BrandoFan Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 i like the joke at the end about turning the movie into a book This joke has a beard thiiiis long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 If Hoberman's too East Coast Elite-y....You can't get more mainstream rube-ish than TV Guide, though to be fair, Maitland McDonaugh's reviews are always clear and concise, almost too good for the publication. http://tvguide.com/movies/database/ShowMovie.asp?MI=44981 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Somehow I have a feeling that the only people that would come away from "The Passion" with anti-semitic feelings are those that believe the stereotypes but try their hardest to find the stereotypes unfounded in their life. WHAT? Are you implying that all Germans try to find hidden stereotypes? Are you saying we are all dumb? That all we do is drink? THat is really low of you. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 I am posting this twice because this movie is very disturbing and those who think the Gospel needs Holywood padding - whatever - think about it there is nothing here that I want to associate myself with as a Christian - nothing I ran into another pastor in line at the theatre - we both agreed that we needed to see it in self defense since it is The Issue today - he and his wife and I sat together - I don't know which one of us went numb first from shock that this movie is as unBiblical is it is - you think driving a nail through someone's hand would gross you out but like a porn film, when you've seen 18,000 blow jobs the 18,001st is boring and numbing - if you had a drinking game, had a drink every time the script actually says something from the Gospels or portrays something in a Gospel, you'd be stone sober at the end of the movie - the three of us sat and watched the credits to look for one theologian, one Biblical scholar that credit was given to and as we suspected, there was none - but they do thank the Legionnaires of Christ and that is not a positive thing if this is the Jesus you need, I am glad you got it but there is nothing here that I want to associate myself with as a Christian - nothing let this fad pass quickly I am being kind by the way, because I'd rip this movie every which way, anti-Semitic and unBiblical - that lack of Biblical fidelity surprised even me (I loved it when everyone speaks Latin when in fact that dialogue would have been in koine Greek - but I hated the nonBiblical dialogue that dominated the script placed all the blame on those hooked nosed Jews and took Rome right off the hook) I have gone to many movies that I thought I would dislike and been won over but this one was the most mind numbing sick thing - if that's what you need to love Jesus - that is scary considering Gibson's fetish with torture/violence in Mad Max and Braveheart, this still went further than I expected and had less and less meaning as it went on - only Gibson would think the whipping scene in the Gospels didn't have enough violence - count - this is almost a Bible denying movie but for fans of Anne Catherine Emmerich and stigmatas, it is a blood festival this movie has a political agenda and that was clear - it is a promo for the Pius X Society - not a good thing in my view - the anti Semitism of the 19th century mystic stigmatists was both very clear and carefully choreographed - the most antiSemitic part of thge script is the false words they put in Pilate's mouth and the attempt to whitewash Rome over the embarrassment that Rome did this was cinematically clever but disgusting there is nothing here that I want to associate myself with as a Christian - nothing I can love Jesus without the orgasms of violence - it scares me that some people need that be thankful that I am not going point by point through this movie - it is so unBiblical - reminds me of a time I looked at a flashy car and I know nithing about cars and I said to a mechanic what a cool car it was and he told me it was junk - this slow plodding sick film is not based on the Gospels - it looks like it is but it was stunning how it wasn't - there was more Gospel and truth in Kangaroo Jack BrandoFan - you may note that the suicide of Judas visually and the entire Jesus before Herod scenes are directly ripped out of Jesus Christ Superstar - and JC Superstar, Godspell, far more effective at conveying the Passion and certainly the Resurrection than this thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 remembering Gibson thanks the Legionnaires of Christ (and not one theologian or Biblical scholar) in the credits and I posted that is not a good thing, I thought what better insight into why I say that than a description of them from the National Catholic Reporter - NCR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 considering Gibson's fetish with torture/violence in Mad Max and Braveheart, this still went further than I expected and had less and less meaning as it went on - only Gibson would think the whipping scene in the Gospels didn't have enough violence - count - this is almost a Bible denying movie Thanks most sincerely for the first-hand review cw. There are no others of us here who have actually devited a couple decades to biblical scholarship, and for me your appraisal of the film versus the written Word holds more water than all the armchair theologizing the rest of us together could ever do. And some day if you are up to it (not that you could sit through another viewing), I would appreciate a scene-by-scene reconciling between the film and the Gospels. I haven't seen it, and I'm not setting aside any time to do so. But, a couple of friends did see it. Relative to your 'count' comment, they too had to confer with me as to whether they still had their Sunday school facts straight, because they said that a reported 40 lashes seemed more like a couple hundred in Mel's version, and three well-detailed falls while carrying the cross turned into a couple-dozen in the film. If these simple, stay-with-you-for-your-entire-life Biblical details were so badly screwed up, then how the hell is the film supposed to get the subtle but vitally important parts of the story right? As for your nod to JC Superstar and (to a lesser degree for me) Godspell, I have always felt those works to be completely moving because of their accessibility and human portrayal of Christ, and also for their emphasis on celegrating the LIFE and message of Christ, rather than the visceral details of the death. As far away from the Church as I personally am, I still sneak in Pilate's Dream ("I dreamed I met a Gallilean...") occasionally when performing acoustic music here and there - I guess as a personal homage to what I grew up with and also to see if anyone is paying attention. I also sneak in stuff like the themes from Scooby Doo and Green Acres though, so I don't read a whole lot into it. I do think that that vintage of Rice/Lloyd-Webber was them at their best though, and it had a profound effect on me. It wouldn't play these days though. Now you need blood and lots of it. If there's lots of blood and lots of Latin dialogue it MUST be 'as it was'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 the anti Semitism of the 19th century mystic stigmatists was both very clear and carefully choreographed So "carefully choreographed" that I didnt SEE ANY! I went into this movie expecting it to be ant-jew. After all, that is what the press has been saying. I expected to leave that theater thinking "I want to kill a jew because they killed my Lord". When in reality, i left thinking "hmmm........ other than the high preists they werent bad people. Just misguided" (And by misguided I mean that they didnt follow Christ) I thought it was an amazing movie. What it 100% accurite? No, of course not. i never expected it to be. If they went word for word out of the bible, the movie owuld have lasted around an hour and would have been dry. Some say that it lacked spirituality, but I feel that the flash backs helped provide that spirituality. After all, the last 12 hours of his life wasnt "spiritual". It was tourcher. Personally, I believe a lot of the elements were added purely for plot line development. After all, it would have been hard to advance a plot with a few events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 they said that a reported 40 lashes seemed more like a couple hundred in Mel's version, and three well-detailed falls while carrying the cross turned into a couple-dozen in the film. I wish i would have counted, but while I do feel it was more than 40, it fell well short of "a couple hundred". It may have seemed like a lot, but it really wasnt. The scene just dragged on for so long that it seemed like there were mroe than there really were. As for the cross, that I can agree with. I can think of 4 in the movie, but I am sure there are a few more. And were are kidding each other if the bible included EACH and every time Jesus fell on his walk. It was a long walk and i have no doubt he fell more than 3 times. So, on that I am willing to give him some slack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 cw..i saw the movie tonight too...looks like we are gonna be about as diametrically opposed on this as we are on abortion... ..cant believe we saw the same movie.. sorry in advance as ill probably run on into a long post first...of course it was violent...but no one is going to tell me that it was anymore violent than the real thing...its a historical fact that many people died from scourgings alone...i actually feel mel held back a little on the actual violence...i was under the impression that about 1:45 of this movie was brutal beatings and about 15 minutes was actual story about his trial and flashbacks on Christ's life...the actual scourging and cruxifiction was probably less than half the movie..atleast it felt that way... jim caviezal did an awesome job as Jesus...will most certainly go down as his greatest work ever...if hollywierd has the guts they should hand him the oscar right now....his portayal of suffering and forgivness was not of this world...i dont know caviezal's faith but if he prayed for God to help him play the role as close to Christ as possible i believe God answered that prayer...just my feeling on the jews looking haggared and snaggletooth..well alot did.. not all of them..but so did the roman foot soldiers...check out the teeth on the one's scourging Jesus..nasty...the portryal of the jewish high priests were stunning imo...the clothes they wore were beautiful.....though pilate was probably the best looking one there...but with the position of power he held im sure he had access to everything of the day to make him look like that..he had to be an example of roman superiority to get the position in the first place...it looked like gibson placed alot of emphasis with regaurds to looks on positions of power with both the jews and the romans...not just singling out the jews...the roman foot soldiers were ugly and nasty..outside of how barrabas was portrayed (he was hideous) they were the worst looking of the bunch...king herrod came off looking and acting like a freak the devil was awesome (hear me out please )...i believe it was a woman that played the devil and she was made to actually be attractive in an evil sort of way...if that makes sense...it puts to rest this vison of a pitchfork and horns..she was cunning , sly , really in an odd sense beautiful...you could see how tempting the devil could really be...the devil is the ruler of this world and gibson did a great job of driving that point with how he portrayed the devil...though all its cunning and wyles the devil was powerless to stop its own damnation...it really was enlightening to me... the best scenes to me in the movie were the two that showed Jesus interacting with his mother...the first was showed him at work as a carpenter...building a perfect table for a rich man that hired him...its a playful scene with his mother as she offers him some water and he spills some on her...the second was when fell carrying the cross and then there is flashback scene to when Jesus was a child and he fell and mary rushed to comfort him...she tries to comfort him again but this time of course she is helpless to really do anything...that point really hit hard for me..i actually had a few tears run down my cheeks...the violence didnt get to me..but those two scenes mixed in with the violence did...i felt more more of mary's pain than i did Jesus...it was beautiful the way her love for her son was depicted.. right before this started i took the advice of a friend and just prayed to God to clear my mind of any prejudices i had and to just let whatever the Lord feels i should take from the movie happen...i believe thats a good way for anyone to see this movie... i was planning to take notes and look up all the inaccuracies (which im sure there are plenty)..but as the movie started i completely forgot about that and became engrossed in it...what i really took from it and what i hope was God's intent for me to take was to put myself in the place of the jews who were calling for cruxifiction...i had to ask myself how i would have acted???..we have the luxary of all the guidance from the new testament...the people back then didnt...they relied on the teachings of the first 5 books of the bible for the most part and what the high priests said and taught in temple... if i was a jew back then...just wandering around and heard the high priest screaming for cruxifiction for blasphemy on a man that i had no clue who he was im sure i could have got caught up in the moment..i believe any of us here would have...i would hope i would have developed some compassion for my fellow man but at that time i dont believe that was what was being taught...you were taught to follow these strict set of rules and anyone who challenged that was punished severly... if i have no prior knowledge of the teachings of Christ why wouldnt i believe the high priests???? from that i took away that it really was all of us that killed Jesus..that we all took turns nailing him to the cross..i feel like i held the hammer myself and ran a spike through His hand...i hope thats what the good Lord intended me to take from it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 the antiSemitism -remembering this scrpt is based on the mystic visions of Anna Catheirne Emmerich - who also believed that Rome was the True Church and only Rome, all other church bodies were satanic - how does one reconcile that Rome killed Christ when Rome was the True Church (this was her issue, not mine) at every point, Rome is taken off the hook - the Roman soldies were sadistic but they are all so moved at the end of the movie, all those cut aways to those far off glances Pilate's wife in a major gag me with nonBiblical material comforting Mary - Pilate's reluctance to crucify (which is so historically untrue - the movie thus leaves unanswered, where did these only two crucifixions come from if Pilate was so reluctant to do this) while the Jews were lusting for the blood of Jesus Caiaphas at the cross - almost the ultimate in going out of one's way to blame the Jews - the Jews through out just lusting for Jesus' death - when the death occurs, the Scriptures tell us the veil in the Temple was rent and there was an rumbling earthquake almost as creation cries in anguish but in Gibson's movie the Temple is wrecked as if God has now damned the Jews for killing Jesus - that is the very subtlle technique to repeat throughout the message that the Jews killed Christ - and what motive has he moviue given other than Jews hate Christ and Roman nobles were against it but went along with the controlling, manipulative Jews - that line from Pilate (not in the Bible but that goes without saying) that Caiaiphas will cause an insurrection if Pilate does not kill Jesus is the most flaming antiSemitic remark that could have been made, is anti the Gospels, Biblically untrue, and a new low in blaming the Jews and it disgusted me as well as so historically untrue - so anti history but it sure balme the Jews, huh? other movies, and again I go to Superstar for contrast, manage to get Jesus crucified while making the point that Jesus died for people, not because of the Jews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 the Roman soldies were sadistic but they are all so moved at the end of the movie, all those cut aways to those far off glances If I am not mistaken, isnt it true that one soldier said something along the lines of "Truely this is the son of God" while Jesus is on the cross. So, some were moved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Pilate's reluctance to crucify (which is so historically untrue - the movie thus leaves unanswered, where did these only two crucifixions come from if Pilate was so reluctant to do this) I just went through and read EACH of the Gospels where it talks about how Pilot handled Jesus. Ian ALL of them he is reluctent to send him to die. He sees no cause and for the reason, he wanted to let a killer free. His hopes were that if he offered what he thought to be a horrible person, they would realize that Jesus wasnt so bad after all. To me, that REALLY points out his reluctance to kill Jesus. And to his amazement, they didnt pick Jesus to be set free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 when the death occurs, the Scriptures tell us the veil in the Temple was rent and there was an rumbling earthquake almost as creation cries in anguish but in Gibson's movie the Temple is wrecked as if God has now damned the Jews for killing Jesus - WOW! That was reading a LOT into that scene. Just because there was some destruction of the temple, doesnt mean that God has "damned the Jews". Surely if there was some form of an earthquake at the time of Jesus's death, there would have been some damage done. Matthew 27:51 says: "At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split." Those rocks could have included some within the temple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Caiaphas at the cross - almost the ultimate in going out of one's way to blame the Jews - the Jews through out just lusting for Jesus' death Luke 23:35-36 "The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One." The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar 37and said, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself." Not how the "rulers" and the "soldiers" are mentioned seperatly. To me, the rulers mentioned were the high priests. Maybe not Caiaphas specifically, but, in my opinion, it probably was one of the high priests. Luke makes sure to seperate the rulers from the soldiers to show that they were not the same people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 cw...how can you come to the conclusion the romans were let off the hook???...they came out looking horrible in this movie....to me the romans looked so much worse than the jews.. i read through all 4 gospels this morning from where judas deceives Jesus...if you look at gospels accounts as a script for this movie its pretty close to what the gospels say...if this movie is a direct account of this anna catherine's vision..then her vision seem pretty close to gospel accounts..regaurdless of how anti-semetic she was or was portrayed to be... mel imo, stayed pretty close to the accounts of those finals hours found in the gospels... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 WOW! That was reading a LOT into that scene. Just because there was some destruction of the temple, doesnt mean that God has "damned the Jews". Surely if there was some form of an earthquake at the time of Jesus's death, there would have been some damage done. Matthew 27:51 says: "At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split." Those rocks could have included some within the temple. I've been out of the belief business for a while, but the tearing of the temple veil is a symbol of utmost importance, and to obscure that with the temples destruction does that symbolic event great injustice. The veil separarated the rest of the temple from the 'holy of holies' - the one place where the pure God could reside in the temple. Even the church elders were only allowed to enter once a year, and they did so to perform a ritual sacrifice to God. Thering tthe veil breaks down the barrier between man and God - man does not need to go through the high priests to get to God and doesn't need to make sacrifices at the alter because now it is God that has made the ultimate sacrifice to bring man to him. As far as the Jews being on the hook for Jesus' death in the Gospel accounts, cw has already pointed out that explanation. Judea was fallen by 70 AD when the early Christian oral traditions were put to text in the Gospels. Rome was the cener of the world, and the Jews were well out of power in the region. Laying it on the Jews keeps the full wrath of Rome off the still minority Christian cults and also is a jab back at the Jews for their persecution of Christians over the previous 40 years. Doesn't it seem to you that the whirlwind events of Holy Week just happen way to fast for anyone BUT those at the top to be calling the shots? Palm Sunday has a triumphant arrival of Jesus and his followers to joyous masses, who are then somehow the same people who vote to free Barabas and crucify Jesus 5 days later? That's a very fast turn of events. The speed with which a socially disruptive self-proclaimed Messiah is dispatched is believable if the occupying Romans feel that social unrest is going to cause them problems (and it has already been noted that Pilate is historically known to have been ruthless and to have had hundreds of people crucified while he was calling the shots). The same speed with which tthe tide turned against Jesus becomes difficult to accept if it done at the behest of the Jewish high priests who were prettty much dogs to the occupying Romans, and had only what little authority Pilate saw fit to grant them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 I got terrible news this morning. My awesome grandmother Ksenya's heart stopped on Wed, the day of this movie's release. She was 98. Maybe she knew something. I am not going to see it. I am done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 The veil separarated the rest of the temple from the 'holy of holies' - the one place where the pure God could reside in the temple. Even the church elders were only allowed to enter once a year, and they did so to perform a ritual sacrifice to God. Thering tthe veil breaks down the barrier between man and God - man does not need to go through the high priests to get to God and doesn't need to make sacrifices at the alter because now it is God that has made the ultimate sacrifice to bring man to him. I agree with you on that point. I too was a little suprised that it wasnt played up more. It was partially shown and that was about it. Now, as a beleiver and someone who was raised in the faith, I know the importance of that. And that being seen in the movie (all be it a short part of it) was important. I think if Mel had wanted to make this more as a disipleship movie, he should have found a way to explain its importance. The only reason I knew it was an important event from the context of the movie was the reaction of the high priest as he loks up and sees the veil is gone. But, if I wasnt someone who grew up in the churhc, I probably wouldnt have thought anything of it. SO yes, I agree that part was under played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 cw...how can you come to the conclusion the romans were let off the hook???...they came out looking horrible in this movie....to me the romans looked so much worse than the jews.. i read through all 4 gospels this morning from where judas deceives Jesus...if you look at gospels accounts as a script for this movie its pretty close to what the gospels say...if this movie is a direct account of this anna catherine's vision..then her vision seem pretty close to gospel accounts..regaurdless of how anti-semetic she was or was portrayed to be... mel imo, stayed pretty close to the accounts of those finals hours found in the gospels... baggio, one of the few timesa I will say that you are flat out wrong map out the 4 Gospel's passion scenes anfd lay out that unfolding script and that movie script is not Biblically based - so many additions, so many changes - and as for the historical reality, FlaSoxxJim has said it, I have posyed on it before - that mvoie twists the historical realiity - the line about Caiphas' having a rebeliion is utter bulls*** falsehood - what was the movie's motivation for killing Jesus - Baggio, you brought your piety into the movie and saw it with those lens - I was genuinely prepared to revise my pre-seeing opinion as I have done many times with movies - show me Jesus killing in the Bible show me where any of those lines are in the Bible close to the Bible? That is pure bulls*** that Pilate's wife comforted Mary throwing Jesus off a bridge - scene after scene has material not in the Scripture that whipping scene - the Bible is specific - the soldiers are even counting in the movie in latin (albeit they spoke Greek) and then keep on going and why, other to show the goodly Roman wife comforting mary whiel the Jewsih leaders delighted in the whipping - why put Jews in a scene where they do not belong, is that in your Bible, read it again, add the Pilate's wife thing, add the Jewish leasders getting off on the whipping - here's a fact, they wuld have been now here near there and it all keeps pointing fingers at the Jewish leaders and it just is not so and on and on and on and on and on when you and I watch a football or baseball game I will bet you any money that you see more technique and subtle things about the game that I will never will because you know more about that sort of thing - that is what I am saying - from an academic, schlarly perspective this movie is porno violent antiSemitic trash King of Kings,m Jesus of Nazareth, any of those movies were far, far closer to the Gospels than this thing Last Temptation of Christ takes speculation and makes something meaningful - this is just Mad Max/Braveheart obsession with males being tortured and it is sick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 please read this review NAILED by DAVID DENBY Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” Issue of 2004-03-01 Posted 2004-02-23 In “The Passion of the Christ,” Mel Gibson shows little interest in celebrating the electric charge of hope and redemption that Jesus Christ brought into the world. He largely ignores Jesus’ heart-stopping eloquence, his startling ethical radicalism and personal radiance—Christ as a “paragon of vitality and poetic assertion,” as John Updike described Jesus’ character in his essay “The Gospel According to Saint Matthew.” Cecil B. De Mille had his version of Jesus’ life, Pier Paolo Pasolini and Martin Scorsese had theirs, and Gibson, of course, is free to skip over the incomparable glories of Jesus’ temperament and to devote himself, as he does, to Jesus’ pain and martyrdom in the last twelve hours of his life. As a viewer, I am equally free to say that the movie Gibson has made from his personal obsessions is a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminating procession of treachery, beatings, blood, and agony—and to say so without indulging in “anti-Christian sentiment” (Gibson’s term for what his critics are spreading). For two hours, with only an occasional pause or gentle flashback, we watch, stupefied, as a handsome, strapping, at times half-naked young man (James Caviezel) is slowly tortured to death. Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagrely involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate. And against whom will the audience direct its hate? As Gibson was completing the film, some historians, theologians, and clergymen accused him of emphasizing the discredited charge that it was the ancient Jews who were primarily responsible for killing Jesus, a claim that has served as the traditional justification for the persecution of the Jews in Europe for nearly two millennia. The critics turn out to have been right. Gibson is guilty of some serious mischief in his handling of these issues. But he may have also committed an aggression against Christian believers. The movie has been hailed as a religious experience by various Catholic and Protestant groups, some of whom, with an ungodly eye to the commercial realities of film distribution, have prepurchased blocks of tickets or rented theatres to insure “The Passion” a healthy opening weekend’s business. But how, I wonder, will people become better Christians if they are filled with the guilt, anguish, or loathing that this movie may create in their souls? “The Passion” opens at night in the Garden of Gethsemane—a hushed, misty grotto bathed in a purplish disco light. Softly chanting female voices float on the soundtrack, accompanied by electronic shrieks and thuds. At first, the movie looks like a graveyard horror flick, and then, as Jewish temple guards show up bearing torches, like a faintly tedious art film. The Jews speak in Aramaic, and the Romans speak in Latin; the movie is subtitled in English. Gibson distances the dialogue from us, as if Jesus’ famous words were only incidental and the visual spectacle—Gibson’s work as a director—were the real point. Then the beatings begin: Jesus is punched and slapped, struck with chains, trussed, and dangled over a wall. In the middle of the night, a hasty trial gets under way before Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia) and other Jewish priests. Caiaphas, a cynical, devious, petty dictator, interrogates Jesus, and then turns him over to the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), who tries again and again to spare Jesus from the crucifixion that the priests demand. From the movie, we get the impression that the priests are either merely envious of Jesus’ spiritual power or inherently and inexplicably vicious. And Pilate is not the bloody governor of history (even Tiberius paused at his crimes against the Jews) but a civilized and humane leader tormented by the burdens of power—he holds a soulful discussion with his wife on the nature of truth. Gibson and his screenwriter, Benedict Fitzgerald, selected and enhanced incidents from the four Gospels and collated them into a single, surpassingly violent narrative—the scourging, for instance, which is mentioned only in a few phrases in Matthew, Mark, and John, is drawn out to the point of excruciation and beyond. History is also treated selectively. The writer Jon Meacham, in a patient and thorough article in Newsweek, has detailed the many small ways that Gibson disregarded what historians know of the period, with the effect of assigning greater responsibility to the Jews, and less to the Romans, for Jesus’ death. Meacham’s central thesis, which is shared by others, is that the priests may have been willing to sacrifice Jesus—whose mass following may have posed a threat to Roman governance—in order to deter Pilate from crushing the Jewish community altogether. It’s also possible that the temple élite may have wanted to get rid of the leader of a new sect, but only Pilate had the authority to order a crucifixion—a very public event that was designed to be a warning to potential rebels. Gibson ignores most of the dismaying political context, as well as the likelihood that the Gospel writers, still under Roman rule, had very practical reasons to downplay the Romans’ role in the Crucifixion. It’s true that when the Roman soldiers, their faces twisted in glee, go to work on Jesus, they seem even more depraved than the Jews. But, as Gibson knows, history rescued the pagans from eternal blame—eventually, they came to their senses and saw the light. The Emperor Constantine converted in the early fourth century, and Christianized the empire, and the medieval period saw the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. So the Romans’ descendants triumphed, while the Jews were cast into darkness and, one might conclude from this movie, deserved what they got. “The Passion,” in its confused way, confirms the old justifications for persecuting the Jews, and one somehow doubts that Gibson will make a sequel in which he reminds the audience that in later centuries the Church itself used torture and execution to punish not only Jews but heretics, non-believers, and dissidents. I realize that the mere mention of historical research could exacerbate the awkward breach between medieval and modern minds, between literalist belief and the weighing of empirical evidence. “John was an eyewitness,” Gibson has said. “Matthew was there.” Well, they may have been there, but for decades it’s been a commonplace of Biblical scholarship that the Gospels were written forty to seventy years after the death of Jesus, and not by the disciples but by nameless Christians using both written and oral sources. Gibson can brush aside the work of scholars and historians because he has a powerful weapon at hand—the cinema—with which he can create something greater than argument; he can create faith. As a moviemaker, Gibson is not without skill. The sets, which were built in Italy, where the movie was filmed, are far from perfect, but they convey the beauty of Jerusalem’s courtyards and archways. Gibson, working with the cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, gives us the ravaged stone face of Calvary, the gray light at the time of the Crucifixion, the leaden pace of the movie’s spectacular agonies. Felliniesque tormenters gambol and jeer on the sidelines, and, at times, the whirl of figures around Jesus, both hostile and friendly, seems held in place by a kind of magnetic force. The hounding and suicide of the betrayer Judas is accomplished in a few brusque strokes. Here and there, the movie has a dismal, heavy-souled power. By contrast with the dispatching of Judas, the lashing and flaying of Jesus goes on forever, prolonged by Gibson’s punishing use of slow motion, sometimes with Jesus’ face in the foreground, so that we can see him writhe and howl. In the climb up to Calvary, Caviezel, one eye swollen shut, his mouth open in agony, collapses repeatedly in slow motion under the weight of the Cross. Then comes the Crucifixion itself, dramatized with a curious fixation on the technical details—an arm pulled out of its socket, huge nails hammered into hands, with Caviezel jumping after each whack. At that point, I said to myself, “Mel Gibson has lost it,” and I was reminded of what other writers have pointed out—that Gibson, as an actor, has been beaten, mashed, and disembowelled in many of his movies. His obsession with pain, disguised by religious feelings, has now reached a frightening apotheosis. Mel Gibson is an extremely conservative Catholic who rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican council. He’s against complacent, feel-good Christianity, and, judging from his movie, he must despise the grandiose old Hollywood kitsch of “The Robe,” “The King of Kings,” “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” and “Ben-Hur,” with their Hallmark twinkling skies, their big stars treading across sacred California sands, and their lamblike Jesus, whose simple presence overwhelms Charlton Heston. But saying that Gibson is sincere doesn’t mean he isn’t foolish, or worse. He can rightly claim that there’s a strain of morbidity running through Christian iconography—one thinks of the reliquaries in Roman churches and the bloody and ravaged Christ in Northern Renaissance and German art, culminating in such works as Matthias Grünewald’s 1515 “Isenheim Altarpiece,” with its thorned Christ in full torment on the Cross. But the central tradition of Italian Renaissance painting left Christ relatively unscathed; the artists emphasized not the physical suffering of the man but the sacrificial nature of his death and the astonishing mystery of his transformation into godhood—the Resurrection and the triumph over carnality. Gibson instructed Deschanel to make the movie look like the paintings of Caravaggio, but in Caravaggio’s own “Flagellation of Christ” the body of Jesus is only slightly marked. Even Goya, who hardly shrank from dismemberment and pain in his work, created a “Crucifixion” with a nearly unblemished Jesus. Crucifixion, as the Romans used it, was meant to make a spectacle out of degradation and suffering—to humiliate the victim through the apparatus of torture. By embracing the Roman pageant so openly, using all the emotional resources of cinema, Gibson has cancelled out the redemptive and transfiguring power of art. And by casting James Caviezel, an actor without charisma here, and then feasting on his physical destruction, he has turned Jesus back into a mere body. The depictions in “The Passion,” one of the cruellest movies in the history of the cinema, are akin to the bloody Pop representation of Jesus found in, say, a roadside shrine in Mexico, where the addition of an Aztec sacrificial flourish makes the passion a little more passionate. Such are the traps of literal-mindedness. The great modernist artists, aware of the danger of kitsch and the fascination of sado-masochism, have largely withdrawn into austerity and awed abstraction or into fervent humanism, as in Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” (1988), which features an existential Jesus sorely tried by the difficulty of the task before him. There are many ways of putting Jesus at risk and making us feel his suffering. What is most depressing about “The Passion” is the thought that people will take their children to see it. Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” not “Let the little children watch me suffer.” How will parents deal with the pain, terror, and anger that children will doubtless feel as they watch a man flayed and pierced until dead? The despair of the movie is hard to shrug off, and Gibson’s timing couldn’t be more unfortunate: another dose of death-haunted religious fanaticism is the last thing we need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 I got terrible news this morning. My awesome grandmother Ksenya's heart stopped on Wed, the day of this movie's release. She was 98. Maybe she knew something. I am not going to see it. I am done. Very sorry to hear of your loss, friend. 98 is a good long run, but it always hurts to lose a loved one. My thouhts are with you. Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 cw, you've made your point. For every review that pans it there is another that says it is the most powerful movie they've ever seen. Your crusade against this movie is only hurting your credibility, at least in my eyes. It definitely seems like you have an agenda and only Jesus Christ himself telling you he thinks the movie is worth watching will make you stop. Just a piece of friendly advice...you've pointed out the movie's flaws, now let it go. Your ravings against it almost come off as irrational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 How is he coming off irrational? If The Passion has significant flaws, both historically and scripturally, then they should be discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 cw, you've made your point. For every review that pans it there is another that says it is the most powerful movie they've ever seen. Your crusade against this movie is only hurting your credibility, at least in my eyes. what crimson said... howver, I listen to what you say to and I take that as a caution my distaste for this movie is that it is going to look to lot of people that this is what "Christians" believe and I resent heavily that the marketing within the churches and to the society at large is that this is representative of the Church which is my life what crimson said works for me, and thank you crimson but I understand your post is well intentioned and if that is the way it comes off to you than I need to consider that seriously so I thank you but as luck has it I am going to be gone for a while so you get a respite from my posts, Bob! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 How is he coming off irrational? If The Passion has significant flaws, both historically and scripturally, then they should be discussed. Precisely - and there is noone here more aquipped to show the film for what it is. cw's remark to baggio about the different way they would take in a baseball game is exactly what is happening here. As an honest scriptural scholar with decades of study and examination of a multitude of sources both scriptural and historical, who else is there here that can offer truly informed insights on this? That the film is viscerally numbingly powerful is not in question. But is it a service to Christianity to make a religion-themed equivalent of a snuff film? Those are also purported to be viscerally powerful and unsettling, be they actual on-camera killing or just sly fabrications passed off as thereal thing. I left the Catholic Church precisely because it seemed so much more hung up in its own morbid fascinations and attendant guilt over the same than with actually trying to be a positive source of spiritual strength and community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.