ZombieZoneSolutions wrote: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 wrote: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.
judderman wrote:I wouldn't exactly call "The Passion" anti-Semitic...
ZombieZoneSolutions wrote: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.
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.
judderman wrote: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.
judderman wrote: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.
ZombieZoneSolutions wrote: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.
So is Polanski
championing his own peccadillos by examining them through art? Hmm...
points to ponder!
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.
ZombieZoneSolutions wrote:judderman wrote:judderman wrote: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.
tangerine wrote:Either way the longest, most boring film ever made.
MasterWhedon wrote:tangerine wrote:Either way the longest, most boring film ever made.
At 127 mins, it's not even close to being the longest film ever made.
judderman wrote: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?
tangerine wrote:MasterWhedon wrote:tangerine wrote: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.
MasterWhedon wrote:
Loved that final moment when you see him ressurrected
papalazeru wrote:To ZombieZoneSolutions...................
What you lookin at sugartits?
ZombieZoneSolutions wrote: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.
TheButcher wrote:io9:
This is the horrible way that crucifixion actually kills you
What part of their suffering lead to death is debatable.
TheBaxter wrote:LED!!!!! LED LED LED LED LED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Capone wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests