Talk of “dark-skinned” is hopelessly ambiguous. How “dark” is “dark-skinned”? From the talk on this thread, you’d think sub-Saharan negroid. Excepting the Ashkenazim (Israeli Jews of European ancestry), Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians, don’t look that much different from a general Mediterranean type found in Croatia, Serbia, Turkey, Greece, and southern Italy. Skin color is often no darker than found in many Caucasian Europeans after a day in the sun.
The new Newsweek has an excellent article about The Passion, and describes some of the violence, but makes the point that even Mel’s depiction is probably tame compared to what really went on back then.
It also points out some artistic license issues that Mel has taken with the story, like his portrayal of Pontius Pilate as being influenced by the Jewish temple crowd to kill Jesus, when in fact Pilate was quite brutal on his own accord.
It quotes Mel a few times as being adamant that the film is not anti-semetic, but the stuff on celluloid seems obviously skewed otherwise.
I haven’t seen the film, but perhaps Mel was just trying to set up a simple good guy/bad guy plot immersed in political intrigue and kinda got it wrong.
Another point the article makes is that the “Jews” that the Gospels refer to are not what we or Mel think existed at the time.
Alas, another literal translation of a metaphorical life fails.
Will Fundie’s ever learn.
Or maybe the producers of films that are already bloody enough to be guaranteed an “R” rating don’t see any reason to be shy about profanity or a little T&A. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. And while I can think of many storylines that might call for sex but no violence, I can’t think of a lot that would require graphic, “R”-level violence perpetrated by/against characters who never utter a naughty word.
The ratings board is made up of fallible human beings with their own prejudices, and I would agree that in Hollywood films violence often seems to be treated more casually than sex, but “nudity and language is a no-no, whereas violence normally is ok” is at best a gross oversimplification.
Your contention was that in the American film rating system, “nudity and language is a no-no, whereas violence normally is ok”. I showed that numerous recent films were rated R by the MPAA for violence alone. The only counter evidence to that would be to find recently released violent PG or PG-13 films with no concurrent language, sexuality, or drug usage problems. You haven’t done that.
I wanna see a Gnostic version of the story! 
Walloon
- I think ‘Return of the King’ which is PG13, serves as an example. I haven’t got around to seeing it yet, but based on the other two, I’d think violence is abundant, wheseas sex, nudity and drugs are non existent.
- You showed that "showed that numerous recent films were rated R by the MPAA for violence alone." whereas I showed that a small number of movies, as compared to them all, was rated R, solely based on violence and that in fact four times as many got that rating based on sex, nudity or language, which in turn supports my initial statement that “nudity and language is a no-no, whereas violence normally is ok”. If you want to do fisking, I never said that all violence is ok, and I hope that it’s obvious from my first post that my undersstanding of the American rating system is that it tends to be harsher on sex, nudity and expletives, than on violent portrayals.
- You wanted me to find violent PG-13 movies with no language, sex or drugs. Last year, Mpaa rated 193 movies for a PG-13 rating. Of these 106 got that label for language, drugs or sex. A combination of all gave the PG-13 to 59 movies and 28 got PG-13 based only on violence. This is the full list of these 28 flicks:
Megalodon, Dragon Lord, Three Blind Mice, Young Master, The Touch, Gunsmoke: The Last Apache, Bon Voyage, The Gospel Of John, Tremors 4: The Legend, The Book Of Mormon Movie - Volume I, The Journey, Luther, Operation Scorpio, Pirates Of The Carribean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl, Code Conspiracy, Sea Wolf, Maximum Velocity, Skulls 3, Dead Silence, Counterstrike, Air America, Jackie Chan’s Project A 2, Mary Higgins Clark: You Belong To Me, Valentin, Coronado, Mary Higgins Clark: Pretend You Don’t See Her, Invincible, First Shot, The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King.
Maybe I’m getting woshed here, but what I’m trying to say is that I can’t really see how a movie like ‘Lost in Translation’ can be more unsuitable for a 13 y.o. than Skulls 3. Granted, I don’t think a 13 y.o. would enjoy ‘Lost in Translation’ at all and won’t be prone to see it.
I haven’t seen ‘Thirteen’, and I understand that it’s a strong movie, but there is something ironic that the girl who co-wrote, played one of the parts and just turned 16 only can see it in the company of an adult.
And finally: Maybe my argument won’t convince you, but I don’t think you can tell me what constitutes good evidence. Statistics may be slippery, but they do tell a story. And that story is that the Mpaa tends to put a harsher rating on movies based only on sex, drugs and language, than they do on just violence. Worst is, of course, a combination of all of the above.
Bad example… the violence in Return of the King is relatively generalized, and not very gory compared to R-rated movies.
Perhaps you missed my earlier example, but Braveheart strikes me as a better parallel to The Passion. It fits well because Gibson also directed it, but also because it’s rated R primarily for violence. There is no graphic sexuality, and nudity on the level of PG-13 acceptability (bare butts is all I recall), but lots of violence and gore, and an extended depiction of torture near the end. According to IMDB, Braveheart is “Rated R for brutal medieval warfare.” – only for violence, in other words.
I really don’t see what your point is here, Gaspode… are you saying that a realistic portrayal of the Crucifixion and the suffering that happens afterwards, complete with blood and pierced flesh, should get something less than an R rating? What would you rate it at?
Wouldn’t a film that was not about Christ, showing a similar scene, be rated R? Do you believe that The Passion deserves a lesser rating because it’s a religious film?
Gaspode, you don’t understand the MPAA’s rating system. Don’t feel bad, though, because neither does the MPAA. The ratings system in America is completely broken. It’s arbitrary, hypocritical in the extreme, biased in favor of the big studios, and almost entirely meaningless. Films do get rated R for violence, but only if it’s “realistic” violence. In other words, if a film shows violence to be a bad thing with terrible consequences, it will be rated R. If it shows violence as bloodless or cartoony, it gets a PG-13 or even just a PG.
The general idiocy of the MPAA is a favorite subject of Roger Ebert’s Movie Answer Man column. There’s been a pretty big controversy over the film Whale Rider getting a PG-13 because of one scene where the protagonist goes into her brother’s room and there’s a split second shot of a pot pipe on his bedside table. The MPAA later forbade the use of an Ebert quote calling the film “a great family movie” from being used on movie posters.
So, the Morality Scale of the MPAA goes something like this:
The scourging of Our Lord and Savior, as related in the New Testament: R
A two-second shot of a pot pipe: PG-13
Anakin Skywalker getting his arm chopped off and committing off-screen genocide: PG
FTR, I actually agree with the rating the MPAA gave to Passion. I don’t mind the violence, but I don’t think it’s right to expose very young children to religion. It could warp their fragile little minds.
Avalonian. Maybe I got lost a little myself, while trying to make sense of all the info at mpaa.org. My initial surprise and the reason for the OP was that ‘Passion’ wasn’t awarded a PG-13 rating, since my impression was that the rating board seems to cut more slack to violence than sex, drugs and foul language.
About color of skin: Middle Easterners are technically Caucasian and in terms of skin color are a bit darker, but an olive colored Cavaziel is not totally off the reservation, look at some people of Lebanese descent.
You know, now that I’ve had a better look at Cavaziel in the role, I’m willing to give it up on what I said earlier. I had only seen him in pictures like this one previously, so my impression of his “fit” for the role was a bit skewed. Seeing the production photos of him in The Passion has changed my mind; he’s a pretty good fit for the role physically.
And honestly, just this one is pretty much enough to convince me that the film deserves its R rating. Yeesh.
Still, Miller said was I was trying to get to, but much more succinctly. One of the big problems with the MPAA is that they really aren’t consistent at all in their ratings. I’d say that The Passion probably should be rated R (everything I’ve seen and heard suggests that), but there are lots of movies whose ratings I disagree with. The whole mess with Whale Rider’s rating is a great example; such a fuss over a barely-seen pipe, and for a movie that is not only family-friendly, it’s a great film for families to see together.
Did the article say whether the crowd of Jews were rabbling to kill Jesus for his preachings or just because it was fun to watch executions? I wouldn’t imagine that the Jews of that time would have shied away from such a public spectacle, in the same way people express some sort of relief, contentment, etc. when a murderer is executed.
Also, if one refers to a Staight Dope staff report onwho killed Jesus, it appears that the high priest initiated the legal turmoils of Jesus. The Jews said Jesus was a troublemaker and the Romans took it from there, using their less than tranquil policing and punishment methods.
Yes, it is most inflammatory to say that the Jews killed Jesus, but it’s faily accurate to say the Jews and the Romans killed Jesus, not because he was Jewish but because he was a rabble-rouser the same way we’d execute someone for starting a deadly riot.
Oh yeah, as for the OP, it’s almost a definite that “The Passion” would receive in R-rating. It’s going to be incredibly violent and brutal (I’m speaking in the future tense because I haven’t seen it yet). While the ratings were installed due to the sort of fundamentalism Christians in the US is known for, a brutal, if accurate, protrayal of Jesus will still be classified as not suitable for unaccompanied children.
I’m very much looking forward to seeing this movie. I always like accurate historical protrayals and this one seems rather interesting, being subtitled and all.
Wha? People aren’t executed for that… anyway, I think the key to the SD report isn’t just the text, it’s the discussion of the ‘audiences.’ The gospel was tailored to the people hearing it. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but it does say that if the Jews had wanted to get rid of Jesus for heresy or anything else, they could have done so (by stoning) with no problems.
This might have already been said, my apologies if I missed it.
The MPAA tends to draw a line between fantasy violence and realistic violence. One particular instance is Star Trek VI. The opening scene shows dead Klingons, complete with purplish blood. The blood being purple instead of red allowed the movie to slip by with a PG-13 - if it had remained red, the MPAA planned to give the film an R.
While LOTR had many fight scenes, there weren’t too many specifically violent incidents. I was surprised to see a few Orc beheadings, but they went by so fast that there wasn’t much potential for gore. There were injuries, but very little blood. There was also no “bad” language, no sex, and no nudity. The violence was fast, general, and non-specific. The MPAA also seems to be more accepting of medieval-type combat with swords than the modern type.
I don’t blame anyone for not understanding the ratings system. I think it’s insane. A few years ago, Florida Today (a newspaper) did an article on the system. It was right when “My Best Friend’s Wedding” came out. That movie was initially given an R rating because of ONE word - Julia says something along the lines of “He came here just to fuck me.” Because that word was used in a sexual verb way, rather than the “Oh, fuck!” or “Fucking moron” way, they wanted to give it an R rating. Someone sweet-talked them into bending their own rules to get it a PG-13.
Another example is a film that came out a few years ago. I have blanked out on the name, but it was on Siskel & Ebert and was about a high school age boy realizing he was gay. There was NO nudity, NO “bad” language, and NO violence - the only physical manifestation of homosexuality were two boys holding hands. R-rating. Why? “Mature themes.”
Personally, if I had kids I wouldn’t take them anywhere near The Passion, just as I wouldn’t want them watching Braveheart or The Patriot (aside from the fact that The Patriot was a terrible excuse for a film). From the clips I have seen, the level of blood and violence is just too much for kids. I haven’t seen the full film, but to me it seems to emphasize all the wrong things. I’m of the mind that if you want your children to learn about Jesus, teach them about the good things he did during his supposed life. I don’t think that small kids are really going to comprehend what they see in this film, especially not when it is subtitled. That’s my opinion, though.
Also, someone mentioned that the MPAA ratings aren’t technically binding… well, that depends where you live. My town has some sort of thing worked out where they have uniformed police at the theater. The place can’t sell R-rated tickets to underage kids, and if they do, they get fined and the cops escort the kid out. I think it was freaking stupid that I was a junior in high school and wasn’t allowed to buy my own ticket to The Matrix. I understand maybe for the under-12 crowd, but when you are old enough to drive to the theater I think you are old enough to decide what you want to watch. Effectively, the theaters have made NC-17 and R basically the same if you are a teenager.
I understand that *The Passion * is as blood-soaked and full of torture as an Argentinian snuff flick. I think I’ll skip it. I’ve read the book.
My rule is 'Just because you liked the book doesn’t mean you have to see the movie.'
Sheesh, look at that crucifiction - nails through the palms and ropes around the wrists!
It has been pretty well proven (by cadaver studies in the past, and recently, by archaeological evidence) that the Romans did the logical thing - nailed crucifiction victims through the wrist. The palms are not strong enough to hold up a human body - the space between the arm-bones is (as well as, apparently, being excruciatingly painful). In Israel, arm-bones of a crucifiction victim were found, spiked through the wrist …
That one pic alone goes a ways to proving that the movie is likely to be more a re-creation of the crucifiction through a later perspective (palm nailings being more in line with later Christian art), and not a realistic portrait of the times.
Wow. Based on that pic, brutal was a good choice of words. I’m gonna thank myself again for not seeing this thing. 
To answer greenphan:
The newsweek article says “…in the dramatic milieu of the movie, it can be taken to mean that the Jews, through Caiaphas, are more responsible for Jesus’ death than the Romans are–an implication unsupported by history.”
It says that history shows Pilate crucified Jesus for political reasons, not because mob pressure made him. His power at the time was such that any mob would have been dealt with by Roman means.
A little box of info in the article says that the movie shows the temple priests as being in charge, convicting Jesus of blasphemy. In ‘reality’ only Rome could execute and the Gospel trial scenes do not justify the blasphemy charge.
It also mentions an ‘invented’ (so much for Mel’s following the Gospels strictly) scene in the movie where Pilate laments his supposed dilema in fear of what Caiaphas would do. But, as said, Caiaphas was in no position to pose any fear to brutal Pilate.
So I say again, it soulds like old Mel is telling a story of betrayal, political intrigue, and civil disobedience, with some religion mixed in. It aint got much to do with the metaphorical beauty of Jesus’ life, it’s just a story, like Gladiator was.
I was also disappointed the first time I heard that the nails went through the hands, instead of the wrists. Similarly I was disappointed to see pictures from the movie of Jesus dragging his entire cross through the streets – in reality, the condemned only carried the crossbeam (the whole cross being much too heavy).
However, Gibson has said he deliberately went for the artistic depiction as opposed to the historically accurate, and it has been traditional in Christian art to have nails through the hands and Jesus carrying the whole cross. Not the choice I would have made, but I can live with it.