主爱伴我
GOD LOVES ME
08年新年第一天，重看了一次《耶稣受难记》（PASSION OF THE CHRIST),真是好片，太真实了。在电影院看第一遍的时候还只是觉得暴力镜头太残忍，现在看第二遍才发现真是拍的好，每个细节都处理的那么真实，把耶稣身上的人性和神性都写出来了，比如一开始耶稣在知道自己将死时表现出的心理痛苦。
这部电影为求真实，主要对白用拉丁语进行（加上一些希伯来语和阿拉伯语，那个时代的罗马帝国的人就是说这些语言的），这个决定是非常需要勇气的，因为美国观众很不习惯，很不喜欢看字幕，搞不好就因为这会票房惨败。梅尔。吉布森坚持了艺术的真实，也赢得了商业成功。 这个成功也再次证明了美国社会深厚的基督教文化基础。美国的繁荣就是建立在民主制度和新教文化的基础之上的。
向创造了《勇敢的心》和《耶稣受难记》的梅尔。吉布森致敬。
From Wikipedia:
Statistics
• Production Budget $25,000,000
• Prints and Advertising Budget $10,000,000
• US Gross: $370,800,000
• Worldwide Gross $610,000,000
• The Passion of the Christ soundtrack (original score by John Debney) was the top CD sold in America through the first three weeks the film was released. It is also the highest grossing soundtrack in history.
Commercial success
After months of controversy that led to more pre-release sales than any film in history, the movie opened in the United States on February 25, 2004 (Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent). It earned $25 million per day in its first five days of release and in short order became the highest-grossing R-rated film ever made. In spite of the criticism, the movie grossed $611,899,420 worldwide ($370,782,930 in the US alone) and is currently the eleventh highest-grossing film and the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time.[6] Despite this, the film went without any significant recognition by the major American film award celebrations, although it was nominated for Best Original Score (music), Best Cinematography, and Best Makeup at the 77th Academy Awards.
Mel Gibson's role
To produce The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson spent some forty to fifty million dollars of his money to finance and advertise it. Aside from being its co-producer and director, he is the co-screenplay writer with Benedict Fitzgerald. Given the interpretation, the very explicit violence, and the polyglot soundtrack (Aramaic, Latin, Hebrew), it was difficult to find an American distribution company; the film was completed before Newmarket Films agreed to release it in the U.S. Equinox Films was the Canadian distributor, and Icon Films the British and Australian distributor.
In addition to repeated accusations of anti-Semitism, Gibson’s Traditionalist Catholic beliefs were attacked. Liberal pundits accused The Passion of the Christ of being a modern day Passion play that would spark Anti-Semitic violence. However, Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern (the Virgin Mary), who is Jewish and the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, has publically rejected these charges. In an interview for a PAX documentary about the film, she said she and her father had read the together and both found it beautiful, very poetic, and very philosophical.
Gibson's religious beliefs, the film's inspiration, are Traditionist Catholicism, which rejects the Liturgical and Doctrinal changes created as a result of the Second Vatican Council. He intended his movie to be faithful to a Traditional Catholic understanding of the New Testament[citation needed]. In The Passion: Photography from the Movie "The Passion of the Christ", Gibson says:
This is a movie about love, hope, faith, and forgiveness. He [Jesus] died for all mankind, suffered for all of us. It's time to get back to that basic message. The world has gone nuts. We could all use a little more love, faith, hope, and forgiveness.
It was me that put him on the cross. It was my sins [who put him there].
Gibson makes an appearance in the film, in close-up only: his hands nail Jesus to the cross. Yet, arguably, the strongest attacks on Gibson were for refusing to discuss the views of his father, Hutton Gibson, a vocal Sedevacantist who has alleged that much of the Holocaust is "fiction".
Friends of the Gibsons say that, although Gibson loves his father and abides the Biblical dictum to honour his parents, they disagree on many subjects. One called Hutton Gibson an old man with strange ideas.[citation needed]
Director Gibson sternly rebuked ABC television reporter Diane Sawyer during the broadcast of a The Passion of the Christ infomercial when she brought up Hutton Gibson’s statements, ostensibly to give him opportunity to disagree with his father.[citation needed] Instead, Gibson said,
"I love my father cause he's my father. . . Gotta leave it alone, Diane . . . Gotta leave it alone."
