LOS ANGELES - As “The Passion of the Christ” races towards $400 million at the North American box office, Mel Gibson is reaping the benefits of breaking the Ten Commandments — Hollywood’s Ten Commandments of movie marketing and distribution.


With “Braveheart” in 1995 Gibson did things conventionally and let Paramount and others finance the $72 million production, which went on to gross about $202 million worldwide while winning five Oscars, including a pair for him — best picture and director.

By following his own path now with “Passion,” Gibson orchestrated a success story that could serve as a case study for film schools for years to come. Beyond that, Gibson should profit for years to come since as a period piece costume drama “Passion” can enjoy an Easter afterlife in theaters from now till doomsday.

If “Passion” winds up with somewhere between $1 billion and $1.2 billion worldwide this time around, it’s possible that well planned reissues down the road could send it sailing past the $1.8 billion haul of all-time champ “Titanic.”

In breaking or bending so many of Hollywood’s basic rules, Gibson showed considerable courage that’s paid off big-time. Given reports of how distributors around town turned down the chance to release “Passion,” it’s clear that nobody — including Gibson himself — saw this as being the moneymaker it’s become.

Here’s a quick look at the Ten Commandments Gibson opted not to obey and how not doing so helped turn “Passion” into a blockbuster.

1. Thou shalt use other people's money
Traditionally Hollywood considers anyone who puts his own money into financing a movie to be a sucker. Although Hollywood superstars and high profile filmmakers often talk about pet projects they’d love to bring to the screen, they almost never dip into their own bank accounts to make them.

In Gibson’s case, his personal passion for “Passion” was so great and apparently so unshared by the Hollywood community that there was no other way this film would have gotten made other than with his own money. While it’s unclear whether the $30 million to make “Passion” came from Gibson’s personal bank account or from his and Bruce Davey’s Icon Productions, what is clear is that the film’s box office bonanza will give Gibson a heavenly return on his investment.

2. Thou shalt let a good film speak for itself by screening it early for media
Gibson recognized from the get-go that screening “Passion” early wasn’t the way to go. If creating controversy was the key to building awareness of the film, letting the media have an early look at it couldn’t possibly help. The less people know about something the greater the controversy over it is likely to be. By refusing to show “Passion” to the groups that were insisting on seeing it, Gibson kept everybody riled up enough to provide fuel for the media frenzy over whether “Passion” is or isn’t anti-Semitic.

Instead of generating dull television reports or newspaper articles with one set of opinions balancing another set of opinions about the film and its message, the resulting media coverage focused on how incensed people were that Gibson wouldn’t let them have an early look at his movie. The more people were told they couldn’t see it, the more they wanted to see it.

3. Thou shalt keep TV advertising at heart of film's marketing campaign
Network television advertising may be more expensive than ever and may deliver less audience than it used to, but Hollywood marketers still love it and plan their media campaigns around it. When major studios commit $25 million or more to launching a movie, network TV gets the lion’s share of that money. In the case of “Passion,” Gibson didn’t have that kind of money to spend on marketing nor did he choose to pour it down the network drain.

The grassroots marketing effort that Gibson undertook for “Passion” initially on his own and later through Newmarket Films was a lean one that relied on reaching the film’s core audience of Christian moviegoers and potential moviegoers by getting local church groups to promote seeing the film.

4. Thou shalt hold press junkets to generate publicity
Gibson’s done so many press junkets that he, of all people, must know how ineffective they really are. By bringing together in New York or L.A. the usual crowd of jaded journalists from across the country and turning them loose for four or five minutes apiece on the film’s stars, the resulting coverage is as bland and uniform as you could possibly generate. A press junket for “Passion” would have had Gibson sitting in a hotel room chair with a poster for the film on an easel beside him and a plant on a table behind him looking like it was growing out of his head. Whatever answers Gibson might have given to the typically inane questions that get asked at such junkets, they would not have driven people to see his movie the way television reports about the controversy raging over the then unseen film did.

5. Thou shalt honor they superstars by paying them big bucks
Whatever Gibson paid Jim Caviezel to star in “Passion” has got to be a lot less than Hollywood typically pays Gibson to star in a movie. Gibson didn’t turn to superstar casting to make his own movie, however, because he knew high profile stars weren’t the answer for this picture.

If Gibson, for instance, had cast himself to play Christ, moviegoers would have sat there and instead of being drawn into the film they’d have been thinking about how that’s Mel Gibson under all that bloody body makeup. Bottom line, by skipping star casting Gibson was able to bring his film in for around $30 million. Add one superstar to that budget and you’d wind up with around $60 million, figuring a $25 million salary and another $5 million in related costs for the entourage and perks that accompany big stars these days.

6. Thou shalt avoid R ratings, subtitles, foreign languages, graphic violence
With nearly $270 million in grosses already under its belt, “Passion” is poised to become the biggest R rated film ever this weekend. That record will fall as soon as “Passion” passes $281.6 million, which “The Matrix Reloaded” did domestically last year.

The conventional wisdom in Hollywood has for years been that R ratings aren’t so great because they serve to limit a film’s audience by excluding people under the age of 17 (unless they’re accompanied by a parent or guardian). Gibson clearly rejected the idea of writing and filming “Passion” so that it would land a PG-13 rating. That just wasn’t going to be the movie he wanted to make and, to his credit, he refused to compromise. The film is said to be attracting a new audience demographic of young males who happen to love onscreen blood and gore and are attracted to violent images.

7. Thou shalt screen your film at festivals to attract a strong distributor
Gibson was smart to resist any temptations to unveil “Passion” at a major film festival. As a superstar long associated with the world of big-budget mainstream Hollywood movies, he’d have been in the wrong world at Sundance. With it having been quite difficult for “Passion” to achieve theatrical distribution in France, it’s hard to believe it would have been the kind of film that would have been embraced at Cannes. It’s hard to picture acquisitions executives for all those scrappy, studio-owned “independents” rushing up the aisle after viewing 10 minutes of the film to corner Gibson in the lobby and make him a distribution offer he couldn’t refuse.

8. Thou shalt rely on a New York/L.A. release to get word of mouth going
If Gibson had gotten a studio distribution deal the likelihood is he would have been pressured into a platform release of “Passion” at a handful of theaters in New York and Los Angeles. Hollywood believes you get word of mouth going by starting in a couple of theaters and letting influential critics and the film’s initial audiences spread the word. In the case of “Passion,” the kind of buzz that would have been generated would almost certainly have been the wrong kind.

9. Thou shalt covet promotional partners
As important as Hollywood thinks fast food and other tie-in promotional campaigns are, they were clearly unsuitable for a film like “Passion.” How much they actually contribute to the success of mainstream releases is open for debate, as well.

10. Thou shalt worship idols of Wall Street to raise money for your own major studio
Perhaps the greatest temptation that Gibson appears to have resisted is the one to springboard off a film’s success by tapping Wall Street for the money to make more films through one’s own major studio. The dream of starting your own studio and achieving parity with the established majors is one that’s seduced other successful filmmakers before.

Gibson, however, apparently has the best of both worlds. With his investment in “Passion” having paid off, he can now finance the production and marketing of any similar scale movie he ever wants to make. By doing so, he’ll once again be the sole owner of his movie. If he can get lightning to strike again at the box office, he can take in another ton of money --like the $350 million to $500 million in profits “Passion” seems likely to bring him -- and have the satisfaction of having done it on his own terms.

I am interested in the statement "fast food and other tie-in promotional campaigns." I see no limit to the groveling and lack of shame that Hollywood is willing to demonstrate in commercializing sensitive issues such as the Holocaust or the starvation and atrocities committed in "Enemy at the Gate." Got to have that love story front-and-center.

I am convinced that the major reason the record labels are failing is that its stars, like P Diddy, spend zero time on music. Apparently, everyone thinks that music is a stepping-stone to what is really important, that of establishing a clothing line. Or like Snoop Dogg and 50 Cent distributing porno tapes.

MTV is the culprit. The tail wagging the dog. They need to be exterminated.

Lifestyle licensing has gotten out of hand and has destroyed the core competency of the music business.

How about this:


"The film is said to be attracting a new audience demographic of young males who happen to love onscreen blood and gore and are attracted to violent images."

Great anaylysis leflaw...and very much to the point.

Mel Gibson understands something Hollywood should get but doesn't.
People will flock to see a movie with a real message, and if the
show has a "hero"...let him be a real hero...enough of this
"anti-hero" nonsense. (I hate to talk about Yeshua bar Joseph in a pedestrian term like "hero", but, he really is the ultimate hero for Christians).

Groups that really opposed the movie, ironically, made it a hit by
generating amounts of publicity that would have been astronomical if you had to have paid for it.

Take the Blair Witch Project. It really was a dissappointment, but part of the initial success was the speculaton that it was true.

Now, people want more than you to preach at them over and over in a movie. They want to be entertained. But, for all our high tech SFX,
humans and their interest in stories haven't really changed all that much since the times of Beowulf and the Illiad and the Odyssey.

In fact,we are treated to retelling of the basic legends from time to time. TROY with Brad Pitt will probably be a big ticket. We're talking about the Passion of Christ. I just saw a trailer for a movie on King Arthur that will be coming out. The story of the ALAMO will be coming out in April...

People love tales of a single hero, going through the "dramatic arc"...and, they don't demand a happy ending, but they do want to see SOMEONE of noble character, fighting great odds with passion, courage, nobility, and opposing evil...or whatever is representing the dark side.
It's the recipe for the Star Wars sagas, it's the recipe for Lord of the Rings...it really is a formula if you are into algorithmic sides of things.

William Wallace was a national hero in Scotland, but relatively unknown here. It was a true story of bravery waiting to be told to a new audience.

