Passion Of The Christ - Mel's Passion For Bloodlust?
February 14th 2007 11:52
I've read a couple of posts recently about violence in film (I'm looking at you Tracy ;o)
Also some comments which touched upon Mel Gibson's Passion of The Christ and the violent nature of it's content.
I'm gonna break from convention and write a video-less post on this, because any video I would show here other than the complete film would take the violent nature of the film totally out of context - thereby heightening the extreme nature it.
Violence in film has always been and will always be a contentious issue, but I believe there is gratuitous violence, and violence which in some way contributes to the telling of the story. And let's face it, it's when the story become secondary that the film isn't worth the time of day.
Gibson's horrible depiction of Christ's injuries and torture I belive fall into the valid category. Wether you are a Christian or not is largely irrelevant. So is your belief (or lack of it) in the factual accuracy of the Bible.
Mel Gibson has adapted material from a story that already existed and put it on the screen. If you've read the Bible, you'd know it's a violent book, full of war, murder, debauchery, torture, and any other horrible act you can think of. Human nature isn't always pretty.
In the Bible, Christ goes through some pretty fierce stuff before he is finally nailed to a chunk of wood and hung up to die a slow death. A lot of people don't think about it, 'cause they've heard it all so many times. Think about it. Someone holds you arms and legs down and hammers a metal spike through it - no pain killers, no mercy. Then they hang you up by those nails - you hang off your own flesh, likely slowly tearing it's way through around the nails.
My point is - regardless of your religious beliefs (and I know plenty of Christians who had a hard time with it to, don't get me wrong!), Mel has stayed pretty faithful to the original material.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mel as a filmmaker. His recent personal exploits have been unfortunate, it's true, but for my two cents, he is yet to make a terrible film as a director. Passion wasn't his best achievement, but Apocalypto has more than redeemed him as a director who refuses to be pigeonholed or dictated to by 'the system'.
Is it not Mel's prerogative to make his film how he sees fit? And if that means through the eyes of someone exploring of reaffirming their faith then so be it, I say.
And if the violence in a film (graphic or otherwise) advances the story or tells us something about the characters involved, then is that such a travesty?
Ultimately, you have a choice.
Too violent for you? Don't watch. But don't stop someone's creative expression because you don't agree or don't like it.
Also some comments which touched upon Mel Gibson's Passion of The Christ and the violent nature of it's content.
I'm gonna break from convention and write a video-less post on this, because any video I would show here other than the complete film would take the violent nature of the film totally out of context - thereby heightening the extreme nature it.
Violence in film has always been and will always be a contentious issue, but I believe there is gratuitous violence, and violence which in some way contributes to the telling of the story. And let's face it, it's when the story become secondary that the film isn't worth the time of day.
Gibson's horrible depiction of Christ's injuries and torture I belive fall into the valid category. Wether you are a Christian or not is largely irrelevant. So is your belief (or lack of it) in the factual accuracy of the Bible.
Mel Gibson has adapted material from a story that already existed and put it on the screen. If you've read the Bible, you'd know it's a violent book, full of war, murder, debauchery, torture, and any other horrible act you can think of. Human nature isn't always pretty.
In the Bible, Christ goes through some pretty fierce stuff before he is finally nailed to a chunk of wood and hung up to die a slow death. A lot of people don't think about it, 'cause they've heard it all so many times. Think about it. Someone holds you arms and legs down and hammers a metal spike through it - no pain killers, no mercy. Then they hang you up by those nails - you hang off your own flesh, likely slowly tearing it's way through around the nails.
My point is - regardless of your religious beliefs (and I know plenty of Christians who had a hard time with it to, don't get me wrong!), Mel has stayed pretty faithful to the original material.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mel as a filmmaker. His recent personal exploits have been unfortunate, it's true, but for my two cents, he is yet to make a terrible film as a director. Passion wasn't his best achievement, but Apocalypto has more than redeemed him as a director who refuses to be pigeonholed or dictated to by 'the system'.
Is it not Mel's prerogative to make his film how he sees fit? And if that means through the eyes of someone exploring of reaffirming their faith then so be it, I say.
And if the violence in a film (graphic or otherwise) advances the story or tells us something about the characters involved, then is that such a travesty?
Ultimately, you have a choice.
Too violent for you? Don't watch. But don't stop someone's creative expression because you don't agree or don't like it.
| 128 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
Comment by Tess Termulo
House of Ireth Culnamo
Comment by Sho Kosugi
Shoukai
Comment by Abe
God's Stormtrooper
Genesis 6:17 - I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
Exodus 32:10 - Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.
Leviticus 26:22 - I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted.
Deuteronomy 6:15 - for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land.
And this is just off the top of my head! God has no problem with violence, and He hasn't been shy about letting people know this. Not just little violence, either, but BIG, earth-shaking violence over fairly small details. Heck, He had a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (which is why I sit, completely motionless, wearing Depends from midnight Saturday until midnight Monday).
Any Christians who don't like violence are missing a core component of their faith. Anti-violence = anti-God. And being anti-God will get you violently smote pretty quick!
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
Indeed he is. Just watch Braveheart if anyone needed further proof. Masterful acting and filmmaking.
