The Passion of the Christ [Archive]

Thorin

02-29-2004, 03:59 PM

I agree with Gaffer on this one. When someone is whipped 39 times (as was the custom back then) I would have expected to see MORE blood, not less. Crucifixion was not a happy thing. Personally I cringed harder seeing someone get carved up with a chainsaw in Scarface, or brutally stomped, stabbed and shot to death in GoodFellas. I saw just as much blood in The Untouchables and Reservoir Dogs. The violence in Saving Private Ryan and Steven Seagal's Out for Justice was more gratuitous and I'm sure Kill Bill was a slaughterfest as well. All the talk about "too much violence" was overkill and over-reaction IMO. It was realistic (other than the fact that Christ probably would have died from loss of blood the way it was portrayed in the movie) and fairly historically accurate of what the whole execution process would have been like.

Talierien, I disagree with you. The use of foreshadow, symbolism, and flashbacks along with Satan showed the spiritual side quite well and why Christ died. Sure, the weight of the sins Jesus carried and what ultimately killed him wasn't emphasised, but it is hard to do that cinematically. I think enough curiosity and questions were put there to make people search for themselves.

And I'm with Eomund. What the heck was the baby/midget/creature that Satan was carrying when Jesus was on the ground? Perhaps some opposite to the Catholic visual of Mary with Baby Jesus in her arms? But why put it there and what for?

Overall, a very powerful, wonderfully edited and put together, well acted movie. Two thumbs up.

Maeglin

02-29-2004, 04:03 PM

Tal I don't think the bloodiness of it was overkill, I actually think it was underkill. Jesus was whipped with a Cat-of-nine-tails 39 times, and the each tail on the whip has little pieces of sharp glass and whatnot in it, I think it actually would have been much bloodier than it was in the movie. Oh, and he didn't die from that much blood because the Romans only whipped 39 times, they knew that if they whipped him 40 it would kill him. :(

Anyway, I thought it was a very well done movie, by far the most powerful movie I've ever seen. I too liked how they kept having Satan showing up and trying to tempt Jesus to save himself, thereby giving the soulds of all humanity to Satan. I also thought the ending was brilliant, with Jesus walking out of the tomb towards us, sort of offering himself to all of us to accept him into our lives. :)

Edit: Sorry I said the same thing as you at the beginning of my post Thorin, we were posting at the same time. Oh and I'm sorry if I ruined the edning for anyone.

elf_queen

02-29-2004, 06:59 PM

I'm not planning on seeing it, it sounds pathetic, and I'm not very religious, especially about reading the DaVinci code.

Talierin

02-29-2004, 09:04 PM

They whipped him a bit more than 39 times in the movie, didn't they? And that whip they were using had little metal claws on the ends, not glass bits. *shrugs*

It wasn't so much that they had satan in there, as the way they depicted him/it/whatever that I didn't like. It was a little too horror movie for me. And that weird demon baby thing still makes no sense at all.

Maeglin

02-29-2004, 09:50 PM

I know it had claws in the movie, but in the Bible it has several different kinds of sharp objects stuck in it.
And the baby thing was really confusing, know one I've talked to has really been able to figure out what it was supposed to symbolize, nor could I, but the best theory I've heard is that it shows Satan being falsely caring, holding a baby like he loves it, but really doesn't care at all about it.

Ireth Telrúnya

02-29-2004, 10:15 PM

I'm going to go see the Passion once it gets here. But now I have only four days left to see RotK in the theater I want to see it before they stop showing it. So it will be a RotK night for me for the third time next week!!!

Kementari

03-01-2004, 02:16 AM

I just saw the movie. It was very traumatizing, i saw one man bring a little girl about 5 years old into the theatre and i couldnt believe it, I'm pracitcally an adult and the movie was to much for me i cried almost the enitre time, i cant imagine how frightened a little child would be. I thought the actors were all great, I liked Jim Cal..(spelling?) very much and the two Mary's espically Maia Morgentern's Mary were protrayed well. I agree with Tal i also liked Pontius Pilot's character, he was a great contrast to those horrible bloodthirtsy Romans who whipped Jesus. The movie itsself was in my opinion just too bloody. I would have been much happier if they had taken out alot of that gruesome scourging scene and put in more flashbacks with some more pariables and quotes by Jesus. In a movie its easy to tell yourself its only fake, but this event really did happen and watching the movie really got to me.
I cant say that i remember seeing Satan holding a child at all though i had my hands over my eyes during half of the movie so it would be easy to miss things. I didnt have much of a problem with Satan, id rather he look human they be a guy in red with horns and hooves.

Gandalf White

03-01-2004, 03:03 AM

First off, the movie was great...

I took the whole baby thing to be Satan taunting Jesus, trying to cause Jesus to wonder why his Father would want him to do this.

Anyway, I didn't mind Satan in the film, and really liked the woman who played him.

Maeglin

03-01-2004, 04:16 AM

Satan was played by a woman?! :eek: Well then...she did an excellent job looking like a man

Dáin Ironfoot I

03-01-2004, 04:56 AM

I haven't seen the movie, but I would assume Satan holding a child would be the notorious AntiChrist. *shudders* Satan movies are the only thing that truly scare me. I had nightmares for a week about the Exorcist (this was probably when I was 14- so that says a lot) and all those horrible Rosemary's Baby things.

I hate them.

I have yet to decide if I will see this one... not too eager to have Christ's writhing body stuck in my mind, but I would suppose its for the best.

Ciryaher

03-01-2004, 06:09 AM

I just got back from seeing the movie...I really can't say many words about it...I starting crying when they started beating Christ...and I didn't stop until a while after the movie was over...needless to say it's been a few years since I cried last........

I will say that I think Satan's "child" could be an embodiment of the hatred the people were showing...that feral smile was rather disturbing, and I can only guess what *exactly* was supposed to be representing...

e.Blackstar

03-01-2004, 11:16 PM

Well, I want to see it, beacause, I mean, its about JESUS! But though I have a strong stomach, I don't know that I would be able to stand it. *Brr*
(BTW am 14)

Arthur_Vandelay

03-02-2004, 06:53 AM

I'd like to see it, if my budget permits :)

I thought I'd post the following article to see what people who have seen the film think (not that I necessarily endorse the opinions of the writer--and couldn't do so in this case until I see the movie):

"Mel Gibson's dangerous trip" by Gerard Henderson (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/01/1078117361595.html)

Niniel

03-02-2004, 07:05 PM

Is this the film that is spoken in Aramaic and Latin?

Sarde

03-02-2004, 07:08 PM

Yes, that's the one. I don't know if all of it is like that though. Maybe just the important bits like 'ecce homo' and 'eli, eli, lama sabachthani' (or is that Hebrew?).

Lantarion

03-02-2004, 07:09 PM

That's the one. :)
And I find it both surprising and extremely, extremely beneficial for the film that the languages spoken are the authentic ones; I wouldn't have stood for one where everybody has a fake British accent like in the LotR movies.. :(

And me being an ancient language-buff, I'll probably faint from all the wonderful languagegyness!! :D

Hm, but it's also supposed to be a very gruesome and realistic portrayal of what happens in the New Testament.. I really want to see it.

Gandalf White

03-02-2004, 07:39 PM

Yes, that's the one. I don't know if all of it is like that though. Maybe just the important bits like 'ecce homo' and 'eli, eli, lama sabachthani' (or is that Hebrew?).

The whole movie is spoken in Aramaic and Latin.

Sarde

03-02-2004, 07:42 PM

Oh, okay, that's quite cool! You don't hear people speaking Latin every day. Except for the Pope, of course. :D I am curious to hear how they pronouce it. People who have English as their mother tongue are usually not very good at pronouncing Latin in the correct way.

Sam_Gamgee

03-03-2004, 03:09 AM

I thought it was a super powerful movie. yeah they had satan and the wierd kids chasing judas. but it was extremely powerful, im a christian and it hit me hard because i could of never imagined it that bad and to think that i could be was crazy.

It was also super super well done. i know hollywood hates it, but the artistry in it is amazing, at leats thats what i think as a graphic designer

Niirewen

03-03-2004, 04:10 PM

Oh, and he didn't die from that much blood because the Romans only whipped 39 times, they knew that if they whipped him 40 it would kill him.
Actually, they only whipped him 39 times because if they whipped him even once more than 40, they would be killed.

