Mel Gibson Creeps Me Out...

January 3, 2006 10:33 AM

Mel Gibson Has Gone Off the Deep EndSo, this is a one link post, but this trailer breaks my brain. Look for the surprise around 1:46. (You may have to frame by frame it...)
posted by Jeff_Larson (111 comments total)

Please let's all stop apologizing for one link posts. A sub-par link with more liknks thrown in is still crap.

/derail.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:38 AM on January 3, 2006

If you're getting the same "atom" error that I did when I tried to download the trailer, you can see frame in question here.
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:38 AM on January 3, 2006

Bahaha! That's hillarious. Seriously though, am I the only one excited by this project? Gibson's weirdness aside, I'm really interested in the idea of an authentically done movie set in the pre-Columbian Mayan civilization.
posted by unreason at 10:41 AM on January 3, 2006

That frame with the hirsute Mel Gibson smoking a cigarette is so crazy! Everyone will watch this trailer so they can find it!

Oh wait, that's probably exactly what Touchstone wants.
posted by driveler at 10:43 AM on January 3, 2006

Couldn't open. Bad "public atom"! I don't understand the frame in question.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:43 AM on January 3, 2006

I don't know what you guys are talking about.

But I do have a strange subconcious desire to spark one up.
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:45 AM on January 3, 2006

For those who couldn't be bothered:



This actually almost makes me not hate the Gibber...
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:46 AM on January 3, 2006

Mel gone off the deep end?

Been gone a long time I'd say.
posted by nofundy at 10:46 AM on January 3, 2006

i guess this is funny.
posted by wakko at 10:46 AM on January 3, 2006

Mel Gibson looks like Saddam Hussein in that frame.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 10:47 AM on January 3, 2006

Seriously though, am I the only one excited by this project? Gibson's weirdness aside, I'm really interested in the idea of an authentically done movie set in the pre-Columbian Mayan civilization.

I too am excited for the same reasons as you are.
posted by effwerd at 10:49 AM on January 3, 2006

Has anyone seen this trailer in the theater? It seeks to entice you into watching the movie by volume alone.
posted by Jart at 10:49 AM on January 3, 2006

For some mysterious reason I feel like buying a plaid shirt.
posted by carter at 10:49 AM on January 3, 2006

So what the hell is a "bad public atom"?
posted by 2sheets at 10:49 AM on January 3, 2006

hahha what a crazy bastard.
posted by pwally at 10:49 AM on January 3, 2006

Mel gone off the deep end?

At this point I'd say the deep end has gone off him, frankly.
posted by jonmc at 10:50 AM on January 3, 2006

am I the only one excited by this project? Gibson's weirdness aside, I'm really interested in the idea of an authentically done movie set in the pre-Columbian Mayan civilization.
posted by unreason


no , i also like the idea , but look who is directing. yikes!
posted by nola at 10:51 AM on January 3, 2006

Why is that crazy?

Are we just another vector for viral marketing? (of course we are)
posted by caddis at 10:51 AM on January 3, 2006

This is a thing of beauty.
I think I just realized why I used to like Mel so much in the old days (pre-Passion). Then again, that damn "Man Without A Face" movie was creapy. Seriously.
posted by daq at 10:53 AM on January 3, 2006

no , i also like the idea , but look who is directing. yikes!
posted by nola at 1:51 PM EST on January 3 [!]

So? A director's lack of moral integrity and/or sanity doesn't mean they can't make good movies. Polanski's a well thought of director, and he's a rapist, a child molestor, and a fugitive from justice. D.W. Griffith was a pioneer in movie making, but Birth of Nation is essentially a love letter to the Klan. Gibsom may be nuts, but that doesn't mean that he can't make a good movie if he wants to.
posted by unreason at 10:56 AM on January 3, 2006

Is this something I need to download a 47MB file to understand!? Come on...
posted by odinsdream at 10:57 AM on January 3, 2006

Is this something I need to download a 47MB file to understand!? Come on...

Yeah, the link probably should have gone to the regular-sized trailer page, not the HD page.
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:59 AM on January 3, 2006

Gibson's ability to make films set in actual historical times and dealing with actual historical events is almost nonexistant. He should stop attempting to dramatize history and start simply making science fiction films, where he can be as batshit crazy as he likes.

