The Passion of the Christ: Fact or Fantasy?

[ZombieZoneSolutions]

MOD EDIT: Split from Tony's "Art vs. Artist" thread. --MW

I think the art should be judged on its own merits alone.

Polanski was convicted, found guilty of rape; he's also guilty of making
some of the greatest films of all time. The man loses, the art wins.

Now, this gets trickier in the case of someone like Mel "Goebbels" Gibson
-- the anti-semite who's only crime is being an ultra-right-wing-xtian neo-
nazi scumfuck. Again, I judge the mans work aside from who he is and
what agenda he's pushing. I mean who doesn't love the THE ROAD
WARRIOR?

Of course, if the message of his work is a masterfully executed over-the-
top hatemessage like we see in SPLATTERCHRIST! (the closest
modern approximation we have to Triumph of the Will), I have to
judge both the man and his work. What kind of asshole would make this
mezmerizingly deranged, hateful, bigoted, innacurate, but undeniably
masterfully shot neo-nazi propaganda / relgio-exploitation splatter film?
I think we all know what kind of asshole. But the critical judgement lies
soley with the film itself -- I abhor the message, but can't deny its power
as a masterfully executed piece of shockingly exploitative hateart.

[judderman]

I think the art should be judged on its own merits alone.

Polanski was convicted, found guilty of rape; he's also guilty of making
some of the greatest films of all time. The man loses, the art wins.

I don't think it's possible to separate the man from the art so closely. An artist who doesn't invest his soul in his art is not a good artist, and so when we are looking at the work of a great artist we are examining a fragment of his soul exposed. We have a right to judge that soul if we so choose, wherever it may be, in front of us on the screen, or within the man himself.

Now, this gets trickier in the case of someone like Mel "Goebbels" Gibson
-- the anti-semite who's only crime is being an ultra-right-wing-xtian neo-
nazi scumfuck. Again, I judge the mans work aside from who he is and
what agenda he's pushing. I mean who doesn't love the THE ROAD
WARRIOR?

The Road Warrior was George Miller's vision. Mel's art was in his acting, and he did a decent job of it. I didn't sense any of what he apparently was underneath the leather, so I suppose he pulled off the performance.

Of course, if the message of his work is a masterfully executed over-the-
top hatemessage like we see in SPLATTERCHRIST! (the closest
modern approximation we have to Triumph of the Will), I have to
judge both the man and his work. What kind of asshole would make this
mezmerizingly deranged, hateful, bigoted, innacurate, but undeniably
masterfully shot neo-nazi propaganda / relgio-exploitation splatter film?
I think we all know what kind of asshole. But the critical judgement lies
soley with the film itself -- I abhor the message, but can't deny its power
as a masterfully executed piece of shockingly exploitative hateart.

I wouldn't exactly call "The Passion" anti-Semitic; most of what Mel is depicting was in the Gospels anyway. I would call it simplistic. It draws its characters, particularly Satan, who makes about as convincing a Prince of Darkness in this movie as Jon Lovitz on SNL, so broadly that it's impossible to take them seriously. The rabbis who challenge Jesus practically stick their tongues out at him. I've always been interested in the debates that Jesus must have had with his fellow rabbis (for a rabbi is what he must have been) making his claim to be the Messiah and his unorthodox, if not downright heretical, interpretation of Scripture. Most rabbis that I've met know scripture backwards (they HAVE to) and can deconstruct ancient Hebrew blindfolded. In the movie the dialogue goes like this:

RABBI: "You say you're the Messiah?"

JESUS: "I do."

RABBI: "Well, you're not!"

That's what really got me about The Passion. It combined the violence of "The Descent" with the scriptural depth of a Superbook episode. It was a movie for infantilised adults, which doesn't say a lot for the current state of religiousity in the world today.

[ZombieZoneSolutions]

I don't think it's possible to separate the man from the art so closely. An artist who doesn't invest his soul in his art is not a good artist, and so when we are looking at the work of a great artist we are examining a fragment of his soul exposed. We have a right to judge that soul if we so choose, wherever it may be, in front of us on the screen, or within the man himself.

In terms of aestehtics, sure, but in terms of morality? The moralty of
enjoying the work of someone like Polanski; a self-admitted pedophile? I
don’t think we should judge the art in terms of the artist's crimes; unless
the art in question champions the crime / immorality. To whit, theres
nothing in the work of Polanski which screams "I'm a pedophile! Lets go
rape some children!" And since his work is so outstanding (for the most
part) I can look past his crimes and just watch the films as films. In
addition, if these films are an indication of his soul (and I believe you
here that this is true), then his soul is a deeply thoughtful and scathingly
hilarious one. Too bad he diddles kids.

I wouldn't exactly call "The Passion" anti-Semitic...

You make some good points here, but the simple fact of tha matter is
that the ROMANS killed the man called Christ; essentially for being an
anti-establishment revolutionary / voice of the people; the poor and
disenfranchised; aka, at this time in human history, the Jews. Gibson
puts forth the notion that it was the Jews who killed Christ while the
Romans were merely carrying out their wishes. Since when does the
hegemon bow to the peasent? Never. But it fits Gibson’s anti-semtic
agenda, so there it is.

That being said, I thought SPLATTERCHRIST! was great in terms of
its splatterfilmness; and its over-the-top neo-nazi propaganda was so
pronounced and infantile, I couldn’t help but enjoy it for the piece of
psycho-hateart it is. I mean, its really a work of pure transgression; the
kind of transgression that could only come from a man brutally
psychologically abused by a psychotic hatemongering father.

[tapehead]

the SPLATTERCHRIST routine again? dude you are in dire need of new material

[ZombieZoneSolutions]

Am I? It seems to entertain you quite a bit.

[tapehead]

No lovey, I'm expressing my disbelief and boredom

you're often amusing ZZS, but I have a low tolerance for repetition

who knows, maybe its just me

[judderman]

In terms of aestehtics, sure, but in terms of morality? The moralty of enjoying the work of someone like Polanski; a self-admitted pedophile? I
don’t think we should judge the art in terms of the artist's crimes; unless
the art in question champions the crime / immorality. To whit, theres
nothing in the work of Polanski which screams "I'm a pedophile! Lets go
rape some children!" And since his work is so outstanding (for the most
part) I can look past his crimes and just watch the films as films. In
addition, if these films are an indication of his soul (and I believe you
here that this is true), then his soul is a deeply thoughtful and scathingly
hilarious one. Too bad he diddles kids.

All art is ultimately about message, and all messages are ultimately moral. I'm a moral relativist; I don't believe in moral absolutism; nonetheless you cannot create art without enclosing some of what you call morality into it. As far as Polanski goes, even before his wife's murder he was obsessed with sexual perversions, rape and incest; whether that is symptomatic of his life and persona I can't say, but it sure seems like it

You make some good points here, but the simple fact of tha matter is
that the ROMANS killed the man called Christ; essentially for being an
anti-establishment revolutionary / voice of the people; the poor and
disenfranchised; aka, at this time in human history, the Jews. Gibson
puts forth the notion that it was the Jews who killed Christ while the
Romans were merely carrying out their wishes. Since when does the
hegemon bow to the peasent? Never. But it fits Gibson’s anti-semtic
agenda, so there it is.

That's unfair. Whether or not you think Gibson is an anti-Semite, and I think he is, you can't accuse him of anti-Semitism for following the Gospel narrative. Gibson is a Christian fundamentalist; he believes the Gospels are true. Therefore, if Gibson is going to film the Passion, I think it's fair to say he's going to film it according to the Gospels. Unfortunately for 2000 years of history, the Gospels say that the Jews killed Jesus and that the Romans were innocent lambs (It's interesting to note that we don't have a single surviving copy of the Gospels from before Constantine's delaring it the official religion of the Roman Empire). The fact that most genuine historians consider the events leading up to Jesus's death as depicted in the Gospels complete bullshit is irrelevant. Gibson isn't writing history here.

