' think it will be the case this time either.

--add

Yes

Yeah, umm, ok.

-Rudey
--I seriously wonder about some of you.

Don't worry, some of seriously wonder about you

That's fine. As long as you're wondering how ridiculously brilliant I am.

-Rudey

Is that what you think you are.
Wake up Rudy, you're dreaming.

My problem is Mel Gibson's over confidence that his vision is THE right vision. The bible was written almost 2000 years ago in another language by authors we still are not sure were actually alive during the time of Christ. But beyond this, because I know there are many people who believe the Bible is literal and that everything in the Bible happened exactly as it described, every piece of human writing fact or fiction, modern or ancient is open to some level of interpretation. Unless you can speak to the author you don't know if he uses the same words as you do in the same way. And this is before you even take into account translation.

And personally (this is definitely a lot more subjective) I think its very un-Christian for anyone to think they can interpet God/Christ so accurately and precisely. For one to think they can so clearly understand the vision of God and further to believe they can interpret it with no error is in effect deifying themselves and that is wrong. As a Catholic this has always been the center of my inner conflict about remaining a Catholic (and why I have had problems with varying other sects and faiths).

We are constantly told all humans have faults and sins but the bible written by humans has no errors in it and humans who have read it and interpretted each insist they have made no errors in their interpretation. How are these ideas not conflicting?