Re: That's a crock, de

Post #146,284 by deSitter 3/15/04 3:43:59 PM Reply	Re: That's a crock, de Apparently there was not much to see. The evidence is: 1) The people speak Aramaic, which is old Hebrew. Yes, they spoke Aramaic in those times. Yes, it is historically correct. But the modern viewer immediately thinks "Israel". 2) The "bad" Jews have a charactistic stereotypical physiognomy. Now this is not necessarily bad, but it is in this context, because no doubt Jesus was just as Semitic. 3) Prominent and thoughtful Jews are frightened by it. That's enough for me. 4) "His blood be upon us." - or whatever that statement from Matthew is - this had to be removed from the original even to make it acceptable. Now what would this be doing in the movie if there were not a specific point being made? 5) Welcome back! I understand you guys had a lot of snow this year. What did you think of "The Last Temptation"? I compare this movie to that one. I have no desire to see Jesus flayed. Having nails driven through your wrists and feet is quite enough gore for me, thanks. I'm interested in the bifurcated nature of the Messiah and why this was the necessary solution to the problem of God in that context. The very fact that this issue arises at all means that the message of Christianity is lost - it should not matter who is a Jew or Roman or holy. The message is for everyone. -drl
Post #146,286 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 3:54:57 PM Reply	Re: That's a crock, de Honestly, see the movie first. I only saw one hook nose in the entire movie -- and it was Peter's. I'm really not sure where that one came from. The movie makes it VERY CLEAR in the beginning that it was a frame-up and didn't have the official sanction of the Sanhedrin. In fact you see members of the Sanhedrin PROTESTING the trial on the grounds that the testimony against Jesus is heresay and that it's at a dubious hour of the night and that they don't even have the full body present -- the protestors are shown the door. It's interesting that none of the Sanhedrin protesting the trial are people who say "but I really believe he is the messiah!" In other words, there are members of the Jewish priesthood who do NOT believe in Jesus as messiah and STILL protest his arrest. And yet, the movie is based on scripture, and there are JEWISH LEADERS, including CIAPHAS, who PLOT TO KILL HIM. Must we whitewash the scripture before we make a movie out of it? The other critique is that Pilate is too "sympathetic" towards Jesus. I didn't see that either. He doesn't want to be judging the case because he hates his job and he feels he's in a bind -- if he rules for Jesus, Ciaphas will start a revolt. If he rules for Ciaphas, he fears Jesus' people will. In either case, Caesar has already told him one more mistake and he's dead. The only time he reacts in horror is when he sees what HIS OWN MEN have done to him -- that is truly one of the most brutal scenes I've ever watched and it has little to do with the actual whipping -- it has more to do with the pleasure of the Centurions as they lay into him. They're laughing, and joking, and putting on a show. Jesus is nothing to them -- just part of their job... a job they enjoy. The point of all that violence is to give the audience an idea of what it means to bear the sins of the world. it's quite possible that the stripes Jesus received historically were not nearly as severe -- though that's a matter of debate -- but it's unimportant. Gibson was trying to show Jesus bearing the sins of the world and the full weight of what his sacrifice and forgiveness on the cross meant. He showed that by making the people involved in his death display some of the ugliest pieces of human nature I have seen on film. It is, in fact, deeply powerful, and it's not anti-Semitic. "Apparently there was not much to see" sounds very much like the dismissive comments people were making when the "Last Tempatation of Christ" was released. Only the people making those comments were the Right-wing Fundies. I wouldn't exactly call that good company... "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,288 by deSitter 3/15/04 4:02:16 PM 3/15/04 4:08:55 PM Reply	ignore The other critique is that Pilate is too "sympathetic" towards Jesus. I didn't see that either. He doesn't want to be judging the case because he hates his job and he feels he's in a bind -- if he rules for Jesus, Ciaphas will start a revolt. If he rules for Ciaphas, he fears Jesus' people will. In either case, Caesar has already told him one more mistake and he's dead. I thought the situation was - Pilate wanted him gone because the last thing he needed was a riled-up populace - but Jesus could not be arrested at Passover - so he was arrested on trumped-up charges that could be "plausibly denied" by both sides. -drl Edited by deSitter March 15, 2004, 04:08:55 PM EST Expand All History
