The Passion of the Christ

[Jay]

christ ..ina ... ah... nu crezi ca exagerezi un pic... am inteles ca esti preten bun cu dumnezeu... dar de aici si pana la propavaduirea credintei online... e cam aiurea... filmul a fost frumusel...

[MinRep]

Sper sa nu faca Gibson asa ceva (deocamdata nu sunt zvonuri), dar mi-ar placea sa vad varianta lui Gibson inainte de taieturile facute ca filmul sa para mai "politically correct"... In schimb, sunt mai mult ca sigur ca biserica va avea grija ca filmul sa ruleze non-stop pentru cativa ani buni...

[CHRISTina]

christ ..ina ... ah... nu crezi ca exagerezi un pic... am inteles ca esti preten bun cu dumnezeu... dar de aici si pana la propavaduirea credintei online... e cam aiurea... filmul a fost frumusel...

Si asta face parte din infaptuirea vointei lui Dumnezeu...sa incerci sa-i aduci si pe ceilalti pe calea cea dreapta.Nu zic ca eu sunt perfecta, niciodata n-am sa fiu oricat as incerca (only God is perfect) dar incerc sa fac numai ce e bine.

[CHRISTina]

Am auzit (e doar un zvon, nu e nimic sigur deocamdata) ca Mel Gibson va scoate un DVD cu scenele taiate din film. Chiar as fi curioasa sa vad cum a fost prima varianta a filmului...desi e posibil sa am un soc mai rau ca niciodata (cred ca persoanele care au murit au vazut scenele astea!)Si s-ar putea sa mai scoata si un bonus la DVD.

Nu stiu ce o sa ziceti, dar mie mi se pare ca s-au intamplat foarte multe lucruri ciudate la filmul acesta si dupa el.

De exemplu:

1.Jim Caviezel a fost traznit de fulger pe platourile de filmare, iar regizorul secund, Jan Michelini, de 2 ori. Nici unul nu a patit nimic. :shock:

2. O fetita de 6 ani care se afla pe platourile de filmare (in vizita) si care suferea de epilepsie nu a mai avut nici o criza si s-a vindecat, iar 2 oameni au inceput sa vada mai bine.(!)

3.Doi italieni (buni prieteni, de altfel) care se dusesera la film s-au luat la bataie dupa terminare pentru ca se contraziceau pe seama acestuia.

4.Un hot s-a predat dupa ce jefuise un magazin intreg de bijuterii si a spus si ce crime comisese in trecut. Motivul: "The Passion of the Christ"

5.2 persoane au murit in timp ce vizionau filmul :shock:

Asta chiar e tare ciudat

[Jay]

faith on line....
mda... Ai vazut Jesus Christ Superstar?

[CHRISTina]

faith on line....
mda... Ai vazut Jesus Christ Superstar?

Nu, am auzit de el si o sa fac rost de film curand. Merita vazut?

[Jay]

well.... ar merita
In fine ... as vrea sa nu mai discut pe subiectul asta.... punct

[MinRep]

"Jesus Christ Superstar" nu e un muzical. Este un film al unei opere-rock, una dintre primele scrise vreodata (de Andrew Lloyd Webber, cu versuri de Tim Rice). Otherwise, muzica e grozava, trecand prin toate registrele muzicii rock de atunci (psihedelica, hard rock, balada), intrand si in jazz si charleston un pic si, bineinteles, cu influente clasice (si stiu ca uit ceva). S-ar putea ca motivul pentru care mie imi place "Jesus Christ Superstar" sa fie muzica (si versurile), mult peste ce poti asculta in mod obisnuit intr-un film. Dar as vrea sa iau si alte lucruri in considerare (atentie, spiolere!):
--- actorii (Carl Anderson si Ted Neeley se completeaza reciproc perfect. Unul agresiv, celalalt bland, amandoi puternici, amandoi cu slabicinile lor. E o chestie unica sa vezi cum fiecare actor isi creeaza un personaj unic, si aici mai mentionez doi actori: Yvonne Eliman ca Maria Magdalena si Barry Dennen ca Pilat; ar mai fi Paul Thomas - star porno de mare calibru - in rolul lui Petru :lol;
--- Uvertura - modul in care este gandita si, mai ales, modul in care este gandit filmul, mai mult ca o joaca a unor hippioti. Aici intra si accentele moderne precum tancurile, imbracamintea, scena de la lacul lui Irod etc.;
--- Biblia este, totusi, respectata foarte indeaproape, desi unele chestii sunt duse la extrem. Lipsete Fecioara Maria, iar Invierea este prezenta doar printr-o aluzie foarte inteligenta);
--- Imaginea, de o frumusete unica, care revine poate si din decorul in care filmul este filmat;
--- Scene de neuitat, si ele unice: montajul uverturii, prima melodie a lui Iuda, intrarea in Ierusalim, Cina cea de Taina la iarba verde, scena lui Irod, biciuirea, intoarcerea lui Iuda in chip de inger, rastignirea (foarte frumos rezolvata) si finalul cu actorii intorcandu-se la autocarul cu care au venit, Ted Neeley, imbracat ca Isus fiind singurul care ramane, mergand prin desert...

P.S.: Prima data can am vazut filmul, nu mi-a palcut deloc (poate pentru ca habar n-aveam muzica in clasa a saptea). In fine, dupa vreo trei ani, l-am revazut mai mult din greseala si am ramas atras inexplicabil, de la un cap la altul al filmului. Cred ca "Jesus Christ Superstar" e unul dintre putinele filme la care m-as putea uita oricand, fara sa ma plictsesc.

[CHRISTina]

Pana la urma trebuie sa vad si "Jesus Christ Superstar"!

[Pitbull]

Scuze dacä am reînviat un topic mort de mult, dar se face cä am comis si eu ceva despre "Passions...", la vremea respectivä, pentru forumul Vama Veche si altele unde sunt membru. Asa cäci, cu îngäduinta voasträ, îl trec si aici. Dacä gäsiti cä nu meritä, ignorti-l si läsati topicul sä se învecheascä la loc.
(NOTA - E în englezä pentru cä unul dintre forumuri era american).


THE PASSION OF MAD MAX: "Let's play the Jesus game, chums!"

As everybody knows, Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" was a classic and correct illustrative of the Scriptures, very beautifully and well done. Nothing creative there as cinematographic language - but an artful mastery of the known rules of movie expression. And almost nothing creative at the script level - with one notable exception! The whole betrayal episode. Many people wondered what was the hidden resort of Juda's betrayal - after all, he WAS a disciple of Jesus. The excuse of the 30 silvers doesn't quite stand either. In time, various authors tried to suggest a reasonable explanation of this act that we traditionally find so despicable. Most hypotheses suggest that Jesus Himself instigated Judas to betray Him - to fulfill the prophecy and, mostly, his role as a Messiah (one such instance is the admirable story "Behold the Man", by Michael Moorcock, awarded with the Nebula prize). In "Jesus Christ Superstar", Judas is a faithful Apostle, but he doesn't understand the whole import of Jesus' sacrifice. Believing in their temporary apostolic success, he fears that, by challenging the wrath of the Pharisees and provoking their violent reprieve, Jesus will compromise all their work - so, he betrays Him in the hope that, after a lighter punishment, all the fuss will die down and they'll be able to fulfill their mission. And a somewhat similar opinion proposes Anthony Burgess, in his novel "Jesus: One Life". There, a cunning priest, Zerah, misleads Judas into believing that he only wants to arrest Jesus to protect Him - so, Judas commits again his act in good faith. It's this last version that we find again in Zefirelli's movie, since the screenplay was based on Burgess' book, who also contributed to the script. All these instances are cases of fictional fillings for the gaps in the canonical Evangiles. They are virtually mandatory to any screen transcription of the Scriptures, else the story will be not only nonsensical, but also plain and boring. By such skillful weaving between the Biblical reality and artistic fiction, Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" remained THE Life of Jesus on screen - or, conversely, Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" became, definitely, the best creative fiction based upon the Passions. This is the first and foremost flaw in Mel Gibson's attempt to bring his own version on screen. Gibson's main mistake consists in an extremely messy artistic decision. He's not able to consciously decide between historic reality, canonic myth and personal creativity. He proudly declares that he followed mainly the historic angle, but unfortunately this is reduced only to formal elements: mainly the surprising (well meant, well inspired and well done) use of the original languages - Aramaic, Greek and Latin - and also the scrupulous reconstitution of sets, costumes and props. But the script is pathetically lacking a lot of necessary historic facts or arguments, pertaining to the political and social fields (for instance, in "Jesus of Nazareth", the relationship with the Romans and Pilate's dilemma were better and clearer expressed). Thus, the "historic accuracy" argument functions exclusively at a superficial level. Then, Gibson recurs to a few consecrated images from the Christian iconography that were proved to be false - namely, those regarding the crucifixion technique. It's KNOWN that the nails were drown through the WRISTS, not through the palms - since the hand's soft tissues between the metatarsian bones would have ripped at once, maiming but also freeing the victim's hand, while the tarsian bones in the wrist are much more compact and sturdy, also benefitting by the reinforcement of the forearm's ulna and radius. Also, on the Turin Shroud, the impression shows clearly the nails left holes located precisely on the wrists. Also, the convicts did NOT carry their whole cross, for the simple reason that this torture instrument was too heavy. As a rule, the vertical pole was already stuck firmly into the ground, since the execution places were much used; the victim was attached to the transversal beam, on ground, then ascended to the top of the pole, thus forming the final cross - and it was this horizontal beam that had to be carried (by the