Tess
Thanks for dropping by. I think you've hit the issue at the heart of it - it's not really the violence that's the problem for most, but the fact that we're watching Jesus get beat up on screen.
As for the Da Vinci Code, that's something a little different. Great book, yet to see the film. Dan Brown has constructed a story so believable that it purports to be truth, and therefore challenges what is at the very heart of Christian Faith. Jesus getting flogged is described in the Bible (maybe not in as much detail as Mel shows, but it's there). Jesus reproducing with Mary Magdalene is a stretch!
Sho
Zang!
Thanks for the comment.
Abe
All true. Although if my Catcholic upbringing serves me well, the point of Noah's flood was so that God didn't have to sit there anymore with his finger over the smite button. All was wiped clean and started from scratch, with progress to be evaluated at the End of Everything. Thanks for reading.
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Thanks for the interesting plug for my site
I do agree that we should all have the option to see the films we choose, I don't think we should be stopped. I saw Bais-Moi when it was first shown at The Valhalla and before there was much media opinion about the film and before it was actually given a rating other than it being R. We thought that the sex scenes were likely to be graphic and realistic (especially seeing as it was French!), but we didn't realise the extent of the violent rape scene that happened within the first ten minutes of the film. It was the most brutal rape scene I have ever seen, it was unrelentingly explicit. I can still see it in my mind when I think of the film. Thankfully, it was a relatively short film, but nonetheless, it left us awfully traumatised. I have often wondered why I didn’t leave the cinema; I think I was in too much in shock. Other people in the cinema actually left after the rape scene.
This film sparked the a shaky movement towards the current debate about censorship (I know that's been happening for a long time on and off, but this film seemed to kick it off again).
I'm pro-information. I want to know the rating of the film and then I can make my own mind up. In this case if I had known there was a violent rape scene, then I wouldn't have seen the film. I think it's good that ratings are now more specific.
Although I understand where Mel Gibson was coming from in his film, it was too much for me to bear. I believed it was true, I'm not doubting Gibson's authenticity, I wept at how cruel humans could be towards another human. The unrelenting public violence incorporating all my senses was too much: if I closed my eyes I could hear the whipping and torture, if my eyes were open I could see the tormentors’ vengeful faces. Watching him being whipped almost to his death too much for me. It was at this point that I left, quite traumatised. Personally, I feel Mel made the mistake of elongating the violent scenes to the point where viewers were saturated and unable to bear the explicit messages being portrayed.
Just my opinion and experience, it certainly doesn't mean I don't see where anyone else is coming from. And yes, we should have choices....not just in films, but music, art, books, blogs...etc etc....
Tracy
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
First I had a look at Ahmed's Alabama post.
"Sho's reading eye?"
"That's him in Good mood"
"Finger over the Smite button"
I am in tears with laughter.
Keep it up.
Oh and I did like the film.
Comment by David
I've read St Catherine Anne Emmerich's 'The Dolorous Passion' ... (the book the Passion was based on ...
Mel was reasonably faithful to it (sort-of ... ), but he still copped out to commercialism ... (He caved in by omitting 'Your blood be upon us ... etc ... Why? ... Who is Hollywood really run by??? ... Not Catholics ... *
And Mel omitted far too many pertinent details ... for my liking ...
Didn't start it in the right place ... (He paid far too little attention to the Last Supper ... The Last Supper is as relevant to the Passion as the Crucifixion itself is ... You can't separate the two ... One is a bloody sacrifice ... the other is the unbloody sacrifice ... Simili modo postquam cenatum est ... & hic est enim calix sanguinis mei ... come to mind here ...
Mel is not half as Catholic as he thinks he is ... [although getting shitfaced and groping a couple of trashy chicks at a Miami nightclub is pretty Catholic * (But Mel's pseudo-Catholicism is no surprise really ... when he's got a Sede-Vacantist for a father ... (who he'll defend to the max ... [Mel is a compromiser of his own Catholic Faith ... (just like his Father Hutton Gibson is ... Hutton knows more than God ... Just ask him ...
And the most disappointing thing about The Passion? ...
Mel is still yet to grasp the concept of Co-Mediator ... or Mediatrix ... A token Mary in a film about the Passion of her Son? ... You have to be kidding me, surely? ...
(Maybe Mel should have read St Louis de Montfort's spiritual masterpiece 'True Devotion to Mary' .... as research material ? ... Or a bit of St Alphonsus de Ligouri ... or some of St Bernard's writings? ...
As a film-maker? And actor? Mel is fantastic ... (but his Passion? ... Nup ... it's what he left out that disappointed me with the film ... not what he put in ... (and therein lies the problem to most people's lack of perception in life ... they never think about omissions ... they're too busy thinking about intermissions??? ... ***
David ...
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
have you read any of my posts about violence in film, albeit horror movies, a slightly different context, however I am thinkinf of posting reviews of both Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto as modern horror movies ...
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
But when the board said, ok, it's way too violent under our guidelines, but we'll give it an MA rating so the little ones can watch it, i get a bit grumpy.
Did I really just hear the following quote?
