Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gibson relaunches "Passion of Christ" with a new cut (of more violent scenes)
Turkish Press ^ | February 11, 2005

Posted on 02/11/2005 9:48:31 AM PST by NYer

Hollywood mogul Mel Gibson will release a new, low-violence version of his 2004 surprise mega-hit "The Passion of Christ" next month.

The star, dubbed Hollywood's most powerful figure since the huge success of the low-budget, graphically gory film, is trimming five to six minutes of violent scenes ahead of the film's March 11 reappearance on US screens, Daily Variety reported Thursday..

The original film raked in 370.2 million dollars in its North American run that began on Ash Wednesday one year ago, but Gibson noted that many people had avoided the film because of its grisly portrayal of Jesus Christ being tortured by Roman troops.

"There has been quite a demand by the religious community to bring (the film) back for Easter," Bruce Davey, Gibson's partner at Icon Productions, told Variety.

"And there has been a lot of discussion about the violence. Mel wanted to try and accommodate those people by making a version that is softer and gentler," he said.

"The Passion Recut," will be beamed onto 500 to 750 screens by distributor Newmarket Films, Variety said, adding that the new versions would not be lumbered with an audience age restriction.

The new less violent version of the film goes easier on the brutal details of the last days of Christ.

"There are no new scenes, and the cuts are limited to the more violent aspects of the film, if that's the right term. The scourging scene in particular has been substantially adjusted."

The film caused huge controversy in the United States, with Jewish leaders accusing the devoutly-Catholic Gibson of anti-Semitism by portraying Jews as responsible for Christ's death, a charge he denied.

But instead of keeping audiences away, the controversy at the bloody religious epic helped draw people into theatres, despite a minimum of traditional publicity.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: California
KEYWORDS: film; gibson; passionchrist; thepassion

1 posted on 02/11/2005 9:48:32 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...

Catholic Ping - Come home for Easter and experience God’s merciful love. Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

American Catholic - Lent Feature

2 posted on 02/11/2005 9:50:03 AM PST by NYer ("The Eastern Churches are the Treasures of the Catholic Church" - Pope John XXIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Mel wanted to try and accommodate those people by making a version that is softer and gentler,"

Et tu, Mel?

3 posted on 02/11/2005 9:53:49 AM PST by Romulus (Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The title to this thread reads as if he's adding more violent scenes.

Not sure why he's bending on this now.


4 posted on 02/11/2005 9:59:50 AM PST by Rutles4Ever (This is my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Romulus

I think it's a good move.

I saw the movie with my church. It was amazing and very powerful. But I have to admit that I don't think I could watch it again with some of those scenes. I know they happened but that doesn't make it easier to view.

From a technical stand point I don't know why he can't relese both versions on the same DVD - in the menu you choose the original theatrical version or the editied version.

It's a story that needs to be told and if a slight edit can get more to watch it......all the better.

At this point Mel Gibson can do what he wants. Hollywood is still in shock over the boxoffice take and popularity of this movie.


5 posted on 02/11/2005 9:59:51 AM PST by TheShaz (If the Kerry Campaign was the movie TITANIC - this would be the scene where the rats are running.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
If they lower the film's rating as a consequence of these custs and those under 18 get a chance to see it then I feel that it's a good move. The message is the important thing here, the violence that HE suffered was one way of getting that message across, by toning it down a notch more people may persuaded to see the movie.

The greater the spread of the message the better off we will all be.

6 posted on 02/11/2005 10:04:11 AM PST by BRITinUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ok everybody - brace yourselves for another wave of anti-semitism from those religious red staters. </hollywood>


7 posted on 02/11/2005 10:05:43 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BRITinUSA

I agree. A 'child-friendly' PG or G version is a very good idea.

But I am still furious that neither Mel Gibson nor Jim Caviezel seem to be able to find work in Hollyweird.


8 posted on 02/11/2005 10:07:17 AM PST by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheShaz

Out of respect, I will never again sit down while this movie is being shown.


9 posted on 02/11/2005 10:10:37 AM PST by Ol' Sox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Romulus

There is an audience of Catholic and Christian individuals that want to participate in viewing this film, but for them certain images may appear too graphic. He is merely accomodating them. What is the wrong in that as long as the ideas are conveyed.


10 posted on 02/11/2005 10:14:40 AM PST by Tempest (Click on my name for a long list of press contacts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Is it just me? It seems to be that the first thing anybody mentions about this film is the gore - like it was created for that purpose. I honestly did not find it to be exceptionally gory compared to other movies I've seen, but I'm sure some who almost never go to movies woud be taken aback.


11 posted on 02/11/2005 10:15:52 AM PST by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BRITinUSA
If they lower the film's rating as a consequence of these custs and those under 18 get a chance to see it then I feel that it's a good move.

