Full Version: The Passion of the Christ
As far as I am concerned, Mel took the idea of the movie from a previous one "The Last Temptation of Christ" starring Dafoe (based on the book of Kazantzakis, author from Crete, Greece, the same author of Zorba the Greek)
I'm a sarcastic boob. But I'm growing up. I promise.
Good to meet you Heavycritic. How heavy are you? 
The link to the existing dialogue on The Passion vs The Last Temptation.
-s.
The link to the existing dialogue on The Passion vs The Last Temptation.
-s.
Welcome, Heavy.
Other than the music, and a literal serpent in the temptation scene, I'm not sure how much there is to connect The Passion with The Last Temptation of Christ.
I mean, sure, there are a few other little things, such as that flashback to Jesus making crosses in his father's carpentry shop, and the fantasy sex scene with Mary Magdalene, and Judas Iscariot's Brooklyn accent, and things like that.
But aren't those, by now, just accepted conventions of the Jesus Movie genre, no more uniquely indicative of any one particular title than, say, standard bon mots like "Blessed are the cheesemakers," or that de rigeur tableau of John the Baptist fighting Herod's soldiers in the Jordan shouting "Repent!" while ducking them underwater?
Other than the music, and a literal serpent in the temptation scene, I'm not sure how much there is to connect The Passion with The Last Temptation of Christ.
I mean, sure, there are a few other little things, such as that flashback to Jesus making crosses in his father's carpentry shop, and the fantasy sex scene with Mary Magdalene, and Judas Iscariot's Brooklyn accent, and things like that.
But aren't those, by now, just accepted conventions of the Jesus Movie genre, no more uniquely indicative of any one particular title than, say, standard bon mots like "Blessed are the cheesemakers," or that de rigeur tableau of John the Baptist fighting Herod's soldiers in the Jordan shouting "Repent!" while ducking them underwater?
I would like to reiterate stef's link to the existing comparison-and-contrast between The Passion and The Last Temptation.
However, if, say, an administrator were to revise the title of this thread to something like, "Films that Mel Gibson stole his ideas from, or that have an uncanny resemblance to Mel Gibson's film", I would be quite happy to say, in this thread, what I have probably said elsewhere here -- that Mel's film is so similar to Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings (1927) that I wonder whether he was influenced by DeMille's film, consciously or unconsciously, or whether both filmmakers were inspired by traditions of which I am otherwise unaware. Both films depict somewhat cartoonishly lurid dens of sin decorated with living exotic animals (Mary Magdalene's "orgy" in DeMille's film, Herod Antipas's palace in Gibson's film). Both films show Christ carrying a full cross, while the thieves carry crossbeams. Both films show Simon of Cyrene getting uppity with the Romans. Both films show a crow coming to rest on the cross of one of the thieves. Both films end with magnificent, over-the-top special-effects earthquakes. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other Jesus film that does even ONE of these things, let alone ALL of them.
However, if, say, an administrator were to revise the title of this thread to something like, "Films that Mel Gibson stole his ideas from, or that have an uncanny resemblance to Mel Gibson's film", I would be quite happy to say, in this thread, what I have probably said elsewhere here -- that Mel's film is so similar to Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings (1927) that I wonder whether he was influenced by DeMille's film, consciously or unconsciously, or whether both filmmakers were inspired by traditions of which I am otherwise unaware. Both films depict somewhat cartoonishly lurid dens of sin decorated with living exotic animals (Mary Magdalene's "orgy" in DeMille's film, Herod Antipas's palace in Gibson's film). Both films show Christ carrying a full cross, while the thieves carry crossbeams. Both films show Simon of Cyrene getting uppity with the Romans. Both films show a crow coming to rest on the cross of one of the thieves. Both films end with magnificent, over-the-top special-effects earthquakes. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other Jesus film that does even ONE of these things, let alone ALL of them.
| QUOTE |
| Both films depict somewhat cartoonishly lurid dens of sin decorated with living exotic animals (Mary Magdalene's \"orgy\" in DeMille's film, Herod Antipas's palace in Gibson's film).... Both films show Christ carrying a full cross, while the thieves carry crossbeams... Both films end with magnificent, over-the-top special-effects earthquakes... Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other Jesus film that does even ONE of these things, let alone ALL of them. |
The same cross scenario is found in Ben-Hur (1959). I just saw it, so it stood out to me.
