Yea! I think I am the first to post regarding this, at least in a subject line.

Regardless of the religious context of this Movie (a different subject) I wonder who is responsible for the "illusions" used in the movie creation.
I saw the incredible way that they created the hammering of the spike into His palm by having real fingers up through a table, a real arm entering down into the table and a palm piece with a servo thumb that gets pierced. No CG (Computer graphic) used in that. I haven't seen the movie at the time of this post but wonder what else is used (physical illusions rather than computer) and Who is responsible as consultant.

Don't tell me they make the classic mistake of putting the nails through his palms!

The Romans placed the nails through the wrists as they could support a far greater weight than the palms. The nails, well spikes really, if placed in the palms tended to rip out through the top of the hands when the full weight of the body was supported by them.

I bet they also make the error of having Christ haul the entire cross up through town. Historically he would more than likely just have been given the cross member called a patibulum to carry. Also there is debate as to whether it was a cross or a T he was nailed to. Strong evidence has been found to support both claims.

Mel is following a reaffirmation of the Palm. There has been study over the last couple of years that the wrist controversy is not necessarily accurate either:

http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article16.htm

What do I know

Anyway,....I want to see the movie then discuss the "Magic used to create the illusions" viewpoint in our craft, while the entire world is busy discussing the other aspects (religion, salvation, accuracy, Mel, etc)

Hi Glod-

I am actually very anxiuos to see the movie- or have the (encounter) myself.

Did you know that the hand used to nail the spike into Jesus' hands was actually Mel Gibson's?

Thanks for commenting

Payne,
Yep, they do -- and, as you point out, they're wrong on both counts (at least, probably on the second).

However, all the controversy around the movie seems to miss one vital and critical point:

This is NOT a documentary; it is one person's artistic impression of the events. And, as such, it can be anything that person wants it to be -- anti-Semitic (although it certainly ISN'T), gory (it certainly IS), factual or not, etc.

So, relax, armchair critics; it's not supposed to be a documentary, remember? It's a movie, just a MOVIE, okay?

One very inportant point. This is not a movie you expect to come out feeling good. Remember you already know the ending, you know the story, what you are doing is going to FEEL the emotion of that story.

Once asked, what was Vietnam like. No words ever could ever express the Vietnam experience. The closest ever to a moment in time was the opening 11 minute scene in "Saving Private Ryan" That director made a statement about the reality of war. The viewer never felt the "fear" only the empathy for the victims of war.

I am going to see Passions today, knowing very well, 2,000 years ago, the times and way of life was so much different, for a moment see and feel one man's expression of the death of Christ we know so well, but never really took the time to really "feel" the story.

I truly believe, we as entertainers, should strive to move our audience emotionally (obviously not like Passions) through artistic expression in the words we use, the use of props, the facial expressions, body language, lighting, costumes, and music to get across the vignette we present, so the spectator can leave with good feeling and a sense of satifaction.

The satisfaction of viewing Passions is different for different people, based on one's beliefs, one's religious teachings, culture, and a variety of other factors. You will leave the movie with the exact same conclusion you went into the movie with. It was not directed to change your mind about what happened 2,000 years ago. When you leave the theater, you should have the same thinking you had when you went in, with maybe a sense of empathy of what Jesus went through.

To get back to the original question, there's generally a team of special effects people working on a movie like this, rather than one consultant. One tiny little effect may have specialists in different areas working together, i.e., creature modeling, modelmaking, animatronics, makeup, and so on. The credits at the end of the movie will give you the names -- and sometimes it's a very long list.

Ah, but the crux of the matter is that Mel is proclaiming this as the most historical accurate telling of this (imho) myth that has ever been filmed. In his eyes it is a documentary. Yet he failed to have the Romans speaking the correct language. The local Roman troops would have spoken Greek. As well as making the traditional mistakes about how one is scourged and crucified. All of which could have easily been fixed to make his movie the historically correct version he intended it to be.
I have no problem with him making this movie, he's perfectly within his rights to make any kind of movie he wants to. The only problem I have is with him proclaiming it Historically accurate when clearly it isn't.
And for those of you who think that I'm picking on this film because of it's content your mistaken. I feel this way about any historical based movie who pays lip service to being historically accurate and isn't. I'll probably not like the new Alamo movie either even though it looks like they did a far better job on it than the dismal John Wayne version. Which in and of itself isn't as bad movie it's just a fairy tale version of the actual incident

I knew this would happen and can't fault anyone because it's a "Passionate" issue
but.....

