DVDFILE.COM Forum - View Single Post

Marq · 03-16-2004, 05:47 PM

I saw this a couple weeks ago on the same day I saw The Dreamers. With that movie, I came aways pleasantly suprised by how much I enjoyed it, but with The Passion, I came away disappointed by it after thinking this would finally be the film to put Gibson in my good books.
I think far too much is made out of people only being able to get something out of this film if they are very familiar with the story, or are religious people themselves. I really don't think it makes a difference. Nor do I feel the filmmaker's religious bias is anything worth considering, as it's mostly a straight adaptation of that portion of the text (not that I'm anything near an expert on it, only so much as what a pretty standard Catholic upbringing would provide), so that can't really be held against him.

Instead, I just felt it didn't really work as a film. The story is already there, and it's a dramatic one of unparalleled sacrifice, so by not providing any context or backstory to the events and characters, it both alienates viewers who are unfamiliar with the tale and especially those who DO know some backstory but are presented with only the single chapter, making it far less effective than it could have been. Also, by rushing through the resurrection parts of the story, it was made all the more clear that little effort was made to make this story about more than just the most brutal part of the detailed story.

I'm not saying it would have been impossible to make a movie that ONLY portrays the final hours of his life, but this certainly wasn't it. The film is indeed brutal, and probably appropriately so. I had no problems with the intesity of the violence, as it really defined the impact of it all to the filmmakers (though I too am not sure why he felt it necessary to throw in extra "shocks" like the upside-down cross and shoulder dislocating instead of perhaps fully showing the full mess and intensity of the actually nailing to the cross). I also had problems with the mentioned style aspects. I'm usually a sucker for style, but I guess I only like it when it's appropriate. I saw no need for slow-mo, obvious CGI and other instances.

I actually liked the idea of the Satan character roaming through the proceedings and mocking, but he/she didn't seem to belong in this movie. If Gibson had chose to make a film that was moreso gounded in surrealism, it could have worked much better, but here Satan seems like nothing more than a tacky add-on to cause even more dread for the audience. Satan's end-scene from hell was especially pointless I found and didn't have nearly the amount of "hah, he got his!" effect it was reaching for.

All in all, I was impressed that Gibson was capable of following through on what was obviously a very important and vital story for him to tell (and to get it out to others). However, even though he was obviously successful in telling this vital story on his own merits, I didn't happen to agree with it's presentation much. I thought the violence was indeed important and necessary, but the fashion in which it was told was greatly disappointing, both in his choice to rely on some pointless cinematic flourishes and unfortunately choosing to not provide any prior context and an appropriate conslusion that are already well formed in the text it's based on. A definite disappointment. One that I feel will be unfortunately regarded as a great film of the times and through cinematic history simply because of the story it is based on, when I find it to be severely lacking through it's obvious shortcomings.

03-16-2004, 05:47 PM	#8 (permalink)
Marq Actor Join Date: May 2001 Location: Ottawa	I saw this a couple weeks ago on the same day I saw The Dreamers. With that movie, I came aways pleasantly suprised by how much I enjoyed it, but with The Passion, I came away disappointed by it after thinking this would finally be the film to put Gibson in my good books. I think far too much is made out of people only being able to get something out of this film if they are very familiar with the story, or are religious people themselves. I really don't think it makes a difference. Nor do I feel the filmmaker's religious bias is anything worth considering, as it's mostly a straight adaptation of that portion of the text (not that I'm anything near an expert on it, only so much as what a pretty standard Catholic upbringing would provide), so that can't really be held against him. Instead, I just felt it didn't really work as a film. The story is already there, and it's a dramatic one of unparalleled sacrifice, so by not providing any context or backstory to the events and characters, it both alienates viewers who are unfamiliar with the tale and especially those who DO know some backstory but are presented with only the single chapter, making it far less effective than it could have been. Also, by rushing through the resurrection parts of the story, it was made all the more clear that little effort was made to make this story about more than just the most brutal part of the detailed story. I'm not saying it would have been impossible to make a movie that ONLY portrays the final hours of his life, but this certainly wasn't it. The film is indeed brutal, and probably appropriately so. I had no problems with the intesity of the violence, as it really defined the impact of it all to the filmmakers (though I too am not sure why he felt it necessary to throw in extra "shocks" like the upside-down cross and shoulder dislocating instead of perhaps fully showing the full mess and intensity of the actually nailing to the cross). I also had problems with the mentioned style aspects. I'm usually a sucker for style, but I guess I only like it when it's appropriate. I saw no need for slow-mo, obvious CGI and other instances. I actually liked the idea of the Satan character roaming through the proceedings and mocking, but he/she didn't seem to belong in this movie. If Gibson had chose to make a film that was moreso gounded in surrealism, it could have worked much better, but here Satan seems like nothing more than a tacky add-on to cause even more dread for the audience. Satan's end-scene from hell was especially pointless I found and didn't have nearly the amount of "hah, he got his!" effect it was reaching for. All in all, I was impressed that Gibson was capable of following through on what was obviously a very important and vital story for him to tell (and to get it out to others). However, even though he was obviously successful in telling this vital story on his own merits, I didn't happen to agree with it's presentation much. I thought the violence was indeed important and necessary, but the fashion in which it was told was greatly disappointing, both in his choice to rely on some pointless cinematic flourishes and unfortunately choosing to not provide any prior context and an appropriate conslusion that are already well formed in the text it's based on. A definite disappointment. One that I feel will be unfortunately regarded as a great film of the times and through cinematic history simply because of the story it is based on, when I find it to be severely lacking through it's obvious shortcomings.