Well, I think we all know the plot, so I won’t go into that…

This is an account of the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ (aka JC). The lead role is played – brilliantly and with total commitment - by Jim Caviezel (aka... er... JC)

This is the most gruesome film I’ve ever seen. I thought I could stomach anything, but this shocked me. And, of course, I already knew there wasn’t going to be a happy ending.

Having said that, I couldn’t stop watching. It’s too real. But it’s absolutely compelling. The direction is superb. Cinematically it’s exquisite. The soundtrack is orgasmic.

JC isn’t too shabby either (that’s the actor, not the character )

Sorry Dee - couldn't disagree more.

Aesthetically I guess we should set side the immensely profitable mechandising of such goodies as crucifixion nails etc and Gibson's highly dubious deeply reactionary sectarian Catholicism - why daddy is even a holocaust denier, according to number of sources. The idea that church groups of believers, including the elderly, were bussed to see this is grotesque.

I am not a practising Christian, but I think the film is blasphemous and hasn't a moment's love or compassion in it. Cinematically it has all the depth of Gibson's acting.

People should of course make up their own minds and I have been this direct not to have a go at you, but simply to indicate that this is a deeply polarising film.

Given the God-drenched political rhetoric coming from America at the moment, I think this film's phenomenal success at the box office there is deeply disturbing. A lot of people will meet their maker a great deal earlier in this fevered atmosphere. You don't have to be a Muslim to be a fundmentalist it seems.

Robustly - but with respect

Zettel

Couldn't disagree more Zettell. Top film, top director. Don't care about fundamentalists, don't care for them, everyone who knows me knows that. Don't know what I believe when it comes to God, Jesus and all the rest. Don't think Catholicism nor other organised religion are a good thing whatsoever but that doesn't change the fact that the story of Christ has been sanitised and changed and fecked about with for 1000's of years. Jesus was a white European was he? Judas spoke like a New York gangster eh? Tied to a cross and left to die in slight pain...

No he was a jew, denied by his friends he was brutalised and beaten to within an inch of his life, then nailed to the cross and died in excruiating pain.

This film portrayed the torture and brutality of Roman justice superbly, it is full of just sublime acting, and some of Gibson's shots show this guy has immense talent, whatever people think. Then I like When we Were Soldiers. I've always thought he was great from Lethal Weapon to Braveheart. Yeah, he lost it mid nineties with rubbish films, but that happens alot.

This is a dark dark film, with some bits that'll make your heart leap, but if you have a heart you'll come out of it affected, if not religious. If you think it is blasphemous then you simply know nothing about the real history of the times Jesus was born into, lived, what he stood for, what was going on, why he was supposed to be the Christ, why that was a bad thing etc et cet e rah.

Gibson believes in God and that Jesus was God, he illustrates this at the end. Most Christians are right wing by definition, and there are many many conservative sects, especially in America. It doesn't mean they all don white sheets on their heads and lynch black people, though often it does. But just to accuse him of being a fundamentalist is a cheap shot I think, and shows a prejudice against Gibson as an artist, just coz he is relisgious. Believe me, Zettel, I ain't no christian, and there is no doubt as to the outcome of this film - it's the same as the New Testament of the bible, but it is no sanitised nonsense aimed at brainwashing kids or to support fundamentalist nutters. It is a brutal film bordering on exploitation but you may hate Gibson and be a complete aetheist and still come out of this with something, if only a reinforcement that you don't believe in God.

The shot where Jesus finally dies and the raindrop (tear from heaven) falls, and you fall with it...I'm sorry Zettel, that is fuckin genius mate.

Anyway, I'm off again.

Peace n Love

Zettel,

We are all entitled to our opinions so you can disagree as much as you want.

I think most people on this site know I am not Christian. I don’t wish to start a discussion on my personal beliefs.

What really concerns me about your reply is this:

The idea that church groups of believers, including the elderly, were bussed to see this is grotesque.

Are you suggesting they were forced to watch this film? And, more to the point…

including the elderly

Excuse me? Are the elderly supposed to be censored in what they watch? Why is it grotesque that people over a certain age want to see this? Do we reach a certain age and then suddenly need some guardian to decide what is suitable for us to watch?

