"Passion" versus "Braveheart"...

[regnaD kciN]

This thread is intended for those who have seen both films.

I haven't seen The Passion, and don't intend to. However, a number of people I trust say that there is very definitely an anti-Semitic message in the film. Still others I trust have said that there really is no anti-Semitism, Jews and Romans are treated equally, that it's all "much ado about nothing," and so on.

When I saw Braveheart, on the other hand, I was disgusted by the portrayal of Edward II, and the fact that Gibson and the writers had distorted history in order to provide a gay villian. I thought his point for this completely unnecessary addition was to show that the English are so thoroughly contemptable, they've even got a sniveling, cowardly, limp-wristed "faggot" as heir to the throne.

When I posted in various venues that I thought Gibson was including a homophobic message in Braveheart, I was told by many that there was no such thing, that Gibson wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to make that movie just so he could gay-bash, that it was all "much ado about nothing," and so on.

So, my question to those who have seen both films: Do you consider The Passion to have been anti-Semitic but Braveheart to not have been homophobic? Do you consider Braveheart to have been homophoic but The Passion not to have been anti-Semitic? Both? Neither?

[izzie]

1. I did not like Braveheart.

n/t

[Kagemusha]

2. Wouldn't Anglo-reviling be more accurate though?

The intent wasn't to insult homosexuals by associating them with Edward II. The intent was to insult Edward II by identifying him with male weakness.

And you know what? The English don't see him in a mugh better light either. He was the one who managed to have Robert the Bruce kick his ass in the battle referred to at the end of the film, a huge English national disgrace.

[packerssuck]

3. They're both similar in that they're both B.S.

Wallace wasn't a peasant. He came from wealth and privelege. His military conquests were exaggerated and he got lots of his soldiers killed because of crappy military planning. I'm not sure if he was a good fighter or not.

In passion, Jews are portrayed as hooked nosed, bad teethed sadistic and blood thirsty Jesus haters. While Pilate is portrayed as a conflicted and thoughtful man. The exact opposite was true in real life. Jesus had many Jewish followers while Pilate was a sadistic murderer, killing thousands of Jews.

Mel sucks at character develoment. Most of his characters are one dimensional, good and bad.

[daveskilt]

6. well almost

he was the first ever to beat english cavalry which took some skill. also his sword is 6'1" which would suggest he was at least as tall and apparently used it with one hand. THe average height at the time according to architectural records was about 4'8". He was a massive barbaric bloodthirsty SOB.

As to the passion play. Jesus and his apostles were ALL jewish - the first non jews to follow jesus are a roman centurian and a eunuch, and that is after jesus death. The crowd that screamed for jesus death was jewish - sanhedrin most likely and there would only have been about a dozen of them, but that doesnt make for a good crowd scene in a movie.

[rpannier]

4. have seen both movies

I like the Passion better. I think it is better directed and it's obvious Mel was very meticulous in his directing. As to it's anti-semitic nature -- Yes, it has anti-Jewish elements in it, but the play was anti-Jewish. According to people who know Mel Gibson, both Jewish and non-Jewish, they all say he is NOT anti-Semitic. I like the movie better than the play, because it is obvious he tried to hold back. As to Braveheart, one fact is Edward II was homosexual and unfortunately, was a vasciallating and incompetant monarch. His wife had him deposed and executed under Britains Sodomy Laws. The problem with Braveheart was it missed the mark on so many levels -- historically. It was an anti-British film. Edward I, was a King widely respected throughout Europe, men travelled hundreds of miles, from other countries for his guidance on matters. He was no coward, which the movie tried to make him out to be. In fact, the depictation of William Wallace in the film, was closer to the real Robert the Bruce. William Wallace from most historical accounts was not the great guerilla fighter the movie made him out to be. And Robert the Bruce was not ever a weak person.
Braveheart was a mediocre piece of historical FICTION. The Passion is a better movie on all levels.

