+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound (/thread-9229.html)
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Occhidiangela - 02-28-2004
I am amazed. I just came back from seeing "The Passion of the Christ." What was all this hot air, bluster, and foaming at the mouth from the Hollywood elites about? Jesus wept, those idiots hyped a bloody art film into a box office success. Or was that all part of the plan, I wonder? Hard to say, in modern show bizz.
There were apparently producers who would only speak 'non attribution' who said, "Mel Gibson will never work in this town, or with me at any rate, again." All that hot air and screaming of AntiSemitism merely, it seems to me, whetted the appetite for a curious public.
I thought it was a well made film, good costumes, the actors did a pretty nice job, but . . . why all the fuss?
This film did for a part of the Bible story what 'Saving Private Ryan' did for "The Longest Day" and other D-Day movies. It took off some of the old school Hollywood Gloss and depicted a well known story in a rather gritty, bloody, and even gory presentation.
So, Jesus Christ Superstar meets "Braveheat." BFD.
Since Peckinpah made _The Wild Bunch_, Hollywood has been getting progressively more graphic, more violent, more risque, by the year. All Gibson did was apply that style to a story that had previously been sugar coated. At least in this film the violence had a point, rather than being purely gratuitous (Vin Diesel, ya listening?Ah Nold?) Tarantino also makes some where the violence has a point, though I daresay he is casual with the ketchup count.
Having "read the book" there were no plot surprises, just a few different garnishes to a well known story, and a no holds barred look at scourging, carrying a cross, mobs, piercing (yes, that piercing parlor on top of Golgotha where this guy did palm piercing for free) but the best part was:
All of the dialogue was in subtitles due to being in three foreign languages. Hey, just like the standard "art fag" films that are so popular with the pretentious artsy set. I hope the artsy set sees this film, they'll feel right at home. I thought "Diva" was a more entertaining story, personally. Of course, maybe this film was not trying to entertain anyone.
I recognized quite a bit of the Latin from my exposure to Italian, I had little to no recognition of the Hebrew or Aramaic due to my complete ignorance of both of those tongues. Thank goodness for subtitles. Of course, few dialogue surprises, but some nice characterizations of supporting roles from the story.
The depitcion of the presence of Satan was an interesting spin. Judas' despair and suicide was well done. Mary's sorrow was mind numbingly pounded into us. There was about one too many interationss of "I've fallen and I can't get up and those Romans keep whipping me and making me get up and carry that heavy old cross." Of course, I suppose part of the purpose of the film was to show what a royal pain it is to get some 39 lashings or more, and then have to carry a couple of railroad ties down and up a hill while some arsehole wearing boiled leather armor swats you with a whip. Not a sport that will get a lot of try outs next season. Maybe martyrdom is special because so few people go in for it as a career choice. Yasir Arafat, ya listening? If everyone's a martyr, it loses its shine.
In any case, I did not spend some 30 million bucks to put my story on America's movie screens, Mel did, good for him. Looks like a lot of folks want to see how and what he did.
I went since I had wanted to see it from last year when I heard Gibson was doing it with the old languages being spoken. That was reason enough for me.
The charges of antisemitism . . . uh, nothing new in this film that has not been pounded into atoms for the past 500 years. I did not see him do much new, though there were some interesting insertions of folks trying to stop the obvious kangarro court in process.
All in all, glad I went. My daughter was not grossed out, my wife was not disgusted by the gore, and even with the gore, the message does not really change by adding a high ketchup count and an exposition of Roman Imperial cruelty on celluloid.
Worth going to, unless you prefer Errol Flynn era films as my father in law, a life long and devout Catholic, does. He refuses to see the film on the grounds that he is tired of Hollywood goryifying and ruining his favorite stories. He has not darkened a theatre for 7 years now. :D
Maybe he's on to something. If more folks just did not go, maybe Hollywood would make better films. I wonder.
Rogue Rating Service scores a four beers (out of a possible six pack) rating. (Had some Rogue amber ale tonight, and found out it is coffee flavored. Just my drink, or so I thought. Nope, too sweet.)
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - --Pete - 02-28-2004
Hi,
Sounds like a wait and rent it at Blockbuster to me, if I even bother seeing it at all.
If more folks just did not go, maybe Hollywood would make better films. I wonder.
Naw, if folks with taste stop going, then Hollywood will just make more tastless films for those who go ;)
BTW, I hope the fact you're posting this late means that your machine is fixed.
--Pete
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Vandiablo - 02-28-2004
Quote:Naw, if folks with taste stop going, then Hollywood will just make more tastless films for those who go
That has already happened... but you knew that... oh, were you saying that? Hmm.