convict himself). Surprisingly, Gibson DOES show Dismas and Hestas to carry their beams - but only Jesus (much weaker than them, as the whipping marks on their bodies show) has to carry that impossibly heavy device. Why? Because, in this instance, Gibson preferred to use the consecrated images of the Way of the Cross. All good and well, but such an option contradicts his own statement of "historic accuracy". He was allowed, of course, to employ such a licence, combining fact and legend - but he did it awkwardly (compromising his whole effort by showing the two outlaws being crucified in a correct way). This was only an example, the most representative for Gibson's artistic indecision that makes itself felt throughout the whole movie. Another one, at a different level, is that of the "declared" or "creative fiction" - the authors own contribution. We'll illustrate it with the case of Satan. It's absolutely all right to create a Satanic presence into the story, to add to its eschatologic significances. Scorsese did it also, in "The Last Temptation...". Unfortunately, Gibson's character is used in the most naive and childish way. Satan first appears in Getsemani, stating his point in a few well chosen words - in an attempt to discourage Jesus' sacrifice. Having failed pathetically (Jesus crushes under His foot the head of the temptation's snake - an inspired allusion to the temptation from the Guarded of Eden, after all), what does Satan? He appears again a few times along the story, during Jesus' ordeal, as a silent and insinuating passive witness, only REMINDING him about his initial words. Childish! Such a dramaturgic construction would have demanded FURTHER ARGUMENTS, ever more convincing, blending with the ever increasing pains of Christ - and, mostly, A CULMINATING MOMENT, once on the Cross (as happens in Scorsese's movie). But Satan's strongest moment is the first one, and after that, he has nothing more to say or use - except showing a sort of hideous baby mutant during the whipping, as a proud tribute to the Hollywoodian tradition of horror movies. In the same tradition, once Jesus dies and is laid to the tomb, Satan gives a mighty scream of frustration, dissolving into a reddish inferno - FIXAMENTLY THE SAME as Al Pacino in "Devil's Advocate"! That first use of the respective image was expressive and inspired. Its pastiche by Gibson is preposterous. In the same vein functions the scene with the children harassing Judas to his suicide, reminding of Oreste's Erynees - the goddesses of Remorse. The scene is well started, and lost someone along the way - unfulfilled. But what about the most controversial aspect of the movie - the violence angle? I don't adhere to the opinion that it's TOO VIOLENT. After all, the torture and execution techniques WERE horrendously brutal and spectacularly bloody. This IS a historic truth - and it has a central significance to perceive the full meaning of Jesus' sacrifice. I don't sustain either that naturalism is not fit for a movie about the Passions of Christ - exactly for the same reason. Although suggestion and subtlety are by far more refined and elegant, I accept that one can use expressively the naturalist directness also. The problem is that Gibson does NOT use it expressively. He uses it ostentatiously and simplistically. His movie is NOT "naturalist", it's simply GORY. A well known anecdote says that once, in a funfair, a man saw another one imitating a piglet's screams. He did it so realistically, that everybody laughed their asses off, and the artist reaped heaps of money. Our man tried to be smarter, so he hided a real piglet under his coat and made it scream. But no one was attracted by it, and he got no pennies. The morals: perhaps the piglet didn't scream ARTISTICALLY. This is the main flaw of Gibson's movie: the supplice of Jesus, no matter how realistically depicted, doesn't counteract the brutality of the truth with an ARTISTIC component. One simple example: Jesus covered in blood after being whipped. Yes, THIS is how he should have looked. But, ON SCREEN, it looks false. The camera does NOT see reality as it is, it's always adding a new dimension - and this dimension can sometimes instill an apparent falseness to an otherwise faithful reality. In truth, a man such tortured DOES look like a skinned pig - but NEVER as a Messiah! He's REPULSIVE, not faith inspiring. And, in a movie, he doesn't even look real anymore - he looks forced and aesthetically hysteric. Unfortunately, hysteria is one of the main sins of Gibson's movie. His insistence over many dramatic moments and effects bypassed the stage of a sober and responsible attitude, becoming HYSTERIC. This flaw starts by being felt right from the beginning, with the arrest scene - unduly prolonged and over-licitated to the point of bordering a Kitsch sense. The same hysteria pushes Gibson to the most ridiculous scene of all: the stabbing in the flank. Physiology tells us that a dead body can't bleed anymore - since the blood stopped flowing, and the pressure is zero. The Bible also tells us, accurately, that from Christ's rib oozed "water" (read: lymph), proving Him to be dead. And Mel