Well, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I plan to as soon as my schedule clears up a bit. I've heard from people at my church that it was very good.

Thorin

03-03-2004, 07:02 PM

That's the one. :)
And I find it both surprising and extremely, extremely beneficial for the film that the languages spoken are the authentic ones;Actually the Latin is not authentic to the times because Greek, not Latin was the common tongue.

Of course, alot of this movie is done from Gibson's catholic perspective. The 14 stations of the cross, the woman with the blood of Christ on her towel, the emphasis on Christ's physical suffering are all Catholic in origin and not specifically from the Bible. Furthermore, Gibson took alot of his imagery from a 19th century nun's writings of which, from what I've read, I find somewhat questionable theologically (especially since she claimed to be shown in a vision). Regardless, these things do not contradict the Bible and emphasise what is in there and what is also not spoken of but could be assumed.

I am not pro-Catholic nor do I believe Protestants and Catholics should rally under the Christian banner and do away with their differing beliefs, but neither do I think that this movie is a Catholic agenda who's sole aim is to try and convert people to Catholicism like some church leaders are saying. Rather, I see Gibson as a Catholic telling the story the only way he knows how: from a Catholic perspective. Nor do I have a problem with Jim Caviezel's want to take communion before and during the movie so he could have "Christ in me". Despite the falsity of transubstantiation, I see this as devotion and the necessity of these men to be as true and honest as possible according to the faith they know and I applaud that.

Rhiannon

03-05-2004, 04:14 AM

I thought the film was really excellent. I did look away several times during the scourging, and for the nails I just closed my eyes. I knew going in that I wasn't going to be able to watch that. But I don't think that it was unnecessarily violent, which some of the people I've talked to complained about--someone said that they thought it was just a 'blood fest' and that instead it should have focused on Love, etc, but I think that the point of the film was to confront the viewer with the consequences of sin, and personally I'm glad it didn't shy away from showing that. There were parts of it that I think will be very confusing to people who aren't familiar with the Gospels, and I was surprised by the personification of Satan. I wasn't expecting that, but I suppose I should have. It does give the viewers a sense of what was going on 'behind the scenes'.
About the baby, the theory in my family is that it represented the taint of sin--that Satan cannot create, but he can corrupt. I wondered if it had some reference to the Revelation, but I can't think of anything particular without going and digging around.
I did see how Catholic the film was, but I doubt I would have if I didn't have Catholic friends who don't mind explaining gently some of their views to this curious Baptist. And The Passion goes on record as the first movie to make my older brother weep.

Ireth Telrúnya

03-08-2004, 12:10 AM

I saw a clip of how they drove in nails on his hands. It wasn't any better than in previous films: just through the palms of his hands. I've heard that the nails really had to be put through the victim's wrists, since the bones there would then keep him on the cross. If the nails were on palms there would only be some shreds of flesh to keep the person subject to crucifixion on the cross. And that flesh would eventually tear up by the weight of the body and the person would fall down or at least be left hanging from the nails on his legs..
I'm surprised Mel Gibson didn't know this.

Rhiannon

03-08-2004, 12:22 AM

I have heard varying opinions on this. I read in Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers that various experiments have been done with amputated arms, and there is a debate about whether the wrists would indeed have been used. One source claimed that instead it was more likely that the nails might have gone in through the palm of the hand and out the back of the wrist (I can't look up the name, unfortunately, since I passed the book on to my brother). And in the film, Christ's arms were also bound to the cross.

Ireth Telrúnya

03-08-2004, 12:40 AM

I have a vague memory that in older films I've seen the arms of the two robbers beside Christ had ropes around them while only Christ had nothing but nails on his hands, and usually on his palms. In those films Christ never was very bloody as he's portrayed to be in the Bible, since he gave his blood.
But one has to be all-covered in blood after such whipping that Christ had to endure. That whipping literally had ripped some flesh from his back, as I've heard explained in some sermon's and other sources that I've listened.
Some say that he was totally naked and usually those who were crucified clearly "soiled" themselves, since the pain and fatigue of trying to breathe obviously caused it that they couldn't no longer really control their body.
And the shame of nakedness and all was also a part of this Roman punishment. But I guess that would be too gross to be shown on any film...

simbelmyne

03-08-2004, 01:42 AM

simbelmyne

03-08-2004, 02:06 AM

well, here's what I found out...and it ain't pretty.

Discovery of ancient victim's have shown nails driven through the wrist bones and feet (turned outward, hammered into the Achilles tendon). The arms could be bound with ropes, or there could be a "seat" (called a sedile) on the cross itself - a projecting piece of wood for the victim to sit/lean against. A few scholars believe the nails in the hands would be enough to support weight with the help of the "seat".

Victims usually died from suffocation (The victim has enough stability where the feet are nailed down to hold his body up (most victims were males). When the victim relaxes his legs and sags, the weight of his body drags the chest and shoulders down, hyperextending the arms and preventing him from breathing). So he would have to push up with his legs up to breathe. Many times the legs were broken to hasten death.

Yikes. Maybe I don't want to see this movie.

Éomond

03-08-2004, 05:18 AM

Haven't made it to the movie yet...but it sounds interesting. Is it at all similar to The Last Temptation of Christ? I'm assuming its not as controversial, since its receiving so much widespread acclaim.

I've also heard that nails in the hands would not be enough to support the body, and that nails were really placed in the wrists. I think that's the way it was portrayed in Sparticus, which, BTW for anyone interested, is a great movie. Will try to do some research...

No way is it be simalier to the Last Temptation, the LToC was about Jesus being in love with Mary Magdalene (I think), and a few other things that we off from the Bible, which, of course, wasn't true. So, no, not really.

And, it you guys look, yes, the nails are in the hands, but there was rope tied to his forearms, so that might have helped support.

Arthur_Vandelay

03-25-2004, 04:01 AM

The following is from the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/25/1079939761567.html):

Coming soon: a Mel antidote

March 25, 2004 - 11:56AM

After seeing the runaway success of The Passion of the Christ, film-makers behind the Life of Brian have decided to re-release the satirical Monty Python flick, it emerged today.

The 1979 movie about Brian of Nazareth, who is mistaken for the Messiah, will make a return to the big screen in America at the end of April in Los Angeles and New York.

It comes as Mel Gibson's movie about the crucifixion continues to make hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office.

Life of Brian producer John Goldstone told Variety magazine: "A lot of people in America have said that they couldn't figure out a way to deal with the public reaction to Mel's movie.

"This is a kind of antidote to Mel."

The movie is being distributed by Rainbow Releasing, which previously handled the US re-release of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

PA

Legolam

03-31-2004, 01:06 PM

Well, I went to see the film last night and I have to say it was the most difficult film I've ever had to sit through. I didn't really know the story, so some stuff was quite a shock to me. The amount of suffering was really quite horrific. And I absolutely hated the devil appearances - he really freaked me out and I had to turn away quite a lot.

On the whole, I'm glad I saw the film and I thought it was very well done. Like I say, it's been a long time since anyone told me the story so I didn't "get" every little nuance, but I kinda believe that if it did happen, that's what it might have looked like. I also really liked the Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew, although I found reading the subtitles took away from watching the film a little. I don't think I'll be watching it again though - too difficult. When everyone left the theatre last night, I couldn't believe the silence. I think everyone was a little shell shocked by what they'd seen.

Just as an end-note, I didn't find the film particularly anti-Semetic. Sure, the Jews and Romans don't come out of it well, but I think that's more the fault of the original text on which the story is based rather than any deliberate anti-Semetic sentiment on Mel Gibson's part.

Eriol

03-31-2004, 04:08 PM

I liked the movie a lot. I didn't find it depressing at all (I've heard that complaint from real life acquaintances); though this is probably because I know the story, and what it means (which is the central point after all...). I can understand why someone who didn't know the story would think it too violent and depressing... but I think that they would be wrong, even by looking at the movie alone. The flashbacks and the final scene really put all the suffering in context. I left the theater quite moved, but not depressed -- rather the contrary. It's, of course, realistic -- and that means violent; there's no denying that.

