The Criterion Collection

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by retablo

Yep! LOL

I don't blame you, I would've posted a few choice words as well

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by billzfan

There are all sorts of ways to handle violence within the art of cinema. I'm not condoning or condemning Mel Gibson's approach. I'm just merely saying that he wanted to create a real depiction of the violence involved in scourging and crucifying a man in 1st century Jerusalem. For some Christians, it finally gave them perspective on exactly what was entailed in the suffering and death of Christ and the sacrifice he made freely to save mankind. It sounds like it's not your cup of tea and I understand that but it doesn't relate to a rape scene because that's an act of victimization and abuse to another person for the gratification of the perpetrator. The Good Friday experience, despite its horrific violence, has a deeper spirtitual meaning.

Only for true believers. Otherwise, you're just watching a man being beaten half to death and nailed to a wooden cross for an excruciatingly long period of time, and in far more detail than could ever be considered necessary. Which isn't so different, as a concerned human being, from watching a particularly gruesome and graphic rape scene. I'd have to say that those Romans who carried out scourging and crucifixion got plenty of gratification through their victimization and abuse of Jesus, and all the other Hebrews they killed in the name of Roman Law.

If the main character in that film had been anyone other than Jesus, the MPAA would've given it a hard NC-17 and forced the director to cut a LOT of footage out of it before it could be released theatrically with an R rating. But it was Jesus, so they gave it the R, thereby allowing parents to drag their young children to the theater to be traumatized because they thought it would be "spiritually uplifting" for their little ones to watch church-sanctioned torture porn. Just one man's opinion, of course...but that's what I see in Gibson's Passion.

I find Last Temptation to be a much more moving experience - "sanitized" crucifixion scene or not - for its strong portrayal of Jesus's humanity. I don't need to see every last graphic, gory detail in order to understand Jesus's physical suffering. Maybe some Christians never "got it" until they saw Gibson's film, but I did. What I'm more interested in is his inner life, and the sacrifice that he makes in surrendering a life that he loves. Gibson's Passion is far too nuts-and-bolts to ever get at that. Last Temptation does it beautifully.

Originally Posted by retablo

Yep! LOL

Welcome back, sir.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by lemonski

I don't blame you, I would've posted a few choice words as well

I got suspended for "applying morality on members"... LOL. I find it amusing that some people get away with murder on here, but I can't comment an opinion based on what people actually write. Oh well, apparently there are mods here who don't like me very much.

I won't apologize for being passionate about film, though; if I wasn't, i wouldn't work in Hollywood. The beauty if that we don't always agree. if we did, life would be boring.

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Only for true believers. Otherwise, you're just watching a man being beaten half to death and nailed to a wooden cross for an excruciatingly long period of time, and in far more detail than could ever be considered necessary. Which isn't so different, as a concerned human being, from watching a particularly gruesome and graphic rape scene. I'd have to say that those Romans who carried out scourging and crucifixion got plenty of gratification through their victimization and abuse of Jesus, and all the other Hebrews they killed in the name of Roman Law.

If the main character in that film had been anyone other than Jesus, the MPAA would've given it a hard NC-17 and forced the director to cut a LOT of footage out of it before it could be released theatrically with an R rating. But it was Jesus, so they gave it the R, thereby allowing parents to drag their young children to the theater to be traumatized because they thought it would be "spiritually uplifting" for their little ones to watch church-sanctioned torture porn. Just one man's opinion, of course...but that's what I see in Gibson's Passion.

I find Last Temptation to be a much more moving experience - "sanitized" crucifixion scene or not - for its strong portrayal of Jesus's humanity. I don't need to see every last graphic, gory detail in order to understand Jesus's physical suffering. Maybe some Christians never "got it" until they saw Gibson's film, but I did. What I'm more interested in is his inner life, and the sacrifice that he makes in surrendering a life that he loves. Gibson's Passion is far too nuts-and-bolts to ever get at that. Last Temptation does it beautifully.




Welcome back, sir.

I don't think Mel Gibson made the Passion for non-believers

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by retablo

I got suspended for "applying morality on members"... LOL. I find it amusing that some people get away with murder on here, but I can't comment an opinion based on what people actually write. Oh well, apparently there are mods here who don't like me very much.

I won't apologize for being passionate about film, though; if I wasn't, i wouldn't work in Hollywood. The beauty if that we don't always agree. if we did, life would be boring.

