Passion Of The Christ

[BlueChair]

I've been trying to avoid listening to anything about this movie, but that's just me.

Has anybody actually seen it?

[laughingcrow]

I want to see it...to my mind, the argument about there being some jewish badguys in it, and therefore all people will hate the jewish people in real life is a silly one, mainly because anyone stupid enough to make that connection wouldn't want to see a film in aramaic with subtitles anyway.....

[LessThanZero]

Good call LC. I was at the airport all day yesterday. And I could not ignore people on all of the TV's screaming about it!!! How could I forget my headphones????????????????????????????????
a Jewsish leader and a Catholic leader where in a Crossfire shouting match, and both of them seemed totally ignorant. Ugh, I felt like becoming an activist or a writer or something. hmm....

Anyway, I definitely want to see this. The Jewish leader kept saying "That's not how it was, that's not how it was!!" IT'S A MOVIE. A FILM!

I bet there will be antisemitism. Because some people are animals. You should've seen them going for their luggage after a 10 minute wait! Like it was a juicy dead gazelle or something!

I'm glad Jesus died for me. Of course some Jewish people were involved. HE WAS JEWISH. Why would that fuel racism? People are just so stupid. It makes His sacrifice that more amazing to me.

Love one another. This board is my shelter. I only wish we could live communally.

Doesn't it give you shivers when you hear stuff like:

"Why is there controversy?"
"The Jews are upset."


The Jews? Like every single person who is Jewish in the world? I just want to go hiding from this world.

It's so easy to see that love is the answer. Or am I just insane?

[BlueChair]

As much as Mel Gibson has denied that his film is anti-semitic, one cannot deny that his father is a holocaust denier and anti-semite. He has been quoted as saying some horrible things.

So while I'd like to give Mel the benefit of the doubt about his agenda in the making of this film, I have my concerns.

On top of that, I think it's disgusting that religious fundamentalists are taking their young children to this film that is apparently extremely gory and extreme.

[laughingcrow]

I had heard stuff about his dad being a bit of an old bigot...but if this film has passed the censors, surely it can't be that bad.

As for the kids...well, they could be watching worse stuff, at least the idea of Jesus is a good role model. Those parents that want to fill their kids heads with hate will do it anyway, regardless of the film.

[BlueChair]

I had heard stuff about his dad being a bit of an old bigot...but if this film has passed the censors, surely it can't be that bad.

As for the kids...well, they could be watching worse stuff, at least the idea of Jesus is a good role model. Those parents that want to fill their kids heads with hate will do it anyway, regardless of the film.

They are getting a very skewed vision though, and seeing horrible things young eyes are not prepared to see. You are certainly right about the parents though.

[RedShoes]

IT'S A MOVIE. A FILM!

Yes, but a lot of people are taking it as truth. That's where a lot of the danger lies. This is a quote from a guy who took his children (6 and 10) to the film, from the toronto star:

"I had to show them what Christ did for them," he said later in the lobby of the Famous Players Coliseum in Scarborough. "When they see it with their own eyes, they can relate to it."

Though touted by some as one of the most violent films ever made, Liscio and his wife, Glenda, felt compelled to share the experience with their children.

"Other movies have senseless violence," he said. "But this is reality, this is what really happened and we had to show our kids the truth

"But this is reality...we had to show our kids the truth".....<i>reality...the truth</i>...Scary stuff when talking about a movie interpretation, don't you think?

[laughingcrow]

These people were religious 'nuts' anyway...this movie might fuel the fire for their diatribe/blinkered beliefs/faith (whichever way you want to look at it), but it's no different from any of the other stuff that's available...just turn on to one of those religous channels on telly.

If someone is keen on jesus (or whoever) then that's great...the only problem, as we all know, is when it means that you start interfering with the way other people choose to live their lives.

[RedShoes]

These people were religious 'nuts' anyway...

Maybe it's just because I'm from a very conservative state in a widely conservative country, but it seems like the nuts are everywhere....

[laughingcrow]

Red, Im in complete agreement with you....the lunatics are taking over the asylum, and then suing each other!

[LessThanZero]

Maybe it's just because I'm from a very conservative state in a widely conservative country, but it seems like the nuts are everywhere....

I know RS! And I don't even like nuts! yuck!

