[quote="John21652, post:17, topic:181196"]
I've never heard anyone, anywhere, at any time, suggest that the Passion of The Christ was a documentary! I never even saw a review that made that suggestion. If what you say was even remotely true, then just about any film ever made, on any subject, could be considered as a 'documentary'. Hey, I really love all the John Wayne docos!
Are you suggesting that the physical horrors inflicted on Jesus should have been more graphic? Oh, come on, just how gory does a film, any film for that matter, have to be to get the message across? The Passion was plenty gory enough. However, the point you are missing is that the film graphically, brilliantly, contrasted the behaviour and attitudes of different people. Go back and view the scourging scene. The whippers putting their absolute "all" into flogging Jesus.So much so that they were left panting and puffing. They swapped to horrible whips with hooks on the ends of the lashes and still Jesus didn't succumb. Recall how the 'boss' of the whippers was wondering just how far they could go before Jesus succumbed. At one point he made the whippers roll Jesus over so they could flog clean flesh!! Look and study the looks on the faces of the women observing. Their horror, pain, sadness and contrast that with the attitudes of the soldiers. And who was it that was silently gliding through the crowd, blandly watching the cruelty being inflicted on Jesus and whom Jesus met, eye to eye in the midst of the horror. Jesus saw a sandal on the foot of a soldier and his mind replayed a scene from another time.....the contrasts were mesmerising and beautifully done. Gibson excelled himself with his direction.
As for someone making a film that "...*does some kind of justice of what was going on inwardly...", *are you suggesting that someone should deign to understand what the Son of God was felling internally? Are you suggesting that someone should be so presumptuous as to attempt to demonstrate what internal dialogue Jesus was undertaking? That, I suggest would totally and forever 'color' how people understand the whole concept of the sacrifice of Jesus. There would be a presumption that what was in the film was actually how Jesus thought and felt. That's impossible for anyone to know. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to blasphemy.
Along the graphic display, they should hold back "zero" punches on that one, if you are going to represent his suffering, do not candy coat it just so you are PC enough within the currently accepted media. We have plenty of resources on hand to show more clearly the extent of the brutality he endured, and I don't honestly care what rating the film got, anything short is diminishing his suffering. So, yeah, if you are too squeemish to watch it, in it's full ubsurdities of what human beings did to our Lord, then you clearly do not have the full grasp or what he suffered in the here and now and do not want to face it yourself, which is a pity.
I in no way could expect to get a literal translation of what he suffered inside, but at least give it a shot at least. Using my own imagination, and how I'd format that element, I'd have a series of very quick shots in a vast series, flashing all at once, the sins and people committing them, coming across, and in each one, he's paying the price for each of them, individually, he suffers for each one of them individually, and this will take a great deal of resources to assemble, but at least it's beginning to touch upon what was happening. As it stands now, we only see some of the exterior elements, watered down, with barely anything shown along the inner elements.
With people thinking it's a documentary, the Pope made a statement along it, which can and does get misconstrued, he stated that it is, as it was. You form a natural conclusion that it is, in a literal sense, as it was, when clearly it's not, it's just beginning to touch upon it. I have been in debate with people that use that movie as their basis for their understanding of his suffering, when that movie should absolutely not be. It's hollywoods version of it, with all of it's subtle nuances of cinematicly accepted practices, more for the masses, less for the real story and the facts of what happened. There are countless errors with it, many were because of budget concerns, others were to keep the film within a short enough length to make practical within the theaters.