Undoubtedly, "The Passion of the Christ" is such a movie.
The content of the censorship of those watching movies varies in depth. For example, you must know at least a little bit of the Bible, know the legend of the crucifixion or think that it is a historical fact. The minimum requirement is to know Jesus. In my opinion, knowing this is not enough. In fact, one should also have an awareness of the action of "suffering", mainly on a spiritual level. In real life, this is a mental state and social behavior that is excluded. The image of suffering is probably caused by the worship of religion by the believers, the non-abandonment of the value path by the human rights activists, and the rights that a person should have, which is the answer to the question of why.
Shooting religious films is bound to bring huge challenges. This is due to two reasons. One is to find a compatible religious feeling and has a complete religious interpretation ability. The point of view, system and experience is that there must be a god first, otherwise nothing will be discussed; the second is the film that is reserved for the above. The light and shadow become the pen for writing the Bible, and the scene scheduling constitutes the framework of religious elaboration. The actor must believe that he is Jesus, the god of death, a disciple, or a stubborn infidel. Few directors can handle these two difficult art categories at the same time.
In fact, compared to Mel Gibson, Ingmar Bergman is also a director who uses religious metaphors among the film directors I often watch. However, unlike the former, which occupies the entirety of religious subjects and then depicts religious scenes, the latter is more fragmentation of religion. Religion is no longer a complete thing, but is subject to Bergman's thinking about life. In short, in "The Passion of the Christ", the sense of religious sacrifice becomes the theme, which governs all necessary film techniques and is the leader; but in Bergman’s works, religion is merely a reference, alluding to psychology. In the world, his movie religion is obscure, it is a religion that refuses to worship, and it is a part that is strongly controlled by people's emotions. Religion has become Bergman's decoder, which is the second best thing, but Mel Gibson is not the case at all.
The 12 hours before the crucifixion began with the scene where Jesus knew himself to sacrifice. The perception of Jesus at this time is not good, I mean, it is absolutely different from secular human beings. He looked weak, fearful, helpless, and even a little sick, preparing to enter the process of devotion. The woods were dim, and there was a pale mist in the distance. Jesus and his disciples thought of two futures. In this long scene, Gibson used the metaphor of death, a black snake with a strong carrier symbolism, and the Passion Song was born.
In order to complete the entire religious sacrifice process, and to make God a god, Mel Gibson used many seemingly bloody designs. This is not surprising at all. If the viewers have a basic understanding of the religious color of suffering, they should understand that all the blood here is not to show violence, let alone to exaggerate blood. All this is for accomplishment, for creation, and for the sake of Jesus. Rebirth. Therefore, criticizing the blood of the film is precisely a manifestation of ignorance, reflecting the vulgarity of being rejected by the film, which often happens.
The film's dialogue is very small, and it can be said to be very clean. Except for the longer dialogue between Jesus and the Governor, only a few lines are selected. They are derived from the original ideas of the Bible. It's hard to imagine a religious film filled with large lines, so this is Gibson's specialty: he puts most of his energy on the rendering of the atmosphere, such as John Debney's orchestral soundtrack throughout, such as oil paintings. Sets and costumes, such as those scenes to greet the gods. Gibson must know that the degree of shaping of the sense of religion will determine success or failure. I personally feel that he has done a good job. The details, atmosphere, process, sound, smell, weather, market, separation, grief, purity...In short, religion has evolved into its own. He has all the necessary qualities.
It is said that when this movie is introduced, it is usually given the attribute "controversial". If the controversy is caused by blood, it is superficial and need not be taken seriously. If it is because of different views on the depiction of religion—specifically, the rebirth of Jesus—then it may still be talking about the past. However, summarizing a movie as controversial is always too simplistic and rude, as if to show the unwillingness and inability to listen to it. This is the easiest excuse to do, under this excuse, all worthy of taste disappeared. And "The Passion of the Jesus" does not take into account these perfunctory arrogance, it has a unique will in the sacredness of building people.
This reminds me of the definition of idealism, even if such associations are not religious enough. This is also one of the reasons why I honestly cannot focus on the religious interpretation of movies. To describe the highest evaluation of a mortal is the personality of a gentleman, or simply a gentleman. The gentleman is the holy among men, and Jesus is the spirit among the holy. The values of Jesus always remind me of the human situation, including the main types of human performance in this situation, including traitors, sacred teachers, and stupid people. The crucifixion of Jesus is also grace, death and resurrection, and becoming a savior through self-sacrifice. The more Gibson indulged in the long bloody scenes and processes, the closer he could get to the religious spirit of suffering. For a movie, especially compared to the missionary height that the Bible can achieve, it is already an excellent work to reach the existing state.
Jesus said, "Mother, see that I am renewing everything." Gibson has made purely religious films the most authentic, direct and complete shaping, which is a measure that is difficult to surpass.
Around the crucifixion of Jesus, the flogging, driving and suffering along the way, women became the object of eulogization. In this film, Gibson pays tribute to women and maternal love. They were thin and weak, and their tears recorded all the history of blood and tears before Jesus went to the cross. From the governor’s wife, Maria, and the unnamed woman who handed water... Women intervene in the journey of suffering time and time again as close to religious and secular images, which is equivalent to strengthening the motherhood of rebirth time and time again. If there is a serious discussion about movies, I think this is a topic that can be extended. Was it the woman who witnessed and gave birth to the rebirth of Jesus, or did Jesus awaken all the external feelings of motherhood?
Obviously, for the "Passion of the Christ", it will harvest disciples whose boundaries are not so clear. Christians see the Lord’s coming, radicals see the necessity of sacrifice, enlighteners see the twists and turns of the ignorant crowd, mothers see the guilty son, idealists see the truth being praised, romanticism What the reader sees is full of blood, and there are others who can't see anything at all.
And me? What I saw was the following dialogue, unfolding between Jesus and the governor.
Governor: Are you the king of the Jews?
Jesus: Did you say this by yourself, or did someone say it to you when someone said me?
Governor: Why did I ask you this question? Could it be that I am a Jew? Your people and the high priest hand you over to me, and they want me to put you to death. Why? what have you done? Are you the king?
Jesus: My kingdom does not belong to this world. Assuming my country belongs to this world, will my subjects call me out?
Governor: So you are the king?
Jesus: I was born for this, to testify to the truth. Whoever belongs to the truth is better than listening to my voice.
Governor: Truth! What is truth?
2009-4-14 0:41
View more about The Passion of the Christ reviews
