Violence is Gibson's message

New York Daily News ^ | 3/02/04 | Richard Cohen

[LisaMalia]

At this point I'm no longer convinced that the main grievance of Gibson's detractors are a concern or an offense cowards the violence in the movie.

I'm not either. I saw the film for the first time last night. As a rule, I don't watch violent movies. I've been known to "cover my eyes" during certain scenes them. However, if you are a believer, you are too caught up in the suffering that Jesus Christ went through for all of us, and the violence is secondary. I was compelled to watch every second, because it was something I needed to see.

These critics are not concerned about violence, and they know it. There have been countless movies with much more, and got great reviews. Their problem is with the content and message of this movie. And their bias is showing. Glaringly.

[KurzeHaare]

Just saw it.

It only moved be because I am indeed Christian.

The acting was fine, the scenery was and costumes were truly beautiful, and those who see anti-semitism clearly have a case of wishful thinkg, but...from a story-telling stand-point it was terrible!

---

!!!!Possible spoilers!!!

---

How about that plug for the shroud of Turin? ::gag:: Let's stay on track here.

I would have felt bad for anyone being treated that way. In fact, it ceased to be Jesus and just became a mutilated corpse. To boot, if the intent was to squirm at the violence, Mel did it in a very unsophisticated (stupid; insulting) way. Perfect example of what I'm talking about is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. 99% of the violence was totally implied...which made it absoloutly horrifying since it allowed your imagination to take off.

The stock reply I get: "But that's what really happend. You can't ignore the ugly side of what really happened."

Uh, Ok. There is the Bible story which pretty much recites facts, and then there's the other 90% to fill in (unless I missed the screen-play after the book of Revelations). It's a movie. It's art (in Mel's case, that's a pure technicality though). There is interpretation. However, there are objective METHODS to effective film-making and story telling. And this is where people lose it, and just keep repeating "but that' what happend, but that's what happened." Ok,...listen...in Texas Chainsaw, the girl really WAS hung on a meat-hook. Tobe Hooper, however, was able to let us disgust ourselves with the details which he DOESN'T show. That's what creativity is, and what Mel lacks.

If you think genital close-ups and money-shots are neccesary to highlight the tender physical union between a man and a wife...then you might be Mel Gibson.

If you think 10 gallons of fake blood is neccesary to tell the story of physical human suffering then...you ARE Mel Gibson.

Also, since it was the pharisees which wanted him punished so badly, it made no sense that the Roman soldiers would get so excited about beating his ass the way they did. The other crucified guys, after all, weren't subjected to such extracurricular torture. The motivation of the romans (who, I assume, would have the apathy you'd expect in any civil servant) was lost on me completely. This is another good example of something that could have been creatively and conviningly dealt with (without betraying the gospel). Mel, again, has to make sure even the stupidest viewer understands who the "bad" guys are.

Arbitrary Satan cameos throughout. Clichés at that.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

When Mr. Richard Cohen is on his death bed passing into the unknown there will be no liberal, left-wing Democrats to hold his hand and to mourn and celebrate his life! He will die alone shunned by his life's fellow travelers who have "moved" on in their "its all about me" manner! I pray for his lost soul, lost faith and his lost purpose of life! What a shallow man! I pity him and all those like him!

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Evidently, you are not an asute student of history. I mean real history, not the bible or four gospels. Rather then take my word, I suggest the next time the History Channel presents the miniseries on the Roman Army you watch it. It fact the whole Roman Empire was brutal with its enemies, whether they were killed as victims in the Coliseum, slaughtered in battle, fed to the lions, nailed to the cross, etc. Every person nailed to the cross was totally abused. In fact Roman law prohibited Roman citizens from this torture. The Roman army also invented the word decimination. You know what it means! Whenever Roman soldiers or allies would not fight to the death in battle, after the battle concluded, ten percent of the soldiers were selected at random and killed on the spot. Mr. Gibson's portrayal of the scourge of Christ was right on the mark. Jesus, willingly accepted the scourge as atonement for the sins of all mankind. You call yourself a Christian, but I think you do not understand that Jesus Christ was born to die for the salvation of the human soul! I am not cross with you, I just pity your lack of knowing real history and understanding the purposes of the Lord!

[KurzeHaare]

Take 2...

Remember, this is about the movie. Period.

