After watching the interview with Mel Gibson on his new movie "The Passion", I found it quite interesting. He seems really sincere on his stance of portraying Christ the way he did. I also found it quite interesting that he filmed his own hand as the one that nailed Jesus to the cross in that we are all acountable for that act, not singling out the Jewish people. (His words)

So, I'm actually quite interested to see or hear the two of them speak on this subject. Will it be an open discussion on Jesus Christ? Or could it be that the two of them will speak seperately on of their own projects?

Or will it be a debate on "The cross" vs " The stauros' "

vs


It should be a pretty interesting show though. Both guys claim to have been to the "top", been there, done it all, still felt empty, found Jesus, now onward Christian soldier.


...
[This message was edited Wed Feb 18 8:40:43 2004 by yamomma]

I'm amazed at how Mel Gibson has to continually keep justifying this movie. There are endless interperetations of the Bible, his isn't the first or the last. It would be impossible for him to make such a movie that will please every flavor of christianity. He's entitled to his own understanding of the bible.

Tom said:

Yeah, I don't get that either. I also don't get how he had to pay for the movie out his own pocket but if he was making a movie about anything else, he would have gotten huge studio support behind him.

I see it as two guys working on projects that they want to do on their own terms. They both seem to be doing it out of their own pocket to keep the creative "visions" as they saw them. If they involved more outside resources, they'd have to be subjected to bending their visions to what someone else might see who put their few bucks in as well. (the whole Prince/WB thing)

We know that's the case in music. I see the similarity in film in Gibson's case too.

Maybe we'll see the DVD release come with The Rainbow Children album as an extra.
Not.


I don't see is as any interperetation either. It's pretty cut and dry in putting the last 12 hours of Christ's life to film. What's unique, is keeping the original language intact. What's also cool is that it doesn't look like other film maker's renditions with the blue-eyed, blond Jesus character. From the interview, it looked as though Gibson has really given a lot of thought and research behind this film. From what I've gathered, he has really put forth a lot of effort into trasposing onto screen, plainly what is written. No dramatic additions needed, if you read the gospels. I think the power behind the film will be the perspective as he tries to make the viewer feel as though they are there at that place and time.

What I'm really curious about is those two individuals on the same show together. Will they share in their similarities or debate their differences?

I hope it's the former. The latter would make for much needed commercial breaks and poor Leno will be like "who's idea was this?"

yamomma said:

I really don't see the two of them sitting and talking about this at all. It would be fascinating though.

Or maybe, just like Prince took a fancy to Kevin Smith with his movie Dogma, he'll take a fancy to Mel Gibson to do a film on his next album. Two independent creative types like that could make something pretty cool!

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

Yeah, I know.
Two cooks almost never work on the same dish.

Tom said:

OR that would encompass the entire truth of the concept of christ before christianity ever exhisted, because "christianity' is not by any measure TRUE

I wish someone would stand up to this continual misconception of the origin of all the saints and christ being european origins, IM TIRED OF THE LIES BEING PARADED AS THE TRUTH
to me it the most horrendous thing that I witness to this day this act is etched on every church in every town and city, rual area even in the place that all of this stems from ..AFRICA, how sick and disgusting that this day they cannot correct this

So I wish Prince would say something since Mel is saying something about his false beliefs


Its black history month geesh.....get the facts straight McDonalds(corporate america)

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

A too simple explanation would be that the so called Jewish influence over Hollywood would not allow for a movie depicting the execution of Christ.There has been alot of pressure from the ADL about the picture "blaming the Jews" for the death of Christ.

I would hope this was not the case.

muleFunk said:

Yeah, I heard about that. But didn't the Jews kill Jesus?

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

Funny, I always thought it was the Romans.

LittlePill said:

Am I showing that I'm a heathen?

The Romans had Jesus in custody.Because it was a Jewish holiday,the Romans were to release a prisoner as a sign of good will.The Roman governor brought up a thief and Jesus and asked the Jewish people to choose.The Jews chose the thief and JC was executed.