Gibson tells us that, when we stab a corpse, it will sprout out a spectacular geyser of arterial blood, for THREE SHOTS IN A ROW, drenching all around in a gory rain! Well done, Mel, where were you when they taught this lesson in school? Dreaming to Mad Max, perhaps? And, last but not least, a few strictly professional comments. Our MadMaxian artist didn't learn well either his screen writing and directing lessons. He is NOT a movie-maker, and this SHOWS, unfortunately. Here are some examples: The story-line has neither head, nor tail. By opening it in Getsemani, Gibson neglects a NECESSARY beginning portion, needed to fulfill some essential Proppian functions (the Absence, the Interdiction, the Trespassing, the Missing). He starts directly with the Temptation (in this case, rightfully not followed by the Falling and the Complicity), that belongs in the SECOND rhythmema! IF he wanted to begin there the narration, for dramatic purposes, he should have re-arranged the overall dramaturgy! (But the flash-backs he uses, remembering the Last Supper or the Palm Sunday, don't function as such; they are inserted following EMOTIONAL synapses, not dramaturgic rules.) Judas' character is grossly shunted. He betrays, he is remorseful and he commits suicide. Why, how, what, when...? All is silence. By contrary, the character of Simon the Kyrean, who helped Jesus carry His Cross, is unduly inflated - with no other purpose than his expected and known conversion. The same message could (and should) have been expressed by simpler means, within the existing structure of THIS story-line. Fortunately, Holy Mary is very well done - the developing of the character, even transcending the Evangelic mentions regarding Her presence in Jerusalem, is inspired, useful and masterfully conducted. To this contributes also the undeniable talent of Maia Morgenstern (about whom I can add the following anecdotic detail: the first director ever who commanded "Action!" to Maia Morgenstern, when she was a student in her second year, was a one year older colleague, shooting his yearly movie; his name: Mihnea Columbeanu, one and the same with the Pitbull ). Fortunately, MOST of the actors are well chosen, typologically, talented and skillful. My personal favorites were Peter and Pilate, and the most I hated Barrabas - a caricatural grotesquerie, again ostentatious and showing the above-mentioned cinematographic Kitsch and hysteria. Stacy Keath as Barrabas, in "Jesus of Nazareth", was BY FAR more credible! Unfortunately and paradoxically, the character of Jesus Himself fails by an unforgivable lack of identity. His actions, reactions and attitudes are so poor in dramaturgic elements, so schematic and simplistic, that He remains just an abstract and lifeless image. The few flash-back meant to give Him a human and credible dimension (for instance, the one showing Him as a carpenter at work) are well intended, but lacking imagination and fulfillment - by far too little for their purpose. Jim Caviezel acts well - but he doesn't have too much to do, except carrying the even heavier cross of makeup! Gibson does NOT know to construct the shots. A few of them (mainly at the beginning) are over-stylish, painting-like, hyper-spectacular. Many others are awkward, disbalanced, badly framed and wrongly angled. The most outrageous are a series of middle shots of Jesus crucified. They are so grossly misshapen, than the Lord looks like a diformed chunk of pork at the slaughter, not as the Lamb of God bringing absolution! And this is NOT due to the "sad reality of crucifixion", but to the dizzy use of the camera angle and framing! The editing is messy, a-rhythmic, oftenly random - especially during the dynamic scene of the Cross' Way. Gibson's sense of story-telling is so limited that, by the time the fledging finishes and the execution begins, the movie becomes outrightly boring. The director exhausted everything he had to say and show, and now he's only heavily and stiffly pushing the story to its ending. And the said ending is also pathetically lame. NOTHING happens in the end. Jesus is dead and descended from the Cross. A short and partial suggestion of Pietá. Satan makes a tantrum and throws away his wig. The shroud deflates (a beautiful image, but failing its mission) and we find Jesus sitting next to the funereal slab (suggesting that he was beamed from here to there, in a Star Trek fashion), the He stands up unharmed and immaculate (only with the nails holes in His hands, while all the other wounds and scars disappeared as by - an unjustified - miracle) and walks away. Bye. (Remember that extremely charged and troubling moment, in the end of Zeffirelli's movie, when Zerah stares in dread at the empty tomb and murmurs: "Oh, now... Now it's beginning! NOW it's ALL beginning!"...? WHERE do we found an element of a similar impact in Gibson's movie? WHAT, in his ending, catapults us to the millenia of Christian faith that Jesus left us as a heritage? WHY did Jesus die on Cross and was resurrected the third day, after the Scriptures? Only to allow Mel Gibson to fulfill a dream dear to his heart? Very well, Mel, bravissimo - have a candy!

