Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Pass The Popcorn topic #265191

Subject: "Fuck it....Mel Gibson = 1 of top 5 directors" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
chinsu
Member since Jan 18th 2003
1410 posts
Mon Mar-19-07 07:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Fuck it....Mel Gibson = 1 of top 5 directors"


  

          

why not?

on the strength of braveheart alone dude should be considered one of the greats. yeah yeah...he's an anti semite an all dat shit, but son's talent behind the lens is undeniable.

Apocolypto and Passion of the Christ were both sensational films. am i lying? he has a talent, especially for violent realism, which i dont mind at all. to tell u the truth, i would have rather had ol melly boy direct 300 instead of that nerd snyder.

________________

Smoke?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
I want to argue
Mar 19th 2007
1
the level of PTP threads lately has gone down a lot
Mar 19th 2007
2
You know whats beautiful?
Mar 19th 2007
3
tell Noah to break double digits in a big game
Mar 20th 2007
40
      no problem
Mar 21st 2007
48
           I know. Gators might not make it that far.
Mar 21st 2007
59
Jesus, has it ever.
Mar 19th 2007
5
Welcome to the club...
Mar 19th 2007
4
didnt u get the d.a.r.e. program in grade school?
Mar 19th 2007
6
this post is 13 days early
Mar 19th 2007
7
^^^^^'cause it's true
Mar 19th 2007
8
Kazan, Welles, Fellini, Capra and Kurosawa say you're wrong
Mar 20th 2007
31
      1. living. 2. fuck half the ones you named, ESPECIALLY wes anderson
Mar 20th 2007
33
      1. neither you nor the original poster specified living.
Mar 20th 2007
35
      are you out of your mind?
Mar 21st 2007
58
           you're just saying shit you've heard said
Mar 22nd 2007
63
                shit I've heard from MEL
Mar 22nd 2007
68
                     so, you tryna flip his admiration as theft? i could the same for many
Mar 22nd 2007
71
      Sofia?
Mar 20th 2007
38
           I think she's better than Mel as a director, sure.
Mar 20th 2007
39
                Lost In Translation was like *that*?
Mar 21st 2007
43
                Now we're starting to get a bit silly, methinks.
Mar 21st 2007
60
                     to my credit, I had thought that Ephron directed When Harry Met Sally
Mar 21st 2007
61
Top 5 in what sense?
Mar 20th 2007
9
id like to see u make an argument
Mar 20th 2007
10
i can't believe i clicked on this
Mar 20th 2007
11
i loved braveheart, passion was ok, havent seen apocalypto
Mar 20th 2007
12
this is obvious to objective people
Mar 20th 2007
13
Objective how? Passion of the Christ was not good storytelling.
Mar 20th 2007
14
      RE: Objective how? Passion of the Christ was not good storytelling.
Mar 20th 2007
15
      pretty much.
Mar 20th 2007
17
      I think that's the reason why passion projects (no pun intended)...
Mar 20th 2007
21
           it doesn't automatically make them bad either
Mar 21st 2007
46
                RE: it doesn't automatically make them bad either
Mar 21st 2007
49
                     RE: it doesn't automatically make them bad either
Mar 21st 2007
52
                          RE: it doesn't automatically make them bad either
Mar 21st 2007
53
                               I hear what both of you are saying about Gibson's intention.
Mar 21st 2007
55
                                    ok, that makes sense
Mar 22nd 2007
64
      not good storytelling? how many ppl walked out of that film crying?
Mar 20th 2007
16
      Fuck that people crying noise
Mar 20th 2007
18
      i agree because for the most part Christianity is an abomination of
Mar 20th 2007
20
      Now this is an interesting point.
Mar 20th 2007
24
           RE: Now this is an interesting point.
Mar 21st 2007
45
                While you're here...
Mar 21st 2007
51
                     I tend to lean this way.
Mar 21st 2007
54
                     I actually liked the movie overall & I'm not bashing it out of hand
Mar 21st 2007
57
                          RE: I actually liked the movie overall & I'm not bashing it out of hand
Mar 22nd 2007
65
                               LOL, word
Mar 22nd 2007
73
      I support this reply 100 percent
Mar 20th 2007
27
      it's a Passion play - it's SUPPOSED to be about his death
Mar 21st 2007
44
           RE: it's a Passion play - it's SUPPOSED to be about his death
Mar 22nd 2007
66
                RE: it's a Passion play - it's SUPPOSED to be about his death
Mar 22nd 2007
74
                     RE: it's a Passion play - it's SUPPOSED to be about his death
Mar 29th 2007
75
      And how many of those people were brainwashed Chrstians?
Mar 20th 2007
19
      I'm an atheist and I thought it was very moving
Mar 21st 2007
47
      I'm not being snarky, I'm engaging you in discussion here, lol
Mar 20th 2007
22
           your problem is u wanted the movie to be something it wasn't meant to be
Mar 21st 2007
50
      you wanted him to focus on character introduction more? dude, it's JESUS
Mar 21st 2007
42
           It's not about ADD, one of my favorite films is Lawrence of Arabia.
Mar 21st 2007
56
                oh ok.
Mar 22nd 2007
62
Posts like this make me never want to come to this forum anymore.
Mar 20th 2007
23
RE: Fuck it....Mel Gibson = 1 of top 5 directors
Mar 20th 2007
25
lmao @ cheetos stained fingers
Mar 20th 2007
26
This is all you had to say in the first place
Mar 20th 2007
28
yup.
Mar 20th 2007
29
RE: This is all you had to say in the first place
Mar 20th 2007
41
braveheart, man without a face, passion and dat 'lypto = top 5
Mar 20th 2007
30
      The Patriot
Mar 20th 2007
32
      he didn't direct the patriot, you uber-faggot
Mar 20th 2007
34
           fair enough
Mar 20th 2007
37
      RE: braveheart, man without a face, passion and dat 'lypto = top 5
Mar 22nd 2007
67
           1. LIVING! 2. don't assume what i don't know about. it makes ptp wack
Mar 22nd 2007
69
                RE: 1. LIVING! 2. don't assume what i don't know about. it makes ptp wac...
Mar 22nd 2007
70
                ^^^Is what makes PTP wack
Mar 22nd 2007
72
foh
Mar 20th 2007
36
great director imo...
Mar 30th 2007
76

DubSpt
Charter member
13933 posts
Mon Mar-19-07 07:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
1. "I want to argue"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

But this is just too much.

- Dub

I give rappers the biz for being m-izza-a-archaic.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
will_5198
Charter member
61923 posts
Mon Mar-19-07 07:32 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "the level of PTP threads lately has gone down a lot"
In response to Reply # 1


          

--------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
DubSpt
Charter member
13933 posts
Mon Mar-19-07 07:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
3. "You know whats beautiful?"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

Our avys are prolly disgusted that we agree.

- Dub

I give rappers the biz for being m-izza-a-archaic.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
will_5198
Charter member
61923 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 08:58 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "tell Noah to break double digits in a big game"
In response to Reply # 3


          

--------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
DubSpt
Charter member
13933 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 02:57 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
48. "no problem"
In response to Reply # 40


  

          

He'll do it when he plays Tennessee in the tournament.


Oh wait...

- Dub

I give rappers the biz for being m-izza-a-archaic.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
will_5198
Charter member
61923 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 08:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
59. "I know. Gators might not make it that far."
In response to Reply # 48


          

--------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
bignick
Charter member
24054 posts
Mon Mar-19-07 07:57 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "Jesus, has it ever."
In response to Reply # 2


  

          


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Mon Mar-19-07 07:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "Welcome to the club..."
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

Sometimes it's not even worth the energy... check that, MOST times...
_______________________________________________________________________
freak out
in a moonage daydream
oh yeah

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

RECOR
Member since Feb 18th 2004
10927 posts
Mon Mar-19-07 08:01 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "didnt u get the d.a.r.e. program in grade school?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

crack is not candy

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Mynoriti
Charter member
37580 posts
Mon Mar-19-07 08:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "this post is 13 days early"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Basaglia
Member since Nov 30th 2004
49462 posts
Mon Mar-19-07 09:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "^^^^^'cause it's true"
In response to Reply # 0
Mon Mar-19-07 09:51 PM by Basaglia

  

          

mel is clearly top 5.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
magilla vanilla
Member since Sep 13th 2002
18221 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 06:49 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
31. "Kazan, Welles, Fellini, Capra and Kurosawa say you're wrong"
In response to Reply # 8
Tue Mar-20-07 06:53 PM by magilla vanilla

  

          

to say nothing of Speilberg, Coppola (Francis and Sofia), Anderson (Wes and PT), Lee, Malick, Allen, Scorsese, Weir, Eastwood, Gilliam . . .. shall I go on?