I've been there, too...this forum is ridiculously easy to get suspended from, and there is no consistency in who gets suspended for what.

Oh well, the discussion goes on.

Originally Posted by billzfan

I don't think Mel Gibson made the Passion for non-believers

Obviously. But I wonder if you got past that first sentence, or just stopped there.

Regardless of Gibson's target audience (gore-happy anti-Semites, wasn't it? ), I disagree that Christ's divinity makes it a whole different ballgame between one act of repellent violence and another. The fact that Jesus, divine or not, was also 100% human makes this a moot point. It's no more necessary to show Christ's suffering in blow-by-blow graphic detail than it is to show penetration and vaginal tearing in a rape scene. And yet, the same Christians who lined up for the one, would undoubtedly protest against the other as "immoral."

Personally, I find it hard to believe that any Christian "didn't get" the level of Jesus's physical suffering until Mel Gibson made SplatterChrist. Are people - religious people, even, who believe in miracles and apocalypse - truly that lacking in imagination that they have to see every laceration in perverse detail in order to understand that being tortured and killed, in the manner in which we all know Christ was tortured and killed, is indescribably painful?

And I stand firm in my belief that Gibson's film should have received an NC-17 rating. I have seen films that were rated NC-17 for violence which paled in comparison to the graphic depictions of torture and murder seen in Gibson's Passion. The fact that the main character is Jesus, not Jim or Joe, should not excuse the film from adhering to the same standard as other brutally violent films, and no one under the age of 17 should have been admitted to see something that graphic. People were bringing their grade-school children to see this movie. Seeing that made me shake my head, just as I would at seeing a parent sit their children down to the Unrated cut of any given Saw movie. Torture porn is torture porn.

[myka22]

Originally Posted by jayputter

I know there's very little chance of any of the OOP titles coming back into circulation, but does Criterion have any history of licensing their supplemental features to other companies? I know there was a persistant rumor that the MGM release of "This Is Spinal Tap" would feature material from both DVD releases, but it never happened. I was never sure if this was just one of those internet rumors based on nothing, or things just fell through for rights issues.

The recent Taxi Driver blu-ray has the commentary from the Criterion Collection laserdisc I believe.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by myka22

The recent Taxi Driver blu-ray has the commentary from the Criterion Collection laserdisc I believe.

It sure does.

[Hendershot737]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Have you seen Still Walking? Very much like Ozu.

I was all ready excited about delving into Ozu, but now I am even more so. I thought Still Walking was excellent.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

And yet, the same Christians who lined up for the one, would undoubtedly protest against the other as "immoral."

Well, have to remember, the first Passion crowds--by the literal schoolbus load, let us not forget--was mostly an attempt to jam the ballot box and cook the box office numbers:
At that time, after Last Temptation, Left Behind and all its various imitators started getting greedy for a movie deal, a few minor league church-produced movies hit theaters, and all of a sudden, the religious Right thought that they were "competing" with Evil Hollywood with their own homegrown industry.
After a while, though, a few Revelation-thrillers didn't fool anybody, and they sank back into eager-niche obscurity again.

Then all of a sudden...a REAL STAR made a Biblical movie!...With his OWN MONEY!
Why that PROVED that there were Real Stars who had enough faith to make Real Movies with their Own Money! Why, what was all this talk that the guy happened to be an anti-Semitic psycho?--It was clear that this was going to singlehandedly change Hollywood, if it became a hit! After all, this was a real studio releasing it in real theaters, not like Omega Code playing some backwater Arkansas screen!
And the next few weeks, after regular folk were browbeaten by headlines into seeing that week's "controversial" hit, the same red-staters tried spinning the hype that this PROVED that there was a revolution brewing in Evil Hollywood, and a few brave filmmakers were setting out to change to more religious films!
An idea that lasted until New Line released "The Nativity", and then....disappeared pretty quickly.

(And even though it's well past Monday morning, have to ask:
Did you first see the Passion because it was "good", or because it was "famous"? One isn't necessarily the other, you know.)

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Hendershot737

I was all ready excited about delving into Ozu, but now I am even more so. I thought Still Walking was excellent.

Likewise. I've never warmed up to Ozu (yet), but I LOVED Still Walking.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

I've been there, too...this forum is ridiculously easy to get suspended from, and there is no consistency in who gets suspended for what.

