By birth, but isn't he Christian? He sides so regularly with conservative Christians that, even if he's still of Jewish faith, he's in a rhetorically awkward position. My guess is that we won't be hearing from Medved on this film.

A little searching and voila!

No, he's not Christian.

Where was this open-minded defense of an individual's faith when he said of Scorsese's Last Tempation that it arose from an "urge to assault the cherished recollections of even universally esteemed figures in our culture"?

A particularly stupid quote from the article:



I guess it's bad to call conservative Christians out on their "urges", but good to call out non-conservative Christians on theirs.

? ... what would qualify as adequately addressing it?

Seems like a non-issue to me, barely worth addressing to begin with.

K

I saw this posted on **shudder** Ain't it cool news. But thought it was a good point.

You know, those of you saying that Mortiarty should only talk about what was in the movie, what was he supposed to write about? The quality and execution of the beating scenes? It's a movie about a man getting tortured to death over the course of two hours. If he can't try to talk context, neither can you. Have fun. ..... That having been said, I think the fundamental problem here is one of interpretation. There are, boiled down, two schools of thought on Jesus' importance. One is that his significance is as being a great teacher and guide. When he said that you can only get to heaven through him, he meant by following his example. Anyone who behaves as he preached and acted will receive his reward. ..... But, the other interpretation is that the crucifixion was everything. Worship Jesus, and his sacrifice automatically cleanses you. This standpoint, taken to an extreme, essentially renders the rest of his life meaningless. It doesn't matter what he did in life, just that he was God's son, and by dying for us we're all saved - no matter what he did to get himself killed. And that, sadly, appears to be the point of view of The Passion. ..... Mel all but admitted this in the Diane Sawyer interview when he said it was these 12 hours that spoke most to him in the Christ story. He feels that Jesus' death was more important than his life. This is a most distressing point of view to those of us who believe Jesus should be revered as a teacher, not as a whipping-boy. This movie appears to be little more than a guilt trip. "Look how much suffering Jesus went through for your sins, so worship him you ungrateful bastard." That's a point of view I just can't get behind.

Me too, though I'm hesitant to give money to it.

Regarding the violence---what exactly about a story of a man being scourged, getting thorns embedded in his head, nailed to a piece of wood and stabbed with a spear makes people think this WOULDN'T be a violent movie? I remember in Catholic school every classroom sporting a ghastly hardcore crucifix on the wall---they didn't go much for the placid prettified images of most religious paintings, they'd be vividly painted rivulets of blood dripping down Him, the skin would often be painted an ashy grey, and the facial expressions! And some of them would have the gash in the side or for some inexplicable reason, His heart on the outside of His chest. Sometimes the heart would be in flames or shining at least. They really made sure we knew it was horrible---and then they told us we should be happy about it?!?

Not trying to be flip here, but I think you answered your own question: the thing that makes people think the Crucifixion should not be "violent" is all the "prettified" versions of it that have come down to us-- not just in painted art or statuary, but also triumphal movies like KING OF KINGS. For some people, the prettified version is the one all versions of the story should resemble.

My bad... I saw some comments by Medved while goofing off at work that were very favorable toward the film. He said the movie needed to be as violent and intense as it was to convey the message of the story.

Anyway, I can see his point about "Last Temptation"... but I don't have time to say much about it right now.

And I think I just saw a pig fly by, because I agree with Phillips completely about the prettified versions of the crucifixion.

There is a disturbing trend in protestant churchs to not think about what the Bible actually says in any kind of useful or meaningful way any more than they absolutely have to during the 20-minute sermons they hear once or twice a week before heading out to the church potluck.

So, of course they're going to have mixed reactions when they see something that doesn't just tell them they're all shiny, happy people and give them a chance to find out how Aunt Betty's gout is doing.

The level of discourse among many christians is rather distressing and helps them live down to a lot of stereotypes.

How do you figure?

