The Passion of the Christ: Blooper Reel

The Morning News ^ | March 2, 2004 | Paul Ford

[love n hate tattoo]

Okay, here's the thing, the reason blooper's are funny is because they ARE real. If you have to make this kinda stuff up it's not funny. And there is no question that this is made up. It's not offensive, but it's just not funny. The Monsters Inc DVD has bloopers...it's not funny either. You can't manufacture a spontanious malfunction. If you do, it's not funny anymore.

[Paved Paradise]

You are right. All the people who are getting upset about this need to think about the fact that men made the movie (men = sinners) so to expect them not to be human and laugh and enjoy themselves is ridiculous. Also, my understanding is that it was a heavy movie for them to do - and they are sincere in their belief in Christ; the levity was probably good for them, otherwise how could they bear it? The gravity of the topic was so serious, they needed to laugh.

[AnAmericanMother]

You beat me to it. First time I heard that line was in grade school.

Way I heard it was, "Wow! I can see all of Jerusalem from up here!"

[biblewonk]

What I find lurking in the background is this... Catholics have been brought up with a rich background of statues and candles and artwork and are used to looking at these things as a visual reminder of Him... this movie is another one of those beautiful, visual reminders - but not the real thing.

This is definitely true.

I wonder if the problem is that maybe non-Catholics or non-High Anglicans or non-Missouri Synod Lutherans are coming from a more aesthetic background that eschews statues and artwork and other things like candles or altars or stations of the cross (the movie depicted the stations) or the rosary (the movie depicted the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary) and they are having a hard time separating artwork depicting Jesus with Jesus himself?

I don't think most Non Catholics are astute enough to recognize the Catholic specifics that have been build into the movie. My baptist friend's church is raving about the movie and taking the youth group there. I think that I am quite rare in not rushing out to see the movie. It is having a very general appeal to most Christians.

I know I am not wording this well, but what do you think?

One more point I'll try to make but have been having a hard time making. Have you ever seen a classic hymn sung by a fairly simple choir where they don't embellish it too much? It is very sweet and you focus on the topic of the hymn. Then when you see some "American Idol" type singer sing the same thing they throw so much make up and gyration and all those things they do to distort their face to make wierd sounds. They almost look like they are having a seizure and you barely recognize the hymn? I prefer the simple where the subject is lifted up rather than the artist.

[Romulus]

Have you ever seen a classic hymn sung by a fairly simple choir where they don't embellish it too much? It is very sweet and you focus on the topic of the hymn.

What you have just described is Gregorian Chant.

[newgeezer]

stations of the cross (the movie depicted the stations)

Yes, a (fundamentalist preacher and bible college professor) friend of mine mentioned that this week.

or the rosary (the movie depicted the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary)

I also heard there are exactly two people in the movie who can see Satan: the Lord Jesus Christ and ... ... ... ... Mary.

How ... curious. :-/

[LibertarianLiz]

Someone told me that teenagers were God's way of getting parents ready to let go of their children.

I liked the one I heard once: Why do grandparents and the grandkids get along so well. Answer: They have the same enemy.

[kstewskis]

I wonder if Mel has the guts to include the blooper reel on the DVD to lighten it up a bit?

I bet he will. Red clown nose and all.

Have you seen the photo at the back of the "Passion" movie book where Mel is literally sitting on Jim's back (lying prone) dressed as Jesus?

With the seriousness of the filming, laughter had to have been there, or they all would have cracked!

[kstewskis]

From the PAX TV special, it looked as though Mel tried to do just that to relieve the unbearable tension of the scenes

Drat! I missed that special while out of town last week. Do you know if PAX TV will show it again?

Thanks in advance

[Mercat]

Always look on the bright side of life. la la la la. courtesy Monty Python, the Life of Bryan.

[SuziQ]

Do you know if PAX TV will show it again?

I don't know, but check to see if anyone you know taped it. It was very good, and seeing how things were done with the prothestics may relieve some of the horror on seeing it on the big screen.

[Ichneumon]

Please leave me out of your pings. I have no interest in reading you go on about this.

And yet this rant of yours was so interesting to all Freepers that you needed to post it on the public forums instead of in a private FreepMail to me, right?

I suspect I have been on a hellavu lot more movie sets than you. I know that levity goes on in the most pious of situations. So whateth?

Good for you, but irrelevant to my post.

My points were simple. This blooper reel does not exist. The writer made it up. The jokes the writer used were not particulary fresh or funny

Again, good for you. Here's a cookie. Again, though, I didn't take any issue with your opinions on those matters.

--or even plausible.

And *that's* where I take issue with your posts. Not so much your conclusion itself, but with the condescending, insulting way in which you characterized those Freepers who came to a different conclusion on that point, as if the matter were so thoroughly unarguable that anyone who disagreed with you was perforce an idiot.

