Friday, April 23, 2004
The Corporation
A documentary directed by Mark Achbar
A 145 minute documentary that should be seen and mulled over as it traces the rise of corporations that has become mega monsters akin to being compared as a psychopath, according to the makers of The Corporation.
What is engaging about The Corporation, despite its length, is that it is well-structured. The film gives a detailed history of how a corporation is formed and define what it is; list out its characteristics before submitting to the audience, point by point analysis of why most large corporations do harm to environment, manipulate kids, abuse human rights through archival footage, interviewing business CEOS, journalists, experts, to garner a wide range of opinions.
Ray C. Anderson, a born again CEO, reasons why its important that firms should aim to be “sustainable”; and not just be seen as a PR machine. Michael Moore made an appearance and ridicules the companies that finance his movies. Alongside appearances from notables like Noam Chomksy and Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, the documentary packs punch in convincingly explain why Corporations are more often that not abusive.
Caterina va in città (2003)
Directed by Paolo Virzì
There is much momentum and humor in Virzi. The pace is swift.
Caterina is an enjoyable Italian film – of how Caterina Lacovoni (Alice Teghil) reacts to her riotous schoolmates in school when she recently moved with her parents to the buzzing city of Rome. Her father, Giancarlo Iacovoni (Sergio Castellitto), is a disillusioned teacher who longs to be a famous writer while Agata (Margherita Buy), the mother of the family is a housewife that is always cooking; and misses the bitter sarcasm of her husband.
Caterina is soon wanted by two separating camps of girls in her class. She befriends initially the leftist, hippie – brought up Margherita (Carolina Iaquaniello) who hangs out with a group of dark haired teenagers. Margherita is unconventional, plays truant, hangs out at flea markets and reads to a poet’s tomb, whom she swear she wants to die; and whom she knew when he was alive. However, Giancarlo is upset and refuses them to hang out together when Marg gives Caterina too much alcohol and inscribes a tattoo on her arm.
She was deflected to Daniela’s (Federica Sbrenna) camp, who is the daughter of a government minister. Her entourage is a group of girlish blondes who just wants to have fun by stealing lipsticks from shopping malls for the sheer thrill. Hanging out with Daniela means visiting house parties with mini orgies and to be constantly under the heels of the paparazzi.
While the movie might serve as an allegory of the clash between the left and conservatism through Caterina; it portrays the futility of the middle class to enter the ranks of either group; as seen in Giancarlo’s lame attempts to suck up to both, and instead made a huge fool of himself after a comical appearance on television.
Caterina is imbued with traces of Truffaut’s children movies such as Small Changes and The 400 Blows, which are primarily about children or youths in an increasingly complex world. In a scene where the class discusses fascism, Paolo Virzì ends it with Caterina interrupting the heated debate with her ignorance of the subject.
Caterina’s friendly relationship with Margherita appears to be homosexual; which is, at the same time, suffused with a sense of spiritual innocence and depth. Of interest is the Australian guitarist neighbour whom Caterina, will later reveal to have taken a fancy to.
The flaw with Virzi is the lack of a seemingly credible plot. He doesn’t tie up the ends well as we are thrown unawares of the developments such as the infidelity of Agata; and how Caterina actually “falls in love” with the Australian boy. Caterina, as the protagonist, also lacks much psychological depth as she was thrown into a frenzy of whirlwind activities.
Caterina va in città – a delightful Italian treat.
A documentary directed by Mark Achbar
A 145 minute documentary that should be seen and mulled over as it traces the rise of corporations that has become mega monsters akin to being compared as a psychopath, according to the makers of The Corporation.
What is engaging about The Corporation, despite its length, is that it is well-structured. The film gives a detailed history of how a corporation is formed and define what it is; list out its characteristics before submitting to the audience, point by point analysis of why most large corporations do harm to environment, manipulate kids, abuse human rights through archival footage, interviewing business CEOS, journalists, experts, to garner a wide range of opinions.
Ray C. Anderson, a born again CEO, reasons why its important that firms should aim to be “sustainable”; and not just be seen as a PR machine. Michael Moore made an appearance and ridicules the companies that finance his movies. Alongside appearances from notables like Noam Chomksy and Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, the documentary packs punch in convincingly explain why Corporations are more often that not abusive.
Caterina va in città (2003)
Directed by Paolo Virzì
There is much momentum and humor in Virzi. The pace is swift.
Caterina is an enjoyable Italian film – of how Caterina Lacovoni (Alice Teghil) reacts to her riotous schoolmates in school when she recently moved with her parents to the buzzing city of Rome. Her father, Giancarlo Iacovoni (Sergio Castellitto), is a disillusioned teacher who longs to be a famous writer while Agata (Margherita Buy), the mother of the family is a housewife that is always cooking; and misses the bitter sarcasm of her husband.
Caterina is soon wanted by two separating camps of girls in her class. She befriends initially the leftist, hippie – brought up Margherita (Carolina Iaquaniello) who hangs out with a group of dark haired teenagers. Margherita is unconventional, plays truant, hangs out at flea markets and reads to a poet’s tomb, whom she swear she wants to die; and whom she knew when he was alive. However, Giancarlo is upset and refuses them to hang out together when Marg gives Caterina too much alcohol and inscribes a tattoo on her arm.
She was deflected to Daniela’s (Federica Sbrenna) camp, who is the daughter of a government minister. Her entourage is a group of girlish blondes who just wants to have fun by stealing lipsticks from shopping malls for the sheer thrill. Hanging out with Daniela means visiting house parties with mini orgies and to be constantly under the heels of the paparazzi.
While the movie might serve as an allegory of the clash between the left and conservatism through Caterina; it portrays the futility of the middle class to enter the ranks of either group; as seen in Giancarlo’s lame attempts to suck up to both, and instead made a huge fool of himself after a comical appearance on television.
Caterina is imbued with traces of Truffaut’s children movies such as Small Changes and The 400 Blows, which are primarily about children or youths in an increasingly complex world. In a scene where the class discusses fascism, Paolo Virzì ends it with Caterina interrupting the heated debate with her ignorance of the subject.
Caterina’s friendly relationship with Margherita appears to be homosexual; which is, at the same time, suffused with a sense of spiritual innocence and depth. Of interest is the Australian guitarist neighbour whom Caterina, will later reveal to have taken a fancy to.
The flaw with Virzi is the lack of a seemingly credible plot. He doesn’t tie up the ends well as we are thrown unawares of the developments such as the infidelity of Agata; and how Caterina actually “falls in love” with the Australian boy. Caterina, as the protagonist, also lacks much psychological depth as she was thrown into a frenzy of whirlwind activities.
Caterina va in città – a delightful Italian treat.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Twist
Directed by Jacob Tierney
Twist is an adaptation of Charles Dickens’ Oliver’s Twist set in contemporary Toronto portraying the vicious cruelty impaired on a group of young orphaned male misfits, recruited into prostitution. The protagonist is Dodge (Nick Stahl), a druggie whom, we first see waking up, in the morning, beside a male client, staring blankly into the camera.
One of possible reasons why Twist did not make it into the mainstream circuit or festivals despite its plausibility as a controversial film is because of its simple and low brow direction, which will however aid Tiernery’s credibility as a true indie filmmaker.
Even though it could be exploited with tons of sex, drugs and violent scenes, Tierney avoids these imageries or use them as sparingly as possible; and in the process, allows the spectator room and actors to move the plot.
Nick Stahl as Dodge has a striking resemblance of a younger but rugged looking Brad Pitt, is non-chalant about his screwed up life. In a dormitory with male prostitutes, they seem to have plenty of fun fooling around at night while soliciting male customers that walked or drove past.
Dodge was to meet another lonely soul, Oliver (Joshua Close) in a cafe and took him in, showing him the ropes of the trade. Joshua, young and innocent, is grateful to Oliver and gradually falls in love with the latter. Dodge, however finds his past catching up with him when his brother David (Tygh Runyan) followed and insisted he went home with him.
Tierney’s strength (besides low brow direction) is to portray his characters as human as possible without degenerating them into stereotypes or on the other extreme, glorifying them.
A King in New York
Directed by Charles Chaplin
Maybe not Chaplin’s best film but still something worth seeing if not to remind us of the paranoia of communism in Mc Carthyism in America during the 60s and a reminder of the perversion of celebrityhood.
Chaplin’s social consciousness directs its guns at advertisements and pop culture; and reminds us why money makes the world go round.
He is King Shahdov of Estrovia, who is exiled from his homeland because of his objection towards the building of atomic bombs. Upon arriving in New York, and still insisting on living the life of the royal, he has to appear on advertisements, cashing in on his unique status, to make ends meet. During his stay and on a school visit, he met a young boy (played by his own son Michael) who was the “consciousness” of the film.