Oh well, the discussion goes on.

Obviously. But I wonder if you got past that first sentence, or just stopped there.

Regardless of Gibson's target audience (gore-happy anti-Semites, wasn't it? ), I disagree that Christ's divinity makes it a whole different ballgame between one act of repellent violence and another. The fact that Jesus, divine or not, was also 100% human makes this a moot point. It's no more necessary to show Christ's suffering in blow-by-blow graphic detail than it is to show penetration and vaginal tearing in a rape scene. And yet, the same Christians who lined up for the one, would undoubtedly protest against the other as "immoral."

Personally, I find it hard to believe that any Christian "didn't get" the level of Jesus's physical suffering until Mel Gibson made SplatterChrist. Are people - religious people, even, who believe in miracles and apocalypse - truly that lacking in imagination that they have to see every laceration in perverse detail in order to understand that being tortured and killed, in the manner in which we all know Christ was tortured and killed, is indescribably painful?

And I stand firm in my belief that Gibson's film should have received an NC-17 rating. I have seen films that were rated NC-17 for violence which paled in comparison to the graphic depictions of torture and murder seen in Gibson's Passion. The fact that the main character is Jesus, not Jim or Joe, should not excuse the film from adhering to the same standard as other brutally violent films, and no one under the age of 17 should have been admitted to see something that graphic. People were bringing their grade-school children to see this movie. Seeing that made me shake my head, just as I would at seeing a parent sit their children down to the Unrated cut of any given Saw movie. Torture porn is torture porn.

I'm surprised I haven't been suspended yet myself to be honest, since I insult slipcovers so much. It's ok to insult other members, but not pieces of cardboard.

Regarding Passion of the Christ. I was about 18-19 when I saw it in theatres. As stated already in this thread, my mother wanted to go see it for all the controversy it sparked, especially concerning the anti-semitism. As stated before, our entire theatre was packed with hysterical, weeping, overtly religious elderly ladies. Both of us agreed that the film was torture porn, and a waste of money. I think I even said the unrrated version Caligula was a more redeeming movie than The Passion of the Christ, and I consider Caligula to be one of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to watch (it made me ill to watch, but I reacted to it, unlike The Passion of the Christ). My mother though Gibson was not only pushing the anti-semite agenda, but a misogynistic one as well, by making the devil into a woman.

To be honest, I was more upset by apparently a huge Huge Hunger Games Spoiler right here, sorry everyone!

[Show spoiler]Rue's death in The Hunger Games, and Katniss singing her to death

than I was when Jesus was being whipped, which is most likely a very bad thing. I've already resigned myself to burning in hell, maybe Mr. Zero will go easy on me. I'm agnostic though, and more interested in the history of religion, rather than the spiritual side. I was desensitised against the violence by the end of the film. I also haven't watched the film since I saw it in theatres.

Regarding your comment about Christians with no imagination, there are plenty of Christians who lack imagination. Also, some of the more whacked out ones probably wanted a film like Passion of the Christ to come out, so they could try to use it as a propaganda tool, which has already been covered in this thread.

[P@t_Mtl]

The only thing that really bother's me about The Passion is the ultra\uber\hardcore fans (but these usually annoie me in every thread). I was raise Catholic by my mom who is a very devout one, went and did all the steps in church as being raise a Catholic, read the Bible verses as my week goes along and believe in God. To being attack like a rabbid dog because I said I did not like The Passion and feel a movie like Jesus Of Nazareth is much more important to me and being call and idiot and not a real Catholic, that is what is truly annoying.

[Sinthetic]

I was looking through that thread with upcoming Criterion releases and I was extremely happy to see more Wim Wenders.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

The only thing that really bother's me about The Passion is the ultra\uber\hardcore fans (but these usually annoie me in every thread). I was raise Catholic by my mom who is a very devout one, went and did all the steps in church as being raise a Catholic, read the Bible verses as my week goes along and believe in God. To being attack like a rabbid dog because I said I did not like The Passion and feel a movie like Jesus Of Nazareth is much more important to me and being call and idiot and not a real Catholic, that is what is truly annoying.