[ZombieZoneSolutions]

All art is ultimately about message, and all messages are ultimately moral. I'm a moral relativist; I don't believe in moral absolutism; nonetheless you cannot create art without enclosing some of what you call morality into it. As far as Polanski goes, even before his wife's murder he was obsessed with sexual perversions, rape and incest; whether that is symptomatic of his life and persona I can't say, but it sure seems like it.

I don't agree that all art is message nor that all messages are ultimately
moral ones; I mean, that would be indicative of a moral absolutism,
wouldn't it? The message "I am hungry" or "I am tired" are not moral,
they are pure instinct.

But you're dead on that sexual perversion (including rape and incest)
does a play large part in many of Polanski's films (especially
Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown); I just don't know if he's
specifically championing them in the those films. Exploring the themes,
sure, but not necessarily saying "this is a good idea." Then again, this
brings to mind Truffaut's quote that theres "no such thing as an anti-war
film"; that the very depiction of war in film is exciting, and therefore
titiating; making war seem "cool" and exhilarating. So is Polanski
championing his own peccadillos by examining them through art? Hmm...
points to ponder!

That's unfair. Whether or not you think Gibson is an anti-Semite, and I think he is, you can't accuse him of anti-Semitism for following the Gospel narrative. Gibson is a Christian fundamentalist; he believes the Gospels are true. Therefore, if Gibson is going to film the Passion, I think it's fair to say he's going to film it according to the Gospels. Unfortunately for 2000 years of history, the Gospels say that the Jews killed Jesus and that the Romans were innocent lambs. The fact that most genuine historians consider the events leading up to Jesus's death as depicted in the Gospels complete bullshit is irrelevant. Gibson isn't writing history here.

You make a good point here, but it seems to me that its more about his
wacko fundamentalist interpretation of the text -- a violently anti-
semetic one -- rather than what the text actually says. For instance, why
does he focus solely on the torture and mutilation and completely leaves
the egalitarian / moral message of the Christ narrative out? Why does he
portray Pontius Pilate as this noble figure burdoned with carrying out the
wishes of the Jews? That's not how the story seemed to me when I read
it. If anything I read it as a anti-establishment morality tale which
trashes not only relgious orthodoxy, but militarized political force.
Gibson, on the other hand, has a clear agenda; a violently hateful anti-
semetic one; therefore he can twist the script to fit his skewed worldview.

[judderman]

I don't agree that all art is message nor that all messages are ultimately
moral ones; I mean, that would be indicative of a moral absolutism,
wouldn't it? The message "I am hungry" or "I am tired" are not moral,
they are pure instinct.

Hunger and tiredness themselves are instinct, but one's decision to communicate one's hunger or tiredness to others with the statement "I'm hungry," or "I'm tired," rather than simply, for lack of a better phrase, shutting up and dealing with it one's self, indicates a specific interpretation of one's society and one's expectations of what one feels one is in a position to demand from it or give to it. If that isn't a definition of morality, I don't know what is. For instance, would you say, "I'm hungry," or "I'm tired," to your boss while he's in the middle of a presentation? Did not Rosa Parkes start a moral revolution by saying she was tired?

As for art not conveying a message, I find that very difficult to understand. Nature conveys no message; it just is. The moment we alter nature to suit our needs in a way that is not condusive to our own survival, ie, the moment we make art, we are imbuing it with our own ideas and thoughts, and conveying a message. It may not be an overt one, but it is there.

So is Polanski
championing his own peccadillos by examining them through art? Hmm...
points to ponder!

I've always thought so; just like I've always thought that Woody Allen vomits out his interest in underage girls onto the screen whenever he wants.

You make a good point here, but it seems to me that its more about his
wacko fundamentalist interpretation of the text -- a violently anti-
semetic one -- rather than what the text actually says. For instance, why
does he focus solely on the torture and mutilation and completely leaves
the egalitarian / moral message of the Christ narrative out? Why does he
portray Pontius Pilate as this noble figure burdoned with carrying out the
wishes of the Jews? That's not how the story seemed to me when I read
it. If anything I read it as a anti-establishment morality tale which
trashes not only relgious orthodoxy, but militarized political force.
Gibson, on the other hand, has a clear agenda; a violently hateful anti-
semetic one; therefore he can twist the script to fit his skewed worldview.

That is true. Before Gibson's arrest I chalked that up to his family's peculiar hyper-Roman interpretation of Christianity, now I'm not so sure. The Passion is a violent and bloody event, no matter how you depict it, but it is strange that we only get the barest glimpse of the Resurrection, which is far and away the most important part of the Easter story to Christians, or any real hint of Jesus's job up there on the Cross- to redeem mankind and allow them into Heaven. In a weird sort of way, this was the "Christ as Mad Max" Passion. This was Jesus up there squaring off against Satan in a final bloody showdown to rule the celestial cage. That's not a bad interpretation, but I've seen it done much better. There's a wonderful poem on the Passion called The Dream of the Rood; if you can find it read it. It's an Anglo-Saxon retelling of the story told in the first person... by the Cross. Post modern, no?

[Chairman Kaga]

That's unfair. Whether or not you think Gibson is an anti-Semite, and I think he is, you can't accuse him of anti-Semitism for following the Gospel narrative. Gibson is a Christian fundamentalist; he believes the Gospels are true. Therefore, if Gibson is going to film the Passion, I think it's fair to say he's going to film it according to the Gospels. Unfortunately for 2000 years of history, the Gospels say that the Jews killed Jesus and that the Romans were innocent lambs. The fact that most genuine historians consider the events leading up to Jesus's death as depicted in the Gospels complete bullshit is irrelevant. Gibson isn't writing history here.

You make a good point here, but it seems to me that its more about his
wacko fundamentalist interpretation of the text -- a violently anti-
semetic one -- rather than what the text actually says. For instance, why
does he focus solely on the torture and mutilation and completely leaves
the egalitarian / moral message of the Christ narrative out? Why does he
portray Pontius Pilate as this noble figure burdoned with carrying out the
wishes of the Jews? That's not how the story seemed to me when I read
it. If anything I read it as a anti-establishment morality tale which
trashes not only relgious orthodoxy, but militarized political force.
Gibson, on the other hand, has a clear agenda; a violently hateful anti-
semetic one; therefore he can twist the script to fit his skewed worldview.

But judderman is correct. Though probably not historically accurate that is how the Gospels depict the events. Pilate basically pleads with the masses to let Jesus go by presenting them with the worst alternative in Barrabus but they supposedly choose to allow Barrabus go instead. In all likelyhood, if Jesus existed and these events occured in a remotely similar manner, the Romans would have interacted with the high priests to help keep order in the region because the priests continued to represent religious power to the masses while the Romans were conquerors. Thus a collaboration between the two to kill a rabble rouser, threatening both of their "establishments", is hardly an innacurate concept. Technically Mel merely adapted a secular play stretching back the 13th century in some regions of Europe. If anything his Anti-Semitism might have drawn him to the play rather than him twisting the play to his Anti-Semitism.

This is getting off the topic.


ON TOPIC: I suppose I am guilty of hypocrisy with regards to this subject. I enjoy Polanski's work though his crimes are really no different from the guy who directed Jeepers Creepers and Powder but I avoid patronizing those films simply because of the director's actions. Selfishly I suppose only because I see Chinatown or Rosemary's Baby (the Fearless Vampire Killers as well) as great films while Powder and JC are merley mediocre......So if the art is "good" enough I think I just let it slide.

Of course another example for this thread could be the mysterious death of Natalie Wood. I have never seen people complain about Christopher Walken or Robert Wagner though there was no telling if either or both may have tossed her to her death. That stigma didn't really stick. Of course it's not as concrete as Polanski or Salva's misdeeds.

