Trailer for Mel Gibson's THE PASSION

[Guest Narcoleptic Jumper]

Trailer Link

 

Trailer for Mel Gibson's The Passion!

Source: Ain't-It-Cool-News

Saturday, July 12, 2003

 

A very graphic, but impressive looking trailer for Mel Gibson's upcoming The Passion has surfaced at Ain't-It-Cool News. The film stars James Caviezel in a chronicle of the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ.

 

Mel Gibson directs the drama and co-writes with Ben Fitzgerald. Monica Bellucci, Maia Morgenstern, Francesco Cabras, Rosalinda Celentano, Claudia Gerini, Ivano Marescotti, Matt Patresi and Sergio Rubini round out the cast.

 

Coming Soon!

[Guest godthedog]

i remember hearing about this on a local morning radio show a couple weeks ago. one of the guys made some offhand comment about saying it will bomb, and this 40-year-old southern baptist woman called in royally pissed, saying all this shit about how great a christian mel gibson is, and how this movie will be a huge hit because we live in a morally bankrupt society and people everywhere are starving for spiritual nourishment. it was funny.

 

i expect this will either be a) a totally neutered adaptation and bomb horribly, or b) actually have something thought-provoking and hence be roasted by all the usual suspects (a la 'last temptation of christ').

[The Dames 0]

My soon to be former employers, the Anti-Defamation League, are PISSED that this movie is coming out because they think that it's going to make Jews look like the bad guy.

 

Dames

[Guest Narcoleptic Jumper]

i expect this will either be a) a totally neutered adaptation and bomb horribly, or b) actually have something thought-provoking and hence be roasted by all the usual suspects (a la 'last temptation of christ').

 

Watch the trailer. Does that look neutered to you? Add that to the fact that the whole movie is in Latin and Aramic with subtitles (unfortunately). I got chills from watching the trailer. And we all know that Mel doesn't pull punches (Braveheart).

[Guest godthedog]

sadly, i was not able to watch the trailer.

 

and by "neutered," i meant the script.

 

and subtitles are not your enemy.

 

that is all.

Edited July 23, 2003 by godthedog

[Guest TUS_02]

Subtitles? I thought Mel wanted this to be as genuine as possible so it's going to be lacking in the subtitle department. But it's also not going to be so dialouge heavy...

[Guest Narcoleptic Jumper]

Subtitles? I thought Mel wanted this to be as genuine as possible so it's going to be lacking in the subtitle department.

 

I think they were worried no one would see it.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

Braveheart is an example of Gibson not pulling punches? How so?

[Guest Youth N Asia]

Subtitles? I thought Mel wanted this to be as genuine as possible so it's going to be lacking in the subtitle department. But it's also not going to be so dialouge heavy...

I guess he fought to keep them out. But ultimatly the studio decided to put them in.

[Guest Downhome]

The subtitles are just for the current screeners and test audiences. They are to be taken out for the actual release of the film.

[Guest Narcoleptic Jumper]

Braveheart is an example of Gibson not pulling punches? How so?

 

Best I can remember, it's quite graphic, not unlike Seven.

 

The subtitles are just for the current screeners and test audiences. They are to be taken out for the actual release of the film.

 

Where'd you hear that?

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

Gibson Screens 'The Passion' in D.C.

 

Facing increasing gossip that his upcoming movie The Passion depicts the Jews as being responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, Mel Gibson has screened a rough cut of the film to a select group of about 48 Washington pundits and clergymen as well as cybergossip Matt Drudge and MPAA chief Jack Valenti, the Washington Post reported today (Tuesday). The screening was held Monday at the Washington offices of the MPAA. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, who has expressed concern about the content of the film, told the Post that he was disappointed that he had not been permitted to see it. "Here's a man who appeals to the mass audience, but he feels he has to surround himself with a cordon sanitaire of people who back him theologically and maybe ideologically and will stand up and be supportive when the time comes," Foxman said. Those who did attend the screening signed a confidentiality agreement pledging not to discuss it. But Valenti remarked afterwards: "I don't see what the controversy is all about. ... This is a compelling piece of art. I just called Kirk Douglas and told him that this is the movie to beat." - IMDB.com

 

Personally, I don't see why Jews'd be upset. If the film tells the truth, who cares whether or not you come out looking bad? I'd be more upset if Gibson rewrote history just to not offend certain people. That's like someone doing a Holocaust movie but being instructed to not make Hitler look responsible. What are people smoking nowadays?

 

As far as "pulling punches" I was under the impression that you were referring to the accuracy of the storytelling, not the visual content. And still, Braveheart wasn't that graphic.

