Date: 4/9/2004 10:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 6867
"it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place." this is a quote from Mel Gibson. But, I think it is also meant to interpret the way the individual sees fit also. I almost saw it as a mockery of the close relationship between Mary and her son. Like satan taunting Christ. To me, the baby also symbolizes the antichrist. It's art, so it can be interpretted in many ways, and none of those interpretations can be wrong. IMO. Love Yourself,
 |
Date: 4/9/2004 10:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 62649
I watched that movie too, but I didn't get alot of the symbols either, but i have a theory. I'm not sure if I'm right, but I think that the baby represents the hell that will be put on earth when jesus is gone from the devils point of veiw. Kinda like taunting Jesus. Like for example,If The devil was saying "See what I will make of this world as soon as your gone?" Think of the baby in the scene as being serial killers,rapist,and ect. that is in this world today. Maybe as a referance to all of the bad things and people that is in this world today. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, i'm not good at explaining things. By the way, can you explain some of the symbols that you know about. I'd like to know, just in case I missed one. Thanks, sorry so long.  |
Date: 4/9/2004 10:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 62649
I think me and Gia is going the same way with this theory. |
Date: 4/9/2004 10:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Your title alone is the answer. It's only a movie, it's only a movie, and it's making millions, and millions, and millions... and jeese, isn't Mel Gibson GOOD at producing and making movies and tugging at the hearts of so many during this "time", doesn't it make one wonder how Christ would really feel about this prtrayal and the money spent? Jeese! As for the baby, ask Mel, he has all the answers, its his movie, his portrayal, his production. And ask how he is helping the WORLD, while he makes millions from a movie based on the life of Christ, who gave EVERYTHING and died with NOTHING. I can't make any sense of the following and what we REALLY should be taking from this movie.  |
Date: 4/9/2004 11:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
That's funny Brenda, since before the movie actually came out, many people thought that Gibson was nuts and that his carreer in Hollywood was over for being a part of this movie, due to the risk involved with sharing his faith. (nevermind that he paid the money for it out of his own pocket) And now that it has done well, he did it all out of greed and a desire to make a boatload of money. Which is it?  |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 11:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
He gives a lot, I'm not stupid. But he is making a boatload of money, and that's exactly what Christ would expect, right? And what would Christ do with a "boatload" of money, Eddo? What do ya think he would have done with it? |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 11:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
And What does his career have do do with paying out of his own rich pocketbook, marketing this movie at Easter time. Hip Hop, the dollars just keep rolling in. Wonder what "Jesus would do"? |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 11:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Don't even go there, unless you want me to keep going and going, like I said, truth is truth. But this movie hasn't changed anything in the WORLD, we still have soldiers coming home in body bags, and religious war is ongoing. Mel's perception is making him money, and for sure he will win at the box office. How disgusting, considering world events. |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 11:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
considering the worlds events? What planet do you live on Brenda? Why shouldn't Mel be allowed to pour his own money into a project he believes in? He had no guarantees that it would do as well as it has, nor that it would make any money at all. He felt it was right, so he did it himself, put his own money into it, and (if I am not mistaken,) released it himself, so as to not have the movie studios try to take control of the movie. This movie has impacted a great deal of people in a positive way, and here you are saying that somehow there is something wrong with that? Isn't that what making a movie is about, telling a story to an audience? I have no idea what Mel is planning on doing with the money has has and will continue to make with this movie. Nor is it my business. What do YOU do with the money you have? Does Mel call you and ask you where your pennies go? You have a lot of nerve Brenda. |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 11:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
Do you think everything in the world should be put on hold until the conflict in Iraq is over? Great, I'll tell my boss I won't be into work until then... |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 11:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
I don't find it funny at all, he is an excellent business man, he knows exactly what sells and had the money to market his product. Plus market it at an opportune time. Sheer genius. And certainly riches beyond belief. The man is a legend, in his own time. Very interesting concept when you consider the "eye of the needle" thing or other verses of the Bible. forgive me though, for not bowing down to Mel and his concepts. |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 11:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
Who is asking you to bow down to Mel? You seem awful judgemental of Mel's motives here. Do you have some insight to him that no one else does? Are you abvle to read his mind? (If he is such a movie industry genius, how do you explain Air America?) |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 11:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