Jim Caviezel plays a fantastic Jesus. He managed a perfect mix of authority and joy (in the flashbacks), of determination and sweetness. The woman who played the Devil was also very good. As someone said around here (in Brazil, that is :D), she manages to convey a being completely devoid of God's grace... a look into those eyes, and the sound of that voice, is enough to convince you that there is absolutely no love there.

My guess about the baby thing is that it represented us -- mankind. The sadism of the Roman soldiers is emphasized at that moment, and the baby's smile conveyed to me the impression that we, mankind, were sharing in that sadism. If I recall correctly, the baby is only seen when the Devil is walking around the Roman soldiers, and not when he's walking around the onlookers -- who, as a group, are a bit shocked by the punishment. That was my first impression of the baby... a bit like Ciryaher's, an "embodiment of the hatred".

I didn't think it was excessively violent, since the violence is very much in context (the usual comparison is with "Saving Private Ryan" 's opening scene, and it is a good comparison -- another example of lots of violence, but not "excessive violence"). And I really loved the flashbacks. The flashback to the Sermon on the Mount, and how you should love your enemies, is perfectly timed...

I'm talking too much :). But it's probably because I really liked the movie.

LegolasLuver

04-03-2004, 05:45 AM

I just home from the movies seeing The Passion and I loved it. I thought it was very well done. I have never cried during any movie I've seen, until that is I went and saw this. During this I didn't even relize I was really crying until I noticed my cheeks were wet, I was just that much into it.

Talking about violence and bloodshed. I don't think it was that bad at all. I mean really if you think about it at all, if you were really there back when he was really getting whipped and crucified then it would be a lot worse. People don't think of these things when it comes to movies.

My mom read in the newspapers that like some Jews were upset because they thought that they were like 'making fun' of their religion. But really I didn't see that at all, thought that I was very well laid out and didn't seem to... well I don't really know how to explain it. lol

I thought that the cast was wonderful! The lady that played the devl: Brilliant!
The lady that played Mary: Though she didn't say all that much you coul just see her emotions in her face, there was no need for her to talk. You knew what she was feeling through her eyes and exspressions.
Jim Caviezel: He did great!!! I don't think there could have been anyone better to play Jesus. He was awesome!

I loved the flashbacks, they timed them perfectly to fit into the scene.

This movie really makes you think about things. It did me atleast.

Lantarion

04-04-2004, 08:41 PM

Talking about violence and bloodshed. I don't think it was that bad at all. I mean really if you think about it at all, if you were really there back when he was really getting whipped and crucified then it would be a lot worse. People don't think of these things when it comes to movies.

The question is, what bearing does all that violence have on the theme or the meaning of the film itself? As I see it, the violence was overflowing, sadistic and rather senseless as it served no purpose except to re-enact those horrible moments. To what end??

I think a critic Jonathan Romney of 'The Independent' newspaper in England nailed (pun intended :D) the movie with the striking title of his article: "Pulp Crucifixion - medieval horror on a biblical scale".
:D :O

Rhiannon

04-04-2004, 08:52 PM

The question is, what bearing does all that violence have on the theme or the meaning of the film itself? As I see it, the violence was overflowing, sadistic and rather senseless as it served no purpose except to re-enact those horrible moments. To what end??
So that we can fully realize just how horrible those moments were. To me as a Christian, it's an important point. Too many people have no real concept of what the Crucifixion means. In my opinion the concern about the violence in The Passion being sadistic should be taken to the horror/slasher flicks where the sadism is truly meaningless.

Ciryaher

04-04-2004, 09:31 PM

So that we can fully realize just how horrible those moments were. To me as a Christian, it's an important point. Too many people have no real concept of what the Crucifixion means. In my opinion the concern about the violence in The Passion being sadistic should be taken to the horror/slasher flicks where the sadism is truly meaningless.

Quite true. I think that the violence wasn't over-the-top at all. He was whipped and scourged, but if you look at the blood on the ground, there aren't several *gallons*...so there's not enough bloodloss to have killed him.

And anyways, I think the Son of God would have been made to endure more pain, seeing as that was his purpose. He did not want to give up his spirit at that time; his life was his to give, and nobody could take it from him. He chooses the time of his passing.

On that note, I think that the same fact also shows that the movie was not anti-semitic. The Jews did not kill Jesus because noboby could kill him. His life was given of his own choice, and the Jews and Romans had no choice in the matter. They were there to basically carry out the prophecy, but Christ himself performed the sacrifice.

Ol'gaffer

04-04-2004, 09:32 PM

That's very well put Rhiannon.

I've noticed in several reviews which I've read in which the movie is branded as sadistic with pointless violence. but I think that this is the opposite.

Because if theres something I remember from every single church visit, it's how every single time the priest reminds us "how much Jesus suffered" and they keep stressing the fact that he did suffer. But now when a movie comes out, that shows this in a very realistic manner, people are saying "well, he didn't suffer that much" which is just complete bs.

Lantarion

04-04-2004, 09:44 PM

Gaffer I do agree that the violence in the film delivers the effect of making concrete the suffering that Christ endured; and in that sense the shock-value it holds does indeed have a purpose.
But I wonder how clear this purpose is while watching the film.. When I comented before I was looking partly through the eyes of a large number of viewers of the film (and if you observe the smilies I was not being 100% serious ;)). Personally when I watched it, I felt pity and grief and all sorts of strong emotions, as you know because you were there; but among them was mild disgust. True, the violence in the film is probably very realistic to what it really was; but I think a lot of viewers would miss the point of it all while mesmerized with the realistic gushing effects and ripping of flesh.. :o
The main reason I did like the film was because of the extreme sense of authenticity; the languages spoken, even the dialects, the setting, the emotions, and yes the gore, were all brought together into a very real-seeming whole.
And now that I think about it, I probably remembered the film in a more pessimistic way than the way I actually felt whilst watching it, when I posted before.. In the end the Passion is just that, a passionate and wrenching event. I think one of the main reasons many would view the film as pointlessly bloody is the way that violence has been glorified in the media the past few decades; the Passion doesn't seem to offer anything but a different vent for the gore and death of your average cop-series, to some, when really there is an actual message behind it.

In other words: I recant! :D

joxy

04-04-2004, 11:59 PM

....something I remember from every single church visit, it's how every single time the priest reminds us "how much Jesus suffered" and they keep stressing the fact that he did suffer.
Not in any church that I know.
The emphasis is on "Christ is risen; he is risen indeed".

Thorin

04-05-2004, 09:43 PM

The only thing that bothers me now that I've researched things, are the actors and even Gibson himself.

Do any of you know of Monica Bellucci's cinematic exploits? They are racy at best and pornographic at worst. She has been in numerous European movies engaging in full frontal nudity and graphic pornographic sex scenes that apparently put Basic Instinct to shame. You can find nudes of her all over the internet. I have heard a few things about the Satan actor too. I know we are all sinners and what not but don't you think that Gibson could have used a better moral choice to play a biblical character (even though Mary Magdalene had been a harlot by profession :D ). It just feels kind of dirty to watch so obvious a Christian movie made and acted by people who seem to be blatant hypocrites, doing things totally against Christianity and having no problem's with it. I don't consider myself perfect but I think there is something wrong about that.

Gibson was involved in some morally questionable movies even when he was thinking about this movie (does What Women Want come to mind?) and his Christianity. He still smokes and swears like a paratrooper (even yelling out the 'F' word on the Passion set when Caveizel got struck by lightening).

I've always liked Mel but I have a problem with the 'convenient' Christianity that seems to hit Hollywood. Jim C seems to be on the up and up and seems to live what he believes, even turning down movie roles he feels is questionable. I respect that.

The question is, will Gibson also feel the same way or is his mentality part of the Catholicism I grew up with: You can do whatever you want and still be a good Catholic, as long as you go to confession. That is not biblical Christianity, nor is it of Christ. I hope Mel puts his personal 'convictions' that he claims 'saved him from suicide and despair' where it really counts and shows a changed heart.

Barliman Butterbur

04-05-2004, 10:17 PM

The only thing that bothers me now that I've researched things, are the actors and even Gibson himself. ...

