"The Passion" is Propaganda, not Vision.

[BurtWorm]

I don't even need to see it to know! Just consider how Gibson got his film made and whose approbation he sought. Critics? Who cares about critics! No artist should care what critics think. But should artists--should visionaries, anyway--bow and scrape before the priestly class? Was Gibson hoping to express something personal about his religion? Or was he seeking to get the stamp of approval from the Church?

[barbaraann]

1. I think he needs salvation for some bad behavior.

IMHO, he's worried about what will happen to him in the afterlife.

[Must_B_Free]

98. I see the film as terrorism

Christianity, in some forms, like the one I believe Mel Gibson and his Father suffer from, is like a mind parasite.

The point of this movie is to terrorize ther viewer into being "saved" - abandoning control to authority. Learning not to trust yourself. Learning that you are a "bad machine".

That's how I see it. That;s why Gibson has that freaked out look in his eyes - because he's "touched". He's funny in the head.

[Mick Knox]

2. The old saying.. follow the $$$$$

That said.. Cant wait til tis Weekend to give him some of mine LOL

And yes I'm taking my kids... but they are teens...

[BurtWorm]

4. I have no problems with people forking over money to watch it.

Just know you're paying to be manipulated by a propagandist.

[Mick Knox]

7. Maybe ur the one manipulated..

since ur all hot and bothered... looks like a great movie... I dont think its church anymore than i think the matrix explains the universe, or Star Wars happened thousands of years ago. I see all great movies.

Hmm... was that a black cat? Neo? Is that you?

[BurtWorm]

25. I'll be interested in how great you think it is after you see it.

;)

I have a feeling our definition of great movies may be different, anyway. Some people think Leni Riefenstahl was one of the greatest filmmakers, too, even if her greatest films were immoral.

[Mick Knox]

30. I'll surely post a review!

I have no clue who that is you mentioned though.. but I totally dig quentin tarantino! Is she better than him? I dare say NOT

[BurtWorm]

33. She directed Nazi propaganda for Adolf Hitler.

The Triumph of the Will and Olympiad.

[Mick Knox]

36. ah gotcha..

Sorry, Im not up to date on watching nazi propaganda :)

Any way I'll give you that review after my brain has been twisted and I am turned into a assault weapon toting fundie in 180 minutes. Hell I might even start watching some nazi propaganda if it is really good brain control stuff...

now where did i put my copy of catcher and the rye?

LOL!

[Tennessee_tarheel]

42. perfect

this is what DEM's have become? Maybe the freakin' gop knows who she is?

[BigDaddyLove]

80. How is capturing a moment in history immoral?.........

Her films were/are amazing....she was a great filmmaker.

[BurtWorm]

83. Weren't they made to glorify Nazism?

Wasn't Nazism immoral?

I agree that they're beautiful movies. Not very profound ones, but very lovely on the surface.

[Cleita]

3. Thank you so much for saying this.

eom

[glarius]

5. He's an extreme religious zealot....I find him rather scary!......n/t

nt

[Cleita]

38. But he's not even as scary as Arnold, friend,

because he is proselytizing in his media. If he starts getting into politics, then I will be very worried.

[tom_paine]

76. Bingo! And that's Ahnold with the alternately comical and Orwellian

Raygun-style hair.

As creepy as if I'd walked right into the novel "Farenheit 451".

[brainwashed_youth]

6. you do need to see it

Ur the kind of person that makes liberals look anti-religious. Your attack is childish, cartoony, and it makes you and everyone who agrees with you look like a complete idiot. *sigh*, you're just giving the right more ammo to use against us

[barbaraann]

9. So, you don't think there is such a thing as a extreme religious

zealot?

Ever heard of THE INQUISITION or the SALEM WITCH TRIALS?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barbaraann]

17. I am trying to say that there is such a thing as a religious zealot.

Of course there are degrees and, actually, it is not cartoony to compare The Passion to the Salem Witch trials. Both are based on fundamentalism and fundamentalism is often dangerous.

What is your opinion of John Ashcroft? Gary Bauer? Ralph Reed? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? David Koresh?

[BurtWorm]

15. What is cartoony about simple facts?

Who was Gibson trying to please with this movie? What was his aim in making this movie? Was it to meditate on the meaning of the Passion to Mel Gibson? Or was it to do something else? Look at how he corralled religious groups into bankrolling him (or paying back his backers) and that will tell you what he was up to.

I don't need to see it anymore than I need to see any other movie.

[Milspec]

47. his aim in making this movie?

Who was Gibson trying to please with this movie?

I don't want to appear simple here, but could it be, perhaps, his self?

As to

I don't need to see it anymore than I need to see any other movie.

I agree, I'm not going to just be "hyped" into seeing a 2 hour flick, (in Aramaic and Latin, with English subtitles telling a story that I already know the ending to) unless I'm in the mood for it

It's up to me to put some coins in the monkeys cup if I want to see him dance.