[MasterWhedon]

I split this off from Tony's thread because, frankly, I'm sick of seeing debate over the Passion creep up in damn near every thread we have. I'm exaggerating, but it's closer to the truth than not.

So, this is it. This is the thread where you can hash it out. No more SPLATTERCHRIST! BS in other threads. Leave it all in here.

So, fact or fantasy?

[papalazeru]

To ZombieZoneSolutions...................

What you lookin at sugartits?

[TonyWilson]

It's factasy. I thought everyone knew!!!

[tangerine]

Either way the longest, most boring film ever made.

[MasterWhedon]

Either way the longest, most boring film ever made.

At 127 mins, it's not even close to being the longest film ever made.

[tangerine]

Either way the longest, most boring film ever made.

At 127 mins, it's not even close to being the longest film ever made.

It feels the longest. Well, I never watched The Cure for Insomnia, but I bet it's better than the Passion.

Forgive my bitterness. Those were 127 horrible minutes.

[Lady Sheridan]

There's a wonderful poem on the Passion called The Dream of the Rood; if you can find it read it. It's an Anglo-Saxon retelling of the story told in the first person... by the Cross. Post modern, no?

This will be my only contribution to the thread. Like everyone else, I'm pretty sick of this debate and judderman and Kaga probably have said everything I would, anyway.

But here's an e-text of The Dream of the Rood.
http://faculty.uca.edu/~jona/texts/rood.htm

Read your Anglo-Saxon poetry! It's good for you!

[MasterWhedon]

Either way the longest, most boring film ever made.

At 127 mins, it's not even close to being the longest film ever made.

It feels the longest. Well, I never watched The Cure for Insomnia, but I bet it's better than the Passion.

Forgive my bitterness. Those were 127 horrible minutes.

Hmm. Well, I must've watched the good cut.

I've seen it once, in theaters, and was pretty genuinely moved. Thought the film was very beautiful and quite poetic. I had some issues with the demons and the fact that Mel's Jesus created the table, but I thought it quite accurately depicted the crucifixion.

Loved that final moment when you see him ressurrected, when the drums kick in. Great stuff.

[havocSchultz]

Loved that final moment when you see him ressurrected

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't even know he died at the end...

[ZombieZoneSolutions]

Although I've pretty much said all that can be said about Mel "Goebells"
Gibson's hatefilm, it's fantasy, of course. There was a historical
Christ; whether or not he was a spacegod I have no idea, nor do I care,
nor is it even relevant. Seems hard to believe, but, hey, color me
rational.

The most important thing to note here is how all of this is irrelevant to the
message of the text -- help, don't hurt, and resist an unjust authority no
matter what the cost; up to and including a violent and horrible death --
all of which was completely left out of Gibson's hatefilm entirely; focusing
soley on the man being tortured, how it was all the Jews fault (just like all
the wars in history, right Mel?) and how these lowly peasents forced the
hegemonic Romans to kill god. Something which not only makes no
sense in terms of political reality (hegemons forced to do what the
oppressed peasents tell them to? Wha-buh?), and has no baring on
the actual history whatsoever, but which points to a fallacious and
malicious minsterpretation of the text; an intetional misinterpretation
made because Gibson has an anti-semetic agenda. Period.

Hey, I know this rankles the fearful and the brainwashed (that
indoctrination runs way deep), but the truth hurts I suppose.

But yo, good call to bring this to the attention of everone; something
which came up, hung around and went away in a thread about artists and
their art and whether or not we should judge them on it. It was relevant
to the thread and was well within the boundaries of taste. Of course, the
"law" here is totally and completely arbitrary, so I'm not surprised.

Geez, I wonder why people keep leaving? Weird.

[ZombieZoneSolutions]

To ZombieZoneSolutions...................

What you lookin at sugartits?

HAHahahahahah!!!!

