The marketing Mel Gibson's team is very poor. They complain that none of the big french distributor want to show their movies in their theaters, but they never ask them too.
This chip image of martyr that they want to have is very sickening.
If you're open minded, you would realize that Last Temptation and Passion are two entirely different movies with different goals. Passion is an attempt by Mel Gibson to bring his vision of Jesus' life to the screen. Apparently, that vision is of punishment and violence rather than compassion and love. The Last Temptation is attempt to show the duality of Jesus' life. It shows the struggle of how a person would come to terms with being the son of god and having to die to save humanity. Those aren't fun subjects to deal with and I doubt that you or I, if present with the same situation, would act much differently than how Jesus was portrayed in Last Temptation.
Oh, and Mel Gibson isn't in the same league as Martin Scorsese.
I am open-minded and I do understand that they had different goals. I was annoyed at the schizophrenic Jesus in The Last Temptation. You were almost lead to believe that Jesus was delusional about being the Messiah, although he did perform miracles. The image of Jesus presented in The Last Temptation does not mesh with how I see him. I can't answer as to how I would have acted in his situation because I don't know.
Obviously Mel isn't in the same league as Scorsese, but few first time directors can do as well as he and The Last Temptation is far from Scorsese's best film.
How could you ascertain that? How do you know that someone or some group didn't complain to Gibson personally, or that you just happened to miss the first interview on the nightly news that brought forth the first complaint? I don't think it's fair to say that unless you've been with Gibson and his crew since day 1.
Anyway, I've said pretty much everything I can say about this movie and the issues surrounding it. Whether anyone agrees with me or not, I hope you'll all at least go see it when you have a chance. Make up your own mind, don't let anyone [else] make it up for you....
How could you ascertain that? How do you know that someone or some group didn't complain to Gibson personally, or that you just happened to miss the first interview on the nightly news that brought forth the first complaint? I don't think it's fair to say that unless you've been with Gibson and his crew since day 1.
Anyway, I've said pretty much everything I can say about this movie and the issues surrounding it. Whether anyone agrees with me or not, I hope you'll all at least go see it when you have a chance. Make up your own mind, don't let anyone [else] make it up for you....
No i will not see this movie. I am not interested to see it, controversy or not.
When the Satanic verses where published by Salman Rushdie, and a Fatwah (death sentance) was put on his head, many people bought his book. Most of them where disapointed : the book was not huge. If i wanted to support Rushdie, then i should just send him some cash, but i don't buy a book for that. I buy book to read them, and i watch movie to enjoy them.
So i will not see this movie just for judging on my own. False cries of oppresions are very chip marketing and will prevent me to see it. If people are interested in this movie regardless of this marketing crap, i think that they should watch it, but otherwise there is plenty of movies that deserves attention.
False cries of oppression are common in society, many Christians are very eager to cash in on Matthew 5:10.
Gibson also moaned about the Jewish criticism of the movie before there was any Jewish criticism.
You are right Groverat. It's very common, but despicable. In the french politic arena the right winged antisemit politician Le Pen is a professional of this practice. His common scheme is :
- a) made a provocation ( a silly wording like gaz's chambers are a detail of history)
- b) people react to this crap
- c) he moan to be a victim and a martyr of the free speech
People often say off-handedly "Oh yes and Jesus died for us and so we must be thankful", but few ever give *a moment's thought* to what that actually means. To the physical and mental sacrifice involved in enduring a crucifixion... to what it must've felt like just to see it, let alone have it happening to you.
Except that this movie puts far more emphasis on the theologically meaningless scourging than it does the salvific crucifixion. Jesus' scourging had nothing to do with his saving of mankind.
And I would disagree that "few" every give a thought to Jesus' suffering. Millions pray the Rosary, which includes several meditations on the various pains Jesus suffered in his Passion.
I saw Last Temptation last year on video with a good friend. Neither of us thought it was very good. It took great pains to make Jesus look schizophrenic.
No, it didn't. It showed Jesus whose manhood and divinity were in tension, and how his flesh was weak when his spirit was strong. It was about how Jesus himself came to understand his own Messianic and divine nature.
Quote:
The film is a nearly constant battle of wills between 'two voices' in his head, one of Satan and his own. The Last Temptation occurs on the cross where he gives in. [/B]
No, Jesus does NOT give in to Satan on the Cross. It is on the Cross that the human Jesus, faced with Satan's most tempting temptation, freedom from the death his divinity has driven him to, comes to recognize his own divinity, and gives up his life for the salvation of all humankind. It is the richest, move moving and potent presentation of Jesus Christ in the history of film.
