as always....very well said!!! nt

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Elorah Dannan at on August 22, 2003 at 11:25:07:

In Reply to: Re: Kevin's comments on THE PASSION posted by Kevin on August 22, 2003 at 11:18:58:

: : : "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?

: *sigh*

: 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
: not reason.

: 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.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]