Passion of the Christ - Rated 15 in ROI!

stuartfanning

Have just bought the DVD of Passion of the Christ and was surprised to see that in Ireland it has been rated 15. What's the story behind this very liberal rating? I thought there would be an explanation on the Irish Censors Office website, but it doesn't have the title listed!

DapperGent

Apparently watching really very nasty fúcking gore is okay if it involves Jebus.

The film is well worth a look in my opinion but it's a complete fúcking joke that it's rated 15 when other far less disturbing stuff is an 18. It is consistent in that the cinema cert was 15 as well but that was dumb too.

It's not like the excuse of a public interest movie can be made in this case, seeing as it can't claim to be historically accurate a la Schindler's List or something. Total complete and utter fúcking disgrace in my opinion.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Blisterman

Well they wanted everyone to be able to see it, and due to the stupid 18 rating, where even accompanied, people under 18 can't see it, they couldn't have it as that.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

stuartfanning

The realistic and very long scene of the scourging or whipping of Jesus has to be the most violent, of its kind, ever made. Presumeably it was the influence of the Catholic Church on the Censor which got it the 15 rating. It amazes me that the Catholic Church could countenance the amount of violence shown in the production. The extent of it could be regarded as prurient.

lodgepole

It had an 18 cert for its theatrical release.

Most of the film could be considered historically accurate, with the exception of the timing of the earthquake that destroys the temple at the end (and the shot of Satan looking pissed off). Any of the Satan parts previous to that, I looked at as being an insight into the mind of Jesus (and Judas) and not anything literal. Similar to The Last Temptation of Christ.

Whether we, as non Christians, like it or not the film has significant cultural importance in this country and I would be very surprised if the Catholic Church had any influence on the rating of the DVD release.

And Schindler's List was not historically accurate, it's generally accepted that it was an incredibly sugar coated view of the man.

stuartfanning

Lodgepole wrote:

It had an 18 cert for its theatrical release.

Most of the film could be considered historically accurate, with the exception of the timing of the earthquake that destroys the temple at the end (and the shot of Satan looking pissed off). Any of the Satan parts previous to that, I looked at as being an insight into the mind of Jesus (and Judas) and not anything literal. Similar to The Last Temptation of Christ.

Whether we, as non Christians, like it or not the film has significant cultural importance in this country and I would be very surprised if the Catholic Church had any influence on the rating of the DVD release.

And Schindler's List was not historically accurate, it's generally accepted that it was an incredibly sugar coated view of the man.

Interesting. So why did the Irish Censor change its rating for the DVD release?

lodgepole

stuartfanning wrote:

Interesting. So why did the Irish Censor change its rating for the DVD release?

No idea. Could be that they felt the film would be more suitable to those between 15 and 18 on a television as opposed to a cinema screen.

Chad ghostal

i havent seen the film, but im pretty sure it didnt get a 15 certificate (it got a 15 certificate for both cinema/dvd btw(15pg for cinema)) because of the churchs meddling. .
.. in most of these types of cases its the way the violence is portrayed
and not the amount of violence. .

from what i read it does seem that the film was given a 15's cert because of the culteral importance, which (like it or not) it does...

Agent Orange

Lodgepole wrote:

It had an 18 cert for its theatrical release.

You're wrong. It was a 15PG in the cinema.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/2004/02/18/story134763.html

keu

The realistic and very long scene of the scourging or whipping of Jesus has to be the most violent, of its kind, ever made. Presumeably it was the influence of the Catholic Church on the Censor which got it the 15 rating. It amazes me that the Catholic Church could countenance the amount of violence shown in the production. The extent of it could be regarded as prurient.

actually, that scene reminded me very much of the catholic church...metaphorically speaking.

Cabaal

Lodgepole wrote:

No idea. Could be that they felt the film would be more suitable to those between 15 and 18 on a television as opposed to a cinema screen.

Dont you know that blood on the big screen is worse then blood on TV,
dam it people don't you know anything?
:rolleyes:

Bungalow Bill

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think the influence of about one billion christians might have a hand in that.

lodgepole

Cabaal wrote:

Dont you know that blood on the big screen is worse then blood on TV,
dam it people don't you know anything?
:rolleyes:

So you don't agree that it is possible for films to have a more intensive impact when viewed on a cinema screen?

Cabaal

Its better to watch due to screen size and sound (generally speaking) but it certainly does not make it more violent or increase the chances of you wanting to go out and murder some people.

RuggieBear

Didn't the Matrix get an 18s cert due to religious iconography and stylised violence!! the Passion gets a 15s for religious iconography and brutalised violence....

Chad ghostal

the matrix got an 18's (and was cut) due to stylised violence, and imitatable violence..all that headbutting and throat poking doesnt go down well with the censors..especially when its so "cool" ...

and in fairness as cabaal said i dont think the "big screen" makes that much more of a psychological impact, i dont think its more likely to damage you..

ravenhead

I reall y don't know what the big deal is that people are making over this film, In my opinon 15 is even too high of a censorship for this. I truely believe that in a couple of years you will see schools here using this movie in religion classes instead of the glorified crap that they are shown at the moment.

The movie is an excellant piece for work & it will be a disgrace if mel gibson doesn't receive an award for his work....

RuggieBear

Chad ghostal wrote:

the matrix got an 18's (and was cut) due to stylised violence, and imitatable violence..all that headbutting and throat poking doesnt go down well with the censors..especially when its so "cool" ...

