Yesterday the local papers ran their reviews of this film. I will admit to having been interested in seeing it since first hearing about it a while back. I'll post the two reviews I read yesterday on it for discussion. I'll tell you before I do that both reviews say the film is not so good. I sort of expected some of the reasons they gave for this. I don't think Mel Gibson is an amazing filmmaker. I think he's an entertaining filmmaker. I really enjoyed "Braveheart" and as an actor I think he's very good. The thing is though I think in this particular work he's not going for "entertainment" as much as he is presenting a message...in this case his message and his personal vision based on his beliefs.
That's what really interests me about seeing the film. Mr. Gibson was obviously very inspired and moved to make this film. I've always been attracted to works where the individual is trying to express their overwhelming passion for the divine. Like Mr. Coltrane making "A Love Supreme" or even say the last three books by Philip Dick. Probably a good comparison piece to this new Gibson film would be Norman Mailer's "The Gospel According to the Son." It's a good read is probably a lot easier to take than the Gibson film. It's no secret at this point that this film is very violent. Of course I haven't seen the Gibson film yet but from what I've read thus far...prepare to be bludgeoned during your trip to the cinema for this one. It would seem Gibson, as best he can through the medium of film, is going to teach you about suffering. You'll witness the suffering and you will more than likely suffer watching this. One sequence runs a full 10 minutes of nothing but brutal torture. That's a very long time in a film and I'm not sure...at least I can't recall...another filmmaker ever putting together that sort of endurance test. I mean I've watched films that were difficult and made me feel sick...the most recent being a documentary called "Waco-The Rules Of Engagement." I suffered terrible insomnia and nausea the night I watched it. I can't say that's a recommendation to see it but it does have considerable historical importance I think.
I normally wouldn't post a full review of a film because I prefer not to read them until after I see it. The boob critics give stuff away a lot of the time and I like to go discover the plot points and story on my own. In this case if you don't already know this story...well...I just don't think there's anything to give away on this one...but if you don't know this story a Mel Gibson film is not the place to start if you want to discover it. The telling of the story is the interesting aspect here...we'll get Gibson's take...his inspiration...his passion. So, I intend to see this and I hope some other people do too because I'd like to discuss it if anyone feels like it.
A couple of interesing things to me that came out of these reviews:
Gibson wanted to imitate Caravagio for the look of the film. An obvious but very good choice I think. I've had the chance to see a lot of Caravagio's work in person and the paintings are a good place to start to create the look. They say the cinematographer nailed it so that should be wild to see.
Second, I thought it was interesting...because Kent bringing this film up led us off into some ugly territory...to get both reviewers thoughts on the anti-Semitic aspects of the film.
Anyway I'll post the reviews next and if you don't want to read them before seeing the film skip my next two posts.
