|
Post by buff on Dec 22, 2008 21:34:04 GMT -5
I'll repeat my question: Why is the depraved brutality and torture that would have condemmed "American Psycho" as a movie not only OK in a movie about Jesus but is actually called "beautiful and uplifting" ? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? Isn't that glorifying gratuitous violence in movies? Can you imagine an audience of Buddhists munching popcorn in a movie theatre while watching a movie about the life of Buddha that shows a bunch of guys kicking the living sh*t out of him? I did not watch and have no intention to watch what appears to be ditsydoodle's favorite film - American Pyscho. Yeah, they will be interested to see how Buddha made babies - there seems to be billions of them now - keep spreading promiscuity, prostitution, stds and hiv. Fyi, the notorious Roman Soldiers were capable of administering sever torture to their conquests - what more to a man that appeared to be threatening their rule. Jesus will never die in seven hours without severe beating. He was already beaten before he carried the cross on which he fell down several times, bloodied several times. Look there are many emaciated people that whipped themselves and get nailed in the cross year after year. They have the scar yet no one has ever died and no one ever contracted tetanus.
|
|
|
Post by swinger on Dec 22, 2008 21:55:18 GMT -5
Did you mean "dipsydoodle?" Who are these billions of people that you speak of?
|
|
|
Post by dipsydoodle on Dec 23, 2008 0:21:06 GMT -5
>>Fyi, the notorious Roman Soldiers were capable of administering sever torture to their conquests - what more to a man that appeared to be threatening their rule. Jesus will never die in seven hours without severe beating.<<
Fyi, why don't you read the gospels because you obviously haven't. Try it. I dare ya. I double dare ya.
|
|
|
Post by dipsydoodle on Dec 23, 2008 0:23:38 GMT -5
>>I'm guessing that there isn't going to be an answer to satisfy you, except maybe that "You've won the moral high ground by pointing out hypocrisy in America!" Yay. Gold star.<<
As long as you're admitting that Christians who liked this movie are a bunch of hypocrites.
|
|
|
Post by alphamikefoxtrot on Dec 23, 2008 2:37:51 GMT -5
>>I'm guessing that there isn't going to be an answer to satisfy you, except maybe that "You've won the moral high ground by pointing out hypocrisy in America!" Yay. Gold star.<< As long as you're admitting that Christians who liked this movie are a bunch of hypocrites. Sure. Why not? I'm not defending Christian hypocrisy. I just think it's silly to expect complete veracity in any film or that your personal standards are exemplary.
|
|
|
Post by buff on Dec 23, 2008 10:54:21 GMT -5
>>Fyi, the notorious Roman Soldiers were capable of administering sever torture to their conquests - what more to a man that appeared to be threatening their rule. Jesus will never die in seven hours without severe beating.<< Fyi, why don't you read the gospels because you obviously haven't. Try it. I dare ya. I double dare ya. HaHaHa! It appears that you translated the Gospels literally which should not be the case. You have misread it. You know you have to apply common sense, historical sense and wisdom to what the scriptures said but apparently your mind appears to be lacking of Hope you have an enlightened Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by dipsydoodle on Dec 23, 2008 11:43:42 GMT -5
>>I'm guessing that there isn't going to be an answer to satisfy you, except maybe that "You've won the moral high ground by pointing out hypocrisy in America!" Yay. Gold star.<< As long as you're admitting that Christians who liked this movie are a bunch of hypocrites. Sure. Why not? I'm not defending Christian hypocrisy. I just think it's silly to expect complete veracity in any film or that your personal standards are exemplary. Then you've missed the point entirely. It's not the veracity of the film that's at issue. It's that they ignored what was in the gospel narrative as an excuse to hand us just another movie full of depravity and violence. They never would have gotten away with it with any other subject matter. But because it was about Jesus, they actually got away with more violence, blood and gore than any other movie I've ever seen. I did some checking. This movie grossed $370 million dollars. That's historically the largest grossing R rated movie in North America. Now someone mentioned "The Last Temptation of Christ" which was a pretty good movie. It grossed $13 million adjusted for today's inflation. $13 million to $370 million--hmmm, I wonder which people liked more. Well, we can look at critiques offered for both movies and we can see that Christian leaders HATE The Last Temptation. As one put it, the movie portrays Jesus as "a colossal wimp." So Mel wasn't going to make that mistake. He created a Jesus that bares his belly and dares his enemies, "Go ahead, punch me, I can take it." Personally speaking, that's not the qualitities I would look for in a savior of humanity. That's some fat, drunken idiot in a bar bragging. Maybe the best review of this movie is found in the following statement: "During filming, assistant director Jan Michelini was struck twice by lightning. The second time this happened, the lightning bolt also hit James Caviezel [the guy who played Jesus].[10]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Christ
|
|
|
Post by dipsydoodle on Dec 23, 2008 12:15:34 GMT -5
HaHaHa! It appears that you translated the Gospels literally which should not be the case. You have misread it. So, when I see an unspeakable amount of violence and bloodshed in a movie lauded by people who would be the first to condemn it under any other circumstance and that this brutality was not in the narrative Mel claims he used as his primary source and it's not found in any other biblical or apocryphal writing, that means I misread it. Where did you earn your doctor of divinity from? [/B][/quote] How much common sense, historical sense and wisdom does it take to sit through two hours of a movie where after the first 10 minutes, all but 6 of the remaining minutes contain no blood or violence and decide it might be a sick excuse just to hand us more violence in movies? It's not just that this movie got made, what does it say about us that it is so popular? Nominated for 3 Oscars? Here's part of the torture scene: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayo94JB4TLA&feature=relatedThis is just the scourging scene which is drawn out for your viewing pleasure. Here they depict Jesus like he was Rocky--getting pummeled but he keeps getting up. What a guy. It doesn't show the bungee jump with the chains and all that. Turn it up nice and loud, that's how you were meant to hear it. Now, I ask you: Did you have to see this in order to understand this sacrifice that Jesus supposedly made? You mean to tell me that without this movie, you never understood it before??
|
|
|
Post by avax on Dec 23, 2008 13:25:36 GMT -5
This brings back mixed memories. I watched Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, and Jesus of Nazareth (another film that was mentioned) and likely a few other Jesus films - I might have been affixed with the notion of being a nun when I was little. Yes, I do agree with some of dipsydoodle's observations but has anyone viewed the violence in light of deadly eroticism? I'm not particularly speaking about pop-y and teenage goth fixations - more a focus on la petite mort.
I am also reminded of some of the sensationalist literature in the 1870s (and earlier). Also, the appearance of slave narratives. There were neuroticisms about the fall of white women (to black male slaves and interracial unions), slave narratives of white explorers who had missions in africa and the kinds of torture machines that they witnessed, blood, gore and of course, cannibalism. My intention is not to lump sensationalist literature - the typical Wilkie Collins - with The Ethiopian or Woman and Her Master. Both the latter texts are filled with gore, rape and destruction especially The Ethiopian. I had focussed then on the machinization of violence (in the written form as they only had then) and social degeneration (ie. anxieties of Britain especially with the advent of the train) in the 1800s.
If the Passion film is inaccurate, then what is the purpose of depicting it in this way? Mel Gibson caught a bit of flack for this movie already I recall, when it first came out. I am curious what this film represents to christians and non-christians, and what later generations will write. Are the unnecessary details an effort to distract from issues amiss here/now? or do they embody and attempt to exorcize our mistakes? If god takes away the sins of the world and died for us - is this just one artist's attempt at exorcizing the sins of the 21st century? Keep in mind, this is a man-god who moans, groans and spreads copious bodily fluid all over the place if inflicted such violent injustices - just as a lowly mortal human would.
The dessication and humiliation of a god? A brilliant way to emote thrill, sadness and passion - parallel only to the dessication and humiliation of celebrity or royalty (who in many cultures are manifestations of a people's own deities - ie. Queen Elizabeth I was a genius at reincarnating herself as a protestant Virgin Mary).
The eroticism of death and violence is a second (more ordinary, predictable) view that I don't think is unfamiliar to movie-goers these days. Is it any wonder that shock value along with copious bodily fluids and distressed sounds attracts. That it attracts a large audience is amazing - and I'm compelled to believe it's more than just for shock value.
|
|
|
Post by ChickenSoda on Dec 23, 2008 14:36:35 GMT -5
It's that they ignored what was in the gospel narrative as an excuse to hand us just another movie full of depravity and violence. I swear, the fanboys are always crying when the adaptation doesn't follow the source material just perfectly. Just be glad that Paul WS Anderson didn't do it- Jesus would've been spin kicking dogs in slow motion to an industrial soundtrack. /still bitter over Resident Evil
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Dec 24, 2008 0:51:12 GMT -5
That's the point of it though. To show that Jesus suffered for the sins of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by swinger on Dec 24, 2008 1:49:11 GMT -5
I did some checking. This movie grossed $370 million dollars. That's historically the largest grossing R rated movie in North America. I smell.... Passion of the Christ IIHollywood is money-driven, after all.
|
|
|
Post by toyomansi on Dec 24, 2008 8:33:29 GMT -5
I agree with most of what stray said, I would much rather see a movie about who Jesus was and everything he accomplished in his life. To me, his life spent teaching and performing miracles seems more important than his death and suffering. Sometimes Christianity seem to focus more on pain, suffering, guilt and sins rather than love and joy. The only scenes in the movie I liked were the flashback scenes of him with his mother or his disciples.
buff: Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand of the gospels: It wasn't the beating and torture itself that actually killed Jesus, but the spear that was stabbed on his side while he was already hanging on the cross ("the spear of destiny"), 'di ba?
|
|
|
Post by blunthammer on Dec 24, 2008 8:55:37 GMT -5
Sure it was violent and disgusting but it was just showing you what most people would percieve as the reality of what happened to that guy, so many call "Christ"
|
|
|
Post by Roam'n on Dec 26, 2008 3:47:31 GMT -5
Celtriya is right. It's porn for god freaks.
|
|