Hell, I miss Mad Max. I think we all do.
posted by maxsparber at 11:00 AM on January 3, 2006

No archaeologists were harmed in the making of this teaser.
posted by medium format at 11:00 AM on January 3, 2006

Polanski's a well thought of director ... Ditto Woody Allen who is also pretty creepy in a child molesting kind of way. But he also made some pretty good films.
posted by carter at 11:01 AM on January 3, 2006

What would happen if Tom Cruise starred in a Mel Gibson movie? Would Hollywood implode finally?
posted by longbaugh at 11:08 AM on January 3, 2006

insane people do sometimes make good movies, but this just looks like a period piece. is there any story here? at least DW Griffith invented some things.
posted by destro at 11:08 AM on January 3, 2006

So? A director's lack of moral integrity and/or sanity doesn't mean they can't make good movies.

I don't particularly care if Gibson's a good person or crazy or whatever. I just have my doubts as to how historically accurate a movie this will be given the many errors (pdf) of the Passion.
posted by longdaysjourney at 11:12 AM on January 3, 2006

No archaeologists were harmed consulted in the making of this teaser Christian Crusade apologist propoganda.

"A Great Civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within".

Well, the guns helped. And the broadswords. And the horses. And the diseases.
posted by CynicalKnight at 11:14 AM on January 3, 2006

Um, all filmmakers are a bit batshit crazy. You kinda have to be.
posted by NationalKato at 11:14 AM on January 3, 2006

IFILM: Top 25 Viral Videos of 2005
posted by caddis at 11:20 AM on January 3, 2006

That is a fucking awesome 1 frame splice in. Thanks for pointing it out!
posted by cavalier at 11:20 AM on January 3, 2006

"Um, all filmmakersfilmic storytellers are a bit batshit crazy."
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:20 AM on January 3, 2006

Well, the guns helped. And the broadswords. And the horses. And the diseases.
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:14 PM EST on January 3 [!]

You're thinking of the Aztecs and the Incas. Although there were still Mayan city-states around to be conquered by the Spanish, the Mayan empire had pretty much broken up, and had been in decline due to a number of causes both social and environmental since about the 9th century, long before the Spanish conquerers got there.
posted by unreason at 11:20 AM on January 3, 2006

Well, the guns helped. And the broadswords. And the horses. And the diseases.

You've got the wrong mesoamerican civilization there. The Mayans were in decline and ruin long before the white man came.
posted by TungstenChef at 11:22 AM on January 3, 2006

You've got the wrong mesoamerican civilization there

Perhaps I was mislead by:

it took the Spanish over twenty years to gain significant ground and almost two hundred years to completely subject the Maya of the Yucatan to Spanish Rule
posted by CynicalKnight at 11:27 AM on January 3, 2006

Thanks caddis! I hadn't seen any of those videos. Seriously! Except for Leeroy.
posted by WolfDaddy at 11:27 AM on January 3, 2006

Gibson is crazy as a loon and quite annoying but I have to admit I'm amused by the frame, if only because it reminds me of a simpler time when everyone thought Mel was just pretending to be batshit to get laughs. I'm interested in the film too.
posted by LeeJay at 11:30 AM on January 3, 2006

Jesus Christ. The man killed who knows how many Kurds and they're letting him direct a movie from jail? This is simply unacceptable.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 11:31 AM on January 3, 2006

Polanski's a well thought of director, and he's a rapist, a child molestor, and a fugitive from justice. D.W. Griffith was a pioneer in movie making, but Birth of Nation is essentially a love letter to the Klan. Gibsom (sic) may be nuts, but that doesn't mean that he can't make a good movie

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

lala la la lala lala
posted by zarah at 11:37 AM on January 3, 2006

Perhaps I was mislead by:

it took the Spanish over twenty years to gain significant ground and almost two hundred years to completely subject the Maya of the Yucatan to Spanish Rule
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:27 PM EST on January 3 [!]

You were, actually. The Spanish did fight the Mayan people, including that of the Yucatan. But the states they fought were the shattered city-states left over after the Mayan empire's general collapse. It's a lot like the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire fell, but its people didn't disappear. They dissolved into several less powerful states. There were still Italians, decendants of the Romans, living in their various city-states, but the Roman Empire as such no longer really existed. The Inca and the Aztecs, on the other hand, did have thriving empires that were destroyed by the Spanish.
posted by unreason at 11:37 AM on January 3, 2006

to be fair, the passion wasn't supposed to be historically accurate: it retold the story (as opposed to history...) of jesus' persecution/excecution.

i liken gibson's use of aramaic & authentic location, etc. to jesus christ superstar being filmed in israel.

sort of a surreal homage to the life & times surrounding the story but by no means a historically accurate, objective biography brought to life.

similarly, didn't the mayan civilization disappear without a trace? i seem to recall all sorts of speculation along the lines of the roanoke colony mystery, bermuda triangle, crystal skull, blah, blah, blah. at best, this would be speculative historical fiction, but i doubt even gibson would press it...
posted by narwhal at 11:42 AM on January 3, 2006

???
posted by Outlawyr at 11:42 AM on January 3, 2006

He's his own Easter Egg for the trailer. Yeah? How does that make him bat-sh*t insane?

The interviews for Passion had him missing a few lights on the ferris wheel but that's not a crime.

Don't like him? Vote with your wallet.
posted by fluffycreature at 11:43 AM on January 3, 2006

similarly, didn't the mayan civilization disappear without a trace?

No, but some cities were abandoned for unknown reasons. There's been a lot of speculation as to the causes. Usual suspects include famine, disasters, man-made environmental problems, war, and general social problems. No one is really sure why the Mayan empire crumbled, and there probably were multiple causes, so Mel's free to make pretty much any story he wants.
posted by unreason at 11:46 AM on January 3, 2006

unreason: that's definitely what i was getting at. =)
posted by narwhal at 11:47 AM on January 3, 2006

This actually is a relief to see. To me, believe it or not, makes me think he's not as crazy as I was afraid he'd be. A seriously crazy person wouldn't insert that in there, cause they're too concerned about showing the world how uncrazy they are..

Anyways, this looks more like the old Mel with lots of facial hair.
posted by pez_LPhiE at 11:49 AM on January 3, 2006

I love the running titles..."But some weren't ready to go..blah blah" Cue to the only two euro-latin looking pair..yes people only the wacky ugly injuns wanted to die, but thankfully not the photgenic ones!!

I give it two ass cheeks down!
posted by Mr Bluesky at 11:52 AM on January 3, 2006

Don't like him? Vote with your wallet.

I would much prefer to see movies directed by insane people.
posted by nervousfritz at 11:53 AM on January 3, 2006

I laughed.
posted by kbanas at 11:53 AM on January 3, 2006

to be fair, the passion wasn't supposed to be historically accurate...

Are you sure about that? It seems I remember how everybody was creaming over the fact that Gibson made it historically correct. Or am I remembering this incorrectly?
posted by NoMich at 11:55 AM on January 3, 2006

Just saw on imdb Mel turned 50 today
posted by Zbobo at 11:57 AM on January 3, 2006

I think this is really pretty funny. And yeah, I thought that WAS Saddam at first.
posted by orange swan at 11:57 AM on January 3, 2006

NoMich, I don't know how the evangelicals interpreted it (I'm guessing literally in a historic sense) but it's an accurate depiction of a medieval passion play. Very, very accurate. Not that I think we should revive such plays, but if I remember there are several times where it veers off and follows the passion play and not the biblical events.
posted by geoff. at 11:58 AM on January 3, 2006

posted by nervousfritz I would much prefer to see movies directed by insane people.

I liked Syriana, too!
posted by fandango_matt at 12:00 PM on January 3, 2006

the Mayans killed Jesus
posted by matteo at 12:02 PM on January 3, 2006

re: geoff.'s response to NoMich

exactly. it'd be similar to a film adaptation of "the canterbury tales" painstakingly re-told using olde english and appropriate wardrobe, location. though the setting would be historically accurate, no one would (er... should) claim that the movie is a verified history.

that certain religious groups attested to the passion's authenticity speaks more to their ignorance of the play's roots than gibson's looniness.
posted by narwhal at 12:06 PM on January 3, 2006

Mel Gibson did The Road Warrior, that's enough street cred for me. And then he has slowly but surely gone completely and utterly batshitinsane. But I bet he's alot more fun to get really drunk with than Russell Crowe who I'd always be expecting to sucker punch me.
posted by fenriq at 12:12 PM on January 3, 2006

Has the shark jumped Mel Gibson?