Your posts asserted that people who gave any consideration to the notion that such happenings on the set might at least be plausible were, in your words, "really so dense", and that "it does tell you something about some of the critical thinking that goes on here. Sadly", and that "too many" people were willing to consider it at face value.

On *that* point of yours, I felt it was worth replying to you in a post containing specific *actual* examples from the filming, making the counterpoint that the blogger's piece wasn't much different from *real* mishaps and quips from the set, and therefore it may be inappropriate for you (and others) to ridicule other posters who considered such events to be at least plausible.

The defensiveness (and vitriol) of your response indicates that perhaps I struck a nerve.

But PLEASE DO GO ON BEATING YOUR CHEST about how you aren't offended by this and therefore no one else should ever be.

That's not what I said, now, is it? Nor was I "BEATING MY CHEST" by adding some facts to the thread (i.e. the quotes from Caviezel). Reading comprehension is your friend. So is civility. You, on the other hand, appeared to be "BEATING YOUR CHEST", unquote, by sneering at the lack of "critical thinking" by posters who arrived at a different conclusion than yourself, who were "so dense" that you found it "sad".

It is so INTERESTING!

And I'm still waiting for the clarification I asked for in post #177.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Would you think a similar treatment of "Schindlers List" funny?

Yes.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the oven!

[Psalm 73]

"Yes."

Well, good for you.
Today is Friday, Pokey, and that was posted two days ago.
We've moved on. Please try to keep up......

[Hon]

"this rant of yours"

"Here's a cookie."

"I struck a nerve."

How original!

It's clear you are a pompous ass. Go waste someone else't time. (Which from what I've seen of your posint history, seems to be your mission here.)

[Junior]

I thought the script was in Aramaic and Latin...

[Ichneumon]

"this rant of yours" "Here's a cookie." "I struck a nerve." How original!

It is lame for you to fixate on the few places where I responded to you in kind (did you miss the fact that those were in direct response to *your* snide little barbs?), while totally ignoring the rest of my post where I dealt with the points you made. If you have no substantive rebuttal, just say so, or let the exchange drop. But pointedly ignoring the rest of my post and responding with nothing but namecalling only underscores the fact that you're dancing around the real points.

It's clear you are a pompous ass.

Reread your own condescending posts in this thread and consider that you may have no room to make such charges yourself. You started out in this thread by tut-tutting about how "are people [on this thread] really so dense" (even addressed to "All") for not reaching the same conclusions you did, and your posts hardly went uphill from there.

Go waste someone else't time.

...you say, as you choose to continue to invest time in trying to do nothing but taunt me and call names. If it's truly a waste of your time, stop trying to engage me in a foodfight. Actually, though, it appears you get some satisfaction out of attemping to paint people as beneath you and puff yourself up in comparison, which seemed to be the nature of most of your posts to this thread. My point to you all along has been that this is poor behavior (and overreaching on the issue at hand) and that you might want to reconsider the tone of your posts. Rather than take that to heart, you have turned up the intensity of your patronizing attitude while jettisoning any actual discussion.

(Which from what I've seen of your posint history, seems to be your mission here.)

Then you misunderstand me and my posts as badly on the forum at large as you have here.

But speaking of "posint [sic] history", on other threads I see more of what appears to be your occasional "mission" to act superior and belittle others:

"Who doesn't? Do you want a medal?"

"Until then I will think you are a self-rightous blowhard..."

"I still see no "point." I see a question. Kind of a dumb question at that."

"What I do see is a bunch of people, including you, who can't wait to jump on people with your self-righteousness."

"When you make a coherent point I will happily respond to it. I don't do trolls."

"It sure is entertaining to be attacked by a bunch of rabid dogs for posting the truth."

"Go chase yourself."

"It's always counter-productive to respond to trolls, but what the heck."

"Do you feel better now?"

"You're crazy."

"Of which you seem to be pig ignorant."

"Get a grip."

"You're a troll, it doesn't matter how long you've been doing it."

"You are a total pantload."

In your own words, "how original".

I know that not *all* your posts to FR are like that. In fact, most of your posts are quite informative and civil, and you're a credit to this forum. But that's also exactly why it's so jarring when you descend as far as you do at times and indulge in being gleefully ad hominem. My only point in including the above quotes from your posts is to show how inappropriate it is for you to get condescending about the tone of a few of my comments (in a larger post), since you yourself don't seem to see anything wrong with being impudently dismissive when you feel the need -- especially since my barbs were *less* insolent than the ones in the post of yours to which I was responding.

[Tennessee_Bob]

Even the Christ has a sense of humor

He has the greatest sense of humor. He knows all the jokes, all the punchlines, and all the timing to tell them right.

And when someone tells you that He doesn't have a sense of humor, just remember...He invented the platypus.

[FixitGuy]

A bit off subject: Edgar Cayce said that Jesus had a sense of humor...

"He joked on the way to Calvary, that's what angered them most!"

I can believe (or choose to) that Jesus was a joy to be around, but one seldom hears of humor in the Gospel.