how can people comment on the "authenticity" of Mel Gibson's new film

[pruner]

every article I've seen about Gibson's "The Passion" includes comments from both Gibson & people who've seen the film describing it as "the most authentic portrayal of the crucifixion ever".

how would any of these people know that?

were any of them around at the time to provide an eyewitness account?

[Maple]

1. Let's hope not!

No, I think it's because it's what they WANT to see...therefore it's authentic'

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. it's kinda like saying

it's kinda like saying 'The Phantom Menace' was 'the most realistic Star Wars movie ever' lol.

[pruner]

3. LOL

you're so right.

[lazarus]

4. lol

I know a lot of people who refer to it as the "crucifiction". Authentic? I dunno.

[jmowreader]

5. Let's agree to ignore this film...

This is not mainstream cinema. It is hardcore fundie fodder, in Latin and Aramaic with no subtitles.

My view: Every hyper-Christian will see it. Most of them won't understand a word that's being said--not even divinity schools teach Aramaic. But they'll see it, and they'll make Mel Gibson a boatload of money.

The rest of us will stay away from it. Exterminator 3 will garner bigger box office.

[pruner]

8. Exterminator 3 isn't even doing well at the domestic box office

in the 6 weeks since it opened it's made less than $150 million.

production cost for the film was $200 million, and the estimated marketing cost was $40 million.

it's clear that the movie won't turn a profit in the US, and will need to rely on foreign box office and future DVD/video sales to have any chance at recouping the total investment (which will certainly exceed $300 million when international & video marketing costs are added in).

[tjdee]

12. Oh, come on.

I can understand if this was "Kelly Ripa's *The Passion*"

Mel Gibson is a professional filmmaker, and has a couple of Oscars to show for it--including one for Best Directing (which he is doing in this film). It is reasonable to assume that the film at the very least is well done.

If fundies are going to go see it, fine.
But why should that take away from the merits of the film itself?
Why would you avoid it out of spite?

I don't know why everyone's in a huff over no subtitles. How many people go to the opera or listen to it every year, for pete's sake? Do they all speak Italian/German?

[Pert_UK]

18. Anti-Semitism and inaccuracy...allegedly.

and some other big problems...

"The star has claimed the "Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelise". But a panel of three Jewish and six Catholic scholars, who have studied a draft script, say the film is anti-semitic and theologically inaccurate, portraying Jews as bloodthirsty and vengeful and reviving the worst traditions of the passion plays, which contributed to deadly attacks against Jews over the centuries...

The controversy has also put Gibson's own religious beliefs under the spotlight. He funds a "traditionalist Catholic church" in Los Angeles, a spin-off from mainstream Catholicism that rejects the second Vatican council which, among other things, cleared Jews of being collectively responsible for Christ's murder...

But one problem, pointed out by Paula Fredriksen, a professor of scripture at Boston University and one of the panel that criticised the script, is that the gospels themselves are not consistent. "In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder ; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. The release of Barabbas is a 'Roman custom' in Mark, a 'Jewish custom' in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross." "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,12674,1015104,00.html

[-..__...]

13. Last I read...

Gibson relented and decided to add subtitles.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

6. No, but there are lots of accounts of Roman crucifixions

and as I understand it, this one does it in all the really gory detail that other movies decided was not important.

Crucificion was not a pretty way to die.

I am leaving the arguement of whether or not Christ existed out of this, just saying that the Romans did crucify political enemies at that time, and there are graphic contemporary accounts that exist.

[geniph]

11. I can't help it, I keep thinking of Sam Kinison

doing his Jesus-on-the-cross routine to his grieving disciples: "Hey, somebody could get a LADDER and a pair of PLIERS here!"

[trotsky]

7. Considering all 4 Gospels disagree on the details...

I'd say there is considerable doubt they could make it "authentic".

[roughsatori]

9. The Synoptic Gospels: Mathew, Mark and Luke are very similar

There are versions printed with all 3 on the same page in columns to show how similar. What is interesting is that many use that as a reason to promote that they are all derived from one pre-existing source. I do think that Q did not exist. But some argue that they all used "Q" (a list of the sayings of Jesus as source material). From a literary and historical view it is interesting.

I do sympathize with he believers of Jesus and the Gospels. Some will say they must be made up because they are so different; and when it is shown how similar they are, that is given as a reason why they must be fake.

I quess if one doubts, one looks for things to foster that doubt; and if one believes, one looks for things to prove that belief.

[Pert_UK]

19. Differences:

"But one problem, pointed out by Paula Fredriksen, a professor of scripture at Boston University and one of the panel that criticised the script, is that the gospels themselves are not consistent. "In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder ; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. The release of Barabbas is a 'Roman custom' in Mark, a 'Jewish custom' in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross." "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,12674,1015104,00.html

Even if one concedes that these are theologically irrelevant differences, they make forming an "accurate" single image of the crucifiction rather difficult.

P.

[FloridaJudy]

10. The Passion

The only one who would know for sure would be Mary Magdalen, and the Apostles not only suppressed her observations, but also inflicted a major case of libel against her.

[-..__...]

14. Depends on what they mean by authentic portrayal

Authentic as in historically accurate? Or authentic in regards to the brutality, cruelty and effects on the human body crucifixion would have had?

From what I've read about William Wallace, Braveheart was anything but authentic. However, I think the film presented pretty faithfully the brutal nature of what warfare must have been like back then.

[Best_man23]

15. If this movie doesn't include English subtitles

It will have the smallest audience since the last Pauly Shore movie hit the screen. Latin is taught only as an elective and Aramaic is pretty much confined to biblical scholars.

[tjdee]

16. Like opera?

Opera isn't dead, LOL. Millions of people go to see it/listen to it.

Also, it would be one thing if no one knew the story.
Most of us, even people who don't believe in it one iota, know what's going down.

But anyway, I think for screenings they did indeed use subtitles.

[Dookus]

20. One can....

enjoy music and great vocals without understanding the words. Would you go see ANY movie in a language you couldn't speak? I can't imagine doing so.

[-..__...]

17. -

http://us.imdb.com/WN?20030702#1

Gibson Slips in Subtitles
Mel Gibson has performed a spectacular U-turn over his controversial movie about Jesus Christ's last hours - he's decided to include subtitles after all. Gibson shocked Hollywood after announcing The Passion, which stars Jim Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, would be shot in Aramaic language without the aid of subtitles - but now a Christian focus group invited to a screening of the film insists it has too many subtitles.