I finally saw "The Passion"

I had wanted to see it when it came out, but the controversy on both sides of it turned me off. I had seen interviews with Mel Gibson prior to the movie's release and was intrigued by some of his ideas.

The movie is brutally violent, in it's portrayal of Jesus' suffering. It is not a movie for anyone under the age of 13 to see. There are more appropriate movies for younger kids that tell the story, and there is always "Jesus Christ, Superstar".

Artistically speaking, it is different from every gospel movie I've ever seen. It's not just the language, which I did not find as distracting as I thought it would be, nor did the subtitles distract me overly much. I know the story, I know the gist of what the actors are saying. What makes this movie intriguing is the actors and their expressions. I think one is supposed to look beyond the suffering to see the reactions of those around Jesus. Peter couldn't deal, and took off. John, Mary and Mary Magdelene ensured that they were always in a place that Jesus could see them. In addition to seeing the faces and expressions of the sadists torturing him, Jesus was also able to see the good people who loved him. Mary and John look away when the suffering gets particularly bad, but always look back. The man who played Pilate has a particularly expressive face, looking anguished about his position, yet knowing as well as Mary that he can do nothing to stop the blood lust of men like Caiphas.

Sometimes, there is nothing you can do to stop the suffering of one you love. Sometimes being there and being a witness is the only thing you can do to offer commiseration on some level. Sometimes, that is the only thing you are called to do. John, Mary and Mary Magdelene were true to the call. Peter was not.

There were some interesting uses of imagery. Prior to his suicide, Judas is hounded by a gang of demonic spirits in the form of children. I thought that the actress who played Satan was an appropriate choice also, beautiful, but scary as hell. S/he was always present in the jeering crowd, moving along with them, enjoying Jesus' suffering as much as them.

I know this is not necessarily based on scripture, as there are scenes of Pilate and his wife (who has a name in the movie, as opposed to scripture), a scene in which Pilate's wife gives Mary clean cloths to clean up her son's blood with (a touching scene, imo)
and characters like Simon the Cyrenian (who was forced to help Jesus carry the cross) and St. Veronica (who washed his bloody face with a cloth)have lines and such that are not in the Bible (along with the character of St. Veronica).

One does not enjoy a movie like this-it's like "Schindler's List" in that sense. "The Passion" is a very compelling and moving interpretation of the story we all know.

I did not see anything anti-semitic. If anything, the movie takes pains to point out that Caiphas set the whole thing up-the council kicks out all the members arguing against him. It does show the complicated politics involved in the ruling of a roman-conquered territory, and having to live under that occupation.

So, really, I don't see where the controversy comes from those who appreciated the movie to those who didn't. I don't think it was the most moving spiritual experience I've ever had-it's a movie, not the real thing. I also don't think the movie should offend anyone, unless the very message of christianity offends you to begin with. If that's the case, don't see the movie.

reassuring and helpful.
:hi:

the passion play was used to stir up feelings of hatred for the jews that were responsible for the death of christ.

I have not seen it, and refuse to, so I cannot comment on Gibson's treatment of that issue. Though, certainly, focusing on the torture and violent death of someone seems like a pretty fucked up means to getting people to want to follow the teachings of a man that had nothing to do with that violence.

there is no need to deny it.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume the story is 100% accurate. Why focus on that violent aspect of it? Was Jesus's message somehow made easier to understand with that violence? Does watching it somehow make us want to be better people and more "christ like"? I don't think so. It seems like we are focusing on the most violent portion of this guy's life for no other reason than voyeurism.

Christ went through for us and even after all of that, He was willing and able to forgive those. The violence part of it was harsh, no doubt. Some see it as a necessary factor and others don't. I see your point, really I do.

but I do understand that watching it could be an eye-opener for those of us who have seen a gazillion deaths on TV and are desensitized to what it really means.

I know people who believe they HAD to see it, to "watch" with him as it were. (Even though they were sitting in a comfy chair munching popcorn.)

I found it very Renaissance in feeling.. pieta agony. I prefer Jesus of Nazareth, which is like a painting with words.

There is some thought that Jesus's suffering was in proportion to our sins. Hence we all were the cause of his sufferings through our own sins. So in a sense we were the ones torturing him, the soldiers were just doing what was required.

The history of christian persecution of jews should be separated from one movie. I read a really good (long) book about that-"Constantine's Cross" by James Carroll. I think it's in paperback, now.

My interpretation of the movie is that Mel took pains not to present the jewish people as being guilty of Jesus death. He presented the complicated political situation, and showed Caiphas having the people on the council that were against killing Jesus thrown out of the meeting.

People were quick to judge the movie as anti-semitic because of the history, without viewing the movie.

Also, the extreme violence is meant as a contrast to the message of peace. A message of peace has little meaning in a peaceful world. It has a great deal of meaning in the midst of violence, where it probably speaks the loudest. The scenes of torture and crucifixion are horrendously violent.

It's not a movie for everyone, though. It's not something I'm going to buy the dvd of, or watch over and over again. But I am glad that I saw it.

I spoke with a friend who did see it (I have not) and he commented on what he saw as a clear message that the "Jews killed Jesus". I should say this comes from someone who takes movies at fairly face value and was raised without any relgion in his life, so he has no dog in this race.

:shrug:

I didn't view it that way at all.

I, too, found it compelling and very artistically done.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of very emotionally and psychologically immaute "liberals" who can only viscerally react to the violence of the movie and condemn it in a very knee-jerk and ignorant way. And, unfortunately, a lot of these so-called liberals are also reacting, because they are utterly immature spiritually and emotionally, to Mel Gibson's touch on this movie - meaning, these ignorant asshole liberals will say "OH NO! A known potentially rightwinger is involved in this movie so I, a liberal, will refuse to see it but I will castigate it and berate ad nauseum because I am a fucktard who hasn't evolved beyond my toddler years!"

Your summation of the movie is very touching and beautiful, and I think you caught the true beauty of the film.

I also find it hilarious that all these asshole liberals castigate this movie for not focusing on the ressurection, and simultaneously celebrate "Jesus Christ Superstar", which movie actually has less on the resurrection than "The Passion of the Christ".

It's sad, but it is true - not even liberals have much of a moral or ethical high ground from which to say that their ideology is supreme.

I'm really saddened - though not surprised - at the number of so-called liberals who feel the need shit all over this movie. I would like to think that liberals, of all people, are the evolved group, but this not universally true.

I said that whoever filed the lawsuit may be legally correct, but is probably just being pissy. I did not insult a single poster, but man, did plenty try to insult me.

No one can hurt me with words unless I give them that power. All they really do is make themselves look bad. I'm a firm believer in the whole "I'm rubber and you're glue" thing. It's the beginning of all wisdom and maturity.

:thumbsup:

of the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre as "fake liberals". +2 points for that.

Myself, I don't have an opinion on the movie as I haven't seen it, nor do I plan on seeing it. It's just not the sort of thing that would interest me.

I admit I am not interested in seeing it precisely because it is intended to convey as truth a story which I believe to be false; that is, Christ may have lived and died as is portrayed in the gospels, but I don't believe he was the son of any god and therefore his death was no more or less horrifying than the deaths of the thousands upon thousands who have been violently murdered for daring to oppose the established order both historically and in the present day.

I would not compare The Passion, which is based soley on faith, to Schindler's List which is based not only on historical fact, but an event which is an actual living memory to some still this day.

religious beliefs. I just don't share them.

no need to call names. Just because we don't agree with you, about a movie for goodness sake, doesn't mean that we are somehow kicked out of the liberal core.

I haven't seen it. I have no desire to see it. I know the story. Went to many passion plays when I was a catholic. I know how it ends. How, exactly, does Gibson put some new touch on the violent end to Christ's life?

Though, I'm probably a "fucktard" (which, by-the-way, kind of makes you sound like you are in elementary school) for not believing the whole Jesus myth anyway.

person, so I'm not going to get upset about this one post (now where's the smiley with the halo, because I think I deserve one...)

whacked and sick. I am assuming you are criticizing people who berate others for liking it NOT for disliking it themselves...if that makes me a fake liberal whatever. :crazy:

Thats the Roman libel right there, if you bought that, the movie worked its propaganda on you. A kindly Roman governor who had no control over the vicious jews who wanted to murder christ.

Does that make me an asshole liberal?

demonize Jews over the crucifixion. After all, if he wasn't crucified then no resurrection, no Christian religion. Just doesn't make sense.

It just isn't translated. Look up "blood libel;" it's in the movie. When Jewish organizations complained, Gibson took out the subtitles, but not the dialog.