Misturi
[Studying...]
On ET they said that the actors couldn't speak english, so l'm guessing that either they do speak english (but very poorly) or there are subtitles.
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
the passion by mel gibson (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter sexy grl
- Start date
dark`secrets
<insert title>
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 2,703
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
dubbed? lol
Trigger189
XYLENE-FREE ZONE
its in aramic and latin, and it has subtitles
the movie is amazing..saw it today. i disagree with people who say gibson has a fetish for violence and that the violence overshadows the spirituality, and whats up with people calling it anti-semitic, even after the movie is out in the open and making this point invalid - like that idiot on 7.30 report???
anyway, i thought it was an amazing experience
the movie is amazing..saw it today. i disagree with people who say gibson has a fetish for violence and that the violence overshadows the spirituality, and whats up with people calling it anti-semitic, even after the movie is out in the open and making this point invalid - like that idiot on 7.30 report???
anyway, i thought it was an amazing experience
the passion of the christ , is the greatest film ever made concerning any genre (my thoughts)it is a superb depiction of the suffering of christ and really put me to tears knowing that we are responsible for the death of our lord.
their were times where i felt i was going to faint or somethin like that but i really enjoyed watching in some way a re_inacment of the passion of christ 2000 years later.if your a christian or not,this movie will touch you in some way when you visualy depict how our lord was punched and mocked hit across his face before his trial begun ,you really feel a sense of guilt. i really was very touched by how the high preist would wash his face with his saliva and our lord would only look down with a sign of gratitude and respect for the high preist ,and from then on i guess its unbearable from the excrutiating scourging to his crucifixion.
just to note that if your not willing to see extreme suffering and violence don't go and watch the movie because it is presented in the film's title THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
their were times where i felt i was going to faint or somethin like that but i really enjoyed watching in some way a re_inacment of the passion of christ 2000 years later.if your a christian or not,this movie will touch you in some way when you visualy depict how our lord was punched and mocked hit across his face before his trial begun ,you really feel a sense of guilt. i really was very touched by how the high preist would wash his face with his saliva and our lord would only look down with a sign of gratitude and respect for the high preist ,and from then on i guess its unbearable from the excrutiating scourging to his crucifixion.
just to note that if your not willing to see extreme suffering and violence don't go and watch the movie because it is presented in the film's title THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
I don't think I can see this. Not just because of it's graphic nature but because it doesn't strike a chord with me. If this makes me a bad person, so be it. I know the story of Jesus, I do not need to see it in such graphic detail when I've had it rammed down my throat for 13 years.
Benny_
Elementary Penguin
So who here that isn't christian thinks it's good? Because I want to know how much research I have to do on the subject before being able to understand it
walrusbear
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,261
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
i'm a christian and i think it will be shit
fundamentalist crap!!
why can't you people see you're being manipulated by violence!
why would you want to go to mass after seeing jesus have the shit beat out of him. how can you weirdos claim religious fervour after seeing a representation of christ being beaten severely?!
fundamentalist crap!!
why can't you people see you're being manipulated by violence!
why would you want to go to mass after seeing jesus have the shit beat out of him. how can you weirdos claim religious fervour after seeing a representation of christ being beaten severely?!
walrusbear
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,261
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
is there anything at all spiritual about the flick?
Trigger189
XYLENE-FREE ZONE
woah. what up with you? manipulated by violence? i dont understand what you're trying to get at, being a christian as you said. the film is about the suffering of christ, he died for our sins, and this film shows this suffering that he underwent for us. this is a very important and powerful film, and i suggest you do see it. people do claim that the spirtuality has been lost. it's not a film that preaches, it is simply a visualization of the passion of jesus, and the emotion it evokes from its audience is where the spirtuality takes part.
i disagree with ur approach to this film and highly reccommend you see it. it is hard to endure, but it is an amazing experience.
Last edited:
bluesky100
Carly :-)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1052700.htm
Last Update: Wednesday, February 25, 2004. 10:00am (AEDT)
Scholars find fault in Gibson's 'Passion'
Mel Gibson's portrayal of the final 12 hours of Jesus in his film The Passion of the Christ has been hailed as the gospel truth by some believers, but many scholars complain that it is riddled with historical errors.
