Posted by Kevin at 188.8.131.52 on August 22, 2003 at 11:18:58:
In Reply to: Kevin's comments on THE PASSION posted by Mrs. Isis Fabulous on August 22, 2003 at 10:36:36:
: : "Mel has said he's sticking close to the Bible to make an accurate depiction of Christ's
crucifixion, so perhaps the problem is not Mel.
: Oh, Mel SAYS, okay then. I have only one problem with this comment, and that is -- who's
to say the Bible describes an accurate depiction of Christ's crucifixion?
Since the Gospels are the most popular and oft-recognized accounts of the life of Christ,
Mr. Gibson maintaining he's trying to make the most accurate depiction of Christ's
crucifixion by adhering as close as possible to Biblical text is a valid statement. If you doubt
the Bible holds water as said accurate description, that's a you against the world, "Dogma"-
type argument (trust me, I know); because most of the world - religious and secular -
acknowledges the four Gospels as the historical record of Jesus' life and death.
My statement, Isis, was not made to wave a flag for Mel; I'd read his comments that he
wanted to make as accurate a film as possible about the death of Christ, and was doing so
by adhering as closely to the Bible as possible.
: After all, even if we take really early texts of the various gospels, those only appeared
hundreds of years after Christ's death, and were transmitted orally (no STD jokes please)
prior to that. No direct written evidence by anyone who witnessed the event exists.
That's the kinda grade school theological argument that "Dogma" is made up of, so I
appreciate it. However, until alternative texts show up, all we know about Jesus we know
because of the four Gospels of the New Testament. I'm not saying they're iron-clad, 100%
accurate (if you'll recall, I made a movie that maintained they weren't); I'm just
acknowledging that those books are the recognized source of any Christ data we have.
: Therefore Mel's attempt at "accuracy" is, at best, a personal interpretation of a translation
of a legend.
But this is, in fact, the only way anyone could make a film that's recognized by scholars and
the spiritual alike as historically accurate - as the Gospels are recognized (and have been for
nearly a couple thousand years now) as the true record of Christ's life and death. Whether
you think they're accurate or not (like Rufus) is another matter altogether. But being that
there are no other records of Christ's life that don't at least use the Gospels as their jumping
off point (and then go on to speculate even more distantly from the accepted text than even
the accepted text probably does from whatever the actual story may be, in your opinion, a'la
Kazantzakis' book "The Last Temptation of Christ") the guy saying "I'm making a movie that
as historically accurate as possible, and as faithful to the original text," is not crazy.
: To believe that the King James Bible is historical fact is, to put it kindly, an act of faith and
That's not true at all. Historians the world over, religious or not, recognize the Bible as an
historical document. Go ask one. Not saying they believe in the hocus-pocus of it all, but
they definitely recognize it as an historical record.
: That's no insult to Bible-readers, or the wisdom contained therein -- but
"accuracy" is a term that doesn't really apply. The movie can be consistent with Mel's vision
of the Biblical story, but that doesn't make it "accurate".
This is probably semantics, but I'm gonna push on anyway: a movie that's consistent with
the Biblical story is DEFINITELY defined as "accurate" - as all it needs to do to qualify as such
is follow the Bible text as closely as possible. Now, whether or not you feel the BIBLE is
accurate is a whole different argument.
: The funny thing about all the controversy over this flick is that it's taken what would have
likely been a minor release with a very limited audience and turned it into the must-see
movie of the year. So, never knock a boycott.
Take if from a guy who's been there: that's not true at all. That's the statement of someone
who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. Any boycott hurts the box office.
Ask Scorcese. Ask me. Whatever limited audience that flick had to begin with, it's gotten
even more limited with all this brouhaha - not to mention some embarrassing private stuff
about Mel Gibson and his father has surfaced because of it.
Controversy may get you a bunch of (unwanted) free press, but it doesn't bring in ticket-
buyers; it keeps them away.
Post a Followup