'The passion of Christ' - teaser trailer

A

Angie

New member
Yes the Mel Gibson co-written, directed and produced film will finally come out soon. And i know many people have been sceptical about this project, but apperantly the early test screenings in L.A recently have been a success, according to some sources the audience clapped at the end and half of the audience were atheist (i think thats how you spell it). Early word about the film is that its not "preachy" or very Christian at all, its filmed as an epic documentry depicting the last 12 hours of Jesus's life.

I know some people here would say "no way would i pay to watch a movie about Jesus" etc, but i however wouldnt mind going to see this film when it comes out. Not because i'm religous or anything (and theres noting wrong in that at all, im more spiritual), but because i'm curious to see how they made it. And yes the film has finally been subtitled!

Click here to see the trailer
 
There is no hard evidence to say exactly what happened but it looks likely that the Romans saw Jesus soley as a political troublemaker. They did not care about his religious views, only that he denied the legitimacy of the Judean provincial government. This was a puppet administration run by Jewish colaborators on behalf of the Romans. Unrest was rife at the time. Jewish nationalists regarded the Jewish King as a puppet, a traitor and a false King. A number of nationalist groups had sprung up around possible new Kings (messiahs) who would take the throne and liberate Judea from the Romans. The Romans crucified nationalist rebels in large numbers whenever they could get their hanRAB on them. This is how Jesus came to be arrested by the Romans. The Judean puppet government was probably uninvolved but quite happy to see the back of him but many Jews hated the government and it seems that a Jewish mob turned up demanding his release. The Gospels tell of a crowd demanding the release of "Barabas" and it was assumed that this was a different person to Jesus. Many Christian scholars now think that Jesus may have been calling himself Jesus Barabas (Barabas = Son Of The Father) at the time, so the mob was actually supporting, not rejecting, Jesus. This completely undermines the traditional Christian basis for anti-semitism. Of course, the mob was ignored and the Romans crucified Jesus. We know it was the Romans because the Jews didn't do crucifiction, they did stonings (as in Life Of Brian).

What seems to have happened is that the story was spun in later years in order to make it more acceptable to Greeks and Romans.

This puts Christians in a difficult situation. They can't go back and rewrite parts of the Gospels based on probable events but they can't carry on as if everything in them is true either.

Into this we now have a movie which sticks exactly to the story of the Gospels. Can Mel Gibson be blamed if the anti-semitism in his movie is simply the anti-semitism spun into the gospels about 1900 years ago? I must say I am in two minRAB on this one.

Personally, I'd rather watch Life Of Brian. I suspect Jesus might have too.
 
It is funny you say that. There was a programme on Radio 4 recently in where they looked at the accuracy of Life Of Brian.

Although the story is a fictional parrody it scored very high marks for accuracy in it's portrayal of the political and social environment of the time. The fractious nature of Jewish nationalist politics, the stonings for minor acts of blashphemy, the ambivilent attitude to the Romans ("What have the Romans done for us?"), mass crucifixion as a common event, large numbers of fringe religious groups, the squallor and the squabbling. All of these things are far more accurate than the grand epic view taken by movies like The Greatest Story Ever Told.



Sadly not.
 
I understand what you're saying; it's just that apparently the four gospels aren't even consistent with each other on the subject. See this quote from the article I posted the link to the other day:



The four gospels contradict each other in some respects, so any attempt to recreate what happened is therefore going to end up being inconsistent with at least one of the gospels. So Mel Gibson's argument, that he is just portraying what is in the Gospels, doesn't really work, because the Gospels don't all present the same view as each other.
 
Well this film to be causing quite a stir across the pond! The most violent movie ever made according to many critics and audiences........A woman in Wichita, Kansas, had a heart attack during the graphic 25-minute crucifixion scene during a screening yesterday morning and died on the way to hospital! :eek: :eek: , I kid you not Link here .

However my friend who is currently in America went to watch a fully booked matinee showing of the movie and she has told me a few things on what to expect...........but no spoilers i promise you (though you all should know what happens in the end:rolleyes: )

Well she told me that she has never, and i stress never experience anything like this movie in the cinema before. She also told me the movie narrative is very easy to follow due to the subtitles available, however she told me that this film, especially towarRAB the end is EXTREMELY violent and leaves nothing to the imagenation. And i would like to thank my friend for also giving me a graphic step-by-step on how she wanted to feel sick in the cinema on the phone:mad: !

However she told me that anyone who is thinking of watching this movie but is affraid that it would be too preachy and religous to rest. because apperantly even though the film does have religous symbols and moments its core is about how Jesus had suffered and how he was more of a human then a superhuman...........There no fantastical elements at all in this movie. She also added strictly that she did not find anything anti Jewish in this movie at all, and thats promising since she has Jewish blood in her and she is the only Jewish person i know! And she has also told me that this is the most teachnically beautifully shot movie you would ever see, eclipising ROTK in that stake.....Mmm i think i would need to watch it to make my own mind up on that;) .