I've seen that trailer a couple of times in the theatres, and I'm still waiting for some semblance of a plot to emmerge. Can anyone give me a clue what it's about? It seems to be set in central american, and Mel Gibson is somehow involved. I guess that must be all that I'm allowed to know.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:20 PM on January 3, 2006

I don't get it.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:24 PM on January 3, 2006

So? A director's lack of moral integrity and/or sanity doesn't mean they can't make good movies.

I might up the ante on that one and suggest good art requires a certain amount of moral and mental insanity (something that recent schizophrenia research might even lend some support to, at least in its less glib formulation). I'm reminded of the circulating audio clips of Stanley Kubrick mysoginistically abusing Shelley Duvall on the set of The Shining, as if he were actually the crazy Jack Torrence character himself.

Seriously though, perhaps I'm just not paying attention, but talk of Mel Gibson's nuttiness and immorality seem to be pretty out of touch themselves, spawned almost entirely since The Passion. Compared to the Cruises and Polanskis of Hollywood I would call Gibson a small fry in the weirdo or villain department. And since Braveheart is still in the very top tier of best films of the last twenty years, I think he's built up enough credit to let his crackpot anti-evolution rants (which paradoxically just makes him "normal" for this country anyways) slide without suggesting he needs to be "boycotted".
posted by dgaicun at 12:26 PM on January 3, 2006

I've actually been to most of the locations represented in the movie. The experience is mind expanding. The Mayan empire was every bit as large and sophisticated as Rome. The cities they left behind are huge, bigger than roman ruins. Skyscrapers even. The empire fell apart well before the coming of columbus, and nobody is really quite sure why.
I am interested to see a dramatization; if done right it should make people realized that we too could fade away if we dont understand what happened to the Mayans.
posted by Osmanthus at 12:33 PM on January 3, 2006

I don't want to nit-pick or derail, but Gibson's Passion could not be historically accurate because there isn't any real evidence of Jesus' existence. At best, it's historical fiction.
posted by clockzero at 12:33 PM on January 3, 2006

I don't get it.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:24 PM EST on January 3 [!]

Ex-movie star dabbling in directing produces trailer, inserts unshaven photo of self in single frame. Some people think that makes him bat-shi* insane, crazy funny. Others just think it is a stupid marketing stunt. Hilarious or lame, you decide.
posted by caddis at 12:36 PM on January 3, 2006

Hmm, yet another Gibson movie with lots of semi-clad men running around in fancy costumes showing off their sculpted biceps and abs? Methinks all that reactionary catholic father-of-twelve macho posturing is in the 'protesting too much' category.
posted by funambulist at 12:45 PM on January 3, 2006

caddis - while it has little to do with your point, I just wanted to interject that dabbling, isn't, perhaps, the right word here. After all, he's been directing movies since 1993, including, you know, Braveheart and such.

That's all.

Also, a number of people have complained that this trailer doesn't show much of anything about the film, and I agree, but - correct me if I'm wrong here, isn't this a teaser trailer? If so, then it's certainly acceptable practice. The teaser often shows very little of the film. If it's a full-blown trailer, then, I agree, lame.
posted by kbanas at 12:45 PM on January 3, 2006

Oh this may look like a stupid marketing stunt, but so far he's displayed marketing skills that are far from stupid. He's not insane. He's just insanely rich.
posted by funambulist at 12:48 PM on January 3, 2006

Hilarious or lame, you decide.

