March 04, 2004
Hooray for Hollywood

Speaking of That Movie, in this week's New Yorker Steve Martin imagines what the studio script notes looked like:

Dear Mel,
We love, love the script! The ending works great. You'll be getting a call from us to start negotiations for the book rights.

--Love the Jesus character. So likable. He can't seem to catch a break! We identify with him because of it. One thing: I think we need to clearly state "the rules." Why doesn't he use his superpowers to save himself? Our creative people suggest that you could simply cut away to two spectators:
Spectator One: Why doesn't he use his superpowers to save himself?
Spectator Two: He can only use his powers to help others, never himself.

--Does it matter which garden? Gethsemane is hard to say, and Eden is a much more recognizable garden. Just thinking out loud.

--Our creative people suggest a clock visual fading in and out of certain scenes, like the Last Supper bit: "Thursday, 7:43 p.m.," or "Good Friday, 5:14 p.m."...

--Also, could he change water into wine in Last Supper scene? Would be a great moment, and it's legit. History compression is a movie tradition and could really brighten up the scene. Great trailer moment, too.

And so on. If you really want to lengthen your time in Purgatory, check out The Onion's take (via The Ivy Bush).

Posted by Camassia at March 04, 2004 05:26 PM | TrackBack

I really believe that Mr. Martin's intent on this, is part true, but to point the finger at Mel Gibson is totally uncalled for. I think there might be a hint of jelousy in Mr.Martin's rant. Because Mr.Martin has spent the 30 years ridiculing the belief system 'The Passion" derives from. Though there are a lot of people who are making money off of this Movie, but Mr. Martin is making a pretty penny himself, or has in the past anyway (remember 'Leap of Faith'?). I think this is an attempt to appease the majority which I feel will blow up in his face. Because some people will let you go only so far, but when you tread on a person's beliefs, you will lose any merit in that person's eye, including the author of this post. This movie is not that different from what 'the Ten Commandments' was in the 1950s. Mr.Martin apparently doesn't belief Religion and money just dosen't mingle together, and that is a just reasoning, I, myself think it can be a problem, but not in this case, Mr.Gibson's intent I believe is pure, and self searching, and Mr. Martin's accusation is the cruelist that anyone can do. Especaily if Mr.Gibson's religion requires him to put God first. The most hurting, and painful blow you can throw at a person, is to cast doubt on thier intents, and belief in thier God. It is one mountain I am willing to die on myself. Mr.Martin is perhaps jelous because his own job hasn't cranked out box office smashes. But I kinda think Mr.Martin gets a lot out of these kinda rants. I imagine he might at least broke even with his 'Leap of Faith', a movie that proved a point. He seems to think that it's alright to make a secular point through a motion picture, but the make a religious point, it's all about the money. Any man with any common sense business ethics would what to at least break even on their movie regardless of it's contents.

Posted by: Michael Edwin on March 7, 2004 07:01 AM

You're reading more into it than I am. It seems to me that Martin is mostly just amusing himself with the culture clash between Gibson's strain of Christianity and Hollywood. Which is real enough, given that Gibson chose to finance the movie himself rather than let studios muck around with it. Whatever, it's humor -- like the Gospels, open to interpretation.

Posted by: Camassia on March 7, 2004 05:14 PM

Here's another good take on the film from the Reedy River Review!

Posted by: Haywood on March 8, 2004 09:40 AM

Well the thing is, is that it is hypocritical for Steve Martin to go on this rant, and at the same time make money himself stereotyping preachers in 'Leap of Faith'.

And another thing is,I can almost promise you that there was no ' Stan ' directing Mel Gibson how he could make the film glamorous, and how it could make money. When Gibson made this movie, it was intended to be released overseas, not here. I've been keeping up this whole thing for about a year and a half now, and at the begining of the information I recieved about it, it was just gonna be released in Austraila, Rome, and Greece(don't really remember the whole list of intened locations)

Posted by: Michael Edwin on March 9, 2004 07:42 AM
Post a comment
Hi! I'd love to know your thoughts, but please read the rules of commenting:
- You must enter a valid email address
- No sock puppets
- No name-calling or obscene language


Email Address:



Remember info?