Gibson: 'Worst to come' over 'Passion'

[tiger_rascal]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/22/leisure.gibson.reut/index.html

Gibson: 'Worst to come' over 'Passion'

Thursday, January 22, 2004 Posted: 2:20 PM EST (1920 GMT)

ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) -- The controversy that has followed Mel Gibson's film about the death of Christ could be persecution or just inspired publicity, but the film-maker himself predicted "the worst is yet to come" on Wednesday at a meeting with 4,500 evangelical Christian pastors.

A day after reports that a high Vatican official denied that Pope John Paul gave a thumbs up to his film, "The Passion of the Christ," Gibson prepared to show it to another hand-picked audience, this time the Global Pastors Network conference meeting in Orlando.

As with past screenings, media were barred, as were Jewish groups worried that the film could incite anti-Semitism if it suggests Jewish authorities in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago were largely responsible for the crucifixion of the man Christians worship as the incarnation of God.

On Tuesday, an aide to the pope denied media reports that the pontiff had praised the film's Biblical accuracy, saying, "The Holy Father told no one of his opinion of this film."

Gibson did not mention the Vatican denial when he addressed the pastors. He thanked them for their prayers, but warned, somewhat ominously, "I anticipate the worst is yet to come. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong."

Gibson said the film gestated in his imagination for 12 years as he meditated on the gospel stories of a God who became human so he could pay the price for human sin.

"He could have done it by pricking his finger and shedding a little blood. He didn't; he wanted to go all the way," Gibson said.

While Gibson thanked the pastors for their support, his publicity director, Paul Lauer, urged them to send youth groups to the R-rated flick when it opens on February 25 on 2,000 screens in the United States.

The rating, apparently based on the graphic depiction of the crucifixion, means those under age 17 must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian.

Lauer predicted that if the film posts good numbers on its opening weekend, "I think there'll be a lot of powerful people in Hollywood saying, 'Somebody get me a Jesus picture.' "

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by oxymoron


Traditionally, the Church has been one of the greatest instigators in atempting to repress views which they find immoral, objectionable or dangerous. It is my view that those views must be expressed in order that they be known and if deserving so condemned.

I always felt that the misogyny expressed in some rap music was extremely valuable. Not because I am in favor of misogyny, but because it gave voice to an attitude that existed. Only when attitudes such as these are out in the open can they be recognized and addressed.

We should hear and see all, both good and bad. If we try and shield our eyes from what is unpleasant, we will live in nothing but a fantasy.

I don't believe I could agree with you more than I do, oxymoron, especially your comment that we should hear and see... both good and bad.

When my daughter was about 14, my brother took her to a public KKK meeting, with my approval. He, as I, wanted her to know just exactly what this group was all about. Before the meeting, she thought the KKK were just the guys in white sheets in the history books. After the meeting her understanding about the issues were broadened.

[NYC_Liz]

Cool thanks for posting.

I am going to see the movie. I can't wait! :)

[shining star]

Originally posted by oxymoron
I always felt that the misogyny expressed in some rap music was extremely valuable. Not because I am in favor of misogyny, but because it gave voice to an attitude that existed. Only when attitudes such as these are out in the open can they be recognized and addressed.

We should hear and see all, both good and bad. If we try and shield our eyes from what is unpleasant, we will live in nothing but a fantasy. Very true.

[Java]

Originally posted by oxymoron
We should hear and see all, both good and bad. If we try and shield our eyes from what is unpleasant, we will live in nothing but a fantasy. Try typing iraq exorcist into google...

[Steerforth]

As with past screenings, media were barred, as were Jewish groups

This subtle manipulation by the author really irks me. First of all, is not inviting someone "barring" them? That's like saying if I have a dinner party, and all my friends happen to be white, that I've "barred" blacks from attending. How silly. Why should the media or any special interest groups expect to able to attend screenings intended for Christian clergy? That's terribly arrogant.