A show I recently saw, based on the true adventures of Frank T. Hopkins,
was Hidalgo. I really liked that show. When you left, you had a good, warm feeling about what one man was able to accomplish.

Now, contrast that with Dawn of the Dead yesterday. Note to anyone going to see it...if you want to see the WHOLE show, you have to sit through the credits at the end...don't just get up and leave when the credits roll. Anyway, I felt a bit down, when I saw that one. For its genre, it was a good film...but, I won't spoil the ending for anyone.

We need a reaffirmation that there are good people...that good will triumph, that there is decency in this world, and that heroes do exist....and the even MORE important message, is each of us CAN be a hero, it just requires having the courage to do the right thing, even when it may end up costing us.

From a purely economic perspective, the public gets more of what they support in a big way. I guarantee you, there are people "taking meetings" in Hollywood now, trying to capitalize on what they perceive as a "Bible trend" in the same way they have done with the "Marvel comic trend". To them, Jesus is like Daredevil..he sells tickets. So, since Hollywood is the biggest copycat machine in the world...what can we expect Hollywood to come up with?

Hmmm..."John the Baptist, Baptising and Taking Names"

" David-Warrior King, Noah- Two by Two...
I can already hear that Micheal guy that does most of the voiceovers...
"In a WORLD, full of water...One Man saves them all....he is...N O A H"

Of course, if the Noah tale hit, we would have "Gilgamesh...Noah Part One" or some nonsense.

You want HellRaiser 14? Just have everyone go see it.

You want more RIAA crap? Just buy the heck out of the music their labels secrete onto the public epidermis.

Back to the Passion- you think it's done well NOW? Just wait to see the gross returns on the backend...when it goes to video. From interntaional DVD sales and video rentals alone, Mel will make a mint, and I say good on him.

I saw the Passion and thought it was great. As my father was a Jew,
I would have been on that bad side of the film like white on rice if I thought it was anti-Semitic. The fact is, Caiaphas and the rest of the Sanhedrin really did want Jesus dead and did work to make sure he was crucified. Yes, they happened to be Jewish, but from biblical accounts, that's the way it was. If you are doing a historical story, you SHOULD try to be as faithful as you can be . Now, even the most faithful depictions of historical stories usually have to use some poetic license, simply because there is no completely objective, total record which tells everything that happened.

And, to touch on Tom's comments, which I agree with, the state of things now is that "art" is a business. Music, movies, graphics....all that stuff is money first, artistic honesty be damned. Guys sitting around chomping on cigars, taking meetings, and reading Wall Street Journals are deciding our cultural agenda...our sensory feast, and as a result, we are more apt to get a fattening "Happy Meal" than a well balanced diet with some nutrition in it.

Congress has moved to make sure customers can't sue the fast food places...

I think it was H L Mencken who said
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public
taste."

The thing is that the media moguls are condescending and patronizing to the public. When I was doing freelance writing, the editor in chief of a large publication gave me his main guidelines to writers and the guidelines of the various magazines he was in charge of editing....
"Aim your writing at the level of a 12 year old" and this was almost 20 years ago.

Why do you think that the news uses such brief video cuts and soundbytes?
They think we are all the MTV generation which can only process small "bites" of info withouth getting confused. It's the same theory used in those quick cuts in MTV videos...keep images moving ...keep new things popping up...

"so it goes"- Kurt Vonnegut.

PS...I've also heard that leflaw...about it being viewed as a gore show, and attracting young males as to that aspect. That really saddens me...

It's like someone going to see Cecile B. DeMille's biblical epic with Chuck Heston as Moses, Yul Brenner as the Egytian king, and all they can get out of the movie is..."Damn, did you see that water part?"

I think the film is great and would love to have it on DVD too bad its not on DVD and the telesync is the only source O_o

given the above, how long before we can buy tickets for this one...

IRAQ - The Days of Shock and Awe

my only problem with the film was the casting of Caviezel as Yeshua bar Jospeh (Jesus).

As many great Jewish actors as there are....if you were going to the trouble of using Aramaic and Latin, use a Jewish actor for Jesus.
That being said...here are some Jewish actors I would not have cast to portray Jesus...
1) Dustin Hoffman (the obvious problem, Rainman should not play Jesus)
2) Jason Alexander- The Shallow Hal part he played killed his credibility as Jesus
3) Adam Arkin - just don't see it
4) Don Rickles - Jesus just didn't do schtick
5) Rob Reiner - too bald
5) Leonard Nimoy (Spock as Jesus..well,,live long and prosper works...but not the ears)
6) Pauly Shore..nope...Jesus didn't say "buuuuuuuuudy"
7) Andy Kaufman - didn't come back for the cattle call
Billy Crystal - lol..gotta be kidding on this one
9) Harvey Keitel - after Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction...you know he is the "cleaner"...not good as a martyr
10) Howard Stern - well, Jewish, long hair...nope..the FCC would freak
See a list of actors
at
http://www.cinerhama.com/jewish/actors.html

So step one to being an Independent success is to have $30 million lying around?

lol..not necessary but it helps...

The Passion..
est. $295.3 million
in 26 days and counting...

source
boxofficemojo.com

thats more than 10 million a day... in two months...maybe it will be 600 million...

George, you can start with whatever amount you have. Thats what you and I both did. It just takes a bit longer

I saw the film, and was not offended ( of course I read the "Last days of Jesus when I was 11, so I "read the book" so to speak).

There is only one thing that I found arguably inflammatory - the title.

"Passion" ( as in passion play ) , to a Jew, is just a celebration that goes on before a pogrom.

Well Mel Gibson's gonna be able to MAKE WHATEVER HE WANTS for awhile, even films that bomb.

What sucks for me is i happen to believe that Jesus was never crucified. This information is supported in books. This ruins the picture for me.

Yes, Code, it seems we have the mental capacity of monkeys sometimes. Not enough free-thinkers out there. Everything is bought and sold even the American intellect.

Hey gentlemen Joe here.
I went to see "The Passion Of The Christ" the first week of it's release on Friday of that week. I must say that I was shocked, horrified, discusted and I left the theater physically and emotionally drained. I was raised a Roman Catholic and I was taught and always knew that what Jesus went through was probably even more horrific than we will probably will ever know.
From what I understand, Gibson co-wrote the screenplay based on the three gospels and if any of you have ever read the old testament, it is very violent. Not only that, Gibson did tons of research on the Romans and the were masters of torture. I'm not necessarily vouching for everyone to go see this movie, but the message that Gibson convayed to me was quite profound. I've seen may horror and documetaries in my time, but this rwally bothered me. The film is not anti-semetic and I do not beleive it will generate hate against the Jewish people. It indeed was a powerful film, beautifully photographed, and brilliantlly acted. This is art in it's finest glory.

two comments...one on Leflaw's...
I think that Mel did error in calling it the Passion of the Christ...unfortunately, it causes some folks to remember the Passion Plays which sometimes were used by the Nazis to inflame anti-Jewish sentiment.

I am a bit confused by something Spwee said about Jesus (Yeshua) never being crucified. Even the book Holy Blood/Holy Grail, doesn't argue that he was not crucified...they argue that he never died per se on the cross, and that his wife Mary was pregnant, and escaped from the area and went, with Joseph of Arimethea, to France...and that the "holy grail" was actually the lineage of Jesus and Mary....

I've not seen any books that acknowledge Jesus, but deny he was crucified.

JLBRMECHANIC - I agree that it is a most powerful film, and it sticks with you. I cried at the point that Jesus falls, and Mary recalls rushing to help him when he fell as a child.

It helps those who are beleivers to understand that Jesus was not some sort of Jewish Superman. He had emotions, he was flesh and blood, and when the cat o nine tails dug chunks of flesh from his side, it hurt him like it would have hurt you or me.

I think ultimately, Christians get a clearer and more graphic insight into the price Yeshua paid for our sins...in the Christian religion To often, biblical pictures have sanitized an experience that was, at its fundamental, a bloody, gory, torture of a human being who did nothing wrong, except exercise freedom of speech.

There are various themes here....one is that Jesus (Yeshua) pointed out that money, government, things of this world, are NOT the ultimate reality...and that those who live a godly life, store up a reward in heaven. Evil people usually set their faith and stores in physical power, earthly riches, laws and rules...and it pisses them off no end that some do not accept this as the be all and end all of things. By emphasizing the importance of an eternal life, Yeshua really angered the Sanhedrin and Romans as well.

Also, Yeshua had the audacity to speak truth to power. He was for free speech before free speech was cool. He was iconoclastic....in a time when religious leaders said you could not associate with sinners...Jesus loved them and treated them with respect and honor.

Whether one is a Jew or a gentile, religious or an atheist, believes he was God or just a man, I think you have to admire him. He was a courageous, kind, loving, helpful man who, through his teachings, has given comfort and joy to millions through the centuries.

None of us have made that much impact on the lives of so many.

And, whether he survived the cross or not...whether he was God, or just some misguided carpenter...I love him and thank him for his life and for the example he gave me.

Not trying to offend anyone by my words....just sharing my thoughts.
~Code

Code, leflaw, I'm reading your thoughts with interest.

As a Roman Catholic, I have to say I thought the film was just fine. My aging mother would never have approved of it (too much blood for her) but I was willing to go see it. Nevertheless, I don't think it has "dulled" my "shock" at violent images.

The film's title may be up for dispute. "The Passion" happens to be what the Catholic Church calls the experience. It's always read on Palm Sunday and Good Friday every year. I'll be hearing it again the Sunday after next and the Friday after that Sunday.

The movie was quite powerful, and I enjoyed it.

And we can get into a religious debate...although that's not the point of this site. I am a devout Christian, (although, politically, I'm a liberal Democrat- kind of an odd combination) and I'm pretty sure everyone can figure out what I mean by that.