This PoTC film reminds me of: (drum roll) Kentucky Fried Movie!!
Okay, only 2 of you ever saw that one. Bear with me... one of the sketches in KFM was a man going to the theatre and watching a movie in "Feel-around". oh never mind, this isn't gonna work...
-V
.... or was the movie "The Boob Tube"?? hmmm.
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Count Duckula - 02-28-2004
Vandiablo,Feb 28 2004, 06:30 AM Wrote:This PoTC film reminds me of: (drum roll) Kentucky Fried Movie!!Every time I think I'm the only person on the planet who's seen Kentucky Fried Movie, somebody proves me wrong. It was either that or Amazon Women on the Moon that had the "Feel Around" sketch. I'm sure of it.
Okay, only 2 of you ever saw that one. Bear with me... one of the sketches in KFM was a man going to the theatre and watching a movie in "Feel-around". oh never mind, this isn't gonna work...
PS: Along the same lines, anybody remember who won the Superbowl? Everyone remember Janet Jackson's costume malfunction? Everybody know that Jews are getting up in arms about anti-Semetism in this movie? Will anybody remember the specifics of this film in a few months? Just keep those in mind.
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Lord_Olf - 02-28-2004
Hi Vandiablo,
it was Kentucky Fried Movie...
Greetings,
Lord_Olf, proud owner of the DVD :-)
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Doc - 02-28-2004
Seen a few trailers. They wanted realism, they got Hollywood gloss. Jesus still looks to pretty, to human.
Having survived God knows how many lashes from a cat o nine tails my self, I can speak from personal experience that what ever was left of Jesus after said event did not resemble anything remotely human. Skin hangs off in ribbons. Bones, ribs, peep out. Muscles and meaty bits dangle or just fall off.
When Pilate held up Jesus and said "Behold the Man Jesus!" He was trying to let folks know that the pile of scraps he was holding up at one time had been human.
I doubt I will ever bother seeing the movie.
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Occhidiangela - 02-28-2004
I strongly suggest you see it, unless your own experiences with the lash brings back things that you just don't want to mess with again, and I respect that position completely. So few have "been there done that." Thank goodness.
As to to the depiction of the whipping, I have to agree with some who suggest that given the number of strokes administered, it was not "gory enough." Again, the written descriptions of what two dozen of the Cat would do to a sailor's back strike me as even more graphic than what I saw on film. You may be uniquely positioned to critique that film making, if you choose to.
If that is not your reason not to see it, now or later on video, I would say that those who have not seen the film will never have a leg to stand on in talking about it. I was quite surprised at the relative lack of gore compared to the hype machine's assertions.
There are some neat juxtapositions of the "Message" inserted as flashbacks. It is an old Hollywood technique, but I think Gibson used it to pretty good effect in how the moasic was pieced together.
It is more than the torture, much, much, more. Of course, I see it as being a film "felt" far more strongly by serious and sincere Christians (in whose numbers I am not) than anyone else.
Again, tastes differ, and you may want to wait till video drops the price. But it's worth a look, moreso than about half the films I have seen in the past year or three.
Occhi
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Occhidiangela - 02-28-2004
The blockbuster action? Given your facility with languages, that angle alone will I think be something you can appreciate. Yes, you already know the basic story, and I imagine you've seen and heard more than one version of it over the years. I surely have.
One does not need to be a Christian to appreciate the film, or the message that I think is trying to be put across. And I don't see any Oscars being made there, (politics aside) just a solid bit of professional work by the cast and crew.
Worth a look.
I doubt I'll see it a second time. Some films are a once seen is grand. For me, glad I saw it, but I won't be buying the DvD. :D
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Doc - 02-28-2004
I think not. I am not alone, there were many here in the South who suffered the ultimate cruelty of the cat o nine tails. There are prolly lots of folks capable of offering their opinions.
Would watching the whipping scene bother me? I don't know. I honestly can't say. All these years later I still bleed. My skin is tissue paper thin in places on my back, inspite of the skin grafts. Just stretching my arms out can tear the skin and cause me to bleed a bit, all these years later. I doubt watching it would bother me much more then living with it, which I do every day. I have been shot too... And watching folks in movies get plugged can make me wince a bit. It's kind of an interesting question now that I think about it.
I am not keen on the ideas sold in the film. To much death, hate, and near sexual fetish violent pornography. To focus on Jesus' death to such a degree is just wrong, at least in my own humble worthless opinion. For me, I would rather focus on the fact that he came back to life, the tomb is empty. The whole point of Grace and the Abolition of the Law was life, not death. Jesus asked us to "Love one another" and so far, this film has done little but make folks hate each other and be angry. You will know a tree by the fruit it bears...