Okay, I pick lame.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:53 PM on January 3, 2006

Has anyone broken down the ratio of liberal to conservative action hero actors? Everyone gripes about Hollywood, but all the out-for-revenge actors seem pretty right-wing to me. Bruce Willis says the Iraq War is going great, for instance...
posted by johngoren at 12:54 PM on January 3, 2006

nope, this is hysterical. good for him. now if he could only stop hating jews...
posted by shmegegge at 12:55 PM on January 3, 2006

dgaicun - Braveheart sucks for many reasons which I can't really be bothered to go into in details so I am not certain how it's in the top tier of the best films of the past 20 years. To whit -

1) Gibson is a misogynistic fuckwit.
2) Gibson hates facts and history. They get in the way of him making spurious rubbish up to excuse the violence of his movies.
3) Gibson likes to play characters who get tortured. He is therefore "a bit weird".
4) Gibson hates the English. That's not so bad. A lot of people have a right to, but then he does make up a lot of old bollocks which is quite offensive.
5) Gibson has had pretty much the same haircut since 1985. This is tragic.
posted by longbaugh at 12:58 PM on January 3, 2006

I challenge anyone to watch the scene in Braveheart of the gay guy being thrown out a window, and then testify it's one of the finest films since 1986...
posted by johngoren at 1:03 PM on January 3, 2006

yawn.
posted by phaedon at 1:08 PM on January 3, 2006

I wish someone would give Alejando Jodorowsky enough money to make another movie before he dies of old age.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:14 PM on January 3, 2006

And FWIW I thought this was funny. I like how Mel's the only one smiling.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:15 PM on January 3, 2006

Does the context of the trailer make the Saddam get-up funnier in some way? Or is there just nothing to get, really? Honestly, I can't download it, so I'm wondering if I'm missing the gag.
posted by Fenriss at 1:30 PM on January 3, 2006

what longbaugh said.
posted by nola at 1:32 PM on January 3, 2006

Me -Love his films, concerned about his mental Health,
deplores his Politics and, questions the reason of his blind devotion to the Catholic Faith.

There, I said my piece.
posted by Elim at 1:34 PM on January 3, 2006

Clockzero: I don't want to nitpick, but there is a *very* strong consensus among scholars that Jesus did exist. There is very little agreement on what he may have said, did or believed, but there was almost certainly a man behind the stories of the Gospels. See Wikipedia on the subject (disputed article, natch). Personally, I'm not a believer in the Gospels (or Mel Gibson), but there is a history there to discuss, not dismiss.
posted by Banky_Edwards at 1:47 PM on January 3, 2006

Narwhal -
I call dibs on "The Society of Crystal Skulls, International" for a band name. (From your link.)
kbanas -
"That's all.

Also..."
superb
posted by zoinks at 1:49 PM on January 3, 2006

and I'm still waiting for some semblance of a plot to emmerge.

Near as I can tell it's about topless chicks who can turn themselves into panthers. I think it's another remake of Cat People. And for some reason now there are angry natives chasing somebody around.
----
BTW.
Criticizing a movie director for not being historically accurate? Oh c'mon. THAT's lame. I can count on... one hand... er, three fingers... the number of non-documentary directors that even approach being slightly historically accurate.
posted by tkchrist at 1:56 PM on January 3, 2006

I can't seem to narrow in on that frame - they are only two frames with those painted dudes - one lit up, and one dark.
posted by SSinVan at 2:03 PM on January 3, 2006

zoinks, you're welcome to it. =)

i think i'll start the skullhead fanclub now...
posted by narwhal at 2:06 PM on January 3, 2006

I'm just shocked to learn that they've finally come out with video files with greater resolution than monitors. If this catches on, it's going to take me forever to bittorrent movies...
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:18 PM on January 3, 2006

I can't seem to narrow in on that frame - they are only two frames with those painted dudes - one lit up, and one dark.
posted by SSinVan at 2:03 PM PST on January 3 [!]

yeah... it took me a little while to find it. if you click the little quicktime ball that adjusts your location w/in the video, you can then use the right & left arrow keys to frame advance/retreat.

skip toward the second time the painted dudes appear (after the hero looking fellow gets snared in the net) and gibson shall reveal himself.

by the way, did anyone actually notice the frame just watching the clip? because i sure didn't. even knowing it was there, it took me a while to find it. i'm wondering if i should start watching every preview frame by frame...

maybe there's a frame of tom cruise ascending the stairway to hubbard in the new mi:3 trailer...
posted by narwhal at 2:22 PM on January 3, 2006

Clockzero: I don't want to nitpick, but there is a *very* strong consensus among scholars that Jesus did exist. There is very little agreement on what he may have said, did or believed, but there was almost certainly a man behind the stories of the Gospels. See Wikipedia on the subject (disputed article, natch). Personally, I'm not a believer in the Gospels (or Mel Gibson), but there is a history there to discuss, not dismiss.

So what does "his" existence actually mean, then? That there was a man once who may have had a name like Jesus, but any and all details of his life cannot be determined? My point was that since there's such a dearth of conclusive historical evidence, it can't be called historically accurate. It's either mythology or historical fiction.
posted by clockzero at 3:01 PM on January 3, 2006

*very* strong consensus among scholars that Jesus did exist.

But not hard proof: Weren't the ROman sticklers for Detailing and cataloging births, Deaths and Taxes? I mean it WAS a beauracracy wasn't it? they keep records, don't they?

so some where should be this guy pissing off the beauracracy. and SOMEONE had to pay for the execution.

Seems they could find records if they exists and publish them to solve that once and for all,

That being said, I still like Mel Gibson FIlms.
posted by Elim at 3:08 PM on January 3, 2006

i seem to recall reading that the reason the accounts of jesus' life & death are limited to the gospels (and not corroborated by any historical documents (josephus and pliny notwithstanding...)) is due to an intentional destruction of all outstanding "just a man" documents by his followers many generations later... apparently, if your "facts" didn't fit with the myth, they were of no use to true believers. intelligent design isn't the first effort by christians to subdue the empirical with dogma.

so now, most research into the historical jesus is accomplished by carefully examining the negative space of what *should* exist about him.

or something like that.
posted by narwhal at 3:26 PM on January 3, 2006

Criticizing a movie director for not being historically accurate? Oh c'mon. THAT's lame. I can count on... one hand... er, three fingers... the number of non-documentary directors that even approach being slightly historically accurate.

True, but that still leaves room for a big range of varying degrees of accuracy, or even varying degrees of making the choice of historical period/event to be narrated and ways of narrating it subservient to an ideological agenda.
posted by funambulist at 3:44 PM on January 3, 2006

my kinda historical accuracy

but seriously... i don't think gibson ever claimed that this movie is historical. so... faulting him for failing to uphold some sort of virtue he never attempted to reach seems a little unfair.
posted by narwhal at 3:49 PM on January 3, 2006

narwhal: did anyone actually notice the frame just watching the clip? because i sure didn't.

I didn't either and I had seen the HD clip a couple of times before this thread - even going frame by frame at one point, though just to get a good screen shot of the end (with the tri-tone painted dude presiding over the masses). I imagine that's the point of this sort of thing, though.
posted by effwerd at 3:50 PM on January 3, 2006

narwhal, he certainly did, as far as I recall - all the stuff he said in interviews about the film and his choices in telling that story, the way the film was promoted, that choice of the language, all the pseudo-consulting with (and then dismissing) religious scholars, and even that little story about the Pope alledgedly commenting "this is really how it was" after seeing the movie (as if the Pope would know, but nevermind that). It was also a matter of a lot of people latching on to make claims of accuracy and authenticity about the film, sure, but even there, he didn't seem to make efforts to refute them. It was all gravy after all.
posted by funambulist at 4:18 PM on January 3, 2006

It looks like Gibson is trying to channel Terrance Malick, which for me is a point again. However, I will watch it for the same reason as others have indicated-- an epic about pre-Columbian civilizations is going to be cool.

And "The Passion" is the same movie that any medieval Roman Catholic artist would have made if movies existed at the time. I don't understand why everyone gets so worked up about it. Not being Catholic, it wasn't the movie I would have made, but I don't run around at art museums nit-picking the medieval depictions, and I won't get worked up about doing it with "The Passion," even though I could.
posted by deanc at 4:37 PM on January 3, 2006

uh, "a point against", I meant. I really wasn't into "The Thin Red Line," and that's what this Gibson movie felt like to me.
posted by deanc at 4:39 PM on January 3, 2006

according to this, it sounds as if gibson's aware "the passion" is a story (more parable than history) and he just wanted to tell it as realistically as possible.