[daveskilt]

5. while historically inaccurate in many regards -

In reality they did call edward a fair few things that would suggest he was gay. It certainly isnt outside the realm of possibility that he was gay - in fact it was rumored at the time that that was why he was killed (though probably not by his father.)

of course it is just a movie and they did embelish to make the storylines they wanted.

ie. The princess in the movie - she was 6 and lived in Avignon France when wallace died.

Wallace did kill Hugh Cressingham but not by slitting his throat - he took a strip of skin from his head to heel and used to bind the hilt of his sword.(DNA testing confirms the leather on his sword hilt - kept at the wallace monument in Stirling - is human skin)

They miss out a few years where wallace buggers off to rome and hangs out with the pope.

Wallace wasnt exactly a commoner. All the royals and nobles etc in Scotland were not allowed to be royals anymore after the convention where the main leaders were killed (this convention happened before wallace was born so he didnt go in and find the bodies hanging like in the movie)

Robert the Bruce fighting on the english side is a bit silly of an idea - the English would have loved the opportunity to kill him.

and so on

[Art_from_Ark]

9. Hollywood embellishment

Like Braveheart, "The Last Samurai", was also heavily embellished. The REAL "last samurai" was named Saigo, not Katsumoto. There was no "Yoshino Province" in Japan at the time, certainly not in Kyushu where the real historical events took place. Kyushu is kind of like Florida, there is no place on the island where "the snows of winter" last until spring. There was no American known to have been fighting on the samurais' side, and he certainly wouldn't have been quartered with the family of a samurai he had killed.

[glarius]

7. He's both homophobic and anti-semitic

I believe by his portrayals in these movies and by things he has said in recent years, Gibson is both homophobic and anti-semitic....He works in Hollywood and is therefore careful to deny these predjudices, but his work speaks for itself....

[Skittles]

13. which begs the question, why are people lining up to see

MEL GIBSON'S version of history? Even people on this board. I am absolutely disgusted.

[glarius]

14. I find it puzzling how a thinking person would not conclude that

despite his denials, he is obviously bigoted against both Jews and homosexuals....:shrug:

[Skittles]

15. he is the absolute worst kind of bigot

the kind who denies it.

[glarius]

16. When he says "I don't hate Jews. I pray for them." which I've heard him

say in more than one of his interviews...He is mouthing what the Christian zealots say....I've known some and they all say they love everyone and pray for them. What they are praying for is for the non-Christian to be converted to Christianity...They believe that unless they do, they are doomed to hell....

[daveskilt]

17. he may be a homophobic bigot - but I didnt get that from the movies

maybe as a scotsman I was too excited about my own personal national bigotry against the english to notice. and any film about jesus death is going to feature a good guy getting nailed to a bit of wood at the request of some bad guys who all happen to be jewish (like the guy getting nailed up and his followers also are)

thin ice on this board, but I'm not ready to call mel gibson the new leni reifenstahl

[glarius]

18. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

He is on record (TV interview with Larry King from a few years ago) as saying he does NOT agree with the changes the Catholic Church made in the early sixties...That is when the Pope declared Jews were not responsible for Christ's death, among other things...abolishing Latin in the Mass, etc....He is SO opposed to the changes that he BUILT HIS OWN CHURCH in California where he attends mass in Latin and with none of the changes of Vatican 2.

[daveskilt]

22. im not saying he isnt an arse but the movies didnt show it IMO

I haven't seen any interviews, just the movies.

[Kamika]

8. I hated Braveheart.. but no, not homophobic

I had a HUUUUUGEE smile when Braveheart finally died :D

damn it was a stupid movie I kept wishing he would die all the time.


Now that I think about your question...


No.. I do not think Gibson made it homophobic..

It's very common in todays society, if you want to portray your enemy to be weak etc.. to portray him as feminine or gay.. and that's all Gibson did I think.. honestly.