Directed by Jacob Tierney
Twist is an adaptation of Charles Dickens’ Oliver’s Twist set in contemporary Toronto portraying the vicious cruelty impaired on a group of young orphaned male misfits, recruited into prostitution. The protagonist is Dodge (Nick Stahl), a druggie whom, we first see waking up, in the morning, beside a male client, staring blankly into the camera.
One of possible reasons why Twist did not make it into the mainstream circuit or festivals despite its plausibility as a controversial film is because of its simple and low brow direction, which will however aid Tiernery’s credibility as a true indie filmmaker.
Even though it could be exploited with tons of sex, drugs and violent scenes, Tierney avoids these imageries or use them as sparingly as possible; and in the process, allows the spectator room and actors to move the plot.
Nick Stahl as Dodge has a striking resemblance of a younger but rugged looking Brad Pitt, is non-chalant about his screwed up life. In a dormitory with male prostitutes, they seem to have plenty of fun fooling around at night while soliciting male customers that walked or drove past.
Dodge was to meet another lonely soul, Oliver (Joshua Close) in a cafe and took him in, showing him the ropes of the trade. Joshua, young and innocent, is grateful to Oliver and gradually falls in love with the latter. Dodge, however finds his past catching up with him when his brother David (Tygh Runyan) followed and insisted he went home with him.
Tierney’s strength (besides low brow direction) is to portray his characters as human as possible without degenerating them into stereotypes or on the other extreme, glorifying them.
A King in New York
Directed by Charles Chaplin
Maybe not Chaplin’s best film but still something worth seeing if not to remind us of the paranoia of communism in Mc Carthyism in America during the 60s and a reminder of the perversion of celebrityhood.
Chaplin’s social consciousness directs its guns at advertisements and pop culture; and reminds us why money makes the world go round.
He is King Shahdov of Estrovia, who is exiled from his homeland because of his objection towards the building of atomic bombs. Upon arriving in New York, and still insisting on living the life of the royal, he has to appear on advertisements, cashing in on his unique status, to make ends meet. During his stay and on a school visit, he met a young boy (played by his own son Michael) who was the “consciousness” of the film.
The Passion of the Christ
Directed by Mel Gibson
The reviews and opinion heaping praise and crying murder against Mel Gibson’s latest Hollywood Biblical epic, The Passion of the Christ is the latest controversy that has simultaneously spawned off fan sites and hogged billboard postings on either side of the argument.
Plot-wise, The Passion of the Christ supposedly follows the life of Jesus 12 hours before the cruxification. We witness Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, Jesus being captured, brought to the high priests, flogged by Roman soldiers, sentenced to cruxification by Pontius Pilate under the duress of an angry riotous mob, carrying the cross before his death. It is broken up with Jesus’ memory snatches as he suffers under the indictment of his captors.
Though the Passion is made standard blockbuster Hollywood style – big budget, large cast, life sets, language coaches for actors and extras to create authentic Aramic and latin deliverance; and to create Mel’s definition of “realism” (Hollywood realism); it breaks away from traditional Hollywood in some ways.
Historical Authenticity - Language Use, Scenes and Imagery
It is obvious that Hollywood producers make only English speaking films. In The Passion, Gibson has chosen not just to use a foreign language, but an ancient one to recapture the “realistic” aspect and reinforce Mel’s insistence and principle of complying with historical accuracy.
The problem with using Aramic and Latin; and basically some faults (which we shall discuss later) that critics and scholars have with Passion is that they were possibly NOT the language used at that time. Instead, most of them believe that the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem at that time would be native and hence spoke the local dialects, Mishnaic Hebrew or, based on funerary evidence, Greek. Pontius Pilate and the chief priest Caiaphas would have conversed in Greek as well and not Latin.
Passion is also charged for not strictly adhering to the Bible whether be it The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and or John. Instead, some of the scenes are creations of artistic license and influenced by extra-biblical sources, notably and largely from Sister Anne Emmerich "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ." and Mary of Agreda “Mystical City of God”.
In the opening scene for example, Jesus praying in the forest is not recorded in the Bible though the prayers themselves are drawn from the Psalms.
When Jesus is later captured in the forest, Mary was abruptly awoken and alarmed, "What makes this night different from all other nights?". This was never mentioned in the Bible though it is probably a reference from the Jewish Liturgy.