Many saw this as a missed opportunity for Mel Gibson. Others, however, have said that Diane Sawyer was asking a loaded question and received the response she expected
××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
Movie Review from IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/usercomments
A movie like no others..., 28 February 2004
Author: Michael R. from Canada
The second the movie was over, I was dumbstruck, and I wasn't the only one. When the movie ended I thought there would be a big round of applause but when I turned around I saw that about half the audience was still in their seats. I looked at a couple of people, some were speachless and most were crying. Nonetheless I didn't hear a word. When I thought about it, i realized an applause would have been ridiculous.
When someone asked me how the movie was I was going to say it was amazing, but that wouldn't have done the movie justice. The movie was an extremely moving, emotional experience.
The cast was absolutely flawless, Jim Caviezel gave a powerful performance as Jesus, Maia Morgenstern as Mary brought me to tears, and even though Monica Bellucci spoke only a few lines, her performance and beauty astonished me. The score was incredible. It had a middle-eastern feel to it, and was timeless and beautiful.
Most aspects of the movie were perfect to me. Instead of a squeaky clean version of the life of Jesus it was a realistic and heartbreaking portrayal of his final hours. The Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew languages, and wonderful cinematography made you really feel like you were in first century Jerusalem. The flashbacks truly had an emotional impact on me.
While watching this movie I forgot about everything else in the world. Mel Gibson did an incredible job as a director and he truly was brave for taking on this project despite all the controversy.
As for the two main concerns of most people, the ultra-violence, and the alleged anti-semetism these are my views on the two.
Everything people are saying about the violence is true. It is brutal, gory, and quite possibly the most violent work in cinematic history. This R-Rating is very well justified and an NC-17 would have made sense. If you are the type of person that cannot bear violence, this is definately not the movie for you. Some scenes of torture last about 10 minutes when you feel you've seen enough after 30 seconds. But, the violence I feel was absolutely necessary. The movie is about the suffering/passion of Jesus, and turning the camera away would not have an impact on you. The movie shows what Jesus actually went through for all of mankind's sins (according to Christianity). Mel Gibson did not exagerate the violence or make it look like horror movie or Kill Bill violence. As Jay Leno said on his show the other night, when Jesus was hit it felt like WE were being hit as opposed to other violent movies were you feel like YOU are the one hitting the person. I don't think anyone can say that every single hit upon Jesus didn't affect him/her somehow.
As for the anti-semetism in the movie, I didn't find it was as bad as everyone is making it out to be. The thing that made me see why people were criticizing Mel Gibson for was that instead of spreading the blame somewhat on the Jewish high priests (Sanhedrin) and mostly on Pilate, 99% of the blame was put on the Sanhedrin, which seemed false to me considering that historically it is known that Pilate was a vicious monster, and in the movie he seems like a gentle person and reluctant to crucify Jesus. I simply didn't buy the fact that Pilate would be so nice. The movie can be considered anti-first-century-Romans, and anti-Sanhedrin, but I did not feel the movie was attacking the Jewish religion, or the entire Jewish people. But the movie is not anti-semitic for these reasons: 1. It is made evident that it was Jesus' prophecy and destiny is to die. He could probably have escaped from Gethsemane or even the cross (if he truly had ''powers''). He was born to die, and there is no blame to be placed on anyone. If anything, the Romans of that time are portrayed horribly (though realistically), and they are the ones that made him suffer tremendously before his death. 2. Basically all the ''Good Guys'' in the movie are Jewish. Jesus himself was a Jew, Mary was, The man that helped Jesus carry the cross was Jewish, Veronica the woman that brought Jesus water and wiped his face was, and many Jews were screaming in the crowd against the torture and crucifixion of Jesus. (Personally, I don't know why Pilate was portrayed so nicely. It's not like the Jews had the ultimate power. It was ultimately HIS decision to have Jesus crucified.)
An aspect of the film that intrigued me was the character of Satan, and the demons in the movie. When I first found out Satan was in the movie, I was scared it would be a red man with horns and a pitchfork, but he/she is portrayed subtly. Everything about him/her was very Eerie.
Mel Gibson deserves a lot of respect for making this film. He made the movie the way HE thought it was and though most historians or even religious figures would not agree completely to what happened, it is a general idea as to what those final hours were. When reading the new testament or hearing the story of Jesus, it's hard to understand what it was actually like for Jesus to go through all that pain, and what it was like for Mary to watch her son get tortured and crucified. The movie really put things in perspective for me.