It's a movie

[BurtWorm]

50. Must have been to please himself that he sought the Pope's stamp

of approval, too, eh? ;)

[Milspec]

55. I'm not sure..

how this conflicts with my post or Gibson's intent? O8) ( I don't really use smilies much but this one seemed so funny for this thread) tee hee

[BurtWorm]

57. It's just interesting that Mel felt he needed the Pope's blessing

beyond whatever pleasure he gave himself in making this movie. If I write a poem or article or piece of music, I don't send it to the Pope for a blessing. But that's just me, I suppose. :evilgrin: (that one seems appropriate too!)

[Tennessee_tarheel]

19. this is my problem with the dems!

as an independent, the party is oh so tolerant of everything EXCEPT (western, Protestant/Christian) religion! DEMs seem to treat it as an exotic disease at best (unless it is black religious leaders then - well we get this southern accent and we're all fire an brimstone - it is so patently condescending and fake) which tuns off those of us ho have certain ideals best represented by the DEM party but feel really offended by the seemingly knee jerk rejection of anything religious in public (note: Joe L. got a pass on this from MOST in 2000 - except for the "black" press).

believe me there are a lot of religious folks who WOULD vote DEM if they weren't so turned off by this attitude.

[BurtWorm]

24. Don't be ridiculous! One person expresses an opinion about a movie

and you're ready to condemn all Democrats everywhere because it isn't your opinion!

[Tennessee_tarheel]

40. NO!

the party, in general has a "unless it is a voting block (read black Baptists) then we won't really speak to religion" or moral certitude. I mean look at all the supposed "Catholics" who are in public office who cop out with "I am personally opposed to ...(death penalty - GPO/abortion DEM) but will not let that influence my vote ..."

But they will run as fast as they can to nearest AME Church to speak or get money.

Well, bull crap. It MUST influence your vote! This is your belief that should/is held sacred. If it causes you not to be able to run for - and hold - a political office honestly then don't run or tell us that - but be honest. they will talk to the cows come home about the separation clause but never really say what place religion plays in their lives because they are afraid of offending someone who does not share their Faith. Well celebrating one's faith does not necessarily condemn others.

[BurtWorm]

43. Here's the tough part for Christians and other theists:

there are people who have no faith and are very happy not to have it. And being without faith is not anymore necessarily condemnatory of those who have faith than celebrating faith is necessarily condemnatory of those who don't have it. Emphasis on the word "necessarily," because as it actually happens, the faithful and the infidels keep stepping on each others' toes, whether they mean to or not. It's a dance that ain't about to be over any time soon.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

46. accepted but ...

the point of this thread was the declaration of propaganda. The unooficla DEM party site has a thread that says the most important religious film in decades is "Propoganda". All to common an attitude - to the DEM's detriment

- gotta go for the night --

[BurtWorm]

49. This is not a "Dem Party site!"

My views are not even necessarily those of Democratic Underground, let alone the party. Anyone who thinks they are probably isn't much of a fan of the Democratic Party or progressive movement to begin with. ;) Nighty-night!

[noiretextatique]

70. how ridiculous!

putting the ten commandments on buildings and calling for prayer in schools is blatant pandering...and not to "black baptists" and the AME church.
what utter b.s. :hurts:

[BurtWorm]

73. Amen!

:toast:

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wellstone_democrat]

106. I saw it tonight

Its all the critics say and more. Its one interesting view of Christianity.

Oh, and I *am* indeed a religious man and looked forward to this interesting "take" on the Passion. It was disturbing on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin. What was very disturbing was the effect on the audience. I heard, in the nice suburban multi-plex such lovely statements as:
"fuckin' Jews" "fucking I-Ties" (my east coast wife just translated that for me--apparently it was toward the Romans for being "Italian")
some people were hysterical in the film and afterward. Several people loudly announced that every 'liberal' should be forced to view this.

And, one jackass yelled as the theater was clearing out: "Thank Jesus Christ for George Bush" Frankly, it was so odd I laughed, and although I am 6' and solidly built, I was momentarily afraid.

My point is that the film is horrifically violent and gruesome. The effect on the audience was very very disturbing. There WILL be trouble somewhere after one of these showings. Mark my words.

Mr. W_D (borrowing the wife's username)

[ochazuke]

119. I saw it and here's my two cents:

The Jewish leaders (bad Jews) looked like the Jews in Nazi propaganda. The good Jews (Jesus and his family especially) had delicate, even northern European facial features.

Then, I came home and saw Charlie Rose, where some learned men tore the film to shreds.

My impression: Mel Gibson is a Jew-hating nut case.

[BurtWorm]

121. I saw your review and was disturbed by it.

I'll be glad when Passion season passes. I hope it leaves its residue behind and doesn't take it with it into the General Election season or beyond. :scared:

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. The general public forgets

this is a M-O-V-I-E, not a documentary. Sad how easily people have become so gullible to be swayed by marketing and image over substance. :(

[barbaraann]

10. It's being marketed as much more than a movie.

Actually, it's even being marketed as more than a documentary, too!