Some other examples of scenes which are not in the Bible include the one where Mary and Magdalene were at the temple witnessing the whipping of Jesus by the soldiers; and when Pilate’s wife advise her husband not to sentence Jesus to death.
That said, this does not mean that Mel was deliberately creating factual inaccuracies. As a Hollywood veteran, his idea of stretching “facts” to create “truth” and “entertainment” is consistent with what the industry has been famous for.
The mindset of the audience, upon and after watching the movie, is hence, his own independent judge to the “accuracy” of the story. Certainly, from a scientific point of view, the story of Jesus is almost impossible to validate and understand from one source; and with extra-biblical information that sometimes contradict the official recordings; differences arose which to a certain extent, increases the complexity for a film maker to create an “authentic” movie.
Mel best summarize and opine in the official website production notes, “I really wanted to express the hugeness of the sacrifice, as well as the horror of it. But I also wanted a film that has moments of real lyricism and beauty and an abiding sense of love, because it is ultimately a story of faith, hope and love. That, in my view, is the greatest story we can ever tell.”
With that statement, one can see he is more determined to film the “spirit” of the Passion Play rather than following official accounts.
Accusations – Anti-Semitism and Unwarranted Violence
The two main accusations against The Passion is its portrayal of Jews as a barbaric mob intent on crucifying Jesus in which critics accuse, will arouse anti-semitic feelings and actions; and the intense violence and bloodshed that dominates the screen.
Though the first allegation seems fair; as the Jews are portrayed as vicious, riotous and even willing to free a murderer rather than Jesus, one must take into account that such scenes are taken from the Bible. There are a few shots whereby some Jewish folks and women cried out against a suffering Jesus as he was carrying his cross. In fact, it is the roman soldiers that are portrayed as the more evil of the two as they demean Jesus and inflict bodily punishment on him.
It is difficult to believe that spectators will develop strong anti-semitic feelings simply due to watching The Passion for two main reasons. The most important reason being The Passion is an “entertainment” movie and not a factual documentary. Moreover, Jesus preaches “loving the enemy” which was mentioned in one of the scenes. While his captors continually taunt and humiliate him, he never retaliate but in fact, pray to God and ask for their forgiveness.
The violence depicted in The Passion is much harder to explain and is the movie’s pitfall. Spectators are drained of their emotions and possibly aghast by the beatings, charred skin and blood.
In the sequence where Jesus was flayed by the Romans soldiers with whips and cat o nine tails, Mel adopts classic Hollywood treatment by editing the scenes to manipulate spectator’s emotions. The flagellation is interrupted with shots of the cruel and laughing soldiers who impose the punishment; the tearing Mary and Magdalene; the presence of Pontius Pilate’s wife who delivers clean towels; a shot of a guard (acting as a neutral bystander); the androgynous devil; and flashbacks of Jesus.
These shots allows us to perceive Jesus’ suffering not only as laidback audiences but also seeing how the others feel of Jesus’s suffering which is a multitude of emotions from executioner’s derision to neutrality of the overseer to the pain of Mary and Magdalene.
The effect of such violence and multiple perspectives numbs and confuses the spectator, leaving them more tired rather than inspired.
It is tricky to argue whether the violence in The Passion is unmitigated (to show truth) or purely for sensationalism. On the one hand, if the violence is created for achieving “cinematic” truth; then Mel has successfully made that movie. As an artistic vision defined in Hollywood terms, The Passion definitely achieves that goal. Even if the purpose of the violence is to arouse sensationalism, it might still have its merits because it is art and art does show violence unflinchingly. Hence, the debatable point of whether the violence is justified in The Passion very much depends on the context.
The violence in The Passion is visually “in your face” and hardly “subtle”. Yet, it is artistically pieced together as they intercut with shots of profile reactions, the appearance of the devil as a metaphorical fetter; sometimes mired with stylistic slow mo or delved into flashbacks.
As such one can say with confidence that the bloodshed in the film is not merely to create sensationalism but lay in them meanings within the context of juxtaposition.
Bits and Pieces
It is interesting to note that Mel has chosen to include humanistic scenes of Jesus praying to God in the forest; Judas portrayed as a weakling; a cowardly Peter who refused to acknowledge his relationship with Jesus.