I agree. I wouldn't want a 10 year old seeing the full version, but they should be able to see a milder version. The violence is part of what happened, but I think it can be conveyed without it being as graphic.

12 posted on 02/11/2005 10:19:24 AM PST by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Mel wanted to try and accommodate those people by making a version that is softer and gentler...

I am not sure if some reality is compromised when the "cat-of-nine-tails" is replaced by a feather tickler....

13 posted on 02/11/2005 10:24:22 AM PST by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

"Not sure why he's bending on this now."

I don't see it as bending. I see it as accommodating those who support the film and the message, but who don't have the courage to see the original. I support his having 2 versions.


14 posted on 02/11/2005 10:24:49 AM PST by Kirkwood (Liberals gave the world "Rock the Vote." George W Bush gave the world "Iraq: The vote!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I'm happy about this (fewer violent scenes). I wanted to be able to show my 9 yr old this movie. My 6 yr old probably can't quite read the subtitles yet (or at least not quickly enough!).

In fact I might buy this new version for my family now. Smart move. There are a LOT of Christian families who'd like to show it to their children.


15 posted on 02/11/2005 10:29:50 AM PST by olivia3boys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Well, that ought to finally get the liberals to watch it.


16 posted on 02/11/2005 10:34:02 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sox


.


MEL's -PASSION- sparked by -WE WERE SOLDIERS-

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1085111/posts


.


17 posted on 02/11/2005 10:34:22 AM PST by ALOHA RONNIE ("ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer/Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.lzxray.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ALOHA RONNIE

God bless you, Ronnie. My family and I thank you for the gift of freedom. Welcome home, sir.


18 posted on 02/11/2005 11:19:39 AM PST by Ol' Sox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

I know a fundamentalist who referred to Gibson eliminating a few of the subtitles as "Giving in to the enemy".

Someone will find something to complain about no matter what.

I teach 7th graders in CCE. Out of 17 in class only 2 of them saw the original movie with parents. Many of them are curious about the movie but as one boy put it, "My mother forbid me from ever seeing the movie".

We all probably know adults who didn't see it because of what they read about the violence.

More people will see Christ's Passion for the first time.


19 posted on 02/11/2005 12:01:08 PM PST by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I wonder if that loser Frank Rich will call this edition less "pornographic?"
20 posted on 02/11/2005 12:31:04 PM PST by bourbon (works best when angry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This is a great idea. I know an older lady who had to leave at the showing I attended because she couldn't handle the violence. Also, as much as I loved it, I haven't been able to bring myself to see it again. Having two versions will really allow a larger audience to be able to see it and make it more accessible for families.


21 posted on 02/11/2005 12:52:04 PM PST by djreece
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
But I am still furious that neither Mel Gibson nor Jim Caviezel seem to be able to find work in Hollyweird.

I suppose if you don't count "Bobby Jones" and "Rebels" (not yet released) for Caviezel you're right.

22 posted on 02/11/2005 12:58:34 PM PST by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has never led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

"Bobby Jones" was already in the can when "The Passion" came out.


23 posted on 02/11/2005 1:29:23 PM PST by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sox

"Out of respect, I will never again sit down while this movie is being shown."

i hope you mean while you are in the room...cause you might be standing for a while. ;)


24 posted on 02/11/2005 1:32:51 PM PST by melbell (A Freudian slip is when you mean one thing, and say your mother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

Jim Caviezel was in a golf movie-- Bobby Jones, Stroke of Genius. Gibson isn't interested in acting these days, much, I don't think. He likes making movies more. He also has a TV production company, too. He's very busy. He's also got the Maccabees movie to work on.


25 posted on 02/11/2005 1:36:39 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Party_Animal

"Is it just me? It seems to be that the first thing anybody mentions about this film is the gore - like it was created for that purpose. I honestly did not find it to be exceptionally gory compared to other movies I've seen, but I'm sure some who almost never go to movies woud be taken aback."

I totally agree! I don't think it was nearly as gory at face value as some horror flicks. But the difference here, is that every person who watches it, knows in their heart, that it was REAL. This isn't fiction. And I truly believe that no one can truly deny that. I believe they can SAY it's fiction, and maybe even superficially convince themselves. But in their core, in their soul, they know the truth and just refuse to see it. I think that is why this film hits people as "more gory" than other films. For the same reason that most people would not be able to stomach those home videos where they torture and kill people. Because they can't watch it thinking, "well it's not like it really happened!"


26 posted on 02/11/2005 1:36:47 PM PST by melbell (A Freudian slip is when you mean one thing, and say your mother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
There is an audience of Catholic and Christian individuals...

Don't you mean "Catholic and other Christians?"

27 posted on 02/11/2005 1:37:36 PM PST by Bohemund
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

Yes, but as I said above, that was already shot and awaiting release when "The Passion" came out. He has nothing in the pipeline.


28 posted on 02/11/2005 1:52:39 PM PST by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bohemund

Yes you're right my apologizes.


