Films about how religion has impacted our world + Dead Man analysis

How do you mean? What's your take on the movie, as a person of faith?

I mean that I think most of the critics are not religious, and that this is heavily influencing their distaste for the film's content.

I found it moving. Disturbing, to be sure, but then so is Schindler's List. It almost can't be judged as a film, but to the degree that it is, it's pretty hard to deny that it's incredibly well made and achieves its intended purpose.

Wrote a review of it here.

I watched The Passion of the Christ, and it was very hard for me to watch due to the grueling violence that Christ endures. And that's exactly the point of the film, it's suppose to be hard to watch as it's a realistic depiction of the intense suffering Christ was made to go through.

The movie was not made for mass entertainment or to be artsy, it was made to witness the suffering of Christ, it's a spiritual film, made by a spiritual man, Mel Gibson.

So any reviewer who calls it a snuff film, torture porn or glorified violence is a fool and IMO most likely has a beef about Christianity.

Makes me want to KILL THEM!!!




Quite frankly, the sort of thing I was taught by the nuns was pretty rank when I was a littlie, so maybe Mel was flaying out the teachings from his childhood. Jesus (if he even exsted) was tortured so why deny it.
Davidthat the OP mentioned complains mel was pushing hate rather than love and forgiveness. I dont see the problem. I would hate my fater in my final moments if he pushed me into an ocean of sharks who just wanted totake tinny nibbles until I was dead. And I didnt see the movie for a religious sermon anyway. I'm sure most people who went to the cinema just wanted to see a mel gibson movie a la Braveheart.

"Platoon" leaps to mind, too.

The main thing deterring me from seeing the movie has been the charge of anti-Semitism. Your explanation and Civil War analogy sound reasonable, but bat**** Mel's anti-Semitic public statements since the movie came out still nag at the back of my mind . . .

Anyway, maybe I'll consider giving it a look.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying.

Gibson obviously has some anti-Semitic beliefs, or at least impulses if we want to be a bit more charitable. I think I remember reading that his father was virulently anti-Semitic, and I also recall something about him being sort of aware of the idea that his impulses come from that. That doesn't excuse any of it, but it seems like something he's aware is a problem and actually wrestles with.

You know how sometimes, when people have a prejudice, they try to express it in subtle, socially acceptable ways? I think that's probably what we're talking about here. Even if Gibson himself is anti-Semitic, what's actually in the film is suppressing that enough that I don't think it would register much without his involvement, at this point.

I saw it prior, BoP, but understand your reaction.
My only beef was the score (and I was Bored). One of my bros, however, had probelms with the flogging scene, but generally he cant stand and doesnt understand screen violence.

D you think Mel got more of a flogging for his anti semitic rant because of the movie? I only just thought of that.

^ ^ Or would the subject have come up if not for the movie?

Oh I think it would have come up, the same as his phone messages. He was the golden boy of hollweird.

If you search "Christopher Hitchens On Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ'" in YouTube you can get Hitchens 3min take from an interview, here's the auto-transcript:

Interviewer: He's done well in marketing?

Hitchens: Yeah, I think that's innate in the project in a way, because the argument is about has he offended the will he offend the Jewish community is against create a sort of sectarian culture war in America and I think that's what the marketing tool was and I think it wasn't set out to create such a round and very cynically with a terrible movie ignorant philistine.

When it isn't luridly sadomasicistic and demagogic it's fortunately boring.

So Mr. Gibson and his father who both support this they claim sometimes we Catholics but actually they are in rebellion against Rome they're members of a right-wing schismatic fundamentalist group as I said have absolutely assured themselves a wave of publicity by picking a quarrel with the Jews and by recycling the most ancient primitive Christian allegations of Christ killing against the Jewish people in the film the Roman authorities are - pictured as puppets you know in a Jewish Empire completely without power of their own always having to answer to Jewish high priest enforced to torture to death a man who they believed to be innocent this is this is a very very old slander and misrepresentation it's unbelievably cruel and irresponsible of Gibson to do so he's done so in order to try and sell tickets I think it's a great cultural disgrace I hope nobody goes by the way heard people watching this decide to boycott it.
. . .
It's an improvement on the old days when Roman centurions and sadists and imperial bullies and so on always had to play with people with accents like mine and people thought that if you really want to show about the Roman Empire was you'd show you know sneering Brits but I mean I do not I'm not trying to outbid you in an auction on a sort of ethnic self-pity so I assure you that you're right but that would be the least of it. . .

The problem is not its ethnic authenticity, it's an attempt to claim that the four Gospels which repeatedly contradict each other on very very very many important points which were written many years after the event by people who were not present and which I have many many other discrepancies and shortcomings in them. The attempt is made by Gibson to make a film that suggests that the Gospels agree and that they were written by eyewitnesses which he appears to think that they were he then in my view it's not my problem I'm not a Catholic but I would say blasphemously adds that the holy ghost is the real director of this film and he is only the instrument of the holy ghost in this respect that seems like a vast and profane conceit to me. As I say it's not just a matter I think for Jews who will be properly offended by the general got you film to boycott it but I think it's for Catholics to say that they don't like to have their religion represented to them in this way and by this vain man I think that's where you should get into trouble from that quarter to.

Interviewr: This ad a full-page ad in today's New York Times an open letter to Mel Gibson from a Jew for Jesus and she says to Mel Gibson she says I just want to tell you to hang in there Mel and she says that you know this ordeal has to be tough for you to take

Hitchens: Well Jews for Jesus is a well-known nutbag organization it were very sad people. . .

Of course Jesus was Jewish he existed and the tribute paid to that in the film by the way as follows when Judas gives him the kiss of treason he'll be her first whom as rabbi that's that that's the tasteful way in which the Jewish question is handled.

My argument was with you calling it snuff.

What do you want me to tell you, I don't expect anyone to take it literally, I think Mel put his anger and feelings of being wronged by demonic Jews into a torture flick, it's exploring sado-masachism, I think many left the theatre having felt they experienced how a snuff film would be filmed.

Well when I pulled it up on using a term as strong as snuff you tried to palm it off on reviewers. pretty funny back pedal, Zero credibility if you call a film like this snuff. sorry

And when did he ever call jews demonic. Seriously, you seem more angry than he was

No need to apologise, you said I shouldn't use terms I didn't understand, this made me think you were unaware of how often it was used at the time to refer to the film, even by South Park, so quoted a reviewer.

You might not have had time to read Hitchens quote before you responded, the portrayal of demonic forces in the film alongside Jewish conspiracy. I understand touchy subject, not angry at all, really just interested to discuss.

[quote=Zeroni;1833377]I wASnt aware south park was a reviewer. Havent watched it for years. apologies. so soutbh park calls it snuff and it must be so OK I'll take your word for it

Again we're talking about popular usage of term, you said shouldn't use words that I don't know the meaning of, which made me confused that you might not have known the number of sources relating it to sado-masachism at the time, which in turn might have made you assume I wouldn't know what it meant...

Oh look I'm over it, but please learn what snuff mean. Goodness.

And you really thought throwing david's review up would help? when am I going to be "filled with guilt, anguish or loathing" for seeing it? I was simply filled with boredom and irritated ears.

The fact that we're quoting Christopher Hitchens at length is a pretty clear indicator of what I said earlier about the criticism being ideological, rather than cinematic.

Sorry there really is a big miscommunication, I said don't expect to take literally as snuff, and is Hitchens review not David's review referring to demonic depictions in film and Jewish conspiracy. Glad to read was boring like Hitchens said.

For sure that's his wheelhouse, but it'd be pretty difficult to refute his critique of the ideological bent in the film which turned it into something boring and unwatchable for many.