I also just saw an earthquake in at least one Jesus movie, but I can't remember any more if it was in Ben Hur or Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew. I think it may have been the latter, since St. Matthew DOES report an earthquake.
I also remember exotic animals decorating some kind of palace setting in Jesus of Nazareth, perhaps Herod's palace, although I don't specifically remember if there was anything "cartoonishly lurid" about it.
SDG wrote:
: I also just saw an earthquake in at least one Jesus movie, but I can't
: remember any more if it was in Ben Hur or Pasolini's The Gospel
: According to St. Matthew. I think it may have been the latter, since
: St. Matthew DOES report an earthquake.
But would the special effects in a Pasolini film be "magnificent" and "over-the-top"?
I'll have to check my DVD copies of Ben Hur and Jesus of Nazareth to verify your other points.
: I also just saw an earthquake in at least one Jesus movie, but I can't
: remember any more if it was in Ben Hur or Pasolini's The Gospel
: According to St. Matthew. I think it may have been the latter, since
: St. Matthew DOES report an earthquake.
But would the special effects in a Pasolini film be "magnificent" and "over-the-top"?
I'll have to check my DVD copies of Ben Hur and Jesus of Nazareth to verify your other points.
| QUOTE |
| I'm a sarcastic boob. But I'm growing up. I promise. |
Just what are you implying about me, Dan?
to be honest, i think "The Passion" is totally and utterly unique among Jesus movies, in style and execution (the similarities between "The Passion" and "King of Kings" or "Jesus of Nazareth" are, imo, inevitable, because the subject is the same...i wouldn't link these films stylistically) - to find its closest aesthetic kin, you have to look back to the paintings of Grünewald and Bosch (as has been repeated time and time again).
but beyond Jesus movies, i believe "The Passion" falls firmly into the tradition of historical epic that Gibson himself helped start with "Braveheart," and probably goes back to "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." this tradition also includes "Gladiator," and a bunch of other minor American films. it's a type of epic that diverges from the old "togapics" of the '50s and '60s (eg, "Ben Hur," "Spartacus," "Cleopatra," "Ten Commandments," "King of Kings," etc). it doesn't focus on grandeur, costumes, or sets, or famous histircal figures (e.g., Caeser showing up in "Spartacus"), but rather on the aspects of the past that stand-out most to the modern mind...namely, the dirt, the ruggedness, and the violence. these films are usually very dark and gritty, and not nearly as bright or bouncy as their sparkly-clean "togapic" predecessors.
so if i were to place "The Passion" in a cinematic bloodline, that's the one i'd choose...not the old Hollywood Biblical epic or the Jesus films of Pasolini and Zeffirelli.
-seth
but beyond Jesus movies, i believe "The Passion" falls firmly into the tradition of historical epic that Gibson himself helped start with "Braveheart," and probably goes back to "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." this tradition also includes "Gladiator," and a bunch of other minor American films. it's a type of epic that diverges from the old "togapics" of the '50s and '60s (eg, "Ben Hur," "Spartacus," "Cleopatra," "Ten Commandments," "King of Kings," etc). it doesn't focus on grandeur, costumes, or sets, or famous histircal figures (e.g., Caeser showing up in "Spartacus"), but rather on the aspects of the past that stand-out most to the modern mind...namely, the dirt, the ruggedness, and the violence. these films are usually very dark and gritty, and not nearly as bright or bouncy as their sparkly-clean "togapic" predecessors.
so if i were to place "The Passion" in a cinematic bloodline, that's the one i'd choose...not the old Hollywood Biblical epic or the Jesus films of Pasolini and Zeffirelli.
-seth
Seth wrote:
: to be honest, i think "The Passion" is totally and utterly unique among
: Jesus movies, in style and execution (the similarities between "King of
: Kings" . . . are, imo, inevitable, because the subject is the same . . .