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Basaglia
Member since Nov 30th 2004
49462 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 06:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "1. living. 2. fuck half the ones you named, ESPECIALLY wes anderson"
In response to Reply # 31
Tue Mar-20-07 06:59 PM by Basaglia

  

          

he's not even in the comversation...at all.

paul thomas anderson has been asleep lately.

spike has made his share of stinkers and muhfuckas only started giving him "best director" love because his last few joints had high profile crackers in it.

spielberg and his swelling orchestra cannot fuck with mel in an action sequence...the shit ain't even close.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
magilla vanilla
Member since Sep 13th 2002
18221 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 07:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
35. "1. neither you nor the original poster specified living."
In response to Reply # 33


  

          

You BOTH said "top 5."

2. Even if you take out half the guys I named, there's still more than 5 better than Mel.

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
colonelk
Member since Dec 10th 2002
5056 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 07:57 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "are you out of your mind?"
In response to Reply # 33


  

          

>spielberg and his swelling orchestra cannot fuck with mel in an action >sequence...the shit ain't even close.

The director of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Saving Private Ryan, and Jaws can't fuck with Mel "stole his best tricks from Dr. George Miller" Gibson when it comes to action?

I think Spielberg is wildly overrated as an artist, but the one thing he does better than anyone alive is shoot action.



--------

hell-below.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Basaglia
Member since Nov 30th 2004
49462 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 12:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
63. "you're just saying shit you've heard said"
In response to Reply # 58


  

          

>The director of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Saving Private Ryan,
>and Jaws can't fuck with Mel "stole his best tricks from Dr.
>George Miller" Gibson when it comes to action?

no. he can't. mel does it with realism and allows an audience to feel genuine suspense and exhiliration. speilberg does it with special effects and a dumb ass orchestra and hits people over the head to get a response.

>I think Spielberg is wildly overrated as an artist, but the
>one thing he does better than anyone alive is shoot action.

not better than mel.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
colonelk
Member since Dec 10th 2002
5056 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 02:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "shit I've heard from MEL"
In response to Reply # 63


  

          

Mel admits to openly cribbing Miller, who is great, but not quite on Spielberg's level. Seriously, Mel himself would disagree with you.

Realism? Mel? Which films are you talking about? Because you couldn't mean Braveheart or Passion. Lots of blood does not automatically equal realism.

>speilberg does it
>with special effects and a dumb ass orchestra and hits people
>over the head to get a response.

John Williams is dumber than James Horner? I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

If you have a hard-on for gore dressed up with pretentious historical ideas, Mel is your man. But that doesn't make him a better director of action or anything else.

--------

hell-below.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Basaglia
Member since Nov 30th 2004
49462 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 03:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
71. "so, you tryna flip his admiration as theft? i could the same for many"
In response to Reply # 68


  

          

>Mel admits to openly cribbing Miller, who is great, but not
>quite on Spielberg's level. Seriously, Mel himself would
>disagree with you.

until he does, i'm gonna keep arguing for his place in the top 5.

>Realism? Mel? Which films are you talking about? Because you
>couldn't mean Braveheart or Passion. Lots of blood does not
>automatically equal realism.

actually, it does. scorsese just won an oscar for it. no, but seriously, you've tried to simplify his vision which is lame. braveheart captured the essence of field battle like no other film before it. i will admit, he added from visual flair with those damn painted faces, but that was even an amazing effect. how many WWII and alien/sci-fi movies were spielberg able to pull from?

>>speilberg does it
>>with special effects and a dumb ass orchestra and hits
>people
>>over the head to get a response.
>
>John Williams is dumber than James Horner? I'm not sure where
>you're coming from here.

who makes the music has nothing to do with its volume and placement.

>If you have a hard-on for gore dressed up with pretentious
>historical ideas, Mel is your man.

your entire critique of the man is pretentious and climate-controlled, which mistake for "cool." mel is not a popular guy to be a fan of these days, but i ain't gonna jump in and try to dismiss his work.

>But that doesn't make him a
>better director of action or anything else.

the work speaks for itself, really. we can go back and forth.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 08:10 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "Sofia?"
In response to Reply # 31


  

          

>to say nothing of Speilberg, Coppola (Francis and Sofia),


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
magilla vanilla
Member since Sep 13th 2002
18221 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 08:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
39. "I think she's better than Mel as a director, sure."
In response to Reply # 38
Tue Mar-20-07 09:15 PM by magilla vanilla

  

          

But Mel can out-act her for certain.

And let's add on Nolan, Heckerling, Crowe, and Ephron.

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 12:18 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "Lost In Translation was like *that*?"
In response to Reply # 39
Wed Mar-21-07 12:19 PM by 40thStreetBlack

  

          

I only saw parts of it, but from what I saw it wasn't putting her over Mel. The Virgin Suicides was good though.

>But Mel can out-act her for certain.

Wilson the volleyball can out-act her.

>And let's add on Nolan, Heckerling, Crowe, and Ephron.

Nolan yeah.
Crowe? I dunno, maybe.
Ephron? Heckerling? LOL

I mean I don't think Mel's top 5, but come on, he's not Brett Ratner either.



<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
85553 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 08:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
60. "Now we're starting to get a bit silly, methinks."
In response to Reply # 39


  

          

For beer lovers: http://thebeertravelguide.com
For movie lovers: http://russellhainline.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
magilla vanilla
Member since Sep 13th 2002
18221 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 09:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
61. "to my credit, I had thought that Ephron directed When Harry Met Sally"
In response to Reply # 60


  

          

as opposed to just writing it. My argument was that Ephron made the kind of movies that she made look really easy to make, when the other failed rom-com directors have proven it to be anything but.

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
85553 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 12:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "Top 5 in what sense?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

He'd be in my Top 5 Directors Who Love to Fetishize Violence.

For beer lovers: http://thebeertravelguide.com
For movie lovers: http://russellhainline.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

chaseman
Member since Oct 19th 2006
1628 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 02:12 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "id like to see u make an argument"
In response to Reply # 0


          

because braveheart apocalypto and the passion had merit whther people liked em or not. if we are just talking about violence then i dont give a shit. but this post doesnt deserved to be dismissed on some lesson-takin-over-ptp bull. i could careless about braveheart but it has a lot of meri as a film. i fell asleep during the passion which is a whole other problem but it to had merit. besides that o release films in (nearly) dead languages is more than ballsy, it requires a sense of art. im not a fan of antisemitism or really any of mels films but he deserves more credit than tarantino (said too much, passion of the chaseman is near at hand).

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

theprofessional
Charter member
8761 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 03:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "i can't believe i clicked on this"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

"i smack clowns with nouns, punch herbs with verbs..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

RetroName
Member since Mar 21st 2003
1832 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 06:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "i loved braveheart, passion was ok, havent seen apocalypto"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

n/m

____________________________

<--- One of those days...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Galatasaray
Member since May 11th 2006
14229 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 08:32 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "this is obvious to objective people"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

sadly few ppl are objective here or in the real world
it's a fucking disgrace his last movie did how it did

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
85553 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 10:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "Objective how? Passion of the Christ was not good storytelling."
In response to Reply # 13


  

          

It had BEAUTIFUL cinematography, just as all of his films do, but you're not a great director because you choose a great cinematographer.

My criticism of The Passion was simple: I didn't care about Jesus until about 2/3rds of the way through when he started using flashbacks to show us who this guy was. He assumed we all knew who Jesus was and automatically cared deeply about his character. He didn't flesh him out, he just ripped the flesh off of him.

Braveheart is better storytelling than The Passion, but again, it's too damn long. I refuse to believe that that movie couldn't have been better if it were 20 minutes shorter.

The guy has fantastic cinematography, and he loves to fetishize violence, which is interesting and gives him his own unique stamp as a director. But it doesn't make him Top 5. There are at least 10 or more better directors at telling a story. There are several who get better performances out of their actors. Mel just paints a pretty picture of violence. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just doesn't automatically make you Top 5.

For beer lovers: http://thebeertravelguide.com
For movie lovers: http://russellhainline.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Walleye
Charter member
15288 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 11:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "RE: Objective how? Passion of the Christ was not good storytelling."
In response to Reply # 14


          

I think you're making a genre assumption about The Passion that's difficult to support. It's a work of devotion, more Thomas a Kempis than Spielberg. That might not be a move that's permitted or viable in films - which is something I'd have to take your word on. Or it might just be a poorly executed of devotion, but I think he'd probably admit to assuming that viewers already knew and cared about Christ and the Passion narrative and that was part of the point.

I don't really have a good movie analogy for the sort of point I'm trying to make here. Perhaps I'll come up with one eventually.

>There are several who get better performances out of
>their actors.

I'm also not sure whether to take this as a criticism or simply at face value, the latter meaning that he's simply out of "the top five" (which probably isn't a useful construction anyhow). I thought the performances he got out of both Monica Bellucci and Maia Morgenstern in TPOTC were pretty phenomenal, and in an ancient language as well. Apocalypto was full of relative newcomers who turned in fine performances. I'm not well-versed enough in how this all works, but it seems unlikely that he just lucked into an entire cast of hidden gems for Apocalypto.

Uh... that's pretty much it for what I have to add. I've often considered that I'm not a great judge of acting, so I'm willing (to a degree) to be corrected on some of these points. The objective behind this post (the troublesome "top five" thing) seems less interesting here than the possibility that Gibson's ambition would be a lot more highly thought of here (and elsewhere) if people didn't find him so personally problematic. I don't have any particular problem with that - voting with your feet is a time-honored tradition, but it seems to occasionally result in a rather abrupt discussion of some interesting films.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Galatasaray
Member since May 11th 2006
14229 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 11:24 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "pretty much."
In response to Reply # 15


  

          



> The objective behind this post (the troublesome "top five"
>thing) seems less interesting here than the possibility that
>Gibson's ambition would be a lot more highly thought of here
>(and elsewhere) if people didn't find him so personally
>problematic. I don't have any particular problem with that -
>voting with your feet is a time-honored tradition, but it
>seems to occasionally result in a rather abrupt discussion of
>some interesting films.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
85553 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 02:03 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "I think that's the reason why passion projects (no pun intended)..."
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

>I think you're making a genre assumption about The Passion
>that's difficult to support. It's a work of devotion, more
>Thomas a Kempis than Spielberg. That might not be a move
>that's permitted or viable in films - which is something I'd
>have to take your word on. Or it might just be a poorly
>executed of devotion, but I think he'd probably admit to
>assuming that viewers already knew and cared about Christ and
>the Passion narrative and that was part of the point.
>
>I don't really have a good movie analogy for the sort of point
>I'm trying to make here. Perhaps I'll come up with one
>eventually.
>

...often don't make good "movies", per se. Those who share the passion of the director love it, hence SPM's comment about crying. But in terms of storytelling? Instead of having a clear conflict-resolution that moves, it's stagnant-- more like a portrait. We begin with him getting beaten, and we aren't really shown or told why until over halfway through the movie, which is why the violence seems all the more fetishized and looks like "the point" rather than the tale of the Ascension.

>>There are several who get better performances out of
>>their actors.
>
>I'm also not sure whether to take this as a criticism or
>simply at face value, the latter meaning that he's simply out
>of "the top five" (which probably isn't a useful construction
>anyhow). I thought the performances he got out of both Monica
>Bellucci and Maia Morgenstern in TPOTC were pretty phenomenal,
>and in an ancient language as well. Apocalypto was full of
>relative newcomers who turned in fine performances. I'm not
>well-versed enough in how this all works, but it seems
>unlikely that he just lucked into an entire cast of hidden
>gems for Apocalypto.

Well, right, it's not a useful construction. I agree that he gets good performances out of actors, especially considering that language barrier. I was MUCH more interested in The Passion when he talked about releasing it without subtitles, like a silent movie of sorts. That really, really fascinated me, the difficulties in storytelling and acting inherent within it. But I think the producers saw the film, saw that the storytelling really wasn't clear without dialogue that an audience could understand, and put it back in.

Also, Mel turns his characters into "types", where the complexity might be sacrificed in order to create a mythological story, something larger than life. Braveheart, Passion, and Apocalypto all do this to a degree (Braveheart to a very large degree, but that's another post).

>Uh... that's pretty much it for what I have to add. I've
>often considered that I'm not a great judge of acting, so I'm
>willing (to a degree) to be corrected on some of these points.
> The objective behind this post (the troublesome "top five"
>thing) seems less interesting here than the possibility that
>Gibson's ambition would be a lot more highly thought of here
>(and elsewhere) if people didn't find him so personally
>problematic. I don't have any particular problem with that -
>voting with your feet is a time-honored tradition, but it
>seems to occasionally result in a rather abrupt discussion of
>some interesting films.

I have no problem with judging directors separately from their personal life-- two of my favorite directors are Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, lol. However, I do think that's why people are quick to dismiss and maybe view these films waiting for something troublesome rather than go in with a blank slate and see what materializes.

For beer lovers: http://thebeertravelguide.com
For movie lovers: http://russellhainline.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 02:46 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "it doesn't automatically make them bad either"
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

>...often don't make good "movies", per se. Those who share the
>passion of the director love it, hence SPM's comment about
>crying. But in terms of storytelling? Instead of having a
>clear conflict-resolution that moves, it's stagnant-- more
>like a portrait. We begin with him getting beaten, and we
>aren't really shown or told why until over halfway through the
>movie, which is why the violence seems all the more fetishized
>and looks like "the point" rather than the tale of the
>Ascension.

like I said before, that's all laid out in the opening scene. And the violence IS to some degree "the point": the story is meant to evoke the suffering Jesus endured as the price of salvation - that's why it's called The Passion instead of The Ascension.


>Also, Mel turns his characters into "types", where the
>complexity might be sacrificed in order to create a
>mythological story, something larger than life. Braveheart,
>Passion, and Apocalypto all do this to a degree (Braveheart to
>a very large degree, but that's another post).

That might be a reasonable criticism for Braveheart... but the Passion? dude, it's JESUS CHRIST, aka GOD INCARNATE ... it *is* a mythological, larger than life story. That's the whole point.

You seem to want this movie to be something it's not and was never intended to be.



<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Walleye
Charter member
15288 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 03:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "RE: it doesn't automatically make them bad either"
In response to Reply # 46


          

>like I said before, that's all laid out in the opening scene.
>And the violence IS to some degree "the point": the story is
>meant to evoke the suffering Jesus endured as the price of
>salvation - that's why it's called The Passion instead of The
>Ascension.

Be careful, your Catholic is showing.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 03:51 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "RE: it doesn't automatically make them bad either"
In response to Reply # 49


  

          

>Be careful, your Catholic is showing.

my atheist lapsed Catholic, you mean? ha - the only Catholic vestige left in me is the guilt (that never goes away... and it's all you really need anyway, right? LOL)


but I am interested on your take on the movie from a Catholic perspective. I'm way too removed from the church to have picked up on all the nuances, and you seem pretty well versed in that stuff. so drop some Jesuit science, son.


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Walleye
Charter member
15288 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 04:12 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "RE: it doesn't automatically make them bad either"
In response to Reply # 52


          

You seem like an athiest like Joyce was an athiest. It's not just the guilt - once you know about the church you can't unknow it just by not believing or not going. POTA/Ulysses is about as concrete evidence of that as one can find.

I tried to talk about the anti-semitism stuff down below. I've deliberately avoided the movie in the time since I saw it first, but my impression at the time was that it actually struck me as something Luther would have appreciated. There's obviously a loooooong tradition of perfectly orthodox Catholics dealing with the Passion narrative in art, but when you isolate the story the emphasis on the Cross tends to kind of beat away anything else. If there's *anything* Gibson cannot be criticized for, it's understating the magnitude of Christ's sacrifice. It's not like there was anything theologically Lutheran about the whole thing, but I came away from it more sympathetic than I'd ever been to Luther's notion that it was thoroughly insulting to think I could ever hope to "add" anything to this sacrifice.

It's difficult for a work of art to adhere to a theological position in this way, particularly one as nuanced as Luther's beef with Rome in the 16th century but there's a pretty long history of debate as to whether (this is obviously a huge simplification) Luther was the first modern or the last medieval, and it's pretty easy to chunk him in the latter category after seeing the Passion. For centuries prior to Luther, people as important as St. Francis and St. Bernard and as unimportant as Margery Kempe were wandering around Europe and meditating with astounding concentration on the most minute detail of Christ's wounds and his suffering, often adding generously to the account. It's not hard to imagine, then, that people were willing to buy into Luther's line of thought, that we should be thoroughly crushed by the magnitude of what happened on Calvary.

By contrast, it makes Gibson's attempts to work The Church into the story seem kind of lame. The flashback where Christ builds the table that's actually an altar felt tacked on in a way that the other flashbacks didn't. The fact that the last hours of Christ's life so dominated the piece is why I questioned Longo on the storytelling requirement, because the best analogues for this movie are actually paintings and sculptures. It's entirely likely that this makes the movie a bad one in the sense that a movie *can* be so much more than a painting or a sculpture, but it's kind of taking your eye off the ball to criticize something that I doubt was really Gibson's intention.

Anyhow, it's more a historical thought than a theological one but any movie that can actually make me think about Heiko Oberman deserves a lot of attention.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
85553 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 05:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "I hear what both of you are saying about Gibson's intention."
In response to Reply # 53


  

          

I think Walleye expresses my opinion well when he says that a movie can do more than a painting. I think that Gibson BEGAN to touch on the past life of Jesus (and 40thStreet you're right when you say I probably wanted something that wasn't his intention), and if he was going to do a passion play about the death, then why include those flashbacks in the first place? I've studied Medieval and Renaissance Theater at length, and I don't recall too many flashbacks akin to those in plays about the crucifixion. Maybe 2/3rds of the way through, he wanted to ease up on the "passion play" element and switched more to a conventional storytelling method?

All I'm saying is something felt not quite cohesive to me in the film's storytelling. If he wanted it to be a passion play about nothing but the death, cool. But he didn't do that. He included a lot of the past in flashback. But he didn't include enough backstory or conflict/resolution to make it a full modern-day cinematic narrative.

