Mel Gibson & Icon productions' THE PASSION Movie Trailer

Chapter discussions and book or film reviews of Orthodox Christian and secular books that you have read and found helpful. All Forum Rules apply.
Post Reply
OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

Jakub,

Orthodox never say an icon was "painted" and they will never call it art. Icons are "written", because they are the same as scripture. Perhaps an analogy might be to say a car is driven across a runway while an airplane is flown across a runway. An artist can paint a picture of a mountain, but an iconographer "writes" Holy Scripture in the form of an image.

Nicholas, the Greek word is the same too (although I think it leans toward the meaning of "write"), and since the Russians did not write until the Greeks came, I wonder if there is a connection?

I'm going to email someone who is quite an authority on ancient Greek and coincidentally, iconography. You've sparked my curiousity.

User avatar
Methodius
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue 25 February 2003 5:50 pm

Gibson Says He Has Softened Crucifixion Story in THE PASSION

Post by Methodius »

Gibson Says He Has 'Softened' Crucifixion Story in New Jesus Movie
Rabbis who have screened 'The Passion' say it threatens to undo decades of progress between Christians and Jews
By Kevin Eckstrom
Religion News Service


Director Mel Gibson, under heavy fire from Jewish groups for his $25 million movie on the death of Jesus, has "softened the story" and made changes to make "The Passion" more palatable to critics, according to a spokesman. Scheduled for release next year during Lent, "The Passion" has some Jewish groups nervous it will resurrect old beliefs that Jews were responsible for the death of the Christian savior.

Code: Select all

Paul Lauer, marketing director for Gibson's Icon Productions company, said Gibson has edited the film to show more "sympathetic" Jewish characters who were not calling for Jesus to be crucified. "We believe we have softened the story compared to the way the Gospel has told it," Lauer said in an interview. He pointed to Matthew 27:25, in which the Jewish mob calls for Jesus' blood "to be on us and on our children." "That's in the Gospel," he said. "It's not in our film." 

In addition, Lauer said the character of Simon of Cyrene, who was forced to carry the cross for Jesus, will be clearly labeled a Jew in the film. A shouting mob will include voices opposing the execution, Lauer said. Faced with vocal Jewish opposition, Gibson is mounting a pre-emptive public relations offensive to counter his critics -- all for a film that is still being edited. After regional screenings, Gibson has lingered with his audiences to listen to their advice.

In an effort to soothe concerns, Gibson is also hoping to launch "The Jewish Initiative" to recruit Jewish and Christian leaders to discuss the film's effects on Christian-Jewish relations. "We've gone out of our way to accommodate this process because we felt it was necessary and important, and to show that we care and that we're not callously sitting back saying, `Screw you, we're going to make the film we want to make,"' Lauer said.

Jewish groups, however, remain unconvinced. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Gibson has been unwilling to preview his film for anyone but "pre-screened audiences." "The fact that Mel Gibson says this is a work in progress is something we welcome. I don't make light of it," Foxman said. "We respect his creative rights, but we also believe that creative rights come with a certain responsibility."

Invited Christian leaders who have seen the film offer near-universal praise. The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, told The New York Times that Gibson was "the Michelangelo of this generation."

Lauer agreed that screenings were for "people closer to our circle of contacts," but told the Times that "there is no way on God's green earth" that critics like Foxman will be invited to previews. Foxman and others, he said, have been "dishonorable." The ADL first raised concerns in June after a group of nine Christian and Jewish scholars reviewed a draft script and concluded the film portrayed Jews as "bloodthirsty, vengeful and money-hungry."

Gibson threatened to sue after he said the draft script used by the scholars was stolen. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops arranged for the script to be returned and apologized to Gibson.

Rabbis who have screened the film say it threatens to undo decades of progress between Christians and Jews after the Vatican refuted the deicide charges in the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965.

Gibson, however, belongs to a conservative Catholic group that rejects the modern papacy and Vatican II, including its overtures to non-Catholics and Jews.

Rabbi A. James Rudin, senior interreligious affairs adviser for the American Jewish Committee, emerged from a Houston screening "troubled" by what he saw as the film's suggestion that Roman authorities were powerless to stop the murderous rage of Jewish leaders. "The emphasis should be more on what killed Jesus, not who killed him," said Rudin, also a columnist for Religion News Service.

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, an Orthodox rabbi who has close ties to evangelical leaders as president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, also voiced concerns.

"I don't think he's out to get the Jewish community, or attack it, or even be insensitive, frankly," said Eckstein, who was invited to a screening but could not attend because of other commitments. "But I'm not sure if he is aware enough, or sensitive enough, to the history of what has happened because of this deicide charge."

User avatar
Methodius
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue 25 February 2003 5:50 pm

Post by Methodius »

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:

Nicholas, the Greek word is the same too (although I think it leans toward the meaning of "write"), and since the Russians did not write until the Greeks came, I wonder if there is a connection?

I'm going to email someone who is quite an authority on ancient Greek and coincidentally, iconography. You've sparked my curiousity.

OrthodoxyOrDeath responds in a new thread http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=814 where an expert tells him that painted is correct, even though many choose the term 'written' for a pious reason.

User avatar
Seraphim Reeves
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
Location: Canada

Very annoyed

Post by Seraphim Reeves »

I'm very annoyed (and disappointed) to hear Mel may be caving into these "critics."