May 12, 2004, Bucharest, Romania

[nume]

Frate, incearca sa le scrii mai mici, zau ....

[KORBEN]

postu ala f lung l-am sarit
..............
gsus krist superstar e kolosal, macar ca manifestare a campului
de vazut si rerererevazut
adik un muzikhall face din krestinism ceva amuzant, pe-alocuri penibil
de vazut la pachet cu rocky horror picture show

si de ce nu cu episoadele featuring jesus din southpark, mai ales ala d craciun in care sania lui mos craciun e doborata de teroristii iarkieni si gsus si gaska din SP pleaka in komando pt a-l elibera pe sandy clawz aflat ostatic in irak
gsus e omorat de un irakian
foarte amuzant
dak nu era in germana poate intelegeam si ceva din dialoguri

[herbert]

fara nici un mesaj subversiv, te intreb Korben (va intreb cinemagisti) daca ai vazut vreun film despre/cu Alah personaj? rastignit, evaporat, violat, sedus.

[KORBEN]

tot fara vreun mesaj subversiv
nu
din simplul motiv ca islamul e inca "in putere"
iar crestinismu e half burried

[nume]

din simplul motiv ca islamul e inca "in putere"
iar crestinismu e half burried

A? :shock: :w00t: :shock: :hmm: Serios ? P-asta nu o stiam. Ai de mult ideile astea, sau te-au lovit acum ? Poate si argumentezi ....

[K's]

A? :shock: :w00t: :shock: :hmm: Serios ? P-asta nu o stiam. Ai de mult ideile astea, sau te-au lovit acum ? Poate si argumentezi ....

Pai e logic si evident, din ratiuni islamice oamenii se mai baga in razboi, pe cind cruciadele nu au mai unit de ceva secole crestinii. Cu cit creste nivelul de informare, cu atit scade nevoia unei credinte in puteri supraumane. Si un crestinism half burried pare inca puternic, mai puternic decit este intr-adevar.

[MinRep]

adik un muzikhall face din krestinism ceva amuzant, pe-alocuri penibil

Amuzant da, dar cu penibil nu sunt de acord. Doar Irod si Pilat sunt portretizati prin exagerarea trasaturilor negative de caracter (depravarea si, respectiva, slabiciunea in confruntarea cu supusii). Pe de cealalta parte, dramele sau problemele lui Isus, ale lui Iuda sau ale conducatorior evrei sunt prezentate cu toata seriozitatea, chiar daca sunt pe muzica. Iar Ted Neely si Carl Andersson isi joaca rolurile corect din toate punctele de vedere. Ma indoiesc ca opera-rock a lui Andrew Lloyd Webber sau filmul lui Jewinson isi propun sa "atace" crestinismul. Mai degraba cred ca universalizeaza si actualizeaza problema, o explica si din punct de vedere istoric si o servesc astfel incat oricine sa o poata digera.

[nume]

tot fara vreun mesaj subversiv
nu
din simplul motiv ca islamul e inca "in putere"
iar crestinismu e half burried

Da, i se vede vigoarea in decapitarile irakiene, un orgasm vizual, vorba malei portugal.

[Pitbull]

Hoprea! Ateii contratacä!
Hai, baieti, ziceti, orice, numa' ziceti!
Hai cu materialismu' dialiectic si istuoric!
Hai cu "nu cred decât ce väd cu oichii mei"
-------------------------------------------------
"God is dead!" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead." - God

[KORBEN]

@nume
cine a zis ca inchizitiile&cruciadele tre sa fie sincronizate in toate religii;le????
nu ca nu ar da bine o simfonie de torturi, decapitari, adreri pe rug
poate s-ar elucida si un nr mai mare care`i chestia cu religiile
@herbert
in ce-am spus mai dvreme nu eram nici serios
dar nici nu glumeam in totalitate