[Fried Gold]

It wasn't bad. It looks really well filmed and produced. Pretty well acted for the most part, and it was interesting to hear the dialogue spoken in Latin.

Some of the scenes needn't have been as drawn out as they were, but I understand why such choices were made.

It didn't move me in quite the same way it has others, but then I don't have as much invested in the story as other do.

[Theta]

And this isn't in the EFBR why...?

Dammit, I can't find that book I read in sociology.

Okay, I don't have sources and I apologize but maybe somebody can back me up on what I'm led to understand is the true history.

What little evidence we have of the time period indicates Jesus really was just another anti-Roman rabble-rouser, let's rise up and toss these heathen idiots out of the Holy Land, etc., etc., etc. Unlike most of them he was fairly charismatic. So the Romans did what they did to everybody with those views who got too popular, they found a pretext to convict him and nailed him to a tree.

It was really the Apostle Paul who realized that armed rebellion was going to do fuck-all, and that it was as much the rigid order of the elders (guys like Caiaphais) who needed to be overthrown as the Romans, since they were colluding. Hence, Jesus became a Messiah, and a religion, not a political party, got started.

[Al Shut]

Although I've pretty much said all that can be said about Mel "Goebells"
Gibson's hatefilm, it's fantasy, of course. There was a historical
Christ; whether or not he was a spacegod I have no idea, nor do I care,
nor is it even relevant. Seems hard to believe, but, hey, color me
rational.

The most important thing to note here is how all of this is irrelevant to the
message of the text -- help, don't hurt, and resist an unjust authority no
matter what the cost; up to and including a violent and horrible death --
all of which was completely left out of Gibson's hatefilm entirely; focusing
soley on the man being tortured, how it was all the Jews fault (just like all
the wars in history, right Mel?) and how these lowly peasents forced the
hegemonic Romans to kill god. Something which not only makes no
sense in terms of political reality (hegemons forced to do what the
oppressed peasents tell them to? Wha-buh?), and has no baring on
the actual history whatsoever, but which points to a fallacious and
malicious minsterpretation of the text; an intetional misinterpretation
made because Gibson has an anti-semetic agenda. Period.

Sure it's fiction, Gibson choose a religious text instead as a source of modern historical scientific knowledge. But I really haven't got a clue what the fuck you are talking about in the rest of the post.

As far as I remember, granted it's been a while since I last read it, the message of the gospels was NOT to resist unjust authority. Salvation lies not in this life (yet) but in the afterlife.

It's not unusual for a movie about the passion of the christ to focus on the passion of the christ and not of the preachings. Jesus suffering an dying for our sins is the central message of this part of the bible and also of the movie.

Not for a single second I found the movie to be hateful. The role of the Jews and Romans are depicted as written in the bilble, if you watch it and think "Holy shit he wants me to think it's all the jews fault" it's you who is doing the interpration. Stating Gibsons intentions as a fact doesn't really help to convey your points.

And I don't know if you missed or ignored (which would be perfectly fine) my post in the Apocalytico thread but I really think you should stop calling people nazis or in this case Göbbels so easily. From my perspective it makes you look like a ranting jerk.

[Flumm]

I guess this thread is well on it's way to being sealed up in the tombs of the Zone gone by, never to ascend to the light of day again, but I figured I'd just put down some thoughts anyhow...

Having read up on it here and there, my understanding of the historical context of Jesus, was a little different than what it used to be.

I think the ideas of him being a rebel, a revoloutionist, willfully instigating change, although far more likely for a modern rational mind to deduce from the gospels or even from a loose understanding of the story in general, than him being of divine origin and performing miracles, seems like retrospective 21st century from what I've managed to learn.

