Is Mel Gibson insane?

well, Mel's film's been rated somewhere between The Gospel of John n The Last Temptation in terms of excitement value.


http://www.metroactive.com/papers/cruz/02.18.04/cruciflicks-0408.html


http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/religion/7777285.htm

who needs to be stuck w a Gospel account nowadays, when we have Gibson, Emmerich, Scorcese, n others to help us along?

 

Vaspers---I'm with ya, Brother! Ohhh, believe me! I'm with ya!!

Forever??? Are you serious?? "Who needs to be stuck w a Gospel account nowadays, when we have Gibson, Emmerich, Scorcese, n others to help us along?"---you can't be serious??

 

I don't believe in any manner that Mel has a sick facination to the depth of Jesus's suffering, in fact I think it's very healthy for everyone christians and none know what exactly he went thru. It wasn't all sunshine and roses, and people need to see that especially children, they need to see graphically that Jesus really did make an intence sarcrifice for them. It wasn't easy by any stretch of the imagination for Jesus to know the extent of physical and emotional pain he would have to go thru, but he placed himself aside because he knew it was God's will for him and he loved us....hey, if one can watch a semi violent news flash, movie or video game, I would think they could handle seeing What the Saviour did which earns him the God given right to be called our Saviour. I like being visually reminded of the depth of Jesus's love for me, it reopens a new brokeness in me. Thank you Mel for allowing God to use your talent to bring forth this very thing.

Joan

 

I agree. The Gospel story should only be told by a boring old white man at the Texaco station in Bell Buckle, Tennessee reading ver batem from the King James Bible between the hours of 4:03 and 4:05 am on Tuesday mornings.

 

Mike McK
That's pure performance art.

 

like i've mentioned elsewhere, Mel's cinematographic sense is tops--it's the best i've seen anywhere in terms of sheer art. no complaints whatsoever--it's gripping, it's Spielberg, it's Hollywood at its best. (the same cannot be said w The Gospel of John, The Last Temptation, n definitely NOT the amateurish Jesus Film.)

however, it's a different thing altogether, when u're talking fidelity to scriptures.

 

Originally posted by vaspers:

I believe that is covered in these verses:

"And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 11:24,25

Blessings,
§ue

 

I believe that is covered in these verses:

"And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 11:24,25 </font>[/QUOTE]in what i thot was a pretty fair analysis of the movie by World Mag, there's a warning even against a false emphasis on the gore. to a Traditional Catholic like Mel, the Eucharist actually sees the miraculous transubstantiation of the elements into the bodily tissue n serum of Jesus--n this was repeated each day during the making of The Passion. as the review points out, this isn't the emphasis of the Scriptures, n filling out the blanks w the imagination or worse, the delirious visions of a stigmatist Romish nun, isn't gonna help.

http://worldmag.com/world/issue/02-28-04/home.asp



check out this review: http://worldmag.com/world/issue/02-28-04/cover_2.asp

 

Vaspers, you forgot they are pro-life, too.

 

And you know this, how? Have you seen it? Do date, I know three people who have seen it. They're Christians, and disagree with you completely.

So, since your statement is so adamant, as though you have first hand knowlege, please share with us your first hand knowlege. What in the movie did you see as less than perfect? What in the movie did you determine was worse than wretched? What in the movie did you determine was heretical and extra-biblical?

If you make those statements without having seen the movie, then you're simply spreading gossip and rumor, and that is what the Bible calls a sin.

 

I think, from the clips I've seen, that it doesn't downplay the victory but shows us just how great the suffering was for that victory to take place.

Sco

 

I thought this was an interesting article from an unbeliever who has seen the movie - www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4338528

 

isn't it odd that it takes an unbeliever to realise some things? those who've seen it shd know that the violence is protracted n gratuitous: Emmerich goes beyond the Scriptures in prescribing the brutality, but Gibson goes BEYOND Emmerich w a few extra details at Calvary.

the crucified Jesus is flipped like a Wendy's burger face up, then face down, then again face up, before getting raised upright. that's in neither the Scriptures nor in Emmerich. so cld it have been Gibson's penance or Caviezel's?

again, i haven't seen any response on why The Passion is promoted over The Gospel of John. maybe there isn't.

 

And you know this, how? Have you seen it? Do date, I know three people who have seen it. They're Christians, and disagree with you completely.

So, since your statement is so adamant, as though you have first hand knowlege, please share with us your first hand knowlege. What in the movie did you see as less than perfect? What in the movie did you determine was worse than wretched? What in the movie did you determine was heretical and extra-biblical?

If you make those statements without having seen the movie, then you're simply spreading gossip and rumor, and that is what the Bible calls a sin. </font>[/QUOTE]To this, I would just ask if anyone here remembers the ruckus raised over "Bruce Almighty".

For those who don't, it was soundly condemned as being blasphemous in thirty or so different ways and in each case, the people who condemned it admitted that they had not seen it.

Meanwhile, those of us who did see it were left scratching our heads at what part was supposed to be blasphemous.

The bottom line is, if you haven't seen it, don't comment on it. If you're condemning it based on something you've read about it, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you haven't looked at it critically, but that you have let someone else make up your mind for you.

In the words of theologian, James William Buffett, "Don't try to describe the ocean if you've never seen it. Don't ever forget that you just may end up being wrong".

 

I think it's part of the culture war in these United States. Liberals and some Jews have denounced the film from the start and conservative evangelicals regard that as a cultural call to arms to promote something that angers liberals so much.

Personally, I have no desire to pay money to watch a bunch of blood and gore.

The best depiction of the crucifixion I have ever seen in a movie is in "Ben Hur". The face of the actor playing Jesus is never shown. I remember that the first time I saw it I was deeply affected emotionally. And it didn't require blood and gore to achieve it's impact.