1) Mel Gibson makes a movie
2) Says it's based on the gospels
3) Some groups assume it might be anti-Semitic and raise a stink

What a plan!

The controversey began a good long time ago, before most people even knew it was in production, and it began with folks calling the film anti-Semitic before even seeing it. Gibson refused to let them see it early when they demaned to, and to be frank, I would have refused, too, as some of those folks were clearly driving an agenda. That, and the idea of "let me review your artistic work before you are ready to release it to ensure it doesn't offend me first" rubs me the wrong way. Quite.

A fantastic point. In Saving Private Ryan, the violence itself drove home an important message that would have been undermined otherwise. The film would have been just another war film without it. There are some things that a description simply cannot do justice to. One really needs to see or experience them for the message to be brought home.

I agree. I have yet to see a compelling argument made indicating why this film is anti-Semitic. Not even one. There has been some well-written hyperbole - Jami Bernard's diatribe is a good example - but none that offer any specific points that have not been countered elsewhere.

I've seen several that fall on the "anti" side of things refer to one "hook nosed" villain after another, all ignoring the sort of sympathetic Jewish characters and actions Roger Ebert points out. (And all, of course, begging the question: Who were supposed to be depicted but Jews and Romans?) On the surface, it appears some of these people went into the film already settled on the idea that it was anti-Semitic and would have reached that conclusion no matter what they saw.

(Caveat: I have yet to see the film and so cannot yet judge for myself)

Why?

OK, I just got back from the movie. THE CRITICS ARE ALL WRONG. Why? The headlines should be screaming:

THE PASSION OF THE UNINTENTIONAL LAUGHS!!!

There were scenes in this movie, my good friends, that had me burying my head in my hands, pondering how on Earth Mel Gibson thought this stuff could be taken seriously. I AM NOT KIDDING. Here are the highlights:

*Satan is played by a woman who looks quite a bit like an aged, pancake makeup-covered Annie Lennox. She looks kinda creepy at first. Then, at one point, as Simon Peter (I think) is running from the guards through the garden, she transforms into a CGI MONSTER and jumps out and spooks him. This is but an omen of things to come.

*As Judas weeps and gnashes his teeth after betraying Jesus, a group of children wander by to taunt him. Soon the taunts grow angry, and they scream that he is cursed. Then, again thanks to the magic of CGI, they begin to transform into Gollum-like demons. The action climaxes in a wide shot of Judas running and running up a hill as a huge crowd of little children chase him, knocking him over and cackling, like a Michael Jackson video gone terribly awry. The truly awful part is that this scene is directly followed by a pretty damn effective sequence involving a rotting animal husk. Mixing effective scenes with jaw-dropping miscalculations will become the unofficial theme of the film.

*Sit down for this one. There is a flashback to Jesus' life as a carpenter. Mary wanders out to see what is going on. To her utter confusion, she discovers that Jesus has invented the modern table.

...

Perhaps this scene was in the Gnostic Gospels, or perhaps Mel has the Evangelist's Cut of the book of John or something. Actually, there were several sequences that are most certainly NOT in the bible, btw, and a lot of the scripture is converted to modern vernacular, rather than elaborite biblical-speak (oddly, it reminded me of "The Last Temptation of Christ" in this way). And hey, there's nothing wrong with scenes that aren't in the Bible. Also, unlike some of the other stuff in this film, I'm certain that this part was MEANT to be funny...

*On the other hand: the scourging. Oh, the scourging. This scene gets all the press. A surprising amount of it is actually unseen, with the camera pointed at Jesus' face. But yes, there's a ton of blood, and the effects are very very well-done, very painful. And, then, like Jim Morrison, who had the soul of a clown, always ready of fuck up at the most crucial moment, Mel sends in Satan again, but OH! She is not alone! Jesus gazes at her through his bloodied eyes, and she reveals that she is carrying (NOT AN IMAGINARY STORY!) a midget, clad in black lace, WHO LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE AUSTIN POWERS' MINI-ME AND GRINS A WIDE, WICKED GRIN!!! I bit my lip to stifle my laughter, and then instantly felt awful. This is a brutal brutal beating scene. But why on Earth would Mel put something like this in, right in the middle of such a key emotional scene?!?! The mind boggles. And it's not over!