Thanks georgefl38 for returning to the topic of Movie MAGIC and Illusion in "The Passion".

Someone should and no doubt will start a thread regarding the movie and religious issues. I broke the rule Myself in going off track with the wrist link. Please continue on subject of special effects in this thread.

True true georgefl38 but in the case of Forest Gump, for instance, Ricky Jay and his team did the Magic Illusions to "compliment" the CG crew. The palm/arm illusion in the original post looks like something a magician did rather than an F/X team.

Frank this WAS in the "It's not magic ..but" and was moved by the Café' here. I always thought it belonged here.

Okay, glodmagic, let's go see the movie and then come back and discuss this wrist thing.

On the subject of SFX, have you seen the Ghost Ship DVD? I thought it was an awful movie from the storyline standpoint, but the DVD has a good "added feature" on how they did some of the special effects.

In fact, several recent movie DVD's have these little documentaries on the effects, and it's fascinating to see the difference in mentality between the SFX guys and magicians. They create effects that support and advance a story, where we tend to create effects that ARE the whole point of the story.

And here I'll stop, since this is getting away from your original question again.

Best regards.

I had to look away when the spike actually went in, but I remember thinking the palm's texture and surface tension didn't look 100% realistic as the spike exerted its increasing pressure.

I briefly reviewed the film on my web site EconoPundit.com: Click Here!

Thanks for returning this topic. As said in my previous post, I went knowing the story line, the outcome, and I wanted to experience of how emotions was portrayed visually.

At one point I caught myself saying to myself "ENOUGH-I GET THE MESSAGE", then realized I was no longer empathyzing but experiencing the pain, without the pain. I never though such an emotion could be protrayed on a screen.

When we perform, the "best magic" is to stir the emotions of the spectator. Descriptive magic is when an entertainer say something like "I'll place the silk on this tube..." it has no emotion. On the other hand, taking a red silk and changing it into a rose and giving it to a grandmother, well no words are said but an emotion response is felt toward the entertainer.

Passion brought a lot of empathy. The faces, the deep caring of a mother for her child who was suffering really came through loud and clear. As the lights came up, much of the audience just sat there, stunned. The show had meaning. What that meaning was is personal to the viewer.

If we can get emotional resposnes through music, facial expressions and word, our performances can greatly improve. Empathy is a good one, laughter (euphoric joy), is another good one. Analyzing our routines is a great way of seeing why some effects play better than others.

Take the snake basket (Pro Viper II) It has suspense, fear of snakes (woman/girls work best) and comic relief. The Wiz-Kote brings forth empathy from the plot of a "child in trouble" because his sneaker is burnt. and relief because it has a happy ending.

These are vignettes which increase the emotional responses of the spectator. This is what we as entertainers should strive to bring out in our own artistic expression.

Review Jeff Hobbson video, and ask yorself why is this so funny? Why do I like this performance? It is a great thing to do when in a group of magicians trying to analyze why the show is a success. This is how we should learn our trade.

PS.
As for special effects, I was entrigued by the special effects of the Jurassic Park Sci-Fi movies. Movie Magic is really MAGIC. It is tough to compete with this art form!

It is tough indeed!

We magicians face incredible odds today with audiences who have seen it all through Hollywood special effects and the likes. These guys in Hollywood can at times make us look pretty bad, with their millions of dollars to spend on sopecial efects, while I have to deal with paltry budgets of under a thousand dollars.

Just don't seem fair , fellas!

It would be so cool if the technolgy we use in magic could ever begin to approach what these guys in Tinsel Town have at their disposal. But I'm not going to hold my breath!

Just wanted to add a couple comments, since I have now viewed the movie.

Some of the special efefcts are not effects at all.

For instance, when they vapulated Christ, the first stripes were by what looke dlike canes or something. Then when that wasn't enought to satisfy their sanguinary appetite, they pulled out thye cat o' nine tails with jagged pieces of metal woven into the cords. They whipped his back till it resembled a piece of raw hamburger, and at one point you see the metal pieces grab into his flesh and catch. Then they pull it away and the flesh is torn as the shards tear out of his back. Well, guess what? I found out that what really happened is that Jim had a protective covering on his back to protect him from the lashes.But he said that at one point, he turned at just the wrong angle, and the metal actually DID catch his flesh. That was what we saw in the movie that looked so darned real. Because it WAS real! The actor has a huge gash in his body now from where the metal tore out a chunk of his flesh.

And the part where they dislocated Jesus's arm, well guess what? Jim's arm was actually dislocated for real.

So the pont I'm making is this: Not all of the special effects were effects. Some were really real.

When I was working with TV/Film rushes I saw an actual crusifiction. It was a some festival down in south America where they hit themselves with chains and blades to celebrate the pain christ suffered (MUGS).
Anyway, one dedicated fladgulator was put onto a cross and NAILED to it, right infront of the camera.
The cameraman actually zoomed into the palm as the nail was hammered in. ooooooooooh! did we all flinch at seeing that.
They even hoisted him up for a grand parade of the town.
The stuff you guys don't get to see. and its all the good stuff too.

That one grossed me out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK I have finally seen the Movie myself and can't say that anything warrants this thread as I thought it would. If the Passion does not get an Oscar for Best Makeup I will be disappointed because that was amazing.

I hear that Jim (Jesus) along with the vapulation wound mistake, getting hit by lightning, etc. he caught Pneumonia. I wonder if it was due to the extreme amount of "haze" used. Unlike foggers that we as Magicians use so often, the Hazers create a fine mist hanging fog that I understand has a higher humidity index in our lungs.

Caution...Possible Spoiler below--read at risk.
---------------------
At the Resurrection it looks as if they had a bladder and/or billowed the robe with air in the tomb similar to Copperfield on the metal plate.

In the movie Requiem for a Dream, there is a scene where a man's hand gets stabbed with a fork. They used an artificial hand which was highly realistic, the fingers made a clutching motion when the fork went in. I'm not sure if it was robotic or mechanical, but it looked very convincing.

As far as "magic" consultation. there isn't anyone
with that title in the movie. For other stuff:

Special Effects by
Daniel Acon .... special effects coordinator
Renato Agostini .... special effects supervisor
Franco Ragusa .... special effects foreman

Visual Effects by
Les Bernstien .... visual effects cinematographer
Everett Burrell .... digital artist
Timothy Michael Cairns .... quality control supervisor: Efilm/Panavision
Patrick Clancey .... digital opticals
Sam Greenmun .... model maker
Mark Kochinski .... CGI animator
J.M. Logan .... visual effects line producer
Paul Maples .... motion control operator
Christopher James Miller .... visual effects
Ted Rae .... visual effects supervisor
Michael Shelton .... digital effects artist
Tefft Smith .... digital artist
Alpheus Underhill .... best boy grip: second unit
Keith VanderLaan .... visual effects producer: Captive Audience Productions
Mark H. Weingartner .... visual effects cinematographer
Chris Zapara .... digital artist
Thomas Tannenberger .... digital compositor (uncredited)


maybe a magician lurking within one of them...

Marshall'

Just an off the wall question, but I was wondering how the heck you were able to copy down all that information as the credits rolled by so quickly!

I enjoyed 'The Passion Of The Christ', but I thought the book was better. Hehehehe!!

Oh, and a quick note to Daffy,

Check out http://www.imdb.com

They list full credits and every other detail you can think of about pretty much every movie ever made. That's probably where Marshall got the info from.

Cheers!

-- Topher

Actually the crucifixion and scourging effects fall into the category of special make-up effects and not traditional special effects and were in fact designed and produced by Greg Cannom and Keith Vanderlaan. Greg has done the amazing old-age make-ups for "Bicentennial Man" and Keith transformed Gary Oldman heavily in "Hannibal".