18 replies to this topic

[advancedatheist]

I have no interest in seeing Mel Gibson's Jesus movie, but I am struck by the complaint that it is gratuitously violent.

So now I'm wondering if Mel unconsciously feels hostile towards Jesus, and has inadvertently projected his hostility onto the screen. I suspect many theists are sincere in their beliefs, but they don't necessarily like the gods they are supposed to believe in and worship. The film's alleged emotional power may derive from accidentally plugging into christian viewers' unacknowledged vicarious desire to beat the crap out of their deity.

[DJS]

Well, considering the fact that they already cannibalize him, it seems as if they are taking a step in the right direction. [lol]

Also, cinematography represents a very strong medium for memetic transmission. I find Gibson's motivations to be almost entirely transparent; spreading the word (meme) of God.

[bacopa]

I think that's a funny thread idea advanced atheist [lol] maybe he does hate Jesus? Maybe he hates himself? Who knows I just think he's a dork who wants to spread as you said 'meme' in a particularly obnoxious manner. Maybe he should be resurected as a real humanitiarian and not some religious right fanatic I've personally had it up to 'here' with religion in general perhaps I should have called myself pro-active angry atheist.

[Cyto]

Well, working at a movie theater currently I have found that the anger he is trying to illustrate is not toward a "jesus" person but rather the jewish people. On the news there was even a church who took the hate-filled move of posting "The Jews Killed Jesus!" on their outside quote board. Course they had to change it but after hearing Mel's dad talk about how "hitler wasn't that bad on the jewish people" I find that we have yet another childish dispute brought on by religion.

Shouldn't this be under some mental abuse law? [sfty]

[Mind]

I don't plan on seeing the movie because I read an re-enacted the Passion at least 25 times in Church when I was growing up. Even the "sexed-up" movie version would be boring to me. When reading the Passion, in the Catholic church (years ago), the congregation had to play the part of the angry mob and yell "crucify him" "crucify him". I wonder if they planned it that way for some reason. Some sort of reverse psycology. Anyway, the last couple of times I went to church on Good Friday, they didn't even let the congregation get in on the act. It was just a boring priest reading the Passion. It sucked. I thought, how could you make church any more dull?

Anyway, it is a free country with speech. If Mel wants to make a movie about his religion so be it. At least he is not using taxpayer dollars to make it. It will probably have a big affect on many Christians. There may even be a slight uptick in people who say they are "religious" over coming months. Still, I don't view it as a threat to immortalism anymore than any other religious activity.

One thing we should learn from the movie is that an emotional story will stick with people. That is how our brains work. We remember emotional events the best. Emotion makes it seem more real, even if it is a 2003 year-old story about miracles, angels, and gods.

[advancedatheist]

I think it would be interesting to have people watch Gibson's Passion porn while hooked up to functional magnetic resonance imagers (fMRI's) so we can measure what is going on in their brains. It wouldn't surprise me if the observed brain activity is at variance with the subjects' reported (i.e., confabulated) rationalizations for their emotional responses, supporting my conjecture that the audience is relishing Jesus' torture.

In fact, I predict we'll eventually see such "neuromarketing" applied by Hollywood to craft more effective movies instead of using the hit-or-miss procedure they've depended on so far. Directors could display rough drafts of new films to volunteers monitored by fMRI's to find out how much the film engages the right emotional parts of the brain, and then reshoot or re-edit the scenes that don't quite work.

[Lazarus Long]

I hear the tick tock of a Clockwork Orange.

"So you are a violent little devil now, you aren't right you know, well we can fix that guvnor. Don't try to move or turn away from the screen. We control the image, we control the sound. The wires you have attached can provide pleasure or pain."

And when we're done with your ultra-violent little ass maybe you'll be ready for politics.

[advancedatheist]

I've read that Mel Gibson filmed his own hands driving the nails into the hands of the actor playing the J-word (a special effect, I hope for the actor's sake), so maybe he really hates Jesus after all.

[bacopa]

I think your statement that Jews vastly control Hollywood is dumb and incorrect. You sound as if there's a Jewish consipracy or something.

The bible may be 'fictional' so don't pretend that Gibson is some morally just and wonderful man just because he tells some biblical story.

The Jews have been blamed for all sorts of wrong doings for years, frankly it makes me sick to see yet another negative perspective of the poor Jews. I personally don't believe in the bible, I don't think Jews or the Romans teamed up on Jesus, whether he even existed is circumspect, and finally it enrages me to no end when I hear about stupid minded redneck fundementalist a-holes angry at Jewish people because of a stupid movie. People are morons.

[Utnapishtim]

First off I think that the historical truth of the gospels is irrelevant in judging Mel Gibsons film as a piece of art. I have never believed that the greatness of art is defined by its , moral correctness, or truthfulness but by its aesthetic power and cognitive originality. I have not seen the Gibson movie but the clips I have seen seem to owe something to Mathis Grunewald's 16th century depiction of the crucifixion of Christ on the Isenheim Altarpiece. I defy anyone to gaze upon that work and not be affected by its power. (i am not familiar with how to insert images here but I would imagine that the image can be found with a google search)
Oscar Wilde once said that Art is its own justification. Great art survives and transcends the political intentions of its creators. I have no idea whether Gibsons new film is great art but its allegedly implicit racism wouldn't seem to factor into it for me. Some examples of truly great cinematic art 'Battleship Potemkin', Eisenstein's glorification of the russian revolution, 'Birth of a Nation', DW Griffiths heroic depiction of the Ku Klux Klan, and 'Triumph of the Will' Leni Riefenstahl's Third Reich propaganda piece. The fact that these films achieve their tremendous emotional impact in the service of fundamentally rotten ends is a moral and political rather than an artisitc observation.
As much as I reject martyrdom intellectually its emotional power remains beyond refute and the story of the crucifixion of Christ is undoubtedly the greatest martyrdom story ever told.

Edited by Utnapishtim, 01 March 2004 - 03:18 PM.

[immortalitysystems.com]

Having watched "the news" in the USA i noticed that the depiction of one nacked black breast and a beaten up Jew have something in common. They both energize the "system".
Or is it just entertainment?

[DJS]

'Triumph of the Will' Leni Riefenstahl's Third Reich propaganda piece.

It's funny that you mention Riefenstahl. Last night while watching the pinnacle of celebrity worship, also known as the Academy Awards, I saw a quick "In Memory of" shot of Riefenstahl. They put her under the catagory of documentary film maker. That made me laugh. [sfty]

The fact that these films achieve their tremendous emotional impact in the service of fundamentally rotten ends is a moral and political rather than an artisitc observation.

Allow me to alter your statement...

The fact that the attack on the Twin Towers achieved its tremendous emotional impact in the service of fundamentally rotten ends is a moral and political rather than an artistic observation.

Utna, this is artistic nihilism!

As much as I reject martyrdom intellectually its emotional power remains beyond refute and the story of the crucifixion of Christ is undoubtedly the greatest martyrdom story ever told.

So? Am I suppose to admire one of the mechanisms used in the transmission of a counter productive meme complex?

[bacopa]

I'm not impressed with art for art sake therefore it's ok kind of argument. I think the ploy of blatantly depiciting the Jews as tyrants and evil is an argument in of itself.

Great so it moves people Don mentioned the twin towers moved people I would have to say I agree with that notion. This movie is a piece of trash it's blatantly gratuitious and racist. The Birth of the Nation was also racist but it was ground breaking for other reasons namely it was the first of its kind. This film is a rehashed version of Last Temptation in my opinion. But I see your point...

[Utnapishtim]

Am I suppose to admire one of the mechanisms used in the transmission of a counter productive meme complex?

In a word yes! If something is beautiful or interesting, and studying or contemplating it provides you with emotional experiences that lead to a richer fuller life then why not? It comes down to what you want art to do for you... I want it to show me interesting ways of thinking seeing and feeling. In short I turn to art for diversity of sensation I DON'T want it to provide me with an anchor for my own personal ethics, nor do I expect it to make me a more rational person.

Are you ready to throw overboard ALL the mechanisms which transmit counterproductive memes?

I find the ancient pyramids pretty damn amazing. Were they a objectively speaking, a 'good idea' for the society who built them? I seriously doubt it. Was there any merit to the theocratic ideology they embodied? My answer would be an definite no. So should we rip em down? Are they still worth seeing? How about the ceiling of the Sisteen Chapel? Is it irrelevant to you if you aren't a christian and best avoided in order to prevent infection with the christian meme? It seems to me that if we start avoiding the artifacts of counterproductive memesets we will live in a pretty sterile world.



It WOULD be theoretically possible to discuss the aesthetic merits of September 11. I personally refuse to do it.. Will my children or my grandchildren have the same qualms? Probably not..

What did you think of the Pearl Harbor movie? Not the insipid love story added to help guys cajole their dates into the movie theatre but the main destructive visual setpiece that was the movies central purpose? Doesn't it pretty explicitly invite an aesthetic appreciation of the Pearl Harbor bombings...?

But whatever the case, I think there is also a confusion of categories on your part happening here Don. The attacks on the Twin Towers were not a work of Art advocating an evil or misguided view. They were an evil act in and of themselves....

Would I be able to discuss the artistic merits of a piece of Al-Quaeda propaganda? Yes I think I could...

This is turning into an interesting little topic!

Edited by Utnapishtim, 04 March 2004 - 02:09 AM.

[bacopa]

I noticed you didn't respond to my post, I apologize it was a little biased with anger but I actually agree with you that we should celebrate ideas that might be counter to immotalist ideas or a 'counter productive meme complex' as stated in transhumanist language.

I respect art very much...I paint in oils and I couldn't imagine living in a world void of such beautiful historical artifacts as the Sistene Chapel or Jan Van Eycks paintings done so exquisitely in tempra. I think some people here at imminst have become somewhat one sided in what they allow themselves to 'take in' as acceptable interests and ideas, which happens whenever a group of people unite for a common cause I suppose and I have no qualms with that in of itself.

But you're right the pyramids are damn amazing and so are many things in history despite negative conotations that may come with events such as wars and religious opression. The civil war was a terrible tragedy but it is living history that fascinates us even today. My father has a collection of old civil war guns which is not politicaly correct by any means.

Already I can see the writing on the wall for some transhumanist ideals, they to become often sterile as you say or too black and white for lack of a better term. I don't want to live in a 'meme complex' that supports only one sided and biased ideas, and I would hate to be surrounded by a religion of immortalism 'all the time.' I like starving artists who live every day with a deep seated acceptance of death...these people often have a passion for life which is a strange dichotomy, these people are also some of the most passionate and interesting around... of course those ideas do not have to be mutually exclusive...there are many passionate, starving artistic transhumanists I'm sure, I"m one of them.

[Utnapishtim]

I'm sorry Dfowler, I didn't see any specific issue that you made in your earlier post which wanted me to address...

I think you hit the nail on the head with the tendency of a lot of people in the transhumanist community to see such issues as artistic merit in rather narrow terms. It strikes me that a root cause is a misapplication of scientific reductionism. People tend to be very used to using particular mental toolsets and rely on them almost exclusively even in contexts when they are inappropriate.

The divide between scientific and humanities camps is unfortunately pretty deep. For a look at the biases of the other side of this cultural divide take a look at the absurd choices of reading matter reccommended for all undergraduates by University directors in a recent poll.


http://www.imminst.o...&f=56&t=3217&s=

[randolfe]

Well, I saw this film on opening day. I was in Florida and it was rainy and cold. This is one of those movies one "has" to see because everyone is talking about it. What a miserable disappointment it was.

First of all, no one mentions that Mel Gibson financed the film with his own money. No one mentioned that the entire film is in some extinct language. Subtitles are hardly necessary because nearly everyone knows the plot.

The film, in the words of a young friend, was "the most violent film I've seen since 'Freddie Meets Dameon'". Indeed, the film was horridly violent. No one could have bled that much, been beaten that much, etc. in real life. It was just one continuous ugly sadistic mess.

I didn't see the anti-semitism many claim to see. Jesus is portrayed as a renegade preacher(rabbi) who threatened the established order. The established order simply put an end to him.

The same thing happens every time "new beliefs" emerge. No one calls what is happening to Alcor in Arizona a "cruxifiction". The times have changed. Today, the establishment uses lethal injection on people and lethal regulation on institutions. That works just as well and you avoid the risk of creating a martyr and stirring up the faithful.