Edited July 23, 2003 by Crucifixio Jones

[Guest Nevermortal]

I hate Quicktime format. Call me when its in RM or WMV.

[Guest Downhome]

The subtitles are just for the current screeners and test audiences. They are to be taken out for the actual release of the film.

 

Where'd you hear that?

From various websites, I think Aint-It-Cool has something on it also, and even in interviews with Mel himself. This could change, but as of right now they are going to present it as it is a type of "silent film" where the actions, story, emotional expressions, etc... tell the story, instead of just TELLING the story.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

My soon to be former employers, the Anti-Defamation League, are PISSED that this movie is coming out because they think that it's going to make Jews look like the bad guy. 

 

Dames

The Jews killed Jesus, right?

 

Just realized the cow patty I was stepping into when talking about religion...

[Guest Choken One]

Well...Who WOULD show up to watch a movie they won't understand anything being said...

 

At least people will know what Hearing Impaired fuckers feel like.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

My soon to be former employers, the Anti-Defamation League, are PISSED that this movie is coming out because they think that it's going to make Jews look like the bad guy. 

 

Dames

The Jews killed Jesus, right?...

The Romans killed Jesus.

 

So, we can add the Jewish lobby to the Catholic church (some official org. of US bishops called it heresy or something) on the list of groups complaining about this movie. More and more I'm thinking Mel hit the nail on the head, considering everyone seems to think the movie is biased against their particular group.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Thought the Jews had something to do with it, too. Oh well. I don't give a whit about religion.

 

I heard that some press are digging up dirt on Gibson and his family regarding this matter...

[Guest Choken One]

What's with the Title though?

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

The Jews conspired to have the Romans kill Jesus, which they did. They both did it.

 

My connection is too slow ot watch the trailer, but I don't know... if this movie raises a lot of controversy that should be pretty good for business. I'm in favor of no subtitles, but they should put out a dvd with subtitles.

[Guest WrestlingDeacon]

Plays about Jesus or most religious stories are referred to as Passion Plays. Why? I don't really remember

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

IDRM is right. The Jews conspired with the Romans to kill Jesus. To quote someone from somewhere else, The Romans were the gun, but the Jews pulled the trigger.

 

The point is, none of it should matter. If filmmakers cave to every anti-defamation group about telling the truth and reporting FACTS then they should just pack it in and burn Hollywood to the ground. The Jews and Romans that killed Jesus aren't the same Jews and Romans that exist today, so who does it hurt to interpret incidents that happened thousands of years ago? No one, really, until assholes make a big deal out of it. The whites that owned slaves hundreds of years ago aren't the same white people walking around today. The Nazis that massacred Jews aren't the same Germans today. Are we supposed to not making movies about these moments in history, either? When Amistad was released was there a White Anti-defamation League trying to protest its release? Did German's object to Schindler's List?

 

Everyone's so concerned with their image nowadays, they'll bend over backwards not to "look bad" even if what's presented is the truth.

[Guest Eagan469]

the movie looks good

[Guest evenflowDDT]

The Jews and Romans that killed Jesus aren't the same Jews and Romans that exist today, so who does it hurt to interpret incidents that happened thousands of years ago?

::notices he's being watched, removes knife from Christian baby's throat::

 

Right, we're not the same at all, honest!

 

I had a problem with this movie when first learning of it, because at the time Mel's father had gone on the record with some anti-Semitic statements, which IIRC were to the effect of "yea, the Jews are still back-stabbing money-grubbing Christ-killing bastards" (paraphrased of course). However, since Mel has since publicly apologized for his father's remarks, and has gone the uber-pretentious route of making a film in fucking Aramaic without subtitles, it's sure to bomb, and not just because a mainstream audience is too lazy to see something in a foreign language (though I doubt they'd see it WITH subtitles). I hate to break it to you Mel, but Aramaic isn't even spoken anywhere any more...it's "biblically accurate", I suppose, but it's far removed from modern Hebrew, so who's he found that could give anything but a laughable mockery? I won't be able to contain the chuckles if he's attempted it himself or tried to get an American/English-speaking cast to do it.

 

However, this is obviously not a case where Mel is in it for the money. IIRC, he put up all the budget and everything himself, which means he's making the film not necessarily as a film but as a testament to faith, which is where it can get a little iffy, and some would even say dangerous. I say "a little iffy" because, as a purely religious film, its target audience will mainly be purely religious people, and, as with any religion, there will be some fanatics in that group that already still hate the Jews (I've met my fair share, and I live in liberal California, I shudder to think of who you can find in the "Bible Belt" or other, less liberal areas), and this film could be that one thing to set them over the edge. I'm not saying it's going to ignite a Holocaust or anything, but I do believe in some "backwoods" areas there's a likelihood of vandalism against synagogues and violence against Jews.

