Flesh, Blood and Bone
27/02/2004 09:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
izmeinaHorrid things happen if you are nassssssty to serpents.
Well that's the moral of the story according to iconoclastic Iz. The story being the rather controversial and very cleverly marketed "Gospel according to Mel"
It opens in a dark and gloomy garden bathed in blue greyish light. It certainly looked most atmospheric and impressive and Iz was half expecting to see the gravestone of Tom Riddle. It was not there of course but a creature did appear - purporting to be the devil - and looking rather like a Diva of Dementors to me. She spoke in a sort of seductive hissing sort of voice and was ever so spooky. Izzie would have loved to see her tempting him in the desert.
She makes numerous appearances in that dark black cloak and seems to relish the moments when Jesus is particularly emotionally vulnerable. At one stage she had hiding under her cloak what the ma thought was Gollum and Iz thought was a revolting travesty of a baby and once again like in the opening scenes was almost expecting to see a bubbling cauldron next to the grave stones and that snake circling it. I am still wondering what on earth the baby was supposed to represent.
These strange surreal creatures and flashbacks added immensely to the drama and movement of the story and I could not help but think that it would be interesting if Mel Gibson had decided to make a film about ALL the life of Jesus and not just the gory bits.
They are a necessary part of the story - for many people the central theme, but I certainly felt that while the carrying of the cross scenes and the crucifixion itself could be justified as necessary rather than gratuitious - what went before that was way above and beyond the call of duty.
I did find it rather peculiar however, that Mel Gibson had Jesus go to great pains to point out - this particular form of punishment was as much about humiliation as physical suffering (especially for some one accused of claiming Kingship) so Iz finds it very unlikely that the victims of the Roman soldiers would have been allowed the dignity of any piece of clothing covering their private parts, especially judging by the behavior of the soldiers the rest of the time.
My favorite Jesus film of all time "Jesus of Montreal" did make this point and through the judicious use of camera angles avoided offending the audience.
What Iz found particularly interesting is that this film has no advertisements at all. Could not work out whether it was because the advertisers did not want their products associated with such unrelenting violence or because they are afraid of some sort of backlash for being associated with this particular movie and the controversy surrounding it.
Some of the local shops no longer sell 'Hot Cross Buns' - they now call them Easter buns and they go on sale in the first week of January!
Personally I did not consider it anti-Jewish but rather anti-clerical. Just about all the temple priests and officials were utterly vindictive and nasty with one or two exceptions - I assume one of these was Nicodemus.
Those who do consider it anti-Jewish would also have to say that it was anti Roman but that is one accusations that Iz has not heard mentioned at all.
Some of the soldiers were just absolute utter lowlife. But occupation does seem to attract that sort of behavior. Yahoo News often carries the latest development in the story of the British soldiers accused of torturing (and killing) Iraqi prisoners of war.
While many of the soldiers were just nasty horrid brutes, special attention is reserved for Pilate. Iz first found him sympathetic and doing his hardest to get Jesus off the hook. But when it is clear that what truth means to him is having his neck on the line if there are any more revolts or uprisings, he is shown for the ghastly scheming creature that he is.
As for Herod. Iz just could not help but think of a certain Alexander Downer.(Minister for Fishnet stockings)
I am still curious about this whole Christian theology thing about Jesus being sent to die for our sins. Why this eternal need for sacrifices? Iz just does not buy that line.
I can understand the story of Maximilian Kolbe who sacrificed his life and chose to die in place of another prisoner or parents who die to save the lives of their children (in fiction and in real life) but this general all purpose sacrifice thing - suffering for the sake of suffering just does not make sense to Iz.
I'd be more inclined to accept that Jesus died because it was the only way to remain consistent with his message of forgiveness and using power for the benefit of others rather than for self aggrandisement. If he had chosen political or military power he could have become like those he was trying to replace.
This sort of reminds me - like choosing to use the One Ring or tossing it in to the fire. Now that is the sort of explanation that Iz can relate to.
This movie - since there is none of the usual romanticization of his death - Catholicism in some circles has a strange fixation on martyrdom and is very happy to forget the suffering of social outsiders, heretics, those accused of witchcraft and so on whose treatment at the hands of the church was not that different than what Jesus received from the Sanhedrim and the Roman empire.
And unlike Jesus, they remain reviled and forgotten.
Overall, I was most impressed by the film but it just is not going to knock "Jesus of Montreal" from the pedestal. That film for me had a strong message of joy and hope and was also very funny at times. It also had a message relevent to its time and was relentless in its parody of media, advertising and TV talk shows. While the brutality of the death of Jesus was not overlooked, it was also not graphically depicted to the point of nausea.
This one was full of unrelenting bleakness and despair and the Resurrection - blink and you miss it - was just not convincing at all.
I admire Mel Gibson for his commitment - and dare I say it "Passion" and apart from the fact that suffering does not sell (well advertisers don't like it at least) cannot really understand why so much of Hollywood has it in for him. Unless of course that too is part of some Martyr Complex to gain extra publicity!
It is a worry that so many Christians are bringing their children to see this film. Iz thinks it is definitely not suitable for most people under 15. It is probably also not suitable for many folks over 15 - especially those who are going merely to see what all the fuss is about.
