A very peculiar movie. I don't really know what to think of it. It is certainly not as bad as many critics (especially here in Europe) said it is. Though I think many things could have been handled more subtly and there were some elements which were unnecessarily overstated, the movie in some ways still has its merits. It is certainly not the worst point that it indulged very much in blood, sweat & tears, though some scenes (especially the crucifixion) were hard to bear, but then, that was what the film was all about, wasn't it?
I had a very interesting talk about it afterwards with my boyfriend who is a devout catholic (I am an agnostic myself). He quite liked POTC, as it showed aspects of life - like pain and death - that often remain hidden in popular culture (especially in America).
Well, I think I still have to work it out what to make of it, and this will certainly take some time.
Concerning the criticism by historians: I am no expert, but I don't think the accents sounded so bad - I have no idea what historical Aramaeic is supposed to sound like (but then, I don't think historians know that so exactly either), but my previous fear that the actors would be having heavy American accents was unfounded. Sounded more similar to (modern day) Hebrew (Ivrit) to me. Concerning the Latin, with which I am more familiar, at least there were some choices made - like basing the accents on the Italian. This may not be state of the art in historical linguistics, but at least they bothered to think about it. As for Pilate, who, for some historians, was not portrayed as the tyrant he is believed to have been in real life: well, this is what the Bible portrays him to be, isn't it? POTC tried to be a faithful depiction of the Bible, at least in most parts. You can only criticize it when it is not.
I think the allegations that this movie was anti-semitic were unfounded. Though there was a brief scene in the beginning when Jesus was brought before the council, where I could see what some people meant by stereotypes of Jews resurfacing - but then there were also Jewish priests that protested, so no-one can say that even the religious establishment of the Jews was portrayed in a one-sided manner. Later on, Simon of Cyrene (who helps Jesus bear the cross) was himself called a 'Jew' in a despectable manner by a Roman soldier. While the common soldiers were not directly responsible for condemning Jesus, their over-the-top sadism was very disconcerting and certainly a sufficient picturization of evil. I think Gibson shouldn't have bothered with Satan turning up once and again, though I disagree with my boyfriend on this point who thought the insertion of Satan (not found in the Bible texts) was a good idea.
Well, certainly worth a look, especially for pious Christians. Everyone has to work out their interpretation for themselves - and this may differ very strongly from person to person.
I had a very interesting talk about it afterwards with my boyfriend who is a devout catholic (I am an agnostic myself). He quite liked POTC, as it showed aspects of life - like pain and death - that often remain hidden in popular culture (especially in America).
Well, I think I still have to work it out what to make of it, and this will certainly take some time.
Concerning the criticism by historians: I am no expert, but I don't think the accents sounded so bad - I have no idea what historical Aramaeic is supposed to sound like (but then, I don't think historians know that so exactly either), but my previous fear that the actors would be having heavy American accents was unfounded. Sounded more similar to (modern day) Hebrew (Ivrit) to me. Concerning the Latin, with which I am more familiar, at least there were some choices made - like basing the accents on the Italian. This may not be state of the art in historical linguistics, but at least they bothered to think about it. As for Pilate, who, for some historians, was not portrayed as the tyrant he is believed to have been in real life: well, this is what the Bible portrays him to be, isn't it? POTC tried to be a faithful depiction of the Bible, at least in most parts. You can only criticize it when it is not.
I think the allegations that this movie was anti-semitic were unfounded. Though there was a brief scene in the beginning when Jesus was brought before the council, where I could see what some people meant by stereotypes of Jews resurfacing - but then there were also Jewish priests that protested, so no-one can say that even the religious establishment of the Jews was portrayed in a one-sided manner. Later on, Simon of Cyrene (who helps Jesus bear the cross) was himself called a 'Jew' in a despectable manner by a Roman soldier. While the common soldiers were not directly responsible for condemning Jesus, their over-the-top sadism was very disconcerting and certainly a sufficient picturization of evil. I think Gibson shouldn't have bothered with Satan turning up once and again, though I disagree with my boyfriend on this point who thought the insertion of Satan (not found in the Bible texts) was a good idea.
Well, certainly worth a look, especially for pious Christians. Everyone has to work out their interpretation for themselves - and this may differ very strongly from person to person.