[spooky girlfriend]

Trust me - the nuts ARE everywhere. I've been saying for years that I'm surrounded by idiots.

[Misha]

It would take some real effort on my part to care less about this movie.


The Passion of the Christ is the new Last Temptation of Christ....


Misha---who is now obsessed with using phrases like the one above....

I just wish everyone would shut up about it. Let's talk about a war based on lies....now THERE is something worth getting worked up about....!!!!!

[lapinsjolis]

I had dreaded seeing it as the ancient art of Passion play rarely lives up to the subject. Stylish and gripping in my opinion I don't care for Mr. Gibson in the least and had set the bar rather low. I was proved wrong.

I loved the symbolism so much. The reality that Judas' true sin was despair rather than betrayal. Simon (or in my upbringing Simeon really) was humanized. Those were surprises for me. The rest very Stations of the Cross in action.

I found it violent but not one of the most violent I've seen. Perhaps knowing the history and tradition before hand would prepare you. Or if you've read the medical account that has been in print for many years.

It's very timely as the cause for all of it still kills people today--politics.

[laughingcrow]

medical account?

[miss buenos aires]

I had heard stuff about his dad being a bit of an old bigot...but if this film has passed the censors, surely it can't be that bad.

Are you kidding? Sex is the only thing that doesn't get past the censors.

[Mr. Average]

I am amazed at the results of the poll.

The film is intended to capture the final twelve hours of the life of a historical icon, Jesus Christ. For you, He may be God, He may be God's son, He may be a prophet, He may be a kook. But he walked the earth and touched more people than Caine ever did in Kung Fu. The film does not purport to be a vehicle for conversion. It fails to describe and detail the Covenant between God and His people, which would have moved it into a campaign zone. It also does not celebrate the Easter...the ressurection. So at the very least, it is a ARTISTS rendition based on multiple accounts, some biblical, some not, of the final hours of Christ's life. It is an ARTISTS vision.

How many of you saw Oliver Stone's "JFK"? A very good film with a parade of cameo's that was partially fact-based and partially interpreted and embellished. Right-thinking people took the movie FIRST as entertainment, and second, as having some historical authenticity. Overall, Oliver had an agenda and everyone knew it. What's Mel's agenda?

Back to "The Passion of the Christ". It has been deplored because of its frank depiction of the brutality of the scourging and the crucifixion. I wonder how lashing someone multiple times, jamming a crown of thorns on His head, and nailing His extremities to a wooded cross can be depicted in a 'feel-good' way. It can't. I love the movie Kill Bill Vol 1 and eagerly await Kill Bill Vol 2. These are intensely violent films designed as such by an ARTISTS vision. Thats all. Just a different Artist, a different vision. But similar content in the violence category. However, I cannot recall the loud derogation of Quentin Terantino for the violent content of his films. So, clearly, there is another dynamic at play.

If you are a Christian, this film is important, especially if you were raised as Christian. You have heard this story, at the very least, annually. You have reflected upon this story, and what it must have been like to know that this passion and death MUST occur and understand that it was imminent. And if you are a Christian, then you understand that a principle purpose of Christ on Earth was to fulfill the writings of not one, but many prophets...to die for the sins of mankind, and seal the covenant of love between God and his people. If you are a Christian, you understand that the murder of Jesus was prophesized, and it HAD TO HAPPEN. So there is no real sadness in the fact that He died for our sins and to make the ultimate sacrifice...to give your life for your loved ones. The sadness is in the terrible way that he did die. Not a single bullet to the back of the head, execution-style. Not a lethal injection. But a horrific scourging, beating, piercing, agonizing death. A death that He did not deserve by any worldly standard at the time. But that matters not, because it HAD to HAPPEN.

