The passion of the Christ

**liam88** · 30/03/2004, 8:40 AM

What do you guys think?
Is it as contrversial in Ireland as it is in England?
I'm hopefulyl going to see it when I come over in a couple of weeks.

**Paddy Ramone** · 30/03/2004, 8:49 AM

Nearly all the actors were Italian for some reason. Anything to do with the fact that Mel Gibson is a Catholic?

**tiktok** · 30/03/2004, 9:07 AM

Before I start on the controversy, wherever you lie on the debate, it's an excellent piece of film-making and one of the best films I've seen in a long while. Credit to Gibson for putting his money where his mouth is and producing it. Absolutely brilliant film.

Controversy time, whether you're aware or not Liam (and I'm not sure what the story is in England) the film has received a 15pg rating here, which means that anyone over fifteen can view it, but also that any guardian can bring a child under fifteen in to see it.

I think the censor has slipped up badly and has judged this film as one he thinks people 'should' see, rather than judging the content. The scourging scene is one of the most harrowing, violently graphic scenes I've seen, and it last's twenty minutes. Much of the torture is implied but there's no doubting that there's a lot of imagery that is unsuitable for children.

Controversy number two. Not being Jewish, I might not be best placed to judge if the film is anti-semetic. Gibson backed down on the line that caused most controversy (after Pilate washes his hands of the decision the crowd roar, "his blood be on us and our children"). The line is still there in aramaic but the subtitle has been removed, so it's not obvious anymore.

Personally I didn't see anything anti-semetic in it. The bulk of the offences are performed by the Romans (who are not presented favourably, Pilate comes across as cowering, only his wife emerges with real credit) and it is only the Jewish council who are shown negatively, especially Caiaphas the high priest, and even then, there are rabbii who are shown to protest the fact that the trial held was not following Jewish law.

Caiaphas and the priests are seen to whip the crowd up into a frenzy to ask for his crucifiction and IMO Gibson lays the blame on the officials (who would have feared the following that Jesus was gathering) of the time rather than the Jewish people, which, since it's an adaptation of the gospels can be deemed accurate (Then again we can get into the argument that the gospel was written primarily to distance Rome-adopted Christianity from the Jewish faith).

On the whole. I'd highly recommend the film, but no one is lying about how graphic the violence is, and I think the anti-semetism has been overstated.

**tiktok** · 30/03/2004, 9:10 AM

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

Nearly all the actors were Italian for some reason. Anything to do with the fact that Mel Gibson is a Catholic?

It was filmed on location in Italy so that's most likely why the majority of names were Italian, although in his choice of Jesus, Gibson chose Jim Cazaviel who is a strict Tridentine (sp?) Catholic. But then if you want it to seem real, you're probably not going to cast a 'non-believer' in any of the roles.

**noby** · 30/03/2004, 9:29 AM

Originally Posted by tiktok

if you want it to seem real, you're probably not going to cast a 'non-believer' in any of the roles.

why not? they are actors. It's a film.

**Paddy Ramone** · 30/03/2004, 9:41 AM

Maia Horgenstern who played Mary is Jewish and obviously non-Catholic. The casting director also had the Jewish sounding name Rubin. But most actors seemed to be Catholic.

**pete** · 30/03/2004, 9:44 AM

Haven't seen it.

Sure everyone knows the story. I take it there isn't any twist at the end?

**tiktok** · 30/03/2004, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by noby

why not? they are actors. It's a film.

a poor choice of words on my part, but it seems to be the way that Gibson approached it.

I'd seen an interview where Gibson he said that Jim Cazaviel was his 'first and only' choice to play Jesus and that the strength of the actor's faith had an influence on the casting decision.

I never said that everyone involved was Catholic for the record, just said that most were Italian due to it being filmed in Italy.

**Dodge** · 30/03/2004, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by tiktok

Before I start on the controversy, wherever you lie on the debate, it's an excellent piece of film-making and one of the best films I've seen in a long while. Credit to Gibson for putting his money where his mouth is and producing it. Absolutely brilliant film.

Have to disagree with you there. The film is technically good (cinematography etc) and the acting is fine but as a film lacks dramatic tension and in the end is just 2 hours of a man being tortured. If this wasn't about Jesus it would sink without a trace. The only reason this film is in anyway successful is its religious theme. As a film it was the most underwhelming couple of hours I've spent in the cinema.

