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.

[unspun]

My thoughts are active, but language fails me here?. Were I to try to express the inexpressible, however, it might (very crudely) go like this: Here we have a case of a man, Jesus of Nazareth who, with his whole heart and soul and mind and strength, deliberately sacrificed himself to his Father, Who is God; and his Father sacrificed God in and for Jesus the Christ ? and all this together, for one purpose: the salvation of mankind. (Talk about the intersection of the human and the divine, of Time and Timelessness, of immanence and transcendence, of matter and Spirit?.)

Thank you for your response and your delving insight. I think the movie was anointed, since the movie makers maintained the sincere objective to depict the suffering of Christ, to pay for our sins. "There is... wonder working power in the blood of the Lamb." And isn't that an understatement?

And Mel Gibson has retold this absolutely unique and glorious story with genius and profound spiritual sensitivity and insight. His The Passion of the Christ is a sublime treasure of the human spirit that beckons to each and every one of us -- heart, mind, and spirit. Praise God that so many have been drawn to the film. May it find widespread resonance in human hearts and souls, and help us to ?turn our life around,? to the glory of Christ Jesus

Amen! Indeed.

There were things that could have been done better, but I don't know of a comparable movie that has done so well. (The miniseries, Jesus of Nazareth is probably not too, too far behind, in some respects.)

There were ways that the film could have more accurately demonstrated the authority of The Son of Man, also I'm sure that His (and Our Father's) suffering of the "mere" fact of separation from each other could have been given more emphasis. I would have liked not to have been cheated of seeing the guard fall back when Jesus replied with his, "I AM." also the tearing of the Curtain, also those that had fallen asleep in death coming out of their tombs, also the sky actually blackening as if it were night (and it's not hard to forgive the focus on the carrying of the entire cross through the streets, for so long.) The beating and whipping was featured it seemed, more than the actual crucifixion, and while the former may have been pretty accurate, the later by comparison slipped by a bit in comparison

But the timing and positioning of this movie are about as wonderful as it's production (and it was truly a wonderful production) to show that the Lord is having His hand in it. Thank you very, very much, Mel, James, and company. Thank you Lord again and again throughout Eternity. His hand is quite effective.