Christmas1225 said:
A THOUGHT.....People go watch freddie cruger, exorcist, salem's lot, chainsaw massacres, the vietnams movies....horrors blood and guts....and those are "art" and entertainment....but put on a movie about the sacrifice of Christ which has a purpose and people are surprised at the gore.
Hi Christmas,
I think there's a difference in the type of gore. Horror and War movies tend to display gore as a way to show fear and try and make you cringe. In most cases they are a relatively quick, and yet painful, death where Freddie then goes on to his next bimbo victim and another bomb goes off in Vietnam - mostly snapshots of the whole film.
I think the outcry for The Passion is that the 'gore' and pain was all directed at one person and the fact it was relentless.
Both types of films were made in a specific way in order to evoke a specific reaction from those who were watching it.
Generally, horror movies aren't trying to make you feel much sympathy or gratitude to those who are dying. They normally die because they run up the stairs instead of out the front door like any normal person would.
Gibson was aiming for something else, to show the pain that He went through for us, and to do that he had to use the relentless punishment.
I don't think The Passion was gorier than a lot of other films I've seen, and I don't think people were all that surprised at the 'gore' aspect - just at the fact it was all focused on one person and wouldn't let up - and whereas the camera would normally pan away to something else, it didn't here.
Please remember that this is a book forum and, in this case, we are discussing movies. We do not have a platform to air our religious views, although there are times when I would like to do so.
As a piece of cinematography, I thought Gibson did an excellent job of portraying what he wanted to.
Regards
Mxx