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - WarLocke - 02-28-2004
![[Image: crosswalk10pts.jpg]](http://s92592496.onlinehome.us/Files/Macro/crosswalk10pts.jpg)
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Vandiablo - 02-29-2004
Quote:and so far, this film has done little but make folks hate each other and be angry.
I've heard from many who've seen the film, and they are smart enough to know that it makes no sense to hate modern Jews for what some Jewish sects may or may not have done 2000 years ago. Are there Pharisees and Saducees (sp?) still around?
The only people I've heard negative from are people who are afraid the movie will whip up anti-Semitism. I have yet to hear anyone who's seen the movie spout anti-Semitism. I'm sure I'd be able to find it, but I'm sure it'd be the same people who were already vocally anti-Semitic.
The same critics say that the movie also panders to stereotypes of Jews, but since I haven't seen it, I can't agree or disagree there.
The point of all the gory suffering is to drive home just how bad the suffering was. Even if it is not, as you say, as gory as the real thing, I'm sure it is still much worse than most people imagine it. It may do some good to open some eyes to how "medieval" that time was.
-V
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Doc - 02-29-2004
Quote:The point of all the gory suffering is to drive home just how bad the suffering was. Even if it is not, as you say, as gory as the real thing, I'm sure it is still much worse than most people imagine it. It may do some good to open some eyes to how "medieval" that time was.
And that's the problem. Right there. **Points** Death. Death = Bad. The focus should be the renewal of life.
And that's the problem with just about every movie about Jesus. The movie ends at the cross, with the revival at the tomb added perhaps, at best, as an afterthought. Spend 2 hours crucifying Jesus, spend ten minutes adding a brief mention that "He lives again." Frankly, there should be a movie that begins with the moment of death on the cross, and then the rest of the movie focus entirely on what happened after. But it would never sell. People, hell, most Christians in general, don't want to see Jesus live. Nope. It's a kill your idols moment. Would rather watch suffering. Hate. Pain. Anger. Fear. People want blood. People get their jollies watching others in agony.
The real miracle, for those that believe, happened after the cross. Jesus was taken and embalmed. His brain was pulled out of his nose, his innards removed, his body stuffed with sawdust, spices, and stuff to preserve his corpse. He was wrapped carefully in bindings. (Sorry Shroud Seekers, that rag never touched Jesus.) And the Bible says, inspite of all that, that He lives again. The great question, is How. I am not here to convert, only to converse. So I will leave the mechanics of faith to wiser heads then mine. What did Thomas feel when he stuck his finger into Jesus' side? Jesus had not yet acended to his Father, he was not fully restored. Did Thomas feel sawdust and packing under flesh and bone? Did his doubt vanish when he felt solid evidence? Stuff like this would make for a great movie... But nobody would watch it.
I'll shut up and go away now and leave the tough questions and thoughts alone. People don't want those, they would rather have it neatly presented to them in technicolour Hollywood gloss.
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Vandiablo - 02-29-2004
Quote:The focus should be the renewal of life.
Well, that would just ruin it for me. To me, that's the part that was made up some time afterward. All this resurrection stuff, to me, is pure BS. The effort to make him divine, IMO, was to go up against the caesar, who supposedly was divine. IMO this divinization of Jesus effort unfortunately corrupts the gospels. There were early "Christians" who did not believe that Jesus was divine, but they suffered an involuntary separation from survival. But back to the movie...
The focus should be Love. That's what he tried to teach us. (Right?) And evidently the movie shows what Love is up against. ... so ... maybe you're right, or close to it-- the movie shows us how truly ugly and evil Hate is. You already know, you don't need the lesson; good for you, you're saved a few dollars. But many of us still need to see it, or be reminded, or else we get too involved with Stupid Things That Don't Matter.
-V
"Crucifixion? .. Good..."
-MP's LoB
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Nystul - 02-29-2004
What happened after the cross is the most important part of the story, but what happened on the cross and in the days leading up to it make a pretty powerful message. It is hard to imagine a greater degree of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others than what Jesus went through in those days. Through his death, Jesus put to practice a great deal of his teachings on how to live. That story can make a good movie, although I've yet to see if this one fits the bill.
Use of original language and subtitles is a level of realism I can do without, though.
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Occhidiangela - 02-29-2004
Doc and Nystul and Van.