[stopthegop]

10. I saw The Passion yesterday...Braveheart years ago...

it's true some of Gibson's movies paint the British in a very bad light...but charge of anti-semitism toward The Passion are incorrect.
The movie portrays Jews as both good (Mary(s), Jesus, Nicodemus) and bad (Ciaphas, Judas, mob scene)....it's a fairly accurate portrayal of the Gospel story...good and bad mixed together...the Romans look at least as bad as the Jews...

IMO anyone seeing anti-semitism in The Passion went to the movie hoping to see it, for whatever reasons...

both movies suffer in the eyes of those beholden to current politically correct and delicate senesitivities

[rman]

11. So fundies don't get the idea from this movie Jews caused Jesus suffering?

that's a relief.

[glarius]

12. Of course they do.....

This just solidifies their beliefs...

[chookie]

19. Gibson, IMHO, is creepy

I too was creeped out by the homophobia of Braveheart. Gibson really goes out of his way to make Edward II a snivelling poofter, drawing on the most loathsome stereotypes of gay men to do so. Knowing as I did how Edward was eventually murdered -- surely one of the most vile acts in history -- I was especially repulsed.

Something that struck me about the time of the release of the movie is its having emerged during a period of anti-governmentism in the US. The militias had become active, having been stirred into action by the forces of what they saw in Waco in 1993. There was a kind of romance of a small group of men, living outside the law, who were brave fighters taking on the oppressive empires. This observation seemed to dovetail with Gibson's known conservatism.

The heroes of Braveheart are dirty, bad-mannered, boorish tribalists -- contrasted to the well-dressed and well-mannered though corrupt English -- but they are shown to be loyal, honest, earnest, uncompromising, and the far braver warriors.

The issue of sexuality is a subtheme in the film. The sexuality of the English is seem as deviant -- whether ravishing maidens, or cavorting with sodomites, or men incapable of relations with even beautiful females -- whereas the Scots are shown to be red-hot -- crude, but commandingly manly. The sexually frustrated young queen is made to bloom by the mighty pork sword Braveheart carries under his kilt -- indeed, he not only cuckolds the Prince of Wales, but even worse, usurps Longshanks' dynasty with his own seed. These are all very powerful and primitive motifs.

Having watched Braveheart again recently after the controversy of The Passion arose, I was struck by the Passion-like motifs of the final sequence -- Braveheart asking God to help him in his last suffering; the mockery of the blindly bloodthirsty crowd, the scourging, the torture, and finally the death.

Gibson seems to be saying that mankind is essentially corrupt, and that they way it reacts to great men is to reject and murder them. The Hero, for him, is he that goes against the prevailing great powers, and who endures hideous suffering because of his uncompromising character. Whereas Gibson elevates Braveheart by suggesting Christ-like analogies, by ignoring the life and teachings of Jesus, and focusing on only the horrific last sufferings, he seems to see in him the kind of Action Hero that he depicts in his earlier work.

[chookie]

21. PS -- Has anyone seen "The Gospel of John?"

It's release preceeded Gibson by a month or so -- but although it received good reviews, it seems to have been virtually ignored.

Hmm.

Now why would the southern evangelists ignore this religious movie, but rally around Mel's Passion?

Something to do with the underlying politics of the two films -- I mean, we can't have a liberal, pacifist Jesus in an election year in time of war, right?

[gulliver]

20. Rob Roy was a much better movie than Braveheart, IMO.

I can't even watch Braveheart any more. The blue paint on the faces... the stupid "crazy Irishman sidekick and big guy" cliches... the beautiful princess really loves the brave revolutionary cliche...and you're right, another gay bashing cliche.

Braveheart as told by Gibson is just a revenge flick draped around a historical framework. It makes you wonder what might have been done with the story of William Wallace had Gibson not botched it so badly. Oh, but it beat "Babe" for the Oscar that year...not sure deservedly.

Rob Roy (about another Scotsman, Rob Roy McGregor) on the other hand actually had powerful characters, subplots, and great acting. The better movie lost out to Mel Gibson's star power.