Some people who "think" they know the Bible blame the Jews for JC's death.That is like blaming the city of Dallas for President Kennedy's assassination.

muleFunk said:

Thanks for the info, mulefunk.

But who had him arrested to begin with?

yamomma said:

Judas. Possibly at the request of Jesus himself. So I've heard it speculated.

Speculation aside, Gibson is just trying to illustrate the last few chapters of the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. To do that, you'd have to put any personal ideals aside and just stick with the text.

and no, I'm not pointing any fingers either.

Acording to the "big book".
Jesus was causing a lot of stir in the Jewish community. Saying stuff like he was the son of God and all. The Jewish priests (the pharasies) wanted to put a stop to this. So they considered him to be speaking "blasphemy" as if he was leading a rebellion. Yep, and they paid Judas Iscariot to point the finger. When it came time to release a prisoner, they chose the thief and screamed (acording to the books) to crusify Jesus. They wanted him dead. But they could not do it by their hands. That would be breaking their LAWS. Again, acording to the books.

So if you were to put this story to film, truth or not, you'd have to include that part as well. That's what he (Gibson) is getting slack from. It's not a lot of bible to read to see what he's trying to put to film.

Here: http://bible.gospelcom.ne...ersion=NIV

Just 3 short chapters.

But there are probably enough threads on Gibson's film. What I'm interested in is the two of them (Prince and Gibson) possibly speaking on the subject together.

I'm niether Catholic or a Jehova Witness, but I think the two of them are trying to illustrate a picture that they feel whole-heartedly about. And that's VERY cool to me.

Passion and Art mix nicely.
in my book.

yamomma said:

i seriously doubt it, dude....all Prince is going to do on the show is perform, he may not be interviewed however, if Gibson and Prince DO TALK, it'll be backstage.

I doubt it too, on the air that is.

But you know the two of them are going to have a sit down, long discussion. I'd like to be that fly on the wall.

There have been some comments on this thread that to me seem inflammatory or at least offensive.

First..... documenting the last 12 hours of Jesus' life is not "straightforward" as someone put it.

There are many different gospels..... some of which are part of the "New Testament", as well as others which didn't make it into the "accepted" versions of the Bible, which are called "apocrypha". Regardless, there are multiple accounts, each with its own particular point of view, agenda etc..... We really don't know exactly what happened... any version is going to be an interpretation. Period.


Second, the comment about "Jews controlling Hollywood/the media" is ignorant at best, bigoted at worst. The bottom line is Mel Gibosn wanted to make this movie himself and he has done. so. It has nothing to do with whether Jews "control" media or not (which is stupid, because the "media" is anything but pro-Jewish).

Thrid, the contvoersy surrounding Gibson's film has to do with the fact that he is taking a perspective that is:

1) is at odds with what is known as Vatican II which among other things, stated that the official Catholic church doctrine does NOT blame Jews for the death of Jesus. Gibson and his father disagree with Vatican II in other regards too.... for example he believes servicds should be in Latin only..... Gibson preaches an extereme version of consevative Catholicism which is not mainstream or currently accepted by the Vatican.

2) From reports of screenigns of the film, many feel that the protrayal of Jews is a very negative one (and one that Church as said they don't agree with)...and therefore, may be stimulate anti-Jewish feelings, violence, hatred etc.

Some feel this is somewhat far-fetched, but throughout history, many people have been murdered from just this type of thing..... popularizing a hatred of a particular group which leads to group think and mob mentality which leads to mass murder. It's happened over and over again throughout the world.
[This message was edited Wed Feb 18 10:57:17 2004 by GaryMF]

Thanks for the insight.

I think you read into some of those comments wrong. The Hollywood comment was reffering to an OUTSIDE arguement. Not from the one who was REFERING to it. At least that's how I read it.

Putting to film the last 12 hours of the "accepted" gospels was/is Gibson's mission. So it looked pretty strait forward to me. His mission. Not what you or I would have done.

Like I said, speculation aside, the task was "How do I illustrate these books that I (mel) percieve as truth?"

Not the other way around. And you are right in that we don't know exactly what happened. It's like if I wanted to put to film, Romeo and Juliet. All I got to go by is the script. Yes, I could do a whole in-depth production that explored the inspiration behind the story, but the task I set out to do was to stick to the script.