So there you go, it seems to me that this film is deffinately not for the faint-hearted and i have never seen a movie that has caused this much of a stir since my Dad was recounting the days when the Excorist was released!

Fully length trailer viewed here (need quicktime)

Articles about the controversy-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3488370.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3489086.stm
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1155669,00.html
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1156432,00.html

And theres many more articles about, but thats for you lot to find:D.

P.s. One of the main critisems from the American critics that the film isnt spiritual enough???? But what i ask is, how many "spiritual" Jesus films do we actually really need?:confused:
 
If you are going to question christianity on inconsistency, why bother with the Gospels. Why not go for a real biggy. Transubstantiation. Millions and millions and millions of people believe that in the Mass the bread and wine are transubstantiatiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. After the worRAB of consecration the host still looks and tastes like bread and the wine still looks and tastes like wine. But after the worRAB of consecration there is no bread, there is no wine. There is only the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, under the appearances of bread and wine - not just the external appearances but the internal appearances too. The atoms appear the same, the neutrons appear the same, etc., etc.

Christians who are not worried about the enormous apparent inconsistency of transubstantiation are not going to worry their little heaRAB about a few apparent inconsistencies between the Gospels, are they? They "know" the Gospels are divinely inspired. They "know" therefore that the "inconsistences" must only be apparent, not real. Frankly, if I weren't a christian myself I would think that christians must all be completely bonkers, and not give christianity a second thought, let alone bother about biblical minutiae.

As to your last point, Mel Gibson is doing the best job he can according to his lights. Anybody producing a historical drama has the same problem - even if they were able to speak to the people actually there - as any policeman who has to interview witnesses of a crime is only too well aware. If the police get exactly the same story from all the witnesses they will realise there had been collusion, won't they!
 
I think the reason so many people care about the circumstances around Jesus' death is that the Gospel accounts have tainted the Christian perception of the Jews for centuries. This has caused Christians to persecute Jews and to stand aside while others have persecuted Jews. In other worRAB, its importance goes far beyond the theological.

Transubstantiation is solely a theological issue. Some Christians believe in it and some don't. People who are not Christians may regard it as an odd belief but it doesn't do anybody any harm and there is no reason for non-Christians to make an issue of it. Besides, there are people who believe in weirder things than transubstantiation. ;-)
 
Christians who have persecuted Jews are diabolically evil scum and unless they die truly repentant they will justly rot in the fires of hell for all eternity. The ones who stood aside and did nothing will also be punished for their sins of omission.

As to its importance going far beyond the theological I have to disagree.

The Jews are God's chosen people for reasons which are too extensive to go into here. He has therefore always expected the highest standarRAB of them. When they have failed to live up to those standarRAB He has allowed them to be punished - by exile in Egypt and Babylon for example.

Now if Christ was the Messiah, and if "he came unto his own and his own received him not", then the persecutions over the last 2000 years has been a punishment akin to the Egyptian exile say.

However, IMHO that phase of history came to an end with the utterly diabolical Nazi genocide. The Jews have now returned to the promised land as prophesied. They are under the protection of Almighty God and no foreign army or terrorist campaign is going to budge them.

I wasn't making an issue of transubstantiation. I was merely giving it as an example of something more difficult to believe than the inerrancy of the Gospels. Ergo, if one believes in transubstantiation, then, the Gospel Truth? No problemo. :)

As to there being
"people who believe in weirder things than transubstantiation. ;-)" -
I won't argue with you on that one. :D
 
Remember that Simpsons episode where Mel Gibson wanted to make an intelligent, thought provoking film and yet Homer pursuaded him to put in lots of crowd pleasing violence? Truth stranger than fiction? :D

I just assumed this was going to be your typical religous film, i.e. just more propoganda from the christians. But it does sound like it's going to be much more interesting than that, and may be worth a look.

Dave
 
Amazing film, graphic , violent and barbaric. But that was the way torture was hen (and thats from history books not the bible) but I think from what I know about the bible its seems pretty much correct.

As for it being anti semetic well I am sorry but it was a group of Jews who handed christ over to the romans so how is that anti semetic? Its a fact!
 
yes this issue hasnt been getting a lot of mention in the media, gibson claimed he wanted to make an authentic film but then he goes and gets a european actor to play jesus which of course cannot be true as jesus was of middle eastern complexion
anyhow im gonna see it just for the gore as i heard its quite bloody which is good.
 
There were a few articles in the papers yesterday that stated that Aramic experts have noted several glaring errors in the Aramic language script! That's the sort of thing that puts me off the movie more than the gore. Sloppy film-making, whether the audience can detect it or not!
 
Back
Top