Second, what do they think this is, some sort of film focus group? "Uhhh, we were talking it over, and, well, we're just wondering if you couldn't "Disney-up" the ending a bit? And we'd like Jesus to read this legal disclaimer absolving the Jews of all responsibility for the crucifiction. Thanks, Mel. Love ya, baby."

Sheesh.

-S

[tiger_rascal]

As long as it has the key points, that is all Im concerned about.

[oldernow]

The New Testament is historically reliable. After I see the movie then we can attest to whether it is true to the gospel.

That is of course unless you have already had a special preview of the movie and have matched it with the gospels themselves, and know for sure that they are not gospel.

[bluehorizonx10]

The problem here is that this movie is being treated as history itself, rather than an interpretation of a historical event. As such, it is no different than Gladiator. Mel should be entitled to his vision. It is just that this vision should not be misunderstood as gospel.

Gladiator has no relationship at all to anything about Christ. Making that statement is the absurdity. Granted any movie can't always be to the letter of the book it's portraying. But as Patty said, after I see it, I can more say whether it abided by the Bible which is exactly a history record of the gospels and God's important messages of the past for us to read and learn.

[Steerforth]

Originally posted by oxymoron
I agree with you. However, I will also note there has been a lot of manipulation in support of the film. Some have called it accurate to the Bible. How ridiculous a statement is that? The bible is printed word. This is a motion picture. To think that the way this story was brought to screen does not reflect some of the historical, cultural and personal biases of the filmakers is absurd.

The problem here is that this movie is being treated as history itself, rather than an interpretation of a historical event. As such, it is no different than Gladiator. Mel should be entitled to his vision. It is just that this vision should not be misunderstood as gospel.

You proceed from a false assumption, namely that individuality precipitates inaccuracy. This, of course, may happen, but it does not necessarily have to happen. It is quite possible to adapt a written work or record for the screen without subjectivity or bias creeping in to distort the originally intended message or historical account.

Of course, my point remains that historical accuracy is precisely what the critics of this film do not want.

-S

[oldernow]

Welcome to the board Steerforth.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by Steerforth
You proceed from a false assumption, namely that individuality precipitates inaccuracy. This, of course, may happen, but it does not necessarily have to happen. It is quite possible to adapt a written work or record for the screen without subjectivity or bias creeping in to distort the originally intended message or historical account.

Of course, my point remains that historical accuracy is precisely what the critics of this film do not want.

-S

I disagree. There are no screen directions in the Bible. Every choice that is made in the production of a film relfects each participant's bias and perceptions.. from choice of lighting to camera angles to delivery of dialogue to costuming to sets.

Even the idea of "original message" is biased. Whose idea? I interpret the Bible differently than you do. Interpretation is subjective.

Welcome to the board, by the way.

[Steerforth]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword
I disagree. There are no screen directions in the Bible. Every choice that is made in the production of a film relfects each participant's bias and perceptions.. from choice of lighting to camera angles to delivery of dialogue to costuming to sets.

These are all cosmetic aspects of filmmaking that, again, do not in any way suggest an inaccurate representation of the source material. It is possible to manipulate those elements to shape a biased view, but they, in and of themselves, do not.

I interpret the Bible differently than you do.

You cannot "interpret" Jesus' story in any way other than how it is written. It is exceptionally clear. Jesus is the son of God who chose to sacrifice himself for mankind's sins. You may choose to believe it or not, but that has nothing to do with how you may choose to represent the story.

As a devout Catholic, I expect Mel Gibson has taken excruciating pains to ensure that this film is as literal an adaptation as physically possible. Certainly, there are limitations imposed by the very medium, but that, again, does not imply a biased presentation. Is David Lean's Great Expectations, for example, an exact word-for-word translation of Dickens? No. It would have had to be at least a six-hour film for that. Does he use mood lighting and evocative music? Naturally. Does he convey the same message as the book? Yes!

Of course, once again, it is precisely an accurate representation of this story that has certain elements of the media and society concerned to begin with.

Welcome to the board, by the way.

Thank you. :)

-S

[LesterX]

So the Jewish community is a "certain element" of society? What exactly does that mean?