For beer lovers: http://thebeertravelguide.com
For movie lovers: http://russellhainline.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 12:48 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "ok, that makes sense"
In response to Reply # 55


  

          

and yeah that flashback with Jesus making the table felt kinda tacked-on... so I see what you're saying.





<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Galatasaray
Member since May 11th 2006
14229 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 11:21 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "not good storytelling? how many ppl walked out of that film crying?"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

exactly
mel was able to emotionally touch people thru his interpretation of the story
people didn't go see that shit 5-10 times because of the lighting in that movie
people didn't cry for hours after seeing that movie because of the way the shadows reflected off the actors faces
people didn't talk about that movie at the water cooler for the following 6 months because of the costume selection
FOH
that shit MOVED PEOPLE, bottom line

imo the fact that the movie was able to touch so many ppl even tho 90% of america knows the story like the back of their hand shows Mels genius
but realizing the majority of OKP hates religion(and mel gibson now) i don't exactly expect objective discussion on the matter
i mean look at the snarky comments made above that brought nothing to the table

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
JungleSouljah
Member since Sep 24th 2002
14987 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 11:37 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
18. "Fuck that people crying noise"
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

That film is an abomination of the Christian religion. It was disgusting. That film was one man's interpretation of a great man's death. Not his life, mind you, but his death. Jesus' message wasn't about torture and his crucifixion. His message was about his life, how he lived his life, and how he wanted people to live their lives. I didn't see any of that in the film.

It's one thing to make a Divinci Code or Last Temptation of Christ -films that are upfront in that they deal with speculation. The Passion was presented as factual truth. Some of it was, some of it wasn't. Mel took a great deal of artistic license and really only presented the very, very END of the story.

JC would not have been happy with that movie.

______________________________
PSN: RuptureMD
http://hospitalstories.wordpress.com/

The 4th Annual Residency Encampment: Where do we go from here?

All you see is crime in the source code.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Galatasaray
Member since May 11th 2006
14229 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 12:01 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "i agree because for the most part Christianity is an abomination of"
In response to Reply # 18
Tue Mar-20-07 12:03 PM by Galatasaray

  

          

the Christian religion
thats what happens when corrupt governments like the roman empire and anglo-saxon kingdom adapt and manipulate the religion to serve their own secular purposes
but thats another post all together

that being said, i didn't exactly expect Mel to follow the bible 100%
thats why i said *his* interpretation of the events
as far as him focusing on the end of jesus life instead of some of the other parts
that was to make it a better story i suppose
people might have fallen asleep if the movie was 3 hours of jesus walking up and down the Galilaean coast telling people parables
sadly sensationalism is what sells in religion(and society), not the true meat and potatoes or principles the religion could teach
thats not Mel Gibson fault tho, like i said thats just the modern state of Christianity
it's the same reason the avg. church meeting consists of a preacher *preaching* and screaming at the audience
and there is no room for question or discussion and ppl are rarely encouraged to actually open up a bible and READ what they are being taught

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
85553 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 02:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "Now this is an interesting point."
In response to Reply # 20


  

          


>that being said, i didn't exactly expect Mel to follow the
>bible 100%
>thats why i said *his* interpretation of the events
>as far as him focusing on the end of jesus life instead of
>some of the other parts
>that was to make it a better story i suppose
>people might have fallen asleep if the movie was 3 hours of
>jesus walking up and down the Galilaean coast telling people
>parables

But see, I think that in order for us to understand from a storytelling perspective why the death of Jesus is important, we need to see MORE of him spreading his message. It's exactly why I liked the last third of the movie, because we get to see through flashback Jesus preaching to the people. It helped the storytelling (albeit too late into the movie in my opinion) because it helped us understand both what this man was about and why people wanted to kill him. The movie for the most part was simply resolution without conflict. Mel thought the conflict was him getting beaten, when the FAR more interesting conflict is the spreading of his message vs. the THREAT of getting beaten.

There doesn't need to be 3 hours of parables, just flashbacks more evenly interspersed throughout the film. If the flashbacks started earlier, I might have really enjoyed the film.

>sadly sensationalism is what sells in religion(and society),
>not the true meat and potatoes or principles the religion
>could teach
>thats not Mel Gibson fault tho, like i said thats just the
>modern state of Christianity

But Mel is a HUGELY influential Christian, you don't think that perhaps he could get away with altering the conventions a tad?

>it's the same reason the avg. church meeting consists of a
>preacher *preaching* and screaming at the audience
>and there is no room for question or discussion and ppl are
>rarely encouraged to actually open up a bible and READ what
>they are being taught

^^^ sounds a LOT like PTP, lol.

For beer lovers: http://thebeertravelguide.com
For movie lovers: http://russellhainline.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 01:53 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "RE: Now this is an interesting point."
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

>But see, I think that in order for us to understand from a
>storytelling perspective why the death of Jesus is important,
>we need to see MORE of him spreading his message. It's exactly
>why I liked the last third of the movie, because we get to see
>through flashback Jesus preaching to the people. It helped the
>storytelling (albeit too late into the movie in my opinion)
>because it helped us understand both what this man was about
>and why people wanted to kill him. The movie for the most part
>was simply resolution without conflict. Mel thought the
>conflict was him getting beaten, when the FAR more interesting
>conflict is the spreading of his message vs. the THREAT of
>getting beaten.

the why and the conflict is presented in the opening scene of the movie when Jesus is confronted by Satan in the garden of Gethsemane. like I said before, if you want to see a movie that focuses on Jesus spreading his message, watch The Greatest Story Ever Told. The focus of Gibson's movie is on the price Jesus pays for humanity's salvation, and from a storytelling perspective there's nothing wrong with that.


>>sadly sensationalism is what sells in religion(and society),
>>not the true meat and potatoes or principles the religion
>>could teach
>>thats not Mel Gibson fault tho, like i said thats just the
>>modern state of Christianity
>
>But Mel is a HUGELY influential Christian, you don't think
>that perhaps he could get away with altering the conventions a
>tad?

he's an obsessively traditionalist Catholic, he's not trying to alter any Christian conventions. and the sensationalist violence in the movie is the least problematic thing about it wrt Mel being such a hugely influential Christian... I mean you haven't even commented on the anti-semetic undertones in the movie, but you're worried about the gore factor? wow.


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Walleye
Charter member
15288 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 03:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
51. "While you're here..."
In response to Reply # 45


          

>I mean
>you haven't even commented on the anti-semetic undertones in
>the movie, but you're worried about the gore factor? wow.

>I mean
>you haven't even commented on the anti-semetic undertones in
>the movie, but you're worried about the gore factor? wow.

I hope you'll go into more depth about this. I'll admit to having a frequent blindspot about this kind of thing, but I had a hard time finding what all the fuss was about. Though this probably has something to do with most of the reviews I read, which were more interested in using the anti-semitism accusation as a stick to beat him with as opposed to a jumpoff point for actual analysis. That's, of course, not to say that it can't be the latter, just that I didn't encounter many pieces with concrete examples. But I also wasn't looking.

I think the whole thing was a lot more faithful to the Gospel accounts than people give it credit for, but in sort of a mishmash form which opens him up to closer examination on what pieces from which accounts he decided to include and which ones he didn't. It's been waaaay too long since I've taken a NT course, but the sympathetic Pilate is a Lukan construction, right? Gibson borrowed pretty gleefully from that, which was probably not a great choice, and also not a very likely one given what we know about Pilate's administration (that he seemed to find not executing prisoners pretty dull).

Pointing out that he chose some of the Gospel accounts most antagonistic towards Jews obviously doesn't exonerate Gibson, but it does kind of give the argument a bit larger scope.

I talked to a friend of mine after the movie came out, and he kind of reframed at least part of the problem for me: the whole Jesus story is a story about Jews. If you've got a story set in first century Palestine, the good guys and the bad guys are all going to be Jewish. But when you proceed with an artistic sensibility as medieval as his was, you've got to be a little bit more careful about what you do with this fact. Deciding NOT to go with the account that bends over backwards to include the Romans in with the good guys is the first step most sensible people would have taken. I'm willing (by somebody whose opinion I actually trust, like you) to be convinced Gibson's story was anti-semetic, but at the moment the farthest I go is that he obviously had a tin ear with respect for two millenia of Christian ugliness towards Jews.

Of course, when he and all his silly sedevacantist buddies reject "Nostra Aetate" as non-authoritative modernist novelty, my sympathy is in short supply.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
85553 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 05:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "I tend to lean this way."
In response to Reply # 51


  

          

but at the
>moment the farthest I go is that he obviously had a tin ear
>with respect for two millenia of Christian ugliness towards
>Jews.

If Mel Gibson didn't have the personal life that he has, I don't think it would have been as big of an issue. Being someone who has worked at the Jewish Community Alliance for most of my life and is very sensitive to those matters, I didn't find it all that offensive. I thought people went in looking to find it.

