Who spoke Latin anyway? I thought Greek was the lingua franca down there at the time, or something?
Yes, Greek was more commonly the lingua franca used in the eastern Roman provinces when Romans talked to non-Latin peoples.
As for the nails in the palms thing, the trailer for the movie does show both the nails in the palms and ropes typing the wrists to the cross.
I have trouble with someone considering the resurrection, a part of all four gospels, a “happy Hollywood ending”.
The prince in Braveheart was the future Edward II, and his problem as king was indeed that he was ineffectual, and that his favoritism (most notoriously towards one Piers Gaveston) alienated the nobility, which is not something you want to do if you’re king. His deposition in 1327 was indeed engineered by Queen Isabel and (probably) her lover, Roger Mortimer; Edward was shipped off to Berkeley Castle and eventually murdered. Legend has it that he was killed by being impaled through the anus with a red-hot poker, a method chosen both for its not leaving marks (in any place anyone would want to look) and for the irony value. :eek:
(Incidentally, I highly recommend Marlowe’s Edward II; I don’t know if it’s much more accurate than Braveheart but it’s a much better piece of drama. ;))
With the line “I thought fairies could fly.”
Har de har har.
Oh yeah – I have to admit I blocked that line out of my memory.
Do you think this will make or break Gibson’s career?
Actually, I’ve read that Edward II’s screams could be heard for miles.
Hell, they called his queen The She-Wolf of France!
This must be in the imaginary version of the movie, because I’ve seen the real one five or six times and don’t recall this line being there.
Skammer got the “good for her” meaning right.
and I concur that line was not in any BRAVEHEART I’ve seen.
Maybe it was a rude audience member comment? anyway, I think the term would have stood out as horribly inaccurate for the time
Shirley Ujest: I don’t think it will either make or break Gibson’s career. In the Q&A he did say he wanted to concentrate more on directing now and less on acting, so make of that what you will.
Sampiro:
- I don’t think the figure in the movie was meant to be THE Devil, but she is certainly a demonic manifestation. She is a very striking woman, sort of androgenous. I felt that she was an over-used device in the movie. She shows in a lot of scenes where people are plotting to kill Jesus and whenever “evil” things are happening. This gave me a “the devil made me do it” vibe that I didn’t like. If Jesus was there to save humans, shouldn’t his passion and death be of human doing? If the Devil (or his agents) are the ones really responsible for the evil, it makes more sense that the movie would end with a showdown between Jesus and the Devil. If the demonic woman was supposed to represent original sin or something, I feel it wasn’t a successful representation.
Something else Devil-related I didn’t like:
There is also a scene after Judas betrays Jesus when he is walking through the streets wracked with guilt. Two children begin following him, yelling about how he is cursed and the devil is in him. He sees them as possessed; their faces keep morphing into somewhat evil and twisted figures. Eventually Judas is pursued through the streets by a larger group of children who keep taunting him. It actually struck me as funny, which I’m sure isn’t what Gibson intended. But more about Judas later.
In his Q&A, Gibson talked about the woman a bit and said that he thought she was very beautiful (and she is, in a strange way) but that he planned to use CGI to insert a maggot or some kind of worm crawling in her nose for the final print, to show that she seems attractive but that there is something wrong with her. I think this is an awful idea. It was pretty darn clear what she was about without CGI worms, thank you very much. That’s just silly.
There was one interesting moment in the film where they use the figure of the woman for a pervered madonna and child image. Uh, spoiler.
She is holding what seems to be a young child, but then she turns it to reveal the child has the face of a scary-looking middle-aged man. Kinda freaky.
- (I hit some of the answer to #2 in my #1 answer, I think.) No, the film does not show the descent into Hell. But that would’ve been a perfect opportunity for that Jesus vs. Satan showdown. (Not that I think that would’ve been a GOOD idea.)
Weird. The “fairies” line lola mentioned seemed familiar, but I can’t find any record of it online…
Ok, if anyone still cares, I had a few more problems with stuff in the film.
During the crucifiction scene, they show the exchange between Jesus and the two robbers he was executed with. The one who believes in Jesus is told, “This day you will be with me in paradise.” The one who mocks Jesus…(oh, I dare you to highlight)
…instantly gets his eye pecked out by a raven! WTF?! I laughed out loud.
Not exactly going by the book there. Nor in the scene depicting the moments after Jesus’ death…
The wind picks up and it gets a bit dark, similar to the biblical account. Then they cut to a shot from high above the scene that was obviously an incomplete special effect shot. We couldn’t tell what was happening, but in the Q&A Gibson said that in the final film, that will be a shot of a giant teardrop falling from heaven. When it lands, it sets off a big earthquake that shakes everyone and MAKES A HUGE CRACK IN THE TEMPLE FLOOR, Indiana Jones-style! Yes, Jesus apparently made good on his threat to destroy the temple in the hope of rebuilding it in three days. I’ve seen better effects in the first season of Buffy. Never mind that in the Bible, the story is that the earth shook and the temple veil was ripped in two, a massive symbol of the end of the division between God and man now that Jesus’s sacrifice had been made. I guess that symbol wasn’t good enough for Mel, so he went with the 1930’s style open floor of death.
I totally intend the pun when I say, holy crap.