Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

So THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST Upset You, ...


Recommended Posts

... and WITCHFINDER GENERAL was too violent for your liking.

What do you think of the following?:

CALIGULA (1979)

EL TOPO

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

THE NIGHT PORTER

PINK FLAMINGOS

SALO, OR THE 120 NIGHTS OF SODOM

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974)

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and WITCHFINDER GENERAL was too violent for your liking.

What do you think of the following?:

CALIGULA (1979)

EL TOPO

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

THE NIGHT PORTER

PINK FLAMINGOS

SALO, OR THE 120 NIGHTS OF SODOM

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974)

doesn't the night porter have this great scene with charlotte rampling on top of dirk bogarde? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and WITCHFINDER GENERAL was too violent for your liking.

What do you think of the following?:

CALIGULA (1979)

EL TOPO

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

THE NIGHT PORTER

PINK FLAMINGOS

SALO, OR THE 120 NIGHTS OF SODOM

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974)

 

Witchfinder General is one of the great films of all times, which must be seen in the British print. Salo is a brilliant movie, not without beautiful moments, despite the horror and cruelty. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) has some nerve-wracking camera work that sets an appropriate mood for the neo-horror genre of the 1970s. I Spit on Your Grave has a couple of horrific scenes, but is not very good. 

 

I first saw Witchfinder General and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the auditorium at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC.

 

salo5.png

 

Helene Surgere in Salo

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What's upsetting for me about The Passion of the Christ is that the emphasis is on graphic and gratuitous depiction Christ being tortured and executed, whereas this is less than 1/10 of the content of gospels, which are centered on Christ's life and teachings.  The other disturbing factor is that this torturous death is seen as the ultimate expression of love and faith, which can be a dangerous message for people who have been abused and oppressed.  Incredibly, Christ's suffering has often been used as a justification for the abuse of women or other forms of oppression ("offer it up," "your sufferings are joined with the sufferings of Christ").  If you ever want to read about the damage of this theology, read Rita Brock's "Proverb of Ashes."

 

I'm a teacher with degrees in English and Theology.   For a time, I tutored an Indian student who was going to a Catholic Junior High.  As part of her religion class, this film was shown during Lent.  She was horrified.  While her own traditions were often mocked as strange and even irreligious (having a shrine to her various gods in the home decorated with bead and flowers; festivals involving processions with flowers and serving "strange" foods), the depiction of the ideal of Western religion was of a man being tortured to death as a symbol of love.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Passion of the Christ" suppose to be upsetting. Scourging isn't pretty.  I'm tired of sugar coated movies that are unrealistic and inaccurate.

 

140416180555-day-christ-died-restricted-

Is that picture even from PASSION OF THE CHRIST?  It doesn't seem to be.  I didn't like it, because too much of the exact same thing is boring to me.  I do like THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, though.  CALIGULA is just a lousy movie.  Nothing to like.  So is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, and even though it was such a big hit with the midnight crowd, PINK FLAMINGOS doesn't hold a candle to FEMALE TROUBLE, in the wit department.  SALO, THE NIGHT PORTER AND EL TOPO have moments, but SUSPIRIA is better than all of them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the potential for this thread to go way off track and tick a lot of people off, so I won't add to the fire, as much as I'd like to. But I'm not sure what the original point of this thread was, anyway. What kind of movie upsets us? Was that it? If so, my answer is none, really, because it's a movie. Documentaries tend to upset me, but those are (usually) reality. Make believe, "bad words", naked people, and fake blood don't cause me any moral outrage.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that picture even from PASSION OF THE CHRIST?  It doesn't seem to be.  I didn't like it, because too much of the exact same thing is boring to me.  I do like THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, though.  CALIGULA is just a lousy movie.  Nothing to like.  So is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, and even though it was such a big hit with the midnight crowd, PINK FLAMINGOS doesn't hold a candle to FEMALE TROUBLE, in the wit department.  SALO, THE NIGHT PORTER AND EL TOPO have moments, but SUSPIRIA is better than all of them.

