Schrader 'Disturbed' by Gibson's Crucifixion Film (Last Temptation Screenwriter Pointing Fingers)

Reuters ^ | Tue, Mar 23, 2004 | Laith Abou-Ragheb

[presidio9]

LONDON (Reuters) - The Hollywood screenwriter behind the last controversial film about Christ says Mel Gibson (news)'s new film on the crucifixion is violent and disturbing.

"It's a well-made movie but it's very violent and infused with a great sense of self-flagellation,", screenwriter for "The Last Temptation of Christ," told Reuters.

Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," to be released with an adults-only certificate in Britain Friday, has been heavily criticized for its bloody portrayal of Christ's final hours.

A 56-year-old woman died of a heart attack in Wichita, Kan., last month while watching the film's climactic crucifixion scene.

Some Jewish groups even branded the film anti-Semitic, arguing that it revives old accusations that Jews bear collective responsibility for killing the Son of God.

Schrader's "Last Temptation," released in 1988 and directed by Martin Scorsese, was attacked by Christian groups for a brief scene in which Jesus is seen having sex with Mary Magdalene.

But the screenwriter, who penned such cinematic classics as "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull," distanced his film from Gibson's.

"They are two totally different movies," he said after giving a talk in London about his acclaimed career.

"My film was essentially a humanist story about the struggle to find God in which Christ is used as a metaphor," said Schrader, who was raised in a strict Calvinist household and studied theology.

"But screenings of Gibson's film have been more like evangelical meetings. The audience comes into the film with such a powerful belief system that they think they have a religious experience. It's quite an interesting and disturbing phenomenon," he said.

Gibson's film has been a huge success in the United States. According to studio estimates, it has earned more than $250 million since its Feb. 25 U.S. opening.

Shrader said the film would never have been made without the backing of a big star like Gibson.

"This is not the sort of film Hollywood likes," he said. "But Gibson was uniquely positioned to make it and he successfully tapped into a ready-made audience made up of conservative religious groups."

Gibson, who reportedly spent $25 million of his own money on the film, is a follower of a small traditionalist Catholic church that denies the legitimacy of Vatican decrees made since the mid-1960s.

[freebilly]

The audience comes into the film with such a powerful belief system that they think they have a religious experience. It's quite an interesting and disturbing phenomenon," he said.

God can't use a movie to assist people in having a religious experience? Quite an interesting and disturbing idea he has of God's power....

[cvq3842]

"Reviewers" who see some kind of reveling in sadism in The Passion are tremendously disturbing to me. Did "Roots" or "Schindler's List" get accused of glorifying violence? Or of TELLING THE TRUTH about horrific events?

Why do people hate Christians so? Why do so many not see that hatred, or somehow excuse it?

Again, the great cultural divide is evident.

Good thing Gibson didn't make a film about the Boy Scouts!

[per loin]

In the 15 years since it came out, "The Last Temptation of Christ" has earned a massive Total Gross: $8,373,585.

[VRWC_minion]

Mel Gibson (news)'s new film on the crucifixion is violent and disturbing. and consistant with the bible.

[VRWC_minion]

The audience comes into the film with such a powerful belief system that they think they have a religious experience.

Sounds jealous doesn't he ?

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.


MEL's -PASSION- sparked by -WE WERE SOLDIERS-


http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39081


.

[Taliesan]

The audience comes into the film with such a powerful belief system that they think they have a religious experience. It's quite an interesting and disturbing phenomenon,"

Thus implying that the ideal condition for approaching the film is with no belief system.

The unexamined assumption is not worth having.

[Taliesan]

infused with a great sense of self-flagellation

I think he entered the theatre with a belief system. Very interesting, and disturbing.

[cvq3842]

And since when did Hollywood care about violence in films?

Remember "artistic expression" and "free speech"? Where's Tim Robbins complaining about "a chill wind blows"?

Really, I saw the film this weekend, and this over-the-top savaging of it by some really makes me sick. If you don't like it, don't see it. I respect that people have different religious traditions, and that people will experience this film differently based on their beliefs. But to go out of one's way to trash this as somehow akin to Mapplethorpe's "art" (sneer quotes intended), as some have done, in an effort to discredit the whole venture is appaling. Again, the double standard is glaringly obvious.

[bereanway]

To call the Last Temptation a humanist story would be about the best anyone could say of it. Nothing more than the vain ramblings of an unregenerate mind.

Obviously, the so called Calvinist (wonder if either the author or Schrader understands the term) upbringing didn't much take.

[Enduring Freedom]

CBS warned viewers that Spielberg's rant against Germany would incite violence against Germans.

NOT!

[contessa machiaveli]

no one can deny the crucifiction was horribly violent, i think the point scrader was making is that stylistically it was on a par with slasher movies. the blood and gore are over the top, each filmaker has a vision of how to portray the characters and times. does one show heads being lopped off? blood spurting? mutilations? i won't see films like that and i never allowed my daughter to see violence.

is the crucifiction historically accurate? i read somewhere that when people were crucified they were nude to add to the humiliation and that original religious art portrayed that and only in later years (due to the clergy) was it become more modest. so in a sense gibson did exercise some restraint.

[Robin Hood]

"This is not the sort of film Hollywood likes," he said. "But Gibson was uniquely positioned to make it and he successfully tapped into a ready-made audience made up of conservative religious groups."

This statement is very telling. Hollyweird makes movies for itself and Mel 'just happened' to make a movie for a large portion of the public. Go figure.

[theFIRMbss]

>God can't use a movie to assist people in having a religious experience? Quite an interesting and disturbing idea he has of God's power....

If a prostitute
got, say, the Gospel of Mark
tattooed on her chest,

would we as Christians
"deepen our faith" by having
sex with the hooker?!

[cvq3842]

LOL!

I wonder if people will start saying they don't care about Hitler's human rights violations, since that's not the reason why we went to war. Just like they're saying about Iraq.

[presidio9]

Does this include the saturation broadcasting by the Queer Eye Channel? I was flipping through channels last night and I noticed that they were showing Last Temptation for the 4th time since "The Passion" was released. And that's just the times that I have actually witnessed. I'm sure there's been more.

[Puddleglum]

Mel showed to make the modern world see what a real scourging and crucifixion would have been like. The world or at least this li'l screenwriter doesn't like to see what it was and is capable of. That willful blindness is an interesting psychological phenomena to me. Likewise, I'm sure the fact that the film's violence does not feed into nihilism is a culture shock to many.

[DoctorMichael]

"....consistant with the bible...."

Agreed.

BRAVO showed LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST last night. One of the things I noticed this time around (since the current controversy revolves around the perceived 'antisemitism' of Mel's movie) was the 'sentencing' sequence: In LToC the Romans arrest Christ and he's brought before Pilate (David Bowie).....they philosophically argue......Pilate orders his execution.....then right into the scourging. No Sanhedrin, no Herod, no nothing.

[TopQuark]

Why do people hate Christians so? Why do so many not see that hatred, or somehow excuse it?

I think it was Nietzsche who said that we always end up hating those whom we betrayed. Everything beautiful in Europe was created because of and due to Christianity. Religion, however, urges you to rise about your animalistic self. That's hard. Throwing that burden off your shoulders brings relief. And Enlightenment has shown an additional "justification" for replacing goodness with knowledge. Chirstianity (and Judaism, too, but it's never been a significant social force) is in decline for over two centuries. Now that secularists are in a majority, Christians have become an annoyance: they remind the socialist secularists that there is a distinction between good and evil.

Just as one hates a witness of one's indisretion, Europe --- and increasingly America as well --- hates Christians as witnesses of its indiscretion. And what greater indiscretion can you find than abandoning G-d altogether?

G-d help us to keep this country close to its Christian roots and Judeo-Christian values. Keep faith, my friend, for your own sake and for the rest of us. You may be surprised to hear this from this Jew, but I do think that if anything saves this country and the entire Western world from destruction it is Christianity in America. Unfortunately, here too so many Christians --- and even more of my fellow co-religionists --- have abandoned core values for Leftism of one form or another.

Keep faith and know that you are not alone. But do not expect the leftists to wake up any time soon.