Really? Granted there are lots of stylistic differences between the two films, but you really think that it was "inevitable" that The Passion and The King of Kings (which is a very different film from King of Kings) would have so many elements in common?
: to find its closest aesthetic kin, you have to look back to the paintings of
: Grünewald and Bosch (as has been repeated time and time again).
What about the comparisons some have made between this film and Italian horror movies?
: but beyond Jesus movies, i believe "The Passion" falls firmly into the
: tradition of historical epic that Gibson himself helped start with
: "Braveheart," and probably goes back to "Robin Hood: Prince of
: Thieves." this tradition also includes "Gladiator," . . .
Hmmm. In the past, I have said that Braveheart (1995) may be the film that is most responsible for kicking off the current wave of "realistic" war movies -- Gibson himself takes credit for inspiring Saving Private Ryan (1998). And yet, one can still point back to earlier influences like Edward Zwick's Glory (1989), which just might qualify as the first serious pro-war movie (as opposed to a mere action-adventure flick like, say, Star Wars) that happened to convey the blood and gore of the battlefield in all its sobering grimness.
Anyway, it seems you are defining the genre boundaries somewhat differently, and limiting your scope to films that take place before the invention of firearms.
: it doesn't focus on grandeur, costumes, or sets, or famous histircal
: figures . . . but rather on the aspects of the past that most stand-out to
: the modern mind...the dirt, the ruggedness, and the violence. these films
: are usually very dark and gritty, and not nearly as bright or bouncy as
: their sparkly-clean "togapic" predecessors.
Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus (1960) was not dark, gritty, dirty, rugged, or violent? And what about the 1959 version of Ben-Hur, which includes a fantastic impaling or two in the sea-battle sequence and several men getting trampled by horses in the chariot-race sequence? (For that matter, the film also depicts its protagonist falling with his face in the dirt as he is led off into slavery.) Further, are you saying that characters like, say, Marcus Aurelius (Gladiator) and Edward II (who is only the Prince of Wales in Braveheart) do not qualify as somehow famous in their own right? I am not so sure your distinction works here.
: to be honest, i think "The Passion" is totally and utterly unique among
: Jesus movies, in style and execution (the similarities between "King of
: Kings" . . . are, imo, inevitable, because the subject is the same . . .
Really? Granted there are lots of stylistic differences between the two films, but you really think that it was "inevitable" that The Passion and The King of Kings (which is a very different film from King of Kings) would have so many elements in common?
: to find its closest aesthetic kin, you have to look back to the paintings of
: Grünewald and Bosch (as has been repeated time and time again).
What about the comparisons some have made between this film and Italian horror movies?
: but beyond Jesus movies, i believe "The Passion" falls firmly into the
: tradition of historical epic that Gibson himself helped start with
: "Braveheart," and probably goes back to "Robin Hood: Prince of
: Thieves." this tradition also includes "Gladiator," . . .
Hmmm. In the past, I have said that Braveheart (1995) may be the film that is most responsible for kicking off the current wave of "realistic" war movies -- Gibson himself takes credit for inspiring Saving Private Ryan (1998). And yet, one can still point back to earlier influences like Edward Zwick's Glory (1989), which just might qualify as the first serious pro-war movie (as opposed to a mere action-adventure flick like, say, Star Wars) that happened to convey the blood and gore of the battlefield in all its sobering grimness.
Anyway, it seems you are defining the genre boundaries somewhat differently, and limiting your scope to films that take place before the invention of firearms.
: it doesn't focus on grandeur, costumes, or sets, or famous histircal
: figures . . . but rather on the aspects of the past that most stand-out to
: the modern mind...the dirt, the ruggedness, and the violence. these films
: are usually very dark and gritty, and not nearly as bright or bouncy as
: their sparkly-clean "togapic" predecessors.
Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus (1960) was not dark, gritty, dirty, rugged, or violent? And what about the 1959 version of Ben-Hur, which includes a fantastic impaling or two in the sea-battle sequence and several men getting trampled by horses in the chariot-race sequence? (For that matter, the film also depicts its protagonist falling with his face in the dirt as he is led off into slavery.) Further, are you saying that characters like, say, Marcus Aurelius (Gladiator) and Edward II (who is only the Prince of Wales in Braveheart) do not qualify as somehow famous in their own right? I am not so sure your distinction works here.
i think genre definitions are pretty fluid, anyway, and one film can obviously fit into many genres - i could definitely see where you're going when you say that "Braveheart" started the trend toward "Saving Private Ryan," et al. they all kind of appeared around the same time, and certainly influenced each other in terms of treatments of violence. and i agree with your inclusion of "Glory" - i definitely see films like that in "The Passion" more than "King of Kings," more than the old Biblical/classical epics of the '50s.
as for the comparisons between "The Passion" and Italian horror cinema...i just don't see it. i think people who see those similarities are reacting to the fact that "The Passion" is very, very violent, and they try to recall the most violent, or spiritually dark, films they've seen...while certain visual motifs are lifted (esp. in regard to the Satan stuff), i think it's quite a stretch to say that "The Passion" is the cinematic kin of Argento or any of the other great Italian horror masters.
and when i said "dark, gritty, or violent," i wasn't saying that there wasn't a moment of darkness, grittiness, or violence in those films (they are definitely there, just as there are moments of "epic beauty" in "Braveheart" or "The Passion") - but taken as a whole, those films do not focus relentlessly on the dark, unnattractive, gritty aspects of pre-modern life the way this new breed of historical epic does. you can't convince me that "The Ten Commandments" or "Ben-Hur" looks much like "The Passion" or "Gladiator." in the old epics, violence was portrayed but was often sidelined by other aspects of the narrative, and they never missed a chance to show off grand sets and costumes ("Spartacus" is probably the darkest and grittiest of these epics, but it was also one of the last). i'm not saying they didn't have moments of darkness and grit...i'm just saying it's nothing compared to the unrelenting darkness and grit we see in epics today.
looking at films today, i see more of those olds epics in "Lord of the Rings" than "The Passion" or "Braveheart." like "Lord of the Rings," those older films were full of long shots that tried to capture the fullness of the pre-modern world - the contemperary historical epic, like "The Passion," is littered with closeups of violence and dirt, is often darkly lit, and highlights aspects of pre-modern life and war that were often ignored in earlier films.
as for Marcus Aurelius and Edward II...look at the role they play in those films. very, very small. the main character in "Gladiator" is totally fictitious, something that seems far less likely to happen in the older epics, which often chose familiar figures for their subjects (Ben-Hur wasn't historical, but he was certainly familiar). granted, Caeser's role in "Spartacus" was small, but "Spartacus" was packed full of historical figures (here, "The Passion" would obviously be an exception...after all, no film is going to fit perfectly into its genre, which is why the word "genre" is etyomologically linked to "general").
the trends in epic filmmaking in the '50s and the '60s strove to match the public's imagination, and bring to life the grand images that the public had in their minds (i think this is the approach the "LotR" filmmakers took)...you can see this clearly in films like "The Ten Commandments" or "Ben-Hur." today, the trends seem to usurp the public imagination, and to provide images contrary to what we expect or imagine.
as for the comparisons between "The Passion" and Italian horror cinema...i just don't see it. i think people who see those similarities are reacting to the fact that "The Passion" is very, very violent, and they try to recall the most violent, or spiritually dark, films they've seen...while certain visual motifs are lifted (esp. in regard to the Satan stuff), i think it's quite a stretch to say that "The Passion" is the cinematic kin of Argento or any of the other great Italian horror masters.