[Steerforth]

Originally posted by LesterX
So the Jewish community is a "certain element" of society? What exactly does that mean?

cer·tain [ súrt’n ] known or set: definitely known, fixed, or settled

el·e·ment [ éllement ] separate part or group: a separate, identifiable part of something, or a distinct group within a larger group

Should you require further assistance... (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspx)

-S :)

[young again]

Les, you have to admit you walked right into that one! :p

[LesterX]

Yep, I did. But...normally, when I hear the expression "certain element" it has a negative connotation to it, so I was curious in what context it was being used here.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by Steerforth
You cannot "interpret" Jesus' story in any way other than how it is written.
-S


Actually, yes I can. Obviously, from my posts on this board, I do. If everyone agreed on the interpretation of the NT, there wouldn't be any debate about it.

[Steerforth]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword
Actually, yes I can. Obviously, from my posts on this board, I do. If everyone agreed on the interpretation of the NT, there wouldn't be any debate about it.

If I read somewhere "The ball is red", I may choose to believe the ball is red or not. I cannot interpret the writer's intention as anything other than to state that the colour of the ball is red. Of course, you are perfectly free to believe what you wish. Conversely, you cannot reinvent the meaning of words as you see fit. There is a salient difference.

:)

-S

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by Steerforth
If I read somewhere "The ball is red", I may choose to believe the ball is red or not. I cannot interpret the writer's intention as anything other than to state that the colour of the ball is red. Of course, you are perfectly free to believe what you wish. Conversely, you cannot reinvent the meaning of words as you see fit. There is a salient difference.

:)

-S

Red: a color like blood; synonyms: crimson, scarlet, cherry, maroon, cardinal, russet, wine, ruby.

Exactly which "red" did you mean? Was it a candy-apple red or more of a ruby red or perhaps blood red?

And while we are talking interpretations, there are myriad problems associated with interpreting text from the original language into another.

There are certainly many interpretations of the Bible. Heck, there are many different versions of the Bible, some of which don't even use the same words.

You may choose to believe a certain version, or derive certain meaning from a passage, but I assure you, not everyone interprets it as you do.

[Steerforth]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword
Red: a color like blood; synonyms: crimson, scarlet, cherry, maroon, cardinal, russet, wine, ruby.

Exactly which "red" did you mean? Was it a candy-apple red or more of a ruby red or perhaps blood red?



Exactly my point. :) "Red", as in the primary colour, with no room for subjective interpretation. NOT "crimson, scarlet, cherry, maroon, cardinal, russet, wine, ruby". The ball is not reddish, or red-hued, it is literally, explicitly red.

Now, there are certain concepts that comprise Christianity. You either believe them, literally, as a Christian, or you "interpret" them as you see fit, and become "am admirer of Jesus" or some such thing, which isn't quite the same. The Bible is explicit in these basic tenets, and if Mr. Gibson remains faithful to these explicit teachings and concepts, then subjectivity should not be a factor, whatsoever.

I am not telling you what to believe, I simply maintain that your basic premise that it is impossible to tell this story without bias is not valid.

-S

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by Steerforth
Exactly my point. :) "Red", as in the primary colour, with no room for subjective interpretation. NOT "crimson, scarlet, cherry, maroon, cardinal, russet, wine, ruby". The ball is not reddish, or red-hued, it is literally, explicitly red.

A synonym by definition is "a word or phrase that means the same as another." And that's as far as I want to go with that point.

Now, there are certain concepts that comprise Christianity. You either believe them, literally, as a Christian, or you "interpret" them as you see fit, and become "am admirer of Jesus" or some such thing, which isn't quite the same. The Bible is explicit in these basic tenets, and if Mr. Gibson remains faithful to these explicit teachings and concepts, then subjectivity should not be a factor, whatsoever.

I am not telling you what to believe, I simply maintain that your basic premise that it is impossible to tell this story without bias is not valid.

