Posted on 03/07/2005 6:03:45 PM PST by wagglebee
Mel Gibson says he cut scenes from his soon-to-be-re-released blockbuster film, "Passion of the Christ," to tone down the violence that earned it an R rating and kept some people from seeing it.
Gibson said he received "truckloads of cards and letters” when the original film was released.
"What came up again and again was that a lot of people were turned away because of the brutality in the film and were afraid to watch," he told Raymond Arroyo on EWTN’s "World Over Live" Friday night.
"So I thought if I softened it up a bit, I could have a wider audience. Essentially it’s the same film, but what I’ve done is to excise some of the aspects of it,” he explained. "The trick was to excise or imply some of the aspects of it that were pretty much in your face, without actually showing them."
Gibson said he edited the film by reducing its length by about five or six minutes.
Gibson said among the changes he made was the scene showing the crowning of Christ with the crown of thorns.
"You see it, but it’s farther away," he said, adding that viewers no longer see the nails being driven into Christ’s hands.
Despite the changes, Gibson said, "it still works." Gibson spoke about his recent visit to meet Sister Lucia, the Fatima visionary, as first revealed by NewsMax.com in January. [See: Mel Gibson's Secret Meeting With Fatima Visionary]
Calling her "incredibly childlike," Gibson described her convent as "pretty austere and spartan."
Noting that he believes that the full contents of the famed Third Secret have not been revealed, he said, "I still don’t think we got all it," but said he did not raise the subject with her.
"You can’t go in there and say, 'So, what’s the Third Secret?'" he explained. "But I still want to know."
Sister Lucia passed away last month, renewing interest in the subject of her visions of the Virgin Mary. London's Daily Mail reported this weekend that Gibson is considering a movie about Fatima.
Commenting on the recent Oscar awards ceremonies, where Hollywood turned its back on "The Passion," Gibson said that he made none of the usual Hollywood moves to promote his film.
"The whole notion of these awards ceremonies is ludicrous. ... It’s really a marketing exercise."
The awards ceremonies, he added, are "a celebration of mediocrity."
"My film is not right wing or political, but they made it so," he said.
He noted that he was delighted that his film won the People’s Choice award.
As for the Oscar, Gibson said: "I didn’t expect one. I knew exactly what was going to happen. I didn’t try to market the film. People are spending 15 or 20 million dollars to market their films. That’s a lot of money for a little gold statue." Gibson also revealed that he will be going back to acting in a couple of upcoming films.
Good answer. I'm more than grateful to have seen the film in its original, undedited version. That being said, I was unable to bring myself to see it a second time due to the graphic imagery. I also know at least one person who wouldn't go see the film because of its well-deserved "R" rating for violence.
It'll be a treat to see The Passion again in its new form, and I'll be pleased to purchase the DVD of the re-released version whenever it becomes available. Thank you, Mr. Gibson, for making your film available to those of us who are hyper-sensitive to graphic imagery.
I have no doubts that Mel could bring Fatima into focus for a wide audience in a way none of us could anticipate. He is a master cinematographer. For instance, he could do a black-and-white reflection on the events of 1917, the cova and the muddy people, then the Miracle could depict the sun throwing off colors. That would be astounding. As for a remake of the excellent earlier version, he would have many options. He could obtain rights to incorporate some scenes from that film, perhaps remaking them, so as to show the continuity; but also to show that by today's point of view, we know things by the fact of history since that time that would never have made it into a film in those days.
Having met Sr. Lucy, he would be able to bring that knowledge into all her previous years, so he could do an anthology of all the events through the years when she was interviewed by people who contradicted themselves and others. He could show how the Vatican control over the release of the 3rd Secret has been the beginning of so much controversy. He could even touch on the fact that Vatican II, in fulfillment of Our Lady's warnings, specifically neglected to address the biggest threat to the Church in the world at that time: Soviet (and its offspring, Chinese) atheistic Communism.
The problem would be security. It would be extremely expensive for him to protect the lives of his crew while filming. There are powers in the world today that fear the exposure of this information to the world in no small way, and would fight a war over stopping it. Especially formidable would be the advent of a movie from someone with Mel's reputation.
Therefore, unless he films in secret somehow, I doubt he could make it happen safely. But I could be wrong...
It is toned down.
"Ya all saying that those 55 million Mao bumped off over there in China or that Slaughter in Rhwanda or the 15 million Stalin starved to death was because of some sins you or I committed and we were left alone ????"
Yes. Most of those ruthlessly slaughtered in those countries were Christian.
Yes......for a time "we" have been spared. But our time is up - as "we" have not changed, not repented, not prayed as Mary requested. "Our" job was to work spititually to save others - we dropped the ball.
So, we are next.
Mel could do any or all of those things. I totally agree that security would be the biggest issue - though I agreee that he might and could film certain things in secret.
There are many things which are filmed quietly - documentery interviews.......film student projects.....are usually made so they do not attract attention.
What few realize is that technology has made possible the filming of people and conversations in a very discreet manner. Camcorders are very small now......and cell phones can record images as well. One can easily edit things like this together.
Who is to say that he has not filmed certain things for such a venture? He has the $$$ and resources to do this.
The thing which most have forgotten is that in the early 90s, Mel Gibson had a very private audience with the Pope. The exact subject matter was never really disclosed. But i do recall reading in the press that he aid something to the extent that the Holy Father had wanted him to do something with his talent and abilities/resources.
Malachi Martin disclosed that he had been given a special permission from the pope (I think he meant Paul VI) to be released from his vow of poverty so he could live on his own, but that since he had read the 3rd Secret, he could no longer in good conscience say the novus ordo mess. He was sworn to not divulge the contents of the Secret. He also said there are then 700 priests like him...
