Given that we are not in the Pit, I will forbear the pungent Anglo-Saxon expletives. Suffice it to say that the pig-ignorant vermin who are determined to keep me a second-class citizen deserve every drop of venom I can muster.
besides mocking people who believe axheads float, donkeys talk, and that the world was made in six days is fun!
Hell, I can read just fine and I find it distracting to have to read while there’s a movie going on. I didn’t enjoy Crouching Tiger for this very reason, and the only foreign films I find myself actually enjoying are French because I can understand enough of what’s being said that I usually don’t have to rely much on the subtitles.
I was reading the Globe and Mail and came accross this article. I thought it was interesting, figured I’d share.
This may be ignorant of me (im not sure if my information is correct) but…
“The Passion…” is all in Latin, correct? And then subtitled in english… correct again, I beleive? My confusion is why the movie is not in english. I was told that Gibson Inc. 
wanted the film to be more accurate, believable, etc… … Will english subtitles not also sway accuracy (true meaning lost in translation)? Wouldnt viewers (especially children) be better informed if they heard and saw the entire movie??
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, I enjoyed, but I also felt that I could have had a better understanding had I known the language it was filmed in…
I know the OP says, “Now that you’ve seen it…” and I haven’t.
However, in all the photos and film clips, Jesus must have had a great dental plan back then, as well as a Super Cuts and a Gold’s Gym in the neigborhood - as once again Jesus is made out to be a good-looking, Caucasian with 6 pack abs.
Why did I think it wasn’t going to be subtitled? I thought way back when that’s what I’d heard. (makes sense that it is, though, so either I’m smoking crack, or Gibson finally came to his senses and realized we’d need a bit of translation)
You heard right, but after a few screenings subtitles were added at the suggestion of the viewers.
FWIW, the film is in latin, greek, and aramaic…alternating according to who’s speaking to whom from what I’ve read.
Originally it was supposed to be in Aramaic and Latin without subtitles. Gibson really did not want them but caved into the pressure from studios/distributors that started to panic.
Um, what was the in the post above about Herod?
However, for anyone who doesn’t believe this, the movie becomes nothing but a two hour snuff flick.
Without subtitles, what were the viewers supposed to do? Take an English-Latin dictionary with them? I don’t get it.
Wow, is this the first reply of someone who has actually SEEN it?
I’ll spoiler anything I that might give away too much:
The environment I saw it in cheesed me off if I may be so forward. I KNOW it was as part of a church group thingy (see my earlier post) and I was told comment cards would be handed out to share our thoughts. Instead, it turned into a recruiting session.
If you are going to try and ‘recruit’ me, at least have the decency to show the film’s credits first. The story may be about Jesus, but it was made by hard working men and women, give them their due.
Don’t go on and on at the end of the movie about how Mel Gibson was so selfless in giving $30 million to get this movie made and it was done for the message. If it truly was about the message, there would not have been those ‘flash dots’ popping up on the screen incessantly.
The violence WAS necessary, I have no qualms about that, BUT I find it unfortunate that someone who might truly appreciate the message, like my sweet mother-in-law, won’t go because the violence was taken to such an extreme. I’m as much for scourging as the next guy, but I don’t know that it needed to go on and on and on in such graphic detail. The same effect was had in Braveheart without showing as much (and that movie I think she WOULD go see, well, not counting the battle scenes). Along those lines the ‘symbolism’ of the bird pecking out the guy’s eyes really was not needed
Maybe someone less ignorant than I can clear this up too, but I though part of the message of the love of Jesus was screwed up when right after his death, the wrath of God destroys the temple. Is this how it was told in the Bible? I’m all for the showing of the resurrection at the end of the film, but the temple thing was really ham handed
Showing Herod as ‘flighty’ as they did really felt like a hint of homophobia slipping into the film and it offended me (I’m a straight married white guy and it did cheese me), ESPECIALLY if what I’ve read was true about him being anything but.
It may be the heathen in me, but I got from this less an inspirational film (although there were certainly uplifting moments that showed the love of Jesus and his disciples) and more a showcase for showing off lots of torture.
I was angered at the Jews at a few points in the movie, but if this ‘causes’ anyone to become anti-Semitic, then they are either very ignorant or already harbored said feelings. This movie to me did no more harm in my view of Jews than the actions of Timothy McVeigh did in my view of Christians. There is good and bad in each religions/race/etc. (and they DO show Jews in a good light in at least two instances).
I will not say ‘do not watch this movie’, but I think those who think it the end all divine tale of the end of Christ’s life may be a bit disappointed (at least those who view the film with a critical eye).
The story isn’t really driven by dialogue and most people are going to know what’s happening so I think Gibson wanted to affect the audience as though they were looking in on the actual historical event Since it’s a visually driven piece it should work somewhat like a silent movie even without subtitles. Too bad Gibson sabatoged his own verisimilitude by omitting Greek, using the wrong Latin pronunciations, screwing up with the nails through the hands and casting a White bread actor to play Jesus.
Won’t that cheese of the “If English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me” crowd?
Haven’t seen it yet but I intend to.
Thoughts…
a) An obsession with the violence and agony seems to me to be sending the message “Make sure you don’t do what this sunnuvabitch did or this is what’s gonna happen to you too”. But then I’ve often had that reaction to Christian churches in general: dip the corpse in gold plate and superficially worship it. Under the surface, a whole lot of overtones of “we’re worshipping the fact that he’s dead”.
b) Blaming the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is so stupid analogies don’t readily come to mind. OK, it’s akin to the Galactic Christian Confederation of 23,705 AD blaming Earthlings for the crucifixion of Jesus. The people who crucified Jesus were Jewish because Jesus was Jewish and that’s where he was. Are people – Christians and nonChristians alike – really inclined to believe that if a person had been born amongst them instead and did what he did there instead that they would have reacted in a significantly more praiseworthy fashion?
I really want to see this film, but being a heathen non-Christian I hang out with a lot of other heathen non-Christians and can’t find anyone to go with me. The couple of times I managed to mutter something to the effect of ‘Let’s go to ‘The Passion…’ this weekend’, I got stared at as if I was an alien. What a shame. Methinks I’ll download the film insidously off the net (and hopefully not get caught)…or maybe just get my reviews from SDMB
Saw it tonight. Wasn’t entirely impressed.
Everybody around me was sniffling and crying, while I didn’t even get a twinge of sorrow. Almost felt guilty, but then I remembered how evil and twisted Chrsitianity was, and just sat there, wishing I hadn’t gone.
Thought it was very funny that the movie was subtitled though, I too was imagining all the neanderthal fundies scratching their head sayin “Eye gotchta read dis stuff?”
For those wondering, my parents are pretty hardcore neanderthal fundies, and coerced me into watching. (with guilt of course)
I haven’t seen the movie (don’t intend to) and have already replied once, but here I am again. In response to Mr Moto, who said
“I think, though, that the violence is entirely on point.
Christ suffered on the cross and died for our sins. That is the central meaning of Christianity.”
No sir, not to all of us. To some of us the great commandment to love others as ourselves is the central message. But I suppose this isn’t the correct forum for theology.
Wow, gobear, I usually have a lot of respect for you, but I have to say this is one of the most offensive things I’ve seen you post. And I’m not even a fundamentalist. Fundie:Uneducated=Gay:Promiscuous
Anyway, I saw it tonight. Obviously, what one gets out of the film depends largely on what one takes into it.
First, the things (mostly minor) that bothered me: {spoilers below}
– Jesus’ teeth. I didn’t think he, or many of the cast, looked “too white” – some were lighter than others, but it’s not like they had a bunch of blue-eyed blondes with speaking parts. I thought they were all passable Semitics. But I found Jesus’ perfectly straight, pearly white teeth kind of distracting (until they got all blood soaked, then I didn’t notice so much).
– The resurrection scene (all 15 seconds of it). Probably just the Protestant in me, but I would have liked to see a bigger deal made of it.
– I agree, the crow pecking the theif’s eye was kind of ham-fisted
And to respond to complaints that I’ve read from others:
– Get over the historical inaccuracies (nails thru the hands, etc). It’s a passion play, not a Discovery Channel special
– I was afraid that having Satan played by a woman would seem misogynistic. But Old Scratch really seemed more adrogynous than anything else. I wouldn’t have known it was a woman if I hadn’t been told.
– The Jews aren’t the bad guys. The Roman soldiers, and the priests, are. A couple of the priests even defend Jesus at the trial. Many Jews are ‘good’ – Paul, John, Mary, Magdelene, Simon, Veronica… Jesus himself forgave those who were hurting him, and (in flashback) commands is followers to ‘love your enemies and those who persecute you.’
– Herod bothered me; I think this is a legitimate complaint. The people I was with told me afterwards that they didn’t ‘get’ that he was gay; they just figured he and his court were debauched. I guess that could be argued, but he seemed gay to me, which was unnecessary (and ahistorical).
My own reactions:
– My heart broke for Peter when he realized what he had done after denying he knew Jesus. That was the closest I came to crying during the film.
– I loved the actor who played Pontius Pilate. Peter and mother Mary were both great too.
– I would have left out the devil parts. Didn’t think they were necessary.
– The Roman soldiers seemed a little cartoonish.
Overall, I thougt it was powerful and moving. I’ll need to see it again.
I haven’t seen it yet (it may be a Netflix film for me as well), and I don’t want to start a flame war, but:
Anyone else think it ironic that Christians have been campaigning against violence in movies and the media, and one of the most violent films in recent memory is a Christian movie ;). I realize it is part of history, but ironic, nonetheless.