Quote:
Originally posted by dissention
You missed what I was trying to say:
What is the point in producing, marketing, and watching a two-hour snuff film?
I would honestly like to know why people made a movie that is simply about the torture and crucifixion of the supposed son of God. The people who are going to pay money to see it already know that Jesus supposedly died for their sins. This movie serves absolutely no purpose except for Gibson to make money. Anyone who tries to say that isn't the case is delusional. Just look at they pre-movie hype that he built up. He started doing it back in 2000 before he even had it financed.
I'll tell you one thing, though. I wish the late and great Pauline Kael was alive to review this film; she'd tell it like it is. 
|
I agree Gibson, like every other producer in the world, did this hoping to make money. But, I see that separately than the issue of why make this move at all. I do not think it is a bad thing to make a film about the agony and/or passion of Christ just as I do not think it is inappropriate to make a flim about any "controversial" subject. I mean on slightly similar lines, is it inappropraite for Jewish people to make a film about Moses and their persecution by the Egyptians? Is it inappropriate to show the white masters beating their slaves to death even though not all masters did that? So, I conclude it is how people are using this film is that I object to.
Finally, the snuff reference is cute, but inappropriate as I do not think anyone is beating off to this film, although you never know as there are some sickos in this world