Post #146,293 by deSitter 3/15/04 4:08:15 PM Reply	Re: That's a crock, de The other critique is that Pilate is too "sympathetic" towards Jesus. I didn't see that either. He doesn't want to be judging the case because he hates his job and he feels he's in a bind -- if he rules for Jesus, Ciaphas will start a revolt. If he rules for Ciaphas, he fears Jesus' people will. In either case, Caesar has already told him one more mistake and he's dead. I thought the situation was - Pilate wanted him gone because the last thing he needed was a riled-up populace - but Jesus could not be arrested at Passover - so he was arrested on trumped-up charges that could be "plausibly denied" by both sides. The point of all that violence is to give the audience an idea of what it means to bear the sins of the world. Somehow earlier generations did not need such a display - even as the torturing skills of the Romans were passed on during the HRE. "Last Temptation" was about the entire Jesus, not just his suffering. Also - it explored the inner torment of Jesus as well as the bodily suffering. And it puts forward the idea - the person who ultimately suffered the most for our sins was Judas, who was forced into betrayal as his inevitable role in the Passion. In a sentence, you can't take part of the experience and make it stand alone. -drl
Post #146,315 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 5:18:32 PM Reply	It wasn't intended to "In a sentence, you can't take part of the experience and make it stand alone." It wasn't intended to... but the target audience is already familiar with the other parts of the story. However, it does present something new to people who know the other parts of the story. The thing that struck me when I watched the movie is that I had NEVER really thought of this specific part of Jesus' death before. Throughout most of my Christian life the crucifixion was glossed over, whitewashed. Jesus on the cross in most art is a clean man who doesn't seem necessarily comfortable on the cross with the nails going through him, but at least looks serene. The thought of god-as-man suffering is not something most people want to think about, it's not really reflected in the art... At any rate. Some people see it as attempting to define Jesus by one thing -- I simply see it as the exploration of a facet of Jesus that was not traditionally explored. And it was powerfully well done. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,317 by Nightowl 3/15/04 5:24:15 PM Reply	That wasn't my experience And maybe that is what changes it all for me. I HAD thought about the crucifixion, in much detail before this movie came out. I even had a gruesome sermon recently preached to us (last year, I believe), of a surgeon's-eye-view of the crucifixion. Sort of a doctor's walk through what actually happens to the body... I almost fled the church, instead I left the room twice to get some air, since I was the piano player. So I don't see how seeing the violence I could barely stand to hear described would change anything about my faith, or my convictions. I do see though, that if you had never delved into it in any detail, that maybe it could, so I see your side of it also. Nightowl >8# "Don't be a cynic and disconsolate preacher. Don't bewail and moan. Omit the negative propositions. Challenge us with incessant affirmatives. Don't waste yourself in rejection, or bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Post #146,326 by deSitter 3/15/04 5:34:19 PM Reply	But Gibson has a thing with violence One of the hardest things to take in "Braveheart" was the bowel-ripping (drawing) scene - which was off-camera. Even something not shown is just utterly violent. Now is he just being truthful or is he obsessing on the violence? -drl
Post #146,344 by FuManChu 3/15/04 6:44:09 PM Reply	Perhaps, but existence is not always obsession Take Full Metal Jacket or Apocalypse Now as other examples where the violence is necessary to begin discussing some of the side-effects of such violence, particularly the mental state of the participants, witnesses, and perpetrators of that violence. Braveheart's disemboweling scene runs along these lines for me. Experiencing a visceral sympathy for Wallace puts me, the audience member, in a different mental state, as my gut tenses, heart races, etc.--when he cries out "Freedom!" it has an effect upon me which would not be present if I were not exposed to the physical trauma, if only vicariously. My two cents. I was one of the original authors of VB, and I wouldn't use VB for a text processing program. :-) Michael Geary, on comp.lang.python
Post #146,348 by deSitter 3/15/04 6:53:36 PM 3/15/04 6:55:09 PM Reply	Re: Perhaps, but existence is not always obsession If this is the case, why did the news media more or less cover up the fate of the WTC jumpers? Clearly people are NOT comfortable with violence. (At least 200 of 1344 victims in the north tower jumped on 9/11, far more than is generally thought.) Why is it OK to vicariously experience the suffering of a distant historical person, but the actual horror of a living person who might be your neighbor, is off limits? Actually in Braveheart, I suppose there is nothing gratuitous. -drl Edited by deSitter March 15, 2004, 06:55:09 PM EST Expand All History
