The Passion or The Last Temptation

[witheygull]

I'm not Christian (though I have read more of the Bible than many people calling themselves such), so I don't have any personal axe to grind with either movie from a religious standpoint. From a purely cinematic view, I absolutely love The Last Temptation of Christ and was very unimpressed with The Passion of the Christ.

I didn't have a problem with the ultra-violence in The Passion of the Christ in terms of its depiction, I just found the movie tiresome because the unrelenting brutality had no greater context within the movie itself. All context and meaning for Jesus' physical suffering has to be provided by the viewer. I would imagine that most Christian viewers can supply the necessary context and many will find the movie very emotionally engaging.

However, to non-Christians, I don't believe the movie is very engaging because they can only relate to the character of Jesus on the purely physical level as Jesus is not established as any greater or lesser person than some random mook. For those that think The Passion of the Christ is great on a cinematic level, ask yourself this: Would you still think the movie is significant if the lead character's name and title of the movie were changed so that is was "The Passion of Mook #3?"

The Last Temptation of Christ, on the other hand, gives us a character named Jesus that is shown to struggle with his beliefs and works to bring other people closer to God before undergoing physical torment. By depicting his life prior to the Passion, this Jesus becomes a much more sympathetic character in the context of the movie and thus his torture has a greater effect on a non-Christian viewer.

I'm not against anyone's religious views as long as they don't encourage violence or fraud, so please don't interpret anything I say as an attack on the religious content of either film. I just found one movie to be an emotionally engaging piece of cinema and the other to be an extremely well-crafted exercise in the physical torment of an undeveloped character.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by witheygull

I'm not Christian (though I have read more of the Bible than many people calling themselves such), so I don't have any personal axe to grind with either movie from a religious standpoint. From a purely cinematic view, I absolutely love The Last Temptation of Christ and was very unimpressed with The Passion of the Christ.

I didn't have a problem with the ultra-violence in The Passion of the Christ in terms of its depiction, I just found the movie tiresome because the unrelenting brutality had no greater context within the movie itself. All context and meaning for Jesus' physical suffering has to be provided by the viewer. I would imagine that most Christian viewers can supply the necessary context and many will find the movie very emotionally engaging.

However, to non-Christians, I don't believe the movie is very engaging because they can only relate to the character of Jesus on the purely physical level as Jesus is not established as any greater or lesser person than some random mook. For those that think The Passion of the Christ is great on a cinematic level, ask yourself this: Would you still think the movie is significant if the lead character's name and title of the movie were changed so that is was "The Passion of Mook #3?"

The Last Temptation of Christ, on the other hand, gives us a character named Jesus that is shown to struggle with his beliefs and works to bring other people closer to God before undergoing physical torment. By depicting his life prior to the Passion, this Jesus becomes a much more sympathetic character in the context of the movie and thus his torture has a greater effect on a non-Christian viewer.

I'm not against anyone's religious views as long as they don't encourage violence or fraud, so please don't interpret anything I say as an attack on the religious content of either film. I just found one movie to be an emotionally engaging piece of cinema and the other to be an extremely well-crafted exercise in the physical torment of an undeveloped character.

you should definitely be a reviewer for movies on this site cause that sounded super smart

[witheygull]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

you should definitely be a reviewer for movies on this site cause that sounded super smart

Thanks. If someone wants to put me on the complimentary screener gravy train, I'll be happy to review stuff.

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

There's always a "snuff film" guy when this movie is brought up in a thread.

JEEBUS GETS HIS ASS KICKED LOL!!1

It never fails.

True. I suppose there always has to be that clown.

[uziel5000]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Most of the accusations were that it was sacreligeous, not anti-semitic.



That's great, but what did the signs say? I doubt any of them had a thing to do with anti-semitism. Meanwhile, do you know what a sign put up on a church near Denver said shortly after Passion hit the theaters? http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...95/detail.html



Give me a break. Scorsese never blamed all war on Jews. Scorsese's father isn't a Holocaust denier and Scorsese never rejected the reforms of vatican II. Scorsese never went off on drunk anti-semitic tirades. Scorsese did not a have hooded satanic figure in his film mingling only among Jews, which is not supported in any story or book. Mel Gibson is guilty of all those things and clearly has anti-semitism in his bones, starting with prejudices and lies drilled into his head by his father.