Some people are criticizing him for adding things never written in the gospels such as demons harassing Judas Iscariot, most scenes with Satan, and the torture from Gethsemene to the Jewish court, but he had to fill the blanks in the Gospels with what he thought might have happened.
In conclusion, not everyone will like this movie. Some will love it, and some will hate it. But, I think that if you can endure the extreme violence and torture you should at least see it before you judge it. My opinion: 10/10
Film making at its most powerful, 29 July 2004
Author: ed2707 from England
It took me a long while to decide whether to see The Passion of the Christ. It had been my intention to since Mel Gibson first announced the project, but endless reports of the film's unflinching brutality made me fear it might be too much to bear. I eventually decided, however, that whether I really wanted to or not, this was a film I needed to see. It took me two viewings to really get a grip on it, so intense were the emotions it provoked in me. Even now, weeks later, re-examining it in detail is still deeply affecting. For those few still unaware, the film details the last twelve hours in the life of Christ. Its dialogue is entirely in Latin and Aramaic, with English subtitles, a remarkably bold decision by Gibson, and one that pays dividends. On one level it unites an international cast, sparing us any clashing accents, and gives the film a greater sense of authenticity. On another, it forced Gibson and his team into a very visual form of storytelling; even amongst the carnage there are shots of aching beauty.
Huge credit must go to the cast for mastering the language, and employing it in such universally excellent performances. As Jesus, James Caviezel has the immense task of embodying the most important figure in human history, and often doing so with little dialogue, and one eye swollen shut. Despite these handicaps Caviezel delivers a performance of great emotional depth, embodying quiet nobility and sacrifice. The performance that really stood out was that of Maia Morgenstern as Mary. The pain she conveys through her large and expressive eyes is heart-breaking, as she is forced to watch her child endure the most unimaginable suffering. Yet throughout the film she maintains an almost luminescent beauty, entirely befitting the mother of God.
One of the themes of the story emphasised by the film is the bond between Jesus and Mary. One flashback, found nowhere in the Bible, details the mundane routine of Jesus being called in from carpentry by His mother to eat. It was an immensely powerful reminder that for all He was the Son of God, Jesus was also the son of an ordinary woman, who He loved as any child loves its mother. It was also from this vein that the most powerful moment of the film sprang. As Jesus carries His cross, Mary begs John to get her closer to Him. She emerges into His path just as He fall under the weight of the cross. She runs to His aid, and as she does so the film cuts between this, and a similar moment when Jesus was a child and fell outside the house. While she could offer him protection then, now she is powerless; she weeps as the guards thrust her roughly away from her son, and so do we.
It is moments such as these that make the film so much more than the orgy of violence its detractors claim. For example, Peter's panicked betrayal, and subsequent horrified realisation of what he has done is handled in such a way as to move one to tears. There is also an immensely poetic moment near the film's end, in which the camera tracks the progress of a single drop of rain from miles above Golgotha, which falls as Jesus breathes His last: a teardrop from Heaven.
As a film, The Passion of the Christ is excellent; as a religious experience it is even better. Gibson has come under attack for focusing merely on Jesus' death, and omitting His message of love - this criticism is both unfair and ill-judged. In fact, he strikes the perfect balance, including flashbacks at pivotal moments of the film to events such as Jesus washing the disciples' feet, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Last Supper. These remain very true to the text, with quotes such as "You are my friends, and the greatest love a man can have for his friends is to give his live for them" (John 15:13) incorporated whole and delivered beautifully.
Even is there were no flashbacks, however, the point of the film would remain, and it is a vitally important one. It serves as a powerful reminder of the reality of what happened: Jesus did not merely die for us, He was killed by us in the most terrible way imaginable. It is something that can easily be lost through over familiarity with the text, and the flowery nature of other representations, but which must not be forgotten.
It has been said that "If Christ be not risen, then our faith is in vain", and the film has also been attacked for devoting just a few minutes to the Resurrection. Such criticism, however, betrays a very narrow minded approach; the manner in which this sequence is filmed conveys the full thematic significance it.
Perhaps the film's greatest impact has been to get me to pick up the Bible again, and do so with a new faith and understanding. And for that Gibson deserves nothing but praise.