I'm not making money selling "religion" Eddo. It's that simple, I don't sell the pain and torture that Christ went through to make a dollar. The money I earn is different. I don't pander religion to others based on the suffering and pain, the torture and make people they "better" straighten up or else. Movies are big biz Eddo, and Mel has every right to produce and make them, after all, he has the dollars and "cents". Knows exactly what sells. And makes money. Chalk it up to sour grapes if you want, who cares, for sure, I could have invested my stock portfolio in such a venture, if only i were so famous and everyone followed my every word and drama. |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 12:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 12341
And what I do with my money and my life is something you are quite clueless about. Mel is front page news. Just because I haven't given any to you personally doens't mean I don't give according to my income. But I don't get rich from pandering religion, taking advantage of people and chalking it up to entertainment, where is the line? Where is the reality? And what is the sequel and when is the release? Pandering made legal. |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 12:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 52155
You are right that I am clueless about what you do with your money, that is why I asked. Somehow it is different for you to question what someone else does with their money? Mel got rich from making Braveheart and Lethal Weapon movies. He very well could have lost every invested penny in making this movie, and many thought he would. Hollywood has put out a lot of other religious movies that did squat in the box office. He told the story of Jesus. He told it well. He put a lot of hard work and effort into making this movie (which, by the way, is his chosen profession.) He is not selling religion, he is selling his viewpoint on a 2000 year old event. |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 12:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 52155
I bet you are the same kind of person that gripes about an offering plate being passed around at church, and then in the next breath complains how it is too hot and the a/c should be cranked up more... |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 12:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 12341
From a medical stand, it isn't reality based. Couldn't have haven't like that. But Mel is rich and all is right with your perspective. I'm just as content with mine. I have no intention of deriving any meaning or concept from Mel Gibson's movie. Christ will just have to stand on His own without Mel's movie, to make any sense to me. Movies and books, are pure entertainment, and logic is not always based on such, especially when one considers the riches as well as not being a sheeple of Mel's world of religion. |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 12:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 12341
I don't know Eddo, since I'm clueless how hot and cold it gets in church. I don't go there either. And for sure I'm not likely to give anyone my money because they "believe" in something I don't. |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 12:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 12341
How Hilarious! I promise to come back! |
Date: 4/10/2004 12:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 52155
I am curious in your medical stance on the movie. Please elaborate. I was wondering about that when I watched it. And no, it isn't all right just because Mel is rich. This movie made a real impact on me. Being a long time Christian, I have heard the account of Jesus' torture and death numerous time, but until this movie had never had a visual representation of what happened and what my savior went through
for me, just because of how much he loves me. And I know that many others have had similar experiences through this movie. This movie has been a positive experience for many. Just because you do not look at it that way, does not make it a bad thing. |
Date: 4/10/2004 9:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 58593
lol my friend said that scared her  Freaky Baby *Jynx*  |
Date: 4/10/2004 3:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Date: 4/10/2004 12 2:00 AM From Authorid: 12341 From a medical stand, it isn't reality based. Couldn't have haven't like that. ----------------------- Wanta bet? http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/index.htm ------ A reprint of an article by the Journal of the American Medical Association that describes the physical death of Jesus as if in an autopsy. Mel got it right.  |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 3:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
BTW, the word "sheeple" was first coined by minister Billy Sunday to describe secularists, not Christians. |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 9:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
And Mels' so much more richer for it. I see exactly what you say Papa Bryant. It makes me sick. I won't argue with you, for sure, you are looking for that. Medically speaking, most men could not have suffered such atrocity and still carried the cross. But if this movie, this entertainment is what we are expected to believe in, and have faith in, then no wonder, no wonder at all, we seek a higher understanding from God, and as for Mel, God be with him. I wouldn't wear his shoes, or want to. I still believe God Created ALL people, and religion is such a small part of the big picture. But it's only opinion, here at least. As for immortality I'm staking my life on it not being so simple. There are many faiths and any that would be left behind or have lost people would present a problem for me. I can't just "shake" that off so simply. The God spirit is there, regardless of what color we paint Him, His Essence should neither be bought nor sold. He has himself warned against his, HIS words are logical and make sense. Anyone who profits from the suffering of Christ has much to answer for. And that is my take. Profit from misery and suffering will never bring true understanding. |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 10:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