 

Yet, in the end, it is Mel's money, and he can make whatever film with it he wants, for whatever reason he wants. Obviously he doesn't want to incite anything with it except more faith and devotion towards Christ, and for that I must admire and respect his faith by just choosing not to see the film. I don't necessarily agree with the condemnation and accusations of defamation the film's getting before its release (though it is a bit strange that Mel wouldn't allow any of his critics to see his exclusive preview showings, it'd be the easiest way to prove his point and get them off his back). However, I do worry about its adverse effects on some people...after all, some Christians have really bad habits of vastly misinterpreting Christ's message.

[Guest Dmann2000]

What's with the Title though?

The Passion has been a commonly used word to desrcibe Jesus's death, I'm not sure why though.

 

And Mel just show the film to Spielberg, if he likes it that'll get the Jewish leagues off his back.

[Guest Dmann2000]

The Nazis that massacred Jews aren't the same Germans today.

Actually there's still a few crusty old guys living in Germany probably who were Nazis.

 

"But ve vere just followving orders"

[Guest oldschoolwrestling]

What's with the Title though?

The Passion has been a commonly used word to desrcibe Jesus's death, I'm not sure why though.

 

And Mel just show the film to Spielberg, if he likes it that'll get the Jewish leagues off his back.

Passion, Passions

(From International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) pash'-un, pash'-unz: "Passion" is derived from Latin passio, which in turn is derived from the verb patior, with the root, pat-. The Latin words are connected with the Greek root, path-, which appears in a large number of derivatives. And in Greek, Latin, and English (with other languages in addition) words connected with this root, pat-, path-, are often susceptible of a great variety of meanings, for which the dictionaries must be consulted. For "passion," however, as it appears in English Versions of the Bible, only three of these meanings need be considered. (1) Close to what seems to be the primary force of the root is the meaning "suffer," and in this sense "passion" is used in Acts 1:3, "to whom he also showed himself alive after his passion." This translation is a paraphrase (Greek: "after he had suffered"), due to the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (post passionem suam), and in English is as old as Wycliff, whom the subsequent English Versions of the Bible has followed. This is the only case in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) where "passion" has this meaning, and it can be so used in modern English only when referring (as here) to the sufferings of Christ (compare "Passion play"). (2) "Suffering," when applied to the mind, came to denote the state that is controlled by some emotion, and so "passion" was applied to the emotion itself. This is the meaning of the word in Acts 14:15, "men of like passions," and James 5:17, "a man of like passions," Greek homoiopathes; the Revised Version margin "of like nature" gives the meaning exactly: "men with the same emotions as we." (3) From "emotion" a transition took place to "strong emotion," and this is the normal force of "passion" in modern English the King James Version does not use this meaning, but in the Revised Version (British and American) "passion" in this sense is the translation of pathos, in its three occurrences: Romans 1:26 (the King James Version "affection"); Colossians 3:5 (the King James Version "inordinate affection"); 1 Thessalonians 4:5 (the King James Version "lust"). It is used also for two occurrences of pathema (closely allied to pathos) in Romans 7:5 (the King James Version "motions," the King James Version margin "passions") and in Galatians 5:24 (the King James Version "affection"). The fixing of the exact force in any of these cases is a delicate problem fully discussed in the commentaries. In Colossians 3:5 only does "passion" stand as an isolated term. The context here perhaps gives the word a slight sexual reference, but this must not be overstressed; the warning probably includes any violent over-emotion that robs a man of his self-control.

[Guest Insane Bump Machine]

The Nazis that massacred Jews aren't the same Germans today.

Actually there's still a few crusty old guys living in Germany probably who were Nazis.

 

"But ve vere just followving orders"

Just like there are still some idiots running around in the USA who think that 'niggers' are less human then the white people.

[Guest SP-1]

To be really specific, the Sanhedrin, Jewish Leadership, pulled the trigger. Not Jews as a whole. I've never quite understood the people group association. In more relative terms, it'd be like the US Government assassinating someone they didn't want speaking out. But Americans as a whole aren't responsible for it.

 

The trailer has nearly brought me to tears some of the times I've watched it (I have it saved on my PC). I'm looking forward to the film.

[Guest Ronixis]

If this movie does not bomb- Then this is the last great Live action Movie in the US.

 

If it does bomb- we can say he tried.

 

He is done from Hollywood after this, so I wish Mel the best.