 

Replying to 2 post....

 

It's  what I'm referring to, "cleaned up" crucifixion.  People need to learn the suffering he endured for mankind.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What's upsetting for me about The Passion of the Christ is that the emphasis is on graphic and gratuitous depiction Christ being tortured and executed, whereas this is less than 1/10 of the content of gospels, which are centered on Christ's life and teachings.  The other disturbing factor is that this torturous death is seen as the ultimate expression of love and faith, which can be a dangerous message for people who have been abused and oppressed.  Incredibly, Christ's suffering has often been used as a justification for the abuse of women or other forms of oppression ("offer it up," "your sufferings are joined with the sufferings of Christ").  If you ever want to read about the damage of this theology, read Rita Brock's "Proverb of Ashes."

 

I'm a teacher with degrees in English and Theology.   For a time, I tutored an Indian student who was going to a Catholic Junior High.  As part of her religion class, this film was shown during Lent.  She was horrified.  While her own traditions were often mocked as strange and even irreligious (having a shrine to her various gods in the home decorated with bead and flowers; festivals involving processions with flowers and serving "strange" foods), the depiction of the ideal of Western religion was of a man being tortured to death as a symbol of love.

Except, Christ's "passion" is what the film is about, not his life.  Nothing about it was gratuitous.  While I feel it does accurately represent what actually happened, it does become rather tedious, after a while.  Exhausting, even.  Of course, that was precisely Mr. Gibson's intent.  I never, ever wanted to see it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, Christ's "passion" is what the film is about, not his life.  Nothing about it was gratuitous.  While I feel it does accurately represent what actually happened, it does become rather tedious, after a while.  Exhausting, even.  Of course, that was precisely Mr. Gibson's intent.  I never, ever wanted to see it again.

 

Is it a documentary? Does it represent what 'actually happened?' In my 20s I was doing mission work and was teaching a third grade class in South Korea. We were doing a reading lesson about fiction and non-fiction. I'd mention the name of a book and ask the kids: "fiction or nonfiction?" Then they'd answer. When I said 'Bible,' most of them said 'fiction.' These were nine year olds. In their view the bible was fictional. If they were right, then that means Mel Gibson's movie cannot represent something that happened if it never really happened-- the movie is as fictional as the crucifixion tale it's based upon. The movie may upset some people because they see it as a revisionist version of something that upholds their superstitions and what they still think is not fiction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other films that are upsetting are those involving child abuse i.e. "Child of Rage", "Bastard Out Of Carolina".

I can't (won't) watch a movie about child abuse.  Movies, regardless of the genre, have to have some modicum of entertainment, for me.  There is simply NOTHING entertaining about child abuse, no matter how well it is otherwise made.  The subject matter is the only completely abhorrent film topic, to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a documentary? Does it represent what 'actually happened?' In my 20s I was doing mission work and was teaching a third grade class in South Korea. We were doing a reading lesson about fiction and non-fiction. I'd mention the name of a book and ask the kids: "fiction or nonfiction?" Then they'd answer. When I said 'Bible,' most of them said 'fiction.' These were nine year olds. In their view the bible was fictional. If they were right, then that means Mel Gibson's movie cannot represent something that happened if it never really happened-- the movie is as fictional as the crucifixion tale it's based upon. The movie may upset some people because they see it as a revisionist version of something that upholds their superstitions and what they still think is not fiction. 

What's revisionist about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's revisionist about it?

 

It's revisionist if people think the story contains no real violence. Then to that end, Gibson's version is revising or re-staging events to satiate a violence-hungry modern audience.

 

It would be like remaking an ancient text about an orphan girl, and suddenly Shirley Temple is violent. Believers will say Shirley's life was not that violent, even when other studio moppets were playing Judas and trying to dethrone her as the reigning box office champ. LOL Fortunately most studios today refuse to green-light THE PASSION OF THE LITTLE PRINCESS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's revisionist if people think the story contains no real violence. Then to that end, Gibson's version is revising or re-staging events to satiate a violence-hungry modern audience.

