I'm just wondering what all of you think about the film. Both as art and as a means to convey Christ's suffering.
I'm also interested in hearing what you all think about the Recut version. The recut was released a year after the original in 2005. Over 5 minutes of some of the most explicit scenes were removed from the film in order to broaden audiences.
"After the initial run in movie theaters, I received numerous letters from people all across the country. Many told me they wanted to share the experience with loved ones but were concerned that the harsher images of the film would be too intense for them to bear. In light of this I decided to re-edit The Passion of the Christ."
~Mel Gibson
Should those 5 minutes have been removed? Weren't those 5 minutes part of what needs to be shown? Or perhaps not?
I'd like to get a good conversation/debate going in the comments section if possible. So please contribute your thoughts and opinions :)
Good Question! Passion of the Christ is a very powerful movie. I, personally, have never seen the whole thing. But we did watch a number of clips for a good friday service, it was very hard to watch.
ReplyDeleteArt wise I think it was beautifully done, at least the scenes I watched ;) The juxtaposition of the last supper and Jesus being raised on the cross was unbelievable! Wow! So powerful!
Also I liked that it was in Hebrew not English, kind of gave it more of a dreamy quality I think, but not unreal more ancient and like woah this actually happened way back when. Because we're Christians we know it happened, of course, but to see it protrayed in its setting and language added a lot!
I also love it when Jesus crushes the serpents head in the garden, Just like it says in Genesis 3:16 Your offspring and her offspring will be enemies. He will crush your head and you will strike his heel. (I know in Bible we talked about the snake really being Satan and all, but even if it wasn't it still is a powerful picture)
As for the re-edit. I think Mel Gibson was in the right. Its hard to answer this fully, because I haven't seen the difference between cuts.
But I would think that it is probably a safe move and maybe even a helpful one because some people are really sensitive to violence. But that is not to say that the Crucifixion should not have pain or agony in it, Because that is a very big part of the story. But in Passion of the Christ, I think the suffering comes across even if they edited a few scenes!
There are a number of ways to look at this depending on what hat you're wearing. As a filmmaker I really appreciate that Mel got to make his film the way he wanted to make it. Most producers thought he was nuts for wanting to do a film where it's just the worst part of the Jesus story all in the actual language. He really had to see that through.
ReplyDeleteHowever, and maybe this is because I'm still young enough to be head strong and uncompromising, I don't agree with re-cutting the film. If the intent of it was to be intense, and what was in the movie the first time was actually what you wanted, then don't touch it. If someone can't handle your creation the way you like it then you don't need to watch it.
Now, as a story teller I've got to admit I'm disappointed. Most historians will agree that there was a guy named Jesus who was crucified around 2000 years ago. So it shouldn't matter what faith you are, you should be able to appreciate the story. But instead of a story I get a 2+ hour beat down. I'm not saying that shouldn't be part of it, but there's more to it. Last I checked Jesus said and did a few things before being put up on the cross. Mel Gibson pulled that movie off with excellent craftsmanship. Imagine what it could have been like if he had gone the route of Lord of the Rings. What if he had told the whole story over a series of movies at the same quality that ended with intensity of The Passion? Would the impact not have been stronger?
And yeah, there is a big hunk of antisemitism in there. In the past The Passion was performed as a piece to rally antisemitic feelings in people. Add to that Mel's obviously troubled personal life. Who we are will bleed into our work regardless.
So to sum it up, I've watched it once. Never felt the need to go back to it. I felt as if he was using a baseball bat when he should have been using precision tools. I also feel that, intentional or not, a lot of his personal issues were being forced onto the audience.