If this bothers you as a good Catholic, you can imagine how much this bothers people who have no use for the entire Christian Jesus tale, let alone those who question whether or not the God of holy books even exists...

Lotho

Thorin

04-05-2004, 11:52 PM

If this bothers you as a good Catholic, you can imagine how much this bothers people who have no use for the entire Christian Jesus tale, let alone those who question whether or not the God of holy books even exists...

Lotho
;) Actually, I'm not Catholic. I grew up Catholic until I was about 12. If I was, how could I honestly have fun debating Eriol and Malbeth? :p

Yes, I fear what the message might send to others. I hope that some will see through what could be gross hypocrisy and see the message through it. Jim Caveizel prayed that "Jesus would be seen and not him" when he was playing Jesus. And you know what? It worked. For the first time I've ever seen Jesus been played in a movie or in a play, I did not see the actor. I didn't even recognize the actor. I think his prayer was answered.

The next time I watch it, now it's going to be hard 'seeing' Mary Magdalene knowing that Monica Bellucci engages in raunchy sex in the majority of her movies, leaving nothing to the imagination. Not a great image to portray to the world.

joxy

04-06-2004, 12:02 AM

....part of the Catholicism I grew up with: You can do whatever you want and still be a good Catholic, as long as you go to confession. That is not biblical Christianity, nor is it of Christ.
Nor is it that of present-day Catholicism.

Malbeth

04-06-2004, 04:03 AM

Nor is it that of present-day Catholicism.

Or of anyday Catholicism in fact; yes, I know some Catholics think that, and am aware of the scandal caused by some priests that think that; but this is not Catholicism; it was not St. Pius V who said "sin, and sin a lot, but have more faith in Christ and his sacrifice"... it was Luther; it was Protestants who first taught works do not matter at all; thankfully, most of them have abjured this madness.

Ol'gaffer

04-06-2004, 03:36 PM

The next time I watch it, now it's going to be hard 'seeing' Mary Magdalene knowing that Monica Bellucci engages in raunchy sex in the majority of her movies, leaving nothing to the imagination. Not a great image to portray to the world.

If there are "rauncy sex acts leaving nothing to the imagination that put Basic Instinct to shame" in Monica Bellucis works, then I've yet to see them. So far the 'worst' that I've seen has been in Irreversible, and that was a gut wrenching rape scene, and while it only lasted for 10 minutes, it was harder to watch then the whole Passion of Christ alltogether...

Thorin

04-06-2004, 08:33 PM

If there are "rauncy sex acts leaving nothing to the imagination that put Basic Instinct to shame" in Monica Bellucis works, then I've yet to see them. So far the 'worst' that I've seen has been in Irreversible, and that was a gut wrenching rape scene, and while it only lasted for 10 minutes, it was harder to watch then the whole Passion of Christ alltogether...
One website (and it was not a pornographic site btw) had links to down load video clips of her in at least three movies. These links provided just what action you were going to see and how much of MB you were going to be treated to. I can't say that what they were describing and what she was doing was...shall we say, wholesome entertainment?

Regardless, don't you think actors who claim to be Christian or play such parts in movies should use some discretion in what roles they play? I know that some will say, "It's just acting and the playing of a role". That may be true to some extent. However, being buck naked, splashing your nudes all over the internet and engaging in flesh-to flesh sexual stimulation are not things Christians should be role playing.

Mel seems to feel that the Holy Spirit convicted him to make this movie and that it was a religious experience for him. I can't say that MB claims to be a Christian or religious, but it again brings back my comment on whether Mel Gibson should have used more discretion in choosing actors and actresses. After all, I doubt the HS said to Mel, "Hey Mel, we want to make this as authentic as possible, so to create even MORE controversy and confusion for Christians, find an actor who bares all and is practically a porn star in Europe to play Mary!"

Ol'gaffer

04-06-2004, 09:01 PM

One website (and it was not a pornographic site btw) had links to down load video clips of her in at least three movies. These links provided just what action you were going to see and how much of MB you were going to be treated to. I can't say that what they were describing and what she was doing was...shall we say, wholesome entertainment?

Well, I can say having seen nearly all of her movies that I have yet to see a movie that is as raunchy as you describe it. And no, those movies are not meant for the whole family, they are meant for mature audiences, and by mature I don't mean the same audience who watches "Priscillas adventures in XXX land" but audiences capable of watching drama and suspense, because most of her movies are drama movies or romantic movies.

Regardless, don't you think actors who claim to be Christian or play such parts in movies should use some discretion in what roles they play?

No

I know that some will say, "It's just acting and the playing of a role". That may be true to some extent. However, being buck naked, splashing your nudes all over the internet and engaging in flesh-to flesh sexual stimulation are not things Christians should be role playing.

You say that you haven't seen any of these movies, and yet you throw claims such as Buck naked, and such solely based on ads to porn sites on the net? Not a very reliable source, so I'd appreciate if you'd stop the claims first.

And who are you to judge what roles Christians should be playing? so far in my Roleplaying activities I've played a satanist, a devil and a subject of possesion, are these things that you condemn so that I should not be playing them?

Mel seems to feel that the Holy Spirit convicted him to make this movie and that it was a religious experience for him. I can't say that MB claims to be a Christian or religious, but it again brings back my comment on whether Mel Gibson should have used more discretion in choosing actors and actresses. After all, I doubt the HS said to Mel, "Hey Mel, we want to make this as authentic as possible, so to create even MORE controversy and confusion for Christians, find an actor who bares all and is practically a porn star in Europe to play Mary!"

Again, stupid accusations from a person WHO HAS YET TO SEE ANY OF HER MOVIES!

Mel Gibson thought that Mary Madgalane needed to be played by a powerful female actress, a person who could portray the intense feelings that Mary went through, she was in love with Jesus, he had saved her after all, and seeing him being beaten and crucified was a horrid ordeal. Mel also needed to find a person beautiful enough to portray Mary, who would be better than the person who has been renowned world wide for her beauty?

And to throw idiotic statements like that around, as you state above, with the 'hilarious' line about hiring a near porn star to act in a small part. Is on your behalf very reckless and bad for debating. I suggest you first watch her movies instead of relying on sleazy porn banners on the internet.

Thorin

04-06-2004, 09:46 PM

Touchy, touchy.....

Alright, I guess I should view the movies before I see it them (of course porn sites probably don't know what they are talking about seeing as they know nothing about sex or nudity :rolleyes:, and it wasn't a porn banner or site I was on thank you very much). However, I heard it a few times before from both Christian and non-Christian sites concerning the sex in her movies. Perhaps your tolerance level for smutty movies is higher than most.

Is there anything wrong with role-playing? No, but I think there are limits to what Christians should portray and think about what message they are trying to send or what the movie's message is. Is it gratutitous and sleazy for the sake of being sleazy? Is there any redeeming quality to it? These questions are things a Christian actor needs to think about. It is their occupation and like all other occupations, Christians should have a higher standard. If you can't understand that or don't agree with it just say it instead of resorting to insults.

Malbeth

04-06-2004, 10:22 PM

Is there anything wrong with role-playing? No, but I think there are limits to what Christians should portray and think about what message they are trying to send or what the movie's message is. Is it gratutitous and sleazy for the sake of being sleazy? Is there any redeeming quality to it? These questions are things a Christian actor needs to think about. It is their occupation and like all other occupations, Christians should have a higher standard. If you can't understand that or don't agree with it just say it instead of resorting to insults.

But Mel Gibson was not trying to hire only Christian actors; he wanted to hire actors that looked the part and could act it; Mary was beautifully played by a jewish actress; Monica Bellucci also played a beautiful Magdalene; for me, the matter ends there.

The only thing that matters is Gibson's attitude; let's consider it:

He still smokes and swears like a paratrooper (even yelling out the 'F' word on the Passion set when Caveizel got struck by lightening).

Smoking is not a sin; it is stupid, but it's not a sin. Using bad language is indeed a sin, but a very minor one, specially when we consider the culture we live in; we hear bad language being used all the time from the moment we are born! Old habits die hard, and I will surely not condemn Gibson for using the 'F' word in what was, certainly, a very tense moment.

