The Criterion Collection

[DLizzle]

Originally Posted by DetroitSquirreL

And you do know this isn't taken from the Bible per say so how can this be matched against the Bible. Its story using the character and the idea from the Bible. TBH this can't be compared as what the Bible is or isn't. Its using 'artist freedoms' NOT the scripture

Yes I understand. I have absolutely no reverence for the Bible so I'm not concerned with how the movie parallels it really. I'm coming into The Last Temptation of Christ like I would any other movie, hoping to be interested by the story, characters, themes, etc. The only baggage I have is that I find many religious ideas and the fact that millions/billions of people put stock in them more than a little unnerving. An interesting thought I just had is that Willem Dafoe reminds me very much of Charles Manson in this movie.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by jcs913

The initial controversy on the movie was the fact that Christ had sex, plain and simple. This was what everyone was outraged about, as it was seen as sacrilege.

While those on the defense responded that HE DIDN'T!
The controversy had been blown up over an early draft that made reference to it during his family-life fantasy scene, but in the final cut, it's mostly obscured and offscreen (and married), and we seem him later with wife and kids.
The religious Right wanted to grab that one end of the stick as perfect "evil Hollywood" playing card, as the idea of a "Biblical porn movie" was a long-lived but non-existent urban myth that dated back to the 70's, when movies were worth protesting about.

The problem with these protestors is that many never understood what was going on in the film and through Scorsese's head in all the other scenes. Jesus was portrayed more as a man, rather than a prophet and people have figured that out over the years. Personally, I think it is one of the more interesting pieces of art ever made. IMO, it was one of those rare events that questions what billions have believed for many years and that is something you cannot recreate without looking like a copycat.

Theologically, the Passion is the ultimate Catholic Biblical movie, and Last Temptation is the ultimate Protestant Biblical movie:
Catholics emphasize bloody snuff pictures of Jesus on the cross to reinforce the guilt of his sacrifice ("NOW see what you went and made him do?"), and even implies that it was a terrible tragedy that shouldn't have happened at all. (And follows the Book of John's first-century lead in blaming the Jewish priests, as was Mel's particular impetus for making the movie.)
While Protestants use imagery of the empty cross to remind that he's not there any more: The Protestant line focuses more on redemption for sin than guilt for it, and implies that Jesus knew the crucifixion was part of God's plan from the beginning. The apocryphal Gospel of Judas (written by an early sect that stressed the spiritual life over the earthly one) has Judas as the only one truly devoted to the message enough to know that Jesus had to go through with it, and that's basically Harvey Keitel in Last Temptation, to a T.

(As one joke put it "What 'message' are we supposed to learn from The Passion, if there's nothing in it about His teaching?--That our Lord can take a beating? ")

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Last Temptation, is just that, he was tempted by the devil and lost. Followers believe that he could never succumb to the devil, as he was God, and this interpretation shows that he does and is fallible.

I don't think the film shows this (that he was tempted and lost). He only comes down from the cross when he is told by an "Angel" that his sacrifice isn't necessary and he has done enough. As soon as he learns the angel was actually Satan, and that the sacrifice *was* needed, he returns to the cross.

Whether or not the movie shows him as fallible is another (and i think less clear) issue.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by jcs913

I think Gibson was influenced by his own faith and belief and not be any factual information. To me, his film is nothing more than his opinion and we know what that has done to him throughout the years...
Last Temptation, is just that, he was tempted by the devil and lost. Followers believe that he could never succumb to the devil, as he was God, and this interpretation shows that he does and is fallible. That is hard for many to swallow, but again, it is just an interpretation. I always think that the point of the film is that a question of what Jesus was should be more of the focus than what he did.... I think the Bible tends to push more of what he did on people than what he was, as people respond more to action than substance...

BTW Rich, I hope all is well and you have a great holiday.

Thanks John! The best to you and your family as well!