What age is that?

And who are you to judge?

Dav, many thanks for your eloquent support. That teardrop at the end was amazing, wasn’t it?

Dee
x

I didn't go see this film, because I am badly squeamish - but I wanted to. I can't get the "Son of God" thing but I am fascinated that one man could have created such a furore in his time (and then I start to wonder, but still can't get it) ... Maybe it's time to rent it out and watch it through my fingers ...

Dear all

Oh dear. I wouldn't dream of doubting, questioning anyone's beliefs as many other work I have posted on WW demonstrates.

However one can look at context and question motivation. I have no particular distaste for Mel the actor, though I personally think he's very limited, but that's just a personal opinion and mine is only as good as the evidence I adduce for it.

But this was one of the one of the most profitable films last year in the US: it was aggressively marketed and worse, merchandised. Christian or not, I think there is something deeply distasteful about profiting from movie spin-off crucifixion nails etc.

Mel is of course, as anyone else, entitled to his own beliefs but when those beliefs are profoudly reactionary and exclusive and their possessor is closely associated with an apparent Holocaust denier, that entitles a comment I think, especially as one might regard the dominance of such views in current American politics and therefore world affairs as worrying.

Not being ageist Dee: my only point was that there were many reported cases of zealous church groups seriously unprepared for the style and approach of the film, many of whose longer-standing Christians (therefore older)were deeply upset and shocked by a film whose graphic violence they had not been expecting.

It is not ageist to say that you might think twice about taking your granny on spec to see the Texas Chainsaw Massacre without at least checking with her first. Even worse if you made her think she ought to go and see it.

All irrelevant to the aesthetic question of the quality of the film. The crowd scenes are so badly shot half the time you can't tell whose who or on whose side. Several characters including Mary, seem to spend endless scenes simply staring impassively into space. The ending is like something out of Sunny Stories. But I come back to my main contention, I do not believe one can point realisticaly to a moment of love or compassion in the film. Its spiritual subtext and essential message, is an obsessive pre-occupation with blood, and the age old dogmatic religious trinity of guilt, fear and punishment. No one ever loved out of fear - on earth or in heaven.

Respectfully but in dissent.

Zettel



<Added>

Sorry about the fractured punctuation and grammar etc, pressed the wrong button and missed checking it on preview.

Z

No probs Dee - always a pleasure!

Zet - Mel isn't a holocaust denier, his old man is, whom he didn't speak to for about 20 years or sommik. Why does that matter - should he be judged coz of his father's dodgy beliefs? I don't get the holocaust denialists running the world, and fear you may be making that up. Can't remember the last time I heard Dubya, Cheney, Wolfowitz or any of the other nutters denying the holocaust.

The point of this film is to show the brutality and torture and suffering Jesus went through on his last day. Whether you believe in him as the Messiah or not, that is almost the entire point of his story, so the real failure is the sanitised version put to people for the past few hundred years, so those old biddies you feel for so much should think about it a bit more before they commit their lives/souls/sanity to the religion.

Comparisons betwixt texas chainsaw massacre and story of christ as told by Gibson are tenuous at best. They both have blood in them. Wow.

Okay you don't like the direction, fine, that's a personal thing, but I thought it was great. The use of Aramaic, Latin slang and Hebrew works amazingly to create an atmnosphere that takes you right to Jerusalem circa 0. The acting is an amazing acheivement I think, and what about the snippet from the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus is talking about love and compassion? There you go - I realistically pointed to a moment for you. The point is he is being brutalised and no-one is listening to what he is saying. Now you could read alot into that scene, but I won't go off on one. I think we should agree to disagree!

Respectfully dissenting too


DS

Davey

Agreed. However I made nothing up - perhaps the several reporters I read did.

As for the relevance of Gibson senior - this film attracted a very widespread concern amongst Jewish groups around the world as being anti-semitic in tone. I don't entirely agree, but it's historical perspective is far less about the brutality of Roman 'justice' than the perfidiousness and bigoted intransigence of the Jews.

I didn't attack anyone by the way, I just disagreed with an assessment of a film

Peace

Z