You bring up some interesting points. Mel has the bucks now to accomplish a lot of things. We know he has a great desire to do so. He also is in a position to have access to information that most of us can't get, so he would have to be very discreet in what the film portrays. He could, for example proceed as if certain rumors are true, but run the risk that those rumors could be false or misleading.
The "trail of breadcrumbs" you say is a curious concept. Since there are so many loose ends regarding Fatima, Mel could really develop that aspect by leaving numerous loose ends in the film, a sort of artistic open-endedness to imitate the topic being depicted.
As for the contents of the 3rd Secret, for example, he could touch on all the false editions that have been published, and all the reactions to them, including how their respective followings have died off after the contradictions have worn out the claim.
It would almost be too easy to make the Vatican look silly in what Ratzinger et. al. have said, given the facts. There is certianly enough material just in this entrigue to make a movie, so he would have to be judicious if he wanted to avoid letting that aspect take over the whole film. But if he did it right, and we know he's capable, it would put the onus on the pope to make the consecration at last, because the deficiencies of previous consecrations would be plain for all to see. Imagine how furious people like Fr. Fox would be to see his pet theories being exposed for their ridiculousness! He would probably try to sue Gibson for defamation or whatever. So Mel would have to contend with that kind of issue as well. The Fatima story is current events, whereas the Passion was practically speaking, in large an ancient issue.
I know a man who is Protestant and he rents a house from a Catholic relative. The relative has a shrine to Our Lady of Grace in the side yard of the rental house, and the Prot can't avoid seeing it when he comes and goes, which makes him miserable. The really wierd part of this is, that he has a son named "Elijia" and he has very strong convictions about the prophesy that Elias will return before the Second Coming. I recently read a transcript from a speech by Gerry Matatics that proposes that Our Lady is the fulfillment of the Elias prophesy, and that at Fatima she gave the most clear fulfillment of that prophesy. I am wondering what my Prot friend will have to say about that.
Ah! We are overlooking the use of what Malachi Martin called "Faction" - facts cloaked in fictional form.
I could easliy perceive film in which we see teh known facts of wwhat happened in 1917, what is factually known of Lucia's life, suibsequent locutions, and the revealed information.
The balance of the film could be a "what if......." scenario.
Or - in juxtaposition with the knwon facts, he could show what has happened as a result of Fatima, and the various things like Fr. Fox and other sundry things.
Speaking of bad sctors - I would like to nominate Fr, Robert Fox. Having seen him on EWTN I can in no way believe that thisman is actually head of a worldwide organization/apostolate. He comes across as a bumbling fool - almost senile! And it almost seems as if he doesn't have his lines memorized properly.
Oh .......excuse me......it almost seems like he .....*ahem*......at times does not have his facts straight.
Go to his website, fatimafamily.org, to get updates on his recovery from an auto accident in December. If he was feeble before that, those things usually take their toll on a person's coherency. I have not seen him for years, mostly because I try to avoid him. I get a cold, creepy feeling when I see his face.
That reminds me of a description that Fr. Martin gave on the Art Bell show. They were talking about paranormal experiences, and he liked to try to inject something of spirituality into those conversations. He said that he knows people who tell him about having a tangible and negative feeling surrounding someone they pass in public. He said you could be walking down the street in New York, for example: lots of pedestrians, and when you pass by this one man or woman, you could get a feeling about them, and if you look into their eyes as you pass, your perception is confirmed by an almost electrical sensation up your spine and into your scalp, that tells you, you have simply got to get away from them. He said that people who are servants of satan are known to communicate that feeling to people who are gifted by God to perceive it. It is a low-level cognition that, in its higher form, is known as "discernment of spirits." Remember, he was an exorcist.
In the full sense of the word, during an exorcism, the devil uses deception to fool the exorcist, and to avoid making a mistake, which could cost him his life, the exorcist must have very exact knowledge of what discernment is and what it is not, so as to be able to tell the difference between the devil and a good angel. St. Paul was not kidding when he warned of an "angel of light" bringing a different gospel. And such alliances are not impossible for priests.
I'm looking forward to seeing his next movie. Mel is a good actor and a talented director. I enjoy watching his movies.
I'm having a hard time getting a copy of "Stealing From Angels". I bought the e-book version off amazon, but Acrobat-reader won't open the file.
I'd be lying if I didn't say that I'm concerned about the tack of this story. When Amazon recommends "DaVinci Code" next to this book, I see a giant red flag...
In other words, until I read it, I'm reserving enthusiasm.
As much as I love Gibson's dedication in "The Passion", he has a rather sedevacantist approach to Catholicism which is grounded in disobedience - hence, the fascination with the so-called "unrevealed" portion of the Third Secret, despite the fact the Sr. Lucia emphatically stated that the entire message has been revealed.
Now, Sr. Lucia may simply have been "obedient" to the Vatican, and PERHAPS there is more too it. But the Church reserves the right to withhold whatever it wished since this is "private revelation" and, by definition, not material to our Salvation. That said, lest we forget that "God prefers obedience to sacrifices", even if we think our bishops suck and are not looking out for the best interests of the church, we need to remain obedient.
So I guess we'll see if this is going to be a project that respects the legacy of Fatima or turns it into some tawdry pulp fiction...
Now, Sr. Lucia may simply have been "obedient" to the Vatican, and PERHAPS there is more too it. But the Church reserves the right to withhold whatever it wished since this is "private revelation" and, by definition, not material to our Salvation. That said, lest we forget that "God prefers obedience to sacrifices", even if we think our bishops suck and are not looking out for the best interests of the church, we need to remain obedient.
Well-stated. I agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.