[glarius]

12. I think we're discussing it as a movie....a horribly violent movie.....

:)

[Lars39]

23. These lawmakers comment on the movie:

http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=17714

And whose idea was it to buy 197 tickets for these lawmakers? What kind of influence are the churches expecting? Things that make you go hmmm.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

11. good grief!

Can't a guy make a movie about religion without being called names? Maybe he really cares and wants to make a film that encourages others? you don't have to watch it - oh wait a minute you HAVEN'T! But yet you condemn it?

Who cares about critics? Exactly! Why worry about critics? A real 'artiste" creates art for the truth, beauty and knowledge that the art may impart - I think we owe Gibson this benefit as much as say Moore or Scorsese (sp?).

[brainwashed_youth]

14. amen

Gibson has created a lastng piece of great art. Fuck his critics, what do they know? Those morons are judging this movie before they've even seen it.

[barbaraann]

20. Lasting piece of great art?

I guess it ranks right up there with The Terminator and Rocky or The Wild Bunch. That's not my idea of Christianity.

[BurtWorm]

21. Have you seen it?

[minkyboodle]

71. exactly

brainwashed (most accurate handle ever btw) is ready to condemn others for not seeing and judging, yet he proclaims the film as a lasting piece of art... last time I checked at the time of the posting it wasn't released for the general public.
Scott

[brainwashed_youth]

74. lemme tell ya something about great art

It's controversial. It changes the way people see things. It causes much discussion. The Passion has done all three of those things. So yes, it is a lasting piece of art.

[BurtWorm]

75. So Rush Limbaugh is great art?

He's controversial. He causes much discussion. He changes the way certain morans see things. By your criteria, he's Michelangelo! ;)

[PurityOfEssence]

104. I have; it's no big deal.

It's not anti-semitic, but it sure as hell is thumping the line that YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS WAY OR YOU'RE DOOMED!

It also plays fast and loose with some things, and has some seriously clunky moments in it.

Not a great movie.

[glarius]

16. Sure a guy can make a movie about whatever he wants and we can

say whatever we want about it....He has acknowledged himself that it is one of the most violent films made....If you want to watch 2 hours of someone being tortured and nailed to a cross (literally watching the nailing) then fine....It's not my cup of tea...My faith is not enhanced by such a movie....

[BurtWorm]

18. There's a difference between, say, a Renoir and a Riefenstahl

between what they do with film. One is a real artist, using the medium to ask questions, meditate, explore, probe; the other, a mercenary, just wants the viewer to believe what her clients paid her to make them believe.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

29. and your opinion is better than ...

Mine? My neighbor? My nieghbor's kid's teacher? Actually it may very well be. You might be trained in the film industry or theater etc. But no one comes up to Mike Moore and says "hey bub - you're a lunatic and you have no "artistic" right to make this movie" - well, they do - but is this what you want to mirror?

[BurtWorm]

39. Who said anything about a right to make a movie?

Mel Gibson has as much right to make a movie, if he can get the backing, as anyone else.

He begged for this controversy. I'm just obliging. I'm more than happy to oblige him. ;)

[HornBuckler]

22. I don't even need to see it to know!

I don't even need to see it to know!

What THE HELL Do You Intend To Illustrate With That Bullshit Opening Sentence? Do You BeLIEve Everybodys Word?

[glarius]

27. Seeing Gibson's interview with Diane Sawyer was a revelation of who

he is....He sat there so wound up his body movements were sort of spasmodically jerking....He came across as a control freak and zealot....He wouldn't disown his father's hateful beliefs....Just kept saying he's my father and I won't talk about him...He only had to say "I don't believe what he does", but he wouldn't....I think he's scary.

[HornBuckler]

32. That's Crazy Talk

The Man Loves His Father - Yeah, He's A Little Looney So WHAT!?

[glarius]

34. He can love his father but he doesn't have to love his hateful ideas!

That's sensible talk!

[BurtWorm]

31. I know it's propaganda based on everything I've read about it

especially about the way it was financed, the way the churches were lined up behind it to make sure it didn't go bust. It's propaganda, without a doubt. Is it great propaganda or hacknied? That, I agree with you, I'd have to actually pay money to find out. But I'm not interested in it as a movie.

[PurityOfEssence]

107. Yes, that's definitely one of the classic warning signs of idiocy

It's shocking how many people aren't appalled by the very concept of judging something they haven't seen. There should be some circuit breaker in the human head that triggers a massive painful zap whenever someone makes pronouncements about things they don't know, and it should be bumped up if they're somehow convinced that's "good".

[BurtWorm]

108. Is it propaganda or not?

If it is, then I knew it was without seeing it, which means I really didn't need to see it to know that. If it is propaganda, you at least have to concede this point.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

26. If Gibson made a violent movie about a gay jewish holocaust survivor

he's be the talk of Hollywood and hailed as a "genius artist" by many. Since he's socially conservative, and making movies that reflect his viewpoint, he's panned. That's just the way it is, some things will never change.