That is an excellent link pb. Thanks. |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 10:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
Have you seen the movie, Brenda? As for me, I have a whole new understanding from seeing this movie (and judging by the amount of people that have gone and seen this movie, many more than once, I am not alone in that) |
|
Date: 4/11/2004 9:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
The only arguement I would have with you Brenda is that you are being too hard on Mel Gibson. Look at my profile, dear. I worked for years in the same industry as Mel. I wrote an award nominated screenplay about a Catholic Priest, and I still have the e-mail coverage notes that told me to take the name of Jesus out of the script so it could be sold. I can forward it to you if you'd like. The problem isn't the amount of money Gibson's making - the problem is he made a movie that was true to history and was villified over it. He was called an anti-semite, his family was investigated to dig up dirt (which they did find in his father), he was threatened with blacklisting, and was denied a distributer for his movie. I think how much money he's made is God's way of vindicating him for being faithful. |
|
Date: 4/11/2004 9:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
I think that scares me more. There are many people in the world who justify God and their faith by riches. I constantly "reach" for greater understanding because of the extreme poverty and starvation in the world, the cruelty. I can't understand why children in any part of the world starve when we have riches that are gained from people seeing a movie and giving them "insight". I have no intention of getting so involved in this "debate" that I become angry or upset. What you see, is my own befuddled way of making sense of God. I know that Mel "gives" a lot back. But this movie, this movie demands that if it be used to bring hope and comfort to the world today, then let it also serve humanity as I understand God would touch us. If Perhaps one is given the divine sight to prove history and bring light into the world, then WHY is it not making sense to me. I can't understand why anyone needs so much, when others have so little. It still leaves me with the "gut feeling" that it isn't right. My Mom and Dad are by far not rich, and they won't give any money to anyone who holds their hand out, but they are both motivated by the Feed the Children Ministry, We hope that our dollars reach these kids, as much as possible. When children are fed and safe, then I will find direction and comfort in life. It shouldn't be so hard. If we can pay so much to watch a movie, think how many children could have eaten for the same amount. See where I'm going, I can't feed the world, but any spare money I have won't go for anything else other than helping a child in some way. Food, clothes, medicine, or education. I've said before though, my name should be Pollyanna. |
|
Date: 4/11/2004 10:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
"I think that scares me more. There are many people in the world who justify God and their faith by riches. " ---------------------- You are echoing the words of Max Weber, a German sociologist who wrote a book on the subject called "Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic." It seems that the more successful people become the less faithful to religious worship they become - echoing again what the Bible says. All I can say is the success shouldn't bother you, but you are right to observe what is done with the wealth. Gibson is building a Church with his money, which would come with the attendant social ministries most Catholic Churches participate in - Food Banks; Outreaches to the homeless, drug addicted, and prostitutes; Outreaches to youth, both in trouble and not. The fact that the Church he is helping to build does this work rather than him making a big show out of contributing means he's not getting the glory for the grunt work. But he has got their back. |
|
Date: 4/11/2004 10:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Good for him. I was taught it should be without gratification. My grandson's tiger cub scout group that my husband leads for instance. Some kids have recieved a new coat, some shoes. Some other goodies that no one can explain where they came from. I do remember as a child needing an wanting a new pair of shoes. I remember sewing mine together. Perhaps so.. |
|
Date: 4/11/2004 10:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
I think we can pray that Mel tithes his wealth in the same way your hubby tites his time helping others. ((Big Grin)) Peace, and Goodnight. |
|
Date: 4/11/2004 10:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
There is no reward in giving unless you have received as such. I never look for anything, and require nothing. Certainly a child should never worry about a pair of shoes or a coat, and no adult should ever give, wanting to be known for that. As I said, when children are fed and clothed and safe, then will I accept all things as being possible. That true meaning is heard, and when money is spent feeding those who need it most, then I will accept and understand. I went to school and worked hard for a degree to better my life, but the sheer hard work, and maintaining two and three jobs at one time while gaining that education is reason enough for me to question and say that never, never, should one person be Blessed more than another, not by riches, nor by their own self understanding. For sure we should be questioned and measured, and then hopefully, we gain some understanding. But to allow that God rewards some so many times over, makes no sense. None at all. I have no interest in gaining anyone's back, actually, that makes even less sense. For the simple reason that, no one, no one person is ever, and has ever, given enough. Except for the man in the movie. And I still doubt he would accept religion being "used' as it is. It doesn't make sense. |
|
Date: 4/11/2004 10:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
I'm not looking for a "big grin", I don't care. A coat or pair of shoes, I would never allow that to be told if I wasn't trying to make a point. I couldn't, so be it. |
55967 Category:(Discussion) Created:(4/9/2004 10:00:00 PM)