As far as I can tell, Jesus actually believed what he said. Inparticular, I remember reading a specific chapter in a book devoted to the subject, in which it was the opinion of a psychologist, drawing on evidence from the words attributed to him, the context they were said, the way he used them, his actions in general, how this related too, and was different from common or simmilar mental conditions, and that the most reasonable conclusion to draw from it all, was that he was a rational human being in every other respect, yet he genuinly believed all that he said in regards to his divinity. He genuinely believed he was the son of God. It wasn't artifice to provoke others to believe in him, or to provoke political agenda. I think this bares some weight in looking back and trying to understand it all from such a distance, as apposed to interpreting it. Not only looking back from our own perspective, but in what view we hold the man, rather then the religeous idol...

...

Oh, and I'm an athiest leaning agnostic incase you got worried for a second there.

[TheButcher]

io9:
This is the horrible way that crucifixion actually kills you

[TheBaxter]

io9:
This is the horrible way that crucifixion actually kills you

What part of their suffering lead to death is debatable.

LED!!!!! LED LED LED LED LED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this is driving me nuts. i don't know how many times in the past year i've seen someone write "lead" as the past tense of the verb "to lead." it's "led" dammit!!!! LED LED LED LED LED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry, but i keep seeing this simple basic error over and over recently, more often than usual, and it drives me batty.

[so sorry]

LED!!!!! LED LED LED LED LED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ZEPPELIN!!!!! ZEPPELIN ZEPPELIN ZEPPELIN ZEPPELIN ZEPPELIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Al Shut]

TV!!!!! TV TV TV TV TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheButcher]

Capone says SON OF GOD isn't even the greatest version of this story ever told!!!

Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.

I'm sure the millions of people who watched the History Channel's "The Bible" miniseries took note (and were quite pleased) that the five parts of the 10-part that covered the New Testament took no licenses when it came to the words that Jesus actually spoke. What was written in the Bible is exactly what came out of Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado's mouth. The only downside of this as far as extracting large sections of those five episodes (as well as including some unused footage) and converting them into a feature film called SON OF GOD is that there's absolutely no effort made to get even a little bit inside the head of a man who was in many ways burdened with who his father was and his place and mission on Earth.

It may seem silly to say that there's no character development of Jesus in a film that covers his entire life, but that's the case. Even the sparse narration from John the Baptist is relatively free from personal commentary about the events he's passing on to us. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that classic definitions of story arcs and dramatic elements used to tell most stories go mostly out the window when it comes to telling the story of Jesus on Earth, but just 10 years ago we saw another, far more brutal telling of Jesus' last days in Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST that still managed to feel like a more personal tale than SON OF GOD. I certainly wasn't expecting the Hamlet-like inner torture that was found in Martin Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, but even a hint of emotion or angst crossing Morgado's face would have given us something to cling to.

If ever a film or subject matter was criticproof (or perhaps more accurately, the audience for such a film is criticproof), you're looking at it. And reviewing it the way one would any other film seems almost pointless, but why no go nuts and try the impossible. A film that should be a sweeping epic—a tale often referred to as the Greatest Story Ever Told—shouldn't feel so small. I'm not just talking about the third-rate effects shots and lesser-known actors; I'm referring to the way it doesn't feel Great. As told to us, Jesus was a being of pure love, yet the mildly blissful look that Morgado holds on his face for most of the film just makes him look slightly stoned.

[TheButcher]

A Journalist’s Plea On 10th Anniversary Of ‘The Passion Of The Christ’: Hollywood, Take Mel Gibson Off Your Blacklist

[TheButcher]

Mel Gibson Planning 'Passion of the Christ' Sequel (Exclusive)
'Braveheart' screenwriter Randall Wallace says he is writing a follow-up to the Biblical blockbuster that will focus on the resurrection of Jesus.

[Ribbons]

[TheButcher]

Mel Gibson Confirms He’s Mulling ‘Passion of the Christ’ Follow-Up ‘The Resurrection’
"I think that often times, I made the ultimate superhero film in 'The Passion of the Christ'."

[TheButcher]

Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' Sequel Titled 'Resurrection'
"It’s not just some chronological telling of just that event. That could be boring, and you think, ‘Oh, we read that,'" he explained. "But what are the other things around it that happened?"