Post #146,371 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 7:29:59 PM Reply	Violence in theatre is different Violence in the World Trade Center is a tragedy. When we watch a movie or a play (a play -- Shakespeare is one of the most violent playwrights ever!) violence is used to measure the hero or heroine in the face of adversity. A man learns that his father was murdered by a scheming brother, and tries to avenge his father's restless spirit. In the end, just about everyone dies. A man learns that he is fated to be king, and is convinced to attain that position by killing everyone in his way. he then learns that he is fated to die, and when the time comes, he rushes into it fearlessly. A man becomes king, despite a deformity that makes people inclined to distrust him, by killing just about everyone. It a full-scale entire war to undo the damage he did in the process. Two nations fight over a woman. A lot of people die on both sides. A great emperor goes power-mad and is murdered by people who used to be his friends. Violence, violence, violence. When Scarface came out, people called it "too violent." They had a problem with the language, too, so I understand. People didn't like the Godfather because it "glorified the mob." Lots of movies push the envelope and make peopel uncomfortable... that's not the point. Gibson isn't being targetted because of some supposed violence fetish. He's being targeted as "too violent" because the anti-semitism thing won't stick, and he pissed people off because he bankrolled a film he believed in, risking financial ruin and ridicule, and it turned out to be an amazing success. Nobody likes an idealist unless they lose. Gibson didn't lose, and now people want him to pay for it. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,373 by boxley 3/15/04 7:37:20 PM Reply	no the movie was something he wanted to do whether it made dollar one or not. Hollywood wouldnt touch it. I admire a man who forges ahead. John Wayne wanted to make the Alamo, it didnt have the same success. Now Hollywood see's the dollar bill on the wall. What they dont realize is that the christians who are flocking to see what may be the best realistic movie about a central tenet of their religion a documentary as if you were one of the crowd. Anything else out of the bible will be hit or miss. As for me I would love to see a detailed movie wih all the fun bits being shown, the story of Job, hafta rate it XXX I imagine. thanx, bill when I was young I envisioned myself as the embodiment of Trinity, Now I realize I have turned into the Bambino questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #146,379 by deSitter 3/15/04 7:56:55 PM 3/15/04 7:57:31 PM Reply	"Get Job!", the movie Tagline: "He's lost his job, his woman, and his car keys - and it isn't even 10 AM. <cue action flick music> "It's the worst day of his life - and it's just gotten started! It's going to get a LOT worse!" <action flick explosions and more music> ...Mel Gibson IS Job!" -drl Edited by deSitter March 15, 2004, 07:57:31 PM EST Expand All History
Post #146,385 by Ashton 3/15/04 8:17:13 PM Reply	Re: Violence in theatre is different. Addendum A man learns that his father, an ex-president, was targetted by a Bad man. He, now a President, selects/fabricates evidence so as to punish that Bad man (already long on his personal agenda and that of his cronies), thus enlists an entire nation and its young expendables - all while ignoring several Other Bad men. Many people die, the Bad man's country proves a morass of irreconcilable Differences, most persisting over centuries. Another country, a party to the plan: suffers hundreds dead and a thousand maimed. (Its people blame the pact of support for the invasion of Bad man #1, and now seek to end that support, as they ended that Government.) Stay tuned for the denouement. Shakespeare would have been proud! The fault lies not in the stars, dear Brutus, but in ourselves, for we are underlings.
Post #146,386 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 8:24:20 PM Reply	So then... Are you in favor of banning Shakespeare on the grounds that George Bush is an idiot? "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,387 by Ashton 3/15/04 8:28:11 PM Reply	It's always less risky to shoot dead messengers___:-\ufffd
Post #146,389 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 8:38:19 PM Reply	LOL. Well writ! "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,350 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 6:58:45 PM Reply	So what? I have a think with punk rock music. If I were to write a rock opera about the life of Christ, I'd probably set it to punk rock music. It's just the medium I'm comfortable with. The same people who are accusing Gibson of being obsessed with violence are the ones who profess righteous indignation whenever some right-wing group decrys the presence of sex in film -- as the should. But why the hypocrisy? And after seeing the disembowling scene in Braveheart I personally wondered what all the fuss was about. I mean, it has nothing on the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,360 by pwhysall 3/15/04 7:10:02 PM Reply	Ah, now that's a question, then. What do you call "punk rock"? My idea of punk is Agnostic Front, The Exploited, or Rollins Band. Please don't say "Offspring" or "Green Day". Please. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #146,364 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 7:13:43 PM Reply	Re: Ah, now that's a question, then. Bah. Subhumans (English, not Canadian, though Canadian were OK), the Damned, Sex Pistols, Clash, Die Krutzen, UK Subs, Black Flag, Youth Brigade, Minor Threat, on and so forth Ag Front is more accurate old school hardcore. Exploited fits, but verges on hardcore as well. Big Black is one of the greatest bands ever, but not quite punk. I just thought I'd throw that into the mix. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,367 by pwhysall 3/15/04 7:14:43 PM Reply	You answer wisely, young Jedi :) Can't fall off with that lot... Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #146,380 by FuManChu 3/15/04 7:59:30 PM Reply	Forgetting DK?
Post #146,382 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 8:08:20 PM Reply	No, not forgetting. I like DK, but not as much as the bands on that list. I mean, I didn't know I was supposed to list all the punk bands I liked. :D "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,383 by deSitter 3/15/04 8:10:45 PM Reply	They are derivative -drl
Post #146,423 by pwhysall 3/16/04 1:27:28 AM Reply	On hardcore... ...my idea of "hardcore" is Napalm Death, Doom, Electro Hippies et al. The aggies sound like Kylie Minogue next to that lot ;) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #146,375 by deSitter 3/15/04 7:45:17 PM 3/15/04 7:46:16 PM Reply	Black Flag, The Ramones, Richard Hell, Souxie -drl Edited by deSitter March 15, 2004, 07:46:16 PM EST Expand All History
Post #146,377 by altmann 3/15/04 7:52:27 PM Reply	Reminds me of Scratch Acid and their cover of Damned For All Time from Jesus Christ Superstar. dada-dada-dada-dada-dat-dah. -- Chris Altmann
Post #146,347 by pwhysall 3/15/04 6:50:49 PM Reply	Re: That's a crock, de Honestly, see the movie first. I only saw one hook nose in the entire movie -- and it was Peter's. I'm really not sure where that one came from. My nose is magnificent, and I'll thank you to leave me out of it :) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #146,316 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 5:19:46 PM Reply	Re: That's a crock, de "5) Welcome back! I understand you guys had a lot of snow this year." Well, we actually had more snow last year. But we had more than enough this year. I'm getting tired of it. And we're getting another 7" tomorrow night, so I'm told... sob "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,320 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 5:27:34 PM Reply	Sorry, I keep responding piecemeal. I'm sort of checking the forum while I do other stuff... apologies. "3) Prominent and thoughtful Jews are frightened by it. That's enough for me." Why should it be? Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion -- they have much in common, but there is one "minor detail" that they simply will not see eye to eye on... that detail of course being Jesus, who He was in relation to God. Of course they are not going to like it. It says something they don't agree with ! There were plenty of "prominent and thoughtful" Christians who were bothered by the Last Temptation of Christ (it's true! Not just the rabid fundies!). Would that be any reason for the movie not to be made? No! The fact that someone doesn't agree with your take on an event should mean little to a filmmaker. The fact that someone who isn't your religion takes issue with the way you interpret the events of your own religion should mean even less, especially when their charges of racism are utterly unfounded and based in a basic nervousness about the entire dialog of Christ's death rather than what actually happens in the movie. A Jew is going to look at the movie and think "no, that's not what happened." A Christian will be more likely to look at the movie and think "yeah, I could see that as being close to what happened." A Jew will be (understandibly) nervous about any movie that portrays that specific part of the death of Christ because that specific part is often used by racists to justify racism. That doesn't mean it's there. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,328 by deSitter 3/15/04 5:37:11 PM Reply	It's very simple The fact that so many Jews have been so recently dehumanized demands a degree of sensitivity. What has been the film's reception in Israel? -drl
Post #146,351 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 7:02:12 PM Reply	Sure... a degree of sensitivity, yes but not to the point where we soft-shoe on a critical issue of Christian doctrine. The main objection I've seen is that Gibson's movie portrays the Jews who plot to kill Jesus in a negative light. Well, duh. THEY WERE PLOTTING TO KILL JESUS. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #146,362 by boxley 3/15/04 7:11:58 PM Reply	No they were plotting to kill an upstart rabbi if he stayed were he was buried we wouldnt be having this conversation :-) think, without the betrayal. trial and execution, the christians wouldnt be to get to an execution G_d would have had to plan to turn the hearts of certain religious leaders bitter. As Ross pointed out Judas's actions so poisoned himself that he suicided out. Judas wasnt broke he didnt need the money. So why would he betray unless compelled to do so. It all points to a large heavenly intercession to get the job done In that Time, In that Place. Kinda shoots the free will thing all to heck dont it? A few random thoughts thanx, bill when I was young I envisioned myself as the embodiment of Trinity, Now I realize I have turned into the Bambino questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #146,366 by cwbrenn 3/15/04 7:14:27 PM Reply	Re: No they were plotting to kill an upstart rabbi Well, that's a far more complicated discussion best reserved for another thread. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young

Welcome to IWETHEY!