"any of the film's subtle beauty, or the possibility for religious inspiration, will be drowned out by John Debney's score which is unnecessarily insistent considering the intensity of the action on screen and washed away amid the bloodshed".

quote:

---

Once again, it's hard to enjoy this music for its grand beauty without thinking about the film's use as an offensive conversion tactic... Had Debney written this music for a Stargate sequel, then it would be magnificent in both execution and enjoyability.

---

I still visit Filmtracks about once a month simply for a laugh.

Im only interested in the film as movie going experience and enjoy the music if its any good.

Although no offense to my Christian friends here but as a muslim I must decline the Crucifixtion event. According to our scriptures Jesus (PBUH) (pronounced as EESAH-I think same as in armaic & jewish language- The name"Jesus" is the latinzed version of the same)was neither crucified nor killed but it was made to appear to his oppresors(Sounds like a controversy for that period). However, We believe and acknowledge Jesus as The Messiah, his miraculous birth and his healing powers, and that he ASCENDED to God and would RETURN before the end of the world and destroy the Anti-Christ.(Strangely many Christians and some muslims are not fully aware of these ISLAMIC facts) More importantly we believe that Jesus was a man and Prophet of God and pay the same courtesy as to our own Prophet Mohammad(PBUH). So, I find the so called controversy over the film as non sequitur.

I really was facinated by Martin Scorcese's LAST TEMPATION OF CHRIST- as it dared to show Christ as a vulnerable MAN.

Peter Gabrial's world music contribution in Scorcese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST got some time to getting used but it served the film on realistic level if compared to the biblical epics as(BEN HUR/KING OF KINGS etc)

I think Debney's score tends to follow the same style. I would also be eager to try Jeff Danna's GOSPEL OF JOHN score as it also seams to be more in that vein.

Amer

P.S. If anybody finds this post offending-I apologise as this is harldy the place for off topic discusion specially Religion.(But I found this hard to resist it here) so if it gets too hot here Id request the message sherrif to edit my post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by azahid:
I really was facinated by Martin Scorcese's LAST TEMPATION OF CHRIST- as it dared to show Christ as a vulnerable MAN.

---

Actually, I was struck by the vulnerability of this Jesus. The opening scenes in the Garden of Gethesemane, while not entirely true to Biblical record, are scary in their emotional intensity. This film, like Scorsese's, posits that Christ, while vulnerable, attempted and achieved something that neither self-doubt or external disbelief could hinder.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Actually, I was struck by the vulnerability of this Jesus. The opening scenes in the Garden of Gethesemane, while not entirely true to Biblical record, are scary in their emotional intensity. This film, like Scorsese's, posits that Christ, while vulnerable, attempted and achieved something that neither self-doubt or external disbelief could hinder.

Your comments are interesting and insightful as always Azahid.

---

Thanks for the support Franz, I find the opening equally mesmorizing and that fact Christ the man had to "get used" to being as "the chosen one" was equally realistic and cumbersome for him as an ordinary man destined to undertake such a heavy burden. All Prophets of God had also the difficulty of going through "The Revelation" period when the message would be encommunicated. Our Prophet Mohammad(PBUH) described that "moment" as if being literally hit by a bell and then going in a trance like state and then he would recieve the divine message from Gabriel (The Angel of Revelation) who had also ministered Jesus. So, the human element is already manifest and that is something our own Prophet repeatedly said- that he himslef was a man, a human being and not some demi-god. He strongly shunned any over adoration to his disciples. One of the reasons there exists no paintings or portraits of Him in Islam.

Looking at some of the footage on TV i find the violent depictions in this new movie as somewhat disturbing- I shudder to think how it would affect many of our Christian bretheren.

Amer.

