Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by DWPC (A) on April 17, 2006 at 16:27:51

In Reply to: Re: Why; content or approach? NT posted by Wendell Narrod on April 17, 2006 at 15:32:39:

The brutality was way over top. Too graphic and went on too long. Thats how I viewed it originally. As I reconsidered, though, it became clearer to me that Gibson's movie wasn't about Jesus' death. Everyone dies. Everyone knows "Jesus died for our sins". So what's new? What he conveyed was the extreme brutality and sadism Jesus endured in that death, and he couldn't really get that across without heavy graphic representation.

I think Gibson's intent was to make it difficult for the Christian viewer to skip over the brutal nature of Jesus' suffering and jump to the "Happy Ending" of the Resurrection. Modern Christianity tends to promote a warm'n fuzzy relation with Christ and discounts the reality of the suffering part of His sacrifice. We tend to not to want to know much about that distastefull part. Gibson showed it in all its real gruesomeness. Roman records of their treatment of criminals show he didn't exaggerate.

I also think Gibson demonstrated more solid cinematic skill in conveying his theme than many leading directors who get a lot more credit for skill than they deserve. I thought the his use of fast flashback sequences and his framing of Mary's perceptions, though not subtle, were brilliant. He got volumes from his actors with minimal dialog. Most directors are afraid of the material and too subtle or indirect. Thats why most religious-themed movies suck.