Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[Pekka]

.. and I can't figure out why so many people got outraged and all hyped up about it. To go so far as to bash Mel Gibson for it somehow.

Could someone explain me the major arguments made by those who say the movie was stupid? I don't see what's stupid about it.

Some say it was a splatter fest. Well.. are you supposed to put the last moments of Jesus nice? In my opinion and view of the world, greater is respect when the suffering is showed in its true nature, which is, suffering. I bet it wasn't a nice trip for him at the end, so why put it nice? So that the people wouldn't feel disgusted about it? What's the point of that? People should then choose the easy movies like comedies if they want to feel nice throughout the whole movie. I think it was kind of the point of the whole movie anyway, so it was done very good. It built up great for the whole crucifixing part, since even I was kind of like 'ohh.. so now it comes...', just watching it in silence, having a blank brain and no thoughts. Because you knew it wouldn't be 'not shown', because the whole movie up to that point was mostly him getting beaten up anyway, so put few big nails through the palms and ankle should be kind of painful too, the climax of the beating part.

I thought it was a great movie. But not a movie for children.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

Why?

[Pekka]

.. I'm tired.. Freudian? Or Jesusian? I don't know why that happened..

[Tassadar500]

Re: Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

Originally posted by Pekka
.. and I can't figure out why so many people got outraged and all hyped up about it. To go so far as to bash Mel Gibson for it somehow.

Could someone explain me the major arguments made by those who say the movie was stupid? I don't see what's stupid about it.

Some say it was a splatter fest. Well.. are you supposed to put the last moments of Jesus nice? In my opinion and view of the world, greater is respect when the suffering is showed in its true nature, which is, suffering. I bet it wasn't a nice trip for him at the end, so why put it nice? So that the people wouldn't feel disgusted about it? What's the point of that? People should then choose the easy movies like comedies if they want to feel nice throughout the whole movie. I think it was kind of the point of the whole movie anyway, so it was done very good. It built up great for the whole crucifixing part, since even I was kind of like 'ohh.. so now it comes...', just watching it in silence, having a blank brain and no thoughts. Because you knew it wouldn't be 'not shown', because the whole movie up to that point was mostly him getting beaten up anyway, so put few big nails through the palms and ankle should be kind of painful too, the climax of the beating part.

I thought it was a great movie. But not a movie for children.

Some people say it portrays Jews in a negative light, but being as though I have not and will not see it, I can't really back that up.

[joncha]

Saw I finally saw I saw.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by joncha
Saw I finally saw I saw.

Hmm... I just noticed that.

[Jaguar]

Saw I saw a see-saw the other day...

[joncha]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Saw I saw a see-saw the other day...

Quoted for Saw Saw Saw

[C0ckney]

not seen the film, but the south park episode featuring it is brilliant

[Pekka]

Jews in negative light? What's that all about? I watched it and it never even crossed my mind. I thought it was a historical piece, not some anti-semitic propaganda. I mean, that is, unless I have learned history wrong and also new testament and the last steps of Jesus. Isn't it what happened, and if so, why would it portray Jewish people in negative light? I do not understand?!?!? What was negative? Hey it also portrayed few Roman soldiers pretty negatively. So? It didn't portray Romans negative.

It did portray Fariseuses (SPELLING?!?!) being a bit sensitive about their own position and also kind of wanting Jesus dead no matter what at that point, but hey, wasn't that what really happened? If so, what's all the fuss about negative light of a whole bunch of people? I don't understand, I truly don't?

[Verto]

Re: Re: Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear


Some people say it portrays Jews in a negative light, but being as though I have not and will not see it, I can't really back that up.

Why the self-righteous, haughty attitude?

[Alex]

all that violence was unnecessary.

[Verto]

Tell that to Jesus.

[Pekka]

Exactly. That is what happened. If you are going to show what happened, it's disrespectful to discard facts so that people wouldn't be so disturbed by it. It was important for it to be as it is. Besides, it coudl have been more violent and realistic too. This was a good compromise level I think.

I mean, you go to watch the last steps of Christ, what do you expect to see?

[Pekka]

I am going to defend this movie against any arguments that it was too violent, or that it portrayed some people negatively. I guess the fariseuses were nice then? No they weren't. I guess there weren't any people in crowd, expecting a great kill spectacle and wanting to see some action? Of course there were. That doesn't make negative portray of Jewish people.

Who blames, truly blames, the killing of Jesus on them? I mean you have to be a bit of a nut to be pissed off about it to a whole bunch of people. I think that the common feeling is that humans as entire race is to blame and not to blame. If we are talking about censoring a movie because some people might get upset, well that's blasphmey beyond any of my nasty jokes and thoughts and deeds. What is more disrespectful than to censor what happened? That is blasphemy if something has to be. It's not a scene people are supposed to like. It was nasty what happened, so that's what it should be all about.

It's another movie if we want to see what he did in his life etc.. this was the last steps of his. Different thing.

It wasn't even that violent. He got some skin torn off, some whipping and the crown put on his head and crucifixion. According to what has been written, he was beaten up more than that, so that it was difficult to tell who he even was. It was brutal, but the whole act was even more brutal in real life. And people were brutal in those days and they still are.

That was common in those days. Brutality of punishments. Even today, you can go to DP fan gatherings, have waive your own signs and posters, scream in extacy how you wish the convicted will fry tonight, cheer, and not even know yourself what happened. Just assume. YOu read it from the papers. Someone said he is guilty. THus it's OK that you go there and cheer for it. This happens today. So don't tell me, that it was exaggarated that some people gathered to cheer for the killing of Jesus. It was even more backward days then, and sense of justice.

You tell me it didn't happen like that but was more easy, and I can't but wonder why you would make that claim. Or that it was too violent. Heck, it was violent. WHy would you censor, most of all if you believe in Jesus, why would you want it to be censored. I think it's important to show it as it was.