No, it didn't. It showed Jesus whose manhood and divinity were in tension, and how his flesh was weak when his spirit was strong. It was about how Jesus himself came to understand his own Messianic and divine nature.
No, Jesus does NOT give in to Satan on the Cross. It is on the Cross that the human Jesus, faced with Satan's most tempting temptation, freedom from the death his divinity has driven him to, comes to recognize his own divinity, and gives up his life for the salvation of all humankind. It is the richest, move moving and potent presentation of Jesus Christ in the history of film.
Kirk [/B]
I disagree, but as it appears your memory of the movie is fresher than mine, I will not argue over it. All I can say is that my statements sum what I got out of the film.
I disagree, but as it appears your memory of the movie is fresher than mine, I will not argue over it. All I can say is that my statements sum what I got out of the film.
Probably. I have "Last Temptation" watching parties with various friends every Holy Saturday.
I never gave it much thought or paid attention in church I guess, but did Jesus really get "tempted by the devil" while on the cross? Or is this just what we assume was going through his mind, since he knew he could save himself, but decided personally that saving himself was not how to fulfill his destiny. Did he know he had to "die for us?"
Shawn, Groverat... maybe I missed a quote somewhere earlier in the thread or in the news. You're saying Mel Gibson admitted during some media event that:
"Yes, I complained about Jewish criticisms before any Jews criticized my film?"
If you have a link indicating the same I'll drop it. Sounds like I missed something somewhere along the way. If that's the case, sorry for the contradiction, otherwise I'll wait to see your clarification / a transcript of what Gibson said in this regard.
Kirkland:
how could the movie *not* focus on the abuse if the movie is about "the last hours of Christ"? During that time, he wasn't preaching to anyone about salvation or anything else. He was captured, made a prisoner (of sorts) and treated like one, and then marched up a hill to his own death. Of course it's going to be about the abuse.
This movie is about what he endured (or what we believe he might have endured based on Biblical references)... it's not about "whether he had to be beaten in order to save anyone". That is completely missing the point. This movie isn't out to prove "that Jesus logically had to be beaten X times" in order to save us, which is what you're implying.
This movie is basically a modern-day attempt to document "how it happened" in one man's eyes. Not whether or not anything *had* to happen or "what would have been logical"....
I never gave it much thought or paid attention in church I guess, but did Jesus really get "tempted by the devil" while on the cross?
Not according to the Bible. The temptation on the cross is merely the device used by the author of the novel "Last Temptation" (whose name I can never spell) to examine the interrelation between the humanity and divine in Christ. Jesus' human body would have rebelled at the pain, in shock and agony, since he was fully human. How did his human soul, his divine spirit, respond to this, and what does this tell us about when Christ realized his divine nature ?_that's the question Last Temptation attempts to consider.
Quote:
Did he know he had to "die for us?"
Undoubtedly. Jesus was not omniscient, not fully, at least, due to the limitations of his human consciousness ?_remember, he was just as human as he was divine ? but he knew what his Messianic destiny was. He knew that the Messiah was to be the Suffering Servant of second Isaiah.
how could the movie *not* focus on the abuse if the movie is about "the last hours of Christ"?
By lingering less on the whipping/scourging and more on the crucifixion. By providing more flashbacks to lend theological undercurrents and potency to the actions of salvation depicted at Golgotha. Use the Passion as a framework for a consideration of Jesus' entire ministry ? emphasize the soteriological power of the coming event by presenting Jesus' march to the place of the skulls, instead of focusing on splattering blood and absurd lacerations suffered at the theologically meaningless whipping post.
Quote:
This movie is about what he endured (or what we believe he might have endured based on Biblical references)... it's not about "whether he had to be beaten in order to save anyone". That is completely missing the point.
Any movie which doesn't use any event of Jesus' life to underline his soteriological mission is missing the entire point of why Jesus did what he did.
Quote:
This movie isn't out to prove "that Jesus logically had to be beaten X times" in order to save us, which is what you're implying.
Being beaten was meaningless. Jesus could have not been flogged or whipped or spit upon so much as once, and he would have still saved the world at the cross.
Quote:
This movie is basically a modern-day attempt to document "how it happened" in one man's eyes. Not whether or not anything *had* to happen or "what would have been logical".... [/B]
Then as a film about Jesus, it is worthless ? nothing more than carnal fascination with blood and gore, the Gospel According to Quentin Tarantino. They what is utterly meaningless without they why ? particularly since we can't take any of the Gospels as infallible statements of fact on the historicity of events. They are theological treatises, not historical works.
Comments
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
DA DAAA.