However, I recently saw the video of Gibson's interview with Diane Sawyer; I was amazed by the love he showed his father, by the way he talked about how his movie is about God's love and forgiveness, and not about "playing the blame game" and so on. I did not see a saint, but I certainly saw a good Christian, a better Christian than I am in fact. I think he's on the right track.

By the way, I saw the movie yesterday for the 4th time, and I plan on seeing it every day during this Easter week... don't know if I'll have the time though.

Malbeth

04-06-2004, 10:38 PM

If this bothers you as a good Catholic, you can imagine how much this bothers people who have no use for the entire Christian Jesus tale, let alone those who question whether or not the God of holy books even exists...

Yes, it bothered them so much that they tried to forbid the film, attacked Gibson personally, went after his father, stole his script and so on. Here in Brazil one of the major newspapers had all columnists except one, some who evidently hadn't even seem the film, slamming it.

I only ask those who "have no use for the Christian Jesus tale" to let us present it without attacking us and calling us anti-semites (the Vatican has declared the film to be a faithful portrayal of the Gospels, and that to say the movie is anti-semite is to say the Gospels are anti-semite).

Thorin

04-07-2004, 01:04 AM

Smoking is not a sin; it is stupid, but it's not a sin. Using bad language is indeed a sin, but a very minor one, specially when we consider the culture we live in; we hear bad language being used all the time from the moment we are born! Old habits die hard, and I will surely not condemn Gibson for using the 'F' word in what was, certainly, a very tense moment.Hmmm. Well by that same token, I guess I could do cocaine and other hard drugs without any remorse or attempt to kick the habit and continually imbibe with alcohol and still consider myself a good follower of Christ. If that is the case, why the heck am I abstaining from all these things? Oh, yeah....The statements in the bible about if I love Christ I will keep His commands and live like He did. Let's not forget that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and need to be treated with respect. I can't say I blame you for feeling the way you do, Malbeth. I can't even count how many priests and clergy I've seen smoke and drink. As a good Catholic you can imbibe and smoke all you want. If they are menial sins, purgatory will take care of that. ;) Again, I have seen that being a good Catholic and being a bible believing Christian can be two different things. You have confession to a priest who can absolve you of your sins. Heck, you don't even have to come straight to Christ! What could be better than that for doing what you want? Why even bother to really see what the Bible says about a Christian lifestyle?
However, I recently saw the video of Gibson's interview with Diane Sawyer; I was amazed by the love he showed his father, by the way he talked about how his movie is about God's love and forgiveness, and not about "playing the blame game" and so on. I did not see a saint, but I certainly saw a good Christian, a better Christian than I am in fact. I think he's on the right track.I hope that Mel is changed from what he was. If he's not, you can call yourself whatever you want but that doesn't make you born again. As I said before, many people claim the Christian lifestyle but it really ends up being lip service because they don't want to follow what Christ and the Bible teaches. It seems to me that in Hollywood, being religious is the in thing and mostly in name. To be a dedicated Christian (or any faith) and it shows in your lifestyle and behavior is another thing. Beyonce seems to emphasise her faith but let me tell you that she seems to exploit her sexuality at every turn.

Ireth Telrúnya

04-07-2004, 02:03 AM

I still haven't seen this movie...and I'm planning to go see "Hidalgo" very soon..for other reasons :) (see another king again...)

I did hear an interview where Mel Gibson says he was at the point of killing himself when he started to think of filming this movie. He said he went on his knees and started reading Christian material and prepare for the movie. He felt like he "had to" make this movie for his own survival's sake..or something since he had a spiritual bankruptcy. I'm glad for him if he has found something to carry on here. Maybe he has changed a bit...

Malbeth

04-07-2004, 05:49 AM

Hmmm. Well by that same token, I guess I could do cocaine and other hard drugs without any remorse or attempt to kick the habit and continually imbibe with alcohol and still consider myself a good follower of Christ. If that is the case, why the heck am I abstaining from all these things? Oh, yeah....The statements in the bible about if I love Christ I will keep His commands and live like He did. Let's not forget that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and need to be treated with respect. I can't say I blame you for feeling the way you do, Malbeth. I can't even count how many priests and clergy I've seen smoke and drink. As a good Catholic you can imbibe and smoke all you want. If they are menial sins, purgatory will take care of that. Again, I have seen that being a good Catholic and being a bible believing Christian can be two different things. You have confession to a priest who can absolve you of your sins. Heck, you don't even have to come straight to Christ! What could be better than that for doing what you want? Why even bother to really see what the Bible says about a Christian lifestyle?

Jesus drank wine, so, if we want to live like him, we should too; I see that being a "bible-believing Christian" (by the way, have you begun believing in John 6 already?) and being someone who imitates Christ (i.e. by drinking wine) are two different things. So, drinking is not a sin; however, excessive drinking not only takes your reason away but damages your body, and is thus a sin. But moderate drinking is not a sin, and is not considered as such by the Bible.

The Bible does not treat of smoking, but I thnk that the same thoughts that apply to drinking can apply to smoking (i.e. moderate smoking is Ok, excessive smoking is not); really, suppose I liked the flavor of a pipe, for instance, and smoked a pipe once a year? How in reason or in faith can that be considered a sin?

Note, it is not a "minor sin" that will be straightened out in purgatory, it is not a sin at all. I would not confess to a priest or to Christ that I smoked a pipe, as I would not confess to them that I ate some ice-cream (and yes, immoderate eating is also a sin, one of which I am guilty... it does not make moderate eating a sin).

Hard drugs, of course, are almost always used as a way to "change" your counsciousness and affect your reason, which is a sin because our reason is one of the highest gifts God gave us; however, if someone uses pot to allay a pain (some cancer patients) this is not a sin, I think... God does not want us to suffer needlessly. To deny that is to say that no disease should be treated, or at least that no pain should be relieved.

So, as a good Catholic I cannot smoke and drink all I want; I can do it moderately, but if I turn to excess I sin, and yes, I have been guilty of drinking too much about three times in my life; ... thankfully it is a very rare occasion, since I try my best not to. Many other times I drank with some friends but with no excess.

What you should consider is that your puritan standards are not equivalent to Christian standards ... they are, in this matter at least, more like to Muslim standards. Christians have, historically, simply not believed this standard; it is not a matter of hipocrisy but of not accepting your interpretation of how a Christian should behave... why should we?

As for confession, you should study more about it before you write about it... read what the Church believes, of course, not what your co-believers do. You will learn that the priest is there in the place of Christ, and that Christ is indeed present at a confession, and that it is Christ that absolves our sins, not the priest.

[edit]Tolkien drank beer and smoked a pipe; so did his protestant, "bible-believing" friends; he has his heroes smoking pipe and drinking ale; in none of his (or Lewis') writings can you even find the idea that doing such things is sinful or wrong in any way; much to the contrary, they see it as one of men's pleasures as incarnated spirits; it has been abused, as have all our natural pleasures since the Fall, but abusus non tollit usum.

by the way, you were joking about religion being an "in-thing" today in Hollywood, right? Just about everyone told Gibson not to do the movie, no major studio wanted to distribute it and some producers have said they will not work with him; naturally, their tune changed when they saw the ammount of money "Passion" was making; if you've seen Mel Brooke's "Silent Movie" you know that the god worshipped by Hollywood is the dollar or Mammon

Thorin

04-07-2004, 06:13 AM

Jesus drank wine, so, if we want to live like him, we should too; I see that being a "bible-believing Christian" (by the way, have you begun believing in John 6 already?) and being someone who imitates Christ (i.e. by drinking wine) are two different things. So, drinking is not a sin; however, excessive drinking not only takes your reason away but damages your body, and is thus a sin. But moderate drinking is not a sin, and is not considered as such by the Bible.Oy! The old "Jesus drank wine" argument. Not only did Jesus NOT drink wine, but the word 'wine' is used for both fermented and unfermented wine. "wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging and whosoever is deceiveth by it is not wise". The pure fruit of the grape was a pleasure to drink. Numerous places in the scriptures condemn fermented wine and yet we attribute Jesus making alcohol so people at the wedding could get sloshed as a 'miracle'. Christ contradicts himself by this route. Most people try and use the bible to justify them drinking but they can't find the support in the bible. I recommend Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi's book "Wine in the Bible" for a great linguistic, cultural and historical perspective on this misconception that 'Jesus drank wine' or even encouraged the imbibing of liquor. But that is another discussion.

