 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: The Passion posted by Beethoven on July 22, 2003 at 14:07:31:
If this movie is done as honestly as possible, sticking to the scriptures as closely as possible, then I think that it WILL be blasted by those who see Christianity as oppressive.Simply because you cannot honestly look at this story without truly humbling yourself, and humility is not something that our pop culture embraces readily. I hope and pray that Gibson has done his best to make this as non-Hollywood as possible. If so, I will be in the audience...
Follow Ups:
But look at what they *do* embrace:Martin Scorsese's 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ was based on Nikos Kazantzakis' 1955 novel in which Jesus appears as a tormented, fearful young man confused by sex and uncertain of his path in life. The film was condemned by virtually every Christian denomination, both here and abroad, was protested, picketed, subject to boycotts and bomb threats, and excluded from the titles carried by the huge Blockbuster Video chain.
I read the book (really very good) but missed the movie. Knowing Scorsese, it was probably trash. But liberals loved it because it dissed the Christians. Likewise must they hate The Passion. Nor do I think it has anything to do with "anti-Semitism"; that's just a gloss.
clark
Your last graf -- "[b]ut liberals loved [Scorsese's film] because it dissed the Christians" -- seems to imply that K's novel doesn't diss Christians, or that there's some substantial thematic difference between Scorsese's film (which you’ve suggested “is probably trash”) and K's novel, which you’ve allowed is “really, very good.”I'll confess that I’m troubled that someone who’d pen the following line – viz., “The writer has not seen the film, he's only read reports in the liberal press” – would excoriate a movie that he himself hasn’t seen. Is it possible that you’d refuse to see Scorsese’s Temptation simply because you experience a visceral dislike of the themes that occur and recur in his work? Surely, then, there’s no reason to await with fear and loathing the arrival of The Passion , which has been directed by a man -- Mr. Gibson -- who endorses an experience of Catholicism that makes Opus Dei-types such as Antonin Scalia appear downright progressive. It’s not possible that Mr. Audiophilander has rejected The Passion out-of-hand for many of the same reasons that you rejected Scorsese’s Temptation , is it?
FWIW, I thought Scorsese’s film – which I have seen, on several occasions, even -- surprisingly faithful to K's novel, especially given the scope (500+ pages, in my edition) of the latter. In the final analysis, I thought Scorsese's film no more disrespectful to Christians or Christianity than K's novel. YMMV – but you’ll never know until you see the movie, will you?
I have seen Scorsese's film, unlike Clark, but my impression is that he's displaying his "unsubtle" cinema snobbery a bit here because I was left with the impression that he views most if not all of Scorsese's films as trash.As I see it, Clark's criticism of my not having taken in a screening of The Passion before commenting is a bit ridiculous because the film isn't even available for wide release; I sincerely doubt that he's seen this film himself. Furthermore, for Mr. Johnsen to make such a specious argument when the National Director of the ADL can't even get an invitation suggests disengenuousness on his part. OTOH, one might fairly wonder why Clark hasn't taken the opportunity to see Scorsese's film when there are AMPLE opportunities to do so! Has his Blockbuster card expired?
My contention about the selective screening of Mr. Gibson's film is that it leaves the impression that there is something about his movie that may be seriously derogatory to specific ethnic groups. I don't intend to dismiss Mel's film out of hand any more than I would dismiss a historical masterpiece such as D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, but in spite of the latter film's technical achievement we know where the success of that motion picture led us.
IMHO, it is only fair that ethnic groups which might be negatively perceived have the opportunity to see this film before it is widely released. I simply feel that their voices should be heard in the event that there is any kind of backlash from the film resulting in anti-semitic hate crimes. Some folks who call themselves "Christian" take such films too seriously, latching on to controversial portrayals as justification for their personal loathing of folks perceived as racially different.
I don't believe in censorship, but rather openness, candor and dialogue.
BTW, this "kettle" thanks you Mr. Chalmers, for clearing a bit of the blackened tarnish off of Clark's pot.
Cheers,
AuPh
I don't know if it's necessary to show a film to ANYONE before it's released, just to keep from ruffling feathers. That even goes for showing it to the so-called right to get their support.If we truly have freedom of speech, why not just put the film out there and let people decide whether or not it is offensive or not? Who cares if the Christians or Jewish community get mad, if we truly believe that freedom of speech exists?
If I remember correctly, there was a backlash against the Christian community for the protests about "Temptation," saying that moviemakers had a right to say whatever they wanted, and it didn't matter what the Christians thought. Now it looks like the shoe might be on the other foot, no?
Obviously the screening was held to make sure that Christian filmgoers would shell out their cash to see it. By the same token Mel's production company was equally concerned that non-Christians, especially those of the Jewish faith, who might see this film as anti-semitic and raise a protest prior to it's official release, be prevented from previewing the film; thus, the "selective" screening.AuPh
and I have a copy of the book, but I haven't read it yet.I think the protests on the film were somewhat overblown, but I understand the reaction to it. Personally, I think it did a pretty good job of showing what Christ gave up for humanity's sake: a wife, family, home, career, a regular life. Yes, it did challenge a few doctrines, but that shouldn't be a problem for someone who is solid in their faith. I can see where many Christians would have a problem with people ignorant of Christianity seeing the film and drawing conclusions about Jesus from the film itself. Being a purely fictional take on Jesus, it takes liberties that an unknowing viewer may take to heart as literal or Biblical truth, and I think that is what the protests were about.
Most people I know (who are Christians) who've seen the film say it isn't as bad or as far-out as they thought it would be, considering all the noise the protestors made when it came out.
I will be curious to see how Gibson approaches this story in his film. I've always thought that it would be amazing (and painful) to see an accurate representation of the crucifixion story. If it is done right, it would be more revealing of the true character of Jesus, and not the glossy sterile hero of modern religion. I think THAT may be what scares liberals & atheists---if people see the true Jesus and his sacrifice, they might actually want to believe in Him. Wouldn't that be something?
More like "of modern Catholicism" I'd say.clark
I found it rather an inspired version of the traditional story. It's the "fearful" Christians that can't understand, or handle, the temptation part--which actually takes place in a matter of moments on the cross. The movie was not shown in my hometown and it took a long time for the VHS to arrive. Plan to get in on DVD.
That Christ could choose to walk away from the suffering in order to live a regular life. It makes it even more profound that Jesus DIDN'T walk away from His purpose. I think a lot of people want to deny the human side and the choices He had to make. I am thankful that Jesus had to make the same choices we do, and that He did what He was sent to do.That's why I hope Passion is an honest attempt, because that human side should show through even more.
It should make the Jewish establishment feel better that if Jesus were alive today, He'd be going against the Christian religious establishment today. They just didn't exist back then!
Begging your pardon, but only the Catholics maintain a "religious establishment". Do I detect some subtle anti-clericalism in your pronunciamentos?clark (His imprimatur)
Ever heard of telepreachers, to go no further?Regards
BF
I think the protestants have just as much religious baggage as the Catholics, only it comes in different forms. I know many Christians in many different denominations who think their way of doing things is the right way, and everybody else is wrong.You can be just as stuck in ritual thinking as the Catholic church, and still be a Baptist, Methodist or whatever.
I was saying that Jesus would be challenging our thoughts as legalistic Christians in general, no matter what we like to categorize ourselves as...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
