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

bridget
Feb 23 2004
08:27 pm

I am so fascinated by all of the activity going on around this movie. Over the weekend I got a postcard in my mailbox from a coalition of local churches who are asking people to go and see it, and then go to their churches to talk about it. I looked up the org. on the internet, and there’s a whole organization developing ministries around it. They’re calling it the best witnessing opportunity in 2000 years…

I also caught an episode of Ebert and Roeper this weekend that reviewed the film, and it was fascinating how much they discussed what the movie means, how it is meant to be understood, etc. They’re debating the theology of it much more than the move.

Is any of this going on where you all live?

Default

mrsanniep
Feb 24 2004
10:43 am

On one of those national morning news programs today, there was a critic (maybe the AP critic) bitching about this movie because of the length of the violent scenes and how Gibson turned one sentence in Scripture into 10 minutes of blood and gore. This really annoyed me. I never hear such debate about Vin Diesel movies and movies of that ilk, not to mention about the movie adaptions of other “books” – complaining that one sentence was turned into 10 minutes. Fer cry ay ay.

Default

laurencer
Feb 24 2004
03:42 pm

roger ebert had a really good review of the film in the chicago sun times today: http://suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html

i thought his analysis of the violence in the film was very astute.

i’m a little uncomfortable with the way churches are promoting this film (see bridget’s comments above) simply because i’m not sure many people are prepared for the kind and level of violence portrayed. i have the feeling that it will be unlike the kind of hollywood-esque violence glorification that we’re used to.

Default

vanlee
Feb 27 2004
12:56 pm

I saw “The Passion” Wed. nite in a soldout showing.

Was with a group of about 100 teenagers – jr high & high school. We were prepared with signed parental releases for this R movie and were prepared to deal with hysterical kids.

But the consensus of the kids around me (jr high girls, mainly) was that it moved them to tears & was very intense, but they were not “flipped out” with the violence level. They could handle it.

Gibson’s film breaks up the long intense judgment/beatings/crucifixion with various flashbacks to different parts of Jesus’ life. Some are based on Gospel stories; some are interpretation…i.e. when Jesus’ mother sees Jesus stagger and fall as he carries the cross & flashes back to when he fell as a tiny child & she picked him up & comforted him.

The whipping scenes, where the mostly sadistic smiling Roman guards use short whips with chunks of sharp things (rocks, etc) seems to be based on the medical stuff I’ve read about the crucifixion..

If you search for the Mayo Clinic article online you will find a medical description of the short whips with their chunks of sharp stuff. The movie assumes that the lowest life soldiers (smiling sadists in the film) did the whipping.

Is the movie totally accurate? No. Some interpretations, assumptions may be questioned.

But does the movie draw on the significant pile of historical, Biblical, and archaeological, and medical info we have about the Romans’ scourging & crucifixion techniques? YES!

The most gruesome thing to me is that the violeence done to Christ seems to reflect what actually happened during many crucifixions

…the question people must ultimately squirm over is…Is this all really done for me? Is Jesus (as the film asserts) the way the truth & the life? Or just a tragic figure?

Default

grant
Feb 28 2004
07:46 am

Are you serious about the Mayo clinic thing? That is the worst example I’ve heard yet of people jumping on the Jesus publicity bandwagon. No no no. Scientific accuracy has nothing to do with this. If Gibson was trying to make a scientifically accurate portrayal of Jesus’ crucifixion, he would have had to make a completely different film. It would have looked like a medical instruction video. He would have zoomed in down Jesus’ esophagus, stopping at Jesus’ lungs as they collapsed under the pressure. He would have focused on the strain placed on Jesus’ upper torso and would have shown the physical damage done to Jesus’ “metacarpus” as the nail went through.