Ha, the uber Christians I went to school with, of the Southern Baptist/Born Again variety (yes in the middle of Nova Scotia), used to accuse me of being a dirty, satanic Catholic (their words, not mine), despite the fact I was raised High Anglican (baptised and confirmed, and these jackasses made me become more antagonistic towards religion anyways. High Anglicans are more of the Catholic flavour, while Low Anglicans are more Presbyterian/Calvinist/Lutheran). Many religious people are *******s, and tend to make the truely good people look bad. P@t, you're more of a Catholic/Christian than those people who said otherwise. It's the same with the people I went to school with. They may think that they are so devout, chosen, and the perfect Christians, but they didn't behave very Chistianlike.

[ShellOilJunior]

I haven't seen The Passion since it came out but I prefer Last Temptation to it - I just don't have a need to re-visit Gibson's film.

Although, I'm disappointed Scorsese's film (and the book it's based on) portrays Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. I'm not religious nor am I a bible scholar, but I don't recall any passages we know to be 100% confirming her as a prostitute (I believe a Pope or two confused Mary with another woman).... but that's a whole different discussion

[Brad1107]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

I'm surprised I haven't been suspended yet myself to be honest, since I insult slipcovers so much. It's ok to insult other members, but not pieces of cardboard.

Regarding Passion of the Christ. I was about 18-19 when I saw it in theatres. As stated already in this thread, my mother wanted to go see it for all the controversy it sparked, especially concerning the anti-semitism. As stated before, our entire theatre was packed with hysterical, weeping, overtly religious elderly ladies. Both of us agreed that the film was torture porn, and a waste of money. I think I even said the unrrated version Caligula was a more redeeming movie than The Passion of the Christ, and I consider Caligula to be one of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to watch (it made me ill to watch, but I reacted to it, unlike The Passion of the Christ). My mother though Gibson was not only pushing the anti-semite agenda, but a misogynistic one as well, by making the devil into a woman.

To be honest, I was more upset by

[Show spoiler]Rue's death in The Hunger Games, and Katniss singing her to death

than I was when Jesus was being whipped, which is most likely a very bad thing. I've already resigned myself to burning in hell, maybe Mr. Zero will go easy on me. I'm agnostic though, and more interested in the history of religion, rather than the spiritual side. I was desensitised against the violence by the end of the film. I also haven't watched the film since I saw it in theatres.

Regarding your comment about Christians with no imagination, there are plenty of Christians who lack imagination. Also, some of the more whacked out ones probably wanted a film like Passion of the Christ to come out, so they could try to use it as a propaganda tool, which has already been covered in this thread.

If you're going to put a spoiler alert in, please mention what movie you're spoiling OUTSIDE of the spoiler alert link. I read far too much of that before realizing 'I don't want to know this before I see the movie!'

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by Brad1107

If you're going to put a spoiler alert in, please mention what movie you're spoiling OUTSIDE of the spoiler alert link. I read far too much of that before realizing 'I don't want to know this before I see the movie!'

The 3 times she mentioned the movie before the spoiler, and the additional time she mentioned it after the spoiler weren't enough?

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

The 3 times she mentioned the movie before the spoiler, and the additional time she mentioned it after the spoiler weren't enough?

You just made me read her post 7 times before I came to the conclusion that you think she isn't spoiling The Hunger Games.

Good old fashioned late night fun.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

The 3 times she mentioned the movie before the spoiler, and the additional time she mentioned it after the spoiler weren't enough?

The spoiler was a Hunger Games spoiler, which I mentioned a few pages back. I guess I shouldn't assume that people have read/watched it, despite the novel being out for several years now, and the film being out for a few weeks. That thing I supposedly spoiled was a subject of racial controversy on the internet as well, believe it or not. I also assumed that when I use the spoiler tag, that people who are bothered by that thing, might not click spoiler, regardless as to whether or not I mention what film I'm spoiling.

I had mentioned the film earlier in the thread though, several times.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by rock, stone

You just made me read her post 7 times before I came to the conclusion that you think she isn't spoiling The Hunger Games.

Good old fashioned late night fun.

My apologies if I apparently did spoil the film. I have a different view of spoiling than others. I mean, you still have people who are bothered by

[Show spoiler]Snape killing Dumbledore, despite the book for Half-blood prince being out for 7 years now, and the film's been out for three.

There are also people who are upset about

[Show spoiler]people telling them that the Titanic sank, thus ruining the film Titanic

.