While I don't care for either film, Kazantzakis is a very interesting writer and Last Temptation is an excellent novel. I still think this book can be made into a great movie in the right hands. Maybe even Scorsese should take another crack at it. His first attempt had the wrong cast and the studio support wasn't there.



While that may be the Christian view, there is little historical evidence to support it. The Romans crucified about 10,000 Jews after conquering Judea. They enslaved a million Jews, killed another million and sent yet another million into the diaspora. There are many movies that can be made based on "facts" from this era. Passion is based on the gospels, which are religious books, not historical or archeological books.



While I appreciate that, the fact remains that throughout the past 2,000 years Jews have been treated rather roughly by Christians because of the story of Christ and the "blood libel" affixed to Jews by Christians. This legacy was finally addressed after WWII by the Vatican which issued a set of reforms, absolving Jews of any blame in the death of Christ. Again, Mel Gibson and a growing number of Christians are rejecting those reforms and going back to the old ways. Which, as a Jew, I find disturbing. It is not only irresponsible but it is resulting in instances of violence. We need progress and we need to learn from the mistakes of the past.

I completely agree with you on that. I did not mean what I said to be interpreted that people dont discriminate based on religion anymore. Actually it is quite the contrary. What I was talking about is that if The Passion (or any other movie) depicts certain events and they don't show a certain thing or group in a good light it doesn't mean they are being depicted as evil. It's just the way it happened.

The germans are depicted as the ultimate evil in WWII films, so are the vietnamese in Vietnam films. Slave holders in films of that period etc. That doesn't make me think any of them as evil or anything else. Its something that happened.

While I understand what you say, I think the irresponsible thing is to blame any film for causing violence. The reason why I don't go any church anymore despite my complete belief in God, is exactly beacause religion seems to seperate us so much. Like many other things, it is the way we interpret films that drive people to one thing or another. I for one can tell you I did not think about Judaism or the jewish people or even about any evil while watching the Passion because ultimately the film is not about that. It is about the suffering Jesus went through which couldve been done by the Greeks, Persians or The Bay City Rollers. The fact that it was the Jewish priests that pressured the situation is simply the way it happened. Only stupid people can watch that film and think it somehow proposes that we should hate jews or respond violently.

The ironic twist here is: If I came out tommorrow and announced that I was making a film on based on The Inquisition, The Catholic Church would be the first to jump out and say they are being depicted in the wrong way.

[uziel5000]

Originally Posted by witheygull

I'm not Christian (though I have read more of the Bible than many people calling themselves such), so I don't have any personal axe to grind with either movie from a religious standpoint. From a purely cinematic view, I absolutely love The Last Temptation of Christ and was very unimpressed with The Passion of the Christ.

I didn't have a problem with the ultra-violence in The Passion of the Christ in terms of its depiction, I just found the movie tiresome because the unrelenting brutality had no greater context within the movie itself. All context and meaning for Jesus' physical suffering has to be provided by the viewer. I would imagine that most Christian viewers can supply the necessary context and many will find the movie very emotionally engaging.

However, to non-Christians, I don't believe the movie is very engaging because they can only relate to the character of Jesus on the purely physical level as Jesus is not established as any greater or lesser person than some random mook. For those that think The Passion of the Christ is great on a cinematic level, ask yourself this: Would you still think the movie is significant if the lead character's name and title of the movie were changed so that is was "The Passion of Mook #3?"

The Last Temptation of Christ, on the other hand, gives us a character named Jesus that is shown to struggle with his beliefs and works to bring other people closer to God before undergoing physical torment. By depicting his life prior to the Passion, this Jesus becomes a much more sympathetic character in the context of the movie and thus his torture has a greater effect on a non-Christian viewer.

I'm not against anyone's religious views as long as they don't encourage violence or fraud, so please don't interpret anything I say as an attack on the religious content of either film. I just found one movie to be an emotionally engaging piece of cinema and the other to be an extremely well-crafted exercise in the physical torment of an undeveloped character.