Their complaints range from inaccuracies about hairstyles and clothes to a lack of gospel context in the film which has raised a furore among Jewish groups who fear its graphic depiction of the crucifixion will fan anti-Jewish violence.
Gibson, who has denied the film is anti-Semitic, has said he consulted scholars, theologians, priests and spiritual writers before scripting the film with the aim of making Jesus's agony during the crucifixion appear as realistic as possible.
Many Christians see the film as bringing them closer to their religion.
Evangelical preacher Billy Graham called the film "a lifetime of sermons in one movie".
Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic who funded the $25 million film himself, was so set on making it authentic that he had his characters speak Latin and Aramaic.
Experts say this was his first mistake as Greek was the language spoken in Jerusalem during Jesus's time, along with Aramaic and some Hebrew spoken by Jews.
"Jesus talking to (Pontius) Pilate and Pilate to Jesus in Latin!" exclaimed John Dominic Crossan, a professor of religious studies at the Chicago-based Roman Catholic De Paul University.
"I mean in your dreams. It would have been Greek."
Latin was reserved for official decrees or used by the elite.
Most Roman centurions in the Holy Land spoke Greek rather than Latin, according to historians and archaeologists.
The mistakes, experts say, did not stop with the wrong language, which Professor Crossan, who speaks Latin, said was so badly pronounced in the film that it was almost incomprehensible.
"He has a long-haired Jesus ... Jesus didn't have long hair," said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in Jerusalem.
"Jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair."
"The Jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek," said New York University's Lawrence Schiffman.
Along with extensive writings from the period, experts also point to a frieze on Rome's Arch of Titus, erected after Jerusalem was captured in AD 70 to celebrate the victory, which shows Jewish men with short hair taken into captivity.
Erroneous depictions of Jesus in Western art have often misled film makers in their portrayal of Jesus, experts said.
For some scholars the errors go beyond language or hairstyles.
They say the heart of the problem is the film's script which interweaves the literal interpretation of four sometimes contradictory gospel accounts of Jesus' last 12 hours with the visions of a controversial 19th century nun.
"This is my version of what happened, according to the gospels and what I wanted to show," Gibson told the US television network ABC this month.
But Professor Crossan complained that the lack of historical context was the movie's "basic flaw".
The film begins not when Jesus enters Jerusalem to the exuberant welcome of thousands of Jews but rather at night in a garden on the eve of the crucifixion when he is arrested by the Romans after being betrayed by Judas.
"Why did they need a traitor? Why did they need the night? Why didn't they grab him in the daytime?" Professor Crossan asked.
"Because they did not want a riot," he said, explaining that Jesus was immensely popular among his fellow Jews, which is why the high priests and Romans felt threatened by him.
Those details, Professor Crossan said, were absent in the film.
"The lack of context is the most devastating thing for anyone who says it (the film) is faithful to the gospels because the gospels have the context," he told Reuters.
One of the most controversial aspects of the film is its portrayal of Pilate reluctantly sentencing Jesus to crucifixion under pressure from a bullying mob and conniving Jewish priests.
Scholars acknowledge the scene is faithful to the gospels, but some experts say a historical perspective is imperative.
"It is important to see the historical context. Not only for the sake of being true to history but for the sake of being true to the gospel passages themselves," said Father Michael McGarry, rector of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem.
The gospels, he said, were written many years after the crucifixion at a time when the early Christians felt it would be politically wise to "soften Pontius Pilate as a way of placating" the Romans who ruled over them.
"Pontius Pilate was a very cruel and brutal man. And he wouldn't care two winks about executing another Jew. He had killed so many before him," said Father McGarry, who said he had not seen the film and was commenting only on the history of the time.
--Reuters
Pehaps the greatest outcome for the movie will simply be the rekindling of debate and discussion.
Last Update: Wednesday, February 25, 2004. 10:00am (AEDT)
Scholars find fault in Gibson's 'Passion'
Mel Gibson's portrayal of the final 12 hours of Jesus in his film The Passion of the Christ has been hailed as the gospel truth by some believers, but many scholars complain that it is riddled with historical errors.
Their complaints range from inaccuracies about hairstyles and clothes to a lack of gospel context in the film which has raised a furore among Jewish groups who fear its graphic depiction of the crucifixion will fan anti-Jewish violence.
Gibson, who has denied the film is anti-Semitic, has said he consulted scholars, theologians, priests and spiritual writers before scripting the film with the aim of making Jesus's agony during the crucifixion appear as realistic as possible.
Many Christians see the film as bringing them closer to their religion.
Evangelical preacher Billy Graham called the film "a lifetime of sermons in one movie".
Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic who funded the $25 million film himself, was so set on making it authentic that he had his characters speak Latin and Aramaic.
Experts say this was his first mistake as Greek was the language spoken in Jerusalem during Jesus's time, along with Aramaic and some Hebrew spoken by Jews.
"Jesus talking to (Pontius) Pilate and Pilate to Jesus in Latin!" exclaimed John Dominic Crossan, a professor of religious studies at the Chicago-based Roman Catholic De Paul University.
"I mean in your dreams. It would have been Greek."
Latin was reserved for official decrees or used by the elite.
Most Roman centurions in the Holy Land spoke Greek rather than Latin, according to historians and archaeologists.
The mistakes, experts say, did not stop with the wrong language, which Professor Crossan, who speaks Latin, said was so badly pronounced in the film that it was almost incomprehensible.
"He has a long-haired Jesus ... Jesus didn't have long hair," said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in Jerusalem.
"Jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair."
"The Jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek," said New York University's Lawrence Schiffman.
Along with extensive writings from the period, experts also point to a frieze on Rome's Arch of Titus, erected after Jerusalem was captured in AD 70 to celebrate the victory, which shows Jewish men with short hair taken into captivity.
Erroneous depictions of Jesus in Western art have often misled film makers in their portrayal of Jesus, experts said.
For some scholars the errors go beyond language or hairstyles.
They say the heart of the problem is the film's script which interweaves the literal interpretation of four sometimes contradictory gospel accounts of Jesus' last 12 hours with the visions of a controversial 19th century nun.
"This is my version of what happened, according to the gospels and what I wanted to show," Gibson told the US television network ABC this month.
But Professor Crossan complained that the lack of historical context was the movie's "basic flaw".
The film begins not when Jesus enters Jerusalem to the exuberant welcome of thousands of Jews but rather at night in a garden on the eve of the crucifixion when he is arrested by the Romans after being betrayed by Judas.
"Why did they need a traitor? Why did they need the night? Why didn't they grab him in the daytime?" Professor Crossan asked.
"Because they did not want a riot," he said, explaining that Jesus was immensely popular among his fellow Jews, which is why the high priests and Romans felt threatened by him.
Those details, Professor Crossan said, were absent in the film.
"The lack of context is the most devastating thing for anyone who says it (the film) is faithful to the gospels because the gospels have the context," he told Reuters.
One of the most controversial aspects of the film is its portrayal of Pilate reluctantly sentencing Jesus to crucifixion under pressure from a bullying mob and conniving Jewish priests.
Scholars acknowledge the scene is faithful to the gospels, but some experts say a historical perspective is imperative.
"It is important to see the historical context. Not only for the sake of being true to history but for the sake of being true to the gospel passages themselves," said Father Michael McGarry, rector of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem.
The gospels, he said, were written many years after the crucifixion at a time when the early Christians felt it would be politically wise to "soften Pontius Pilate as a way of placating" the Romans who ruled over them.
"Pontius Pilate was a very cruel and brutal man. And he wouldn't care two winks about executing another Jew. He had killed so many before him," said Father McGarry, who said he had not seen the film and was commenting only on the history of the time.
--Reuters
Pehaps the greatest outcome for the movie will simply be the rekindling of debate and discussion.
Trigger189
XYLENE-FREE ZONE
The first half of that article was stupid, i mean even if its point may make sense, they're pretty petty. The film would've been JUST as historically incorrect if Gibson has decided to film it in English. And who really cares about whether Jesus' hair was long or not???
The second half does have good reasoning, and the film does lack context, assuming among other things that its audience already knows the back story, but nevertheless it is still a good film. Nothing is going to stop these people from complaining, it's just good to see the movie creating discussion. And the film isn't anti-semitic, i wish they'd stop with that crap.
The second half does have good reasoning, and the film does lack context, assuming among other things that its audience already knows the back story, but nevertheless it is still a good film. Nothing is going to stop these people from complaining, it's just good to see the movie creating discussion. And the film isn't anti-semitic, i wish they'd stop with that crap.
walrusbear
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,261
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
'hoy trigger
your summation of the movie is good, yar.
and i'm still wary of seeing the movie, because i don't want to give mel gibson money. i don't think you could possibly argue that the movie holds any spiritual value, and i'm sure that the movie is very affecting for what it shows.
what i can't handle, however, as someone who would like to see the church became more relevant to our own times, is a more progressive approach to faith.
mel gibson makes this movie with the most conservative and fundamentalist agenda ever. it is this i completely object too. as stratton said, using only hebrew language seems gimmicky, and certainly is a step toward distancing relevance. a literal interpretation of christs suffering, based on the gospel, is unnerving as it relies on the same outmoded material of the bible that fundamentalist people use to persecute gays and other minorities. these people, like the film itself, misses the point of jesus. they focus on semantics of a dodgily constructed text (the bibile) rather than what christians should base themselves on, which is jesus' basic ideas of loving.
gibson makes a movie that focuses on the literal beating that the jesus in the bible receives, but misses out on the whole idea. rather than conveying the ideas of love and redemption in the film itself, the gap is left to the viewer to feel responsible, but this is achieved by manipulation of extreme realism and violence.
it all belies the ideas behind the passion of christ.
i'm sure it is well made, and an affecting movie. perhaps someone will convince me to see it someday.
btw, anti-semitic claims seem stupid. and i'm not a whinging prick about the violence. curiosity over its intensity is one of the major drawcards for a temptation to see it
your summation of the movie is good, yar.
and i'm still wary of seeing the movie, because i don't want to give mel gibson money. i don't think you could possibly argue that the movie holds any spiritual value, and i'm sure that the movie is very affecting for what it shows.
what i can't handle, however, as someone who would like to see the church became more relevant to our own times, is a more progressive approach to faith.
mel gibson makes this movie with the most conservative and fundamentalist agenda ever. it is this i completely object too. as stratton said, using only hebrew language seems gimmicky, and certainly is a step toward distancing relevance. a literal interpretation of christs suffering, based on the gospel, is unnerving as it relies on the same outmoded material of the bible that fundamentalist people use to persecute gays and other minorities. these people, like the film itself, misses the point of jesus. they focus on semantics of a dodgily constructed text (the bibile) rather than what christians should base themselves on, which is jesus' basic ideas of loving.
gibson makes a movie that focuses on the literal beating that the jesus in the bible receives, but misses out on the whole idea. rather than conveying the ideas of love and redemption in the film itself, the gap is left to the viewer to feel responsible, but this is achieved by manipulation of extreme realism and violence.
it all belies the ideas behind the passion of christ.
i'm sure it is well made, and an affecting movie. perhaps someone will convince me to see it someday.
btw, anti-semitic claims seem stupid. and i'm not a whinging prick about the violence. curiosity over its intensity is one of the major drawcards for a temptation to see it
walrusbear
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,261
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
i hope that shit made sense
i've been drinking
i've been drinking
cro_angel
<3<3<3
wow this movie is so controversial lol
i think ppl do feel closer to jesus/the bible or whatever because they feel the pain.. rather than just reading the bible u cant picture it that bad
jesus didnt have long hair? then why dont those people knock every single picture of jesus thats out there with long hair.. not just this movie
psssh its kinda low picking on hair and not speaking greek to pilate
i think ppl do feel closer to jesus/the bible or whatever because they feel the pain.. rather than just reading the bible u cant picture it that bad
jesus didnt have long hair? then why dont those people knock every single picture of jesus thats out there with long hair.. not just this movie
psssh its kinda low picking on hair and not speaking greek to pilate
Majesty
Member
Not a christian but being the open minded person that i am i wouldn't mind seeing this movie. Although is it one of those movies that refers to the bible a lot? In that case i'd feel lost/waste of money etc.
walrusbear
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,261
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
gibson is not a radical christian!!
he's a fundamentalist, conservative catholic. not only does it split the general population in opinion, but it divides the church between those who want to see relevance and progression against stupid interpretations like this that are outmoded.
he's a fundamentalist, conservative catholic. not only does it split the general population in opinion, but it divides the church between those who want to see relevance and progression against stupid interpretations like this that are outmoded.
I refuse to see it ... I ain't gonna waste $10.70 for a crap movie which i will probably have to leave half way through cause of the horror. And i would not even bother going to see a movie about christ. A waste of time and money. I got better things to do with my life.