Once again, if you see the film, you will see how the punctuation mark of the story, the ending that is beyond the action on and around the cross, as well as the flashbacks that bring up points in the teaching (eg like the Sermon on the Mount, and the "love thy neighbor and thy enemy") bring a great deal of "The Message" out. Of course, that fact the film was released around the beginning of Lent is not an accident. ;)
I do not believe the film was made with the intent of dividing people, nor to convert them. Doc, you are right that there being other films to be made or seen about "what happened next" but I will point out that a great many have already been made, and I have been seeing them on film and on TV for about the last 30 years. Your comment that few would make great success in Hollywod says more about your buying into the Hollywood assumption than about what someone could make with enough backing.
The divisiveness seems to me to have come from those who object to the story in the first place, and possibly from Mr Gibson's public comments on his very Old School Catholocism. The whinging seems to come from folks who either hate the Bible or who consider it an unworthy text, not from those who made the film. A great many assumptions appear to be made by anti-Christians, or maybe anti-Catholics, or maybe anti-pre Vatican II Catholics, who infer intents that did not appear to me, as I watch the film, as having been the message being sent. Maybe I am opaque, but as I am not a card carrying Christian, I can see this more objectively than those who polarize on that topic.
I am guessing that film was made for an audience of folks who to one degree another find the teachings and the premise of the Crucifixion and Resurrection either profound or at least appealing, if not The Truth.
Doc, your comment on the focus on gore is at odds with what I saw on film. This is simply an incorect assumption:
Quote:To much death, hate, and near sexual fetish violent pornography.
No pornography present, at all. Sexual Fetish? Not even close. Nothing sensual or titillating at all about the scourging. Raw cruelty, man's inhumanity to man. Three deaths on crosses and a suicide. A pretty low body count, compared to a great many Hollywood films, for example "The Wild Bunch" or most of what Clint Eastwood made.
The cruelty, which was depicted in two perspectives, particularly in the cases of some, not all, of the Roman soldiers, and the fear and hate expressed by some other characters, are depicted in counterpoint to the act of willing self sacrifice. Simon's assistance in carrying the cross ends up as a powerful illustration of one man helping another in a lousy situation.
There is no question, in that film, that Jesus knows from about minute one that he's about to go through incredible suffering. He does it anyway. What that tells us about martyrdom in a general sense is of interest. Again, nothing in this film is done with a light touch. But as to the characterization of a willing martyr, there is no bravado, no false glory, but something more akin to a stoic realization that what is about to occur has meaning beyond death.
Like war and the rawness of the events that inspired "Saving Private Ryan" the "glory" is absent. In a larger sense, the echoes of Glory come from the mouths of others than those who were in the grist mill of man inflicting death and pain on his fellow man.
There is a pointed underscoring of how Jesus asks and prays for forgiveness for those who put him through that trial. Painted on the face of some of the Romans is a registering of the power of the Message being sent. You want Message? It's all over the film. And the gore was not as rough as I had been led to believe.
For those who are not Christian, this film could raise the bar on trying to understand why that particular execution of a "rabble rouser" made such an impact for the next 2000 years, but I don't think that was the aim. The aim, I am guessing, was to give greater meaning to one word central to all Christian teachings:
Sacrifice.
I wil offer the example of later teachings, Ephesians 5:22, which discusses marriage and where in Christian Doctrine a man and woman should aim their efforts. The charge to men to "love your wife as He loved the Church" takes on a different meaning when you see what he went through for that purpose, for "The Church." (In laymans terms, that means, for example, "No, your Friday night poker game is not the path to a strong marriage, unless you are doing it together.") But enough on that, I am hardly a preacher, neither by qualification nor by predilection.
See it, or don't, but if ya don't see it, the comments boil down to talking about the Bible.
Which, perhaps, was the real intent in the first place! Who knows?
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Doc - 02-29-2004
Was the pornography bit.
I dunno about where you folks live, but, here, the film is drawing a certain type of crowd who come just to see the whipping. There have even been a few news stories. The Sado-Masochistic types apparently, view the film as the ultimate in S&M Porn. Pure unadulterated whipping action.
You must realize... There are sick people out there. Everybody that sees this film takes something different away when they go.
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Vandiablo - 03-01-2004
nothin toseehere
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Occhidiangela - 03-01-2004
"The only evil in Lothlaurien is that which you bring in with you." :)
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Occhidiangela - 03-08-2004
http://www.theonion.com/news/
That one about sums it up. Hee Hee.
Hollywood's Self Inflicted Wound - Nystul - 03-08-2004
Thanks, that was good for a much needed chuckle.
"Just look at Godspellâwhat the heck was going on there? It's time I reclaim My image."