The Bible does not treat of smoking, but I thnk that the same thoughts that apply to drinking can apply to smoking (i.e. moderate smoking is Ok, excessive smoking is not); really, suppose I liked the flavor of a pipe, for instance, and smoked a pipe once a year? How in reason or in faith can that be considered a sin?Malbeth, my friend. How badly do youwant to justify these habits? There is no redeeming benefit at all in smoking and medical science has proven it is the worst habit ever (even more so then hard core drugs). When you deliberately take in such pollutants, you are desecrating the body given to you by God (and don't think that not desecrating our thinking mind only matters to God.

I fail to see how God could command us to treat our bodies as the temple of the Holy Spirit, give us examples of Daniel and his three Hebrew friends about not 'defiling' our bodies with liquor and other pollutants, show us the miserable sins caused by it through Lot and Noah, and then allow us to take drugs in 'moderation' when these drugs have no redeeming qualities and only destroy lives, our health and cause serious addiction...these are not sins?

Really Malbeth...

Malbeth

04-07-2004, 06:43 AM

Malbeth, my friend. How badly do youwant to justify these habits?

For myself, not very much; I don't smoke and I hardly drink since the only drink I can usually afford is beer and I don't like its taste very much; for the sake of doctrine that has always been believed by Christians, a lot; when you come with preconceived notions to interpret the Bible (like the notion that wine, in any quantity, is bad) and you come up to statements that clearly show Jesus wining and dining, you have to bend yourself over to say that this was not really wine, in the same manner that you say that when Jesus said "unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you" he really meant something else, despite the fact that the position I defend has always been believed by Christians.

"wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging and whosoever is deceiveth by it is not wise".[quote]

Agreed; however, where does this say that drinking wine and not being deceived by it is wrong? If you drink too much your reason clouds over and you are deceived; as long as you are not deceived, there is no more the wrong with wine than there is with Coke or juice.

[quote]I fail to see how God could command us to treat our bodies as the temple of the Holy Spirit, give us examples of Daniel and his three Hebrew friends about not 'defiling' our bodies with liquor and other pollutants, show us the miserable sins caused by it through Lot and Noah, and then allow us to take drugs in 'moderation' when these drugs have no redeeming qualities and only destroy lives, our health and cause serious addiction...these are not sins?

They have, to some, a pleasant taste; this is a redeeming quality in itself, so as long as our life and health is not destroyed by it (as they are not by taking moderate ammounts) it cannot be condemned.

Not exercising is bad for our health; is it a sin to not exercise? Eating hamburgers immoderately is bad for our health and a sin; does that make it a sin to eat a hamburger? Actually, eating just about anything immoderately is bad for our health; does that make it a sin to eat moderately just about anything that taken immoderately is bad for our health? Drinking too much Coke is also bad for our health, is it a sin to drink Coke moderately?

Malbeth

04-07-2004, 04:19 PM

Returning to the movie and the controversy it has generated;

Mel Gibson said:"The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. . . . In the Ukraine several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933."

And Abraham Foxman had the gall to respond: "He doesn't begin to understand the difference between dying in a famine and people being cremated solely for what they are"

This is monstrous; he's saying that the millions of Ucranians killed by Stalin through "punitive starvation", a process which turned desperate people into cannibals, died in a famine, like it was a natural occurrence; it is like saying Jews died in Germany because of air pollution... if someone said that, everyone would (justifiedly) call him an anti-semite; but when Foxman says that about Ucranians it is alright (I haven't seen anyone on this Forum saying Foxman's behaviour is "inexcusable" as was said of Gibson when he merely pointed out that the Jewish Holocaust was not the only crime perpetrated by government in the 20th century and that other crimes were as brutal).

Look here (http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/luciuk6.htm) to see how this comment has offended Ukranians and their offspring.

Helcaraxë

04-09-2004, 05:19 PM

I haven't actually seen the movie, so I don't think I can pass judgment on whether the film itself was good. But I heard that signs have gone up saying "Jews Killed the Lord Jesus." This religious intolerance is completely unacceptable, especially since it is a blanket generalization. If this is the kind of reaction the movie sparks, I guarantee that I will hate the it. I think these kinds of things are despicable. The movie's supposed to be about love, anyway.

Thorin

04-09-2004, 05:43 PM

At the same time, Helcaraxe, you can't blame the movie on a few crackpot's ignorant actions. These people are waiting for anything that can apply to their hatred.

If people begin to persecute Mexicans with signs that read 'Remember the Alamo! Kill all Mexicans!" are American leaders going to censure "The Alamo"? Let's take "Schindler's List" and "Pearl Harbor" off the shelves as well because they both put German's and Japanese in a bad light. Heck nearly all of the war movies we've seen show the 'enemy' as monsters. Where is the backlash for those movies? And yet the historically and biblically accurate portrayal of a religio/political system gone corrupt and manipulative is stirring up anti-semetism accusations? Everybody in that time period and area where the story takes place are Jews, good or bad! It is awful hard to portray the story without using the historical facts and cultural characters who where there. The story of Christ involves the Romans and the Jews. This was in the Holy land for crying out loud. That's who the people were. What was Mel going to do? "Okay guys, lets get the Romanian people in here. We need to tell the public that in Palestine, it was really the Romanians doing all of this, not Jewish people!"

Give me a break. As one rabbi said, it is these nay-sayers making a big fuss about it all that are worsening Jewish/Christian relations, not the movie.

Mrs. Maggott

04-09-2004, 06:39 PM

In any historical situation, there are heros and villains. In our politically correct culture, that is not allowed - unless, of course, the villains are "red-neck fundamentalist Protestants (always racists) or dull-witted traditional Catholics (always anti-woman and anti-Jew). Both of these groups - and frankly, any other "orthodox" Christians are "fair game" especially in Hollywood!

The simple fact is this: at the time Christ lived, the "ruling class" consisted of the Pharisees [ecclesiastical authorities] and the Sadducees ["canon" lawyers]. Many of these were not "holy men" (in spite of their claim to "orthodoxy"), but establishment "hacks" who were interested in the appearance of holiness but kept a firm foot on the neck of the vast majority of the less educated Israelites whom they considered to be at best "ignorant of the Law and therefore damned" and at worst, traitorous dogs (tax collectors and others who cooperated with the Roman occupiers) - of course the fact that the Sanhedrin (the Pharisee Council) also had a "go along to get along" policy with the Romans was never a problem!

Were there "holy" Pharisees? Yes, indeed! In fact, many of them were probably followers of Christ (Joseph of Aramethia and Nicodemus are mentioned in Scripture) but it is said that many "were afraid of the 'Jews'" and by that, they meant the Sanhedrin because that body had the power to throw people out of the synagogues - which for a pious Jew was worse than a death sentence.

Those who are shown in The Passion are the "establishment" who fear Jesus because he might become the center of a destructive rebellion and hate Him because He has - like John the Baptist before Him - condemned them for their hypocrisy. They want Him dead and out of their hair. They aren't "murdering" a "religious" figure, but a man who is getting in their way and causing "the whole world" as one Pharisee puts it, to "go after" Him. Indeed, when there was an effort to stamp out the Church after Christ's ascension, one very pious Pharisee - Gamaliel - counseled the Sanhedrin against it saying that if the movement was of men, it would die out of its own accord - but if it was of God, then did they as the spiritual leaders of the people, want to put themself in opposition to God Himself!

The fact is that most of those who didn't want the film made - and once made, shown - had an agenda other than that of promoting a closer relationship between Christians and Jews! There are plenty of sympathetic Jews in the film and those who are not are certainly not portrayed as acting for "religious" purposes (although that is the excuse that is used by them). But if one is "offended" by what is shown, as Gibson drew almost exclusively from the New Testament for the film, no one can say that Gibson is the problem.

I find it interesting that many people found fault with Jackson for deviating so greatly from his source material (I for one) while with The Passion, so many are finding fault with Gibson for remaining true to his. I guess the answer lies in the source itself.