*Jesus is crucified. Very interesting handling of the scene... he is both tied up AND nailed through the palms. I've not seen this before... seems to make the whole nailing bit rather redundant, since that's clearly not going to kill him, but it's an interesting choice. Anyhow, the thieves being executed with him do the typical routine, with the one thief insulting him, and the other thief showing respect, who is then promised a ticket to heaven. Then, in a very 'not from the bible' sequence, a bird lands on the bad thief's cross, and we are treated to a VERY FAKE BIRD PUPPET devouring his eyes! Well! That clarified the point!

*There is a gorgeous shot in the film. As Jesus breathes his last breath, his face is framed directly in dead-center of the screen. The blood and sweat and light makes it look like a fantastic painting come to life, moving. It was great. Then BOOM! the temple is torn in two, and BOOM! the clouds roar and God himself seems to weep tears through the rain. It seemed like such a great sequence. So. What does old Mel do to cap off the feeling?

CUT TO HELL: Satan is howling in pain. The wind picks up. AND YES VIRGINIA THERE IS A SANTA CLAUS: Satan's wig literally flies off like a 1920 Mack Sennett two-reeler. This is all the more funny because I didn't even notice that Satan had hair up until then. It's actually like Satan finished her evil duties on Earth, retired to Hell for some relaxation, maybe a cup of herbal tea and a Something Weird dvd, and casually slipped into her favorite wig, and then DAMN IT! JESUS RUINED MY WIG!!! She then writhes around on the cracked ground of Hell in agony (it was her best wig!), as the camera speeds away, like a shot left on the editing room floor of the latest Linkin Park video.

Yes. Sure, there are effective moments. The violence does get to you. Mel hits most of the famous 'Stations of the Cross' on the road to Golgotha. All along the way, there are ultra-brief flashbacks to Jesus' ministry: "Jesus' Greatest Hits", if you will. Some of them, like a totally wordless meeting with Mary Magdaline, are very well done. Others are simply barely contextual snippets of lengthy events in the Gospels. And others are really ham-fisted (at one point, carrying the cross, Jesus falls, and Mary flashes back to a non-bible time when Jesus was a little kid and fell, and she knocks over furniture hustling to see if he's OK).

Anti-Semitic? Hmmm. Well, the High Priest is given extra evil lines, and occasionally he's given lines that I'm pretty sure were spoken by random people in the Gospels themselves (like all the lines at the Crucifixion itself). But there's actually a lot more work done to make Pilate sympathetic... and the film certainly does highlight several 'good' Jews, and not all the High Priests support Jesus' sufferings. So yeah, it's not much of a hate screed.

But it is the standard Pop Christianity stuff we've seen all along. Our old friends SLOW-MOTION and EXOTIC CHANTS are present to helpfully alert us when dramatic things are happening. There's shaky-camera "Saving Private Ryan" stuff during the initial struggle in the garden, and even the classic 'ear injury = soundtrack goes wacky' trick appears. It’s really a Top 40 radio religious film; hooks and catchy stuff. And embarrassing stuff, I’m sorry to say. And it does detract from the film, I thought. Hey, it was a masterpiece of hype. It’s got some great, effective moments, as do all the Jesus flicks. There’s some ok acting… Jim C. is pretty good as Jesus. I liked the rhythm of the language. The cinematography is mostly crisp, and sometimes excellent. But boy… boy there are missteps.

Of course, I promised Adam F. that I’d name the film Best of the 21st Century if Satan’s wig actually flew off, so I will, because I always keep my promises to Adam F.