+1
I will weigh in after viewing it..
Fellows
This chip image of martyr that they want to have is very sickening.
Originally posted by HOM
If you're open minded, you would realize that Last Temptation and Passion are two entirely different movies with different goals. Passion is an attempt by Mel Gibson to bring his vision of Jesus' life to the screen. Apparently, that vision is of punishment and violence rather than compassion and love. The Last Temptation is attempt to show the duality of Jesus' life. It shows the struggle of how a person would come to terms with being the son of god and having to die to save humanity. Those aren't fun subjects to deal with and I doubt that you or I, if present with the same situation, would act much differently than how Jesus was portrayed in Last Temptation.
Oh, and Mel Gibson isn't in the same league as Martin Scorsese.
I am open-minded and I do understand that they had different goals. I was annoyed at the schizophrenic Jesus in The Last Temptation. You were almost lead to believe that Jesus was delusional about being the Messiah, although he did perform miracles. The image of Jesus presented in The Last Temptation does not mesh with how I see him. I can't answer as to how I would have acted in his situation because I don't know.
Obviously Mel isn't in the same league as Scorsese, but few first time directors can do as well as he and The Last Temptation is far from Scorsese's best film.
False cries of oppression are common in society, many Christians are very eager to cash in on Matthew 5:10.
Gibson also moaned about the Jewish criticism of the movie before there was any Jewish criticism.
Anyway, I've said pretty much everything I can say about this movie and the issues surrounding it. Whether anyone agrees with me or not, I hope you'll all at least go see it when you have a chance. Make up your own mind, don't let anyone [else] make it up for you....
Originally posted by Moogs
How could you ascertain that? How do you know that someone or some group didn't complain to Gibson personally, or that you just happened to miss the first interview on the nightly news that brought forth the first complaint? I don't think it's fair to say that unless you've been with Gibson and his crew since day 1.
Anyway, I've said pretty much everything I can say about this movie and the issues surrounding it. Whether anyone agrees with me or not, I hope you'll all at least go see it when you have a chance. Make up your own mind, don't let anyone [else] make it up for you....
No i will not see this movie. I am not interested to see it, controversy or not.
When the Satanic verses where published by Salman Rushdie, and a Fatwah (death sentance) was put on his head, many people bought his book. Most of them where disapointed : the book was not huge. If i wanted to support Rushdie, then i should just send him some cash, but i don't buy a book for that. I buy book to read them, and i watch movie to enjoy them.
So i will not see this movie just for judging on my own. False cries of oppresions are very chip marketing and will prevent me to see it. If people are interested in this movie regardless of this marketing crap, i think that they should watch it, but otherwise there is plenty of movies that deserves attention.
Originally posted by groverat
powerdoc:
False cries of oppression are common in society, many Christians are very eager to cash in on Matthew 5:10.
Gibson also moaned about the Jewish criticism of the movie before there was any Jewish criticism.
You are right Groverat. It's very common, but despicable. In the french politic arena the right winged antisemit politician Le Pen is a professional of this practice. His common scheme is :
- a) made a provocation ( a silly wording like gaz's chambers are a detail of history)
- b) people react to this crap
- c) he moan to be a victim and a martyr of the free speech
- d) he get 20 % of the votes ---> it works
How could you ascertain that?
Because he admitted it on television when asked.
So very eager to be martyred.
'ole Mel should look less at Matthew 5:10 and more at Matthew 6:2&5.
What a mind****ing piece of crap that film is.
Originally posted by Moogs
People often say off-handedly "Oh yes and Jesus died for us and so we must be thankful", but few ever give *a moment's thought* to what that actually means. To the physical and mental sacrifice involved in enduring a crucifixion... to what it must've felt like just to see it, let alone have it happening to you.
Except that this movie puts far more emphasis on the theologically meaningless scourging than it does the salvific crucifixion. Jesus' scourging had nothing to do with his saving of mankind.
And I would disagree that "few" every give a thought to Jesus' suffering. Millions pray the Rosary, which includes several meditations on the various pains Jesus suffered in his Passion.
Kirk
Originally posted by rogue master
I saw Last Temptation last year on video with a good friend. Neither of us thought it was very good. It took great pains to make Jesus look schizophrenic.
No, it didn't. It showed Jesus whose manhood and divinity were in tension, and how his flesh was weak when his spirit was strong. It was about how Jesus himself came to understand his own Messianic and divine nature.