You hit a very good point there. I think in that respect, Gibson made a movie for christians more than anything else. To truly grasp the concept of the film you first have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. If you don't, I dont think the film will hold much meaning, unless you study it for purely cinematographical purposes(the film is beautifully shot and framed). The film pre-supposes that you know the character and what he has done, which in the case of christians is a given. If the film makes a mistake its assuming everyone knows and understands the character of Jesus. That is simply not true.

[uziel5000]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I respectfully disagree.

The Passion should have something to do with it's title if it wanted to be powerful.

If I wanted to see someone getting his @$$ kicked for an hour, I'd watch the UFC.

If anyone were to make a movie called 'the passion' I'd lean it more towards the passion that they have for their teachings and showing some of the teachings themselves. Show actual passion. Passion does not equal pain and suffering.

Logan

I know it was posted in previous threads but just to clear up: Christians call the passion, the events that go from Jesus' capture all the way to his death. So in that way, the film's title is a perfect description of what happens in the film. But this goes to my previous post. This film was made by a christian (a misguided one in my opinion but a christian nonetheless) for christians. You have to know and understand certain things before waching the film and in that repsect, the film fails. No question.

[FRAK]

Let me divert the conversation back to where it started: "which movie do you prefer." Based on that, I'd have to go with:

Monty Python's Life Of Brian

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

I don't get it. The Passion is a violent gore fest but a movie like Kill Bill isn't. There are movies out there more gory than this but nobody says anything.

+1 million

i've seen people on here say "too gorey", but then when asked why Kill Bill/Saw isn't, seem to churn up an exception like those movies are just fake/ not serious / etc.

not sure how you tell the "fakeness" of something. just whether its non-fictional? seen lots of gorey non-fictional movies...

or does it just have to be "realistic looking"? what does that mean?

[RIPSeanTaylor21]

Originally Posted by bingtau

Which film do you prefer. The Passion of Christ or The Last Temptation of Christ? I think both films are very powerful and moving. I actually prefer The Last Temptation and hope that it gets a proper blu release on Criterion. A little more epic in scope and tells more of the story IMO. However I thought that James Caviesel was a better JC than Will Dafoe. Not knocking William's performance.

2 different movies with two completely different directions

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

+1 million

i've seen people on here say "too gorey", but then when asked why Kill Bill/Saw isn't, seem to churn up an exception like those movies are just fake/ not serious / etc.

not sure how you tell the "fakeness" of something. just whether its non-fictional? seen lots of gorey non-fictional movies...

or does it just have to be "realistic looking"? what does that mean?

I think the point around that whole thing is {not pointing fingers at anyone here or anything just pointing out what I've seen/heard myself} that folks bring their kids to see Passion to get a 'religious experience' but turn around and say that movies like Kill Bill are wrongbad and that their kids shouldn't be exposed to such things.

To anyone who worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster this seems a little contradictory.

Logan

[uziel5000]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I think the point around that whole thing is {not pointing fingers at anyone here or anything just pointing out what I've seen/heard myself} that folks bring their kids to see Passion to get a 'religious experience' but turn around and say that movies like Kill Bill are wrongbad and that their kids shouldn't be exposed to such things.

To anyone who worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster this seems a little contradictory.

Logan

I agree with you there 100%. It is a double standard all the way. Which is why I try to keep my daughter's mind as open as possible regarding that.For example, If I let my daughter watch something like The Passion then there should be nothing wrong with her watching something like Saving Private Ryan which is another in-your-face depiction of how it all went down on landing in Normandie. However some people are hipocritical when it comes to this issue.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I think the point around that whole thing is {not pointing fingers at anyone here or anything just pointing out what I've seen/heard myself} that folks bring their kids to see Passion to get a 'religious experience' but turn around and say that movies like Kill Bill are wrongbad and that their kids shouldn't be exposed to such things.

To anyone who worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster this seems a little contradictory.