“The Passion” (taken from the Latin for suffering, but also meaning a profound and transcendent love) refers to the agonizing and ultimately redemptive events in the final 12 hours of Jesus Christ’s life, of which there are four separate accounts in the New Testament of the Bible, and the legacy of which has been reflected upon for the last 2000 years. The powerful imagery surrounding The Passion has long inspired the artistic imagination, becoming a deep and abiding influence in Western painting as well as inspiring numerous motion pictures in the last century.

i do accept that i could be giving him more credit than he deserves...

even so, i haven't heard any claims of historical accuracy regarding apocalypto, so i'll withhold judgment for now. =)

on preview: deanc, that's exactly why i want to see it... i loves the malick.
posted by narwhal at 4:45 PM on January 3, 2006

Gibson's Passion could not be historically accurate because there isn't any real evidence of Jesus' existence

Prove Christ Exists, Judge Orders Priest

"An Italian judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed....Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father [Enrico] Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence....Signor Cascioli’s contention...is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus lived and died in 1st-century Palestine apart from the Gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith. There is therefore no basis for Christianity, he claims....Signor Cascioli maintains that early Christian writers confused Jesus with John of Gamala, an anti-Roman Jewish insurgent in 1st-century Palestine. Church authorities were therefore guilty of “substitution of persons”.

The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius mention a 'Christus' or 'Chrestus', but were writing 'well after the life of the purported Jesus' and were relying on hearsay."

[Times Online | January 3, 2006]

posted by ericb at 4:48 PM on January 3, 2006

"I knew John of Gamala. John of Gamala was a friend of mine. You, Yeshua, are no John of Gamala."
posted by languagehat at 5:03 PM on January 3, 2006

or even varying degrees of making the choice of historical period/event to be narrated and ways of narrating it subservient to an ideological agenda.

While I agree, ultimately we are only critical of an artist when the artists "agenda" is one we are not in alignment with, no?

I have said it before. It's odd we will willingly ban the products of an immoral acting corporation but not the products of an immoral acting artist. Why is that?

Rhetorical. I know why. We are fucking hypocrites that simply want what we want. Any other answer is merely justification.
posted by tkchrist at 5:56 PM on January 3, 2006

Clockzero: I don't want to nitpick, but there is a *very* strong consensus among scholars that Jesus did exist. There is very little agreement on [every possible thing about him [?! This is a contradiction]]

Banky_Edwards I'm going to call bull on this, to the extent that it implies anyone who thinks it’s highly doubtful that the four gospels "documenting" Christ are meaningfully historical is a crackpot comparable to Creationists and Holocaust deniers in their ignorance of and denial of facts. This isn't at all true. The Gospels are easily found to be immensely flawed sources, even to the ordinary eye, and to the extent that some "very strong" consensus may exist it has very little going for it except maybe tradition or just a sort of simplification of assumptions.

From the evidence itself I would say that Earl Doherty's case that Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect is persuasive evidence that the dubious gospel accounts couldn't be documenting the life and events of a real person. In the same sense that The Matrix is not based on true story or even loosely on some “real life” Neo.
posted by dgaicun at 7:45 PM on January 3, 2006

Sorry, my link got truncated.
posted by dgaicun at 7:48 PM on January 3, 2006

Weren't the Maya (and other Precolombian cultures) distinctly unlike Rome in that, until the Aztec, the dynamic of the society was not centered on one large metropolis exerting social and financial control over a large and expanding area but rather a large number of competing metropolitan centers engaged in an endless, religiously mandated war against one another in search of blood sacrifice, preferably of the noble-born variety.

Really, it wasn't like Europe. It was its' own thing, and those of us on this side of the pond actually refract the cultures that were here before the Europeans in many, many ways, nearly all of which are invisible to those of us of primarily European heritage.

