Grant, I’m still trying to figure out what you were so excited about in your post from yesterday. I don’t understand what you were getting at. What, exactly, is wrong with being glad that Gibson did his homework (or at least some of it)?. You seem to be suggesting either that art doesn’t need accuracy to be good art, or that one director’s interpretation of “salvation” is more important than the facts of the event. At any rate, I don’t think Gibson was shooting for some ethereal, abstract version. Showing Jesus’ outward suffering is just as “medical” as doing a closeup of his esophagus. Personally, I hope people can see past all of the extreme emotions, not the accuracies.
Adam
Feb 29 2004
07:28 pm
Grant, I’m still trying to figure out what you were so excited about in your post from yesterday. I don’t understand what you were getting at. What, exactly, is wrong with being glad that Gibson did his homework (or at least some of it)?. You seem to be suggesting either that art doesn’t need accuracy to be good art, or that one director’s interpretation of “salvation” is more important than the facts of the event. At any rate, I don’t think Gibson was shooting for some ethereal, abstract version. Showing Jesus’ outward suffering is just as “medical” as doing a closeup of his esophagus. Personally, I hope people can see past all of the extreme emotions, not the accuracies.