Review of The Passion of the Christ The year of the Lord 2004, and 9 years have passed since the second film as director Mel Gibson (Breaveheart), try to imagine a scene like this: Jesus sitting comfortably at home, watching television, which Watch "The Patriot", a grim scene every 20 seconds ... Then the news
Mad-Max discovers that Mel Gibson has decided to make a film about the Passion ... BRRRRRRR!
Who knows how to be felt in that moment ...
The film is nothing but a collage of events in a totally subjective extrapolated from the various Gospels (sacred and apocryphal) represented according to their literal interpretation of (the now rejected even by the Roman Church, so to speak), which serve as narrative glue a mixture of fantastic events (invented out of whole cloth by a "witch visionary" of 900, also rejected by the Church) and events completely reworked by Gibson himself (given his previous meet, however, I would say that his personal taste).
The film has the quality to involve the viewer in the "passion" during the course of the last 12 hours of Christ's life, but clearly the passion is not generated by the emotional involvement, but by the real suffering of the viewer, whose intelligence is insulted truculence by splatter & Gore, not far from the rhetoric related cartoon or comic, and falsifying history, in other words it is a film that often degenerates into the so-called self-punishment flagellant film viewer, who hopes to scale the heights of Purgatory and atone for their sins.
Plot:
For those unfamiliar with the plot (ahah!), the story begins in Gethsemane, the Garden of Olives.
Jesus weeps blood and sweat.
interpreting canonical preludes that the Passion and Martyrdom, which is torn by the knowledge of Christ to face the torment and suffering is likely to be symbolically identified in tears and bleeding in one syncretized act that gives the dramatic start to the Passion.
Given the sequel, and found that Jesus will lose at least 200 liters of blood, but we understand the real reason why the blood spurting from his eyes and the pores, because a human body contains no more than 6 liters of blood, that's all is absolutely clear! Jesus is not weeping at Jesus are bursting with the 194 liters of blood in excess of the orifices of the body! It's a pressure problem! Nearby
appears a kind of Marilyn Manson (Satan in the director's intent), that from this moment on, will play for nothing veiled tempter in the darkest moments of the Passion.
Symbolically, the Devil is identified by such a being, sexually ambiguous, and (as classical iconography) from snakes, goblins and childish sudden appearance of demons (in Hollywood suspense should never fail), which will appear every time the characters will give the side more "human."
The scene cuts to Judas that he receives from Jewish priests its 30 pence, and is forced to pick them up from the ground, as alms, and to deliver his master's death.
You return to Gethsemane, Jesus is exhausted, his disciples leave him alone. Even Peter, the most faithful, the nostril of Satan (?) Comes a snake, which is ominously close to Jesus completely exposed and prone to temptation ... kick a sudden, the snake is crushed, and the first round is concluded, God first, Satan, 0.
In my opinion, here ends the most beautiful scene of the film, which until now (despite the obvious stucchevolezza of shooting techniques and set design intent) even manages to be evocative, and in the hands of another director might have given the go- to something more. But there
Gibson behind the camera, do not forget! The event
topic of Gethsemane, which is the kiss of Judas, is launching a sarabande barrel, the gaze of the viewer will certainly wise to bring a ispiratorio "We're Mad," in which Peter Segal Black Mamba (between shots "The Matrix") manages to extricate himself, steal the sword and injuring a staff-Smith. Here the first miracle of Jesus hangs up his ear to the enemy who falls into a trance. The story
classical interpretation in the key of "turn the other cheek" in the film is highlighted by "Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" spoken by the Savior.
More than a second proposal eschatological Gibson is to be understood then in a pedagogical education, and the soldier then miraculously provides the key role of "good kid who has learned their lesson." I wonder if he understood the viewer, or if ricascherà into a trap like that movie!
Following an incredible tone that adds the definitive fall of the inability to provide an interpretation History of organic, but insists that the intentions of the director to accompany the journey of the grim sadism Son of Man to Calvary: Jesus is mocked and beaten by soldiers during the trip, and flew (slung between chains) off a bridge (all completely invented and outside of any documentation, which is sacred or apocryphal), at the end of the fall CROCK Gibson does not spare us a bone and fractured and dislocated a fleeting encounter with Judas looks, interrupted only by a sort werewolf (?) who apparently passed through there and that appears suddenly with a loud gasp of the audience (the rest is impossible not to accompany the splatter with horror elements). Before
a summary of the interrogation flashback takes us back to the youth of the Savior, in which he still had the body building and muscle-oiled, and becomes the protagonist of a humorous moment with Mary (invented by the director) who probably has the sole purpose of making more sharper contrast with the violence that will explode shortly thereafter.
Just in time for a breath, we are a 20-minute film, and that's Pontius Pilate, the wife who wakes up from the nightmare, and a centurion, who warns him of a riot at night.
summary trial, many have criticized the scene for the strong anti-Semitic, but I must be honest in admitting that it had found both the anti-Semitic intent but rather the attempt to recreate subspecies of a summary trial, "the Taliban" and I'll explain: everything is made in a caricaturist (Christians beautiful and sweet, ugly and bad Jews), in which the opposition between good and evil is so banal as to give rise easy to accusations of anti-Semitism, as an attempt to rebuild it is not technically botched, but this is just a consequence of the inability to know how to implement the story with the proper caution. The result is a Sanhedrin composed of rich, ugly and nasty and sputazzano Jews who beat and humiliate the Messiah, all dressed in clothes of the trigger-happy as a subspecies of the Magi ... Not everyone, however: the pathos of certain scenes is such that the three Jews "redeemed" or better to say "pass on the good side," are so caricatured that (as claimed by Umberto Eco) it seems that speak forth, facing the viewer, "but we'll mica exaggerating!?"
Oh well, poor Jesus, ends up being summarily condemned by some members of the Sanhedrin bad guys, who would have thought?!
take the stage the Roman soldiers, who are not real Roman soldiers, but the idea that an avid reader of Asterix's Roman soldiers, accompanied by "gubernator" (not Arnold Schwarzenegger but Pontius Pilate, as would Vittorio Zucconi ), warned by his wife, Pilate decides to fight at all costs avoid the death of the Nazarene, and in hope to please the wicked and deformed Jews, bring the protagonist to "flagellum" (I think inspired scene from "Jesus Christ Superstar", as they do not remember reading anything like this in the Gospels).
Since flagellation on the author's own imaginary film is an introduction on the different types of meat used in McDonald, visually represented in the transformation of the Son of God in a hamburger.
Two scenes of note (in terms of comic): a raven worthy of the best Hitchcock quarry Dimaco a rude awakening, the unbelieving thief on Calvary, a scene that might be expected in a slash movie ... but basically this is just a slash movie with all the trappings like that. Second key scene: the drilling of the cost of the Savior is followed by a sickening spray of blood not far from those that can be admired in Jap-movie by Takeshi Kitano, Takashi Miike and Kinji Fukasaku. Whatever the Australian director has understood the Scriptures beyond me how he can visually recall the massacre of the "88 crazy" in the first volume of Kill Bill.
In a parenthesis, not so much visually influenced by the paintings of the Renaissance as the cinema of George Romero, for lovers of the surprise ending Jesus was resurrected.
Comment:
Beyond repellent maneuver crowned commercial exploitation of a free advertising in the course for the past 2000 years, and I want to clarify one thing from the standpoint of technical achievement the film is shot flawlessly. Also positive choice, in my opinion, to give back to people's own language context in which they "carried" the story hypothetically.
My criticism on anything moving in front.
First, how can we frame the film? It is a historical film? It is a religious movie?
is clearly not a historical film, as the clearest source of inspiration is a mixture of the Gospels, which do not constitute any form of historical documentation. Today, only a fool
fundamentalist like Mel Gibson can get to an interview in which he argued that the Scriptures represent evidence of those who have experienced and seen things with his own eyes, and almost all historians are in fact agreed that the Gospels are many generations after the alleged role of "Christ" (itself non-historical figure). When the director says publicly that its project is the construction of a historical film, you can not help but smile at this fact: it is not historical "Troy," "Alexander" or "Tiramolla. Moreover
seems absurd to try to frame it in religious perspective, for several reasons: first, the events are narrated with the knowledge of an altar boy who has just made his first sacraments, and with the finesse of Mike Tyson with a severed ear and bleeding in the mouth, and secondly it is not highlighted any underlying message of Christianity, and maybe ... just maybe ... only the most fundamentalist message of Catholicism: Gibson psychologically humble the viewer by showing a whole (imaginary) as the Savior suffered for him, and makes the suffering of codetermination, the "real" Catholics and then pushed to take on the suffering atone for their sins just as Jesus did this for us, "BEING MEAN TO BE CATHOLIC scourge."
Giving in this way but so little space to the theme of redemption, leaving the bare message of any kind of transcendence, Gibson makes miracles happen, it seasons the story with appearances the devil, and makes things happen "transcendent" in very short and devoid of transcendent symbolism and meaning, if not properly trivialized by nothing short of grotesque scenes, rather than transcendence we can speak of "magic", and is a confusion in terms that typically is found in fundamentalist spiritual visions.
Perhaps the film should be seen in its key unconsciously grotesque: a Mel Gibson Bravehearth completely irreverent, over and beyond its absurd statements, has in fact decided not to spare narrative techniques to represent the most violent cathartic key in the "massacre of children of God, "a Grand Guignol of splashes of blood, bone fractures and dislocations. Assuming
also that this is so, the next problem is quite serious, that is the disconnect between the artist and the public user, by means of a work of art misdirected: the cause of this failure is ignorance on the topics of (if not director, at least) the public it serves. Ignorance of the director can be seen, assuming that is not a public relations maneuver, in the reckless statements and interviews on the "historicity of his film" rather than the public has repeatedly occurred after the release of the film, those users really convinced of the veracity and "Christianity" of the message, and the excessive media phenomenon that ensued.
If the referent the message is correspondence with the author through the work, the lens has to be seen where the film is close to a "triumph" of ignorance, otherwise if it is so clear the disconnect between the intentions of the director and the public , then the film is nothing but a "no idea", or even worse, a simple business operation.
Country: USA
Cast: James Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern, Monica Bellucci
Genre: Horror
Who Should: To the fundamentalists, lovers of the "splatter & gore."
If you enjoy watching as well: Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, Ultrachrist
Availability:
Highest Rated: sv