I remember reading a saying, that said (essentially) "you know who has real power in a given place by finding out who the masses whisper about"; implying that it is those who are tip toed around who have the real power in a given situation.

Mel's film is not the real outrage - books/films/plays like "the Last Temptation of Christ" and the absolutely outrageous "Corpus Christi" are what are truly outrageous. Yet it seems the only party that one can freely offend, and quite openly, is the Christian one. In part, that is our own fault.

For example, how many Christians pay for Hollywood's product, even though publishers and movie studios put out all sorts of garbage? How many insist on voting for whishy washy political candidates, buying into the "voting for a third party candidate is a waste of a vote"? Such complacency has made Christians push overs.

Seraphim

bogoliubtsy
Sr Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
Location: Russia

Post by bogoliubtsy »

An account of "The Passion" (not mine)

I SAW THE PASSION

So I was at a private screening at Icon Productions yesterday, and got
to
see a rough cut of The Passion. There were about twelve people in the
room,
including Mel Gibson, his producing partner Steve and four or five
other
Icon staffers. After the screening, we talked to Mel and friends for
about
an hour. (As cool as that was, the quality of the film was such that
the
celebrity stuff was completely gone from the moment. I can't explain
it
really, except that it would be like standing in the Sistine Chapel
next
to, well, someone like Mel Gibson. Great art is a great leveler....)
The
rough cut we saw obviously didn't have the final score or special
effects,
and there were many more sub-titles than they will have in the
finished
film.

So, here's my take...

The Passion is a stunning work of art. It is a devout, act of worship
from
Mel and his collaborators - in the way that Handel's Messiah and Notre
Dame
were artistic acts of worship in previous times.

Let's get the controversy out of the way right at the top. The film is
faithful to the Gospel, particularly St. John. It is no more
anti-Semitic
than is the Gospel. There are at least two members of the Sanhedrin
who
come forward to protest on Jesus' behalf during the sham trial. The
Romans
are just as guilty of cruelty and hatred against Jesus in the film.
And
best of all is a final look right into the camera of Mary, holding her
dead
Son. She is looking at all of us with a kind of , "Look what you've
done"/This is for you" expression. A cinematic Pieta worthy of
Michelangelo.

Having seen the film now, I can only marvel that the attacks are
pretty
much demonic. Hopefully, the devil will end up spitefully biting his
own
tail on this one-- as he does in The Passion by inciting on the
executioners of Christ, and thus being complicit in his own ultimate
defeat. The Passion is high art. It is the greatest movie about Jesus
ever
made. In the discussion following the film, Mel and co. were asking us
how
mainstream theater audiences would react to the film. I told them,
"Who
cares? What you have here is so much more than just a product to sell.
It
will live forever, regardless of whether it is a commercial success
for you
or not."

For those of us who love Jesus, The Passion is devastating to watch.
It is
so good, I almost couldn't stand it. There is one moment on the way of
the
cross sequence, in which the whole tragedy unfolding devolves into a
vicious riot of hatred between Romans and Jews with the Savior on the
ground in the middle of it getting it from both sides. It was so
frenzied
and terrible, I wanted to run from the room. But then, the film again
finds
Mary, Jesus's Mother on the sidelines, and her presence gets us
through it.
Kind of like how Mary's presence helped Jesus get through it, it
seemed to
me.

The film is lovingly Marian. Mary is perfectly portrayed here. She is
contrasted repeatedly with the really super creepy Satan character,
who is
also a woman (something for the feminist theologians here? heh
heh...).

The film is strongly Eucharistic. There is a beautiful juxtaposition
of
images that cuts from the stripping on Calvary to the unwrapping of
the
bread to be used at the last Supper. Fabulous stuff.

Every Christian needs to see this film at least once. Just to
remember, in
our current comfort zones while evil is closing in, the price that was
paid
for us. On my way home from the screening, I found myself praying in
the
car, "Jesus, I'm so sorry, I forgot..." How many films have led you to
compunction lately? The Passion is a miracle.

User avatar
Jakub
Member
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu 29 May 2003 10:39 pm

Post by Jakub »

I wonder if the movie reviewers reveal or indicate their religious beliefs, which might show what direction they are coming from.

james

User avatar
sue57
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon 9 June 2003 9:01 pm

Re: Mel Gibson & Icon productions' THE PASSION Movie Tra

Post by sue57 »

Sorry, this is waaaaay off topic, but on the thread regarding Schindler's List, or Dr. Zhivago, recently I was reading Crime and Punishment, and I noticed, in the horrible dream sequence, after the horse had been killed, someone in the crowd yells to the man who has beaten the horse to death "You are no Christian." Then, when Raskelnikov is struck with a whip by a coachman, a women gives him a coin in sympathy and says "here, for Christ's sake." I saw the book as a portrait of vanished holy Russia, and so had a completely different take on it than, say, a literature professor at Yale (!) I haven't posted here in so long, I can no longer articulate any ideas, but I'll try to make this clear: I think one's reaction to any work of art depends on so many different factors. I've seen Tarkovsky's Andrei Rubelev, and watching the final sequence, The Bell, one can see it as a work of absolute faith, OR as Soviet propaganda about the young worker/hero. Tarkovsky was brilliant enough that it works either way.
Well, I hope someday in the future, I might have time to read this forum and post, but no time now!

Post Reply