total crap. this is funny:

Authored by Steve Martin for the March 8th "New Yorker" back page.
Studio Script Notes On "The Passion"

Dear Mel,

We love, love the script! the ending works great. You'll be getting a call from us to start negotiations for the book rights.

--Love the Jesus character. So likable. He can't seem to catch a break! We identify with him because of it. One thing: I think we need to clearly state "the rules." Why doesn't he use his superpowers to save himself? Our creative people suggest that you could simply cut away to two spectators:

                       Spectator One
          Why doesn't he use his superpowers to save himself?

                       Spectator Two
          He can only use his powers to help others, never himself.

--Does it matter which garden? Gethsemane is hard to say, and Eden is a much more recognizable garden. Just thinking out loud.

--Our creative people suggest a clock visual fading in and out in certain scenes like the Last Supper bit: "Thursday, 7:43 P.M.," or "Good Friday, 5:14 P.M.

--Love the repetition of "Is it I?" Could be very funny. On the eighth inquiry, could Jesus just give a little look of exasperation into the camera? Breaks frame, but could be a riot.

 --Also, could he change water into wine in Last Supper scene? Would be a great moment, and it's legit. History compression is a movie tradition and could really brighten up the scene. Great trailer moment, too.

--Love the flaying.

--Could the rabbis be Hispanic? There's lots of hot Latino actors now, could give us a little zing at the box office. Research says there's some historical justification for it.

--Possible title change: "Lethal Passion." Kinda works. The more I say it out loud, the more I like it.

--Is there someplace where Jesus could be using an IBook? You know, now that I say it, it sounds ridiculous. Strike that. But think about it. Maybe we start a shot in Heaven with Jesus thoughtfully closing the top?

 --Love the idea of Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene (yow!). Our creative people suggest a name change to Heather. Could skew our audience a little younger.

--Love Judas. Such a great villain. Our creative people suggest that he's a little complicated. Couldn't he be one thing? Just bad? Gives the movie much more of a motor. Also, thirty pieces of silver is not going to get anyone excited. I think it'd be very simple to make him a "new millionaire." Bring in the cash on a tray. Great dilemma that the audience can identify with.

 --Minor spelling error: on page 18, in the description of the bystanders, there should be a space between the words "Jew" and "boy."

--Merchandising issue: it seems the Cross image has been done to death and is public domain---we can't own it. Could the Crucifixion scene involve something else? A Toyota would be wrong, but mabe there's a shape we can copyright, like a wagon wheel?

--I'm assuming "The dialogue is in Aramaic" is a typo for "American." If not, call me on my cell, or I'm at home all weekend.

By the way, I'm sending a group of staffers on a cruise to the North Pole, coincidentally around the time of your picture's release. Would love to invite your dad!

See you at the movies!

Yours,

Stan

tonhtubra wrote:Sadly, what is being lost in all of this discussion of goriness and anti-semitism is the actual message of the film and the life of Jesus. I don't want to turn this into a sermon and this is already long enough, but feel free to PM me if you want to discuss it further. I just wanted to throw in my two cents to try and get rid of any misconceptions.

The message of Jesus isn't being lost in all the discussion - it's lost in Gibson's film. What Gibson's film celebrates is the death/sacrifice of Jesus, not his message. The point of this film is the "His blood is on all of our hands, it's up to us as individuals to accept Him as our savior (or reject him and get our eyes poked out by crows)" line - it's not "Jesus had great things to say, we should live like Him." This is why the film is so saturated with blood and violence - for Gibson (and apparently many many other evangelists etc.), the sacrifice is what it's all about.

Jesus does say a few cool things in the film - mainly at the end when he's forgiving the people who're killing him, that was effective and moving. But it wasn't the message of the film, not by any stretch.

I thought it was a pretty good film too, and I agree it was not as gory or as anti-semitic as people say. But the film was about the death of Jesus, not the life of Jesus. The critics aren't missing "the message of the film" when they talk about all the blood; they're just not taking it personally like Gibson (and lots of other folks, I hear) wants them too.

tonhtubra wrote:In my opinion this is a pretty accurate retelling of the biblical accounts of the crucifixion.

This is a usage of the word "accurate" with which I am unfamiliar. Please to be reading this.

First off:
It's a Hollywood movie-- it's going to be mellodramatic.

Second off:
It's a Hollywood movie-- he's going to make a fortune off this thing, and there's no way in hell he's going to give up all his earthly possesions in return for salvation. This is what the Bible says [REPEATEDLY] we should do... so much for integrity.

Lastly:
In the heyday of the Roman Empire, crucifictions happened ALL THE TIME!!! Yes, it was a horrendous way to go, but is the story of the robbers who were crucified on either side of Jesus any more tragic than the story of Jesus himself? I mean, hell, Jesus was at least removed from the cross relatively soon after he died; you know what happened to the other guys?

THEY WERE LEFT THERE TO ROT.

'nuff said... crap.

instant_zen wrote:First off:
It's a Hollywood movie.

i don't know. every article i read made a point of saying hollywood stayed away from this movie. indies can be melodramatic too. i'm just saying.

give up all his earthly possesions in return for salvation. This is what the Bible says [REPEATEDLY] we should do... so much for integrity.

does this mean you question the integrity of every christian who owns things? i don't think the bible says that. it says a lot about the love of money and the problem with greed. enough to start a thoughtful discussion if you care to have one. if not, that's fine.

Lastly:
In the heyday of the Roman Empire, crucifictions happened ALL THE TIME!!! Yes, it was a horrendous way to go, but is the story of the robbers who were crucified on either side of Jesus any more tragic than the story of Jesus himself? I mean, hell, Jesus was at least removed from the cross relatively soon after he died; you know what happened to the other guys?

THEY WERE LEFT THERE TO ROT.

not in my version,
luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
but yes, 'the passion of the robber guy on the left' doesn't have the same ring to it. maybe if they cast steve buscemi in the lead...

does this mean you question the integrity of every christian who owns things?

No, it means I question the integrity (and motives) of Mel Gibson: a multimillionare who releases a movie that is, by its religious nature, going to make millions and millions of dollars. I don't have a problem with him making money; I have a problem with him making money by exploiting religion. If Michael Jordan can sell underwear... just imagine what Jesus can sell.

Saw the movie on Friday. It sucked ass, and it was quite boring.

"Dawn of the Dead", however, was exactly what I needed yesterday at lunchtime. A much better use of violence!

Ahem! My rank is listed as "district attourney".

Am I missing some in-joke, or is it just a typo? I thought it might be a bizarre reference to Tourette's or something.

The bits where they beat and whip him are good. The main (perhaps the only) thing I took away from the film was a deep admiration for the special effects. They truly were great; a new benchmark in the graphic depiction of physical abuse, no less.

What ultimately undoes the film is Gibson's lack of mastery at his craft. He is an average director, never fully engaging with his material (which is a little ironic in this case). This pervades the film with a workmanlike blandness. When Gibson resorts to 58 slow motion shots of Jesus falling dramatically with the cross, it just gets silly and boring, like a hack TV movie.

I watched this film with what seemed to be a cinema full of christians. This didn't help me to enjoy the film.

Crap. And the religion stuff is horseshit.

run joe, run wrote:The bits where they beat and whip him are good

How many film projects has Mel Gibson been involved in that * do not* depict a half-naked male body (usually his own) being restrained and whipped, beaten, or otherwise deliciously violated at length? Lordhowdy, Mel likes himself a gratuitous, bucking, sado-masochistic romp.

Maybe, it's a Catholic thing.