For beer lovers: http://thebeertravelguide.com
For movie lovers: http://russellhainline.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 07:33 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
57. "I actually liked the movie overall & I'm not bashing it out of hand"
In response to Reply # 51


  

          

and I think alot of the accusations and hysteria about the movie wrt this were somewhat overstated.

that being said, there were some troubling portrayals in the movie:

first off, when the temple guards arrest Jesus and take him back to the temple, the Roman legionnaires show up to see what all the fuss is about, and Caiaphas (I think it was him, or maybe it was one of the other priests) scolds them and tells them, so many words and in a pretty bold tone, to fuck off and mind their business... and they just take that shit from his and turn and leave without a word?

Now I know the Romans let the Jews run the internal affairs of the temple and all... but were the temple priests really chastising Roman officers and ordering them around all bold like that, and the Romans would jump at their command and dutifully follow their orders? WTF? I mean they were under Roman military occupation for christssake, and from all the historical accounts I've ever heard of, the Romans didn't take too kindly to uppity natives in conquered provinces, *particularly* in Judea.

I mean I dunno, maybe I'm making too much of it, but the whole tone of that scene just struck me as really off somehow; it seemed skewed to make it look like the Jews were really running the show and the Romans were these dumb unwitting lackeys beholden to their will. Which is INCREDIBLY ahistorical (that's what really bothered me about it at first actually), and it feeds into some the most pernicious anti-Jewish myths/stereotypes.


as for the general portrayal of the Jews as the bad guys, your friend has a point about a story set among Jews in first century Judea inevitably having the bad guys as well as the good guys being Jewish (I mean in Apocalypto the good guys and bad guys are all Mayans too, right?) And I had actually thought pretty much the same thing, so I guess that didnt' really bother me all that much. Although there was plenty of that stuff to go around: the wicked Jewish temple priests conspiring to persecute the innocent Jesus in order to consolidate their hold on power, the bloodthirsty Jewish mob calling for Jesus' death, Judas scurrying on the ground after the 30 pieces of silver like the stereotypical covetous Jew... I suppose if I were Jewish it would've bothered me more. But then again the good guys are Jewish too; I guess it depends on your perspective whether you think of them as Jews or specifically as Christians though, but I think of them all as Jews (and Peter looked UBER Jewish... ironically the actor was Italian I think), so whatever.


As for including the Romans in with the good guys, well, the portrayal of Pilate was fairly sympathetic - I guess that's straight from the gospel account (I really wouldn't know if it's strictly from Luke, I'm not up on NT scholarship like that.) But yeah that is not in accordance with the contemporary Roman historical accounts, as Pilate was pretty brutal even for a Roman prefect. But what struck me as odd was the portrayal of Pilate's wife as such a saintly figure. I don't know what the gospels say about her, but damn, the movie made it seem like she took Jesus' suffering and death to heart as much as Mary & Mary Magdalene, which seemed pretty absurd to me. My guess would be Gibson could portray Pilate as only so sympathetic before he would not be believable as a Roman prefect in charge of enforcing Roman law, but through his wife could evoke the sense of sympathy even more. But that's just speculation on my part.

But then again, the Roman legionnaires who tortured Jesus were portrayed as mindless, sadistic brutes. I mean they were like Nazi stormtroopers in a Speilberg movie, completely devoid of humanity and taking pure mindless glee in savagely inflicting pain and suffering. Even the Jewish villians were still portrayed as human (if ugly ones at that), but the legionnaires didn't even seem human to me, they were like pink-skinned orcs foaming at the mouth with animalistic murderous zeal. Whatever reluctance or sympathy Pilate is shown as having, his troops have absolutely none. The way I see it, that includes the Romans (and gentiles in general) in with the idea that Jesus' blood is on all humanity's hands, not just the Jews. Gibson even filmed his own hand nailing Jesus to the cross to evoke that sentiment.

Now, does that mean he doesn't think the Jews are *especially* culpable in Jesus' death? No. I do think it makes it a little more complicated than saying he puts all the blame solely on the Jews though. I guess people will interpret it a bunch of different ways. Personally I don't think it's quite as bad as the ADL does, but I don't think it's as harmless as the Christian who came out of the theater in tears do either.

actually, you know what was probably the most offensive part of the movie that I haven't even heard anyone really comment on? when the earthquake hits after Jesus dies, a fissure opens up in the Jewish temple and splits the altar apart, as the temple priests look on in horror and disbelief. Now you can interpret alot of things alot of different ways, but to me the only way that can be interpreted in the context of this movie is that Christ's death rendered the old Judaic faith a dead and invalid religion. didn't even really hit me till I left the theater, but there it is. I can't even think of another way that can be interpreted. And I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the gospel account depicting the altar being split by the earthquake, and so it was a personal touch Gibson added, so that's all on him & it was pretty despicable IMO.

>Of course, when he and all his silly sedevacantist buddies
>reject "Nostra Aetate" as non-authoritative modernist novelty,
>my sympathy is in short supply.

oh, Gibson's a fucking loon. I don't have any sympathy for him as a person. But he can make a hell of a movie.



<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
Walleye
Charter member
15288 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 01:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "RE: I actually liked the movie overall & I'm not bashing it out of hand"
In response to Reply # 57


          

>I mean I dunno, maybe I'm making too much of it, but the whole
>tone of that scene just struck me as really off somehow; it
>seemed skewed to make it look like the Jews were really
>running the show and the Romans were these dumb unwitting
>lackeys beholden to their will. Which is INCREDIBLY
>ahistorical (that's what really bothered me about it at first
>actually), and it feeds into some the most pernicious
>anti-Jewish myths/stereotypes.

On the days we feel charitable, it might be more appropriate to say that the relationship between Roman and Palestine was a bit too complicated to portray in such a secondary manner in a movie. My impression is that it deviated pretty significantly from the way in which we'd ordinarily think of colonizer/colonized dynamics. Peter Brown's survey on Western Christendom makes a pretty convincing case that undergoverning was pretty systemic in the extremities of the Roman Empire.

The political situation for foreign overseers like the Romans was pretty tenuous, maybe best evidenced by the three serious (with one short term success) revolts within a century of Christ's death. Keeping the locals happy on small matters was pretty high on the priority list for Roman authority, and making sure not to appear ambitious past the authority allowed to them was similarly important to local Jewish authority.

Still, it's obviously notable that he'd err on the offensive side of a difficult-to-portray historical dynamic. Once again, it's a case of his actual life offering little reason for benefit of the doubt.

>As for including the Romans in with the good guys, well, the
>portrayal of Pilate was fairly sympathetic - I guess that's
>straight from the gospel account (I really wouldn't know if
>it's strictly from Luke, I'm not up on NT scholarship like
>that.)

It is Luke. I checked and I'm *very* pleased with myself that I actually got it right. Now, to justify the remaining fortune I've squandered on "education"...

>But yeah that is not in accordance with the
>contemporary Roman historical accounts, as Pilate was pretty
>brutal even for a Roman prefect. But what struck me as odd was
>the portrayal of Pilate's wife as such a saintly figure.

She actually is a saint in some Eastern churches. The story seems to assume the dream that led her to warn Pilate not to crucify Jesus (in Matthew... that one I looked up) eventually led her to convert. He might be as well, though I'm not as positive about that.

>Even the Jewish villians were still
>portrayed as human (if ugly ones at that),

This, I had a problem with. In a story about the outer reaches of the 1st century Roman Empire, *everybody* should be ugly. Maybe Jesus and Mary should have been given a pass, but past that...

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
85553 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 06:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
73. "LOL, word"
In response to Reply # 65


  

          


>This, I had a problem with. In a story about the outer reaches
>of the 1st century Roman Empire, *everybody* should be ugly.
>Maybe Jesus and Mary should have been given a pass, but past
>that...
>

For beer lovers: http://thebeertravelguide.com
For movie lovers: http://russellhainline.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
biscuit
Charter member
8682 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 05:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "I support this reply 100 percent"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*Effasig*

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 12:40 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "it's a Passion play - it's SUPPOSED to be about his death"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

>That film is an abomination of the Christian religion. It
>was disgusting.

are you Christian? I mean yeah it was excessively gory, but aside from that, this is what Christians believe.

>That film was one man's interpretation of a
>great man's death. Not his life, mind you, but his death.

That's why it was called The Passion of the Christ instead of The Life and Times of Jesus.

>Jesus' message wasn't about torture and his crucifixion. His
>message was about his life, how he lived his life, and how he
>wanted people to live their lives. I didn't see any of that
>in the film.

Jesus' crucifixion and death are central to the Christian faith. I really don't get how people don't get that.


>It's one thing to make a Divinci Code or Last Temptation of
>Christ -films that are upfront in that they deal with
>speculation. The Passion was presented as factual truth.
>Some of it was, some of it wasn't.

almost none of it is "factual" truth to begin with. it's based on a religious text, not an objective historical account.

>Mel took a great deal of
>artistic license and really only presented the very, very END
>of the story.

again, that's exactly what a Passion play is about.

>JC would not have been happy with that movie.

well he wouldn't be happy with Mel personally, but that's another story.


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
JungleSouljah
Member since Sep 24th 2002
14987 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 02:14 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
66. "RE: it's a Passion play - it's SUPPOSED to be about his death"
In response to Reply # 44


  

          

>>That film is an abomination of the Christian religion. It
>>was disgusting.
>
>are you Christian? I mean yeah it was excessively gory, but
>aside from that, this is what Christians believe.

I'm Catholic. Depending on who you are and what you believe that means yes or no.

>>That film was one man's interpretation of a
>>great man's death. Not his life, mind you, but his death.
>
>That's why it was called The Passion of the Christ instead of
>The Life and Times of Jesus.

It's a difficult point to argue, but just because the film is called The Passion, doesn't mean Mel couldn't include more flashbacks.

>>Jesus' message wasn't about torture and his crucifixion.
>His
>>message was about his life, how he lived his life, and how
>he
>>wanted people to live their lives. I didn't see any of that
>>in the film.
>
>Jesus' crucifixion and death are central to the Christian
>faith. I really don't get how people don't get that.

Really? I was under the impression his life was more important than his death. Maybe Catholicism is different than the other denominations. For his death to mean anything his life had to have meant something. I'm not denying the story of the Passion and crucifixion isn't central to Christianity, but what are the most celebrated days in the Christian tradition? Christmas - a celebration of Christ's brith and Easter - a celebration of his resurrection. Those are two celebrations of life and rebirth. Yes, the death was necessary for rebirth, but then why isn't Black Friday as celebrated? And as a Catholic I've been to far more Holy Friday services than most protestants that I know.

>>It's one thing to make a Divinci Code or Last Temptation of
>>Christ -films that are upfront in that they deal with
>>speculation. The Passion was presented as factual truth.
>>Some of it was, some of it wasn't.
>
>almost none of it is "factual" truth to begin with. it's based
>on a religious text, not an objective historical account.

Wrong. It is well documented that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who was put to death by crucifixion around 30 AD (or CE if you prefer). It was known that his teachings were not looked up favorably by the Jewish leaders of the day. I can trot out the sources if you would like. What's at issue is the miracles he performed and whether or not he was resurrected.

>>Mel took a great deal of
>>artistic license and really only presented the very, very
>END
>>of the story.
>
>again, that's exactly what a Passion play is about.

Again, I'm aware. But I would assume that you're aware that the Passion is preceded by about 3 years of important material. To appreciate the Passion, it helps to be familiar with the man's life. You're assuming that everyone who went to see the film, was either a) Christian or b) knew everything they needed to know to truly grasp the end of the story.

>>JC would not have been happy with that movie.
>
>well he wouldn't be happy with Mel personally, but that's
>another story.

Not really, but we've got enough to argue about for now.

______________________________
PSN: RuptureMD
http://hospitalstories.wordpress.com/

The 4th Annual Residency Encampment: Where do we go from here?

All you see is crime in the source code.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 06:32 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
74. "RE: it's a Passion play - it's SUPPOSED to be about his death"
In response to Reply # 66
Thu Mar-22-07 06:46 PM by 40thStreetBlack

  

          

>I'm Catholic. Depending on who you are and what you believe
>that means yes or no.

well the people who say no are retards, so just say yes.


>It's a difficult point to argue, but just because the film is
>called The Passion, doesn't mean Mel couldn't include more
>flashbacks.

I discussed this above in more detail with Frank, but ultimately the focus of the movie is on the suffering Jesus endured as the price of humanity's salvation. if you wanted more flashbacks to fully flesh out his life and teachings then you are looking for something in the movie that it wasn't meant to be.


>Really? I was under the impression his life was more
>important than his death.

funny, I was under the impression that they were both essential elements of Christianity.


>Maybe Catholicism is different than
>the other denominations.

Catholicism focuses on his death MORE than most Protestant denominations AFAIK.*

>For his death to mean anything his
>life had to have meant something.

I never said otherwise. But by the same token, without his death there is no salvation... seems pretty critical to me.

> I'm not denying the story
>of the Passion and crucifixion isn't central to Christianity,

it sure sounded like you were in the previous post.


>but what are the most celebrated days in the Christian
>tradition? Christmas - a celebration of Christ's brith and
>Easter - a celebration of his resurrection. Those are two
>celebrations of life and rebirth.

and what is the universal symbol of Christianity? The nativity star? an easter egg? nope - it's the cross.

If you want to see a story celebrating Christ's birth and resurrection, you can watch The Nativity Story and The Greatest Story Ever Told. The Passion is taking a different perspective and focuses on a fairly singular aspect of his story, and there's nothing wrong with that.


>Yes, the death was
>necessary for rebirth, but then why isn't Black Friday as
>celebrated?

because it's not exactly a time for "celebration" as such; Black Friday always seemed like more of a somber occasion rather than a celebration per se.


>And as a Catholic I've been to far more Holy
>Friday services than most protestants that I know.

* see above.


>Wrong. It is well documented that there was a Jesus of
>Nazareth who was put to death by crucifixion around 30 AD (or
>CE if you prefer). It was known that his teachings were not
>looked up favorably by the Jewish leaders of the day. I can
>trot out the sources if you would like. What's at issue is
>the miracles he performed and whether or not he was
>resurrected.

It is not "well documented" outside of the gospels, which is a religious text & not an objective historical account. there is no direct contemporary historical account, and the Josephus account is of dubious authenticity. but that's really neither here nor there wrt this discussion.


>>again, that's exactly what a Passion play is about.
>
>Again, I'm aware.

so you're complaining that Mel didn't include something in a movie that was never meant to include it? seems like a self-defeating argument.


>But I would assume that you're aware that
>the Passion is preceded by about 3 years of important
>material. To appreciate the Passion, it helps to be familiar
>with the man's life. You're assuming that everyone who went
>to see the film, was either a) Christian or b) knew everything
>they needed to know to truly grasp the end of the story.

well most of the world is somewhat familiar with Jesus' life, he's the most widely known figure in human history. but anyway, you're assuming that the purpose of the movie is to familiarize the viewer with Jesus' whole life story... well, it's not; the purpose of the movie is to evoke the suffering Jesus endured as the price of salvation - that's why it's called The Passion instead of The Life and Times of Jesus.

I mean if you didn't like it, fine. But you are criticizing the movie for not being something it wasn't supposed to be in the first place.



<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
JungleSouljah
Member since Sep 24th 2002
14987 posts
Thu Mar-29-07 09:39 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
75. "RE: it's a Passion play - it's SUPPOSED to be about his death"
In response to Reply # 74


  

          

I don't mean to re-up this post to retread recent arguments, but I was listening to the great Bill Hicks this morning and was reminded of this discussion.

>>I'm Catholic. Depending on who you are and what you
>believe
>>that means yes or no.
>
>well the people who say no are retards, so just say yes.

Well that may be, but it happens.


>>It's a difficult point to argue, but just because the film
>is
>>called The Passion, doesn't mean Mel couldn't include more
>>flashbacks.
>
>I discussed this above in more detail with Frank, but
>ultimately the focus of the movie is on the suffering Jesus
>endured as the price of humanity's salvation. if you wanted
>more flashbacks to fully flesh out his life and teachings then
>you are looking for something in the movie that it wasn't
>meant to be.

Well I'd like something other than flashbacks but I'm conceding the point that it's a passion play and that Mel was telling the only part of the story he'd be able to tell in his "style".

>>Really? I was under the impression his life was more
>>important than his death.
>
>funny, I was under the impression that they were both
>essential elements of Christianity.

I can roll with that. As long as we're not trying to say that his death is more important than his life.

>>Maybe Catholicism is different than
>>the other denominations.
>
>Catholicism focuses on his death MORE than most Protestant
>denominations AFAIK.*

Touche. Thinking back to my upbringing in the church and how my view of Catholicism/Chrisitianity has evolved since then, I'll concede this point too.

>>For his death to mean anything his
>>life had to have meant something.
>
>I never said otherwise. But by the same token, without his
>death there is no salvation... seems pretty critical to me.

Agreed. I'm still just annoyed over the fixation on his death with little to no mention of all the things he did during his life. Maybe that's where Christianity got it twisted: that the salvation became more important than the teachings during his life.

>> I'm not denying the story
>>of the Passion and crucifixion isn't central to
>Christianity,
>
>it sure sounded like you were in the previous post.
>
>
>>but what are the most celebrated days in the Christian
>>tradition? Christmas - a celebration of Christ's brith and
>>Easter - a celebration of his resurrection. Those are two
>>celebrations of life and rebirth.
>
>and what is the universal symbol of Christianity? The nativity
>star? an easter egg? nope - it's the cross.

Again, it's because of the strong focus on the crucifixion and resurrection (and salvation as you've mentioned before). I often wonder if it's an appropriate symbol, but as we've already established my views differ a bit from traditional dogma.


>If you want to see a story celebrating Christ's birth and
>resurrection, you can watch The Nativity Story and The
>Greatest Story Ever Told. The Passion is taking a different
>perspective and focuses on a fairly singular aspect of his
>story, and there's nothing wrong with that.
>
>
>>Yes, the death was
>>necessary for rebirth, but then why isn't Black Friday as
>>celebrated?
>
>because it's not exactly a time for "celebration" as such;
>Black Friday always seemed like more of a somber occasion
>rather than a celebration per se.
>
>
>>And as a Catholic I've been to far more Holy
>>Friday services than most protestants that I know.
>
>* see above.
>
>
>>Wrong. It is well documented that there was a Jesus of
>>Nazareth who was put to death by crucifixion around 30 AD
>(or
>>CE if you prefer). It was known that his teachings were not
>>looked up favorably by the Jewish leaders of the day. I can
>>trot out the sources if you would like. What's at issue is
>>the miracles he performed and whether or not he was
>>resurrected.
>
>It is not "well documented" outside of the gospels, which is a
>religious text & not an objective historical account. there is
>no direct contemporary historical account, and the Josephus
>account is of dubious authenticity. but that's really neither
>here nor there wrt this discussion.

There are a few non-Christian historical accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Confession time: I've taken several classes with E.P. Sanders who is considered the world authority on the historical figure of Jesus. If you're interested more than what's in those wikipedia articles, I highly recommend his books especially "Historical Figure of Jesus" and "Jesus and Judiasim".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.P._Sanders
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1993/v50-3-article8.htm

You might find it rather interesting reading. I know I did. He makes great arguments on the poetic licenses taken in many Biblical and Christian accounts, especially the Gospel of John.

>>>again, that's exactly what a Passion play is about.
>>
>>Again, I'm aware.
>
>so you're complaining that Mel didn't include something in a
>movie that was never meant to include it? seems like a
>self-defeating argument.
>
>
>>But I would assume that you're aware that
>>the Passion is preceded by about 3 years of important
>>material. To appreciate the Passion, it helps to be
>familiar
>>with the man's life. You're assuming that everyone who went
>>to see the film, was either a) Christian or b) knew
>everything
>>they needed to know to truly grasp the end of the story.
>
>well most of the world is somewhat familiar with Jesus' life,
>he's the most widely known figure in human history. but
>anyway, you're assuming that the purpose of the movie is to
>familiarize the viewer with Jesus' whole life story... well,
>it's not; the purpose of the movie is to evoke the suffering
>Jesus endured as the price of salvation - that's why it's
>called The Passion instead of The Life and Times of Jesus.
>
>I mean if you didn't like it, fine. But you are criticizing
>the movie for not being something it wasn't supposed to be in
>the first place.

Maybe I'm criticizing it for something that it should have been. Just because the film was called The Passion doesn't neccesarily mean it had no reason or responsibility to properly frame it's story. Did it have to? No. But it certainly could have. And saying that "most of the world" is "somewhat familiar" with Jesus' life is an interesting and dangerous statement. Christianity only accounts for 1/3 of the world's population. Further, I'd argue that many Christians have it somewhat twisted and this movie certainly didn't help.

We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I think it's well known as to what themes Mel Gibson decides to permeate his films with. The death of Jesus gives him a lot to work with in that sense. I'd like to argue that his life doesn't really appeal to Mel because it lacks his favorite themes. I think it's an argument worth considering.

______________________________
PSN: RuptureMD
http://hospitalstories.wordpress.com/

The 4th Annual Residency Encampment: Where do we go from here?

All you see is crime in the source code.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
bignick
Charter member
24054 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 11:40 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "And how many of those people were brainwashed Chrstians?"
In response to Reply # 16
Tue Mar-20-07 11:48 AM by bignick

  

          

Exactly. He didn't fool anybody who wasn't already fooled. Nobody who knows anything about film is putting Mel ahead of Marty, Steve, Clint, Coppola, Spike, etc.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 02:55 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
47. "I'm an atheist and I thought it was very moving"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

>Exactly. He didn't fool anybody who wasn't already fooled.

that's neither here nor there. from a strictly dramatic perspective he portrayed a very moving story.

>Nobody who knows anything about film is putting Mel ahead of
>Marty, Steve, Clint, Coppola, Spike, etc.

sure, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good movie.


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
85553 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 02:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "I'm not being snarky, I'm engaging you in discussion here, lol"
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

And in response to Mel touching people, it's because he chose a subject matter that touches a lot of people in real life. People cried because they watched an actor play a person that they worship as he got beaten and killed.

Violence is always painful, especially when the subject is someone you actually care about in real life, so of course people cried. That doesn't have much to do with storytelling, it has to do with the passionate delivery of subject matter that people can relate to.

As I said above, it's a passion project, and on that level, it works because the passion touched so many people. But I'm a Christian who also happens to be a jaded film viewer, and I was left cold by the violence. I wanted to watch Jim Caviezel play Jesus, and he didn't get to until the flashbacks about 2/3rds of the way through the movie. I thought the last third of The Passion was really quite good, but the first 2/3rds left me cold and made me wonder exactly why Mel would show so much violence and not justify it from a storytelling perspective.

Those who went to The Passion wanting to understand more about Jesus's death got that. But those who went to The Passion wanting to understand more about Jesus as a figure (myself included) were left unsatisfied for roughly the first hour of the film.

For beer lovers: http://thebeertravelguide.com
For movie lovers: http://russellhainline.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 03:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "your problem is u wanted the movie to be something it wasn't meant to be"
In response to Reply # 22
Wed Mar-21-07 03:28 PM by 40thStreetBlack

  

          

>And in response to Mel touching people, it's because he chose
>a subject matter that touches a lot of people in real life.
>People cried because they watched an actor play a person that
>they worship as he got beaten and killed.
>
>Violence is always painful, especially when the subject is
>someone you actually care about in real life, so of course
>people cried. That doesn't have much to do with storytelling,
>it has to do with the passionate delivery of subject matter
>that people can relate to.

the folks crying and wailing and falling out in the theater and all that, sure. but it was still a very moving story from a strictly dramatic perspective.


>As I said above, it's a passion project, and on that level, it
>works because the passion touched so many people. But I'm a
>Christian who also happens to be a jaded film viewer, and I
>was left cold by the violence.

A Christian left cold by violence? what are you, a Quaker? LOL


> I wanted to watch Jim Caviezel
>play Jesus, and he didn't get to until the flashbacks about
>2/3rds of the way through the movie.

Jesus is more complex than just the hippie peace & love preacher giving the sermon on the mount though. I mean, the opening scene depicts Christ's agony in Gethsemane - that's not playing Jesus? (and Caviezel played the hell out of that scene btw) What are they teaching you kids in Sunday school these days?



>I thought the last third
>of The Passion was really quite good, but the first 2/3rds
>left me cold and made me wonder exactly why Mel would show so
>much violence and not justify it from a storytelling
>perspective.

he did justify it. he just didn't justify it the way *you* wanted it to be justified. that doesn't invalidate the justification or make it work any less well from a storytelling perspective.


>Those who went to The Passion wanting to understand more about
>Jesus's death got that.

and that's exactly what The Passion set out to do.


>But those who went to The Passion
>wanting to understand more about Jesus as a figure (myself
>included) were left unsatisfied for roughly the first hour of
>the film.

that's your problem. like I said, you wanted this movie to be something it wasn't and was never meant to be.


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 12:04 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "you wanted him to focus on character introduction more? dude, it's JESUS"
In response to Reply # 14
Wed Mar-21-07 12:05 PM by 40thStreetBlack

  

          

the most widely known figure in history. if you want to see a character introduction for JC, watch The Greatest Story Ever Told. that's not the purpose of this movie.

>Braveheart is better storytelling than The Passion, but again,
>it's too damn long. I refuse to believe that that movie
>couldn't have been better if it were 20 minutes shorter.

it's an epic, not a romantic comedy. damn, you ADD mugfuggers need to chill out.


>The guy has fantastic cinematography, and he loves to
>fetishize violence, which is interesting and gives him his own
>unique stamp as a director. But it doesn't make him Top 5.
>There are at least 10 or more better directors at telling a
>story. There are several who get better performances out of
>their actors. Mel just paints a pretty picture of violence.
>Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just doesn't
>automatically make you Top 5.

he does more than just that. but yeah he's not top 5.


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
85553 posts
Wed Mar-21-07 05:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "It's not about ADD, one of my favorite films is Lawrence of Arabia."
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

I just personally think Braveheart is too long. *shrug* Just my opinion. It still could've been an epic story with a bit more editing.

For beer lovers: http://thebeertravelguide.com
For movie lovers: http://russellhainline.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26668 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 12:40 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "oh ok."
In response to Reply # 56


  

          

alot of people seem to think alot of movies should just be shorter in general. If I'm interested in a movie at all I generally prefer a longer version, but that's just me.

but yeah I just checked and Braveheart is longer than I thought, almost 3 hours, so yeah I guess it could've been trimmed down a bit.

btw, have you ever seen Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen? Freakin' AMAZING. If you haven't yet and ever get the chance, do not miss it at all costs.


