Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/04/2004 9:43:16 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: NYer
When asked why he portrayed Satan—an androgynous, almost beautiful being played by Rosalinda Celentano...

Hmmm, Rosalinda Celentano...Celentano...I always enjoyed their cheese raviolis when I was growing up in NJ...

35 posted on 03/04/2004 11:07:02 AM PST by MrConfettiMan (Worry is only anxiety over something that may never happen. So why bother?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
Bump......to stop any urban legends cropping up .....which I'm sure many are already.
38 posted on 03/04/2004 11:14:32 AM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer; All
I have a question of my own about the movie. What is the point or significance of Mary and Mary Magdalene sopping up Christ's blood after the scourging?
40 posted on 03/04/2004 11:18:11 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
It look to me like Barabra BOXER and her killing babies operation she supports, and it also looks like John Kerry .
42 posted on 03/04/2004 11:25:32 AM PST by Orlando (The Passion of the Christ movie will pass $200 Million by next Sunday !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
What a perfect explanation. Mel Gibson is an amazing human being.
43 posted on 03/04/2004 11:36:24 AM PST by TheSpottedOwl (Until Kofi Annan rides the Jerusalem RTD....nothing will change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
The folks that I saw the movie with decided that the grotesque child was symbolic of Jesus beginning to grow an "old man" or body of sin as he took in sin on the cross. I think I like our explanation better than Gibson's . . .
45 posted on 03/04/2004 11:42:00 AM PST by stranger and pilgrim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
That's what evil is about, taking something that's good and twisting it a little bit."

Like gay marriage?

50 posted on 03/04/2004 12:28:38 PM PST by McGavin999 (Evil thrives when good men do nothing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
When asked why he portrayed Satan—an androgynous, almost beautiful being played by Rosalinda Celentano—the way he did, Gibson replied: "I believe the Devil is real, but I don't believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good—but not quite.

Satan is Lucifer before he turned against God and was cast out of Heaven. Lucifer was the most handsome angel in Heaven.

61 posted on 03/04/2004 3:41:18 PM PST by FrdmLvr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
I couldn't help but laugh when I saw that. I knew it wasn't supposed to be funny but it was so completely campy I couldn't help myself. It was right out of a B-level horror flick.
63 posted on 03/04/2004 6:49:53 PM PST by GulliverSwift (Keep the <a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/">gigolo</a> out of the White House!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
bump for future read (haven't seen the film yet)...
67 posted on 03/04/2004 7:00:13 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer; narses; Land of the Irish; Salvation; ultima ratio
From Barbara Nicolosi's blog:

THE REAL POTC CONTROVERSY: THAT CREEPY BABY?

Thursday, March 04, 2004

THE REAL POTC CONTROVERSY: THAT CREEPY BABY?

Christianity Today goes right to the source to get to the bottom of the creepy baby moment in POTC.

"Again," said Gibson, "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."

At the roughcut screening I attended back in June, THIS was the scene that threw the Evangelical minister also in attendance into a hissy fit. (I went home that night and wrote the conversation down, but some of what follows is paraphrasing.) The minister kept pressing Mel to delete from the film, "Anything in the movie that isn't in the Bible."

Mel said, "Like what? What in my movie isn't in the Bible?"

Mel's confusion here comes from the fact that he, like any devout artist, doesn't see artistic license which is consonant with the spirit of the Scriptures to be "not in the Bible." I think he would say, "What I made is in the Bible - between the lines."

Anyway, the pastor guy said, "It isn't in the Bible that Satan talked to Jesus in the Garden."

Mel responded, "Don't you think Satan was there?"

Minister retorted, to the effect of, "It doesn't matter what I THINK. It matters what is written in the Word of God."

At this point, I burst in to the exchange. "Where in the Bible do God and Adam touch index fingers?" The pastor didn't say anything. I think Mel laughed. I stomped all over my point as usual, "The fact is, that image is one of the most enduring and powerful sacred images in human history." I turned to Mel. "Don't change your movie to please the sensibilities of any particular sect in Christendom. Change the movie if you think you are being somehow untrue to the Scriptures."

The minister was not happy with me. He waited a few cold seconds of silence and then talked past me to Mel. "And that scene with the ugly baby. What was that?"

Mel said, "I dunno. I just thought it was really creepy. Didn't you think it was creepy?"

Minister guy: "But what is it supposed to mean?"

Me: "Satan brought a friend. He wanted to share it with a friend."

Mel laughed. "Yeah, he brought a friend!"

Minister guy persisted with exasperation, "But WHERE did you get that from?"

In other words, "You DIDN'T get it in the Bible, because I KNOW the Bible."

Mel, at this point was getting just as exasperated, "I dunno. I guess I just pulled it out of my a##."

FABULOUS! It still makes me laugh! The minister was appropriately horrified. I just thought it was perfectly appropriate.

Is there a better synthesis of the experience of the devout artist who stands back and looks at the work of thier hands, very aware that what they have wrought has come from they don't know where. The Pope speaks about artists as being conduits of Divine revelation. I have experienced every so often getting into a zone with my writing - especially fiction writing - in which the words all of a sudden pour out of me, and I only know "afterwords" that I didn't start writing with anywhere close to the ideas/formulations that suddenly appeared on the page.

72 posted on 03/05/2004 1:28:17 AM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
Was the devil carrying Ebert?
75 posted on 03/05/2004 5:40:53 AM PST by TomHarkinIsNotFromIowa (Foe Hammer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson