The Passion of the Christ / Maker's Mark 46 Cask Strength Bourbon

0:00 In 2004, director Mel Gibson and star Jim Caviesal gave the world a stirring vision of the last day of a prophet's life. In 2024, we've returned to a familiar brand of weeded bourbon. The film is The Passion of the Christ. The whiskey is Maker's Mark 46 cask strength. More of you than both. This is The Film and Whiskey Podcast.

0:42 The Film and Whiskey Podcast Welcome to the Film and Whiskey Podcast, where each week we review a classic movie and a glass of whiskey. I'm Bob Book. I'm Brad G. And man, oh man, Brad. Uff da. Did we just watch a heavy movie or what? No man, it's light and airy and just ends on ends on a happy note. Does end on a happy note. What could be wrong with this film, Bob? So today, folks, we are checking out Mel Gibson's 2004 film, The Passion of the Christ. A true box office juggernaut. This thing, like, I don't know if you remember being around this movie when it came out, Brad. This was a weird time to be alive. Like, there were people protesting the movie outside of movie theaters. There were people handing out flyers saying like, you're going to hell if you don't see this movie. It's just a wild time to be a moviegoer in suburban Ohio in 2004. I think it's funny, though, that the two movies that outgrossed it in the domestic box are Shrek 2 and Spider -Man 2. Just for some reason that the fact that those two films are the ones that beat out Jesus dying is pretty impressive. I mean, Jesus beat Harry Potter, Bob. I mean, Jesus always beats Harry Potter. He beat the Incredibles? Yep.

2:10 This is all in the text somewhere, right? This is in the Bible. Oh, obviously. Jesus beat the Incredibles. Yeah. OK, so, Brad. This season, we are looking at the highest grossing films from 1988 to 2019. We're in 2004, just a little over the halfway point. And like you said, we could have watched Shrek 2. We could have watched Spider -Man 2. Here was my thought process in ultimately suggesting that we do Passion of the Christ. We just did Shrek three weeks ago. I don't like I just don't want to do sequels that soon after doing the original. I don't know that I would have much more to say about Shrek. Oh, so what you're saying is you just want to hold out a little while, give people a little more thirst for Shrek before you review the second one. Yeah.

2:59 As we know, people have thirst for Shrek. So the second option is Spider -Man 2, which is probably the best superhero movie ever made. And I figure that we're going to do that one at some point. Like, it's, you know, it's on the list. And I figured, like, when are we ever going to be like, hey, you know what we should really do? Passion of the Christ. And I thought that, like, from a cultural standpoint, from the Mel Gibson of it all, this is probably going to be the best conversation that we could have out of any of these three movies this week. And so, you know, I'm sorry that I made us watch a really heavy movie, but I am looking forward to talking about it. Yeah, I have no problem talking about this movie, Bob. It has been a very, very long time since I've seen it. But for me, this movie kind of falls in the vein of a Schindler's List, where I feel like at least once a decade, I should probably sit down and watch it just like for my soul. Yeah, although, you know, I've thought about Schindler's List a lot in the wake of watching this movie. And when we did our Schindler's List review, one thing that I was really surprised by is how much humor that movie actually has. Like, it is a very dark and very depressing movie. But there are moments of levity that Spielberg weaves throughout. And this movie is utterly humorless. And like, I think I'm OK with that because of the subject matter here. But it's also it's really hard to talk about this movie

4:29 and not either feel bummed out or risk bumming out our listeners or to make it feel like we're mocking the movie by being a little bit lighter with the way we talk about it. And I don't mean to do that either. I know that this is a very important movie to a lot of people and we're dealing with perhaps the most religious of all the religious movies we've ever done. Like, this is a depiction of Jesus himself. This is not like, you know, silence was one thing. We've already had depictions of Jesus. Yeah, we had a depiction of like Jesus's feet in Ben Hur. Ben Hur, come on. They were holy feet. They sure were. So yeah, I don't know, man. I'm like, I don't want to walk on eggshells and I don't want to tiptoe around the topics at hand here today. But like, it is not lost on me that there is there are many minefields adjacent to this movie for a myriad of different reasons. Yeah, I think at the end of the day, Bob, if I'm going to be honest, I think a lot of people might skip out on this episode because they are not as interested in the religious overtones.

5:36 And I'm okay with that. I'm excited to talk about the movie for what it is. I think it's interesting to watch a movie like this with a critical lens on. Mm hmm. And I think that even if you come to this film as someone who is not religiously inclined, I think that there's a lot that could be taken away from this film. Mm hmm. Oh, I totally agree. And Brad, I have so many thoughts and I'm kind of constructed like an outline of where I think we should go with this episode. But I'm going to set all that to the side for a minute because in order to get to that, we have to get to our first segment of the day, which we call Brad explains. Brad's going to give us the movie plot with only 60 seconds taken on the clock. So let's go ahead and hear you take with this little segment that we call Brad explains. Brad explains is the part of the podcast where Brad breaks down the plot of the movie that he has just seen often for the first time. This is not Brad's first time seeing the Passion of the Christ, nor is it his first time recounting the events therein. I don't know if this is going to be like the shortest Brad explains of all time or if you'll take the opportunity to deliver a five point sermon here.

6:47 So let me just remind you, you have one minute on the clock to break down the plot of the Passion of the Christ and go. Dude, I could do a five point sermon on the moment when Mary holds him as he's taken the cross and he looks at her and says, Behold, Mother, I'm making all things new. Dude, actually, can we just skip Brad explains and just talk about that moment for a minute? Yeah. Oh, 100 percent, dude. All right. So let's real quick. Bob explains the the Gospels read them. The end. OK. There's a moment in this movie that is far and away for me, the most emotionally impactful moment of the entire film. And like the whole thing is like, Oh, man, this is very powerful and this is very brutal and hard to watch. And then you have the moment where he intersperses it with an, you know, imagined flashback to a younger Mary chasing after toddler Jesus when he falls over and she's there to pick him up and kind of nurse his wounds. And it's cut with her like running down this alleyway with with his blood on her, like chasing after him, hoping to hold him and be able to nurse him back to health again. And it's not going to happen, man. And like his reaction and saying, look like basically look at what I'm doing here. I lost it, dude. I

8:20 was a sobbing mess for the next five minutes of this film. Yeah. No, that's easily the pinnacle of the movie for me because it's it's the crux of what he is doing. Like at the very center of the life of Christ and why he came is that phrase, behold, I am making all things new. And to see it portrayed so like the oh, man, we can talk about Kavisle's overall performance. But I think in that moment, he somehow manages to sound like he is in incredible pain. And yet there's a little bit of like almost glee in the way he's saying it. Like, yeah, like more like resolve, you know what I mean? Like it's yeah. He has like this sense of like, look what I'm doing, mom. Yeah. Like I'm making all things new and there's this hopefulness in his voice that completely belies what is happening to him physically at that moment. So I think when you watch this movie, there's a couple of things that you can't escape that kind of surround the movie. And one of them I don't think is appropriate for right now. We'll get to that in the analysis portion when we're talking about kind of cultural analysis. And that is the Mel Gibson of it all. But the other thing is you can't really separate this movie out from its use as a tool in Christian

9:51 culture. And I don't even mean like an evangelism tool. Like, I don't know that you show this movie to people to try to convert them to Christianity. It is perhaps, you know, we just did an episode a few weeks ago where we talked about these faith based films like by Christians for Christians, all the ones that people hate like God's not dead. This is perhaps the most like quote unquote by Christian for Christian movie. I think I've ever seen because it's it's certainly not trying to preach and it's certainly not trying to convert. It is at least on its face just trying to depict what is in the text and a very small portion of it at that. There are like little moments of flashback where you get tiny, tiny pieces of Jesus' teaching. But really, I think you can watch this movie even as a nonbeliever and see in it a very historically accurate depiction of what crucifixion looked like. And also be you do get a sense from the way the film portrays Jesus as like, OK, I may not believe that this guy is God or the Son of God or whatever. But like he is certainly a holy figure with great resolve who sticks to his morals to the end. And I think that in those regards, this movie is a huge success. But you also can't you can't divorce the movie from the way that it's been used, which is very much like to what we just talked about, Brad. The

11:22 I am making all things new. That means a lot to you and me because we're believers and like we understand like what what does that line actually mean? I think to someone who watches this movie as a nonbeliever, there are moments that really work and there are moments that are probably confounding. And that's one of the confounding moments because it's like I'm hearing Brad G say that this guy has glee in his voice as he's getting flagellated and beaten to death. And that doesn't sit well with me. Do you know what I mean? And I do kind of wonder how effective is this movie to a nonbeliever? And I think parts of it are probably very effective and parts of it are like you.

12:03 That's gross. Yeah. Yeah. 100 percent. There is a lot of grossness about this movie. And I think that I was struck more than anything else watching it this time with that sense of how much the life and death of Christ probably doesn't make a lot of sense to the world at large. That he he doesn't always make decisions that really make sense that that somebody would make if they were a prophet trying to lead a movement. And you kind of see that on full display here. Like he doesn't answer questions when he probably should. And when he does answer questions, you know, to pilot and to the the Sanhedrin and the other people who are judging him. When he does answer questions, he rarely answers them in a way that is very flattering to him or will get him out of trouble. And I think that it would be very easy to watch this and be like, I don't understand any of his motivations here. Mm hmm. Yeah.

13:08 And I think like that's a it's true to the text, but the problem is like the text has a whole lot of context to go with it. Like there's a thousand other pages of Bible that help that help you understand why Jesus answers. So much Bible that helps you understand why Jesus does or doesn't answer the way he does in the context of those questions. Whereas in the movie, I found myself Brad for the first 25, 30 ish minutes of the movie really struggling to get into it because I was trying to watch it. Not just through an analytical lens, but through the lens of does this movie work if I'm not a Christian and not like anti Christian, but just. It makes sense to me because I know the text so well, the text that is based on does it make sense as a standalone movie. And I think that I think it struggles in a lot of places. There are moments where it's really viscerally effective. And if I knew nothing about the story of Jesus other than he is a guy who died on the cross, I think the movie can be really effective there. But some of the some of those early going moments where you see like, you know, Jesus before the Sanhedrin and Jesus talking to Herod. And it's like there's just not quite enough understanding of who Jesus is outside of this one night we're watching to understand why he's answering the way he does. What does he think of these people? And I think that like it's not until we get into kind of the meat of the story that the movie really starts working. I

14:39 don't know if I can view it the same way, Bob. At the end of the day, I think we have to take Gibson's choices as like very intentional in the sense that he is not making this for people who don't know the background. And I think that one of the things I appreciate most about this film is that he skips over so much. Like he gives you the absolute bare minimum necessary for the viewer of this movie to have the maximum impact of what happened on the cross. And it's not, you know, I don't know if this is good or bad, but it's not meant for people who don't believe in Jesus. And so if you are somebody who is not familiar with the source material, I agree.

15:30 Like it's going to be tough for you to understand all of the different elements that are going on here. And I don't think Gibson, the director really cares. Well, no, and like nor is it a requirement that a movie be all things to all people like that. It's a very common refrain. It's not one that I always agree with, but like, you know, I've had many conversations with my wife about the movie Barbie that came out last year. And at the end of the day, that movie is not for me. It didn't work for me very well, but it's also like I'm not the target audience of the film Barbie. And I have to acknowledge that who cares what I think about it to some extent, you know, I guess what I'm saying, Brad, is the passion of the Christ is Mel Gibson's Barbie. That's that's the quote of today. That's a heck of a statement, Bob. There's a movie that I have talked about many, many times on this show, and it's called The Passion of Joan of Arc. It's a silent movie from the late 1920s. It is one of the 10 best movies I've ever seen in my life. And it's not a coincidence that this movie is titled the same way as The Passion of Joan of Arc. And that movie is literally just a depiction of Joan of Arc's trial and execution. And they got almost all the dialogue in that movie from the actual transcripts that were written down in like the 1200s or whenever it was Joan of Arc was alive.

16:56 And you don't really know much about Joan outside of this trial. They are accusing her of witchcraft. They're asking her if she thinks that she's the daughter of God and she's saying yes. And then they're like, you're a heretic. And on the page, it's like she kind of does sound like a heretic. And then they kill her and you're like, oh, OK, like even if she is a heretic, I don't know how you feel about this whole burning people at the stake thing. And this movie is very similar to that where like when Jesus is before that tribunal and they're asking him, are you calling yourself a king? And he says, yes. Oh, I understand why they're upset by this. And even though you and I know the context of why they're upset with Jesus goes way beyond that. The depiction of what they do in retaliation against Jesus is the emotional heart of the movie. And this act justified based on what they thought he was guilty of. And I think that it makes such a great. I don't mean to step on my let's make it a double here, but that's that's what it's going to be. It makes such a great pairing with Joan of Arc because even apart from all the context of the Bible, you can watch this movie in a vacuum and still be compelled by the injustice carried out against this man. Yeah, 100 percent. I found myself mostly drawn in by all of the reactions of the secondary characters to what was going on. And I think that's kind of the heart of the movie, right?

18:25 Is a, we see Jesus going through this brutal torture for most of the movie. But the the reflection points where you get to feel the emotional depth of that come from, you know, the mother of Jesus, Mary, from Mary Magdalene, from John, from Peter, from all of the people who have been with him, who love him so deeply. And I think that as you watch those secondary characters and the performances, I found myself just completely entranced by them, especially throughout the film. Yeah, I think maybe it's time for us to kind of segue out of how the story itself is compelling to you and me as as people who are Christians and talk about the movie making. So like as a movie, again, this is really hard. It's hard to divorce from from our own personal attachment to the story and from the filmmaker himself. But as a movie, let's kind of start talking about what we have here. And I think let's dive into the performances. You're talking about the supporting characters that might be a better place to start than with Jim Caviesal. And if I could talk about one supporting person in this movie, it would be Maya Morgenstern as Mary, because she is like revelatory in this movie. It is unbelievable how good she is in this film, not nominated for anything. She should have been because it is a heartbreaking performance. Yeah, dude, she's she's so good,

19:55 man. She just has a depth of wisdom and sadness behind her eyes that just never leave. I found myself completely glued to the screen whenever she was on it. Yeah, I'm with you, man. She turns in what might be the best performance of the film. Yeah, I mean, there's a couple other people that I think are really good. The guy who plays John is good. I think that Francesco DeVito as Peter is really good. Monica Bellucci is pretty good as Mary Magdalene. She's probably the most famous person in this movie at the time that it comes out. But it's really Mary. Like she is the one that stands out to me. If there was one other person that I think is worth mentioning in a really small role, it's the guy who plays Simon of Cyrene.

20:47 His name is Jareth or Yareth Mertz. The guy that helps Jesus carry his cross. He's so good. He's incredible. And it's pretty obvious that the script once like Pontius Pilate and Pontius Pilate's wife to be these sympathetic figures, which they kind of are. But like, you know, if there's one thing that I really didn't like about the script, it's that it sometimes feels like it goes overboard to make some characters sympathetic and then also overboard to make other characters completely unsympathetic. And I wish that it that Clint Eastwood syndrome. Yeah, I wish that it left a little bit more up to the audience as to who they want to place blame on because it's very much like the high priests are wrong and Pontius Pilate is totally in the clear. And I'm like, is he like this doesn't seem. And Harriet is super gay. Yeah, very much according to Mel Gibson. Yeah, I think that I really like the performance by Pontius Pilate. I think that whoever the actor is who portrays him a has to be very Eastern European. Oh, yeah, he's a Bulgarian. I'm looking at him now. His name is Christo Nalmof Shopov. Yeah, I was going to say I grew up in Cleveland. I've been around lots of Eastern Europeans and I was like, that man is not from Italy. But I think he gives a really, really solid performance. And

22:19 anytime I felt like he was on screen, I feel like he embodies what you read in scriptures. Like if you look at the original text, the way he delivers that line about truth, like what is true? And even the little side conversation he has with his wife about it about like, would you even know truth if you saw it? Like even those tiny extra biblical moments, I think give flesh to the rest of the movie. All right, man, let's talk about Jim Caviesal as Jesus. And this is a performance that has been, you know, praised and criticized and parodied and kind of hasn't been talked about in the 20 years since. And especially because Jim Caviesal has now become like he was a TV actor for a while and now he's making only Christian movies. He got a lot of flack for the movie he made last year, Sound of Freedom. And again, like it's it's hard to separate out the content of this movie from things that are adjacent to it.

23:25 But I really think Jim Caviesal is freaking fantastic in this movie. And for me, the comparison point is Leo in the Revenant. Because that is a role that Leo has been absolutely pilloried for in the years since as like he just rolled on the ground and writhed around and grunted for two hours because he wanted an Oscar so badly. And I've always defended Leo in that movie. But I think in light of seeing Caviesal here, I'm like, oh, no, this is how you do a performance where you're just being tortured for two hours. Like it's a very physically demanding performance. In addition to the fact that he's delivering all of his lines in another language that is a dead language now. I have no complaints. I think Caviesal is really good. I do hate the shampooed feather haired Jesus we get in some scenes, but like that's more of a Mel Gibson decision than it is a Caviesal one. Yeah, 100 percent. Like who's the artist that that did the the super famous Jesus painting? Oh, like knocking on the door. I can't remember. Yeah. So that is the Jesus that we get here. Right. Man, let me let me look it up really quick. Yeah, it's the the Warner Salmons head of Christ from 1940. Like that's the Jesus that we have here. And I think there's a lot of people who would probably complain about that. We need a more Jewish Jesus.

24:59 I think at the end of the day, this is another example of this is a Catholic movie. And we haven't talked about it yet, but this film is like if you're in Christianity enough, you'll recognize this is like a wildly Catholic movie with so many Catholic references. And I think in the midst of all that, I love Jim Caviesal. The only maybe complaint I have about him is that I wish and this is more script than anything else. I wish there were a few more moments of Jesus being lighthearted and like loving in the flashbacks. You know, like the the tone of the movie is somber throughout. And I kind of wish that in a few of the flashbacks, we got a more jovial, like the wild abandon with which Jesus loved his disciples and the people he was ministering to. Because I think that would help illustrate the depth that they have now sunk to the Jewish people in their torture of him. On the opposite side of that from you, but I think for the same reason, I think the amount of flashbacks used in this movie is the wrong number. And either you need to have more flashbacks or no flashbacks. And I kind of feel like the movie would have been my interpretation was the movie

26:29 would have been better with almost no flashbacks, like no outside context. At all, just the, you know, the Garden of Gethsemane, the trial and the crucifixion. And because I feel like it really undercuts both the rhythm of the movie and like the emotional effectiveness most of the time when they cut away. Mary Magdalene's cut away, unnecessary. I know that it like it is related to what she's seeing happen to Jesus right now, but we don't actually need as the audience to understand how Mary Magdalene was rescued out of adultery and everything like that. Like, like I just wish that we were plunged into this movie and it did not let up for two hours. And I know that that's probably like the idea of that is probably unbearable to a lot of people because it is such an intense movie.

27:18 But I'm with you, man, either you either have to do more or you have to do less, but there's something off with the calculus of the random cutaways here. Yeah, I see. I don't know if I'm quite there with it. I think that they have about the right amount of cutaways to keep you focused on the action without losing the pacing. I think for me, I think within like, don't add or delete any scenes just within what you had filmed, the timing of it. Give me a little more of a happy jovial loving Jesus that is like the whole reason he came. I mean, you do get the revelation that Jesus invented the table and chairs, apparently. That is the one cutaway that they could have cut. She goes, this will never catch on. That is hands down. The weirdest part of the movie. Like why? I don't know if it's the weirdest, but there's some weird stuff in this movie that we need to get to here. Well, weirdest in sense of tone. Like that doesn't fit with any of the rest of the film and not necessarily the silly Jesus. I'm fine with silly Jesus. It's the whole wink at the camera. Oh, this stupid table never catch on. Yeah, man, I'm with you on that.

28:38 I do want to talk before we go to break about the other weird stuff, which is the depiction of Satan in this movie. And I don't know if this is a controversial take, Brad, because we are talking about a cosmic battle of good versus evil represented in the crucifixion. There's too much Satan in this movie. Like we needed like one, maybe two brief glimpses of the satanic figure amongst the people for the point to be made. By the time that Satan shows up with the satanic midget baby and then you get the like nine inch nails looking music video Satan at the end screaming at the camera. It's just like it has not aged well. It was not a good directorial decision. I wish there was less Satan in this movie. I don't think it's terrible. I think that if anything for me, as someone who believes deeply in the spiritual realm, I think that it is a really insightful depiction into the wild weirdness with which the spiritual realm operates.

29:51 And if anything for me, it made it more effective. So I was 100 % on board for all of the Satan scenes in the sense that I think that it added to the film. Oh man. All right, Brad. Well, with that said, I'm going to make an even weirder transition because it feels kind of wrong to pair this movie up with the whiskey. But that's what we do. We watch movies and we drink whiskey. So it's time for us to review some Makers Mark 46. What do you say? I mean, this is like a Catholic film and the Catholics, if nothing else, are all about drinking. Let's get to it, man. All right. So today we are trying Makers Mark 46 cask strength. Now, Brad, I feel like we're finally rounding out the Avengers lineup of Makers Mark products because we've tried Makers Mark. I think, wait, have we tried regular Makers Mark? I was about to say, Bob, I do not think we have. Oh man. Well, then my analogy immediately fell apart. We haven't even reviewed Captain America. Yeah, I know. We're just focusing on Black Widow and Hawkeye here and calling it the Avengers. Okay, so we have tried Makers Cask Strength. We have tried Makers 46. We have not done Makers Mark, but now we're reviewing Makers 46 cask strength. So we've basically tried everything except the

31:22 flagship product. I think we need to remedy that pretty soon here, Brad. Yeah, I was going to say, I feel like really early in the show's history, we tried a Makers Mark product. It might have been 46. It was, yeah, that was like one of our first episodes. Yeah, and then we took like six seasons off and didn't drink any Makers Mark. And since then, we've tried a few and I've been a fan of just about everything we've had. Yeah, me too. And this is kind of the original, you know, quote unquote original weeded bourbon. This is by far the most popular weeded bourbon product on the market. Definitely does more sales than the wellers that you hear about. It's not as bro -y. It's not as sexy of a name as weller is, but Makers Mark moves a ton of units. And so when they came out with Makers 46, it was a really interesting addition to the Makers Mark lineup. This is a French oak stave finished bourbon. It was one of the first ones to do this sort of stave finish thing. And they called it 46 because I think it was like their 46th experiment or the 46th stave. So they just ran with it. And this is the cask strength version of that. The original one comes in at around 90 proof, Brad. It's a pretty low proof whiskey.

32:37 You and I actually revisited it recently for an episode for our Patreon. And we really liked that Makers 46. So I'm pretty pumped to dive into the cask strength version here. This sample was given to us by friend of show Wes, who has been just bank rolling us through season eight, Brad. Let's go Wes. This one comes in at 109 .6 proof. Brad, you and I are drinking this live together, which never happens. You usually come in having already drank it. So you better, you better bring it today, man, because you have no prepared notes. I don't. I have nothing to draw upon, but the faculties that God has given me. And the 600 whiskies we've already tried on this podcast. Yeah, you know, a little bit of experience. All right, man, let's dive in.

33:26 What are you picking up on the nose of Makers 46 cask strength? The first thing that jumps out at me is the cherry. That just there is no masking that this is a weeded, a well -weeded bourbon. I think that there is a lot of peanuts on this. I think that the oakiness does start to come through. Like you definitely notice those oak staves. But other than that, man, this is just like cherry and caramel and vanilla and peanuts and just all sorts of really pleasant bourbon notes. Yeah, I'm totally with you. It's a really nice kind of black cherry, almost like a black cherry ice cream. And then a little bit of that nuttiness. I'm picking up on that. There's some it's almost like a waxy, the waxy smell of peanuts. So I don't know if I could compare this to anything, Brad. It's like this is the PB and J of whiskey. This is the uncrustables of whiskies. I think the oak is coming through, not in a sort of like overly oaked or sour way the way it's been on some of these well aged products we've had recently. It's more of a sawdusty. And I really, really like that because it gets me back into my great like Noah's Mill wheelhouse. So I'm going to give this an eight and a half on the nose, Brad. I like this a lot. Yeah, I think I'm sitting at an eight on the nose. Man, as I'm getting into the palette here, Bob, this is a delicious whiskey. It

34:57 has like a little bit of like a cherry capri sun taste to it. Like it's not thick enough to be a cherry syrup, but I don't know. This is the most American sounding review. We've compared it to uncrustables and capri sun so far. That's the truth. We have the palette of five year olds. My daughter has started soccer at the age of three and it is adorable to watch 15 little girls run around and kick a soccer ball. Absolutely love it. But snack time is her favorite part of the experience. And I had forgotten how capri suns are like a staple of soccer snacks. And so at least when I was growing up, the flavors were pretty much ocean breeze and wild cherry. And so I think that might be why it's on my brain.

35:56 Yeah. But this has that wild cherry capri sun vibe that I really like. I think the nuttiness sticks around. The vanilla is really prominent on the palette more so than on the nose. Bob, this is just a really, really tasty whiskey. I'll come up a little bit from the nose and give it an eight and a half on the palette. Yeah, I think I'm actually going to go down a little bit on my palette score, Brad. This is really good and very solid. But if I could nitpick it a little bit, I think that that oak finish is it tastes more like that toasted oak, really bitter kind of oak that we get sometimes. And it's nice to a point and then you kick it to the back of your palette and it just kind of comes in at first as like a heavy char. But then you realize it's not actually char. It's like a it's like vegetal almost. It's pretty tannic almost, I would call it. And I think that because of that, it almost kind of reminds me of some like dark red wine finished whiskies we've had like a Pinot Noir finish or something. There's there's a little bit of grapiness to this to go along with that cherry. I like it, but it just struck a small bitter note at the end that kind of ruined the rest of it for me. So I'm going to be at a seven and a half on palette and then on finish.

37:18 I'm kind of in the same spot. I think second and third sip. It definitely improves a little bit, but that note doesn't really go away. And the last note that I'm left with is the nice softness of the wheat on this coupled with a kind of bitter oak. And it's mostly good, but there's just something there that's keeping it from being great. So I'm going to go seven and a half again. Yeah, I think for me, the finish is where I kind of drop off. I think that you start to lose the flavors that made this whiskey really solid on the finish. It's still good. There's still a nice pleasant cherry palette that finishes through, but it definitely disappears into the oak a little bit. I'll give it a seven and a half on the finish. I think I'll give it a seven and a half on the balance as well. The movement from nose to palette to finish is good, but not super complex. And it tails off just enough that I think it's a pretty well balanced whiskey, but nothing outstanding. Yeah, I'm in the same spot, man. I'm going to give it a seven. I'll just give it a seven on the balance because I think that the more interesting conversation here is the price, the value on this. Brad, I'm seeing this online at around $60. I like the website I'm on right now is $62 .99. So let's just call it 60 for the sake of argument. At $60, I can't think of a lot of cask strength bourbons that are also finished bourbons. Like,

38:52 you know, I was going to compare this to Wild Turkey Rare Breed, which I think is just a vastly superior product to this. But it's not quite fair because this does have an additional step in its production process. So when I take that into consideration, I don't think this is a bad value. It's not my favorite whiskey at this price point. But considering everything that goes into this, I think a seven out of 10 is a pretty fair score on the value here. Yeah, I think that as I consider the value on this whiskey, I'm kind of sitting at the six and a half range. This is a really good whiskey that if it was even just five to $10 cheaper, I would be in a really solid seven and a half, eight out of 10 place. But I think six and a half is a good spot for for Makers 46 cask strength. Yeah.

39:45 And you know, I think for me, I go back to the Makers cask strength, which I think we just had last season on the show. And that's one of my favorite whiskeys. Like, it's become a pretty big staple on my shelf. It was something that I hadn't tried because it had been six seasons since we tried anything from Makers. And we tried that Makers cask strength and I was blown away. And that's usually between $40 and $50. So this is a significant step up in price point. I think I still prefer the regular Makers cask strength here, Brad, but I'm still coming out to a 37 .5 out of 50. Where are you falling on this one? I'm coming out to a 38 out of 50 here. Okay. All right. So we are at a 37 .75 or a 75 .5 out of 100. If I'm being honest with you, Brad, this seems a few points too high. Like, it's very easily in the green. Yes, you should recommend area of our spreadsheet here. Oh, 100%. But like, I don't think I'm going to buy a bottle of this anytime soon. Do you? Probably not. I think that there's other cask strength options out there for me. But overall, like, this is a whiskey I would recommend people to buy. I mean, if you go to a bourbon bar and they price things fairly, I would assume this is going to cost you between, I don't know, $13 and $15 for a pour. Yeah. And I think that's a pretty, like, it's a worthwhile pour at that

41:16 price. And it's 109 proof. At least our barrel is. So it's not like you're getting something that's really diluted and watered down. I would give it a thumbs up. It's just not like my most enthusiastic thumbs up ever. Yeah, I would say so, like three quarters thumbs up. Brad, it is just a very weird day here at Filmen Whiskey. I feel so weird trying to bridge the movie that we're watching with the fact that we are also reviewing whiskey. So I'm just not going to think about it that much, but it's time to get back into talking Catholic. They're all about drinking. That is true. Talking about Jesus drinking and guilt. Those are the two things we do. And they are. This is like the most Catholic movie we'll ever watch.

42:00 Well, let's talk about it, Brad. What do you say we get back into the passion of the Christ? Let's get to it, man. All right, everybody. That was Makersmark 46 cask strength, a whiskey that I really enjoyed, Bob. Yeah, it was pretty good. I enjoyed it so much. I think I might add it to an infinity bottle that I have going on. Oh, there you go. What are your criteria for your infinity bottle? Because there's a good that are just like, I have an ounce left, it's going in the bottle. And I think that that is a recipe for disaster. Yes, no, that's a recipe for disaster. Unless you're only drinking like premium whiskies, then like, sure, maybe it'll work. For the most part, if I think a whiskey is really, really good. And within, like, if I'm building a specifically more bourbon leaning infinity bottle, I'm not going to put a ton of rise in there, but I might put one or two just to get a little flavor. Yep, yep. So like, I kind of have a vibe I'm going for, and I want it to taste good. You're not just dumping like lagovulin on top of your bourbon infinity bottle. Yeah, although I've been thinking about making some sort of like scotch American blended infinity bottle that could be a lot of fun. Here's the thing. Have we tried making peated bourbon yet? We should. Because like there's peated American

43:31 single malt. Why have we not applied peat to other things? Is it is it that bad? I have to imagine someone's tried it. Yeah, I would imagine somebody's tried it. Peated rye. They do to that sounds great. Let's do that. Sounds incredible. Let's do it. That'll be our distilleries main focus, Bob. All right, man. Well, while we mull over the business model for our distillery, it is time for us to get into our next segment, which we call two facts and a falsehood. Brad is going to try to stump you, Bob, to our eye. And what is wrong? Two facts and a falsehood. Two facts and a falsehood is the part of the show where Brad presents me with three items as fact about the making of this movie, one of which is a complete lie. And I have to figure out which one that is. Brad, I'm doing, I think, fairly well on the season. Let's see what what old Bob is sitting out here. Eleven and six on the year right now, Brad. Now, Bob, I am going to throw you a curveball today. Are you ready? Mm -hmm. So you you got two losses because of one of our guests steered you the wrong direction at some point. And so I figured that today we could allow for a grace week. Because I felt weird writing falsehoods about a movie about Jesus. You know, maybe we should do that instead of playing our game is just talk about the weird inexplicable guilt related with this film. It

45:02 is it is indeed the most Catholic of films because yes, I like I feel weird joking about it. I feel weird talking about it even just as a movie like there is there's a lot of Jesus tied up in this movie. And whether or not it actually has anything to do with how Jesus thinks about me. My mind has been telling me, hey, dude, this is a serious business. You can't joke around about the passion of the Christ. So what I hear you saying is I get an automatic win. What I'm actually saying is we're just taking a week off. All right, cool. Well, now that I've included the theme song to two facts and a falsehood and everything else, we're just not going to do it, folks. So there you have it. This week's two facts and a falsehood. Two facts and a falsehood. All right, Brad, let's get back into talking about the passion of the Christ. And I do think that we have to talk about Mel Gibson a little bit because it is, I believe, less than a year after this movie comes out that he has his huge drunken meltdown. One of the most highly publicized celebrity meltdowns of all time. Like this thing dominated headlines for weeks.

46:11 Everybody was a very big fan of reporting on this. Well, I mean, it had to do with the fact that he was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood and he had just made the passion of the Christ. So he was like he was being lauded very unfairly as like this champion of moral like fortitude and a paragon of what is right in the world. And like that was not accurate at all. And it really came crashing down for him. And I think that whatever your thoughts are on Mel Gibson are very easy to read back onto this movie in retrospect. And I'm especially referring to the fact that even at the time of its release, this movie was condemned by a lot of groups as being really anti -Semitic. But I think that it is worth us mentioning, Brad, that like Mel Gibson has not done this movie any favors with his own behavior. No, it's totally fine, man.

47:07 Here's the thing about Mel Gibson. Have you ever seen the clip of Robert Downey Jr. talking about his relationship with Mel? Yeah, I have. I think that that kind of... I would hope that anybody who encounters me as a human being will kind of hold the good things and tension with the bad of who I am. And I think that that's kind of the perfect balance you have to hold for Mel Gibson here. Like, is he the person who went on a drunken, outrageous, just rampage and, you know, is bad? Yep. I like, I am sure that he did those things. It does not surprise me at all. Is he also the person who took in Robert Downey Jr.

47:54 when he was at his lowest and gave him an opportunity to get back on his feet and encouraged him and loved him up to a place where he could become a superstar again? Yep. I believe that that is true. Like, I don't think Robert Downey Jr. was lying about those things. So, if anything, that to me depicts the beauty of this film. That like, when Jesus died on the cross, it was for the Mel Gibson who helped Robert Downey Jr. get back on his feet and it was for the Mel Gibson who was going on a drunken rampage. Like, there's grace for both of those versions of Mel Gibson. Yeah. Man, and I, like, I hate to, I don't mean to soften the impact of what you just said either. And I'm not trying to do that. But I do think that there are a number of people who see this movie and feel very attacked by it. You know, like, we've had, we've had Jewish people as guest hosts on this show before, Brad. Like, it is, I think it is a fair reading of the movie to wonder if Mel Gibson had some sort of animus in his heart against certain people that he is depicting in the movie. I'm not saying he did. I'm not even saying that I agree with that. I'm just saying that's one reading of the film. I also do think, now go ahead. I think for me, though, that's not really, to me, that's too black and white of a reading of this film.

49:16 Because at the end of the day, like, Jesus is Jewish in this movie. All of the people who care for Jesus are Jewish in this movie. Yeah. Like, sure, the, you know, the Romans are portrayed somewhat graciously, but there's also a lot of the Roman soldiers who are portrayed as absolute pigs. Mm -hmm. And so I think that, I just don't think that you can watch this movie and honestly say that, like, well, Mel Gibson is a racist. He hates all of the Jewish people in the world. Like, there are so many Jewish people in this movie who are portrayed really beautifully and kind and caring. And so I, I don't know, man. To me, I'll just be blunt. I think that's a silly point.