P.S. I Strongly recommend that you also get hold the movie called THE MESSAGE which is about the advent of Islam and it also boasts superb score by Maurice Jarre in his full arab mode. Bewarned, that the film does not show any physical or verbal depiction of our Prophet and yet succeeds as a moving film.

quote:

---

Originally posted by azahid:
P.S. I Strongly recommend that you also get hold the movie called THE MESSAGE which is about the advent of Islam and it also boasts superb score by Maurice Jarre in his full arab mode. Bewarned, that the film does not show any physical or verbal depiction of our Prophet and yet succeeds as a moving film.

---

I once saw a bit of that film, although I think it was called 'The Messenger'. It was before I was really interested in scores, so I didn't register that it was Maurice Jarre's work (anyone know where to get that BTW?). I didn't watch it all, but it struck me that the film-makers really were fighting an unwinnable battle by not depicting The Prophet... it was very hard to realise the significance of things when the Prophet himself and how he felt wasn't shown to the audience. But that's a dramatic argument, and I know that the depiction of the Prophet was (and remains) a very sensitive issue for the audience that film was primarily intended for.

quote:

---

I once saw a bit of that film, although I think it was called 'The Messenger'. It was before I was really interested in scores, so I didn't register that it was Maurice Jarre's work (anyone know where to get that BTW?). I didn't watch it all, but it struck me that the film-makers really were fighting an unwinnable battle by not depicting The Prophet... it was very hard to realise the significance of things when the Prophet himself and how he felt wasn't shown to the audience. But that's a dramatic argument, and I know that the depiction of the Prophet was (and remains) a very sensitive issue for the audience that film was primarily intended for.

Personally, Kundun has always been my favorite religious film. Although this new Mel Gibson film will probably vie with The Mission for second place.[/B]

---

The Film was also known as "Mohammad:Messenger of God" and of course The Message. You can still find a copy of this score which is coupled with OMAR MUKHTAR-LION OF THE DESERT(also Maurice Jarre)on Silva album now OOP but available from www.Screenarchives.com or try ebay. The title of the album is" EPIC FILM SCORES OF MAURICE JARRE.

Again in strict accordance with our traditions the Prophet Muhamamd(PBUH) could never be shown. This was the challenge the film makers had to face and they pretty much succeeded in telling the story. The film is thus unique.Plus Jarre 'music plays a very important role during the scens that involve the persona of the Prophet by intensively using a sublime theme to depict His presence.

So it worked. Jarre was nominated for an Oscar on his work.

Amer

My question is: "Where can I get the "Unofficial" Soundtrack from?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bond1965:
I saw the CD at Tower Records last night while I was picking up Philipp Glass' "Fog of War" on sale and I noticed the cover has "The Official Soundtrack to the Film" on it.

---

Errol Morris says in his liner notes he was looking for a feeling of "exsistential dread" and it's in the score.

There's a few additional cues by John Kusiak, whom I never heard of before, that meld perfectly with the Glass pieces. You'd almost never know that there was music by another composer.

James

quote:

---

Originally posted by John C Winfrey:
Sea Quest was so familar sounding like everything we have ever heard and so was Soldier.

---

The movie was just boring crap. The blood was horrible in the beginning, annoying half-way through, and ridiculous by the end. Jesus lost more blood during the first half of this movie than a butcher sees in a year.

I'm sorry if Vanity Fair doesn't like the film, or that Sean is intent on sniffing anti-semitism in a film where Jesus suffers the greatest onscreen beating of all-time at the hands of sadistic Romans. Those factors are stripped away by the sheer power of this film. I am not a devout Christian, but I am a Roman Catholic. And I've seen fictitious Catholic villains on screen all my life. On film I've sceen Catholic murderers, terrorists, child molesters, wife-beaters, alcoholics, rapists, bigots. Where is the outcry on behalf of Catholics? This isn't the proper board for this kind of topic, but it irks me that a single film based on a single version of a single story has some people sweating. Like I've said before, all our **** stinks, so no one should be going around saying theirs doesn't.

Personally I think Debney's score is a masterwork. It cooks on disc. I haven't hear a score that evokes this much mood and feeling in a long time. It's frightening, overbearing, gorgeous and saddening all at the same time. It may not have impressed Dinko, but what besides a $5.99 Naxos disc does!?!

I still haven't heard it in full, but will soon, but by the 30 min promo I heard, it's FAR from a frisbee.

FYI, Jesus made tables and chairs because his "father", Joseph, was a carpenter. Judas was paid off for selling Jesus out -- no other way to play this than dark. It's a massive turning point in the story. Sorry they couldn't water this down enough to satisfy a guilty conscience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
Hey Ryan, it doesn't really matter that the best review of the film appeared in Vanity Fair

---

I haven't seen this film yet, but it might help your case if you did a little research first. The reviews are certainly mixed, but there are just as many praising the film as there are denouncing it, including Peter Travers (Rolling Stone), Lou Lumenick (New York Post), Richard Corliss (Time Magazine), and Roger Ebert, who gave it four stars.

But like you said, it doesn't really matter, does it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by sean:
[b]Hey Ryan, it doesn't really matter that the best review of the film appeared in Vanity Fair<HR size=1></blockquote>

I haven't seen this film yet, but it might help your case if you did a little research first. The reviews are certainly mixed, but there are just as many praising the film as there are denouncing it, including Peter Travers (Rolling Stone), Lou Lumenick (New York Post), Richard Corliss (Time Magazine), and Roger Ebert, who gave it four stars.

But like you said, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Kirk[/B]

---

While the ads are quoting Time Magazine's review, I wouldn't say it was a positive one. It had quite a few complaints about the film.

All this interest in Christ because of this film has made me decide that rather than give Mad Mel -- and I call him that because he is a homophobic jerk who plays almost nothing but tortured men whose loved ones are killed and then goes "mad" and extorts revenge -- any of my hard earned cash, that I would rent a BETTER and more complete version of the story. That's why "Jesus of Nazareth" is on y my Netflix list. I'd see any Zefferelli work before Gibson's.

There's more than a whiff of that kind of thinking here. Before I saw the film the first time I was all eager to go to war over its quality, but seriously what's the point? If you don't like the film or score
(yes, or Prague's pet high school orchestra, twin ), why waste your short life trying to convince other people that they're wrong in your own mind? And if you are a believer in all that can be seen and nothing else, you don't even have the assurance of immortality of the soul to appease the brevity of your mortal coil. In a week/year/20 years time, are you going to think back and wonder - "I wish I'd hit the reply button one more time in that Passion thread!"

(BTW, if you are confident you will, and want to use this information to make me look like an idiot, please do, because it's easily shown. I'm just trying to save you from devoting time to things you clearly don't get any pleasure out of, which might lead you to confuse yourself with 'sado-masochistic fundamentalists'.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by rkeaveney:
It may not have impressed Dinko, but what besides a $5.99 Naxos disc does!?!

Ryan

---

Now, I am jewish, and I must say that the folks who would dismiss this film because they feel it extols anti-semitic virtues need to give it rest. If one can put aside their religious baggage, you would realize that the jewish high priests acted much in the same way that any religious of political group of power acts when their sovereignty is threatened.

These are just mere men after all. And the common jews...well...they merely fear what they cannot understand and choose to defile it rather than try to comprehend it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ridan:
BTW, does anyone know if that March-ish music from the scene where the Pharisees take Jesus to accuse him is on the Album anywhere?

---

The score album does concentrate on the later sections of the film. The scenes in the first section of the film that are represented include:

* The opening shots of the night sky and Jesus' first scene with his disciples. (Track 1)
* The arrest, betrayal, ear-healing scene. (Track 3)
* Cephas' (Peter's) denial and subsequent breakdown before Mary while Jesus is being beaten. (Track 4)

I cannot tell what scenes tracks 6 ('Song of Complaint') and 10 ('Peaceful but Primitive/Procession') come from, though I suspect the latter is a Via Dolorosa cue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinko:
Neither does a 100-piece symphony orchestra.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foobsie:
Loose the phrickin* Dudok!

It does not belong in any Biblical reference. Nor cultural to that time.

---

It doesn't matter! As long as like it would be something you'd hear back then, what difference doesn't make? Most people don't know about the duduk and it's origins and stuff.

As to the "violence"...I don't buy that. Who complained about violence in "Terminator 3"? The depiction here is brutal...but that's what scourging and crucifixion were.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foobsie:
Loose the phrickin* Dudok!

It does not belong in any Biblical reference. Nor cultural to that time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sakman:

As to the "violence"...I don't buy that. Who complained about violence in "Terminator 3"? The depiction here is brutal...but that's what scourging and crucifixion were.

---

I haven't seen The Passion yet, but I am sure it cannot be worse than Kill Bill. People need to quit complaining about the violence because, like you said, what was going on was brutal.

I went in believing I would be deeply moved and perhaps enlightened. I left with about
half of my expectations met by this movie, but I was also disappointed with some aspects
of this movie. It is Gibson’s vision, which some will embrace, some will reject, and some
like me will find parts acceptable and wish other parts would be changed. Spoilers ahead.

I thought the acting was amazing by leads and ensemble. I liked the various symbols of
good and evil except for a few over the top obvious ones like the crow. I was fascinated
with the treatment of Judas and the symbols surrounding him. At first I thought the
language sounded like Klingon, but eventually I settled into it. The settings and costumes
seemed very authentic. Unbelievable make up, except that the good people had white
Hollywood teeth, and the baddies were saddled with brown stains.

I like the fact that it showed the best parts of humanity as well as our most vicious and
evil aspects. That duality in our natures is the stuff of drama. I was unbelievably moved
by Mary when she said, “I’m here.” The flashbacks were interesting contrasts, and I wish
there had been more.

While a few parts of Debney’s score left me cold, other parts were heart rendering. It
supported the movie without drowning out the tragedy.

I thought it was necessary to show an unsanitized crucifixion. It was a death of
unbelievable suffering that this movies clearly realizes and articulates.

Here are a few of my gripes. I know this is Gibson’s vision of the last day, and I know he
has said he was portraying truth as he sees it. I felt that truth during the crucifixion but
not during the interminable whippings. Christ was beaten and whipped and kicked. True.
In this movie, the relentless, never ending scouring would have killed a man after about 10
minutes. Loss of such massive amounts of blood and shock would have meant death. So
many kickings would have meant crushed bones and the inability to pick up a cross and
move it. To me Gibson forfeited verisimilitude at this point. We didn’t have truth seeking
Gibson; we had Manic-Kill-Bill over the top Gibson...IMHO Yes, the beatings should
have been horrific, but this was absurd. No man could have lived through Gibson’s
portrayal, and Christ was at this time very human.

Because of what Gibson and others said, I expected the movie to NOT be anti-Semitic.
Hmmm.. Gibson made a choice on how he filmed the trials and on what he emphasized.
To me he emphasized a Pilate who anguished over condemning Jesus. This Pilate seemed
almost emotionally torn, not just politically afraid, and he seemed almost sympathetic.
The movie’s relentless juxtaposition of Pilate’s, “I don’t want to kill him,” with the Jewish
leaders or Pharisees shouting and shouting and shouting and shouting for his death
(including the Jewish leaders riding up to the crosses) finally made me uncomfortable,
very uncomfortable. I didn’t really see him trying to say that ALL of US were the villains.

Finally, I do wish he would have given us a little more comfort by extending the time spent
on the Resurrection. A friend told me today that it was rumored in his church that Gibson
will do a sequel picking up with the Resurrection. I wonder if that is really true?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joan hue:
I wonder if that is really true?

---

The first Ferengui rule of aquisition: A Cash Cow shall be milked until fully dry.
The cash cow known as "Passion" is currently in its prime following massive box office results.