The portrayal of Jesus as a frail human who is also Son of God; and possessing unlimited power creates double meanings. Jesus’ fears, worries and sufferings are as humanlike as all of us. His cries of pain, tears, and blood shed are all instinctively human but his being as Son of God and belief in God Father is what makes him noble, divine and supreme.
Conclusion
The Passion of the Christ may well be Mel Gibson’s best work to date. It is as much a product of “Hollywood” and a “play” of the spirit. Now that he has tackled the greatest story that he can ever tell in his own way, his only challenge is to overdo himself.
Bibliography:
Inside Mel Gibson's "Passion" – an interview with Rev. Mark Stanger, canon precentor and associate pastor of San Francisco's premier mainstream Episcopalian church, Grace Cathedral by Cintra Wilson, published as an article in Salon.com. Cintra Wilson is the author of "A Massive Swelling: Celebrity Re-examined as a Grotesque, Crippling Disease and other Cultural Revelations." Her forthcoming novel is "Colors Insulting to Nature." (HarperCollins)
From belief net and belief staff, “Frequently Asked Questions About Mel Gibson's 'Passion' “and “'The Passion': What's Not in the Bible? “–frequently asked questions and point by point detailed analysis of movie scenes
Directed by Mel Gibson
The reviews and opinion heaping praise and crying murder against Mel Gibson’s latest Hollywood Biblical epic, The Passion of the Christ is the latest controversy that has simultaneously spawned off fan sites and hogged billboard postings on either side of the argument.
Plot-wise, The Passion of the Christ supposedly follows the life of Jesus 12 hours before the cruxification. We witness Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, Jesus being captured, brought to the high priests, flogged by Roman soldiers, sentenced to cruxification by Pontius Pilate under the duress of an angry riotous mob, carrying the cross before his death. It is broken up with Jesus’ memory snatches as he suffers under the indictment of his captors.
Though the Passion is made standard blockbuster Hollywood style – big budget, large cast, life sets, language coaches for actors and extras to create authentic Aramic and latin deliverance; and to create Mel’s definition of “realism” (Hollywood realism); it breaks away from traditional Hollywood in some ways.
Historical Authenticity - Language Use, Scenes and Imagery
It is obvious that Hollywood producers make only English speaking films. In The Passion, Gibson has chosen not just to use a foreign language, but an ancient one to recapture the “realistic” aspect and reinforce Mel’s insistence and principle of complying with historical accuracy.
The problem with using Aramic and Latin; and basically some faults (which we shall discuss later) that critics and scholars have with Passion is that they were possibly NOT the language used at that time. Instead, most of them believe that the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem at that time would be native and hence spoke the local dialects, Mishnaic Hebrew or, based on funerary evidence, Greek. Pontius Pilate and the chief priest Caiaphas would have conversed in Greek as well and not Latin.
Passion is also charged for not strictly adhering to the Bible whether be it The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and or John. Instead, some of the scenes are creations of artistic license and influenced by extra-biblical sources, notably and largely from Sister Anne Emmerich "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ." and Mary of Agreda “Mystical City of God”.
In the opening scene for example, Jesus praying in the forest is not recorded in the Bible though the prayers themselves are drawn from the Psalms.
When Jesus is later captured in the forest, Mary was abruptly awoken and alarmed, "What makes this night different from all other nights?". This was never mentioned in the Bible though it is probably a reference from the Jewish Liturgy.
Some other examples of scenes which are not in the Bible include the one where Mary and Magdalene were at the temple witnessing the whipping of Jesus by the soldiers; and when Pilate’s wife advise her husband not to sentence Jesus to death.
That said, this does not mean that Mel was deliberately creating factual inaccuracies. As a Hollywood veteran, his idea of stretching “facts” to create “truth” and “entertainment” is consistent with what the industry has been famous for.
The mindset of the audience, upon and after watching the movie, is hence, his own independent judge to the “accuracy” of the story. Certainly, from a scientific point of view, the story of Jesus is almost impossible to validate and understand from one source; and with extra-biblical information that sometimes contradict the official recordings; differences arose which to a certain extent, increases the complexity for a film maker to create an “authentic” movie.
Mel best summarize and opine in the official website production notes, “I really wanted to express the hugeness of the sacrifice, as well as the horror of it. But I also wanted a film that has moments of real lyricism and beauty and an abiding sense of love, because it is ultimately a story of faith, hope and love. That, in my view, is the greatest story we can ever tell.”