My final point is the charges of anti-semitism. I find this to be the most ludicrous argument sorrounding the film....that this was a masked slam by Mel at the Jewish people of the world, living and dead. The reason it is so ridiculous is this: A true Christians understands that the passion and death of the Christ was imminent. It was not a turn of bad luck, a rough go! It wasn't because of bad timing. It was PLANNED. It had to happen. Mel understands this as a believer. So, the notion that a Christian populace would rise up against the Jews for killing Christ is almost comical, because the scourging and ultimate death was in fulfillment of prophesy captured in scripture. Consider the converse...Pontius Pilate wins out and 'saves' Jesus from the passion and death. Now, that would have been a problem, as I see it. That would have left the true Christian population without the covenant sealed by the ultimate sacrifice...something that humans can grasp, feel, and understand...the love that is so deep that you would give up your life for someone that you love. If you have kids, you know exactly what I mean about the ultimate sacrifice. You have probably all felt it. It scares you so, but it is real, and if the situation presented itself, almost all of you would demonstrate this as the highest form of love for your children. So the anti-Semite argument only has merit, in my opinion, in the European countries where it is gaining a sick sort of resurgeange, and kids with no identity will use this as a distorted interpretation to further their hateful cause. But they are already anti-semites. I do not believe that this film will increase the numbers of true anti-semites. In point of fact, with real thought, it should actually decrease that number.

I am sure that this opinion is not popular. If you are Christian, there is a high liklihood that you believe in the 10 commandments. If you believe in the 10 commandments, you try hard to follow them, because you see them as divine orders for good living. But we all transgress, and we can accept that and be made whole again by Faith, or we can push these notions aside because these transgressions do not make us 'feel-good'. We live in such a society where everyone wants everyone to 'feel-good". So we run from the mirror that makes us face our transgressions, the errors of our way, and make it a point to run from any person, place, or thing (e.g. a film about Christ) that asks us to look into that mirror.

I look into the mirror often and don't always like what I see. But I am fueled to better myself by my beliefs, my Faith, and by the fact that someone that I dearly love gave His life for me. It has overwhelmed me with the desire to give back.

Where is the nearest exit?
No, I think I'll stay.
And if THIS doesn't bring "A Rope Leash" back, nothing will!

Happy Easter.

[BlueChair]

Your idea of 'giving back' means profiting Mel Gibson with your money, apparently.

My concern is that people are going to want to see this movie and see it repeatedly simply because it has Jesus' name attatched to it. What if it were a peice of crap? Maybe it is. Just because the subject matter is something you hold close to your heart doesn't mean it's a good film.

It's like Tom Waits said... you're watching a really bad movie, and the guy next to you comments, "you know, this is based on a true story." Does it really help the film?

[lapinsjolis]

I think he meant paying it back by the mediative attention you gain for dwelling on the subject.

If I may be so bold. I went in as a woman to this movie and left as one. I think the same thing can be said for anti-Semites. If you were one coming in, you'd be one leaving. If the aim of the movie was to make me one it failed miserably.

Let's not narrow our vision. The story's themes are broader than that. Ambition, betrayal, greed, temptation, hatred, self-interest, forgiveness and suffering. That is not a Jewish or Christian story but one of being a human being that I hope supersedes nationality, religious affiliation and gender.

[miss buenos aires]

The point about Jesus's crucifixion being necessary is superficially valid, Mr. A, but then how to explain the age-old persecution of Jews as "Christ-killers"? From what I've heard of the movie, Jews are depicted as a raging, bloodthirsty mob, and Pontius Pilate a sympathetic, weak-willed man who just can't stand up to them. Mel Gibson's particular brand of Catholicism rejects Vatican II, which absolves the Jews (yes, all of us) of guilt in Jesus's death. Anti-Semitism is not something that Americans are immune from, so don't talk like it's a completely foreign sentiment. The blood libel ("His blood be on us and our children") wasn't even cut from the movie; the subtitle translating it was.

I have no interest in seeing this movie. First of all, the spectacle of seeing a man flayed to a bloody pulp, whatever the ideas behind it, has no appeal to me, none. Second, though Jesus, if he existed, had some interesting teachings, the movie isn't really about them; it's about his crucifixion. That leaves me cold, because I don't believe that Jesus died for my sins. Third, I think I would want to see it even less if I were a Christian, because when one focuses so relentlessly on physical suffering, I think it would detract from his divinity. A Jesus in the throes of agony is as human and earthly as a Jesus in the throes of ecstasy.

And I've always hated Mel Gibson's work.

[HungupStrungup]

I can justify my "I have absolutely no interest in seeing it" answer and may choose to do so, but before I start typing, Mr. A, I would like to read your assessment of "The Last Temptation of Christ."

[Mr. Average]

BlueChair: As Lapinsjolis understood, my reference to 'giving back' was much more holistic than the price of a ticket to the cinema. It refers to a challenge that I feel to live a better life. And to categorize the movie by ANY standard as good or bad or mediocre is ludicrous...no such standard exists. It's merit, like Christ, is personal. Some will love it. Some will hate it. But I find it really hard to believe that people will go to see it multiple times, or even once, because it has Christs name on the Marquee. Maybe I am wrong, and I can accept that without reservation, but I would only reference this film as a must see to my closest friends. I would never pander to the masses in an attempt to propogate my convictions of Faith. Nor have I done so in this thread. I registered an opinion. Take it or leave it. If it induces a single person to become interested, or enraged, or to further thought, then great. If not, so be it. It remains my personal belief, and my opinion. Nothing more. I am not an evangelist.

Lapinsjolis: Right on, and I agree with much of your post.

Ms. BA. The final line of your post tells us alot about the sentiment that precedes it. But from your comments, and eliminating your anti-Gibson bias from the discussion, I will answer your questions.
1. Should History be rewritten because of statements of absolution from Vatican II? Does this mean that all accounts that depict this 'curse' should be extracted from the historical documents? If that were the case, then the Warren Commission on the death of JFK would have been sufficient to rewrite real history that is so completely compelling re; the murder of JFK.
2. Of course anti-Semitism exist everywhere, including the United States. So does anti-Islamic sentiment. So does anti-Christian sentiment. For Christs sake...we are talking about RELIGION! What do you expect? But my comment was that there are very real uprisings of Neo-Nazi's throughout Europe that seem to be gaining in strength. I may be completely mistaken, but I do not think that same fervor is germinating in the US, or at least not nearly on the same scale.
3. The Jews are depicted as a bloodthirsty mob. A hateful mob. Right alongside the Romans. The Jews and the Romans are shown together, calling for the passion and death, and actively contributing to the ultimate outcome...the ultimate sacrifice.
4. I found your statement "Jesus, if he existed" to be very helpful to understanding the context of the rest of your message.
5. You made the comment :"A Jesus in the throes of agony is as human and earthly as a Jesus in the throes of ecstasy". Exactly. Exactly. To go to an extreme on the continuum of humanity was necessary. If you believe that the power and impact of a passionate death on humanity is equal to a passionate ecstacy, then great. But there are millions of peoples spread across multiple cultures who will never, can never, ever achieve a level of ultimate ecstacy. They are so very much impoverished and downtrodden either from centuries of oppressive rule or other. But painful, cruel, heartbreaking death is universal across the human condition. That's my thinking.

HungUp:
I certainly do not challenge you or anyone to change there opinion about seeing this movie. If you don't want to see it, it is personal and does not need to be defended. Unless you are arguing against yourself in the defense. I simply said that the poll results surprised me. Me.

My comments on the Last Temptation of Christ:
The soundtrack is one of my favorite recordings...a literal musical masterpece by Mr. Gabriel. It is the best thing I can say about the movie. While the basic premise of the movie was intriquing, I felt the execution of the premise was flawed and with absolutely NO HISTORICAL BASIS. So it was an ARTISTs vision, and I accept that. It differs from my beliefs. I can appreciate the view, I just don't consign to it.

[laughingcrow]

Are you kidding? Sex is the only thing that doesn't get past the censors.

No, if I made a film extolling the 'virtues of Hitler', that would be censored. If I made a film of someone gratuitously torturing a person, that would be censored (as Im sure this film has). There is a lot of censorship goes on.

[bobster]

I checked the "I'll see it later" box -- though it might be a lot later. As someone fascinated by the connections between film, politics and religion, it's obviously a major event. I might wait for it to turn up "Wonderful World of Disney" or wherever. I basically refuse to pay money to see it (though I don't rule out sneaking into a showing at the multiplex...Aside from being a nonbelieving Jew, I guess that doubly or trebly damns me to hell). Though I am reassured that people as obviously non-regressive as Lapinsjolie, Mr. A. and Roger Ebert have found value in it.

Yet, as someone who is Jewish by background, Jesus is basically just an interesting and super-important historical personage who's message I believe may have been fundamentally misunderstood from almost the moment of his death. (It's possible he was merely the world's first reformed Jew, but then someone added on this "Son of God"/holy trinity business -- deeply anthethetical to the fierce monotheism at the heart of Judaism -- and, from my point of view, kind of screwed everything up forever after.)

In any case, having been informed that 1 hour of it's 100 minute or so running time is basically just Jesus being, tortured with little or no interuption, "Passion" seems to me a little bit like asking me to spend a solid hour watching some random, if very wise and interesting, person be tortured to death slowly ... in ways that, according to some critics, seem to break new ground in terms of onscreen violence and gore -- certainly in a large, theoretically mainstream (if subtitled) movie. Roger Ebert, who gave it four stars, calls it the most violent movie he's ever seen, which is really saying something. As somone with a near-phobia of extreme movie gore, I am looking forward to this with the same anticipation I would the removal of fifteen impacted wisdom teeth.

Re: antisemitism. I'm sure Mel Gibson is not antisemitic or, at least, he probably doesn't believe himself to be. Still, he is part of a deeply regressive movement that likely does believe all us Jews (nonbelievers like me, but observant Jews too) are going to hell, which is a shame because a lot of us are nice people and could definitely improve the level of the comedy in heaven. At times, that seems to me a rather fine distinction. Post-mortem fascism is better than pre-mortem, I guess. In a movie which is obviously this deeply personal, some of that MIGHT slip through. I'll see eventually.

On the other hand, we Jews do have to deal with the fact that, by most accounts, many (most?) of the Jews of Jesus's time and place DID have a pretty major hand in killing Christ and, if we believe most of the accounts, the Romans would probably never have touched him without the political pressure applied by the Jewish heirarchy. Of course, there's a world of difference between a bad act being committed by particulary Jews as to the responsibility of "the Jews." Still, people have a way of forgetting those fine distinctions. (They also forget that today's Judaism is a bunch of diverse groups with no central leadership and almost no universally held dogmas in common other than, if God exists, there's just one of Him.) Still, that would likely be an unintentional side effect for which I tend not to blame Mel. There's no controlling what idiots will make of a given work of art.

However, Gibson IS deeply homophobic, which I'm sure is what his religion teaches. And I don't mean for making a few loony jokes. In "Braveheart" a gay is thrown out of a window simply for being gay and presumably having gay sex, and it's treated as almost Pythonesque humor. It's one of the most appalling moments in recent mainstream cinema -- but I'm apparently one of the few who noticed, because the thing won Best Picture, despite being overblown, boring and pretentious -- but with some cool action scenes. (So much for the liberals in the film business.) He does have the capacity to hate people based on their group, and that's not, and that might find its way into his work. Or not.

Re: the rating. Back to Ebert, who said he's certain that if it was anybody but Jesus being depicted, the film would automatically have gotten an NC-17, though he also says that it's getting to the point where it's impossible to get an NC-17 for violence alone.

One more thought pursuant to who's going to see it. This film is being very heavily marketed to fundamentalist evangelicals -- here in L.A., you can see the infomercial being run repeatedly on Channel 40, Paul and Jan Crouch's (former partners of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's PTL Club) Trinity Broadcasting Network who's spiritual and political timeclock is set sometime around the first crusades. Turn on TBN and you might listen to author Hal Lindsey discuss the satanic religion of Islam...or hear some guy in a bad suit with a degre in Accounting from Joe's University and Bookstore and a wide tie dismiss evolution as poor science....Watch never-was Kurt Cameron say that, if you think something, you've as good as done it. Which means I have beheaded Kirk Cameron...

And a quick question for the peanut gallery if we have any history scholar out there -- just what does "Blood Libel" refer to, exactly? Is there more than one? On this thread, and in several articles I've read over the last few days, it's been referred to as the belief that the blood of Jesus is stains the souls of all Jews for all eternity. However, the "blood libel" I'm more familiar with is more gruesome and less metaphysical. It's the idea that the blood of Christian children is either drunk by Jews at Passover (my God, what are they up to at Manishewitz!) or is used an an ingrediant in the matzoh. Now THAT'S a "blood libel"!

Gorily yours....

[bambooneedle]

From what I've read, the film heavily relies on, assumes a lot about, the viewer's sympathetic 'knowledge' for interpretation of many of the ideas portrayed. So, Miss BA and many others, it's just not intended for us.