cptgaio

Later I liked it a lot; I should have included the word "photography," but I forgot... sorry...

Ok, Vitalogy, now you’ve been clear. As for the response, I think I’ve already mentioned it in previous posts: I liked the film because I found it well-directed and, above all, I really appreciated the idea of using the presumed languages of that time. I say "presumed" because no one has really reconstructed the Aramaic of 2000 years ago, so any controversy regarding this is quite pointless. In the end, the production chose a "living" language that is assumed to be similar. Regarding its more or less accurate representation, I rely on sources far more authoritative than myself (that is, theologians) who, by and large, appreciated the reconstruction. As for Gibson's intentions, I’ll say this: anyone makes films to earn something. I also saw (in my small way) a sort of cathartic journey (whether that’s right or wrong is for individual consciences to assess). Anyway, excuse me, I didn’t mean to come off as aggressive; it’s just that your response seemed like a joke to me. If that’s not the case, I apologize. Bye! ;-)

yes, yes, it was Morpheus, a slip of the tongue, my apologies ;-)

No, you haven’t explained yourself; you told me a story I already knew (I’m less ignorant, in the sense of someone who ignores, than what I gather from your words, you think), you haven’t explained to me why you believe Gibson makes films only for money, you haven’t made me understand why you think this film is artistically ugly, you’re just making statements, as the good Fidia would say, Morandinian, that is to say “The Passion is ugly because I say so and you cinema folks don’t understand anything,” all very impactful but of little substance... and a bit pompous... always here if you want to reply... Bye!

I quote there is even if they don’t think like me... ;-)

Sure Vitalogy, they were the etc. etc. that I put in my post.. ;-)

I was obviously asking dear Vitalogy.

I don’t know, I don’t think I’m completely uncritical, as the discussion of “shit as art” is very complex and can’t be exhausted by just talking about Gibson... I’d like to point out that a few years ago someone literally passed off shit as art... I don’t think that’s your intent, but in these times, a discussion like yours can be easily misunderstood and seen as a denial of art as conceptuality, reduced only to technique and the pleasantness of form and content... I would like you to clarify your idea, so I could respond better to the specific case of Gibson. Bye!

It might be, but what I mean is that if you see it as a film, then you have to critique the editing, the directing, the acting, etc. (and from this point of view, I find it a nice film). If you think instead about the historical reconstruction, giving weight to what the Church of Rome says (which seems to me an authoritative source in the field ;-) ) is almost mandatory... that's all :-D

Boh... Wojtyła (or however it's spelled) declared "it happened like this," I think he was the leading expert at the time... In reality, regarding the passion, theologians refer not only to the gospels but also to other writings and documents that have come down to us. I'm not much of an expert... I stick to what I've read and what I've heard in interviews from that year with notable clerical representatives. I'm not religious, but in the film, I saw more philosophical purposes (questionable, by the way; anti-Semitism is certainly latent, but I remember that the Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church in the past hasn’t had very clear behaviors, and not just the American theocons, therefore) than historical ones... a very personal idea, of course ;-)