I don't have a problem with selling shirts, or hats....if he didn't licence it, someone will, and these thinks could raise a lot of money for good uses....but the necklace with the nail pendant was a little too much for me.
Well, I don't have a problem with it, although it's in horrible taste to say the least. How is this different from walking into St. Patricks in NYC (I think it's St. Patricks, help me out if it's not pls) where, IN THE VESTUBULE OF THE CHURCH ITSELF, there is a gift shop!!! A gift shop???
posted
A cross, though expensive in some cases, is a display of one's faith (theoretically). Crosses have been used in jewelry for a millenia. Though, if you read some of Jesus' parables, he says that one should pray and practice their faith while alone, so I suppose one could say wearing a cross is like touting your faith to the masses, but I digress.
The nail necklace, however, is different. Whereas crosses were incorporated into the Christian faith to help convert the Pagans who used it first, the nail is a product of the movie. It's a part of a money-making scheme of the MOVIE. Not faith. Not religion. Not even the Bible. Mel Gibson's cinematic intepretation of the Gospel.
I did really like OSC's review, though.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I just read an article (admittedly linked from the place selling the merchandise) where someone reasoned that for so many, the cross has become a cliche, and that it's time for a new Symbol that hasn't lost its meaning - which is where the Nail might come in.
Believe it or not, I do see some sort of logic in that, whether I choose to hold to it or not.
I was never a Cross-wearing Christian (too afraid of commiting hyopcritical actions while wearing one, for starters), and really don't see myself ever being one. Or a Nail-wearing one either.
Here's the article, it's in pdf format: HerePosts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not being one to beat a dead horse, or goat, or camel, or whatever that fly-ridden monstrosity was...
the basis for my cynicism with regard to this film has a lot to do with the "run up" prior to the film.
"THE BEST OUTREACH OPPORUNITY IN 2000 YEARS!"
My eyes misted over during the film. It WAS heartwrenching. The scene where Mary runs to Christ and we get the flashback of Mary running to pick up her fallen boy? I was a goner.
But, being jerked-around, emotionally, by graphic depictions of sadistic violence abutted against family sentiment. This is gross. and deserving of the "pornography" label.
It's a long stretch to claim this is spiritually educational in any way. I didn't learn anything. I wasn't inspired. I was horrified and pissed-off at having fundamental emotional strings being jerked at for 2 hours in the name of "genius" capitalist marketing.
*blech*
I can't wait for the sequel.
Posts: 3061 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How was the family sentiment gross? It was showing how much Mary wanted to run to her son to help him up like when he was a boy, and how now she couldn't. It was one of the most impactful parts of the movie, and I didn't find it exploitational at all. In fact, I found it incredibly truthful and powerful.
posted
I really don't know what to think about this. Sure he's making money, but is making money Gibson's main goal? I think it may be a bit pretentious to think of the nail pendant as replacing the cross as a symbol for christianity.... But maybe selling the merchandise really is an attempt at spreading the gospel, so to speak... He's certainly not the first to make Jesus books and T-shirts, or jewelry for that matter...
But regardless, i'm buying the soundtrack Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The parts with Mary were the ones that created the most emotion. The violence didn't, because I couldn't watch it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I think about it, it was all the juxtopisitions that MADE the film, really. Him being beat to a flashback of Him telling people they need to love their enemies. Peter denying he knew Christ with a juxtaposition of a flashback of him telling him he'd never leave him.
The more I think about it, the film was very much about how others saw the suffering, and how it affected them.
EDIT: In that case, I have no clue what you mean by 'emotional pornography'
posted
Amka, I wanted to point out something in response to an earlier post of yours. You said 'To us, the cross is a meaningless symbol' ('us' meaning members of the LDS church.)
It's not meaningless to me. I think it is a very sacred symbol. I even had one of my institute teachers go so far as to say that this is why we don't display/wear it. It's a symbol of the suffering Christ went through for us on Calvary and that is a very special and sacred thing. It's TOO sacred to be worn on the earlobe of a movie star wearing almost no clothes and a tattoo of an explative on her arm. Just for an example. But I don't think it's meaningless.
Just some more 2 cents.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it made the movie all the more meaningful, as it showed Mary's torment on several different levels.
Most of us who saw the movie were moved by the violence, and the suffering Christ endured, but this movie showed a mother whom loved her son not just as the Christ, but as her little pride and joy. It wasn't just a random tugging at the heart strings, it was a deliberate attempt to show Jesus as a human being. It is all too easy to think of Jesus as the son of God and to unconciously belittle his sacrifice by saying that the crusifixcion and Atonement were what he was born for, but this film showed the other side of him. It showed that while he feared his fate enough to ask God if there was another way , he also loved and trusted God enought to say "Thine will be done, not mine". It shows Jesus as a man who was not above the world, but who was a part of it as well.
Also, it showed the anguish his followers and family felt, not understanding that this was Jesus choice. Mary understood that it was his choice, and bore the full knowledge of his suffering and pain not only as God's chosen one but as a flesh and blood mother of a child she had raised.
I felt it made the movie, and my mother said it was one of the most difficult scenes she had ever witnessed, even more so because I was sitting right there beside her while she watched it.
I would agree with you that it was not random, but deliberate. This is the nature of filmmaking and story-telling in general, if the storytellers know what they are doing.
Do you feel that what you saw was necessary to tell the story? Do you feel like you got the full story?
posted
I don't know if anyone actually knows the real story, but I feel that that is a part of the story that often gets glossed over, if it is mentioned at all.
I do feel that part of the reason I found the movie worthwhile is the connection between Mary and Jesus. I felt that she succeeded in humanizing his character within the context of this film.