Logan

i see your point, but you're addressing a flip-side double standard (person ok with Passion, not ok with Kill Bill), not the one i discussed (person not ok with Passion, ok with Kill Bill). personally, i love both movies, but for completely different reasons.

i experience/judge a movie, based on its significance to me. Kill Bill will never be equivalent in significance to Passion for me, hence the "gore" (if you can call it that) in Passion, I don't see the same as the wounds/blood in Kill Bill. Anyone else is free to disagree. If someone takes their kids to Passion, yet doesn't like Kill Bill, it may be because the underlying significance (beyond the physical images of the movie) of Passion is what governs for them. its not something you can logically prove right, like you can that a line is the shortest distance between two points. either you believe it or you don't.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

i see your point, but you're addressing a flip-side double standard (person ok with Passion, not ok with Kill Bill), not the one i discussed (person not ok with Passion, ok with Kill Bill).

Therein lies the core point, if it's ok to see one, it should be ok to see the other, if not, you're looking like a bit of a nitwit there.

Which is why I ironically point it out to anyone who absolutely thinks that the Passion has changed their life for the better. {again no offense to anyone here}

i experience/judge a movie, based on its significance to me. Kill Bill will never be equivalent in significance to Passion for me, hence the "gore" (if you can call it that) in Passion, I don't see the same as the wounds/blood in Kill Bill. Anyone else is free to disagree. If someone takes their kids to Passion, yet doesn't like Kill Bill, it may be because the underlying significance (beyond the physical images of the movie) of Passion is what governs for them. its not something you can logically prove right, like you can that a line is the shortest distance between two points. either you believe it or you don't.

One can be more significant to the other, but it's up to the end user.

If you want to shield children from violence and gore, then you honestly can't justify bringing them to see the Passion.

To a kid, gore is gore.

Logan

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Therein lies the core point, if it's ok to see one, it should be ok to see the other, if not, you're looking like a bit of a nitwit there.

Which is why I ironically point it out to anyone who absolutely thinks that the Passion has changed their life for the better. {again no offense to anyone here}



One can be more significant to the other, but it's up to the end user.

If you want to shield children from violence and gore, then you honestly can't justify bringing them to see the Passion.

To a kid, gore is gore.

Logan

I don't think so. I'm not a parent, but I can tell you that I grew up in a Christian school and we were taught in vivid detail about the pain Jesus went through on the Cross and what he experienced.

You have to understand that yes some films are meant to entertain, but at the same time, they are very much cultural symbols of our society.

I think you have to look into the subject matter and where the violence is placed. Then you have ask yourself are you gonna explain how the violence is used in this context.

When I first learned about the violence Christ went through, I didn't understand all of it, but I understood most of it.

If you have just random violence or violence not dedicated toward a historical event or something happening that relates to our culture than it is difficult to put the two in the same context and just say well, gore is gore. That's not always true.

For example, lynchings were a common event where white children of all ages went to and most understood the gist of why they were there.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

If you want to shield children from violence and gore, then you honestly can't justify bringing them to see the Passion.

To a kid, gore is gore.

Logan

true. i agree.

gore is gore, but "gore" is based on perception. and perception is based on beliefs/values.

people who say "passion ok, kill bill not ok" may have a perception that overly violent movies are immoral,etc. people who say "passion not ok, kill bill ok" may have a perception based on anti-religious bias, but instead of stating it, construct a false argument that passion is not ok because its "too gorey"

on the other hand, they may just not like the movies on their merits and i could be wrong

[Octavio]

Originally Posted by uziel5000

While I understand what you say, I think the irresponsible thing is to blame any film for causing violence. The reason why I don't go any church anymore despite my complete belief in God, is exactly beacause religion seems to seperate us so much. Like many other things, it is the way we interpret films that drive people to one thing or another. I for one can tell you I did not think about Judaism or the jewish people or even about any evil while watching the Passion because ultimately the film is not about that. It is about the suffering Jesus went through which couldve been done by the Greeks, Persians or The Bay City Rollers. The fact that it was the Jewish priests that pressured the situation is simply the way it happened. Only stupid people can watch that film and think it somehow proposes that we should hate jews or respond violently.

Amen to that. If only more people COULD understand what you have explained instead of posting such incredible amount of nonsense about this subject.

BTW The Last Temptation of Christ is a remarkable film. The Passion is not my cup of tea but I have learnt to respect other people's opinion and their movie taste.