The violence may be bloody - but guess what? It's reality - the Romans really did that to people. And with a majority of Americans saying they would support torture and televised executions, we're not too far off. I'm glad that Gibson - crazy Christian Taliban that he is - made this movie, so we can all be reminded exactly how brutal people are to their fellow humans.

[HornBuckler]

28. Thank You

Thank You Very Much -WELL SAID!

[BurtWorm]

37. But is it propaganda or...what is it?

My point is, it's propaganda. It's designed to persuade "the masses" to believe a particular point of view sanctioned by the churches who are buying blocks and blocks of tickets for their parishioners. If you like that kind of propaganda, be my guest and enjoy it. Just don't pretend it's anything other than propaganda.

[Lars39]

41. They're also buying tickets for lawmakers.

197 Missouri lawmakers went to see the movie as the guests of several churches.

[BurtWorm]

44. Yeah, I saw that link.

:scared: (God forgive me for finding this scary! I'm sure, considering Christians are behind it, that this is totally innocent. :eyes: )

[Lars39]

45. I find it Very disturbing!

I wonder if it was unique to Missouri.

[BurtWorm]

48. I doubt it's unique to Missouri.

Nice church-state separation thang they got going there.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=17714

?I was just telling one of my colleagues, ?If this presentation doesn?t put things in perspective for you, and recognize that what we do on a daily basis has such a small impact compared to what Christ did for us, then you truly don?t understand what Christ did.? It was an amazing depiction.?

Odell Beauchamp, pastor of the Festus-Crystal City church that sponsored the senators? tickets, got just what he wanted: a movie that transcended party rancor. ?It?s Democrats and Republicans, so we?re not picking and choosing,? Beauchamp said. ?It?s for everybody to see.?

...

Because House Democrats chose to caucus, Rep. Trent Skaggs, D.-North Kansas City and a deacon at First Baptist Church in North Kansas City, was unable to attend. He said he appreciated being invited by the church that sponsored the representatives? tickets, Concord Baptist in Jefferson City, and seemed genuinely frustrated that he was tethered to the chamber

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

77. nonsense - it's no more propaganda than Schlindler's list

Gibson is probably an egomaniac "artist" like the rest of them. He's smart - Hollywood and E! Television are never going to give good publicity to an orthodox christian movei - so he went where he would get a good reaction.

I honestly do NOT get the problem with this movie. Why is everyone so upset about it? There have been Christian movies before. People who don't like Christianity will not go see it. Critics will pan it as violent and boring. So what's all the fuss here?

Gibson is an arist just as much as that "Piss Christ" guy is an artist. Putting a crucifix in urine is hailed as great modern art, while a bviolent movie based on the Stations of the Cross is anti-semetic propaganda. Never fails to amaze me.

[BurtWorm]

84. Would you prefer no one say anything at all about this movie?

What's your problem with people having a problem with it? :shrug:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

93. my preferences are irrelevant

The hysteria and rage among DUers is honestly astounding to me, all over a movie. Have you seen it yet? How can you say it's propaganda, because he's marketing it to Christians?

Plus - the secular left and others are showing their cards here - you're supposed to just pan the movie and make a joke about it. By taking it seriously you are playing right into "their" hands!

[BurtWorm]

94. How do you know rage is driving my commentary on it?

Aren't people entitled to have opinions, even about movies they haven't seen? Is "The Passion" just a movie, or might it not also be a cultural phenomenon, and a spin-off of greater cultural phenomena like 21st Century Christianity, the culture wars, etc.?

I find it a fascinating phenomenon, myself. I don't care to see the movie right now, but I'm interested in the midrash around it.

PS: I accidentally put you on my Buddy List, in case you got an e-mail informing you of that. I don't keep a Buddy List. When I saw the Buddy List screen pop up out of the blue, I could just imagine your wondering, " :wtf: " Cracked me up! ;)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

95. whatever, can't wait to see it this weekend

I've never seen any of Mel Gibsons' movies, and this will be my first. Mostly because of the foaming-at-the-mouth reactions to it here on DU. Something this controversial must be worth seeing!

[BurtWorm]

96. Okay, buddy!

;) Don't know if you saw this PS on my previous post:

PS: I accidentally put you on my Buddy List, in case you got an e-mail informing you of that. I don't keep a Buddy List. When I saw the Buddy List screen pop up out of the blue, I could just imagine your wondering, " :wtf: " Cracked me up!

[Tennessee_tarheel]

103. Huh?

Why can't it just be a movie? Why is it "propaganda" ? Again, good grief.

[BurtWorm]

109. You think it's just a movie? Like "Dude, Where's My Car" is just a movie?

:insert skeptical-looking smiley:

[Tennessee_tarheel]

112. Maybe - or - it might be more serious, but ...

My point is (again) movies are movies - no one has to go to them or treat them as reality, documentary, etc. Why is this one SO dadgum controversial? It isn't Mel, it isn't the subject per se, it is his treatment of it. SO, for the amateur critics why is this so "bad" and worth the space we are giving it?

[BurtWorm]

113. Why is this controversial?!

Are you seriously naive? Why is a movie about the death of Jesus Christ controversial? Are you serious?!

[Tennessee_tarheel]

116. If it wasn't ...

Would it be in the papers, TV shows, debated back and forth by pundits, and by regular Joes & Janes here? C'mon, are YOU serious? If it were one more pop pablum junk it wouldn't be an issue.
Later man - I gotta' go to bed -

peace

[BurtWorm]

118. Good, because you're not making sense!

Maybe tomorrow you'll be more coherent. G'night! :hi:

[GreenArrow]

115. It's propaganda

I take exactly the same position as you on this. I don't need to see it.

[UTUSN]

35. I Agree, Propaganda

At the risk of lining up as "an idiot" (as somebody posted, above, about those who agree).

My reason for seeing it (after the initial crowding dies down) is knowing for myself what the fuss is about. I'm even toying with using one of the free tickets from the fundies to avoid adding cash to the pot.

It might end up that the violence will end up appealing to S&M types in the long run.


I liked both EBERT's thoughtful review,
*********QUOTE****
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html

.... The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen. ....

It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, ....

many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end. ....

It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.

Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it.

*********UNQUOTE*******


from his (lapsed?) Catholic background and the thread that details the historical deviations:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1152849

[NashVegas]

51. What Gibson Did Was Very Smart

Like it or not, putting up his own money and independent financing was the smartest thing he could have ever imagined.

When Last Tempation of Christ was first set to film, it had a 20-25 million dollar budget. After protest, the studio that was putting up the money rescinded backing. When it was made, 4 years later, it had more like a 6-8 million dollar budget. Fundies were offering to buy the print so they could burn it.

Going indie was smart because it meant that Mel could make the movie he wanted to make, and deal with the rest of the shit in the editing process. It also meant he didn't have to tremble before religious figures and could use offensive charm with them to garner good publicity and not be protested into being shut down the way LToC was.

Just for the record, btw, I bought a copy of the Scorsese flick yesterday as an anti-dote.

[BurtWorm]

52. Gibson did not make this to upset the powers in the church.

He has been marketing this as a tool for conversion.

[NashVegas]

53. Well He's Been Marketing, All Right

I don't see how a film like this is going to win any converts except maybe from the S & M crowd.

Why he made the film doesn't matter. He used his own money and as an artist (no matter how dubious), it's his right to present his vision to anyone willing to pay for a glimpse.

[BurtWorm]

56. I'm not at all arguing that he shouldn't have made the film.

Why does every defender of this movie go there, as if that's the point of criticizing Gibson or his motives, to suggest he has less of a right to make what wants than anyone else? That is not my point at all.

I only want to point out the obvious, that this movie is being used as propaganda. If you want to go see the movie, why should I care? I only care because this movie that I, personally, have no interest at all in seeing has made itself an "issue" in the culture wars. And I'm interested in the culture wars. It's obvious which side of them Gibson comes down on: the side opposite of mine. But just because he's over there and I'm over here doesn't mean I don't think he's got a "right" to make whatever kind of movie he wants to make. And I have every right to form opinions about those movies. I think it's a reasonably informed opinion, too, considering I haven't seen the movie and have no plan to see it.

[Rich Hunt]

81. I don't think so

Gibson is against the modernization of the Catholic church.

From reading about it, it de-emphasizes the humanity of Jesus (Jesus is a superman who can endure unimaginable amounts of suffering, while we are all doomed to be Romans) and it's hard to not interpret that as an attack on contemporary Catholicism.

[sugarcookie]

92. I have seen signs of that

in my own family. My sister thinks this movie is somehow going to save mankind. She likened it to a revival. Initially, I wanted to see it, but after sensing the conversion angle, I decided I would wait until it comes out on DVD.

For the record I am a believer, but my beliefs are along the lines of the theme of the movie "Stigmata" (not anti-god, but anti- establishment church politics).

I don't need to set through 2 hours of pain and suffering to love Jesus, but I do respect others who want to.


edit to correct punctuation

[Hippo_Tron]

54. "The Passion" is a fiction movie which I already know the ending...

Or at least that's the way I'm going to look at it when I go to see it.

[DemBones DemBones]

58. Quick, name a movie that's NOT propaganda.

All directors have their own beliefs and they try to get them across in their movies.

I just thank God people will actually start seeing this film today and we won't have any more of these "I haven't seen it BUT" threads.

[Mick Knox]

59. Good point...

I cant think of one that doesnt try to make some point in some way... ie propaganda...

[BurtWorm]

61. It's actually a very weak point.

Propaganda has very specific purposes, totally at odds with personal vision. Propaganda serves a cause. As I say, it's really not so subtle a distinction.

[Mick Knox]

62. Allow me to weaken myself further...

if your putting out a movie of your vision.. say pulp fiction.. as an movie just randomly selected.. where the one who finds religion lives and the one who is really evil is killed and left lying in a toilet...

isnt that some form of propaganda... a vision.. even if it is your own vision.

[BurtWorm]

63. No it is not!

Again, propaganda serves a cause, not a personal vision. A personal film can have an argument about a cause to which one subscribes, but it is not made to assert the truth of the cause in the way propaganda is. Consider The Last Temptation of Christ (which I did see, by the way). Scorcese wasn't claiming to be representing the point of view of anyone but himself--it was his interpretation of Kazantsakis. And it wasn't the Official Story, not by a long shot. It was a meditation about the sacrifice of ordinariness entailed in being Christ. There's nothing about that in the Bible. It's an act of imagination, and an unabashed act at that.

What is Gibson's Passion about? It's about making as "real" and "accurate" a representation of the Passion as film will allow. That may be an act of imagination, but it seems pretty clear that Gibson is trying to pretend it isn't.

[Mick Knox]

64. Point taken...

but propaganda is trying to make a point..

If Quentin blasts you to pieces with a movie so epic.. its technically propaganda.... IMO... but if its like that nazi lady you mentioned.. upon reflection, i would probably have to agree with you... Passion is definately more to trying to sway a point of view and probably more in line with the propaganda label.. but there is a bad conatation to propaganda... is propaganda in and of itself bad?

If its bad should it be illegal? Or do you concur Mel has as much right to propaganda all he wants as much as your right to blast it to pieces?

[BurtWorm]

65. I've seen Olympiad, about the 1938 Olympics

and it is a gorgeous movie. It is also about glorifying Nazism, and it does its job well. But it's more craft than art. There's nothing wrong per se with craft, it's just that art goes deeper. And some causes are inherently repulsive, no matter how beautiful their propagandists make them. But not all propaganda serves inherently repulsive causes.

I'm not in favor of censorship. I think people should just try to be aware about propaganda, since it's rather pervasive in our media-saturated culture.

[Mick Knox]

66. Well Burt..

You make your point well... very well! I am someone who cant wait to see this movie.. but I recognize what youre saying... and someone who was at first kind of offended at the propaganda label.. now will go to the movie and thoroughly enjoy it with full knowledge you are exactly correct.

Did you come here and label Bowling For Columbine propaganda? Thats obviously propaganda by any standard... although I thought it was good.. there can be no doubt applying your standard, its propaganda.

Or is it as a general rule you only dislike propaganda you find distasteful? Or you dislike all propaganda? Maybe you didnt like the movie, but recognize it's propaganda, but "good" propaganda....

[BurtWorm]

67. I agree that Bowling for Columbine is propagandistic.

I see a continuum between two poles with personal vision on one side and propaganda on the other. Bowling for Columbine is closer to the propaganda side--along with Spartacus, Atomic Cafe, Reefer Madness, Birth of a Nation and The Passion--than movies like Pulp Fiction, Wizard of Oz, Blow Up and The Last Temptation of Christ. But one thing really separates Bowling from Passion: Michael Moore makes it clear that he is making an argument. Will you get that sense from Gibson's film, or will you be able to think about anything but where to look as the nails go into the Christ's wrists?

[Mick Knox]

68. I dont know...

how I'll feel.. I cant see it until this weekend or friday... but I will give a review.. i'm sure there will be a million posts here with reviews by then.. so it will likely be old hat by the time I do.

I didnt see Last Temptation of christ.. I think the last "christian" movie I saw was Jesus Christ Super Star eons ago.... Fluffy christian flicks are lame so I dont see em.

Gibson also freely admits he's trying to make a point, hes furthering his religion, and he's trying to overwhelm the audience.

Thats why i'm intrigued... kinda.. bring it one! Its the movie of the year burt..

behold... EVERYONE is talking about it.. love it or hate it..
its a classic a month before it opens.. I dont think its been that way for a movie for quite some time....

[Mick Knox]

69. Will you be seeing it? DVD even?

Just wondering.. if you posted it here already I missed it..

You know your movies. .. You have to see it! youre a movie buff like me.. I almost wish I could see it with you just to get your take. How could you miss it if not?

[BurtWorm]

72. I'd see it on DVD.

It's just not my cup of tea. There are so many other movies that are ahead of it on my list. But I wouldn't say I won't see it.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

111. Where do you get that?

he isn't acting as if he knows exactly what Jesus' life was like only that he has tried as hard as he can to depict the last 12 hours, as the Gospels and other accounts in the Bible recount, his life on Earth. That is NOT propaganda for cryin' out loud. He has a vision, personal and otherwise, that he wants to depict. Criticize the movie as art or entertainment but not the underlying story as somehow being "propaganda".

[BurtWorm]

60. Rules of the Game is not propaganda

Pulp Fiction is not. Psycho. Blue Velvet. Night of the Living Dead. A Hard Day's Night. The Producers. Wild Strawberries. La Dolce Vita. Belle de Jour. The 400 Blows. Sunset Boulevard. On the Town.

I could go on, but why? There is a difference between films with a personal point of view, films that entertain, and films that propagandize. It's not all that subtle a difference either.

