The Passion
 

Anyone been keeping up with this? Mel Gibson's upcoming movie about Christ? Spoken entirely in Aramaic and Latin (with 'reluctant' subtitles, according Empire Online).

I just watched the trailer and it looks like a very good film (I wouldn't expect less from Gibson!).

http://www.aintitcool.com/ThePassion.mov

I am not a big Shakespeare fan, but thoroughly enjoyed HAMLET with Gibson. Therfore, I'll definitely go see THE PASSION!

Empire online describes it as having "humiliation, torture and buckets of blood . . .". Definitely not a typical feel-good movie about Christ. I imagine more historically accurate (if anyone actually knows for sure!).

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?story=4882

Watch the trailer and judge for yourself.

I heard about that... Latin and Aramaic? Gee it had to be hard to get a role in that film! "Do you speak Latin and Aramaic?" "No, but I know some French." "Sorry!" It will be a hard movie for me to enjoy, cause I don't like subtitles. They take away from the performance.

Not so historically accurate as to have a Jew play the title role though :-/

Like Braveheart, where an Aussi played a Scottish folkhero?

I'm not sure if the subtitles will bother me or not. I like foreign films and the trailer for TP looks very good.

Certainly not to take away from screenwriters (or any writers!), but if movies are a visual medium (in general), then it may be entertaining without understanding the dialogue!

I'll see it anyway. It will definitely be different!

And not so historically accurate as to get the placement of the nails right. Experimental evidence shows that if one were to crucify a full-grown man with nails through his palms, his weight would just tear the nails through his hands. If nails were used--and there is evidence that victims were nailed in the 1st Century--the placement would have been between the radius and cubitus. Roman documentary evidence validates this nail placement.

Also in that period, the cross would not have been a crux immissa (Latin cross, shaped like a +) but more likely a crux commissa (Tau cross, shaped like a T). The condemned would have carried only the patibulum (crossbeam), not the stipes (upright portion), which would have been permanently fixed at the execution site.

Both of these factoids are have been common knowledge to Christian scholars for some decades, so it's surprising to see a movie released in 2003 that still gets them wrong.

Trouble with religious flicks is that everything you do is subject to being considered blasphemy by someone else. There are many religions and variations on those religions that all have very different takes on Jesus. For example, Catholics, Unitarians, various Protestants and Muslims all believe in Jesus as being a holy figure of some sort - but all very differently. There's just no way you could make a film about it and not offend at least 50% of the populace...

Kevin Smith managed to piss off 90% of the churches with Dogma :)

More like Braveheart, where an Aussi misplayed a Scottish folkhero!Strange things is, of course, that although Gibson's a Catholic, Jesus wasn't a Christian! ha ha ha

I agree with Imran that any religious film will get grief from someone. I remember when LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST came out and it was being creamed by various groups (most who had not seen it!).

I wonder which groups (and for what reason) will bash PASSION? I still think it will be a well-made film, with a much different slant on the Gospel (at least told more graphically). I'm actually looking forward to it!

I, for one, welcome any re-telling of the tale from a different angle, being largely unhappy with most portrayals thus far. I'm sorry, I just can't reconcile myself with the visions of Jesus in Hollywood thus far - blonde hair and blue eyes? Please. If we can't even get Hollywood to have a non-Fabio looking Jesus, how can we expect them to tell the tale without serious question of their true intentions behind the production?

They say the Bible is the most sold book of all time. I guess Hollywood is trying to cash in on that hype? Jeez. (pun intended). :P

As far as I can figure, Jesus was actually dark skinned, not Caucasion. Of course, that would just send the world into a tizzy, wouldn't it?

Has there ever been a film about the Gospels (or Christ) that used dark-skinned actors for all characters? You would think that with all of the movie making around the world, there would be one somewhere, but maybe not!

Hmm. It could make an interesting short - if all actors were cast 'nationality-appropriate looking'.

This is dangerous for me. Now I something to think about! I would love to shoot a religious short like that. It wouldn't have to be the last three days - it could be any part of his life. Hmm.

Mark,

That is interesting that no major films on Christianity, casting all actors of Middle Eastern descent, comes to mind. Sounds like you're on to something.

I have also seen Documentarys that have said Christ was even darker than that. They showed a "Holy" island in or near Ethiopia, where Christ is supposed to have visited. Mind you, these monks have a tremendous reputation for accurate historical documentation. They showed a painting of the Christ child with his Mother, and they were clearly of black descent.