50:03 Yeah. And I was, I was in the middle of trying to steer away from it, too. So I do think that the other point of conversation around the Mel Gibson thing is like, Mel Gibson is primarily known for directing three movies. And this is the second of the three, the first being Braveheart, second, this, and the third one, a movie he makes, like, two years later called Apocalypto. They are all incredibly violent movies, like, very violent movies. And I think that, like, one of the conversations happening at the time this movie came out, if you read reviews of it, too, Roger Ebert says, this is the most violent movie I have ever seen. And my guy, Raj, was watching some really messed up stuff over the years. So I have to believe him. I have to take him at his word. And I've been doing this thought experiment, Brad, of like, I, I want to give Mel Gibson the benefit of the doubt that, like, he, he found, he, he thought that there was a, a, I want to call it a market opportunity. That's very hollow sounding. But like, in the depiction of Jesus, I think that we have gotten a very sanitized version of the passion and death and resurrection of Jesus in all of the movies that were made prior to this. I do think that it is like, this is certainly the definitive depiction of crucifixion that's ever been put on screen. I do sometimes wonder, like, what prompted Mel Gibson to want to make not just a Jesus movie, but this movie? Do you know what I mean? And I guess I don't want to

51:33 put ourselves in the shoes of Mel Gibson. But Brad, what would you see as a filmmaker? What is the benefit of making a movie that is solely about the passion of Christ as opposed to any other part of his life? Like, where do you see the appeal of it? And where would your mind go if you were asked that question? I mean, honestly, man, I think it would take me to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was a Christian author during the reign of Nazi Germany. And he wrote a book called The Cost of Discipleship that basically argues that grace is costly and that if we, if we don't take grace seriously, it cheapens what we have received. And I think that as a filmmaker, I would want to depict the passion, which we haven't talked about this, but within theology and within specifically, you know, Roman Catholic tradition, probably Orthodox tradition as well. Like, the passion of Christ refers specifically to the events happening between the arrest of Jesus through the... does it go through the resurrection? Or does it just go through the death, Bob? I mean, it has the resurrection happening at the end. Okay.

52:54 Which is one of the things I feel most guilty about, because I'm like, dude, come on. Like, you didn't have to throw Jesus getting up from the tomb at the end of this movie. Like, it's a movie about how he died. Sure. And I hate when we fast forward to him getting back up. So, you know what I mean? Like, just like, let us sit in the sorrow. Yeah. Well, and that's, I think that's kind of what I was getting at with the cheap grace versus costly grace. Yeah. Is that if I'm going to help people understand how much grace cost, I am going to as viscerally as possible depict what happened to our Lord and Savior. And I think that one of the most deep and enduring powers of movies, of films at large, is their ability to make people feel. And I just, the older I get, Bob, the more I am convinced that people have anesthetized themselves into oblivion in our country. And we desperately need a reawakening of emotions and feelings and an embrace of them. And I think that this movie is an example of that. Like, if you don't embrace the sadness and the brokenness and the despair of the darkest moment in human history, then how are you going to be able to revel in the glory of what Christ offers us? And the heights to which he wants to draw us? I

54:26 just, I think that sitting in the passion is so important. And so if I was coming at it as a filmmaker, I think I would take the exact same tact as Mel here. Yeah. And I think that to kind of try to draw all this Mel Gibson talk together, like, I think Mel Gibson is a deeply flawed man. I think, you know, there was another incident that happened years after the first one that kind of reconfirmed for a lot of people that they think he's a bad guy. And I'm not arguing that. I, but I do think that you can be a very flawed person and still make earnest attempts at identifying and depicting what you consider to be morally right and true. I understand people who want to read Mel Gibson's flaws onto this film. I personally try to think of it as like he is a deeply flawed man who was earnestly trying to do something that meant a lot to him personally and his faith. Like it's hate to bring this guy up. But like, it reminds me of like the Kanye West thing from a couple years ago. I don't think Kanye West is a Christian. I think at the time he was really interested in being a Christian and his album is this big flawed mess of what he understood or who he understood Jesus to be at that time. And like, there's a lot of it that's theologically incorrect from a Christian perspective. But that's what Kanye thought about Jesus. And I think he was making an earnest attempt to articulate that in the moment. And so I look at this movie and like when I think about the Christian faith,

55:57 one of the beautiful things about it for me, Brad, is that it is such a, it is such a tapestry. There are so many different strands that you can follow. And different facets of the faith hit different people on different levels. Like there are people who like to sit and think about like the the immensity of God. There are people who like to think about the depiction of God as a brother or as a father, like a familial aspect really appeals to some people. There are some people for whom the violence that Jesus endured is the most impactful thing in terms of them understanding the extent of God's love. And I think Mel Gibson is just one of those people like the dude has a fixation on violence, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the violence doesn't mean something deeper to him in this moment. And I kind of that's what I see here is like, yes, my guy has a propensity for violence. I also think that might just be the way that he understands the story of the gospel the best. Yeah, I don't have any follow up for that Bob. All right, Brad, let's kind of come out of that for a minute. Let's just do a few quick minutes before we get to our final scores and let's make it a double. I do think this is a flawed movie. And I've already talked about I think a lot of the flashbacks are unnecessary.

57:18 I think the depiction of Satan is unnecessary. When you look at this just as a a filmmakers skills on display, like what are your thoughts on the movie making here? I think the movie making is spectacular. I think that there are instances of 2004 things going on that don't look great. Specifically Jim Caviesles glammed up eyes where they're they're made brown after the fact in post production. But an unnatural brown. Yeah, yes. Yeah, so that that's not great. There's some instances of slow motion that don't look they just look choppy. They're not super well done.

58:07 There's other places where the slow motion completely fits. Yeah, we were talking last night about the cinematography because you had said to me, I don't know how I feel about the cinematography. And the cinematography is actually one of the few areas that was nominated for an Oscar for this movie. And I think it's really well done like the shot composition, the lighting, the framing, beautiful. But what you have sometimes is like you said this choppy slow mo where a lot of times when a director, especially when they used to shoot on film, if they wanted to do a shot in slow motion, they would shoot it at 48 frames a second. So the film would run through the camera faster because then when you played it back at 24 frames a second, it takes twice as long to play and you have a very smooth slow motion.

58:51 But what happens is a lot of times you would film a scene in 24 and then go back to the editing room and say, oh, damn it, I really wanted that scene to be in slow mo. And so then you would slow down your 24 frames to 18 or 12 or whatever. And there's not frames to go in between anymore. And so it just kind of looks herky, jerky and choppy. And there's quite a few instances of that in this movie. And I think it's it's not necessarily a reflection of the cinematography because the shots were set up really well. I think it's more a question of like, is the editing great? Is the direction great? Because it seems like Mel Gibson had a lot of ideas after the fact and they didn't have the assets to actually make those things happen sometimes. Yeah.

59:34 Yeah, 100%. There's some weirdness with things like that going on. But it's intermixed with really beautiful shots. I think that he frames a lot of scenes just incredibly. You can tell that he is trying to imitate famous paintings, specifically La Piedta at the end of the film. And and it's it's beautiful. Like I can't fault him at all for trying to imitate it. A, because the original is incredible and B, because he does a great job of making it come to life. So I love when he does things like that. There was one specific moment that I thought was just one of the coolest shots.

1:00:21 It kind of reminded me of the the what's it the the something Lebowski the big. Yes. Of all the words you could forget from that title. The forgettable movie. The big Lebowski. Remember when he puts the camera inside the bowling ball? Oh, yeah, yeah. There was a moment that somewhat reminded me of that where you have this like perfectly overhead shot of the three crosses and the crowds. And then the the the edges of the camera slowly like dip in on themselves and you realize that it's like a drop of water falling and like you're seeing it through the drop of water.

1:01:04 And as soon as it hits the earthquake happens and the darkness falls over the earth and dude, it's just incredible. Probably the most terrible thing I'm going to say today. But like this is the third movie now where we've had like an entire universe contained in a small object at the end of the movie. So like in Men in Black, they do that zoom out where it turns out the earth is just inside of like a marble that an alien's playing with. And then in the Grinch, it zooms out and everything's inside of one snowflake. And I just feel like there's this weird cinematic universe of like pick a small object and see what universe is inside of it. And it's like, yeah, OK, if you pick the marble, you get Men in Black. If you look in the snowflake, you get this warm, happy Grinch movie. Oh, if you look in this raindrop, you get to look in on the most devastating horrific event in human history happening. Yeah, no big deal, man. I do think that the score for this movie is probably my least favorite part of the film. There are a few moments where it's just strings and it is like, you know, it's like some Adagio. It's it's just heart wrenching. But then there's also the like vaguely Middle Eastern wailing with drums under it for half the movie. And it sounds it just sounds so dated. It sounds like every movie that was set in the Middle East from 1995 to 2015. And like surprisingly, the score for this movie was nominated for an Oscar. And I thought it was like legit bad. Oh, I think you're crazy. Oh,

1:02:35 my God. I think it works. I wouldn't say it's like a great score, but I think it works at what it's called to do, which is to underlay what's happening on screen. And I think it does a great job of that. All right, man. Well, it sounds like we're kind of in slightly different places on this film. But before we get final scores, it's time for our final segment of the day, which we call Let's Make It a Double. Let's Make It a Double is the part of the show where we pick a movie to pair up with this one to make the perfect double feature.

1:03:17 Brad, I've already given mine. It is the Carl Theodore Dreyer film, The Passion of Joan of Arc. It is one of the 10, maybe 15 best movies I've ever seen. I it's better than this movie. And I would highly recommend. I know I've told you before and I know it's a hard sell to say like, hey, it's basically the passion of the Christ, but it's a silent movie. I get it. I get it. But like you are doing yourself a disservice to not go watch this movie so good. I don't know if I'm doing myself a disservice. I have a lot of things on my on my dock. I'm the general you, you know, like, ah, yes, people of earth. It's one of the best films ever made. If you like movies, you need to watch it. The end you you put it on one of our seasons and I will watch it. All right, man. What's your Let's Make It a Double, Brad? Man, honestly, I kind of want to tell people to go read the book of John. Like that that would be my Let's Make It a Double. As long as it's not the big Lebowski, I think you're doing OK. Um, man, I really don't know if I have a movie. You know, I think I'm actually going to pair it with Schindler's List. If I had to pair it with a movie that gives an absolutely heart wrenching account of a devastating event in human history.

1:04:36 That's probably the best. Yeah, you could do a lot worse. Yeah. Yeah, so I'll say Schindler's List. It will be the saddest night of film that you could ever engage in. I can imagine just like walking in on someone who has just finished that marathon of movies. Oh, dude, their eyes would be just slubbery and yeah, it would be brutal. All right. Well, there's our incredibly entertaining Let's Make It a Double. I picked the passion of Joan of Arc. Brad picked Schindler's List. Let's give this movie some final scores. Brad, I've been waffling between a seven and a half and an eight on this movie. I think that it is an incredibly effective movie, even if you are not a follower of Jesus, even if you're not a believer. In terms of depicting a historically accurate crucifixion and just the injustices committed against a principled person, I think that it is incredibly effective. It needs tightening up. It could lose 15 minutes. It could do without a bunch of the flashbacks and it could do without the Satan character altogether. And I think you're looking at like a nine and a half. But for me, it's going to be seven and a half out of 10. Man, Jesus is watching you, Bob.

1:05:54 Judgementally, to be clear. Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much. No, I think I can understand that take, Bob. I'm just on kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think that Bell does an incredible job with this movie. I think the cinematography is beautiful. I think the performances are great. I think the soundtrack is awesome. There is just so much to like about this movie. And then you top on I am making all things new and the theological implications of what's happening here. I think that this is a nine and a half out of 10, Bob. I found myself utterly engaged and captivated by what Mel was doing. All right. Well, we are actually well above the IMDB average on this movie of a 7 .2 because we are coming out to an 8 .5 out of 10. But we'd like to know what you think. How long has it been since you've seen The Passion? Is it a film that you feel like returning to anytime soon? You can let us know on all of our social media accounts, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube at FilmWiskey. Or you can jump on Discord. We are on there every single day talking with you guys, fans of the Film and Whiskey podcast. If you'd like to join the conversation, you can find a link at the end of every single one of our show notes. Next week, we are continuing the Jesus metaphors before we dive into the godless and soulless world of Marvel. With one last hurrah from the Disney Corporation, it is The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, the first

1:07:25 film in the Chronicles of Narnia series. So join us next week for Narnia. But until then, I'm Bob Book. I'm Brad G. And we'll see you next time. Thanks for watching!