Other movies that tried the same thing didn't succeed as well. The Last Temptation of Christ was a very good movie but it humanized Jesus to the point that it interfered with the movies' message.Temptation was actually very well thought out, and well made too, but people got so riled up about the thought of Jesus having sex and raising a family that they missed the whole point.....these events never happened! They were, as the title indicates, temptations that the Devil used to sway Jesus from his path. The Devil was saying "Look what you will miss if you die now. Wouldn't it be nice to raise a family....to be a husband.....to live a life without these burdens?" To me that makes his sacrfice all the more impressive and agonizing. I wouldn't be impressed with a Jesus who was too stupid to realize what he was sacrificing....I AM impressed with one who thought out every step, and still treaded his path through to the end, and beyond.
Passion didn't make the same mistakes, but used Mary's suffering to show his connections to this world and to his family and friends. That makes him a multi-dimentional character to me, and one who is far more engaging to the viewer. The more emotional resonance in the moment, the greater them movie, as long as it doesn't pull the viewer out of the context of the scene.
Now for a flim that overplayed the emotional card....the made-up scenes in ROTK, the near death of Aragorn and the false goodbye of Arwen, these all were over the top to me, as was the homecoming of the hobbits. From a movie standpoint, Passion did it better as the play on emotions was far more obvious in ROTK. I KNOW that is not how it was suppose to be, because there is only ONE account of those events (forgetting for a moment that LOTR is pure fiction), and the movie doesn't match them! However, Passion is drawn from 4 different, often conflicting, very very old accounts. I think that Gibson did a wonderful job of interpeting them and making a movie of the events he wanted to highlight. To me, he did it far more skillfully than Jackson did; and I am a huge fan of Tolkien, so I hate to say that. Jackson did a great job, but there is a fine distinction between drama and meladrama that he missed, and Gibson did not.
I was impressed dispite myself, and that isn't very easy to do.
posted
Incidentally I know people who have been wearing "nail" jewelry for years out in CA. It isn't anything new. The people who purchase those are normally are the sorts who are also wearing "His Pain Your Gain" shirts and ties.
(No, I haven't seen the movie yet, I react very badly to graphic violence and don't want nightmares. I plan to rent it when it comes out on video)
I think it was a little disproportionate. Pretty heavy on the violence (in my terms "porn"), and pretty fluffy on telling a compelling story. This isn't the case, if you know the story, but it certainly is, if you don't. Therein lies the invitation for criticism and controversy (and the ka-ching! we'll no doubt be reading about for days in the coming news).
posted
I would succeeded at what it was attempting to do, and did it very well. It didn't claim to be the complete life of jesus, just the last 12 hours of his life. If you don't know who Jesus was, or care, then this movie probably wasn't for you. (I am not speaking of you specifically, fallow, just a basic statement about the target audience for this film)
It was heavy on the violence, but I bet that what was shown was nothing to the reality of it, even if you weren't the one being beaten. It was graphic deliberatly, which I prefer to random film violence created to increade the almight "body count" need in slasher films.
We are closer to agreeing on that than you might guess.....remember, it bothered me too,, to the point that I don't ever need to see it again. However, I am very glad that I did see it at least once, becaure it was moving. It wasn't comefortable, but it was thought provoking, and has opened up some good dialogue, including some people who haven't examined their faith/beliefs in a long time. I think that is a good thing, and I don't really care if people end up converting to or moving away from the Catholic Church.....I just think that people need to revisit these issues periodicly in their lives.
My criticisms of the film were somewhat of an attempt to be objective about filmmaking and storytelling. I think the film fell down in a couple of very important ways. Mainly omissions.
Those omissions are the cantilevers of controversy that are generating the $200MM revenue for Gibson.
how quickly did tradition, history, and spirituality become eclipsed by $ figures?
I hope things aren't as they appear to my cynical eye, but nothing in my viewing of the film suggested otherwise. It didn't seem sincere.
posted
You see, that is actually where we disagree....to me it seemed very sincere, and very well thought out.
It's hard to tell if it was cynical movie-making or faith based. Gibson has never been shy about his beliefs, even before he wanted to make this movie, so I am more likely to give him the benifit of the doubt. He is, and has been for some time, a very conservitive Catholic, and that is the viewpoint he is trying to show.
According to the Vatican, "It is as it was." Considering the Pope said that quote, why is anyone suprised that the movie is very traditional?
whether one or another advocated or disliked the film has little to do with my response or desire to discuss. those points of view are points for discussion. I think.
posted
Wait a second, I never said that the Popes review even mattered! I simply used that to show how conservitive Gibson's religious views are,that's all!
I agree that what the Pope said (or didn't say) should have little or no influence on what we say about the movie.....unless he came here to Hatrack and posted his views (in which case we would treat him like any other nOOb and ignore it....lol....).
I simply was making a point about Gibson's religious views, and I feel that it was a good point. His views were very conservitive well before he ever considered making Passion , and that not only affected the viewpoint of the movie but who the target audience was; it was made for people who believed as he did.....
If he can turn a profit on what was an incredible risk, then good for him....
posted
Fallow, what ommissions during the actual 12 hours covered by the film are you referring to that were done for the sole purposes of marketability?
The film was always intended to be a depiction of the Passion (read: Suffering) of Christ. That was the story Mel went about telling. This specific narrative period. YEs, there were flashbacks, but the flashbacks were used to give deeper meaning to individual moments and reactions in this specific period. It was not called "The Life, Death, and Resurrection of The Christ", is was called "The Passion of The Christ."
I think claiming that Gibson made ommissions early on for 'marketability' is a pretty cynical one. In fact, most people's complains are that it shows MORE than is described in the Biblical account, not that it shows LESS.
This whole movie was a marketing nightmare from day one - no Hollywood studio would touch it... until its opening weekend. Then EVERYONE wanted the video distribution rights.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But I don't think it's meaningless.