Well that's the moral of the story according to iconoclastic Iz. The story being the rather controversial and very cleverly marketed "Gospel according to Mel"
It opens in a dark and gloomy garden bathed in blue greyish light. It certainly looked most atmospheric and impressive and Iz was half expecting to see the gravestone of Tom Riddle. It was not there of course but a creature did appear - purporting to be the devil - and looking rather like a Diva of Dementors to me. She spoke in a sort of seductive hissing sort of voice and was ever so spooky. Izzie would have loved to see her tempting him in the desert.
She makes numerous appearances in that dark black cloak and seems to relish the moments when Jesus is particularly emotionally vulnerable. At one stage she had hiding under her cloak what the ma thought was Gollum and Iz thought was a revolting travesty of a baby and once again like in the opening scenes was almost expecting to see a bubbling cauldron next to the grave stones and that snake circling it. I am still wondering what on earth the baby was supposed to represent.
These strange surreal creatures and flashbacks added immensely to the drama and movement of the story and I could not help but think that it would be interesting if Mel Gibson had decided to make a film about ALL the life of Jesus and not just the gory bits.
They are a necessary part of the story - for many people the central theme, but I certainly felt that while the carrying of the cross scenes and the crucifixion itself could be justified as necessary rather than gratuitious - what went before that was way above and beyond the call of duty.
I did find it rather peculiar however, that Mel Gibson had Jesus go to great pains to point out - this particular form of punishment was as much about humiliation as physical suffering (especially for some one accused of claiming Kingship) so Iz finds it very unlikely that the victims of the Roman soldiers would have been allowed the dignity of any piece of clothing covering their private parts, especially judging by the behavior of the soldiers the rest of the time.
My favorite Jesus film of all time "Jesus of Montreal" did make this point and through the judicious use of camera angles avoided offending the audience.
What Iz found particularly interesting is that this film has no advertisements at all. Could not work out whether it was because the advertisers did not want their products associated with such unrelenting violence or because they are afraid of some sort of backlash for being associated with this particular movie and the controversy surrounding it.
Some of the local shops no longer sell 'Hot Cross Buns' - they now call them Easter buns and they go on sale in the first week of January!
Personally I did not consider it anti-Jewish but rather anti-clerical. Just about all the temple priests and officials were utterly vindictive and nasty with one or two exceptions - I assume one of these was Nicodemus.
Those who do consider it anti-Jewish would also have to say that it was anti Roman but that is one accusations that Iz has not heard mentioned at all.
Some of the soldiers were just absolute utter lowlife. But occupation does seem to attract that sort of behavior. Yahoo News often carries the latest development in the story of the British soldiers accused of torturing (and killing) Iraqi prisoners of war.
While many of the soldiers were just nasty horrid brutes, special attention is reserved for Pilate. Iz first found him sympathetic and doing his hardest to get Jesus off the hook. But when it is clear that what truth means to him is having his neck on the line if there are any more revolts or uprisings, he is shown for the ghastly scheming creature that he is.
As for Herod. Iz just could not help but think of a certain Alexander Downer.(Minister for Fishnet stockings)
I am still curious about this whole Christian theology thing about Jesus being sent to die for our sins. Why this eternal need for sacrifices? Iz just does not buy that line.
I can understand the story of Maximilian Kolbe who sacrificed his life and chose to die in place of another prisoner or parents who die to save the lives of their children (in fiction and in real life) but this general all purpose sacrifice thing - suffering for the sake of suffering just does not make sense to Iz.
I'd be more inclined to accept that Jesus died because it was the only way to remain consistent with his message of forgiveness and using power for the benefit of others rather than for self aggrandisement. If he had chosen political or military power he could have become like those he was trying to replace.
This sort of reminds me - like choosing to use the One Ring or tossing it in to the fire. Now that is the sort of explanation that Iz can relate to.
This movie - since there is none of the usual romanticization of his death - Catholicism in some circles has a strange fixation on martyrdom and is very happy to forget the suffering of social outsiders, heretics, those accused of witchcraft and so on whose treatment at the hands of the church was not that different than what Jesus received from the Sanhedrim and the Roman empire.
And unlike Jesus, they remain reviled and forgotten.
Overall, I was most impressed by the film but it just is not going to knock "Jesus of Montreal" from the pedestal. That film for me had a strong message of joy and hope and was also very funny at times. It also had a message relevent to its time and was relentless in its parody of media, advertising and TV talk shows. While the brutality of the death of Jesus was not overlooked, it was also not graphically depicted to the point of nausea.
This one was full of unrelenting bleakness and despair and the Resurrection - blink and you miss it - was just not convincing at all.
I admire Mel Gibson for his commitment - and dare I say it "Passion" and apart from the fact that suffering does not sell (well advertisers don't like it at least) cannot really understand why so much of Hollywood has it in for him. Unless of course that too is part of some Martyr Complex to gain extra publicity!
It is a worry that so many Christians are bringing their children to see this film. Iz thinks it is definitely not suitable for most people under 15. It is probably also not suitable for many folks over 15 - especially those who are going merely to see what all the fuss is about.