Thyat kinda make sense i suppose!! but what about the bloody power rangers...

lodgepole

Cabaal wrote:

Its better to watch due to screen size and sound (generally speaking) but it certainly does not make it more violent or increase the chances of you wanting to go out and murder some people.

Who said anything about murder??

A film can be more emotionally intense in a cinema screen becuase of the focus and size of the screen and because of the volume. That, imo, could well be seen as a reason for a film's rating to differ between cinema and video release.

enda1

This film is junk. I can't believe people here are giving it any praise. Film certificates in Ireland really are too high usually (not really so for this film though). All films should be PG, up to the parent whether their kid can watch it or not. We all know some kids who dont get phased by violence and some who have nightmares for weeks.

Anyway back to this film. In a few years people will see this film for how bad it really is. It is not worth watching, its boring. If it were not for the ott violence people would think it was junk. People were just shocked when it came out to see the brutality.

I advise against seeing this film!

lodgepole

A film about a violent death that didn't show violence would be a little strange wouldn't it?

enda1

Yeah but the film is still very poor. Im not saying there shouldn't be violence but he just went way over the top. there was no substance to the film just Jesus getting the sh!t kicked/whipped/beaten out of him. Anyway its hard to explain what I mean but i thought the film was awful.

John

enda1 wrote:

Yeah but the film is still very poor. Im not saying there shouldn't be violence but he just went way over the top. there was no substance to the film just Jesus getting the sh!t kicked/whipped/beaten out of him. Anyway its hard to explain what I mean but i thought the film was awful.

I haven't seen the movie but I've read the book
You know, I didn't expect baskets of kittens licking Christ's wounds. I always expected a movie about his last days to include a lot of torture.

ravenhead

enda1 wrote:

Yeah but the film is still very poor. Im not saying there shouldn't be violence but he just went way over the top. there was no substance to the film just Jesus getting the sh!t kicked/whipped/beaten out of him. Anyway its hard to explain what I mean but i thought the film was awful.

How can you say that this film was crap - I know I for one haven't seen many pictures of it's quality,never mind the fantastic acting, each actor studing gailean arabic for the role, the cinematography only is enough to merrit an award .... Just out of curiousity what would you concider a good film??? :rolleyes:

RuggieBear

John2 wrote:

I haven't seen the movie but I've read the book
You know, I didn't expect baskets of kittens licking Christ's wounds. I always expected a movie about his last days to include a lot of torture.

But that's the point of this thread really, isn't it?!? It's not whether it's a good film or not but whether the torture scenes warrant an 18s or 15pg or whatever. I went and saw fightclub......i was expecting the odd fight scene in it Doesn't mean it should have been pg....

enda1

ravenhead wrote:

How can you say that this film was crap - I know I for one haven't seen many pictures of it's quality,never mind the fantastic acting, each actor studing gailean arabic for the role, the cinematography only is enough to merrit an award .... Just out of curiousity what would you concider a good film??? :rolleyes:

Films I think are good are Fight Club, The Godfather, Once Upon A Time in America, Se7en, American Beauty, Spirited Away (Jap animation).

All these films were enjoyable, had moments of humour and above all had a good plot and story line. Learning an archaic language does not make either a good actor or a good film, in fact it adds nothing other than audience exclusion to the movie. I stand by my point. The violence does not phase me but there is more than violence to a good film.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Chad ghostal

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

the censors decisions are not black and white,
the censor has to take alot of things into account, including the film with respect to the culture. .
and like it or not catholicism is part of irish culture, he obviously decided that this type of violence, in this religious context and the way it is portrayed is acceptable for people the age of 15.

The Corinthian

enda1 wrote:

Films I think are good are Fight Club, The Godfather, Once Upon A Time in America, Se7en, American Beauty, Spirited Away (Jap animation).

All these films were enjoyable, had moments of humour and above all had a good plot and story line. Learning an archaic language does not make either a good actor or a good film, in fact it adds nothing other than audience exclusion to the movie. I stand by my point. The violence does not phase me but there is more than violence to a good film.

Seven did not contain any moments of humour. That was one of the points to it.

The use of archaic language was actually an interesting device and added to the historical authenticity of the film (although as members of the Roman nobility, Pontius Pilate and his wife would have been more likely to have used Greek as their lingua franca). Foreign language’s should not necessarily exclude an audience (you yourself suggested one) and can add to the atmosphere - Germans always sound more menacing in war movies when they’re speaking in German, after all.

The film was ultimately made to convey a particular agenda; to underscore the concept of Jesus Christ as having suffered and dieing for humanity, which is why it was so deliberately violent. Additionally it makes a good attempt at making sense out of the improbable and often contradictory story of the crucifixion.

Personally, I am a little astonished that it was not given a higher age rating, given its graphic nature. However, I still thought I was a well crafted film, although I wouldn’t put it in my favorites list either.

Then again, I don’t have an axe to grind with religion, so what do I know?

Wacker

Off topic I know, but I thought the bit in Se7en when Somerset (Morgan Freeman's characer) mentioned the Merchant of Venice, and Mills (Brad Pitt) instantly replied "I never saw it" was pretty funny.... You know, as it is a play, the appropriate answer would be that he didn't go to it, and thus Mills thought it was a film....