[matthieuxdetoux]

Originally Posted by bingtau

Mel Gibson's directing of the passion is brilliant as so Scorsese's. In a head to head battle Oscar let's say Best Picture Last Temptation Best director Mel Gibson Best actor James Cavieziel easily, Best score Last Temptation Best cinematography Passion Best screenplay Last Temptation

The passion Blu ray is remarkable however. The ambience sounds are crisp, clean and the soundtrack is worth the price of admission. Looking forward to a Criterion Blu release of Temptation hopefully!!

Yes, all of Gabriels score work is amazing. Ever hear the Birdy soundtrack? I swear no one has seen that movie but the soundtrack is awesome.

I would say The Last Temptation. Speaking in movie not religious terms it has a more intruiging story to tell and Dafoe does an amazing job at humanizing Jesus Christ.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by ckent22

I don't think so. I'm not a parent,

Then how can you speak about what children would do if exposed to a movie like 'the passion' when it came out in theaters and how they would react?

I heard reports of kids having nightmares after Jurassic Park because stupid parents brought them to it {I'm talking 12 and 13 year olds here} thinking that it would be OK for them to watch.

but I can tell you that I grew up in a Christian school and we were taught in vivid detail about the pain Jesus went through on the Cross and what he experienced.

OK, but did you have a movie about it too?

You have to understand that yes some films are meant to entertain, but at the same time, they are very much cultural symbols of our society.

Bull. It's no cultural film of mine.

I think you have to look into the subject matter and where the violence is placed. Then you have ask yourself are you gonna explain how the violence is used in this context.

I don't have to ask myself that, because I'm not the one justifying it. To me violence is violence.

If a worshiper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster walked into the movie, all they would see is someone getting their @$$ kicked for an hour and a half.

Real entertaining.

At the end they didn't even give the guy who beat Jesus up a championship belt like they would have at the end of a UFC match. Now THAT's entertainment.

I believe South Park actually put it best by saying that people should be focusing on the TEACHINGS of Christ the things he tried to get through people's heads of 'love thy neighbor' and similar and now how brutal his last couple of hours on earth were.

When I first learned about the violence Christ went through, I didn't understand all of it, but I understood most of it.

When you first learned about it, did you have a movie to watch?

If you have just random violence or violence not dedicated toward a historical event or something happening that relates to our culture than it is difficult to put the two in the same context and just say well, gore is gore. That's not always true.

Again, that's what SOME people believe, but not everyone.

To someone not part of that religion, it has about as much historical significance as Beowulf or Clash of the Titans.

I'm not saying what did or did not happen. That's up for the end user to decide for themselves. But putting out a movie about how someone who was an incredible teacher and peaceful person getting brutally murdered doesn't seem like the right message is making it to the end user.

Another point I'd like to make is this: a few people in this thread have pointed out that with regards to the movie itself, the reason why they're showing Christ's death is because most people should already know his life story.

How, in ANY way is that good filmmaking? Honestly. In a film you have to set up the story for people who might not know about it. It would be like Zach Snyder putting out Watchmen with only having the last 3 issues of the comics covered. Without any backstory people wouldn't have a clue. And people would be rather pissed if they were told {as we can see} 'just read the graphic novel' and given the brush off in that regard.

As it stands right now, that hurts Passion as a film. No backstory. To someone who doesn't know about Jesus' teachings, it's literally just that, someone getting their @$$ kicked on the way to getting killed. You could substitute any name you want in there, Spartacus for example, and most folks wouldn't give a rats @$$ about some random guy back in the day getting killed.

For example, lynchings were a common event where white children of all ages went to and most understood the gist of why they were there.

Did they?

I suppose you've been to a lynching then?

Logan

[Penitus]

It's been my experience elsewhere (in real life and on the internets) that people who talk about Jesus life and teachings being MORE important than his gruesome death (as a side note: they are both important), those people pick and choose the teachings of Christ which suit them the most (love one another) and ignore those which they'd rather not hear about (forbidding divorce, upholding marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, the existence of Hell, etc.).

But yeah, I'd be all for a movie of Christ's ministry/teachings, provided they include all of them. And of course, there are some excellent ones out there already.