catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

The Last Temptation of Mad Max

Default

DvdSchp
Jul 27 2003
08:41 am

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20030728&s=fredriksen072803

The New Republic has an article about a new Mel Gibson directed film slated for a spring 2004 release called The Passion. Nothing like a good film about Jesus to stir up political and religious tensions. This article is a retort to what the author claims was a smear campaign by Gibson’s production company, Icon. This is the first I’ve heard of the film, so I don’t know the other side of story. Fascinating read.

Default

grant
Jul 27 2003
07:26 pm

I’ve been really excited about this film for several months. My Latin class was buzzing when we heard that much of it would be spoken in Latin and Aramaic with no subtitles. Matt Drudge bad-mouthed Gibson’s claim that the Holy Spirit directed the film on his show a while back. I’m afraid Passion will be too much focussed on the violence and gore of crucifixion, but it will be great to see a film about Jesus from a devout (Catholic) Christian, even if Gibson was in “Signs”.

Default

DvdSchp
Jul 29 2003
09:13 am

I’m eager to see this too. I’m almost positive that the lack of subtitles for this film will never see the light of day (in fact, this article says they’ve given up on that idea). I don’t even understand why this would be such a righteous thing to do. I am assuming it has something to do with this orthodox Catholic thing of keeping the language of the church in the original Latin. It’s completely impractical and disrespectful to the audience, in my opinion.
I think perhaps that link doesn’t give you the full article, so I apologize. One of the things this author pointed out was that while Aramaic would have been used, the other language should have been Greek. There’s very little chance any of these characters would speak Latin to each other, even Roman conscripts would have spoken their local language. Minor detail, but its part of the larger point of the author which is that for all Gibson’s promise to be faithful to the gospels, he really isn’t because a) the gospels vary amongst themselves and b) the script is also based on some 17th century writings by mystic nuns who had visions of what happened on the day of the crucifixion. I have nothing against this, especially since I have given leway to Scorsese’s radical take on the subject, I would just rather Gibson admit that he’s coming at this from a certain vantage point, an orthodox Catholic viewpoint. The article’s author main point was that there is a spin out there which is trying to portray Gibson as the faithful Christian martyr being persecuted by secularists and Jews when there’s actually an entire different bent on this story. I realize the author has his own ax to grind, but he makes a good point.

Default

DvdSchp
Aug 05 2003
10:24 am

This is just getting better and better. I happened to catch the last little bit of a CNN debate about this. It was Lenord Maltin vs. some female religion prof from Boston University. I wish I knew if she was the woman under attack from the Gibson defenders for descriping herself as a “feminist Yankee Jew.” Anyway, that setup alone is so perfect because it surmmarizes the whole conflict: East Coast Jewish intellectualism vs. good American values.

Default

grant
Aug 05 2003
10:35 am

Just to be fair to Matt Drudge, he lauded the film on his Sunday night talk show last week for being a welcome contribution to a Hollywood obsessed with “Gigliesque” star-power films about surface-ish topics. Speaking as a Jew himself, Drudge also rejected the claim that Gibson’s new film is anti-semitic. He was given a sneak preview and says that blood (and lots of it) is on everyone’s hands in the movie, Jews and Romans alike. I wonder if another reason for the film being in Aramaic and Latin is to make some kind of statement about the responsibility of both cultures. Drudge reports that when asked why he’s doing this film now, Gibson said he’s just tired of playing around with Hollywood and wanted to make something he cares about. His main motive might not be controversy so much as just being tired of playing the Hollywood game.

Default

DvdSchp
Aug 05 2003
05:19 pm

Well, I doubt he went after this thinking “how can I ruffle feathers?” I’m certainly willing to believe that he’s doing this out of the goodness of his own heart. It’s impossible to think otherwise: why would anyone want to take this upon themselsves if they didn’t believe it? Espescially when $25 million of your own money is at stake. But I doubt that he hates all this ruckus. Who doesn’t love vast amounts of free advertisment?

The only thing that bothers me about Gibson and Icon is that they’re playing to the evangelical crowd on this. He screened it at a Focus on the Family gathering, for crying out loud. I understand it entirely because a) they will support the movie b) they are highly organized and very powerful. There’s all this spin out there about how secularists and intellectuals are trying to stop the “truth” from coming out. I’ve been reading blogs and articles on the web and people are furious about this. They’re spouting accuastions that they’ve heard throught their conduits of information like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Michal Medved, Bill O’Reilly and Focus on the Family, all of whom have weighed in on guess whose side. And they’re spreading these half-truths about the development of the film and what the other side has said. It’s incredibly aggrivating, and it’s just furthering this us vs. them mentality that just creates hate.

I’m quite eager to see what actually made it into the film because if there are these glaring historical inaccuarcies, will that matter if it conforms what conservatives want to hear?

Default

crlynvn
Aug 05 2003
06:51 pm

has anyone ever seen, or been made to, the michael w. smith version of the life of Jesus? mind you i had to watch that monstrocity of inaccuracy in high school chapel, makes me shudder just to think about it, and people, students and teachers, actually thought it was good. the movie, staring smith not as Jesus but as a narrator/singer, was supposed to be paraphasing the words of Jesus but came off largely as premillenialist propaganda.

anyway, anyone interested in a different slant on the mel gibson version there are a number of articles in the nytimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/arts/03RICH.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/national/02GIBS.html?8bl

Default

JabirdV
Aug 07 2003
05:50 am

Michael W Smith version of Jesus…..yikes. (cold shivers running down my spine)

Default

grant
Jan 27 2004
11:19 am

I just saw a promo DVD for Mel Gibson’s “The Passion”. It was obviously directed at the Evangelical Christian community, which is very refreshing. It’s like Gibson is making a pre-emptive strike before the uninformed Christian community started boycotting the film. It makes me wonder how The Last Temptation of Christ would have been received if Scorcese and Shrader went on a tour to promote it among church folk in the eighties and if mass emails and promo DVD’s were popular during that time.

Default

JabirdV
Jan 27 2004
02:53 pm

Good news! I just found out I get to work on The Passion next week! I am soooo stoked! Even the “non-christian” folk in the Hollywood community are talking about this film and eagerly anticipating it.

I have heard about Gibson’s DVD mailers (my dad is a pastor and received one) and also about the large pastor gatherings that Gibson has catered to. The response from the Christian community has been overwhelming and from what I understand Newmarket has sold out of tickets for the first week or so of the film once it hits theaters.

Default

vanlee
Feb 22 2004
03:16 pm

I suggest that the best way to solve the “controversy” aspect of this film is to *go see it & judge for yourself.

The Passion of the Christ is a big thing in this culture right now, so it is worth seeing on that count alone…and just perhaps it might even be done well. Gibson has the technical ability to make a good film; perhaps he also has the scholarly & spiritual ability to make a good film about Christ. Go and see it for yourself/.

Don’t get scared because some group/person you may not like may perhaps endorse

A further note***Note: Some in Jewish leadership have still been very scared of antisemitism backlash. Despite the repeated comments of many Jews who say this film is not antisemitic, but puts the blame on all humanity for Christ’s death. The intense fear of some of the Jews should be noted. There are historical reasons for some to have such a reaction.

Here’s an article from a Christian source with some horrifying history as to why some Jews are so scared:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2004/feb20.html