The film is a nearly constant battle of wills between 'two voices' in his head, one of Satan and his own. The Last Temptation occurs on the cross where he gives in. [/B]
No, Jesus does NOT give in to Satan on the Cross. It is on the Cross that the human Jesus, faced with Satan's most tempting temptation, freedom from the death his divinity has driven him to, comes to recognize his own divinity, and gives up his life for the salvation of all humankind. It is the richest, move moving and potent presentation of Jesus Christ in the history of film.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
No, it didn't. It showed Jesus whose manhood and divinity were in tension, and how his flesh was weak when his spirit was strong. It was about how Jesus himself came to understand his own Messianic and divine nature.
No, Jesus does NOT give in to Satan on the Cross. It is on the Cross that the human Jesus, faced with Satan's most tempting temptation, freedom from the death his divinity has driven him to, comes to recognize his own divinity, and gives up his life for the salvation of all humankind. It is the richest, move moving and potent presentation of Jesus Christ in the history of film.
Kirk [/B]
I disagree, but as it appears your memory of the movie is fresher than mine, I will not argue over it. All I can say is that my statements sum what I got out of the film.
Originally posted by rogue master
I disagree, but as it appears your memory of the movie is fresher than mine, I will not argue over it. All I can say is that my statements sum what I got out of the film.
Probably. I have "Last Temptation" watching parties with various friends every Holy Saturday.
Kirk
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Did he know he had to "die for us?"
Without a doubt, read the gospels.
"Yes, I complained about Jewish criticisms before any Jews criticized my film?"
If you have a link indicating the same I'll drop it. Sounds like I missed something somewhere along the way. If that's the case, sorry for the contradiction, otherwise I'll wait to see your clarification / a transcript of what Gibson said in this regard.
Kirkland:
how could the movie *not* focus on the abuse if the movie is about "the last hours of Christ"? During that time, he wasn't preaching to anyone about salvation or anything else. He was captured, made a prisoner (of sorts) and treated like one, and then marched up a hill to his own death. Of course it's going to be about the abuse.
This movie is about what he endured (or what we believe he might have endured based on Biblical references)... it's not about "whether he had to be beaten in order to save anyone". That is completely missing the point. This movie isn't out to prove "that Jesus logically had to be beaten X times" in order to save us, which is what you're implying.
This movie is basically a modern-day attempt to document "how it happened" in one man's eyes. Not whether or not anything *had* to happen or "what would have been logical"....
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I never gave it much thought or paid attention in church I guess, but did Jesus really get "tempted by the devil" while on the cross?
Not according to the Bible. The temptation on the cross is merely the device used by the author of the novel "Last Temptation" (whose name I can never spell) to examine the interrelation between the humanity and divine in Christ. Jesus' human body would have rebelled at the pain, in shock and agony, since he was fully human. How did his human soul, his divine spirit, respond to this, and what does this tell us about when Christ realized his divine nature ?_that's the question Last Temptation attempts to consider.
Did he know he had to "die for us?"
Undoubtedly. Jesus was not omniscient, not fully, at least, due to the limitations of his human consciousness ?_remember, he was just as human as he was divine ? but he knew what his Messianic destiny was. He knew that the Messiah was to be the Suffering Servant of second Isaiah.
Kirk
Originally posted by Moogs
Kirkland:
how could the movie *not* focus on the abuse if the movie is about "the last hours of Christ"?
By lingering less on the whipping/scourging and more on the crucifixion. By providing more flashbacks to lend theological undercurrents and potency to the actions of salvation depicted at Golgotha. Use the Passion as a framework for a consideration of Jesus' entire ministry ? emphasize the soteriological power of the coming event by presenting Jesus' march to the place of the skulls, instead of focusing on splattering blood and absurd lacerations suffered at the theologically meaningless whipping post.
This movie is about what he endured (or what we believe he might have endured based on Biblical references)... it's not about "whether he had to be beaten in order to save anyone". That is completely missing the point.
Any movie which doesn't use any event of Jesus' life to underline his soteriological mission is missing the entire point of why Jesus did what he did.
This movie isn't out to prove "that Jesus logically had to be beaten X times" in order to save us, which is what you're implying.
Being beaten was meaningless. Jesus could have not been flogged or whipped or spit upon so much as once, and he would have still saved the world at the cross.
This movie is basically a modern-day attempt to document "how it happened" in one man's eyes. Not whether or not anything *had* to happen or "what would have been logical".... [/B]
Then as a film about Jesus, it is worthless ? nothing more than carnal fascination with blood and gore, the Gospel According to Quentin Tarantino. They what is utterly meaningless without they why ? particularly since we can't take any of the Gospels as infallible statements of fact on the historicity of events. They are theological treatises, not historical works.
Kirk