Helcaraxë

04-09-2004, 06:54 PM

Mrs. Maggott

04-10-2004, 04:18 AM

I understand your point, Thorin. But from the reviews it seems like Gibson seems to relish the scenes in which the Romans are paying off the Jews for supporting Jesus's death. But those are only reviews. ;)
I don't recall any such scenes. Indeed, Pilate rather wishes the whole thing would go away and as soon as he learns that Jesus is a Gallilean, sends Him to Herod in hopes of removing himself from what he perceives (correctly) to be a domestic squabble among what he considers (as a Roman) to be barbaric tribesmen. Indeed, Pilate has Christ scourged so as to make him an object of pity to the mob which has gathered to demand His death. Of course, it doesn't work, but it gives Gibson the opportunity to present the most bestial of beings in the whole film, the Roman soldiery who have only two redeeming soldiers and one redeeming officer. The rest of them are the scum of the earth (which, in fact, was true at that time in foreign outposts like Jerusalem). If anyone should be picketing regarding unsympathetic treatment, it should be any loose Romans wandering about!

But I can tell you that there is no "payoff" for those of the mob who want Christ crucified. In fact, Barabbas is such a troublemaker, that when the choice is made by those present at the Praetorium to spare Barabbas and crucify Jesus, it is obvious that the Romans are very unhappy indeed!

Frankly, it would be wise to watch the film before allowing someone else's recounting of it sway one either way.

Helcaraxë

04-10-2004, 04:10 PM

Mrs. Maggott

04-10-2004, 09:21 PM

I'm not going to see the movie. Regardless of its symbolism of love or what have you, I have no motivation to see gratuitous blood and gore (and as a non-Christian I wouldn't care much about the meaning of the film anyway).
I was not suggesting that you see the film - only that you see the film before making any judgment about it. If you are not making any judgment as to whether or not the film is anti-semitic - or anything else for that matter - fine and dandy. However, if you are going to pass judgment on either the content or intent of the film, then it would be fair (and prudent) to actually see that upon which you are passing judgment. Otherwise, obviously your comments would lack credibility.

Paul

04-10-2004, 11:42 PM

According to the catholic church catholics killed jesus because it is the churches belife that he died for our sins. :D

Tar-Ancalime

04-11-2004, 12:27 AM

Paul

04-11-2004, 01:51 AM

Also the romans were quick to put down any theart to there power such as up-risings and rebelions.

Paul

04-11-2004, 01:52 AM

In additon jesus forgave the jews for what happened, not condem them.

Tar-Ancalime

04-11-2004, 01:55 AM

That too ^_^;; Very good points Paul. But also, to those who say it could incite anti-semetic feeling amoung those less educated have a point. That's why an education is so important.

Mrs. Maggott

04-11-2004, 02:52 PM

According to the catholic church catholics killed jesus because it is the churches belife that he died for our sins. :D
That is the fundamental Christian understanding of the sacrificial nature of Jesus's Incarnation, life, death and resurrection - it is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, there is no other understanding of the reason for Christ's Incarnation, life, death and resurrection! The sins of mankind from Adam to the Second Coming necessitated Christ's death. That is why He is called "the Lamb of God", lambs being one of the most central sacrificial animals in the Jewish religion. In the directions that Moses gives to the Jews before Passover is the mandate that they must choose a "spotless" lamb to sacrifice and eat for the Passover meal. The blood of that lamb is placed around the door of each house as a mark for the Angel of Death to "pass over" that house as he strikes down the first born of Egypt. Christ is called in the Church (of all denominations), the "Paschal (Passover) Lamb" because His blood causes the Angel of Death to "pass over" the faithful and deliver us from death.

Interestingly enough, only a generation or two after Christ - at the beginning of the diaspora of the Jews - a new type of temple worship was instituted by temple rulers which did away with the actual sacrifice of animals and created the basic form of worship still practiced by believing Jews to this day. So in effect, even among Jews, Christ's blood sacrifice put an end to the practice of blood sacrifice for both the placation for sin and as an offering to God.

Mrs. Maggott

04-11-2004, 04:20 PM

What seems to me, from my studies in such areas as the Roman Empire, is that the Romans were lenient to other cultures/gods and so on as long as you went along with Emperor worship. However, According to both Judaism and Christianity that simply is not done which made the region of Judea testy to begin with. On top of that, the Jews were an oppressed people who found it illegal and a violation of Judaism to be ruled by the Pagan Romans. This scenario combined with the human legend of the messiah created a bomb waiting to explode.

During this time, the SanHedrin had the ablitity to control the jewish people to some degree. Jesus, to them was a threat, because he could give rise to Jewish nationalism, and cause the Romans to repeat bloodshed of reclaiming incited regions. This is WHY Pilate bent so easily to the SanHedrin's will.

If Pilate had not, Caiphas, could have very easily started some trouble and endangered Pilates own condition. So, as i see it, there's no true antisemitism. Just the tragedy of the times.
Actually, the Romans were unconcerned about the religious beliefs of their vassel states. However, during the reign of Augustus Ceasar - Julius' nephew Octavian - the Emperor was deified. Thus, "religion" and "politics" became intertwined and Christ's God/King claim placed him squarely against Rome. It was this particular situation which the Sanhedrin used to force the Romans to crucify Christ. Otherwise, Pilate could have ignored their demands and simply forcefully put down any riot arising from his refusal to carry out their demands. However, the "God/King" claim made any refusal by Pilate to deal with Christ extremely problematic for that ultimate politician. Hence, his own personal morality took a back seat to his sense of self-preservation.

Tar-Ancalime

04-12-2004, 02:38 AM

My religion teacher stated that thier was a central religon that was followed probaly the Gods of Olympus, and under emperors like tiberius this was probably enforced more seriously.

Mrs. Maggott

04-12-2004, 02:56 AM

My religion teacher stated that thier was a central religon that was followed probaly the Gods of Olympus, and under emperors like tiberius this was probably enforced more seriously.
The Romans were the ultimate pragmatists. They really were not "religious" people to the extent that they would go to war to proslytize their beliefs - indeed, their "beliefs" were merely a watered down version of the Greek pantheon of gods and goddesses. Certainly, there were probably "devout" Romans, but what they as a people worshipped most devoutly was Rome itself and its proper place as ruler of the known world. Therefore, when Augustus (and after him, the emperors who followed him) became a "god", the concept of "religion" took on a different meaning in the Empire. But it seems less likely that the Romans would have been willing to engage in warfare or even persecution on behalf of Jupiter or Juno.

Tar-Ancalime

04-12-2004, 02:59 AM

The Romans were the ultimate pragmatists. They really were not "religious" people to the extent that they would go to war to proslytize their beliefs - indeed, their "beliefs" were merely a watered down version of the Greek pantheon of gods and goddesses. Certainly, there were probably "devout" Romans, but what they as a people worshipped most devoutly was Rome itself and its proper place as ruler of the known world. Therefore, when Augustus (and after him, the emperors who followed him) became a "god", the concept of "religion" took on a different meaning in the Empire. But it seems less likely that the Romans would have been willing to engage in warfare or even persecution on behalf of Jupiter or Juno.

...and here I thought i was smart ^_^;;. Is it not also true that the Jews themselves were against the rule of the romans just because of their non-kosher-ness? I mean Jesus wasn't the only 'agitator', you had the numerous zealots and that whole lot.

Mrs. Maggott

04-12-2004, 03:16 AM

...and here I thought i was smart ^_^;;. Is it not also true that the Jews themselves were against the rule of the romans just because of their non-kosher-ness? I mean Jesus wasn't the only 'agitator', you had the numerous zealots and that whole lot.
Well, the Romans were really just the "next disaster" in the ongoing saga of Israel. For one thing, that country had been divided into two - Israel and Judah - and there was a considerable amount of infighting and hatred of their own "kings" whom they considered foisted on them by the Romans. Of course, the Romans' unhappy penchant for covering their coins, flags and armor with "graven images" didn't endear them to the Jews. However, though the Romans could be (and were) brutal to those whom they conquered, they were relatively open minded with regard to local customs as long as the conquered country remained passive and accepted their status as members (however unwillingly) of the Roman Empire. The Jews had been permitted to practice their religion and even "desert prophets" and holy men of the ilk of John the Baptist had been tolerated as long as they did not call for an overthrow of their Roman overlords. Indeed, both John and Jesus were in far more danger from the ruling Jewish establishment then they were from the Romans!