[LoZoccolo]

82. You've defined the word with itself.

I think this thread would be a lot clearer if you could give us some idea of what you mean by propaganda/propagandizing. The way I'd see it, Rules of the Game is propaganda (there are a lot of messages about class in it), but I should say that's not really a bad word to me in and of itself.

[BurtWorm]

85. Propaganda is didactic. Rules of the Game is dialectic.

That seems to me to be the main difference between the two.

[Rich Hunt]

78. what church??

I grew up Catholic, and from the sound of it, the film represents some medieval form of Catholicism - it's not the faith that I was raised in.

[BurtWorm]

86. I know Gibson's Catholicism is medieval, or at least pre-Vatican II

but he did screen it for the the post-Vatican II Vatican. Furthermore he marketed his film specifically to leaders of Christian churches--mostly Protestants, oddly enough, but Christian conservatives specifically. It seems pretty clear that Gibson had no intention of making a critical film. He claimed to be going for the essence of the Passion story, for as literal a "reading" of it as he could get: First there was the supper, then the arrest, then the trial, then the flogging, etc., etc., etc. His film was intended to serve his religion, not his ego. Whether he succeeded is up for debate.

[Rich Hunt]

88. 'he had no intention of making a critical film'

Critical of what?

I think it would be more accurate to say that he had no intention of making a film that is -exploratory- and open-ended, one that would acknowledge theological differences and allow for a multiplicity of interpretations of Christ's life and death.

It would be difficult, then, to not read this as criticism if you disagree with his particular interpretation. If it misrepresents or ignores a great deal of Catholic teaching and crushes any subtleties (as it appears to, judging from reviews), then it can most certainly be viewed as a rejection of liberalism in Catholic theology.

[BurtWorm]

89. By critical, I mean having criteria other than "literalism."

He was pretending to take himself out of the equation and just do straight narrative.

[Rich Hunt]

90. the problem is...

that's a conceit of his. He betrays his own prejudices in what he chooses to emphasize, and the degree to which he emphasizes it.

It is impossible to do 'straight narrative' with such a film.

The James Carroll review that is posted in the Editorials board is worth reading.

[BurtWorm]

91. I totally agree that it's impossible to do a straight narrative

of anything at all, let alone a mythic event, without inserting interpretation.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

105. No - really ...

You know why he made the film? Did he tell you? Wow - I didn't know you were such close Friends.

look dude, he made a movie for any number of reasons, but obviously his faith was a key and critical factor. He put his own $$ in and couldn't even get a real "Hollywood" distro deal. You could say he made a a "vanity" film. As have many, many actors & Hollywood egomaniacs. So what is the big deal? Why single out Mel for a bad movie (if you've seen it) ?

[BurtWorm]

110. I have no idea if it's a bad movie. I'm not interested in that question.

I'm only interested in the question of what the phenomenon of the movie means.

Why am I singling Mel Gibson out in this thread? Because this thread is about Mel Gibson. Who else should I single out?

[Tennessee_tarheel]

114. exactly

The movie is the topic and why? because a "movie" has created a thread in website dedicated to airing views of one of the 2 parties of the most powerful nations. Why is this "movie" so dadgum controversial? Because it is a movie about Christ. And many people, who otherwise are cool with anything in pop entertainment (I'll bet few here are THAT upset with the super bowl 1/2 time show) are suddenly shocked and upset about a movie that tries to accurately (from Mels' POV) tell a Christian story? I find this whole phenomena interesting in a Kantian sort of way.

[BurtWorm]

117. You're the one who's shocked and upset that people are talking about this.

I'd like to keep talking about the issues around the movie, but people who want to defend the movie keep trying to pretend that there's something weird or wrong with talking about this movie at all. How disingenuous can you get?

And you should try to understand something else, tarheel: I am speaking for myself in this thread. I think most people would understand that, but you, for some reason, are concerned about how this discussion is making the Democratic Party look. To me this is an interesting discussion because it is about the culture wars and, therefore, is about this political moment in the US. But I'm not speaking for the Democratic Party. I'm not speaking as a Democrat. I'm not even speaking as a leftist. I'm just speaking as someone who knows others at this site are interested in the subject and who wants to discuss it.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

122. last one I promise :-)

I am not upset but somewhat amused and curious as to why this particular movie is so upsetting to so many, and seems to draw a distinct double standard from many (not you - I don't know you and I am new here) but MOST of my left of center friends are quite abuzz in a negative way on this movie as if it were subversive or soemthing. I see similar takes here. Of course I have some ROC friends who also are kinda' whacked on the other end too. Hey it's just a movie ya' know? Maybe religion IS not to be discussed at the dinner table (along with politics and football?) Later man -

[BurtWorm]

123. Well, you seem to be having a hard enough time pulling yourself away

from it. ;) Believe me, I understand! This stuff is compelling. Why worry about what talking about it means. Why not just enjoy talking about it?