 

It would be like remaking an ancient text about an orphan girl, and suddenly Shirley Temple is violent. Believers will say Shirley's life was not that violent, even when other studio moppets were playing Judas and trying to dethrone her as the reigning box office champ. LOL Fortunately most studios today refuse to green-light THE PASSION OF THE LITTLE PRINCESS.

 

Shirley in her biography said the studio wouldn't portray her wild side until her last films.

 

Playing a mobster mowing down the other gang in "Just Around The Corner" (1938).  Maybe in a remake real bullets will be used.

 

swelph.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that you are wondering about the taste and mindset of someone who, freely and of his own will, watched the atrocities enumerated here.

One of my strengths/weaknesses is a curiosity that has to be constantly reminded of the truth of CURIOSITY KILLED THE CAT. You must understand that, all too often, I find nice respectable movies to be as bland and uninteresting as Diet Coke; instead I like movies that are like German, Polish and Spanish sausage: tangy, savory and well seasoned. Obscenities like PINK FLAMINGOS, on the other hand, are nothing but f---s, and why anybody thought they deserved to be made and distributed to the blameless unsuspecting public is a mystery that only God Himself could satisfactorily explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CALIGULA (1979) Saw it once sort of boring after a while

EL TOPO -  Like the first half, not so much the second half

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE - Saw it once

THE NIGHT PORTER - Ok but I never have to watch it again

PINK FLAMINGOS - Weird John Waters flick about a contest to become "The Filthiest People Alive"

SALO, OR THE 120 NIGHTS OF SODOM - never seen

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974) - saw once wasn't impressed

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking films that disturb, this one tops the list for me. But kudos to these ladies for playing such risky roles!

 

notesheader.jpg

 

Cate Blanchett and Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Tin Drum" (1979) is a bit disturbing, TCM aired it last year - saw it only once.

 

Kid definitely needs therapy. 

 

The Tin Drum garnered a bit of late controversy in the 1990s when laws were passed that forbid even the implied depiction of sex with minors. Meaning even if the actors in the scene were of age, or if it was edited and used doubles in such a way as to make it appear that there was any kind of sexual contact involving a minor, then that was tantamount to child pornography, and anyone in possession of any of these movies would be charged as if they had actual child pornography. And this included video stores, which is how I learned of it, as I was managing one at the time. We received an urgent memo from the corporate office informing us that if we had any titles on the attached list, we were to pull them from the shelves immediately. One was The Tin Drum. That film had already led to the arrest of a video store proprietor in Oklahoma. 

 

The laws were eventually overturned (I'm not sure at what level).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Witchfinder General is one of the great films of all times, which must be seen in the British print. Salo is a brilliant movie, not without beautiful moments, despite the horror and cruelty. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) has some nerve-wracking camera work that sets an appropriate mood for the neo-horror genre of the 1970s. I Spit on Your Grave has a couple of horrific scenes, but is not very good. 

 

I first saw Witchfinder General and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the auditorium at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC.

 

salo5.png

 

Helene Surgere in Salo

I remember at the time how Price supposedly was into his usual and winning acerbic takes on the dialogue and director Michael Reeves forced his best performance out of him by playing it straight, in Witchfinder General. Salo is quite a film and hard to watch but eventually rewarding. My wife got seriously ill after seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre with her girlfriends at the drive-in when it came out and still blames the film for having to go to the ER.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 My wife got seriously ill after seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre with her girlfriends at the drive-in when it came out and still blames the film for having to go to the ER.

 

Films have that power to move, in various ways. I have a friend who went into labor when she saw Don't Look Now.

 

05d3f4adabf6e640feb5683f7cb5be79_1_orig.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Films have that power to move, in various ways. I have a friend who went into labor when she saw Don't Look Now.

 

 

So, I take it this childbirth took place on THIS side of the pond then, eh Swithin?!

 

(...yeah...haven't kidded you about "that 'u'" lately, have I...just figured it was about time again)

 

;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...