I saw the movie back in September but I feel like asking now for no reason so here goes:
[ul]
[li]Did anyone else notice that the only violent part that was as ridiculous as the movie was made out to be was when they nailed his wrist to the cross? The close-up POV showed a splurt of blood up in the air away from the camera and it made a SQUISHING NOISE! [/li][li]What the f*** was Mel thinking with the raven that pecks out the eyes of the thief who mocks Jesus?!![/li][li]The Jews are big-nosed. Their entire temple, not just the curtain, is torn in two in the earthquake. Of course, Mel left out what the author of Matthew writes about the graves being opened and the bodies of many godly men and women walking into Jerusalem. That’s just too myth-y even for the most die hard believer (no debates please).[/li][/ul]
Technically, Matthew’s rising of the saints doesn’t occur until after the resurrection. It’s confusing because Matthew describes it at Jesus’ moment of death but it actually says the zombie thing happened after the resurrection.
and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.
(Mt. 27:52-53)
The awkward chronology of this suggests that the bolded phrase may have been an early interpolation added by a pious scribe who thought it would be unseemly for the saints to be resurrected before Jesus.
From what I saw (perceived, whatever) it looked like the Gospel-derived bits were mostly from John, and the rest was apparently taken from a 19th century mystical account, which, by the way, was very close to the old German Passion Tracts (Tract of Heinrich of St Gall, Ludolphus, Christi Leiden in einer Vision geschaut, etc). Parts were really close and amused me, the medieval drama person (like when the soldiers let the cross fall while they are raising it so he leaves an imprint in the ground like in a roadrunner cartoon, or when they dislocate his limbs to that his arms stretch far enough-- it all had precedent in drama if you look back far enough). I mean, Veronica? How Gospel is THAT?
Now, here’s MY question: at the Ecce Homo scene, after Pilate announces that he is going to wash his hands of all of it, the camera shows the head Pharisee (Caiaphas?) at the front of the crowd yelling one last something something in Aramaic, I suppose, but no subtitle is provided. Is this how Mel removed the “blood libel” statement? (That is what the blood libel thing refers to, right? The statement about “His blood will be on our hands and those of our children etc”? If I’m off here please let me know) Is Caiaphas still in fact saying it in Aramaic or Hebrew but Mel, not REALLY wanting to remove the scene, merely failed to subtitle it?
The thing is, my friends and I found that scene, honestly, pretty well edited! It’s like, the only graphic gross-out moment is when the claw-thing sinks into his flesh- but even then, I don’t recall seeing a chunk ripped out. It was really well edited, we thought, and really tame!
And as for the basis of the movie- absolutely not on the gospels! I actually brought down a copy of the Bible from my room (I’m not a Christian but I wanted to prove a Catholic guy wrong ) to show him how absent Veronica is in the Bible. I told him maybe the whole thing was Veronica’s secret. Then I realized I had flubbed the joke; a good joke would’ve been, where’d she get all those silk rags, Veronica’s closet? Hah! Kirstie Allie is fat!
And we also figured out that, throughout the whole movie, not only was Mel putting in images from famous Christian artwork, but was also inserting famous Catholic phrases into the Aramaic. Um, biased much Mel?
And did you know that during the shooting of the crucifixion scene, they actually shot during a lightning storm? And Caviezel, Jesus, was struck by lightning several times?! Might be a sign, guys .
I recently saw this film. I went into it with no preconceived notions with the intent of judging it on its historical and technical merits.From a technical standpoint, I felt that the cinematography was quite good and the violence effects were very convincing. Historically, well, that’s up to the individual. Since none of us was actually there, and the historical record is relatively limited, it is up to the storyteller to extrapolate the actual events. I believe that Gibson did a credible job recreating the conditions of that particular place and time. There are those that say the film is Anti-Semitic. I believe this film is Anti-Semitic in the same way that WWII films are anti-German–that is, one has to take into account the whole picture. The Jews were under occupation. The Pharisees probably had a fairly good deal with the Romans, probably, “You can practice your religion, just don’t rock the boat” Then along comes this fellow who was a threat to their status quo, and they went into survival mode. What they did was wrong, but in such a situation, you do what you have to to survive. And as far as the crowd choosing Barabbas, well, they were simply following their spiritual leaders’ lead. I don’t believe this is an indictment of the Jewish people or Judaism in general any more than “The Longest Day” is an indictment of the German people.That having been said, I still believe that anyone who comes to a religious epiphany after watching a man torn to pieces needs to seriously question the faith they’ve chosen to follow!
) to show him how absent Veronica is in the Bible. I told him maybe the whole thing was Veronica’s secret. Then I realized I had flubbed the joke; a good joke would’ve been, where’d she get all those silk rags, Veronica’s closet? Hah! Kirstie Allie is fat!