I hope we can continue this conversation or others. Welcome to DU, by the way, belatedly. :toast:

[soleft]

79. Quentin Tarantino making a film about Ghandi

That's my expectation of what a Mel Gibson movie about Jesus would be like. Anyone who says they want Frank Rich's intestines on a stick has nothing to say to me about Christ.

[Snellius]

87. Would Christ have gone on Leno to promote his latest miracle?

Take away the religious context? Assume this was just a movie about a dissident Jew tortured by, say, a South American military junta and what would you have? Another S&M flick? What will Mel do for the sequel? Depict Christ's disciples eating his flesh and drinking his blood?

[DEM FAN]

97. You Got That Right BW. I Have NO Interest In Watching This Crap.

:-(

[chookie]

99. This film has a specific audience

I believe this to be true. It is interesting that Gibson's vision was to not have subtitles. He said that the images would speak for themselves.

Definitely to those of us who are familiar with the story, and as a Catholic, we certainly were brought up to be quite familiar with the details of the Passion. But it is not quite the universal document that many might thijnk it is.

I wish to share a little anecdote about assuming that *everyone* will be able to understand doesn't quite work.

I saw Scorcese's "Last Temptation" with a woman from China, who had been raised during the Cultural Revolution there, and had been brought up atheist. I assumed that as an educated person she would at least have some small familiarity with the story of Christ, but she did not. She could not make hide or hair out of the story, and found it a little strange. Although she had been brought up in a time of persecutions -- her father had been imprisoned and tortured by Jiang Jing -- interestingly enough, she did not see a universal message in the suffering of Christ.

I think this film is Gibson's gift to devout Christians, and that he did it in order to honor Jesus, by giving through his cinematic talent and influence. I think Roger Ebert expressed the appeal of the film to people best, when he quoted the old hymn "Close to Jesus to the last." In those few words, he made me understand why it is so profoundly meaningful to many who see it.

That being said, I still continue to suspect that the film also has a political agenda. I don't think that I am being an outrageous theorist if I conclude that a conservative right wing director would produce a film with a conservative right wing slant, and think that this conjecture is supported by the fact that the most militant supporters of this film are right wing evangelists. The fact that they claim it is "true" may have something to do with the fact that it reflects their ideology and vision of the world.

It is interesting that some of the most vocal defenders of the film claim that they feel they are being backed up against the wall by their fellow Democrats who do not share their fevor for the film, or who have expressed concerns about its underlying message. In the end, where will those allegedly "threatened" Believers turn to -- will they align themselves with fellow Believers, or will they align themselves with their political party with its less certain and absolute religiousity?

I watch this with interest. I thank all who have participated in discussions of this matter here at DU -- even if we do not share the same view, your candid expressions of your personal feelings have been valuable as I try to understand the potential impact of this film during our explosive times.

[BurtWorm]

100. Interesting analysis.

I agree that the Christ myth is not as universal as a lot of Christians seem to believe, and is in fact fairly incoherent in many ways. The reason it has been so powerful a myth for so long has less to do with its universal appeal, it seems to me, than with the necessity to believe it or not. If you believe its underlying premise that the stakes for making a wrong choice--i.e., to not believe in the myth--are extremely high, you are most of the way to believing the whole thing.

[chookie]

101. Ramifications of specificity

Have you noticed, BW, that when someone raises a critical point about the film, they tend to be bludgeoned down by Gibson supporters who say that they are ignorant, that they are too stupid to know that crucifiction is painful and that Gibson is *just* being true to the facts?

One of the eerie contradictions that arise in discussion of this film is that its supporters seem to be making the claim that Jesus's death is exceptional. Yes, this is a central tenent of the Christian faith -- no argument here.

But the problem of the idea of the exceptionality of the suffering of Jesus is that many people do *not* in fact make the leap of faith that holds that we should feel this same compassion for other people who suffer! If I thought that people who see this film will rededicate themselves to ease the sufferings of others, or to eradicate injustice -- which each day we see contributing to the suffering, brutality and death of our fellow man -- that would really be something, and I sure would be composing eleoquent praise for Mr Gibson!

But what is kind of spooky is that this film is polarizing people. Many people who support it seem to want to use its "truth" to bash others over the head. This, I fear, might well occur in the general population. I don't think they dwell so much on their own sin as being the reason that Jesus had to suffer, but because of "sodomites" and adulterers and baby-killers -- so therefore they will turn their ire on such "sinners."

Given that the cultural wars are flaming again over the issue of gay marriage -- I think there will be an attempt to sway Christians of "democratic" loyalty to the right wing agenda, which will try to make them feel more "at home" because of their religious devotion.

If any supporters of Gibson's film can point me in the direction of Christians being inspired by this film to do compassionate things to eradicate the sufferings of their fellow humans -- and I don't mean just saving babies from being aborted!! -- I sure would love to hear about it. Alas, I fear that it is meant to crystalize religious opinion, not expand it....

[BurtWorm]

102. Very good points and questions.

In my humble opinion. (Interesting that some churches are inviting law makers to their viewings. What does that mean?)