I think that's Gibson's case here.


Again, I didn't mean for this thread to be a discussion about that film, but the two "changed" fellows together talking about (maybe) some common ground. That'd be cool.



What I'd like to see:
What if Prince performed his new version of "The Christ" while they showed clips of Gibson's film in the background. That would be pretty tight!

GaryMF said:

I should hope that's not the case with this film. I didn't look that way from the previews/interview.

Thanks for your additional comments. I realize this thread has gone WAY OFF topic, but this movie seems to create controversy whenever it is mentioned!

2 last comments on it though. Gibson is indeed trying to portray events as recounted in specific gospels. I'm not an expert on the Bible, but I read a book a few years ago specifically about how various "books of the gospel" have very different accoutns and attitudes..... so by Gibson picking which gospels to go by, he already is making a statement about what he believes the truth to be.

Secondly, Gibson is pretty well known for being both a proponent of extreme, non "mainstream" Catholicism, as well as farily bigoted on a variety of issues (most notably gay/lesbain issues but others as well).

isn't it really irrelevant if it was a cross or a stauros, the death and resurrection of Jesus is the import point, right?

Also, I always thought "blaming the jews for the death of Jesus" was a strange concept.

First of all, Jesus was jewish
Secondly, there would be no christianity without the death (and resurrection) of Jesus.
Thirdly, if anyone wants to point the finger of blame for Jesus's death, they can start by looking in the mirror, since he died as a sacrifice for all of our sins.

Mel Gibson's movie is intended to show what that sacrifice really was about, based on the first hand accounts of 3 people who were there when it happened, as well as Luke, a doctor who went to investigate it after the fact.

I think it would be really interesting to hear Prince and Mel Gibson discuss the movie. Prince pointing to the "new world translation" while Mel Gibson points to the original untranslated text. I think Mel Gibson has the better source of material. Maybe Prince will finally realize that there may be flaws in the interpretation of the text he is using.

GaryMF said:

I don't think you have to be an expert.
If you read these 4 books, they all tell the same story. Some illustrate or go more "in depth" into some areas of Christ's life than others. I think that's why they are all included together. To show that eyewitnesses told the same story without contradiction.

Mathew: http://bible.gospelcom.ne...rsion=NKJV

Mark: http://bible.gospelcom.ne...rsion=NKJV

Luke: http://bible.gospelcom.ne...rsion=NKJV

John: http://bible.gospelcom.ne...rsion=NKJV

alandail said:

Exactly my point. Would they share in what they have in common or debate their differences?

alandail said:

I think that's why Gibson films his own hand driving the nails into the hands of Jesus. (My opinion)

The only one's threatened by Jesus were the priests. (who happened to be Jewish) I don't see the gospels as blaming the Jewish people, but the religion that was built up by man around God's word. Jesus was like "No, no, that ain't it. Peace, love, and forgiveness, no need to follow that priest, take it from me, God's son." And the priests were like. "WTF?, we gotta take that guy out or else my power is gone!"

To put it simply.

yamomma said:

It is accepted by scholars that these 4 books were written considerably AFTER the death of Jesus (from about 30 years later for Mark, and about 50 years later for John).

They were written in Greek (possibly Aramaic orginially for one of them)... so reading English translations is always going to be suspect.

They were NOT eyewitnesses to Jesus' death either; they were recounting it based on records and oral histories.

And as I said before, there are other gospels that exist but are not considered part of the Catholic "canon".

The bottom line is, Mel Gibson is making a movie about his particular opinion of what he thinks is the most accurate version. No one really knows though.

Anyway, who knows what Prince woudl have to say about all this.

http://www.prince.org/msg/7/80811


Figured this out days ago ya'll....keep up

I stated ..."A too simple response would be...."
There are ignorant people in America that believe such nonsense.
There are hate groups in America(World Church of the Creator,Ayran Nations) that twist the TRUTH.

I think Mel's use of his own hand in nailing JC to the cross is a stroke of genius.