Embellishment? - DWPC - Films/DVD Asylum

Embellishment?

Posted by DWPC (A) on April 17, 2006 at 16:27:51

In Reply to: Re: Why; content or approach? NT posted by Wendell Narrod on April 17, 2006 at 15:32:39:

The brutality was way over top. Too graphic and went on too long. Thats how I viewed it originally. As I reconsidered, though, it became clearer to me that Gibson's movie wasn't about Jesus' death. Everyone dies. Everyone knows "Jesus died for our sins". So what's new? What he conveyed was the extreme brutality and sadism Jesus endured in that death, and he couldn't really get that across without heavy graphic representation.

I think Gibson's intent was to make it difficult for the Christian viewer to skip over the brutal nature of Jesus' suffering and jump to the "Happy Ending" of the Resurrection. Modern Christianity tends to promote a warm'n fuzzy relation with Christ and discounts the reality of the suffering part of His sacrifice. We tend to not to want to know much about that distastefull part. Gibson showed it in all its real gruesomeness. Roman records of their treatment of criminals show he didn't exaggerate.

I also think Gibson demonstrated more solid cinematic skill in conveying his theme than many leading directors who get a lot more credit for skill than they deserve. I thought the his use of fast flashback sequences and his framing of Mary's perceptions, though not subtle, were brilliant. He got volumes from his actors with minimal dialog. Most directors are afraid of the material and too subtle or indirect. Thats why most religious-themed movies suck.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - The Passion Of The Christ - Wendell Narrod 09:25:19 04/16/06 (24)

I liked it - Corndog71 06:53:44 04/18/06 (0)

Why; content or approach? NT - DWPC 14:01:25 04/17/06 (3)

Re: Why; content or approach? NT - Wendell Narrod 15:32:39 04/17/06 (2)

Embellishment? - DWPC 16:27:51 04/17/06 (1)

Re: Embellishment? - Wendell Narrod 18:39:57 04/17/06 (0)

Yes, a film to make money... - grhughes 13:19:28 04/16/06 (17)

Re: Yes, a film to make money... - Analog Scott 16:20:50 04/16/06 (16)

I seem to remember people paying money to see this film... - SF tech 15:58:14 04/17/06 (12)

Re: I seem to remember people paying money to see this film... - Analog Scott 07:14:13 04/18/06 (11)

Yes, yes, Mr. Gibson made this film at great risk... - SF tech 08:49:24 04/18/06 (10)

Re: Yes, yes, Mr. Gibson made this film at great risk... - Analog Scott 12:01:21 04/18/06 (9)

I'm done arguing with you... - SF tech 14:48:11 04/18/06 (8)

Rude? - jamesgarvin 07:07:59 04/19/06 (7)

My sarcasm was intended to be humorous... - SF tech 14:44:32 04/19/06 (6)

Re: My sarcasm was intended to be humorous... - jamesgarvin 10:09:59 04/20/06 (5)

"Sarcasm is not humor." - SF tech 18:10:33 04/20/06 (4)

here is what mel Gibson says about it. - Analog Scott 21:38:49 04/20/06 (3)

Re: here is what mel Gibson says about it. - jamesgarvin 10:50:45 04/26/06 (2)

Please remember, sarcasm is NOT humorous! - SF tech 12:38:41 04/26/06 (1)

Touche' nt. - jamesgarvin 13:10:20 04/26/06 (0)

I don't believe it was made without box office consideration.. - grhughes 19:41:53 04/16/06 (1)

Your beliefs have no bearings on the facts. - Analog Scott 07:33:07 04/17/06 (0)

And to add.... - jamesgarvin 17:29:26 04/16/06 (0)

The script outline was rather fixed . . . - mr grits 11:03:37 04/16/06 (0)

Follow Ups

Embellishment? - DWPC 16:27:51 04/17/06 (1)

Re: Embellishment? - Wendell Narrod 18:39:57 04/17/06 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.