-S

I understand that you believe what you're saying. I don't. And there are others out there who claim to be just as Christian as you claim to be who would also disagree with you. Yes, I'm sure you'll say, "Well, they aren't Christians." The point it, THEY believe thay are, and who are you to judge? God is the only one who can do that, correct?

And I've given you examples that support my statement that, as with making this movie, different interpretations of the Bible (or any other book for that matter) are not only possible, but certain. So let's just agree to disagree.

Okay?

(oxymoron, where are you when I need you? lol)

[oldernow]

The story of Jesus really cant be misinterpreted unless one is going to add or change what the Bible says about him.

My two cents.......

[DoubleEdgeSword]

*sigh*

Okay, we've been down the "inerrancy" road many times. I'm not going down it again. I respect your right to your opinions even though I disagree with them, and I would hope you would respect mine.

"We're right, you're wrong" is the genesis of war.

[bluehorizonx10]

Originally posted by Steerforth
Exactly my point. :) "Red", as in the primary colour, with no room for subjective interpretation. NOT "crimson, scarlet, cherry, maroon, cardinal, russet, wine, ruby". The ball is not reddish, or red-hued, it is literally, explicitly red.

Now, there are certain concepts that comprise Christianity. You either believe them, literally, as a Christian, or you "interpret" them as you see fit, and become "am admirer of Jesus" or some such thing, which isn't quite the same. The Bible is explicit in these basic tenets, and if Mr. Gibson remains faithful to these explicit teachings and concepts, then subjectivity should not be a factor, whatsoever.

I am not telling you what to believe, I simply maintain that your basic premise that it is impossible to tell this story without bias is not valid.

-S

Very good debate you two!! But I have to agree with Steerforth on this one. It is as it is, just as God said I AM.

*ducks from the flying shoes as Double takes aim...no! no! not the spiked heels* lol j/k

:biggrin: I love red by the way, any red!

[Steerforth]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword
A synonym by definition is "a word or phrase that means the same as another." And that's as far as I want to go with that point.

I know what a synonym is. In this case, it's an incorrect application.

http://www.lisard.co.uk/images/red.jpeg

Either you want to get to the semantic level, or you don't. You knew precisely what I meant. Regardless, I believe I made my point.

I understand that you believe what you're saying. I don't. And there are others out there who claim to be just as Christian as you claim to be who would also disagree with you. Yes, I'm sure you'll say, "Well, they aren't Christians." The point it, THEY believe thay are, and who are you to judge? God is the only one who can do that, correct?

I am not "judging" at all. You just seem to be avoiding my basic argument, over and over. I simply maintain, as in the example I gave with David Lean's Great Expectations, that the cosmetic application of film technique does not create, in and of itself, any significant bias that affects the basic tenet of the message.

So let's just agree to disagree.

I don't see any other option. :) I'm not so bad, though. Really. ;)

-S

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Nah.. I just don't have the mental capacity for it right now, Gail. Byegones.. lol

I'm waiting for oxymoron to come in and pick up the slack.

Yooohooo, oxymoron?? ;)

[young again]

Originally posted by Steerforth
http://www.lisard.co.uk/images/red.jpeg


Thanks for posting that, now I know what color dress to wear to the red ball. Oh, what, you meant something else?!?!

DES, Steerforth is the anti-Oxymoron. If they were to meet in the same thread, the whole internet just might self-destruct. ;)

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Dziwisz told Catholic News Service: "The Holy Father saw the film privately in his apartment, but gave no declaration to anyone. He does not make judgments on art of this kind. He leaves that to others, to experts."

I think I'll just agree with the Pope on this one. It's art. Art is not inerrant. Nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise.

And now I'm out of here. Goodnight all.

[oldernow]

Double, I dont know if you are going to ever see this movie, but if you do even you can read iin the Bible whether it is his interpretaion or is it sticking to what scripture says. I know your going to say it all depends how one interprets. I think that as far as how something is said, or done in this movie it can be said that it is ones interpretation.
There is a basic story of Jesus and I really dont think that anyone who knows the story of Jesus will be debatiing whether or not it is accurate. There will be nothing to debate if it is taken from the scriptures.