Posted on 02/25/2004 1:07:08 PM PST by jimbo123
One star.
No child should see this movie.
Even adults are at risk.
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.
It is sickening, much more brutal than any "Lethal Weapon."
The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here. And yet "The Passion" is also undeniably powerful.
Because of all the media coverage of this movie and the way it was shown only to handpicked sympathizers until yesterday's screening for movie critics, many questions hang in the air: Is it historically accurate?
Of course not. As with any movie, even a documentary, this one reflects the views of its filmmakers, who are entitled and expected to use their art persuasively. Gibson has been up-front about his own religious agenda.
But is it any good?
"The Passion" - once you strip away all the controversy and religious fervor - is a technically proficient account of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
The movie is sanctimonious in a way that impedes dramatic flow and limits characterizations to the saintly and the droolingly vulgar.
That said, there are many things in its favor - a heroic physical effort by star Jim Caviezel; stunning cinematography by Caleb Deschanel, and the chutzpah to have the actors speak in the dead language of Aramaic (with some subtitles).
Is Gibson devout, or is he mad?
Had Gibson claimed Napoleon helped him direct, instead of divine spirits, the answer would be clear. Even so, a touch of madness is often a good thing in a director.
But "The Passion" feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience.
Is it anti-Semitic?
Yes.
Jews are vilified, in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes.
Gibson cuts from the hook nose of one bad Jewish character to the hook nose of another in the ensuing scene.
He misappropriates an important line from the Jewish celebration of Pesach ("Why is this night different from all other nights?") and slaps it onto a Christian context.
Most unforgivable is that Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), the Roman governor of Palestine who decreed that Jesus be crucified, is portrayed as a sensitive, kind-hearted soul who is sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap upon his prisoner.
Pilate agrees to the Crucifixion only against his better judgment.
The most offensive line of the script, which was co-written by Gibson with Benedict Fitzgerald, about Jews accepting blame, was not cut from the movie, as initially reported. Only its subtitle was removed.
"Passion" assumes the audience already knows Christianity 101, and plunges right into the aftermath of the Last Supper. Taunted by an effeminate, seductive Satan and anticipating betrayal, Christ suffers.
Oh, does He suffer.
The movie is a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club. Gibson spares not one cringing closeup to showcase what he imagines Jesus must have endured.
The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill."
The Romans capture their prey with the help of a terminally regretful Judas, then haul Him around to be whipped, beaten, spat upon, mutilated and finally crucified - all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews. No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother (Maia Morgenstern).
Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities. "The Passion of the Christ" is a brutal, nasty film that demonizes Jews at an unfortunate time in history.
Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love?
Jami Bernard is an award-winning film critic and columnist for The Daily News, and author of the film books "Chick Flicks," "Total Exposure," "First Films" and "Quentin Tarantino: The Man and His Movies." Her most recent book is "Breast Cancer: There and Back," a humorous memoir as well as a guide for women going through cancer treatments. She is a member and former chair of the New York Film Critics Circle, and a member of the National Society of Film Critics. She named her parrot Sensei after the kung-fu movies of her youth. She also has two cats, Tsuko and Buzz. The cats chirp and the bird barks.
The Egyptians who made a smash hit out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion last year must feel dissed. And they tried so hard.
POWER AND TERROR: NOAM CHOMSKY IN OUR TIMES Running time: 74 mins. Not rated. At Film Forum. The linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky, controversial though he may be, remains one of the great voices of reason of our time. Newly popular for "9/11," a slim, best-selling volume of pithy E-mail exchanges on how terrorism begets terrorism, Chomsky has been hitting the lecture circuit. Followed by a film crew, he's been urging the public to see the global picture, including a critical look at the history of U.S. foreign policy.
Tells you everything you need to know about Ms. Bernard, don'cha think?
Serious student of film, we have here
"Quentin Tarantino: The Man and His Movies."
At least she is consistent about deploring violence /sarcasm
Her most recent book is "Breast Cancer: There and Back," a humorous memoir
Good to see she has a sense of humor. From the picture posted, she's not getting dates on looks...
She named her parrot Sensei after the kung-fu movies of her youth. She also has two cats, Tsuko and Buzz. The cats chirp and the bird barks.
Correction, she's not getting dates at all...
I am so sick of this. Of course the Jews of the time killed Him (or had him killed by the Romans).
Who do these "critics" think killed him, the Chinese?
It was the Jews, stupid.
Wow!! I had no idea that Mel helped write the gospels! With that particular line being so offensive he should have cut it out entirely. All of the people who view the movie and speak ancient Aramaic are going to be sooooo peeved!
On the one hand Mel is criticized by some for being inaccurate. Then, on the other hand, he is criticized for being too accurate (as is the case with that particular line). So, which is it?
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.