Comment by JoshZ
A Simple Christian
as a christian I am against violence unless it is necessary. As far as necessary goes Chesterton (I think) put it best "The only defendable war is a defensive one." As far as judging people worthy of death, I would say only God has that authority.
As far as the Passion goes it is accurate as far as sticking to the story. And well made. As far as being graphic what you said is true. It would have more than likely been like that.
Creative expression and the total freedom thereof is a two edged sword. I am all for it, but I also think some movies/music shouldn't be made. I know a christian or two that don't like Lord of the Rings and think it unchristian, despite Tolkein's christianity. But while they would be against this, they stand to the ready defence of other creative christian works.
Nice post.
JZ
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
You're welcome ;o)
Base Moi is on my ever-growing list of must see movies. And probably because of all the hype generated by the now-infamous opening scene.
Censorship is very shaky ground indeed, and very dangerous if let run rampant. The line between censorship and a pseudo-fascist attitude is quite thin in my opinion. Add very vague sedition laws into the mix and I start to get very nervous...
Damo
Thanks for reading mate - I hear plenty about you from Mrs M
David
Ah, you've hit a very large nail on the head. Being a film and video editor by trade, I understand very well how overlooked what you leave out can be. I also understand, though, that what you omit is just as important as what you include in terms of telling the story you want to tell.
Sadly, when adapting material from a novel, it is almost impossible to stay 100% faithful. Budget constraints, running times, and yes, commercialism (make an expensive movie and you might just want people to come and watch ;o)
Mel copped a lot of flak as it is over this film for being 'anti-semitic'. Um... lost for words on that one...
I might look into the book soon, though. Thanks for reading!
Bryn
I have read some of your posts. I find your definition of 'horror' very interesting.
"The Killing of America" is the great white whale I have been chasing for quite some time. I can never seem to find a copy to watch.
"Passion" and "Apocalypto" certainly have their horrifying moments - it would be ineteresting to read what you make of them.
Thanks.
Brenton
I agree. Silly. Like Spielberg deciding to impose "Schindler's List" onto the German educational curriculum. Just plain wrong.
Thanks for dropping by.
I left the other comment well alone ;o)
JoshZ
Creative freedom is a double-edged sword. Very very true. We need to be careful. But in my opinion, every person has the right to express themselves as they wish (onscreen or otherwise) as long as they do not affect the basic civil liberties of others - we all have a right to choose, and not be imposed upon.
Saying a movie shouldn't be made is akin to saying that an artist shouldn't paint or draw a particular picture, or that certain things are taboo. Once more we venture into dangerous territory.
Thanks for commenting!
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Nothing bad i hope?
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
I grappled with the purpose of Bais-Moi for quite a long time...wondering did it have something to say and did they do it effectively?
I think my conclusion was that they did not illustrate any significant points and much was lost in the almost gratification of violence. It wasn't just the rape scene that was violent, the continuing ones were overtly gruesome too...in my opinion.
It isn't an artistic film that I would endure a level of discomfot knowing there was an important message to show. Those films have purpose, I learn something despite being deeply affected....or as a result of being deeply affected.
Tracy
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
Irreversible is on the list, too ;o)
I guess I am curious due to the hype, but I also find films that evoke such a huge emotional response in the audience fascinating.
It's often all the filmmaker is trying to do - make their audience happy, sad, angry, uncomfortable, elated...
The work of David Lynch is an example. Surreal in the true sense of the word, almost nonsensical, and very hard to watch. But I love every minute of it. Obviously the issue of rape is a different, very sensistive topic that needs to be handled well.
Damo
Not at all, Damo. Not at all.
Tracy
I don't think films necessarily need a message to justify making you uncomfortable. Mind you, that doesn't make them good by default if they do make you uncomfortable.
Like I said, it fascinates me that we can buy into the narrative of a film so much that actors playing out a scene can make us so uncomfortable.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
My sentiments exactly. How strong a tale would we be watching if we trivialised the excrutiating pain and humiliation this man endured. No-one would care.
To be honest I found the scene in Apocalypto where the protagonist leaves his faily behind more gut-wrenching than any of the violent scenes.
Appreciate the kind words.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
There are so many more films that deserve the kind of analysis or thought you've laid on that French piece of tripe ... That flick should never have been given a theatrical release. Period.
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
I am no expert in film or movies, other than watching hundreds of them over the years, and just wanted to agree with you, that I felt the violence in this movie (good or not) was needed to carry the story properly.
Couldn't agree more than with JD on his comment, but I did think Gladiator was overdone! As I have said before (and probably shouldn't again) .. as the hurled stones should have been enough last time ... what can I say, I'm a sticker for my passions too *chuckle* .. in my opinion Gladiator was sensationalist crap, just like the battle scenes in the Last Samurai... way too much violence for it's own sake...
Good post,
Lilla ...
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
Last Samurai was just plain dull. Even the violence failed to holdmy interest!
Tracy and Bryn
I hate to dwell upon the subject of rape scenes, but I just heard today that Dakota Fanning (all of 12 years old) has just shot a film called 'Hounddog' in which her character is raped - getting into scary territory here. Unlike Baise Moi, though, the scene is not visually of a graphic nature.
The shooting script for the scene.