--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You raise being clueless to an Art Form. > > Cool. My path involves turning *everything* into > an artform. :-) > > But if you're not clueless, perhaps you could explain > to me what you saw in that film that you felt conveyed > a spiritual lesson of value. For me, it was sadly a > two-hour dissertation on sadism, and an attempt to > make viewers feel something for Christ by portraying > in excruciating detail all the suffering that the > filmmaker -- not being enlightened -- could image an > enlightened being going through. > > I *understand* that many people actually believe that > Christ's suffering somehow magically paid for *their* > sins. But IMO this particular filmmaker must imagine > some pretty icky sins to feel that what he put onscreen > was what Christ had to go through to pay for his. > > I am *not* averse to onscreen violence. That's not > the issue. The issue is that this film spent at least > 120 of its 127 minutes dealing with Christ's supposed > suffering and only 7 minutes dealing with his teachings. > If that's not missing the point, what is?
To balance this, many aspects of the film were praiseworthy. I thought the casting was good, and the use of the real Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew was really fascinating, and added to my understanding. Visually, the film was probably as accurate a portrayal of the times as has been put onscreen. It felt in many places like a documentary, a dispassionate look at The Passion. But that's my problem with the film. It may be only *my* problem, but as long as it is, I should try to make it an artform. :-) The "dispassion" of the film was what got to me. Maybe that's because it worked. Maybe Mel was making a commentary on what decades of watching onscreen violence has done to our sensibilities, and our ability to feel compassion for the victims of violence. Maybe he was trying to show what violence really looks like, by showing it done to Christ. I don't know. I actually plan to see the film again at some point, to help me figure out what he was really trying to say in it. He's a good filmmaker IMO, and I think I owe this film a second chance. It's just that the *focus* seems somehow WAY OFF to me. If I were a strong believer in Christ as my primary spiritual teacher, and wanted to do justice to the inspiration and light he had brought to my life, I don't think that I would have made a film focusing on people pounding the shit out of him. I would have focused on his teachings. But maybe that's just me. And as we all know, I am not only clueless, but artsy-fartsy about it. :-) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