and when i said "dark, gritty, or violent," i wasn't saying that there wasn't a moment of darkness, grittiness, or violence in those films (they are definitely there, just as there are moments of "epic beauty" in "Braveheart" or "The Passion") - but taken as a whole, those films do not focus relentlessly on the dark, unnattractive, gritty aspects of pre-modern life the way this new breed of historical epic does. you can't convince me that "The Ten Commandments" or "Ben-Hur" looks much like "The Passion" or "Gladiator." in the old epics, violence was portrayed but was often sidelined by other aspects of the narrative, and they never missed a chance to show off grand sets and costumes ("Spartacus" is probably the darkest and grittiest of these epics, but it was also one of the last). i'm not saying they didn't have moments of darkness and grit...i'm just saying it's nothing compared to the unrelenting darkness and grit we see in epics today.
looking at films today, i see more of those olds epics in "Lord of the Rings" than "The Passion" or "Braveheart." like "Lord of the Rings," those older films were full of long shots that tried to capture the fullness of the pre-modern world - the contemperary historical epic, like "The Passion," is littered with closeups of violence and dirt, is often darkly lit, and highlights aspects of pre-modern life and war that were often ignored in earlier films.
as for Marcus Aurelius and Edward II...look at the role they play in those films. very, very small. the main character in "Gladiator" is totally fictitious, something that seems far less likely to happen in the older epics, which often chose familiar figures for their subjects (Ben-Hur wasn't historical, but he was certainly familiar). granted, Caeser's role in "Spartacus" was small, but "Spartacus" was packed full of historical figures (here, "The Passion" would obviously be an exception...after all, no film is going to fit perfectly into its genre, which is why the word "genre" is etyomologically linked to "general").
the trends in epic filmmaking in the '50s and the '60s strove to match the public's imagination, and bring to life the grand images that the public had in their minds (i think this is the approach the "LotR" filmmakers took)...you can see this clearly in films like "The Ten Commandments" or "Ben-Hur." today, the trends seem to usurp the public imagination, and to provide images contrary to what we expect or imagine.
Seth wrote:
: i think genre definitions are pretty fluid, anyway, and one film can
: obviously fit into many genres . . .
True, though I think what you are describing is not so much a new genre as a new style.
: . . . i definitely see films like that in "The Passion" more than "King of
: Kings," more than the old Biblical/classical epics of the '50s.
Just to clarify -- since it seems to me you are still confusing the two films -- I never compared The Passion to King of Kings, a 1961 film directed by Nicholas Ray. Rather, I compared it to The King of Kings, a 1927 silent film directed by Cecil B. DeMille.
: as for the comparisons between "The Passion" and Italian horror
: cinema...i just don't see it.
Nor I, but then, I'm not a horror fan, so I just don't see those films anyway!
: you can't convince me that "The Ten Commandments" or "Ben-Hur" looks
: much like "The Passion" or "Gladiator."
Nor would I try to, for the most part. But again, I think you are addressing style, not genre, there. (Note: I just checked back to see what word you actually used, and it was "tradition", which could refer to either style or genre, or perhaps even to both. Hmmm.)
: in the old epics, violence was portrayed but was often sidelined by other
: aspects of the narrative, and they never missed a chance to show off
: grand sets and costumes . . .
I find this a remarkable statement, since one of the reasons I watched Ben Hur and Spartacus over and over when I was a child was precisely for the gritty violence. As for grand sets and costumes -- surely you don't mean to say that films like The Passion, Gladiator, Braveheart, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and so on lack these!
: looking at films today, i see more of those olds epics in "Lord of the
: Rings" than "The Passion" or "Braveheart."
Hmmm, and where will Troy fit on this spectrum, I wonder. The trailers suggest it will have the same swooping CGI aerial battle shots that The Lord of the Rings had, but early reports suggest it will also have the grim, R-rated violence that Gladiator had.
: as for Marcus Aurelius and Edward II...look at the role they play in those
: films. very, very small.
And Julius Caesar was the star of Spartacus!? (Note: I see now that you mention this below, but I still think this underscores the weakness of this particular point -- I don't think anybody has EVER seen an historical epic that didn't have SOME famous characters in it.)
: the main character in "Gladiator" is totally fictitious, something that
: seems far less likely to happen in the older epics, which often chose
: familiar figures for their subjects (Ben-Hur wasn't historical, but he was
: certainly familiar).