What Mel did is certainly very interesting, and Hollywood will remember it for years to come.

:-:~ Phantom

Jesus may have been a fine man, and he may have been instilled with the Christ, but the true story of Christ i believe was never reported.

The idea that Christ "died for our sins" i believe is a myth. That means half of what Christians (and other theologies) base their belief on is pure
fiction. I believe much harm has been done in the name of Christ simply through the myth of his crucifixion. And it is a horror indeed when you think of the assimilated chaotic minds of good people whose minds are warped in the process of seeking the truth. So much that is reported in biblical history is a lie that our manner of worship is a lie. Our lives are misguided when our faith is fiction.

He died for our sins. Not mine. Get that Christian intellect off of me. It is brainwashing bullshit. The idea that we're saved through Christ is a fabrication. The truth is we are saved from the start. In fact there is no need to be saved as God will not deny us heaven.

Its a trick. You MUST accept Christ to be saved. Its a scare tactic to conform the masses. Jesus may be worthy of worship but not deified based on a lie.

But The Passion does sound like a good movie, i'll have to see it.

Apart from theological matters, Mel's film is high art in that it does indeed, invoke Pathos in the viewers.

I myself have been exposed to all kinds of belief systems. For many years, I have also been a follower of Taoism, and in Taoism, there is no original sin, and in fact, no sin at all. But, because of being the person I am, I was accepted into groups of people in Islam, into groups of LDS (mormons), Jews, B'hai followers, Hindus, Buddhists, Native American religions, and even count several atheists as friends.

I want to say this...that I cannot judge what is true or not with regard to religion. I cannot say 100 percent what is BS or not...I just am not qualified.

I do personally believe that any religion that teaches we must kill those who do not beleive as we do...should look at a revision of principles.

I know that I feel empathy and sympathy for Yeshua...and I really wish I could be more like him.

I believe people need SOME moral compass about what is right and wrong, call it ethics, call it faith, call it a conscience...whatever.

Many people, even atheists say there is a hell, even if it is only a place you create on this earth. Some say war is hell..actually many say that.

As to whether or not Jesus died for the sins of the world. I believe he thought he was doing what God wanted....what had to be done....what was the purpose of his life.

Joan of Arc, in many ways, martyred herself and was betrayed by the King of France.

The point is this. People occasionally have the belief that there is something that is worth giving up their life for. That's martyrdom. The middle east still has a tradition of martyrdom...and unfortunately, we still see people strapping bombs to themselves in the name of a higher power and political purpose. The difference is that Yeshua did this non-violently, and didn't try to kill others by sacrificing himself.

This board is not, and never should be about promoting one religion over another, and I will never be here to say one religion is right and another wrong.

But, we can get a couple of important ideas from this thread. One is that Mel went outside the established channles and put up his own money, and has made it outside the established channels...in a way, as an Indie.

The other is that his film is about a man of courage, a man who placed the welfare of others above his own, a man who wanted to leave a legacy for posterity, with a message that things CAN be better...and that we don't HAVE to hate those who hate us and love those who love us. We can actually transcend that, and love those who hate us...and that is a hard row to hoe as they say.

I'm not here to be self righteous ....I have come short of my OWN standards from time to time, and in falling short of what I set for myself...I have a lot of room for improvement....and I guess, that's all I can say.

I'm looking forward to seeing Mels film. until then I'll reserve my judgement on it.

code check your email . thanks

Yeah, i believe there was much to be admired about Jesus, AND worshipped.

Anyhoo, you ought to check out the series of books
called CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD (if you haven't read them). Make sure you get Book 1 first. It will say "book 1" on the front. Its a diologue someone really has with God. A guy named Neale Donald Walsch is ticked at life and calls out to God for answers, writing down questions on a notepad. All of a sudden his hand starts moving writing out answers to his questions. God was conversing with him and he has published his dialogues. The questions he asks are the tough ones, the one's we all want better answers to. And God replies in a series of four books i think.

By the way i tried to rent 1984, Hollywood video and Blockbuster did not have it . Guess i'll have to order it from the net.

more on 1984 movie
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)

Page 1 of 32

Directed by
Michael Radford

Writing credits
Jonathan Gems (story)
George Orwell (novel)
(more)



Add to
MyMovies
Genre: Drama / Sci-Fi (more)

Tagline: George Orwell's Terrifying Vision Comes To The Screen. (more)

Plot Outline: George Orwell's novel of a totalitarian future society in which a man whose daily work is rewriting history tries to rebel by falling in love. (more) (view trailer)

User Comments: Well made movie, but not for entertainment! (more)

User Rating: 6.8/10 (2,901 votes)

Cast overview, first billed only:
John Hurt .... Winston Smith
Richard Burton .... O'Brien
Suzanna Hamilton .... Julia
Cyril Cusack .... Charrington
Gregor Fisher .... Parsons
James Walker .... Syme
Andrew Wilde .... Tillotson
David Trevena .... Tillotson's Friend
David Cann .... Martin
Anthony Benson .... Jones
Peter Frye .... Rutherford
Roger Lloyd-Pack .... Waiter
Rupert Baderman .... Winston as a Boy
Corinna Seddon .... Winston's Mother
Martha Parsey .... Winston's Sister
(more)

Also Known As:
1984 (1984) (UK) (alternative spelling)
Runtime: 113 min
Country: UK
Language: English
Color: Color (Eastmancolor)
Sound Mix: Stereo
Certification: Argentina:16 / Australia:M / Canada:R / Finland:K-16 / Netherlands:12 / Norway:18 (1984) / Sweden:15 / UK:15 / USA:R / West Germany:16
Production Companies
Umbrella
Virgin [gb]
Distributors
Atlantic Releasing Corp. [us] (USA)
Image Entertainment Inc. [us] (USA) (laserdisc)
International Video Entertainment (IVE) [us] (USA) (VHS)
MGM Home Entertainment [us] (USA) (DVD)
Roadshow Home Video [au]
Top Tape [br] (Brazil) (VHS)

Codewarrior, even though I was raised a Catholic, I haven't been to a church in years. The reason being is that I find that if you beleive in yourself, answer to yourself & God, and know the difference in right and wrong you will be ok. Jesus taught that. I don't know whether its faith but I beleive that beleiving in the Almighty God, his son Jesus, Mary and the desciples starts within ones' self. I've always beleived in God, even though at times I have questioned "why?" for various reasons. I think that Gibson's film is at best the most accurate account of what happened. We will never fully know what happened 2000 years ago.

We don't need a church for that but it does help....LOL

spwee, i like how you are saying all this stuff about how everything in the bible is pure fiction, but give absolutely no source or reason for why you believe it.

as for topics on hand: the movie was excellent, this article was excellent, and codewarrior's first post was superb.

midsummerjefe - thank you for the kind words
and
JLB....

BTW...both my parents were ministers...

Amen brother...Amen!
"And, whether he survived the cross or not...whether he was God, or just some misguided carpenter...I love him and thank him for his life and for the example he gave me."

The books "CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD" are sources i would site midsummerjefe. Also a book called "The Living Libary" (i think it is called) is one of the sources that talks about Jesus's crucifixion being a myth. In Converstations with God, God appears to condemn religion. Quite the contrary he is merely stating what is so. He points out religion's fallacies in an attempt to spread the truth of religion: that it is sometimes written for the purpose of man, not God.

Frankly i was in no mood to debate endlessly on the topic.

One of God's mantras (from Conversations) i would like to share is

Mine is not a better way, mine is another way.

I didn't see the whole movie, but thought that Mel didn't censor anything in it. I didn't notice any anti-sematic feelings in the movie, from my limited knowledge of the bible(born christian, now agnostic) it sounded pretty accurate. The Jews WANTED Christ to die horribly. That's how the story goes, so Jews shouldn't complain about the story being accurate.

-Code, I sent you another e-mail. codewarriorwins @ nospamyahoo.

tasdar:


Not "The Jews WANTED Christ to die horribly." ... It was the Pharisees and the sanhedrin, the rich asshole political fuckheads of any culture. Did Peter and Simon want Jesus to die horribly? How about the high priest who defended Jesus, but was shouted down.

Code and All,
Thanks for your reviews and comments on faith in this thread and on the movie.I respect ppl's views, though i may not agree.
I am LDS (mormon) and though the movie takes a lot of poetic licenses, i sincerely loved it. What Mel did with putting this movie out was something the USA needed if not the world, and how Mel did it, i commend him. Many scholars have commented on the movie, www.meridianmagazine.com , has tons of reviews of the movie of ppl who enjoyed it and disliked it.
All in all, I hope ppl will think not only about themselves, but think about others and what Jesus Christ did for them.

Told you I had limited knowledge of the whole thing...

I'm not surprised the movie is being so well received.

For those of you out there who don't know this the Romans where not big fans of Jesus........they in fact did KILL Jesus........yes some Jews didn't like Jesus but when it came down to it Pilot had all control over executions and he was not a big fan of Jesus as well........one Jew betraying Jesus doesn't mean the Jew's killed Christ...........I've taken history classes and am in my second religious studies class at a non religious university and have learned the real facts behind the death of Jesus and the Jews DID NOT KILL HIM!!

For those of you out there who don't know this the Romans where not big fans of Jesus........they in fact did KILL Jesus........yes some Jews didn't like Jesus but when it came down to it Pilot had all control over executions and he was not a big fan of Jesus as well........one Jew betraying Jesus doesn't mean the Jew's killed Christ...........I've taken history classes and am in my second religious studies class at a non religious university and have learned the real facts behind the death of Jesus and the Jews DID NOT KILL HIM!!

Spwee, on your comments concerning the crucifixion being a myth I would only direct you to the writing of Josephus.

Code, I have also been exposed to many religions and belief systems. I grew up in a fundamentalist environment and it took me a couple of decades of drinking and soul searching to find the loving God that the religious right has turned their backs on. My best friend was a Mormon and I take a "pilgrimage" to Nauvoo every so often. I have Muslim friends, and friends with a couple of local Rabbi's, have studied the Eastern philosophical religions. Am a big fan of Hinduism. I also like to study mysticism, occultism and prophecies from all the different religions and systems. I've also gotten to participate in several Wiccan ceremonies.

My point is, before I forget to make it, is that I believe God is imbued inside everyone and everything to some degree. I don't believe God turns away from anyone who believe is divinity in some form or other.

In this day and age where the religious right is giving all Christians a bad name, I hope that those who are not Christians who go to see the Passion get an empathy and respect for those "true Christians" who are not trying to hijack the faith or our nation.

To Focker and all, I am definitely not a "organized religion" person, however, how can you be so sure of who killed Jesus. All versions of the story, including the Bible are merely one or more person versions of one or more persons version of many stories.

I and anyone else who has a college degree has taken their share of classes on religion and history/religious history classes. To take anything a college teacher tells you as absolute fact is being very naive. I happen to find it funny at best.

None of us were there, so you don't really know what happened. Therefore, to state something as absolute fact is a fabrication - But you are entitled to believe anything you want!

You should go look up the history of the pharisees and sadducees on Google ( the 21st century searchible bible so it seems) You will see that the christian right is akin to the jewish pharisees of Jesus' day in many respects. Conservative, Nationalistic, materialistic - just the stuff that Jesus preached against. Would Jesus have authorized the crusades?

Well written leflaw!

But this isn't my kind of movie... the only reason I want to see it is to see the way they portray the biblical times.

I was born and raised Christian, but I haven't been a Christian for quite some time. I've even been in a musical about the life and death of Jesus... But the thing is had I been given a choice I would have done research on many religions before being labeled a part of one.

Now after nearly a year of studying I have deceided to commit myself to the Wiccan religion.

For Spwee and all here.Wow, neat comments everyone. Can I throw in my two cents worth?

First of all, Life and Christianity is way too big a thing to be summarized in a few short sentences. However, one site I've found here has tried to summarize the Bible and the Resurrection and a few other things as well into a well rounded and easy to understand format.

I hope some of you will take the time to wander through this treasure of a site, it is really well worth the time and effort spent

Here it is for all of us who love to live by the top 10.... the top 10 reasons to believe in the Christian Faith.
http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/

~pepe~

Why this seldom works is beyond my comprehension. If this doesn't take you there, just enter it yourselves..... it's well worth the trip! ~pepe~

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb

The discussion is apropos this mornng in that CSPAN has Michael Newdow, who is taking his case demanding we take the "one nation under God" issue before the Supreme Court to decide the "under God" issue...he wants it taken away.

Also..just a note about the "Jews Killed Jesus" notion. Jews did not kill Jesus.
Literally, the Romans executed Jesus.

But, the Sanhedrin and Pharisees, were a combination theocratic institution within the Jewish people, a business, and a political action committee.

Yeshua threatened them on all fronts.
The Sanhedrin made a LOT of money from their religious activities. Jesus overthrew the tables of the moneychangers and chased them from the temple.

Jesus openly defied that the Sanhedrin was the ultimate authority in religious matters. And, with this son of God notion, he really threatened their authority.

It was a power and money issue the Sanhedrin was mad about, and they used their political power with the Romans, and the threat of a mass revolt, to force Pilate to do something that, by all accounts, he didn't want to do.

The choice of Barrabas over Jesus, was probably the result of the Sanhedrin "seeding" the crowd in the front with loud people screaming Barrabas.

Also, there has been speculated that the zealots, political reactionaries, initially thought Jesus was their ticket to overthrowing Roman rule. When it became clear that Jesus did not propose violent overthrow of the Romans, and in fact, talked about his kingdom being not of this world...it has been speculated that some zealots, who did believe Jesus did have supernatural powers, that if they put him in a position to be crucoified by the Romans, that he would finally exert his supernatural powers and smite the Romans down.

Power and money...and old story.

Pepe, PeerGuardian blocks it.

CodeWarrior

It is so sad as to what is happening in our countries. I don't know how many times I've felt like "Stop the world, I'd like to get off now!" All I can say about folks like Michael Newdow, is that we must trust in our faith that this too is all part of God's ultimate plan.

Our countries Christian roots are being attacked and eroded left, right and center, BUT, and this is where faith comes into play, if we maintain our strong beliefs and faith, we will not be blown here and there as the reeds blow in the wind, but carry on in like mind.

You know, they can take God away from the statues, and statutes, they can take prayer out of schools, and courthouses, take our Christian plaques and even God off our money, BUT, they cannot, ever, never, take the love of Christ out of our hearts! I believe one day Christians will have to work "underground" and perhaps this is just one more path to teach us how to carry on.

~pepe~

Lachatte...... Turn peerguardian off and have a look at the site. There is nothing wrong with the site..it's Awesome! ~pepe~

Code, I was raised Catholic - 12 years of Catholic school. I remember the stories and paintings depicting Jesus, as a child, giving the "elders" a hard time. Jesus was always trying to set people straight about giving to "Caesar, the things that are Caesar's, and to God, the things that are God's." That's why I stopped attending mass. I got tired of just hearing about money, money, money, raffles, bingo, etc. while priests dined on steak, lobster and fine wine and showed no empathy toward the people that they were supposed to be serving.

Lachatte

That's rather sad. But it's true that Religion can be the biggest hurdle to overcome in striving for a personal relationship with Christ.

While I don't beleive there is such a thing as a perfect church, otherwise, why would we need them, (people are the Church) there are a great many churches out there that teach The Full Gospel-as long as a church is teaching directly from the Scriptures, it's pretty tough to stray too far from the path.

~pepe~

I have to agree with Pepe on that one. I know that all the preconceived dogmas that I had drilled into my head as a child were the hardest thing for me to overcome in my quest for God. I kept pushing him away because of this idea I was taught as a child of what God is supposed to be.

Right on with the anlysis. Just like with music, a good film (or music) speaks for itself to a point. It takes the extra effort to make people aware that it exists. Concering the social/religious aspects of the film, make your own choice. It's America. Key words YOUR OWN CHOICE. Not the decisions that someone else says you should follow.

Ya know...it's interesting...My parents were both ministers for many many years...in a "fundamentalist" Church.
As a "PK" or preacher's kid, I was around Bibles and congregations more than most. By heritage, my father was Jewish, but not by religion.

I was always taught to pray before I went to sleep, before I ate, etc.

My mom and dad ALWAYS tried to make sure I got the best they could afford, even though we were poor. They saved and were able to send me to parochial school...namely, Episcopalian. I think I was the only non-Episcopalian in the whole school. I was also the only one who did not call the rector, "Father", though I called him "Mister" (because of the "call no man father but your Father in heaven).

When I went to public school (they only offered 4 grades, 1.4 at the time at episcopalian school), I continued praying before I ate...in stark contrast to everyone else....

And, in class, I would SILENTLY pray before tests and during the day.

I did this all through elementary, high school, college, and graduate school.

This nonsense about them taking prayer out of the schools is just that. I don't have to pray aloud in public like the publicans do...and I have thus, never been stopped from praying.

For many years, I professed the Taoist faith (i.e. the Tao chia or Taoist Philosophy, as distinct from the Tao chiao, or Taoist religion), but in the last couple of years, I have renewed my Christian beliefs, though still acknowledging Taoist principles (I have Catholic Taoist friends, Jewish Taoist Friends, Wiccan Taoist friends...etc.)...

I guess the Bible is right about train up a child the way he should go and he will not depart from the faith in my case at least.

Now, that being said...I believe freedom of religion, really also means freedom FROM religion.

In my mind, the WORST thing for believers is for a corrupt government to become part and parcel with any religion. Is it "one nation UNDER GOD?"... I do respectfully feel that everyone...religious and atheist...needs to examine our government's policy of
CEREMONIAL DEISM....which is the doctrine which provides for the prayer done before the Congress goes about its business...the "in God we trust"...etc.

Basically, ceremonial deism says, we say these things referring to God, and we pray, and have the mottoes, but we just do it...it has no religious meaning and it doesn't mean we believe in a god or anything.

The doctrine and practice of ceremonial deism should be something that BOTH
profound believers and staunch athesists, should BOTH oppose, because it dilutes and in essence, makes a fraud of every utterance referring to god. It is neither fish nor fowl.

"Christians against Ceremonial Deism"
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/c_deism.htm

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/000858.php

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/03/13/news/religion/satrel01.txt

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/ohio1.htm
"The latter phrase was first used in legal literature by Dean Eugene Rostow of Yale University Law School during the 1962 Meiklejohn Lecture at Brown University and describes "constitutional tolerance of the opening prayers in the Congress (which) would describe some other theory -- possibly the idea that another class of political activity ... can be accepted as so conventional and uncontroversial as to be constitutional."

Rostow's invention of "ceremonial deism" cropped up in the written dissent by Justice Brennan in the LYNCH v. DONNELLY (1984) case which examined the constitutionality of a Christian nativity creche on public property. Brennan transported "ceremonial deism" into the official parlance of the Supreme Court when he wrote:


"Finally, we have noted government cannot be completely prohibited from recognizing in its public actions the religious beliefs and practices of the American people as an aspect of our national history and culture. While I remain uncertain about these questions, I would suggest that such practices as the designation of 'In God We Trust' as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form of 'ceremonial deism,' protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content..."

One of the messages of Christ that is seldom mentioned is ‘sell all you own, give to the poor, then follow Me.’ I have no earthly idea to what extent the $30m that Mel Gibson put into the movie stressed his financial status, but by any accounts, I’m sure it was substantial.