With that statement, one can see he is more determined to film the “spirit” of the Passion Play rather than following official accounts.
Accusations – Anti-Semitism and Unwarranted Violence
The two main accusations against The Passion is its portrayal of Jews as a barbaric mob intent on crucifying Jesus in which critics accuse, will arouse anti-semitic feelings and actions; and the intense violence and bloodshed that dominates the screen.
Though the first allegation seems fair; as the Jews are portrayed as vicious, riotous and even willing to free a murderer rather than Jesus, one must take into account that such scenes are taken from the Bible. There are a few shots whereby some Jewish folks and women cried out against a suffering Jesus as he was carrying his cross. In fact, it is the roman soldiers that are portrayed as the more evil of the two as they demean Jesus and inflict bodily punishment on him.
It is difficult to believe that spectators will develop strong anti-semitic feelings simply due to watching The Passion for two main reasons. The most important reason being The Passion is an “entertainment” movie and not a factual documentary. Moreover, Jesus preaches “loving the enemy” which was mentioned in one of the scenes. While his captors continually taunt and humiliate him, he never retaliate but in fact, pray to God and ask for their forgiveness.
The violence depicted in The Passion is much harder to explain and is the movie’s pitfall. Spectators are drained of their emotions and possibly aghast by the beatings, charred skin and blood.
In the sequence where Jesus was flayed by the Romans soldiers with whips and cat o nine tails, Mel adopts classic Hollywood treatment by editing the scenes to manipulate spectator’s emotions. The flagellation is interrupted with shots of the cruel and laughing soldiers who impose the punishment; the tearing Mary and Magdalene; the presence of Pontius Pilate’s wife who delivers clean towels; a shot of a guard (acting as a neutral bystander); the androgynous devil; and flashbacks of Jesus.
These shots allows us to perceive Jesus’ suffering not only as laidback audiences but also seeing how the others feel of Jesus’s suffering which is a multitude of emotions from executioner’s derision to neutrality of the overseer to the pain of Mary and Magdalene.
The effect of such violence and multiple perspectives numbs and confuses the spectator, leaving them more tired rather than inspired.
It is tricky to argue whether the violence in The Passion is unmitigated (to show truth) or purely for sensationalism. On the one hand, if the violence is created for achieving “cinematic” truth; then Mel has successfully made that movie. As an artistic vision defined in Hollywood terms, The Passion definitely achieves that goal. Even if the purpose of the violence is to arouse sensationalism, it might still have its merits because it is art and art does show violence unflinchingly. Hence, the debatable point of whether the violence is justified in The Passion very much depends on the context.
The violence in The Passion is visually “in your face” and hardly “subtle”. Yet, it is artistically pieced together as they intercut with shots of profile reactions, the appearance of the devil as a metaphorical fetter; sometimes mired with stylistic slow mo or delved into flashbacks.
As such one can say with confidence that the bloodshed in the film is not merely to create sensationalism but lay in them meanings within the context of juxtaposition.
Bits and Pieces
It is interesting to note that Mel has chosen to include humanistic scenes of Jesus praying to God in the forest; Judas portrayed as a weakling; a cowardly Peter who refused to acknowledge his relationship with Jesus.
The portrayal of Jesus as a frail human who is also Son of God; and possessing unlimited power creates double meanings. Jesus’ fears, worries and sufferings are as humanlike as all of us. His cries of pain, tears, and blood shed are all instinctively human but his being as Son of God and belief in God Father is what makes him noble, divine and supreme.
Conclusion
The Passion of the Christ may well be Mel Gibson’s best work to date. It is as much a product of “Hollywood” and a “play” of the spirit. Now that he has tackled the greatest story that he can ever tell in his own way, his only challenge is to overdo himself.
Bibliography:
Inside Mel Gibson's "Passion" – an interview with Rev. Mark Stanger, canon precentor and associate pastor of San Francisco's premier mainstream Episcopalian church, Grace Cathedral by Cintra Wilson, published as an article in Salon.com. Cintra Wilson is the author of "A Massive Swelling: Celebrity Re-examined as a Grotesque, Crippling Disease and other Cultural Revelations." Her forthcoming novel is "Colors Insulting to Nature." (HarperCollins)
From belief net and belief staff, “Frequently Asked Questions About Mel Gibson's 'Passion' “and “'The Passion': What's Not in the Bible? “–frequently asked questions and point by point detailed analysis of movie scenes