Historical accuracy is n/a as Gibson takes a very jumbled and selective approach to it. I can list the inaccuracies if you like, but I'm sure you've already gleaned them from TLC. Historical inaccuracy is beside the point, however. The viewer shouldn't have to have prerequisite knowledge of *facts* to be moved via an artistic medium. Astute student of history or not, we can all understand manifestations of basic human motivation...the likes of which could have been crisply and unobtrusively illustrated. Mel did a poor job of that in many cases. I'll tell you a good case though...the role of Peter was very well done during his denial of Jesus. We were given a great reason to believe that Peter was capable of that...as he was caught off guard by an angry mob. Another bad case, however...Barabbas. Probably the biggest cliché in the movie. A frothing, filthy, rude, degenerate imbecile devoid of any vestige of humanity. That's what Mel believes it takes to tell the audience that he's "bad"...since we're idiots. He uses a sledge hammer to drive penny nails.

I've been more choked-up by local easter plays.

You'd think I'm insulting Jesus himself because I think Mel Gibson is a hack. Gimme a break.

[KurzeHaare]

"I just pity your lack of knowing real history and understanding the purposes of the Lord!"

Because I didn't like the *movie*...

[rbmillerjr]

"...Mel Gibson is a hack."

Perhaps you could do your own version of the Passion then. Just put half your assets up and do it. I'm sure the critics will love you.

[KurzeHaare]

The passion of Mel, this is.

[gobucks]

LOL ... thanks for the chuckle.

[TaxRelief]

...thanks for the chuckle.

        :-)

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Before you retort, please note that the "History Channel" is completely different from "The Learning Channel"! I was taught that before one can debate effectively, one must know the subject matter correctly and factually. Plus, you missed my point completely! Your opinion of the film is your right to hold as you see fit, and I would defend that right to the Nth degree. I just wanted to make clear the actual historical data on the Roman Army in its treatment of insurrection, cowardice in battle and revolution, perceived or factual. The treatment was brutal whatever the case and Mr. Gibson was right on "historically" in the inhuman way Jesus Christ was made to suffer prior to his death! End of story! If you cannot handle the truth or are repulsed by it, than why see the movie at all.

[KurzeHaare]

"I just wanted to make clear the actual historical data on the Roman Army in its treatment of insurrection, cowardice in battle and revolution, perceived or factual."

The actual historical data also implies that Pilate's personal role in the brutality of his province was almost maniacal; instead we have the introvert plagued his by concience who waxes about the meaning of truth.

But that's all very much beside the point. Historical accuracy is not a kosher road to go down. Admittedly so. Gibson knew that the Romans didn't speak Latin over there. He knew where Jesus was most likely nailed. This is his interprtation, and direction, of the Catholic Gospel story. And that's a completely legitimate story to tell...factual or not. But it's still a story. It still needs to *suspend our disbelief*, and that's where movie-making skill comes in. It's a lazy cop-out to tell the audience "just because". There was plenty of room for a skilled director to maneuver around the things I'm criticizing. People can do random violent things because they're simply psychopaths, but it helps to illustrate first that they, in fact, are (or whatever the case may be). Having some guy come out of the proverbial woodwork and gleefully brutalize someone with an unexplained zeal is simply lazy.

The common theme running through the fans of this, is that the frankness of the scourging scene is what's supposed to carry this movie. That the reproduction weapon was accurate...that he was tied-up correctly...etc. Nice touches, but that amounts to getting concerned with the details and losing track of the big picture.

Did you not notice the clichés and obvious Gibonsims?

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Without going into a lengthy answer, I do believe that Mel Gibson made his film for those who were already very familar with the story of the "Passion". I was, and my purpose in viewing the film was to strengthen my religious beliefs as my wife and family go through the very painful road of watching our youngest daughter pass away from breast cancer. I state that, not for pity, but for the support I gained, in knowing and viewing Jesus commit his fate and faith into the hands of our Lord. My daughter is at peace with herself and the world. I have been very fortunate and grateful that God has allowed us to spend much quality time with her throughout her illness. As such, we will not mourn our child, but will rejoice and celebrate both her wonderful life and her passing to the kingdom of our Lord. Yes, I do realize this is "just" a film, but it has helped me stabilize myself as the head of our family, when that stabilization was needed. As such, the brutalization of Christ by the Romans did not have a negative impact on me personally. I looked beyond it, yet was aware of it, to the higher purpose of the son putting his faith in the hands of the Father! I do however, understand your feelings. The film was a powerful, needed vehicle for me, but not for everyone.