Posted on 12/01/2006 5:45:36 AM PST by Sybeck1
Hardly,
This is not playing the religion card by anyone except those who want to bash religion. The technically honest Medved appriciates the movie and he is brutally honest with technicals on propaganda movies.
For example the left fest, Happy Feet, he gives honest admissions for its technical merits but pans the movie for false marketing and being a child scaring gore fest.
Medved is only one critic. I respect him, but he has found his audience by marketing to people who want moral assessments of movies (which is fine), not by distinguishing himself as a critic. He does not enjoy a lot of respect among other critics and people who are serious about film. I'm not knocking him as a person.
And when it comes to religious, I say the less the better. Jesus came to bring himself, not to establish a religion. Moralism and religion never saved anyone, and they are the antithesis to the Gospel.
Being against Christianity is supposed to make one appear "enlightned". It's also a great way for college guys and Hollywood types to get laid.
The San Francisco Chronicle gave it a good review this morning. How scary is that?
[Baltimore Sun complains theres nothing new.
Think about that for a second....lol]
LOL. Now that's really funny. The "reporter" is a true "Baltimoron".
On the one hand I think I agree with this. On the other hand, surely there are enough faithful people around that we should be able to scrape up enough talent to create a really good Christian film at least, you know, a couple times a decade.
I actually found the hubbub around The Passion a little embarrassing because it was like, Holy Cow, you mean there's going to be a Christian movie that's actually somewhat artful? What a curiosity! How unexpected! Going to see The Passion was a little like going out on the back deck to squint at Haley's Comet a few years back. You didn't want to miss seeing an artistically viable Christian film because you knew the opportunity to do so might not come around again in your lifetime.
I foisted off Happy Feet onto my Bro and Sis - in - law. They took my kids and their Spawn of Satan to see it on Mrs. L,TOWM's and my 14th wedding anniversary.
Sorry to hear about your pneumaonia, AZ... Feeling any better?
I haven't seen it yet, but the Christians I know who have seen it have been generally positive, regaridng both its artistic merits and religious content.
"On the one hand I think I agree with this. On the other hand, surely there are enough faithful people around that we should be able to scrape up enough talent to create a really good Christian film at least, you know, a couple times a decade."
I hear you. What I saw in the local reviewer's view was that the work is simply workmanlike, nothing artistically unique or notable.
Part of the problem appears actually to arise from the familiarity to the tale. If everyone knows how it's going to come out, given it is at all faithful to the source, then everyone is looking past what is going on to get to the end OR is looking for something original, whether in the text or in the presentation. Delivering something that tells the tale simply and accurately will get poor points and that appears to be what has happened here.
However, this is all factless speculation on my part. I haven't seen the movie and didn't even know about the controversy swirling around Keisha. Given the girly nature of our culture, getting pink gossip about the film and its makers as a substitute for substantively analyzing the content is what I reacting against. Whether that has overwhelmed their 'critical disinterest' is something I can't say yet.
BTW, I meant to write 'a faithLESS culture will find it difficult to..'
Fr. Z from the Wanderer gave the movie a "beretta tip". I take that to mean that it's good. I plan to see it.
Agreed on all counts---especially regarding The Mission
Although my perspective on relgion is possibly different than yours, I really appreciate films that explore 'faith' as a theme. How about this quick (and fairly pretentious) list:
So did the New York Times.
The angles seem quite ordinary, until you notice a blurring of the sleeve--wings? And then a bird flies away. I would have had a perfectly ordinary person, or preferably a totally mysterious one. But not a blend of the two. Good music would have helped with all of this. Sometimes I think the music is what does the trick, in fact.
I would have had a ball with the Three Kings and not made them into the comic relief of the show. I would have tried to show the almost magical aura of true scientific knowledge in that long-ago time, mixed with their amazement that the heavens were revealing something, something so arcane in sheer astronomical terms that the ordinary person would have had no hope of understanding why the Kings were fascinated. A great chance was missed here to have the Magi puzzled: What could be greater than the birth of a king, since this is certainly something greater?
There were plenty of opportunities here for art. Not artiness, but true film art. The filmmakers have missed them all, as well as the option of making it a totally natural film.
All in all this movie is like linoleum. It does the job, but it doesn't inspire.
Probably just me being dense, but I'm not getting your point. I see from your post that Hardwicke has directed two other films. Does this mean that this movie is going to be artfully done, contrary to the trend of Christians making cheesy movies?
I just came back from seeing "The Nativity."
I must say that I was underwhelmed.
Granted, Mel Gibson has set the standard extremely high. His cinematic genius and fervent conviction permeate every frame of "The Passion." I found nothing remotely like that in "The Nativity."
Gibson worked with Scripture, the evidence of the Shroud, age-old traditions, and the visions of mystics like Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich and Ven. Mary of Agreda to compose his script. His decision to use Aramaic, his narrative structure comparing Calvary to the Last Supper, and his depiction of Satan are just a few examples of the genius Gibson brought to "The Passion" as a man driven by his convictions to tell a story from a singular perspective.
By contrast, "The Nativity" is obviously the work of Hollywood committees and board rooms. Everyone involved does his or her job; some better than others. But there is no spirit in the work.
In an interview, Hardwick was asked whether she believed in miracles, and she hemmed and hawed a sort of "Who knows?" response. She said that when her agent sent her the script, she was put off by the idea at first. She was proud to say that the film was influenced by the the writings of Fr. Raymond Brown, a historico-critical demythologizer.
I'll take Anne Catherine Emmerich over Raymond Brown any day of the week, thankyouverymuch.
I could scarcely recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph in their portrayals. I definitly did not recognize Saint Joachim or Saint Anna the way they were performed.
There's a lot of attention to historical detail in the architecture and worklife of the period, but that does not replace the need for a vision if a film is going to be above-average cinematically.
Go see it and reward New Line for doing this much, because if this film makes enough profit other writers and directors will have an easier time getting other biblical or religious films made.
But for depth of inspiration, look elsewhere.
That is why I wish Mel Gibson had devoted more to themes that are Bible-oriented rather than this Mayan stuff because he would have worked with some true spiritual sources. In other words, had done Natvity instead.
They showed it ahead of time to Christian groups, and that too was a way of trying to copy the kind of buzz Passion had. But they didn't ask us what we thought afterward, so it was a farce. It was just for publicity, not for input.
I just saw this movie and I agree with your review. The movie wasn't made by people who believed in it. It struck me as a very good TV docudrama with above average visuals and a below average and distracting musical score. I expect EWTN will play it every year.
It is appropriately for families with kids over 8 or 9. I'm glad I saw it just to support the effort but I don't think this movie will do well. The theater I was in was nearly empty.
I think you have hit it on the head: the filmmakers weren't believers.
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.