[rkish]

After reading a number of the other threads, I think this one should be renamed from the "Criterion Collection Discussion" to the (hopefully) Film Purveyor's Discussion", as I'd like to think that most of us find this a comfortable area to not only discuss Criterion released films, but to share information on other quality films and to discuss/analyze/argue/etc. them intelligently. I try to post only when I think my input is constructive.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by rkish

After reading a number of the other threads, I think this one should be renamed from the "Criterion Collection Discussion" to the (hopefully) Film Purveyor's Discussion", as I'd like to think that most of us find this a comfortable area to not only discuss Criterion released films, but to share information on other quality films and to discuss/analyze/argue/etc. them intelligently. I try to post only when I think my input is constructive.

While disagrements do happen in here, I always feel this thread is one of the most reasonable and most respectful of others opnion on movies. The comments remain at a 'adult level' and rarely fall into "childish" behaviors I so often see in more regular threads. We all like what we like and have opnion on it but we can also see the other side and keep the respect.

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by jcs913

I will chime in on my thoughts on this, as I saw the film theatrically with all the protesters walking the line outside the theater. I have also seen the film many times and it always brings up new questions.

The initial controversy on the movie was the fact that Christ had sex, plain and simple. This was what everyone was outraged about, as it was seen as sacrilege. The problem with these protestors is that many never understood what was going on in the film and through Scorsese's head in all the other scenes. Jesus was portrayed more as a man, rather than a prophet and people have figured that out over the years. Personally, I think it is one of the more interesting pieces of art ever made. IMO, it was one of those rare events that questions what billions have believed for many years and that is something you cannot recreate without looking like a copycat.

As usual, to each his own, but if you are going to embrace art, you need to see this film and draw your own conclusions...

I agree and have to say as a Roman Catholic that most Christians are seriously sexually repressed. The idea behind the film was that Christ was tempted by Satan to give up his calling to be the savior of the world and live a normal life as a husband and father. In the end, despite all of the temptations of being saved from the cross, finding a woman to love, and being a father, he still decides to go through with the ultimate sacrifice to save mankind from its own sins. That's quite beautiful and nowhere in the realm of blasphemous.

[billzfan]

Does anyone here know what the difference between these versions of Ran. I noticed there werre two but the Australian one was cheaper. Here are the links:

http://www.amazon.com/Ran-Revolt-Blu...914385&sr=1-12

http://www.amazon.com/StudioCanal-Co...3914623&sr=1-4

[SpartanIre]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

I always believed that Mel Gibson wanted his audience to suffer with Christ through The Passion.
It's not enough to know that Jesus suffers for everyone's sins - the audience must know just how he suffered.
That's just an assumption - I've never actually read from Gibson about the film.

I agree with you doc, I was raised catholic and it wasn't until this movie that it actually reflected how deep the suffering Jesus endured...

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Does anyone here know what the difference between these versions of Ran. I noticed there werre two but the Australian one was cheaper. Here are the links:

http://www.amazon.com/Ran-Revolt-Blu...914385&sr=1-12

http://www.amazon.com/StudioCanal-Co...3914623&sr=1-4

I could be wrong but I think they are probably the same version

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I could be wrong but I think they are probably the same version

Thanks for the input. They certainly look similar but I was just trying to make sure they had the same special features and they were region free, etc.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Thanks for the input. They certainly look similar but I was just trying to make sure they had the same special features and they were region free, etc.

I will pull out my own copy and try to see if I can notice differences

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I will pull out my own copy and try to see if I can notice differences

Thank you. I appreciate that

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by SpartanIre

I agree with you doc, I was raised catholic and it wasn't until this movie that it actually reflected how deep the suffering Jesus endured...

Again, not to go off on too theological a bent, but that's the Catholic misinterpretation: It's not the gory details of HOW much He suffered ("No, no, the spear was in the left side!"), but that He rose above it--Literally and figuratively.
You could just as well say that JFK being shot was a "symbolic turning point" for the 60's, but do you have to follow the Magic Bullet path through the skull?