Gibson’s film does not tell a story of scientific accuracy. “The Passion of The Christ” is the Gospel story, which has to do with truth—not accuracy. Gibson wished to be accurate so that the truth of the message of the cross would be communicated. I hope when people go to see this movie they will be able to see through the accuracies, through the violence against Jesus’ flesh, through the cultural context of Jesus’ day (as clearly as we could see through the wound in Jesus’ resurrected hand at the end of the film) in order to understand the essential message of God’s victory over sin and death.

Default

laryn
Feb 28 2004
03:44 pm

my understanding is that it wasn’t as accurate as you are suggesting, vanlee—for example, the nails probably went into the wrists, not the hands themselves.

in our discussions after the film, we agreed there were powerful moments. our constructive criticisms included the following:

[ul]
[li]it would have been nice to have more of Jesus’ teaching, life, ministry, and example instead of just the short flashbacks—more context and a fleshed out man
[li]the suffering focussed too heavily on the physical pain and torture—in that he didn’t sell the mental anguish well enough
[li]the resurrection scene wasn’t done right. (the jaw set, emotionless—one of my friends said, “why wasn’t he smiling?”…and perhaps my mind was polluted by a review I read which compared his resurrected self to the Terminator—a “Christianator”—tough, strong, steely gaze, “next stop the Crusades.”)
[/ul]

Questions:
[ul]
[li]What was the baby that Satan was holding? (anti-Christ? symbol of original sin?)
[li]Was Satan celebrating or screaming in agony in that one scene?
[/ul]

Default

grant
Feb 29 2004
06:39 am

I thought the flashbacks were very effective at keeping “The Passion” story going while still reflecting on some significant parts that help us understand Christ’s suffering more. Since “Passion” stories are traditionally only about suffering (this is what the word itself means, or used to mean), the teachings or life ministry of Jesus would have taken the attention off of Gibson’s main intent.

I really don’t understand why reviewers have criticized Gibson for not focusing on Jesus’ teachings. Number 1, “teachings” don’t go over well on film. Number 2, I can’t imagine critics complaining that Oliver Stone should have focused more on Kennedy’s policies and presidential acts in JFK. A director chooses the aim and focus of his/her own film and the critic’s job is to criticize it for what it is, not for what they think it should have been.

I disagree about the focus being on physical pain. The Garden of Gethsemane scene starts the whole film off on the theme of Christ struggling with his own doubts about whether God will truly vindicate him in the end. And I think this “mental” suffering is evident in Jesus’ last words, especially “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

And I was glad to see a resurrection scene in a “Passion” story. It always bothered me that Passion stories ended too soon. I was surprised by the way the resurrection seemed to fit with the mood of Gibson’s film. Gibson still ends, in keeping with traditional Passion accounts, with the end of Jesus’ suffering. The smiling is saved for the sequel (no, not the crusades, but the hope of resurrection that spurs the growth of the true church) because this is a grim story of Jesus enduring and overcoming the suffering.

Default

laryn
Feb 29 2004
06:26 pm

I don’t think that fleshing out Jesus’ life and ministry would have detracted from the suffering—it probably would have made it more meaningful to a lot of people.

I agree, the Gethsemane scene is a good step toward dealing with the mental suffering—but compare the screen time and it’s a small fraction of the total. My point about the “forsaken” line is that I didn’t feel that he was feeling forsaken. Partly I think the blood and gore made it hard to see anything except the exterior. I guess my point is, that since he had the set up in the words “my God, my God…why have you forsaken me?” he should have hit it out of the park, but didn’t, in my opinion.

I think the story is about much more than “enduring and overcoming the suffering.” (A greater theme is the love that drove him to do so, and I hardly think Jesus’ mood upon rising was “grim.” The task is done! Death is conquered! The war is effectively over—though it will still have to play out, the conclusion is already known, and Christ won. Doesn’t seem grim to me.)

Default

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.

Default

Adam
Feb 29 2004
07:29 pm

Man, did I love the sequence with the raindrop. Until I talked to my dad and he told me it was God’s tear. Then I didn’t like it anymore.