The Passion of the Christ is it horror?

No, you are just a post whore.

Not horror. Not good either.

The only horror is how virulently anti-Semitic it is.

I actually thought the same thing when it first came out. It is a horror film... in a way, just maybe not in the sense of how we would normally define one. It shows the horrors of humanity. Whether you believe in Jesus or not, the horrible treatment of a human being like that is horrific. Does it have jump out of the seat scares? No. Does it give you a sick feeling in your gut? Sure. Does it have monsters/serial killers? Yes.

So, you could interpret it as horror or a religious awakening. Either way, though, it's still pornography.

And exactly why would it be considered pornography? Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always been led to believe that pornography dealt with sex and I don't remember a single scene in Passion that could even be remotely construed as sexual.

I'd go with "slasher flick" personally as it wasn't so much scary as it was a gore-fest.

As far as porn goes I think that fits pretty well but I think slasher flicks are a kind of porn anyway. Gore for the the sake of gore, skin for the sake of skin, romance for the sake of romance, action for the sake... etc.

It doesn't really matter they all fit the porn category to me. To be fair Passion is very high quality/concept porn, much like Eyes Wide Shut, Matrix Revolutions or Edward Penis Hands.

buffys said it well.

Horror to me is a movie that is about death as much as it is about the supernatural. That's what horror is, the blend of death and the supernatural. I think every horror movie has these two elements.

I would liken it closer to a Herschall Gordon Lewis exploitation flick. But even that isn't accurate.
Ostensibly, it's just a torture show much like Blood Sucking Freaks or one of the Guinea Pig flicks. The difference is the intent. Gibson doesn't set out to tittilate through violence. The violence is meant to display Christ's character (specifically, his devotion to his beliefs). Regardless of your religious beliefs, you can't overlook the messages of the film. That is, Christ endured great tortures for humanity and humanity is capable of heartless cruelty.

I just found it to be extremely boring and over hyped. What ever other kind of movie it is.

you guys are looking at the intent of this movie from a secular point of view when, to understand it, you have to look at it from the perspective of a religous guy. you know, like mel.

anyway, this thing is a passion play... which in lay terms is catholics getting their noses rubbed in the suffering of christ and digging the hell out of it. it seems kinda weird to want to put a non religious label on something that has a specific religious context. I guess if you feel the psychology behind both is the same... but are any of you doctor phil? I thought not.



oh, and eyes wide shut is the farthest thing from high concept porn.

but that's a story......................... for another thread.

Could you explain that, Rath?

I don't think you have to be any religious at all to understand the message of the movie. It shows the torturement of a famous person that lived 2000 years ago. Wonders hey and ney, son of god whatever, it's quite fact that this dude lived and told others to appreciate life and be peaceful etc. Some guys were pissed off and made him being nailed to the cross. It doesn't matter what landsmen those men were, or what religious beliefs they had (and Gibson doesn't point the finger on anyone saying THOSE GUYS are GUILTY) - it's the fact that they're killing an innocent person because they see a danger in him - and the point of him behaving the way he does. He isn't angry, or whines, he prays for them - which is absolutely incredible based on the cruelty they did to him.

That's what the Passion's all about.

What part of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE is supernatural?

You can't remove the film from religion. It's inherently about religion. It's about the son of God.
Whether or not you believe in God or catholicism in real life doesn't matter. The film requires a pre-existing belief in the subject matter or at least an ability to suspend disbelief.
I don't believe in God or the Devil, but that doesn't mean I thought Exorcist was really just about a kid that needs some ritalin.

1. The film rejects pretty much every tenant of the Vatican's rules for presenting the Passion in dramatic format.

2. The characters in the film are clearly divided into "good" and "bad" Jews, with the bad Jews being made up of the common sterotypes. I know these sterotypes were based on historical fact/prescendent/whatever, but Gibson was an incredibly immature filmmaker in this regard.

3. The film includes the infamous line, although it is not subtitled, in which the Jews at the temple take "responsibility" (for lack of a better word) for the crucifixion, which has been interpreted as being passed down through generations and used as a defense for hate crimes.

There was a really good article in Commonwealth magazine that I will try to find that goes into this, but those are the three I can remember.

And even if it wasn't anti-semitic, it'd still be a bad, poorly constructed movie.

Wether the movie is good or bad, that's a matter of taste, but I still can't see any anti-semitic aspects in the movie. Okay, that one group of temple Jews is clearly responsible for Jesus' death. They want it, they insist on it, they get it. Now who cares about them being Jews?

If anybody interprets that as a hidden message saying the culture of the Jews must be forever hated because their ancestors killed the guy that was called god's son 2000 years ago, so what? It's just Mel Gibson's interpretation of the things that happened, and correct me if I'm not right but this infamous line comes right off the bible, right?

So, who's the problem in here? The dudes who wrote it, the dudes who are assumed to have said it or the man who brings it to the big screen?

Take this one. Hitler and his men killed thousands of men and spread death and horror throughout the world. In Schindler's List (or any other movie) it's clearly said that Germans are responsible for that - and it's right. Well, I AM german and I don't give a damn about comments like that. Why? Because it has really nothing to do with my generation. It doesn't bother me. Whatever my ancestors did, it's not my fault and no one can blame me for that - and I'm certainly not expected to be ashamed what my ancestors did to other people. Have nothing to do with them and I'm devinitively glad about it. I'm ashamed of the humans who did it, but I don't feel like they're from my kind of humans. Humans are humans, no matter which color, which language, which culture or which religion they're born in.

Now if Jews or whoever else are pissed off because someone states that their ancestors might be responsible for the death of Jesus, they really shouldn't care. Then they're taking their ancestors, their culture and their religion too seriously - or didn't understand the message right yet.

Do you think Jesus or Bhudda or Jehova or Frank Sinatra cares about anyone pointing the finger at anyone else saying you're the scapegoat, it's your fault? No. It's about forgiveness, so the cruel things and those to be bashed should be the happenings, not their creators. Mel used the original language to convey the pictures and feelings of the story, it was the studio who insisted on subtitles for the audience. Big, big mistake if you ask me.

Porn.

True, but the moral is that the entire time he wasn't angry at his tormentors; he forgave them. So it's horror, but while you can get rid of the religion part you can't get rid of the fact that the "torturee" (Jesus, Ahkmed, etc.) forgave them. Horror with a "nice" moral.

But, yes, any "passion play" is most likely porn. It's preaching to the converted.

You musn't know the meaning of that word.

It's not a passion play. In order for it to be so, it has to follow the guidelines set forth by the Church at Vatican II, one of which specifically prohibits using the line where the Jews take responsiblity for the death of Christ. Of course, Gibson doesn't follow VII.

How would you define it? Pornography isn't a form of titillation? Titillation isn't "to excite another, especially in a superficial, pleasurable manner"? True, I may not be using it in the literal sense of how we define pornography, but isn't the depiction of torture in order for, as you yourself said, something along the lines of "holy porn"? (Sorry, I have no better term for it.) If, as you say, Catholics get off (religiously, not literally) on the torture (and what I admit to be a great moral of how Jesus responded to his torturers) again and again, then what exactly is that?

SOURCE: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=titillation


Bill Moyers: “Once you decide to titillate instead of illuminate... you create a climate of expectation that requires a higher and higher level of intensity.”
This is a quote that I believe brings my contribution to the discussion back to the idea of whether this is horror or not and what buffys said: "The Passion of the Christ" is a horror film. It is a horror film with a powerful message. It is also, in a sense, religious pornography. As buffys said (and I completely agree), most horror films are pornography. They are gore and scares, etc. for the sake of gore and scares, etc.

Now whether or not pornography (sexual, or any other) in certain situations is a Bad Thing is a completely different discussion.

porn is something thats sole purpose is to satisfy a prurient interest with no higher artistic or moral value. although I did make that joke about catholics enjoying getting their noses rubbed in christ's suffering, it was just a joke. they honestly feel that they're bettering themselves for it... that they're understanding something vital to the human condition, that is the sacrifice by which we can achieve eternal salvation. just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't have a higher intention than just reveling in gore.

I understand where you're coming from. But, seriously, why can't we all just live good lives? Do we really need to subject ourselves to THAT in order to better ourselves? Maybe that's why I don't buy it.