Mmm, pass the hot chocloate and the hot sauce, they go great with this tortilla soup. Halloween is my favorite holiday!
posted by mwhybark at 7:49 PM on January 3, 2006

guh? Isn't Halloween of Irish origin?
posted by Treeline at 8:41 PM on January 3, 2006

I didn't see his film about Jesus, because the politics surrounding it really turned me off. What I did think at the time, and what makes me interested in this new film is the use of historically-appropriate languages (in the opinion of the person making the film, anyway). It's always been very hard for me to suspend my disbelief when watching a film about the French Revolution, for example, and the actors are speaking with British accents.

And for the record, I've watched this trailer several times, including earlier today, and DID notice something that made me want to go back and scrub through at some point to see what caught my eye. I guess it's the former projectionist in me...
posted by pantload at 9:07 PM on January 3, 2006

Dude, the person who thinks I'm going to download 48 MB (the smallest version available) to see a teaser for Mel Gibson's next butchering of religious history is the one who's gone off the deep end.
posted by zekinskia at 11:09 PM on January 3, 2006

Dude, the person who thinks I'm going to download 48 MB (the smallest version available) to see a teaser for Mel Gibson's next butchering of religious history is the one who's gone off the deep end.

Yeah, 'cause like, we can always just go read the Bible for the answers.
posted by NationalKato at 6:52 AM on January 4, 2006

How do you even go frame-by-frame in quicktime?
posted by ParisParamus at 6:55 AM on January 4, 2006

tkchrist, a non-documentary filmaker who wants to make a film set in a particular historical time and exploring some historical event should first of all stick to making a good film and telling a good story, so in the end personally I don't even think historical accuracy is absolutely necessary (unless it's boasted as a feature, but, I mean, there can be non-political fictional reasons for taking your own licenses with history if accuracy is not your focus) and I think an ideological agenda is not only unnecessary but usually detrimental so, for me the issue is another here... I don't know, I can't think of a film I've liked for being "in line" with whatever political agenda I could sympathise with. A film is not a manifesto.

But I don't see what's so hypocrite about intensely disliking the style and ideology of anyone, including Mel Gibson. I don't see what it's got to do with morality exactly or much less with corporations.
posted by funambulist at 6:56 AM on January 4, 2006

but there is a *very* strong consensus among scholars that Jesus did exist.

Bollocks. There's a strong consensus among apologists that christ existed (though even many christian theologists agree the evidence is scant)

Consensus of scholars is that there is little evidence Christ existed. There is no DIRECT evidence at all.
posted by lastobelus at 7:39 AM on January 4, 2006

posted by caddis at 7:51 AM on January 4, 2006

poppo!

Oh, wrong thread.
posted by wilberforce at 8:12 AM on January 4, 2006

paris: i mouse-clicked and dragged the little scroll-ball toward where the frame was and then used the arrow keys to frame advance/rewind. i think the arrow keys only work if you've given the scroll-ball focus...

what gets me about this whole jesus debate (not this thread, but in general) is that it matters to people whether or not he existed. i always thought of jesus as this guy pointing to god, saying: "follow my example and you, too, can know your maker." if what he taught is true, then you can safely remove him from the equation and his ministry becomes one big parable. so he never existed. big deal. the grinch never existed, but the story of his redemption can still inspire hope in those who appreciate his story.

instead, jesus has to exist. he has to be the son of god in order for his sacrifice to mean anything. we have to believe that he's our only path to salvation. i just never got that from any of his teachings. it never seemed to me that jesus insisted on his place in the scheme of things. "hey, guys. say a prayer every night and thank god i saved your asses! you owe me!" that never sat well with me. it seems to be his followers who put these conditions in place, and by doing so, they've diminished the impact of what he said and what he taught. by insisting that the stories of his ministry are fact, they alienate the skeptical. by insisting on his divinity, they distress monotheists (gotta love that trinity). by insisting on his uniqueness as "the only way to the father" (a line i think is mis-interpreted, but meh), they kick any who might pursue some other spiritual pathway to discovering the maker squarely in the balls. blah, blah. i'm ranting.

if we just approached "the story of jesus" as if it were hesse's "siddhartha" and appreciated the insight he (or his inventors) shares with us...

faith in the man or faith in the message? maybe that explains the disconnect between the "faithful" and their actions...
posted by narwhal at 10:17 AM on January 4, 2006