A "Softer, Gentler" Snuff Film
The other cheek
First Deep Throat, now The Passion...
Mel Gibson is releasing The Passion of The Christ: Recut – the movie’s got more cuts, the messiah’s got less.
So what was the point, Mel?
If the graphic violence is so readily dispensable, then why include it in the first place? Despite conventional wisdom, it’s now apparent that the buckets of blood were not in fact what the movie was about. So if the violence is unnecessary in order to convey the film’s message, then by definition that makes it gratuitous.
I may not totally agree with him, but at least Steven Spielberg had the conviction that every shot, every drop of blood, every utterance of the f-bomb and every exposed breast was absolutely integral in both Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan – even when it could’ve jeopardized his own financial gain or the films’ ability to be shown in certain nations and media.
At least now we’ll all be spared the uproar when some network decides to air an edited version of The Passion. Won’t we? Won't we?
posted by The Pop Culture Petri Dish at 9:36 PM
4 Comments:
I hear the new version is ditching the narration and will have clues that reveal Jesus is actually a replicant.
I have not seen the movie, but I believe the violence was necessary for the ORIGINAL release. To prove a point, to show a side, I suppose that people don't think of when they think of christianity. Mr Gibson wanted to show what he felt his saviour had gone through for him.
Now, because of complaints, I suppose he's cutting it so it can be shared even with those who can't stomach violence.
i think the cuts are more of a sellout than keeping in the original violence was.
(*)>
Your last point is what I was trying to get at (if you look past my snarking). I would respect him more if he stuck to his guns.
wild!
Post a Comment
<< Home