Ah, so the fact that he is fictitious, like the characters in Ben Hur and Quo Vadis?, is not the point -- the point is that he was not based on a figure in a popular novel, but was invented directly for the screen. Hmmm. And yet, there is The Sign of the Cross.
: today, the trends seem to usurp the public imagination, and to provide
: images contrary to what we expect or imagine.
Not any more -- by now, I think we have come to expect that we will see images that are not what previous generations would have expected.
: i think genre definitions are pretty fluid, anyway, and one film can
: obviously fit into many genres . . .
True, though I think what you are describing is not so much a new genre as a new style.
: . . . i definitely see films like that in "The Passion" more than "King of
: Kings," more than the old Biblical/classical epics of the '50s.
Just to clarify -- since it seems to me you are still confusing the two films -- I never compared The Passion to King of Kings, a 1961 film directed by Nicholas Ray. Rather, I compared it to The King of Kings, a 1927 silent film directed by Cecil B. DeMille.
: as for the comparisons between "The Passion" and Italian horror
: cinema...i just don't see it.
Nor I, but then, I'm not a horror fan, so I just don't see those films anyway!
: you can't convince me that "The Ten Commandments" or "Ben-Hur" looks
: much like "The Passion" or "Gladiator."
Nor would I try to, for the most part. But again, I think you are addressing style, not genre, there. (Note: I just checked back to see what word you actually used, and it was "tradition", which could refer to either style or genre, or perhaps even to both. Hmmm.)
: in the old epics, violence was portrayed but was often sidelined by other
: aspects of the narrative, and they never missed a chance to show off
: grand sets and costumes . . .
I find this a remarkable statement, since one of the reasons I watched Ben Hur and Spartacus over and over when I was a child was precisely for the gritty violence. As for grand sets and costumes -- surely you don't mean to say that films like The Passion, Gladiator, Braveheart, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and so on lack these!
: looking at films today, i see more of those olds epics in "Lord of the
: Rings" than "The Passion" or "Braveheart."
Hmmm, and where will Troy fit on this spectrum, I wonder. The trailers suggest it will have the same swooping CGI aerial battle shots that The Lord of the Rings had, but early reports suggest it will also have the grim, R-rated violence that Gladiator had.
: as for Marcus Aurelius and Edward II...look at the role they play in those
: films. very, very small.
And Julius Caesar was the star of Spartacus!? (Note: I see now that you mention this below, but I still think this underscores the weakness of this particular point -- I don't think anybody has EVER seen an historical epic that didn't have SOME famous characters in it.)
: the main character in "Gladiator" is totally fictitious, something that
: seems far less likely to happen in the older epics, which often chose
: familiar figures for their subjects (Ben-Hur wasn't historical, but he was
: certainly familiar).
Ah, so the fact that he is fictitious, like the characters in Ben Hur and Quo Vadis?, is not the point -- the point is that he was not based on a figure in a popular novel, but was invented directly for the screen. Hmmm. And yet, there is The Sign of the Cross.
: today, the trends seem to usurp the public imagination, and to provide
: images contrary to what we expect or imagine.
Not any more -- by now, I think we have come to expect that we will see images that are not what previous generations would have expected.
interesting similaritis between films Peter - have you watched The King of Kings again recently then?
Matt
Matt
MattPage wrote:
: interesting similaritis between films Peter - have you watched The King
: of Kings again recently then?
Yeah, a couple weeks ago. I thought I had mentioned it on the Sign of the Cross thread, but I see now that I haven't. (Ah, but I see I did mention it in the Jews-in-Jesus-films thread.)
: interesting similaritis between films Peter - have you watched The King
: of Kings again recently then?
Yeah, a couple weeks ago. I thought I had mentioned it on the Sign of the Cross thread, but I see now that I haven't. (Ah, but I see I did mention it in the Jews-in-Jesus-films thread.)
[quote]I'll have to check my DVD copies of Ben Hur and Jesus of Nazareth to verify your other points.[/quote]
I expect action, Peter. When will your report be ready?
I expect action, Peter. When will your report be ready?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.