Much of the book of John was written during the first schism between early Christianity and Judaism, back when the distinctions still needed clearer definitions--The early Christian church wanted to assert itself, and John focuses attention on Jesus's clash with the temple priests, and how the priests schemed and feared their loss of power.
That pretty well fueled the Vatican's early anti-Semitism, and while guilt could keep the peasants in line (to remind them to know their hierarchical place without question), it was also important to play up the "Victim" drama of every single lashing.

[fdm]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Thanks for the input. They certainly look similar but I was just trying to make sure they had the same special features and they were region free, etc.

The difference is in the packaging. The imports (UK, Australia) come in the Studio Canal book format, the US is a slipcase/case. Same disc content. Region free.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Thank you. I appreciate that

As someone else said, samething with different packages but the content are the same.

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by fdm

The difference is in the packaging. The imports (UK, Australia) come in the Studio Canal book format, the US is a slipcase/case. Same disc content. Region free.

Thanks so much. You just saved me about 7 bucks

[jadasneez]

i have a few question regarding criterion, this has most definitely been asked but what are the chances of seeing a Silent Running release? I'd also like to hear some thoughts on Touch of Evil, The Life Aquatic and Naked Lunch

and also, who owns the rights to Fantastic Planet in the US? any chance of seeing that on a criterion?

and my last question is criterion M or german steelbook M? german edition looks more detailed but contrast/saturation looks a little better/less harsh in the criterion screenshots

thanks!

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

I don't think the film shows this (that he was tempted and lost). He only comes down from the cross when he is told by an "Angel" that his sacrifice isn't necessary and he has done enough. As soon as he learns the angel was actually Satan, and that the sacrifice *was* needed, he returns to the cross.

Whether or not the movie shows him as fallible is another (and i think less clear) issue.

The idea that he even leaves the cross is a misinterpretation. Everything from the point where the "Angel" tempts him and his return to the cross takes place in Jesus's mind and heart. He never actually gets down from the cross. We are simply visualizing his temptation to lead a normal life. He does not actually succumb to that temptation.

Originally Posted by SpartanIre

I agree with you doc, I was raised catholic and it wasn't until this movie that it actually reflected how deep the suffering Jesus endured...

I personally think that The Last Temptation paints a more affecting picture of his suffering. It doesn't have to be graphically violent...all it has to do (and it does this admirably) is show how very much he loved life. Because that was the greatest sacrifice of all. Not simply to endure great pain and torture, but to leave behind a world and a life that he loved so dearly. And I think that The Last Temptation, by underlining how much Jesus loved life, rather than focusing on the gory details of his scourging and death, actually presents a stronger picture of his suffering and his sacrifice.

Originally Posted by jadasneez

and my last question is criterion M or german steelbook M? german edition looks more detailed but contrast/saturation looks a little better/less harsh in the criterion screenshots

thanks!

Go with the German release of M. Not only is the contrast level probably more accurate (the Criterion is most likely slightly boosted), further restoration work was done prior to the German release, and it is from that latest restoration, which restored a number of missing frames, etc. Also, while I have yet to hear it for myself, I've heard from many sources that the AQ is superb, and far in advance of all previous editions.

[SpartanIre]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Again, not to go off on too theological a bent, but that's the Catholic misinterpretation: It's not the gory details of HOW much He suffered ("No, no, the spear was in the left side!"), but that He rose above it--Literally and figuratively.
You could just as well say that JFK being shot was a "symbolic turning point" for the 60's, but do you have to follow the Magic Bullet path through the skull?

Much of the book of John was written during the first schism between early Christianity and Judaism, back when the distinctions still needed clearer definitions--The early Christian church wanted to assert itself, and John focuses attention on Jesus's clash with the temple priests, and how the priests schemed and feared their loss of power.
That pretty well fueled the Vatican's early anti-Semitism, and while guilt could keep the peasants in line (to remind them to know their hierarchical place without question), it was also important to play up the "Victim" drama of every single lashing.

I always understood that he rose above it. I also always cringed at the idea of nails being pounded through the hands and feet. However the amount of pain and suffering that he endured up to that point never really was fathomable to me until seeing Gibson's interpretation... That is my own personal recognition.