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

DawgEatah
Charter member
49225 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 02:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "Posts like this make me never want to come to this forum anymore."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

chinsu
Member since Jan 18th 2003
1410 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 02:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "RE: Fuck it....Mel Gibson = 1 of top 5 directors"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

wow, theres a tremendous amount of whining in this post, along with some good points.

maybe i got carried away with the top 5 thing, and maybe its because i just watched apocolypto before i made the post. and lets just say i was high for the fuck of it.

but what i was really trying to say, all the carried away bullshit aside, i think mel is a very underrated director. his name never gets mentioned in PTP, only when being shitted on. he is by no means near the brilliance of marty, clint, spike, coppola or kubrick, but he still has his little niche, ultra violence meshed with characters ppl generally care about. he knows how to make an entertaining film, without being too corny or too campy.

and to ppl comin into this post and leaving dumbass comments like "this is why i dont come into PTP anymore" or "PTP is doomed because of posts like this" there is such a thing as choice, and u can choose to click on another fucking post. if ur not going to make a valid point like some of u did, kindly go fuck urslef, and get off ur high horse with ur shit eating grins, and cheetos stained fingers, and post elsewhere.

________________

Smoke?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Galatasaray
Member since May 11th 2006
14229 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 02:47 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "lmao @ cheetos stained fingers"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

>wow, theres a tremendous amount of whining in this post,
>along with some good points.
>
>maybe i got carried away with the top 5 thing, and maybe its
>because i just watched apocolypto before i made the post. and
>lets just say i was high for the fuck of it.
>
>but what i was really trying to say, all the carried away
>bullshit aside, i think mel is a very underrated director. his
>name never gets mentioned in PTP, only when being shitted on.
>he is by no means near the brilliance of marty, clint, spike,
>coppola or kubrick, but he still has his little niche, ultra
>violence meshed with characters ppl generally care about. he
>knows how to make an entertaining film, without being too
>corny or too campy.
>
>and to ppl comin into this post and leaving dumbass comments
>like "this is why i dont come into PTP anymore" or "PTP is
>doomed because of posts like this" there is such a thing as
>choice, and u can choose to click on another fucking post. if
>ur not going to make a valid point like some of u did, kindly
>go fuck urslef, and get off ur high horse with ur shit eating
>grins, and cheetos stained fingers, and post elsewhere.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 05:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "This is all you had to say in the first place"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

>i think mel is a very underrated director.

Instead you chose to go the hyperbolic shock route with your subject line. And you seriously expected to not get clowned?


>his
>name never gets mentioned in PTP, only when being shitted on.

Respectfully, this is a boldface, goddamned lie.

Yes, we commented on Mel when he had his little drunken Malibu escapade. But apparently you missed that month and a half of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto coverage that we had, where we posted reviews of the film, its box office, etc.


>he is by no means near the brilliance of marty, clint, spike,
>coppola or kubrick, but he still has his little niche, ultra
>violence meshed with characters ppl generally care about. he
>knows how to make an entertaining film, without being too
>corny or too campy.

I can dig that opinion.


>and to ppl comin into this post and leaving dumbass comments
>like "this is why i dont come into PTP anymore" or "PTP is
>doomed because of posts like this" there is such a thing as
>choice, and u can choose to click on another fucking post. if
>ur not going to make a valid point like some of u did, kindly
>go fuck urslef, and get off ur high horse with ur shit eating
>grins, and cheetos stained fingers, and post elsewhere.

But honestly, what else did you expect? You could have easily called this the Mel Gibson (as a Director) Appreciation Post, and left it at that. But no, because you were "high," you went the shock proclamation route, then wondered why people got on you about it. So you got mad because people responded to your hyperbole with their own hyperbole.
______________________________________________________________________
freak out
in a moonage daydream
oh yeah

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
DawgEatah
Charter member
49225 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 05:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "yup."
In response to Reply # 28


  

          


http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
chinsu
Member since Jan 18th 2003
1410 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 09:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "RE: This is all you had to say in the first place"
In response to Reply # 28


  

          

yeah yeah i know zoo. but thats the mood i was in when i finished watchin apocolypto.

i dunno if its because im half south american, or because i was a little high, but the feelin i got when i finished watchin was "FUCK EVRYBODY ELSE, MEL GIBSON IS THAT DUDE!" if u kinda understand what i mean.

sorry for the shock post, atleast u were mature about it.

________________

Smoke?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Basaglia
Member since Nov 30th 2004
49462 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 06:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "braveheart, man without a face, passion and dat 'lypto = top 5"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          


these dudes are fakin. i say mel top 5 without qualification. i said it way before this post and i'm stickin by it.

he ain't made a complete piece of shit yet. i think everybody else listed in this thread HAS. nuff said.

*people eyebrow* @ bringin out the dead. <------ YOU SEE IT!

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
magilla vanilla
Member since Sep 13th 2002
18221 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 06:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
32. "The Patriot"
In response to Reply # 30


  

          

>he ain't made a complete piece of shit yet. i think everybody
>else listed in this thread HAS. nuff said.


nuff said.

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Basaglia
Member since Nov 30th 2004
49462 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 07:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "he didn't direct the patriot, you uber-faggot"
In response to Reply # 32
Tue Mar-20-07 07:03 PM by Basaglia

  

          

and it still wasn't as bad at bringin out the dead.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
magilla vanilla
Member since Sep 13th 2002
18221 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 08:07 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
37. "fair enough"
In response to Reply # 34


  

          

I got confused, because it fits the profile.

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
ChanEpic
Charter member
4298 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 02:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
67. "RE: braveheart, man without a face, passion and dat 'lypto = top 5"
In response to Reply # 30
Thu Mar-22-07 02:28 PM by ChanEpic

  

          

Not making a complete piece of shit and being in the top 5 directors are not the same thing.


The problem with your sentiment is that you're disregarding decades and decades of film makers that you don't know about, or don't care to learn about. I think any top lists pertaining to Artists is extrememly stupid in and of themselves but since you people opened a can of worms, I'll gladly weigh in. Mel Gibson isn't even a top 5 director, IN THE CURRENT DECADE 1997 - 2007, let alone all time.

They've been mentioned before but in terms of Box office receipts, and critical acclaim, Spielberg kills everyone. James Cameron shits on Mel,
Peter Jackson shits on Mel, Martin Scorcese shits on everyone but Spielberg, And Clint Eastwood is a BEAST...

That's just in the last 10 years, we haven't talked about Kubrick, Demille, Ford, Eisenstien, Hitchcock, Fellini, Lee, Parks ect....

There is no TOP 5 anything in Art, but if there were for Film Directors Mel Gibson certainly is not included. Not even top 20.

He may be in YOUR top5 but most film critics, scholars, actors, and directors themselves would scoff at your assertion, if the even entertained the thought to begin with.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Basaglia
Member since Nov 30th 2004
49462 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 02:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "1. LIVING! 2. don't assume what i don't know about. it makes ptp wack"
In response to Reply # 67


  

          


>He may be in YOUR top5 but most film critics, scholars,
>actors, and directors themselves would scoff at your
>assertion, if the even entertained the thought to begin with.

yada yada yada...more to do with the man than the director.


____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
ChanEpic
Charter member
4298 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 03:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
70. "RE: 1. LIVING! 2. don't assume what i don't know about. it makes ptp wac..."
In response to Reply # 69
Thu Mar-22-07 03:09 PM by ChanEpic

  

          

umm not really. Give me proof of people considering Mel as even a top 15 director BEFORE his meltdown.

I'll be waiting.. And please believe, I'm not just snarking, this is what I studied in school(film) and let me just say, none of our professors, none of the distinguished speakers, no one was saying Mel was/is anything close to what y'all are suggesting. As a matter of fact he wasn't mentioned at all, and I went to film school years before his meltdown.



I'll let you in on a little secret though, most film scholars/makers don't rank directors on a scale but anyway...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
The Informer
Member since Jul 03rd 2006
92 posts
Thu Mar-22-07 03:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
72. "^^^Is what makes PTP wack"
In response to Reply # 69


  

          

Licky Boom Boom Down

Start snitchin'

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

dba_BAD
Charter member
14873 posts
Tue Mar-20-07 07:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "foh"
In response to Reply # 0


          

n/m

__

fairweather

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

eldealo
Charter member
10109 posts
Fri Mar-30-07 04:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
76. "great director imo..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

I am not sure I'd rank him in my top 5, but I was always an admirer of his films. too bad he had to fuck up a great career.

i mean damn, has any star of his caliber fucked up so thoroughly in recent times. i mean even mj has more credibility in the public eye and amongst his peers than mel now.
-------------------------------------------
Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chaidealo/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Pass The Popcorn topic #265191 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com