29 posted on 02/11/2005 3:09:25 PM PST by Tempest (Click on my name for a long list of press contacts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I never did understand why this movie was so controversial. The Crucifixion of Jesus was a very violent affair, and found Gibson's graphic portrayal useful in understanding the suffering through which the sins of man are washed away. The exclusive Latin/Aramaic dialog was a stroke of genius on Gibson's part. I'll be curious to see what new scenes have been added.


30 posted on 02/11/2005 4:45:23 PM PST by Brig_Gen_George_P_Harrison_CSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
NJ Catholic priest was so appalled by Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ'' that he described the film as "religious barbarism.'' "I saw it as religious barbarism ... in my opinion, God did not send his son to die,''

The Gospel of Mel Gibson

31 posted on 02/11/2005 5:27:57 PM PST by Coleus (Brooke Shields aborted how many children? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1178497/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

"God did not send his son to die"

Then why bother having the son born ..?? The lamb cannot be a sacrifice if there is no lamb.

It's very sad to me to see that a priest is not even born again and doesn't know the reason Jesus was born.


32 posted on 02/11/2005 7:01:04 PM PST by CyberAnt (They speak like Gods; fight like cowards; are corrupt and immoral to their core.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Brig_Gen_George_P_Harrison_CSA
I never did understand why this movie was so controversial. The Crucifixion of Jesus was a very violent affair, and found Gibson's graphic portrayal useful in understanding the suffering through which the sins of man are washed away. The exclusive Latin/Aramaic dialog was a stroke of genius on Gibson's part. I'll be curious to see what new scenes have been added.

Sorry to disappoint you but no new scenes have been added. Rather, some of the more 'brutal' scenes have been sliced.

Like you, I never saw any need to alter the film. Yes, the scourging scene was long and painful to watch. However, it proved to be most inspirational in that our Lord maintained control over the entire situation. We, as sinners, dread such a punishment and yet here is the Christ, enduring it on our behalf.

As to the dead languages that influenced this film, I attend a Maronite Catholic Church which is one of only two that retains Aramaic for the Consecration. At times, I will close my eyes and listen as the priest chants the words in the language of our Lord, at the Last Supper. Suddenly, I am transported back 2000 years in time and present at the Last Supper.

Aramaic Consecration

Byow mo how daq dom ha sho dee leh
ma' bed hy eh
nsa bel lah mo be dow qa dee sho to.
Ou ba rekh
ou qa desh
waq so
ou ya bel tal mee dow kad o mar:
Sab a khool meh neh kul khoon:
Ho no den ee tow faghro deel
day lo fy koun wah lof sagee hey
meh teq seh ou meh tee heb
lhoo so yo dhow beh was ha yeh dal 'o lam
'ol meen.

English Translation

On the day before his life-giving passion,
Jesus took bread in his holy hands.
He blessed,
sanctified,
broke,
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take and eat it, all of you:
This is my body
which is broken and delivered for you
and for many,
for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

33 posted on 02/11/2005 7:50:00 PM PST by NYer ("The Eastern Churches are the Treasures of the Catholic Church" - Pope John XXIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BRITinUSA
The greater the spread of the message the better off we will all be.

Indeed. A special edition is not a problem.

34 posted on 02/11/2005 7:53:15 PM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
It's very sad to me to see that a priest is not even born again and doesn't know the reason Jesus was born.

There is no shortage (and never has been) of heretical priests.

"God did not send his son to die"

Does he think God was surprised at the way His Son's earthly life ended?

35 posted on 02/11/2005 8:09:03 PM PST by Steve1789 (Stay to the far right to get by.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Steve0113

I've been to a Catholic funeral - co-worker's mother. The co-worker wasn't born again, and the priest was not either - and she was so disappointed that the priest didn't comfort her family more. It was obvious to me - and he kept looking at me like he knew I knew .. it was very strange.

One of his comments suggested that we could never be sure we were going to heaven. I was so outraged that I wanted to jump up and yell out the scripture - but I restrained myself.


36 posted on 02/11/2005 8:35:02 PM PST by CyberAnt (They speak like Gods; fight like cowards; are corrupt and immoral to their core.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
One of his comments suggested that we could never be sure we were going to heaven. I was so outraged that I wanted to jump up and yell out the scripture - but I restrained myself.

Aside from the fact that he was flat-out wrong, to make such a comment at a funeral is cruelly inappropriate.

37 posted on 02/12/2005 8:44:57 AM PST by Steve1789 (Stay to the far right to get by.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Steve0113

"... to make such a comment at a funeral is cruelly inappropriate."

You got it - and I was stunned! Here was this grieving family and he's telling them we can't be sure we're going to end up in heaven .. outrageous.


38 posted on 02/12/2005 10:16:22 AM PST by CyberAnt (Pres. Bush: "Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson