The Passion of the Christ

[KITEfrog]

Was it just me, or did this movie lack Structure all together?

Kite.

[AaronB]

This was one of those cases, like Lord of the Rings, where the course of the action was dictated by a story that wasn't written for film. Gibson likely considered his hands tied.

Doesn't appear to have hurt the box office, in any case.

[Charli]

I don't think it was intended to show structure as it was meant to convey
a deep religious emotion.

Also made a huge impact on Mr. Gibson's wallet.

Charli

[AaronB]

I understand he shopped the distribution deal pretty hard, but nobody wanted a piece of that action. As it turned out, it added up to more money for him.

Some folks in the industry were pretty resentful when "Passion" broke big. All Icon could say was "Hey, we gave you the opportunity to get a piece of it, and you passed."

[Authorized]

Gibson's "Apocalypto" (2006) is gonna be even bigger than The Passion. He's bankrolling this fillm too, but this time he's signed Disney as the distributor.

[dclary]

The Passion of the Christ was an experimental film. The most successful independent, experimental film ever.


Independent filmmakers hate it because it's so commercially successful.

Experimental filmmakers hate it because it's still narrative and traditional in ways.

Commercial filmmakers hate it because it breaks the rules of three-act-structure and basic filmmaking norms.


It is the 10th highest grossing movie of all time.

Go figure.

[Ire]

Agree that there wasn't supposed to be any structure to the Passion.

It struck a raw nerve and stirred plenty of controversy, a potent combination for any film.

I don't understand the question of structure. As AaronB pointed out the story wasn't written or originally conceived for film. If it was, I'll be damned. And if it was, maybe I ought to be referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls more often and not Syd Field.

[AaronB]

Well, if you had to force the story into three Syd-Fieldian acts, you could do it pretty easily.

I guess the flick assumes that most viewers are already reasonably acquainted with the history of the principal characters, which would account for why Gibson didn't spend a lot of time on Act I. That's everything leading up to the bit in Gethsemane, where Jesus is praying and Satan is circling, trying to talk him out of it. When he stands up and brings his foot down on the head of the snake, that's the end of Act I.

(You could almost hear the whistle from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" at that point...it was kind of a Sergio Leone moment.)

Act II continues until Jesus dies...the rest is resolution.

Anecdotally, I heard that when title actor Jim Caviezel's cross was struck by lightning while he was on it, it led someone on set to sing "Pop goes Caviezel!" Don't think Snopes has any mention of it...

[Ire]

Nice Fieldian paradigmatic application.

[Jordan Rivers]

Well, thank God AaronB demonstrated the structure in that film.

How could there not be structure in that film?

Whoever contends that there is no structure in this film, you need to read and study Aristotle's POETICS. And don't come back until you know the meaning of structure.

[Ire]

So, Matthew, John, et al, had been reading up on Aristotle. Well, I'll be jiggered.