The Passion of The Christ
Apr. 4th, 2004 09:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerThis is a well made film.
The acting is good. The direction is good. The script is good. The special effects are good (if slightly jarring in a couple of places). There is, in fact, nothing really wrong with this film, in and of itself.
Except that it's written for the inner circle.
Let's say you were making a Batman film. You can make a film that works in and of itself - contains enough information that a person can appreciate it even if they've never heard of Batman before. Or you can make a film that assumes a pretty good working knowledge of Batman, his history, his enemies, his parents, his drives, etc. and focus on a pivotal moment in his life.
The latter would obviously work a lot better than the former for fanboys. They'd lap up the attention to detail, the little pieces that drift by in the background, all the essential coolness that comes from a film made by fans for fans. But the mainstream non-fan would be left wondering what on earth was going on.
For once I found myself on the outside looking in, unable to really feel any emotional involvement in the film because all the backstory that's necessary to empathise with the central character is in the book that the film is drawn from, not in the film itself.
Imagine that Return of the King covered the last two hours of what was actually in the film. And that there hadn't been the previous two films. You'd hear Tolkeinistas talk about the huge sacrifice made by all involved. You'd see the pain and trauma they went through. But you'd never have any real reason to care about them - if you wanted all of that stuff you'd have to go and read the book.
Nothing much else to say here. If you're a christian then you have a reason to go and see this, otherwise there's not really enough story to make it worthwhile. The film's caused a bit of a fuss on three basic grounds - gore, anti-semitism and subtitles.
I've seen gorier but, unless you giggled through Audition and ate through Bad Taste, you'll probably be put off by the relentless sadism. And to be honest, the seventh time that Jesus falls over on the way from Jerusalem to Golgotha it starts to get a little repetitive. I did wince twice, once when the broken glass is pulled out, the other when the classic 'injury to eye' motif is used.
I didn't find the film anti-semitic. It followed pretty much the path I expected - his death is demanded by the Rabbinical council for heresy, Pilate tries to calm them, but gives in to prevent revolt. Yes, the Jewish leaders are shown in a negative way, but that's the original story. There was an effort made to show that there were Jews who thought it was a farce and that it wasn't Jews per se who did him wrong, just a religious heirarchy that felt threatened.
And I hardly even noticed the subtitles, no more than watching a Mexican, Chinese or Indian film. I did spot a few words of Latin, dredged from the horror of my lessons, but unless you have a problem with subtitles in general it's not a problem. Nobody seemed stilted and everyone managed to sound convincing with their ancient Aramaic (I, of course, am an expert in the field).
Score: 6.5/10
ObQuote - Pilate: Ecce Homo
If you _really_ want to see a film in which there's horrible gore and death, but they come back to life later, go see Dawn of the Dead...
The acting is good. The direction is good. The script is good. The special effects are good (if slightly jarring in a couple of places). There is, in fact, nothing really wrong with this film, in and of itself.
Except that it's written for the inner circle.
Let's say you were making a Batman film. You can make a film that works in and of itself - contains enough information that a person can appreciate it even if they've never heard of Batman before. Or you can make a film that assumes a pretty good working knowledge of Batman, his history, his enemies, his parents, his drives, etc. and focus on a pivotal moment in his life.
The latter would obviously work a lot better than the former for fanboys. They'd lap up the attention to detail, the little pieces that drift by in the background, all the essential coolness that comes from a film made by fans for fans. But the mainstream non-fan would be left wondering what on earth was going on.
For once I found myself on the outside looking in, unable to really feel any emotional involvement in the film because all the backstory that's necessary to empathise with the central character is in the book that the film is drawn from, not in the film itself.
Imagine that Return of the King covered the last two hours of what was actually in the film. And that there hadn't been the previous two films. You'd hear Tolkeinistas talk about the huge sacrifice made by all involved. You'd see the pain and trauma they went through. But you'd never have any real reason to care about them - if you wanted all of that stuff you'd have to go and read the book.
Nothing much else to say here. If you're a christian then you have a reason to go and see this, otherwise there's not really enough story to make it worthwhile. The film's caused a bit of a fuss on three basic grounds - gore, anti-semitism and subtitles.
I've seen gorier but, unless you giggled through Audition and ate through Bad Taste, you'll probably be put off by the relentless sadism. And to be honest, the seventh time that Jesus falls over on the way from Jerusalem to Golgotha it starts to get a little repetitive. I did wince twice, once when the broken glass is pulled out, the other when the classic 'injury to eye' motif is used.
I didn't find the film anti-semitic. It followed pretty much the path I expected - his death is demanded by the Rabbinical council for heresy, Pilate tries to calm them, but gives in to prevent revolt. Yes, the Jewish leaders are shown in a negative way, but that's the original story. There was an effort made to show that there were Jews who thought it was a farce and that it wasn't Jews per se who did him wrong, just a religious heirarchy that felt threatened.
And I hardly even noticed the subtitles, no more than watching a Mexican, Chinese or Indian film. I did spot a few words of Latin, dredged from the horror of my lessons, but unless you have a problem with subtitles in general it's not a problem. Nobody seemed stilted and everyone managed to sound convincing with their ancient Aramaic (I, of course, am an expert in the field).
Score: 6.5/10
ObQuote - Pilate: Ecce Homo
If you _really_ want to see a film in which there's horrible gore and death, but they come back to life later, go see Dawn of the Dead...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-04 03:51 pm (UTC)So making a film of that nature an ingenious advertising ploy for a book? Interesting idea.... ;-)
COMING SOON!
Date: 2004-04-04 05:06 pm (UTC)ORIGIN OF JESUS!
Re: COMING SOON!
Date: 2004-04-05 04:43 pm (UTC)Existing Legends
Date: 2004-04-05 05:51 am (UTC)The Batman argument is NULL & VOID ((eg) as I AM BATMAN fanboy extreme). The same argument as above for enough backstory. From 40's film serials, daily newspaper comic strips and the most comics crossovers ever, the Batman legend is instilled in theminds of western civilization. To prove this point is the unfortunate 60's series from TV. Not once on this show did they talk about his tragic beginnings. Batman just was. In the latest and best incarnation BTAS (Batman: the animated series), they did in 30 seconds what Burton and the idiot could not do in two or less hours.
LOTR is true to your argument. (HA! I am not flaming you after all, then, am I?) As the book(s) show the whole progression so that we do care. But didn't Rankin & Bass do just as you mentioned in the 70's? Why yes they did. And as far as I know that only those who read the books knew: 1) what was going on, and 2)what it was so they could watch it.
sooooo sorry for using up your space. but the Bat is my area and I will defend him against his worse nemesis (the Shumacher) and many others.
I pretty much agree, but...
Date: 2004-04-05 03:24 pm (UTC)The strongest parts of the film were the little moments with relatively minor characters; Marys reactions to her sons torture, the young woman trying to give him water, the fellow defending him from the mob (knowing that's just about all he can do to help him) and supporting him with the cross. That line of his [paraphrasing] "Not long to go now. It'll be over soon."
I don't think a viewer needs an exhaustive understanding of the bible to follow what was going on. They won't be lost by any of it. The little moments of humanity (and I suppose it's overall simplicity: good man gets tortured to death but refuses to condemn his accusers) kept it grounded.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 12:39 am (UTC)Down here in NZ they've just lowered its rating from 16 to 13 after complaints from those who're normally trying to up the rating or or get a picture banned. And according the the chief film censor, this has set a new benchmark for violence in films.
What's the rating in the UK/US?
no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 12:42 am (UTC)Bloody good thing too.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 07:09 am (UTC)I think that probably says something about me.
Interested to see The Passion.