Interesting to note that in Catholic Ireland Starsky and Hutch has been far more succesful. Miles better film too...

**lopez** · 30/03/2004, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

Maia Horgenstern who played Mary is Jewish and obviously non-Catholic. The casting director also had the Jewish sounding name Rubin. But most actors seemed to be Catholic.

Erm, wasn't Mary Jewish too? Come to think of it so was Jesus.

I got the opportunity to see the film a few weeks ago at a pre-view for the press (Conchita's in the business), but we both declined for the simple reason as Dodge says, it was just going to be one long orgy of torture. I'll watch it sometime on video but I won't go out of my way.

Most of the controversy comes from Jews who see it as another dig at them. In light of the history of anti-semitism in Europe, particularly in Catholic countries, they may have a point. Anyway I'd prefer to watch S&H too.

**eoinh** · 30/03/2004, 12:21 PM

came to this thread really excited but i was mistaken - this has nothing to do with Pat Dolan

**Ruairi** · 31/03/2004, 6:49 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Have to disagree with you there. The film is technically good (cinematography etc) and the acting is fine but as a film lacks dramatic tension and in the end is just 2 hours of a man being tortured.

I thought that too. It was all a bit pointless really, just Jesus getting seven shades of shíte out of him for two hours. When I went to see it it was like mass, full of old people talking about who died last week...

Nice to see they left it open for a sequel though, can't wait to see what happens next!

**tiktok** · 31/03/2004, 8:05 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Have to disagree with you there. The film is technically good (cinematography etc) and the acting is fine but as a film lacks dramatic tension and in the end is just 2 hours of a man being tortured

starsky and hutch didn't have much dramatic tension either Dodge

i see where you're coming from, but where are you going to create dramatic tension in a story that's so well known. it's not like there's a chance he won't be crucified at the end. so from that point of view things like the cinematography and acting have to carry the film, and we both agree that the former is good. i thought scenes like the arrest in the garden and the carrying of the cross were brilliantly made and dramatic, even being aware of the outcome.

i thought the acting was better than you suggest. I thought Horgenstern as Mary was particuarly good, seeing as she essentially had a non-speaking role, there were some genuinely touching moments.

**pete** · 31/03/2004, 9:39 AM

Originally Posted by tiktok

it's not like there's a chance he won't be crucified at the end.

There goes the happy ending.

**Metrostars** · 31/03/2004, 7:29 PM

Regarding the Anti-semetic thing, his father has said that ther Germans could have killed many Jews in the halocaust because they didnt have enough petrol. I recently saw an interview with Mel defending his father and certainly left a question mark about himself. How that translates to the film I don't know. I don't usually go to a cinema to read subtitles. If I want to read, I get a book.

**eoinh** · 01/04/2004, 3:39 PM

Originally Posted by Metrostars

I don't usually go to a cinema to read subtitles. If I want to read, I get a book.

Pity, as many as the best films produced are foreign language. A lot of the Hollywood films you see are actually remakes of diffrent countries films. The originals are usually far superior to the american versions.

**Ruairi** · 01/04/2004, 3:41 PM

Originally Posted by eoinh

Pity, as many as the best films produced are foreign language.

Yeah, City of God being a prime example. Absolutely amazing

**lopez** · 01/04/2004, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by eoinh

Pity, as many as the best films produced are foreign language. A lot of the Hollywood films you see are actually remakes of diffrent countries films. The originals are usually far superior to the american versions.

Vanilla Sky?

**pete** · 02/04/2004, 9:33 AM

Originally Posted by lopez

Vanilla Sky?

Seen glimses of the Spanish version (original) & looked like the Holloywood version was copied frame for frame.

**lopez** · 02/04/2004, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by pete

Seen glimses of the Spanish version (original) & looked like the Holloywood version was copied frame for frame.

Not seen it myself. All you get on TV here is Almodovar and that other bloke who directed the sex-fest 'Jamon, Jamon', which I think included Penelope Cruz. Can't see anyone in Holywood doing Almodovar's films again frame by frame, especially his earlier/Franco still warm, work like 'Pepi, Luci, Bom y otras chicas del montón', especially where your woman p*sses in the other one's mouth.