The problem the Jews had with Jesus was that He was not who they wanted Him to be. Rather than being one that rose up to deliver them from Roman domination, restoring their glory and domination of old, He declared to them that they had abandoned the Covenant that God had made with them. His only condemnation of the Jewish religion of that day (read government) was that their heart was no longer in it. They had substituted rules that if followed, declared one righteous.

In this forum, the basic message is that once music is purchased it belongs to the buyer. That we have objection to the way the RIAA members control what we own. But there are other that use this forum to argue that the banning of seven words on the broadcast media is unjustified censorship, even though there are many who find the use of those words objectionable. Now this is the heart of the matter, ‘what is right’?

I have not seen the movie, but I have read the Book and I am sure that somewhere in the movie that Pilate declares that ‘he can find no cause to put Jesus to death’. This was extremely important, in that not only what Jesus taught was correct, but also the way He taught was without condemnation.

The Christian belief is ‘to do all things for Christ’. That what ever is done is to be a message to others. Regardless of where leflaw will be next Sunday morning, we do know that seeing and studying the movie has been an inspiration.

Now;

May God bless this forum and each of those who labor and contribute to its success. Amen.

I, too, have put everything into this site.

The movie was extremely thought provoking and very well done. It was an explication of faith, even for an apostate.

Ps:

Yesterday I gave an $850 dollar guitar as a gift, to a family relation who embraced me like I was the Messiah!

leflaw
Date: March 22, 2004 @ 11:22 AM
I, too, have put everything into this site.

The movie was extremely thought provoking and very well done. It was an explication of faith, even for an apostate.

And bless you for this site, leflaw. In a way this site has become a church so this discussion becomes even more appropriate. The First Anti-Corporate Church of America. And what a wonderful church it is. I cannot think of any other place where Christians, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Wiccans, and "heathen pagan scum" can come together in a devoted way such as this to oppose a common evil.

Whenever I get discouraged while spreading the message of this site across the many forums of the Internet I can always return here for inspiration, information, and fellowship. Thank you all.

This place is also kind of like AA without the whining. Hey, "www.RIAA-Anonymous.com", twelve steps for kicking the musical crack habit. Anybody want to start it.

All well, enough of the mushy stuff, back to work.

Baldrocker -very well said my friend...very well said...

and also Gothic...you ROCK

and leflaw..well..you know how I feel my friend...blessings be on you from God, and, I thank you for all you are doing as well.


~CodeWarrior

CodeWarrior,

I must admit that I feel very humbled when I try to express myself at times, because so often I just feel that the people who write here are coming from a much higher educated level than I. You yourself, a product of two pastors.. how interesting that must have been. Leflaw a lawyer, etc...

I found this site which you and some others may find interesting. How God Uses Government.
http://www.ldolphin.org/govern.html

But I think I understand what they are saying about ceremonial deism, as it pertains to not having any kind of meaning whatsoever anymore.

And Leflaw? "Yesterday I gave an $850 dollar guitar as a gift, to a family relation who embraced me like I was the Messiah!" Thats pretty hillarious!

And it's so refreshing to come to this board at times and not be "run out on the rails" ~pepe~

A must read. I would love to here some reactions.


http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/jesus-christ/

Btw, Gothic angel , I am extremely gratified on your remarks about this site. You have encapsuled our philosophy wonderfully. The anti-corporate Church of America! I will remember that as I go into the belly of the beast.

And Pepe, I get more from your commentary that I get from the educated fools at the RIAA and MPAA

I went to Rotten.com and enjoyed that read...

One thing that doesn't get discussed much is the role of Mary with regard to Jesus..despite the work of the early Church to confuse people, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, and in fact, the Catholic church finally, after millenia, took back their portrayal of Mary as the sinner, and as a "penitent".

There actually is a gospel of Mary that has been found and translated and depicts her as one of the most loyal of disciples....It is even asserted by some that if you look at the DaVinci LAST SUPPER...the person at the right hand of Jesus, clearly appears to be a female and a man is whispering in her ear...she is leaning backward to hear him.

One thing that the supporters of Mary say, which is in harmony with the observations of Michael Baigent, author of Holy Blood/Holy Grail is that Peter (from Petra-Greek for rock) was apparently very jealous of the relationship Jesus had with Mary, and there are reference which speak of Jesus often being seen kissing Mary on the lips. Holy Blood/Holy Grail postulates that Mary and a few disciples escape to France, and that you had a schism develop between the Peter faction, and the Mary faction, and the Sanhedrin was indeed against a woman having a prominent place in the Church.

Baigent's theory talks about the fact that Mary and her followers were afraid of Peter's followers because they were concerned that they would be murdered.

There is quite a bit of history that does suggest that Peter, the one who was supposedly "the rock upon whom I will build my church" may have had other motivations than merely spreading the word of Christ. You will remember that Peter denied Christ thrice before the cock crowed, and yet, Jesus, after coming back from the dead, appears to Mary first.

Sangreal, the "Holy Grail" may also be broken up as "Sang Real" or blood of the king...more properly, the "Bloodline of the King"...for most Christians, this is sacriligeous.

I point it out merely as another story which has developed about the what the early church was like.

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/L/leonardo/lastsupp.jpg.html

Interesting links on the above
http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/leonardo.html

http://www.thenazareneway.com/the_gospel_of_mary_magdalene.htm

http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/ic/mcbride/ws200/marymag.htm

http://www.msawomen.org/works/magdalene.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892819111/002-0218169-7442453?v=glance

http://www.metaphysical.bc.ca/hbhg.htm

I also clipped the picture from the Last Supper,..you'll notice that number one, the figure to Jesus' right does not appear to be male, and does not appear to be John the beloved, and also, you will note the prominent formation of a V, i.e. the figures left arm is almost at a perfect 90 degrees to Jesus' right arm...some have found some further symbolism in this V shape as well...
There's the book out called the DaVinci Code, which I believe is fiction, but some seriously say that DaVinci did place little subtle hints here and there to indicate to the more astute, that there are hidden mysteries about the Biblical story...
http://images2.dmusic.com/users/c/o/d/codewarrior/22449.gif

http://www.drakesvision.com/sria/anatomy/anatomy_of_the_body_of_god.htm

This is an interesting read about Cabalistic Geometry. Maybe a little too mystical and occultish for the beginner but also serves as a good introduction.

Wow, thanks leflaw, I'll accept that as a compliment, I think, knowing that the people at the riaa and the mpaa are some of the most ignorant people we know of.

I read over the site you had posted, it's interesting to see what different people get out of an article. A lot of what they say there is true, some would think it's very sacreligious. I mostly just laughed. I'm comfortable with who I am and what I believe.

Seriously though, "According to these theories, Jesus was taken down from the cross still alive and nursed back to health" After seeing Mel's movie, would one really consider this?

One important thing to keep in mind, other than what Baldrocker brought up, is that Jesus said He's coming back.(Jesus, not Baldrocker, sorry He's the only one who ever made that claim that I'm aware of. You'd think that alone would keep people on the straight and narrow.

One can read so much stuff out there, no wonder confusion abounds! I'll just stick to the Scriptures. If thats narrow minded, so be it. It works for me.

~pepe~

So, I assume that when someone cries out "Oh my God" in bed with you, one shouldn't assume that their partner just had a religious experience then?

FewerInhibit... I wasn't sure who you were addessing, so I'm taking liberties here. My answer is Why not? If God is the creator of everything in our world, He obviously created sexual pleasure..henceforth, a spiritual experience! ~pepe~

Pepe, I'm fairly sure Thomas Jefferson was very anti-god, as were many of the founding fathers.

tasadar24

Yipes, you guys are sure giving me a brain exercise today, if no other exercise.

I'm a Canadian and I sure don't have a clue about your founding fathers, but I can push buttons and look things up, therefore, I found this site. It doesn't sound like he was anti-God, but only the Lord really knows our hearts... have a look at the site anyway if you care to.

I just type these address's in now as the links we throw in seldom go there on their own. And yes, I'm trying to look at everyone else's links that have been posted here. Sure am glad I have a desk job.

Was Thomas Jefferson and Enemy of God
http://www.americandaily.com/item/4341

~pepe~

Ok, Ok, here is what makes me uncomfortable. going back to THE MOVIE MAKING BUSINESS... Mel Gibson made his umpteen millions of with a movie career that is Knee-deep in blood, gore and violence.. How many people in his movie career has he killed? Hundreds? Thousands? And over what? In his art, you are presented with graphic, stark, good-bad, black-white scenarios that can only be resolved by the spattering of buckets of blood everywhere.. (Thou shall not kill..). No negotiations, no talk,no history, no realistic context, no smarts, really.. just gut reactions.. kill or be killed. I agree with the folks that call it violent pornography.. the intense massaging of emotions to get a reaction. Then he takes this money from all this battle and bloodletting and applies it to a "religious story." More blood, more violence, of course, close up.. (Thou shall not make graven images..) and money just flows like the blood in all his movies.. Isn't anyone else unsettled by this?? And because Jesus is the subject here, Mel mixes religion with all the finesse of hollywood.. why? Because he has been doing it all along.. from Mad Max to Braveheart.. and killing instead of loving is so much easier to do.. Blaming, even in the form of a "passion" is so easy to do, even if it is presented in the excellence of the latest film technology. I recently rewatched "the Birth of a Nation" and I gotta tell ya.. it is a well-crafted movie for it's time.. but the overall ultra-smooth presentation of the moviemaker's vision still scares me to this day. And it doesn't take much, as this thread attests, to get folks strokin' those ole' religion sticks and stones and there you go.. fightin and flamin again and again.. instead of examining the original discussion that Leflaw posed.. Is it an accurate portrayal? Is is it a religious statement? Is it Mel Gibson's interpretation. It is all f the above, to some folks.. and don't you find that scary?

Jazzmary...you forgot his movie...
What Women Want...

But, to the point, I've watched most of Mel's movies including The Road Warrior, Mad Max, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, The Patriot, The Bounty (the remake), The Passion of the Christ.Signs, We Were Soldiers, Payback, All The Lethal Weapon movies, Ransom, Conspiracyn Theory, Maverick, Braveheart, and even Chicken Run...

The movies he is in are sometimes bloody...the Patriot for example, We Were Soldiers (based on a true story)...but I have found that the violence in his films "fits in"...and there is not the gratuitous violence that is violence for violence sake, as in something like a Nightmare on Elm Street, Jason, Hellraiser, etc.

If you tell the story of the American Revolution, or the last 12 hours of Christ' life, or We Were Soldiers...the gore makes it look horrible.

Braveheart really did depict the horror of wars when you are fighting men one on one with bladed weapons..it is bloody horrible, and William Wallace was eviscerated and drawn and quartered as the film depicted.

We know that people can always get worked up over things and try to blame it on something else. You may remember the trials in which the parents blamed the suicide of their kids on music by Judas Priest.

In a way, I find Mel Gibson's film, oddly replaying an aspect of Jesus' life.

Just showing the story described in the gospels, caused some people to attack him as anti-Semitic (I'm not getting into his dad's views on the Holocaust)...and it's like everyone has their interpretation of whether the film was faithful or not...

I've long been a reader on ancient weapons, and from reading about weapons, and knowing a bit about human anatomy, the cat o nine tails did tear chunks of flesh and sling blood everywhere. That's not Mel being sensationalistic, that was an intended function of that punishment. When you make a crown of thorns and mash that down into the scalp, the person is going to bleed profusely....scalp wounds bleed like crazy....

I think personally, that sanitizing the experience, and casting a beachboy looking guy as Yeshua, really does a disservice to the truth of the story...because it makes like Jesus went through almost nothing....and only by showing the agony and the blood can we understand what he endured for us...

Records of crucifixions show they used giant nails, driven through the heel bone to nail the feet to the cross, like in the movie.

I think Mel was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. You can't please everyone I guess.

But, if we look at the movie in the terms of outcome basing..Mel's movie continues to make bucks...so word of mouth is working for him.

Now, some of that may be young males attracted to the blood and gore, but I believe most are Bible believers who want to get a deeper understanding of what Jesus went through, and since it was done in Aramaic and Latin, what it may have sounded like.

The movie aims at the "fly on the wall" point of view in some respects, as if we were able to go back in time in a time machine and see and hear what happened..

I loved the movie myself, and yes, I did cry watching it.

sorry for typo..meant Conspiracy Theory

BTW...two top films this last weekend were
1. Dawn of the Dead
2. The Passion of the Christ....

Both were bloody, both involved people coming back from the dead, both made lots of bucks this past weekend.

I stumbled on this page by accident and found it to be a seriously interesting read. Contrary to the mantra in the newspaper and modern media business--of which I was a part for a time--some people of the MTV generation actually do read more than the first few paragraphs of a body of text.

Anyhow, thought I'd share with you some comments:

I was raised in a non-standard household... mother Presbyterian, father Roman-Catholic. We were baptised Presbyterian, but never attended services save a few as infants, of which I possess no recollection. My parents believed in taking a hands-off approach to everything. I never once in my life had a lecture, be it on values, grades, habits, ethics, drugs, sex, religion, etc. My parents did not intrude on anything in my and my brothers' lives, they simply let us make our own decisions. Only once did they step in to alter the path of my older brother's life, and he turned everything around after that. They were not saints, but both were honorable, upstanding people with no major vices of drink, drugs, behavior, etc.

My point is that very simply, neither me nor my brothers were indoctrinated in any way through organized religion, political parties, etc. My parents never preached at us, voted Republican or Democrat based upon who seemed the better candidate and never forced us to do anything. They respected our right to make own own choices. Growing up and going to university with people of various faiths and different upbringings, I can only say that I can never hope to repay my parents for the gift they gave us... open minds unclouded and untrained by rote indoctrination. It's a simple gift so many have to fight for and yet can never achieve.

I've watched too many friends grow up under a certain system professing how they disliked the way their parents circumscribed their ability to choose for themselves, and yet after "rebelling", they return to what is comfortable. They tried to think for themselves, asked questions that had no answers, and when the asking became too difficult, returned to what they were taught.

I'm so long-winded that I ran out of room! Continued:

To _truly_ believe in any religion, any belief system at all, is to automatically rule out all others and pare down one's options for looking at the world.

Each person believes in their own god or gods, or basic philosophy. I've studied each of the major and some minor religions out there only to conclude that I can make no choice. How can a person read a scripture, be it the Vedas or the Koran or the Bible, and conclude that the writers were somehow more 'godly' than themselves? How can a person derive an absolute truth from the workings of another's mind committed to paper? How can one then decide that this is the correct position, and all others are wrong?

I am frightened by the growing power of the conservative right in America. The (organized) Christians are in no way different from the Muslim Taleban. In place of strict adherence to the sharia, we have strict adherence to the Bible, and belief in piles of dogma and rubbish that were added on to the religion later and passed off under its guise.

It seems to me that all of it, and all of the dogma of each of the organized religions, seeks only one end: to control people. Religions do not as a matter of course tell you what you CAN do, they tell you what you CANNOT do. And worse, they purport to do so in the name of a higher power, complete with punishments for not doing what you are told. And even WORSE than this, we have designated people--priests, fathers, mullahs, whatever--whom we empower to decide what our diety wants! And the nail in the coffin, so to speak, is that our religions alter and modernize what their gods want us to do as the social context of the times change. (Well, except for Wahabi Islam.) And your reason for abiding by these codes? Because the book that contains them TELLS you to!!!! And this is the ultimate limitation of organized religion, the fact that it seeks to give purpose to your life by taking away your open mind, to stop searching for answers to questions because someone decided them for you, to "make up your own mind" to be a follower.

Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox now!

CodeWarrior; "because it makes like Jesus went through almost nothing....and only by showing the agony and the blood can we understand what he endured for us..."

EXACTLY!

Mel Gibson doesn't need the money. Methinks he's way beyond that. He has a deep personal faith, and he wanted to share this with the world, you know, like you've got something inside of your gut that you just have to get out.? Mels a passionate man.

I also believe that God is truly blessing him as well with his endeavor. And Hollywood and the mpaa are sitting there crying the blues...sucks to be them! And sure they are now plotting some great religious movie making schemes, and plots, but you know what? They will fail, cause we will all see right through them!

~pepe~

IamNotYou -welcome to the site..glad to have you here, and longwindedness is nothing to apologize for

I agree with you...and hope we have MORE people who take time to think about the topics this year.

Pepe51200...thank you....
as usual my friend...I agree with you.
~Code

I.. thought.. we.. were.. discussing.. a.. movie..... ????
A lot of misguided people were passionate men, Pepe.. all I am asking you folks to do is consider.. and I have to ask why violence is such a neccessary part of 90% of Mel Gibson's work, and why everyone thinks this is OK, and why no one questions the mixing of the religion and the gore?? Code, I dig ya, man, but I must disagree that ya gotta have extreme violence to make a point.Let me get this straight.. you are saying that the amount of blood spilled in this "passion" movie is directly correlated to the strenth of belief? I find that hard to swallow, coming from someone as knowlegable, kind, and focused as you.. Blessed are the peacemakers, too. Are you saying that the kind of violence presented in, say, the Lethal Weapon series, was neccessary and acceptable? I would have to disagree with that. If it were the same amount of gratuitous sex in these movies as the amount of gratutious violence, we all know it would come in a plain-brown wrapper. I am just saying that Mr. Gibson has plied his trade with a LOT of violence, to sell his pictures, and that is how he is congruent with Hollywood sleaze.. so, Pepe, you think that Hollywood folks are the only ones capable of scam? Wow, brother, consider other sources, please.. or Eva Braun will consider you ripe for the pickings!

IamNotYou, I "am (also) frightened by the growing power of the conservative right in America."
As a child, I was taught to fear God and fear going to hell for my sins.
And now I hear our elected representatives preach hate and use fear to keep all its citizens in line.

Jazzy, this is how it happened. Jesus died, and was tortured, and there was a LOT of blood.

Same thing with Bravehart, We Were Soldiers, etc.

Yeah, so true, tasadar, but LA cops? My problem is that you keep on mixing up "truth" with "movies".. a dangerous trend, imho .. and Jesus also lived and preached love and peace.. and there was a LOT of life.. what is this obsession with blood, folks??

IamNotYou

Welcome indeed and as for an answer to your questions? FAITH

Alternative religious views have saviors who remain in the grave. No other system offers everlasting life as a gift to those who trust One who has overcome death for them. No other system offers assurance of forgiveness, eternal life, and adoption into the family of God by calling on and trusting Someone in the same way a drowning person calls for and relies on the rescue of a lifeguard (Romans 10-13). The salvation Christ offers does not depend on what we have done for Him, but on our acceptance of what He has done for us. Instead of moral and religious effort, this salvation requires a helpless admission of our sins. Instead of personal accomplishments of faith, it requires confession of failure. Unlike all other options of faith, Christ asks us to follow Him -- not to merit salvation but as an expression of gratitude, love, and confidence in the One who has saved us (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Basically, you either believe in the Bible or you don't. God has given you free will. You do have a choice. We all have a choice!

You're not alone if you are still unconvinced about the reasonableness of faith in Christ. But keep in mind Jesus' claim that we don't have to resolve our doubts on our own. He said, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether My teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own" (John 7:17 NIV).

If you do see the reasonableness of faith in Christ, keep in mind that the Bible says to the family of God, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). The salvation Christ offers is not a reward for effort, but a gift to all who put their trust in Him.

Test Him!

Credit where credit is due, one more time,
The top 10 reasons .....
http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb

Thanks CodeWarrior my friend, for being here, for your support and everyone else as well. But I'm really drained...must sleep! ~pepe~

Lethal Weapon was a film that is hollywood violence...The Passion of Christ is NOT hollywood violence.

I'm saying that violence is a part of life...unfortunately....Iraq right now is violent and bloody...I have a friend who is a marine over there now.

You cannot properly depict the last hours of Christ life without violence.

You cannot properly depict Vietnam in the fighting, without violence.

You cannot properly depict the American Revolutionary War without the violence.

Braveheart....William Wallace, led the fight for Scottish independence, and yes, it was not a chess game, it was bloody and violent.

I personally abhor real violence, and yet, have been in martial arts since I was 21...that's thirty years. I've seen guys get cut, seen guys get broken arms...

People who live in ghettos in LA live with violence...

If you watch a nature show...you see lions tear prey apart...bloody and violent...

Now, I personally love shows like A Mighty Wind, Spinal Tap, Best of Show, and all kinds of comedy...I also liked My Dinner with Andre...but, I'd rather watch The Patriot than The Bridges of Madison County or The Pianist...but that's just me.

I really don't think Mr. Gibson's film was near as bloody or violent as lots I've seen...
Reservoir Dogs
Pulp Fiction
Natural Born Killers
Dusk to Dawn
El Mariachi
Kill Bill
The Wild Bunch
and, lest we forget,
a really violent episode...
Straw Dogs with Dustin Hoffman

For a sec, let's think Billy Jack...
Billy Jack wanted to be non-violent,
but he ended up having to do some
Hwarang Do butt kicking....

There are all kinds of violence...
There is violence of a physical nature...and there is violence of a mental nature....think about some of
the scenes in the Manchurian Candidate...some are not overly violent...but there is an inner tension...an invisible violence going on...

I think part of the problem with screen violence is that they have traditionally offered a RoadRunner/ Wiley Coyote type violence...and in so doing, sanitized it...glamorized it. Realistic depictions of violence make it less glamorous...

And how about the movie The Cube, or
Resident Evil, in which lasers slice people into chunks which fall off like pieces of watermelon...

Mr. Gibson wanted to portray, as closely as possible, what Jesus went through.
Biblically, he did a great job, even to pointing out the fulfillment of the prophecy "his legs will not be broken"...

You cannot mash a crown of thorns down on a guy's head, beat him with a whip with nine flagellum with imbedded pieces of sharp metal over and over and over...drag him around in a hot climate, and not expect blood everywhere....

If you've ever been in a car wreck and sustained head trauma or face trauma, (I have) you KNOW that you bleed a lot.
Any ER doc will tell you that the depictions of the blood is not gratuitous or excessive.

If I had 30 million, I could not have done as well as Mel Gibson...

Jazz...I respect your opinion...but I really can't understand it.

I don't know how he could have been faithful to the historical record, and not have told the story as he did.

I cannot imagine the horror Jesus/Yeshua bar Joseph went through...I think I understand it a LITTLE bit more from the film, and I am even more in his debt for the sacrifice he made for me...I love Jesus...love God, and am proud of Mr. Gibson's work on this film.

End of my spiel.

also, Jesus said, in the last supper...that eating the bread was consuming his flesh...and drinking the wine, was drinking his blood, and many Christians say we are saved by the blood of the lamb, the sacrificial atonement for our sins...in the old testament, they sacrificed living creatures to atone for sins....Jesus gave his life such that living sacrifices were no longer required.

Right on CodeWarrior!

Jazzmary2U....it's all about the BLOOD!

The phrase "blood of Christ" refers to the Work of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Blood represents judgment -- the judgment for our sins while Christ was bearing them on the Cross (His spiritual death).

The physical death of the animal in the Old Testament sacrifices is analogous to the spiritual death of Christ.

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." 1 Pet. 2:24

And now I really am going to get some sleep...good night All! ~pepe~

Damn you guys! Because of this discussion I just finished subjecting myself and my gf to a Mel Marathon. We watched (in order) We Were Soldiers, The Patriot, and Braveheart (although Braveheart was on a very old and well-watched VHS rendering it hard to enjoy). The point of the gore Jazzmary is to highlight the cruelty that we do to each other in a way that is not possible with "off-screen violence" as in past similar epics. You can draw a line in Mel's career right before Braveheart and see the difference between gratuitous violence and bloody violence by necessity. The three films I just mentioned are war movies and in war you have blood and gore and horror and by putting that in the films it demonstrates the great pain and obstacles that these "heroes" overcame in their real-life adventures.

A good parallel would be to compare We Were Soldiers with Black Hawk Down. Both were bloody stories based on true events, but where We Were Soldiers was inspiring in the courage of the men fighting and the trials that they faced on the battlefield Black Hawk Down left the viewer feeling "what a waste of precious life."

I think Mel's newer films seek to remind us that there are heroes in the world, those who believe in more than what is offered to them and are willing to fight for it. (Hey, I just described our movement.) I have seen plenty of Jesus movies in the past and fell asleep during most of them. The blood and gore not only kept me awake, but like Code said, I left the theater with a greater appreciation for the horror and suffering that Jesus endured for what he believed was right, if Mel had candy-coated it then the film would have just been another yawner Jesus flick.

The violence in these movies is well placed in situation where it is expected to be and these stories cannot be told without it. As opposed to your average horror movie where the purpose of violence is to shock and scare the audience the violence in these movies is to demonstrate the horror we can inflict on our fellow man and is compounded when we see it done to historical figures like Jesus and William Wallace.

Maybe in another 20 years or so some young Mel Gibson will be filming an epic about the Boycott-RIAA movement. Hey, we can get Johnny Depp to play me, he's good at that dark morbid gothic thing.

P.S. Code, I first read about William Wallace when I was 10 in a story book my dad had. It was called "Stories from My Grandfather's Lap" and was a collection of historical Scottish tales. I've tried to find another copy but haven't met with any success. I've always liked the story of William Wallace and have found it even more inspiring than the Joan of Arc's story.

P.S.S. With the current rise of blood and gore I will not be taking my gf son to see Troy, even though he wants to see it. He watched the mini-series of The Odyssey that I had recorded on tape a few weeks ago and now won't quit bugging me about Odysseus.

Thx for the welcome Code and others!

JazzMary I don't understand where you're coming from there... the killing, raping and pillaging of societies hundreds of years ago make today's surgical military strikes and Geneva-convention warfare look like a Care-Bears cartoon. Things were quite a bit more awful back then...

I don't see what has everyone up in arms about the violence in Gibson's movies. Like it or not, violence is a part of the very survival of all organisms on this planet. We like to pretend that we are somehow better than that, infinitely above animals in our righteousness... but in the end, we are naturally given to slaughter prey for our food, slaughter each other for our lands, and slaughter each other for our religions and "high-minded" ideals. It should thus be expected that this is reflected in our art, our culture, our movies.

I personally believe that with sufficient effort we can rise above our beginnings. However, many do not and many cannot.

Think of the reaction you have when a stranger stares you in the eyes. It's an evolutionary holdover from our ancestry. Our violence is innate. We can try only to rise above it.

Some may throw creationism back at me (6000 years ago, etc, etc) for suggesting an evolutionary trait, but I imagine that most are sufficiently curious to examine the world around them. After all, as Jimmy Carter said after Georgia was going to remove the word "evolution" from their textbooks in yet another astounding step backwards for our country: "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith."

Another note. Think of the classic "hero cycle" as taught by all lit programs from here to the moon... Is there really heroism as we perceive it without violence or the threat thereof? How does a person become a hero without being at risk in some way? Most of these risks, simply portrayed by Hollywood for easy relation by the masses, involve physical peril--so readily understood. How often do you see a movie about a hero's ideas, positions, the foundation of very systems of belief, under verbal assault without some threat or use of force? That would be too complex. I think Hollywood should make a movie out of Copernicus' life to counterpoint the recent upswing worldwide in religious conservatism and division. The time he lived in and the battles of church, science and state would serve as excellent reminders of just what's at stake in todays' scary political environment. More people might be confronted directly with the necessity to question their beliefs and rationalize them against the natural world before following others blindly.

P.S. Gothic, someone else should do a real historical flick involving Wallace, Bruce and the others... the real history is far more interesting to me than the fantastic version created for the film Braveheart. The folk story of Robert the Bruce, his time alone after he failed at first, his opportunism and human flaws, his change of heart and uprising after the defeat of Wallace are all excellent movie material. But, alas, a less than pure (i.e. human) hero is not on the Hollywood agenda most years.

Also, in your Boycott-RIAA epic, see if you can get Matthew Broderick to make a cameo for my bit part... I supposedly look and act just like him in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

leflaw started a great site, and great people now frequent it, post their music on it, talk on it, and work on it.(This includes the dmusic staff, newsteam and of course the community).

I am very intrigued by many of the posts I am reading. They're very interesting. I, too, have been pertubed by some of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church. It is my decision to be a devout Catholic (following as much of Jesus' teaching as possible) but I disagree and refuse to adhere to some of the doctrines. Likewise, I am not a conservative- I am a mostly liberal Catholic, as strange as it sounds.

Many of these doctrines became Church law simply because one pope or another liked them, and so they became "tradition". Now, they are outdated. For example, the rule that during Lent we should fast from eating meat- on Fridays. Why is it acceptable to eat fish, then?

Because during Jesus' time fish was extremely cheap- you just took your stick and line and dropped in the water, and you could have fish, just like that. But meat (cattle, etc.) had to be raised on farms. It was a luxury. So meat was made a target of the fast. Biblical evidence does support the tradition of fasting.

However, fish is now just as expensive, if not more expensive, than meat. In fact, organic or "wild-caught" fish can be extremely expensive- about $15 or more just for one salmon. I can get two pork chops for that price and have money left over.

So, since meat is no longer a luxury, I choose to fast from other things- things I consider personal luxuries. Like cheese. It's so good as a complement to many foods, (and good on its own, too!) yet it's not that essential. I have cheese in sandwiches, on chili, in my tacos/burritoes, etc.- but I don't have to. I can also fast from desserts, chocolate, and candy on Fridays. As long as I am personally fasting, I feel I am honoring Jesus and my religion- even if I'm not directly in line with official Church credo.

:-:~ Phantom

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4500384/
"Will ‘Passion’ be used against U.S.?
Plus: A Janet Jackson-styled accessory

Philippe Antonello / AP
"The Passion of The Christ" is being blasted as an allegory of Western imperialism over Islamic countries.
By Jeannette Walls with Ashley Pearson
MSNBC
Updated: 2:38 a.m. ET March 23, 2004Will Mel Gibson’s movie cause "Passion" among Muslims?

advertisement

"The Passion of the Christ" hasn’t been shown to the public in Muslim nations, but in Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population, the film is already being blasted as an allegory of Western imperialism over Islamic countries. And one writer is drawing parallels between the Romans in the film and "Jewish leaders in Washington and their colonial connections to Israel."

"It’s become grist for the mill for some Muslim extremists who see it as an allegory for western colonialism and Jewish conspiracies," says Rick Ross, an expert on cults and radical movements. "Don’t be surprised if certain people, particularly those with an anti-Jewish bias, seize upon ‘The Passion’ as a useful polemic against America." "

Date: March 23, 2004 @ 7:07 AM ( delete )
Anybody see Last Temptation of Christ (by Martin Scorcese?) It was on Bravo last night.

Features David Bowie ! as Pilate

Missed it...and David Bowie is one of my wife's favorites.
Darn.

I've seen that one before.

:-:~ Phantom

Wow, hot topic.
I haven't read every word of every post, but some general comments:

1. Don't watch movies on Bravo -- they cut them to shreds.

2. I respect Mel for his creation and method of distribution, but I won't go see the movie. I'm sensitive to seeing violence, and don't need to see it to know the story (heck, I weep when I play the original cast version of Jesus Christ Superstar). Jazzmary has a point -- is Mel doing us (and Jesus) a favor by being so explicit? Apparently some people are irreligiously getting off on the movie.

3. Leflaw, I looked at the site you posted (way above). I found it to be a clever and detached view of the historical Jesus. I always appreciate clever and detached. But hey, are you a 'rotten' member? I poked around the site....some folks really have... imagination. eeks.

Interesting method of fasting Phantom... I read somewhere that the Jews, who really started all the fasting business in the Judeo-Christian/Muslim arena, did so because the absence of food in one's stomach and the emptiness you felt were to represent what life would be like without god. So I think you are being more true to the spirit than the hidebound doctrine.

Also, I agree with carla... I like how Gibson circumvented the establishment to produce his film. I wonder, though, whether this same thing could really happen in the music business. Unfortunately, albums simply do not generate as much money as films, and artists generally release only one or two albums that are well received before the public moves on to something else. Would the resultant sales from independantly stamped discs (very expensive) and a cut of $1 mp3 downloads of mainly their "good" songs be enough to sustain the artist?

One last thought on this and I'm putting my own period on it.

Let's say, not Mel Gibson, but ANYONE wanted to do a story on Jesus last 12 hours, and was a devout Christian. They believe that the three gospels really tell what happened, but they also supplement them by studying the historical background, the torture methods of the Romans, languages spoken at the time, types of dress, methods of crucifixion...

And, let's take it one step further and say that this anonymous person has great respect for the ordeal Jesus went through (or as many of us call him Yeshua )...given the above....how would you portray what happened? Would you show that he got beaten with whips with sharp metal studs in them, had a large crown of thorns imbedded in his scalp, and maybe had a few teeth knocked out...his face swollen from beatings, and yet, no blood was spilled? If so..how do you handle the scene where the soldier thrusts the spear into his side and out comes blood and water...just have water issue forth?

If you eliminate the blood, eliminate the beatings, the fact he is almost beaten to death before even being hoisted onto the cross...you do a MAJOR disservice to Christians, to the audience, and to the work from which the story is taken, because you don't show the nature and degree of punishment and sacrifice Yeshua made so that we would have a pathway to salvation...

Now, if someone is very sensitive, I would not advocate seeing the movie. It is both mentally and emotionally hard to see a man who is without sin, beaten, cut, cursed, ridiculed, forced to carry a heavy cross when he can't walk, have spikes driven through his feet and hands, and have his mother watch him being put throught this...but such was reality....such was....The Passion of the Christ.

This.. is.. so.. sad.. how short is the leap from one man's MOVIE to religion to judgement. Is your stating that "I don't get it" a judgement?.. sounds like it to me.. I am not talking about Jesus, per se, but how readily violence has permeated of Hollywood, so that, to make money, all ya gotta do is get gory.. Who knows if it is the truth or not?? NO ONE! Scholars with more degrees than anyone here argue the history of this.. Slavery of Africans was obscenely brutal.. no one seems to mind that subject.. did anyone see Amistad? That man can be bloody and war-like is a given, and something we should watch out for, but sheesh.. Watch out that just because a religious story is involved here that you don't automatically lay the religious assumptions all over it, is all that I was saying. It is Mel Gibsons movie is all.. I am highlighting one subject.. the bloody violence of Hollywood.. NOT trying to lay a religion on anybody. Ron Howard shows us that a good story can be presented without bits of flesh. And how about Tom Hank's career? He has earned over a billion dollars with movies largely absent of this kind of gore.. I don't mind violence, per se, but ya gotta admit.. Mel seems to wallow in it.

btw.. leflaw. I saw the Last Temptation of Christ at the movies, after wading through ultra-religious shouting at me not to see it.. You're right,tho.. interesting perspective IN ANOTHER MAN'S MOVIE!!!

Jazzmary2U Tom Hanks-Saving Private Ryan-I almost threw up-because of its reality ~pepe~

Jazzmary2U I just have one little question

If YOU were there in the crowd, watching off to the side the beating and the whipping that Jesus took, what would you have expected to see?

If YOU were there at Golgotha? Standing off to the side in the front of the crowd? What would you have expected to see?

Thats what Mr. Gibson wanted you to see and experience.

~pepe~

pepe.. i have just one little answer.. you, by bringing up this Jesus scanario over and over, are proving my point.. I don't want to talk about religion.. especially YOUR version of it, man.. I feel like the aflac goose.. Mr. Gibson is taking advantage of you, pepe.. step back and look at it.. I did not mean to say ALL of Tom Hanks movies.. it's HOLLYWOOD, man, that is the point here.. Even though Mel did this with his own money, and even though AS LEFLAW POINTED OUT IN THE ORIGINAL THREAD.. can't you admit that it is hollywood formula?? Did you see the movie, Malcolm X, dude.. tell me what you thought of THAT!!! Denzel Washington is another example of a successful movie career that is not OVERWHELMINGLY VIOLENT!! I am tired of this.. I, like Code, am out.. later.

Jazzmary2U I apologize, I'm sorry. I was referring to the movie, thats all, not religion. ~pepe~

re: the Jazzmary/Pepe debate:

The issue of violence in movies generally is a valid aspect of the discussion of the Passion of Christ, regardless of the underlying or accompanying religious or political issues.

I cut the baby in half and wash my hands of it.

leflaw I cut the baby in half and wash my hands of it. Good one!

I actually thought Jazzmary2U would come back with snappy answer such as;

"Well I didn't expect to see Mel baby with a camera there"

Oh well.. I guess, some folks are just more sensitive. I on the other hand have a very thick hide. I was surprised, but I'll live! ~pepe~

I still don't see the problem with violence... look at Africa, look at the Baltics... look at the wholesale slaughter and starvation that exists every day in our lives and that we do nothing about. We know it's there, we know it happens! Our news contains predominantly violent behavior. Why is it so wrong to be confronted with it in the movies, especially in what could be considered a positive light?

Mel believes Jesus suffered and died for his and all peoples' sins... he obviously wanted to make that suffering explicit, to thrust into peoples' faces that it was truly horrible and not sanitized, such that they would not/could not forget this and be more thankful, thereby more devout, etc... A tribute to his faith and convictions that the faithful have seized upon advance the faith among those without.

:clueless about how ppl can get all up in arms about the mention of religion in the context of a clearly religious film:

But, alas, I'm finished on the subject as well.

YOu make a good point. Fire purifies as much as water.

But what about Brian? When did he come down off the cross and did he return back from the dead? Monty Python never answered those questions and my spirit is now less for it.

lol, Gothic-Angel.

I can see Jazzmary2U's point. Violence is a problem in Hollywood.

Mel chose to make a movie about Jesus' passion. It's your choice whether to see it or not. I thought it was a very powerful movie. Typical of the "shock and awe" we keep hearing from Washington DC.

What I think they should do is make a movie just about Jesus' ministry. A real, genuine one that shows the miracles from the Gospels: bringing Lazarus back from the dead, the loaves and the fishes, calming the storm, etc. That would be a movie even children could watch. And no marketing.

When that happens, I'll believe somebody in Hollywood will actually be doing some thinking. But it's unlikely to happen.

:-:~ Phantom

Fire purifies better than water, as anyone who has sterilized a needle will tell you..lol...but I like soap and water better when I'm scrubbing up...third degree burns really cramp my day

LOL...love you guys...peace out!