The Romans both as a people and in the governance were amazingly cosmoplitan. They enslaved and brutalized, that is true, but they did not practice genocide unless they saw that a particular group of people was totally irredeemable (as they felt about the Jews at the time that the Temple was destroyed and most of the remnant of the people of Israel were driven into exile). The Romans attempted to convince conquered people to "become Romans", hence intelligent people like St. Paul were granted Roman citizenship. Whatever else the Romans were, they were not insular or zenophobic; they hoped to convince those whom they conquered to join willingly in the greater glory that was Rome - and in fact they were often quite successful in that effort.

Tar-Ancalime

04-12-2004, 05:49 AM

Well, the Romans were really just the "next disaster" in the ongoing saga of Israel. For one thing, that country had been divided into two - Israel and Judah - and there was a considerable amount of infighting and hatred of their own "kings" whom they considered foisted on them by the Romans. Of course, the Romans' unhappy penchant for covering their coins, flags and armor with "graven images" didn't endear them to the Jews. However, though the Romans could be (and were) brutal to those whom they conquered, they were relatively open minded with regard to local customs as long as the conquered country remained passive and accepted their status as members (however unwillingly) of the Roman Empire. The Jews had been permitted to practice their religion and even "desert prophets" and holy men of the ilk of John the Baptist had been tolerated as long as they did not call for an overthrow of their Roman overlords. Indeed, both John and Jesus were in far more danger from the ruling Jewish establishment then they were from the Romans!

The Romans both as a people and in the governance were amazingly cosmoplitan. They enslaved and brutalized, that is true, but they did not practice genocide unless they saw that a particular group of people was totally irredeemable (as they felt about the Jews at the time that the Temple was destroyed and most of the remnant of the people of Israel were driven into exile). The Romans attempted to convince conquered people to "become Romans", hence intelligent people like St. Paul were granted Roman citizenship. Whatever else the Romans were, they were not insular or zenophobic; they hoped to convince those whom they conquered to join willingly in the greater glory that was Rome - and in fact they were often quite successful in that effort.

Yes, this is true. I have studied something to the affect of this for a paper awhile back. I only wish I could express it as clearly as you do. I was in no way bashing the Romans (If i came across that way), I was more trying to explain some of the reasoning behind Jesus' death and ressurection (it's awful, i can't spell the single most important event of Christianity). But you brought up some very good points.

Dr. Ransom

04-12-2004, 05:49 AM

Mrs. Maggott

04-12-2004, 02:21 PM

This is true Mrs. Maggot, but remember that Israel was destroyed by 722 B.C.
They had not been around for a long time. The remants of the Isrealites had inbred with other peoples to create the Samaritians, a hated subculture. Hence the story of "the good Samaritian" being so shocking.

Otherwise, that's a good description of Rome.

Oh, yes. By the time the Romans had come along, the kingdom of David had ceased to exist in all but memory. That was one of the reasons, by the way, that Jesus of Nazareth was so unacceptable amongst the "establishment" as the Messiah! For the Pharisees (and many others) wanted a Messiah who would restore the actual kingdom of Israel and kick out the Romans through the utilization of the same sort of power that God had used so efficiently against the Egypt and other Gentiles in the past. The thought that the Messiah was something else entirely and that the time for the restoration of any particular political and ethnic group was past never dawned on the Israelites.

Of course, Christ came first for the Jews as was promised in the Covenant that God had made with Abraham, but He also came to redeem the rest of mankind including those hated Gentiles. In fact, He was unconcerned with the restoration of any earthly kingdom for He preached the Kingdom of God which was for all men - including the Romans. That's what all those parables - the murderous vintners and the empty wedding feast - were about: taking the promised Kingdom from those to whom it had been promised because they were unworthy - and giving it to others who proved themselves to be more worthy.

As for Rome: well, it is not hard to see why God waited to manifest Himself until the Roman Empire had been established. Before Rome, the world was a patchwork of different kingdoms at once at war with and separated from one another. Rome established ONE world where ideas could be spread to its furthest corners in the military, social and mercantile intercourse of the Empire. Thus the message of Jesus would not be lost in a small desert kingdom without power or prestige and thus never heard and spread throughout the world to all men. Say what one will of Rome, in the ancient world it was a force which changed history more than any other empire had done before it. Indeed, its concepts of law, art, government etc. still affect Western Civilization.

Paul

04-12-2004, 07:38 PM

If Rome was accepting of other peoples relgion/culture than why did the christians have to hide for fear of persucution?

Malbeth

04-12-2004, 07:53 PM

If Rome was accepting of other peoples relgion/culture than why did the christians have to hide for fear of persucution?

In a way, for the same reason Jews were disliked; you see, the tolerance of Rome meant "you accept my god and I'll accept yours"; they probably would have no problem in putting Jesus in their pantheon; thankfully, Christians refused the "generous" offer, and boldly claimed that Jesus is God and the other gods (and most importantly, the Emperor) is not; their refusal to worship Caesar was seen as an act of treason, political treason as well as religious.

In a like manner, Socrates was killed for Atheism, because he could not say he believed in any god worshipped in Athenas, but he did believe in God (which he called the God of the Oracle) and spent his life serving the command given to him.

Mrs. Maggott

04-12-2004, 08:03 PM

If Rome was accepting of other peoples relgion/culture than why did the christians have to hide for fear of persucution?
The Romans wouldn't have minded the Christians if they had remained in Israel, but the "sect" was growing all over the Empire. Furthermore, Christians were serious about their faith (like the Jews) and, like the Jews, they were not willing to compromise and swear allegiance (worship) the Emperor. Christians (like Jews) had another King (God) and another allegiance. As well, they were pacifist (not likely to fight for the Empire if needed) something that was viewed with contempt by the war-like Romans.

In the beginning, Christians were ignored as simply another "fringe" group, but their incredible growth rate made many in Rome consider them a possible danger - a cancer in the heart of the Empire - which might decide to follow some foreign rebel king in the future. This is very like what happened to the Jews in Egypt as they went from a small group of foreigners living in Goshen to a very large and ever growing population. The Egyptians considered that they might in future make become allied with some king who was at war with Egypt and, hence, be a danger in the very heart of the kingdom!

Of course, it was Nero's pyrotechnics (burning a goodly amount of Rome) which required a scapegoat - and Christians seemed just the right people for that particular unenviable position. Later persecutions were carried out for a number of reasons, but mostly they involved the Roman distaste for any (large and growing) group that had some other king than the Emperor and some greater allegiance than that which they believed was due and owing to Rome. They didn't mind you having your own personal faith, provided that faith didn't "carry over" into your daily life in the Empire. Indeed, the Romans had the same understanding of the limitations of personal religion and its effect upon the behavior of members of the society that the Soviets had: you could be a Christian as long as you didn't live like one! In the end, the Romans couldn't kill the God of the Jews and Christians, but they could kill His followers - and they did so in large numbers.

joxy

04-12-2004, 08:34 PM

....it is not hard to see why God waited to manifest Himself until the Roman Empire had been established.
That's a great thought, isn't it?!
First the Roman oppression reacted against itself by making the Christian community stronger in defence against it; then the Christians used the remarkable communications system of the Roman Empire to spread their Word!

Tar-Ancalime

04-13-2004, 06:27 AM

Mrs. Maggott

04-13-2004, 06:53 AM

That's funny! It seems that christianity not only pissed off the Jewish elders, but when they expanded they managed to tweak the Roman Rulers. That is funny (now, I know where i get it...) It sure is fun to be a Catholic!
Actually, Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism for a considerable period of time early in the Church. Ergo, so much of the dislike for it on the part of the Romans was a hold-over from their dislike of Judaism itself which they found to be an uncompromising belief system that didn't lend itself to the Roman penchant for syncretism and "tolerance" of everybody's gods and goddesses.

As for the Jewish leaders, they had already passed Judgment on Jesus of Nazareth, so His followers performing miracles in the streets of Jerusalem after His body had miraculously "disappeared" from a guarded tomb tended to annoy them considerably. This situation became even worse when some fifty days after the Resurrection, all these ignorant and unlearned followers of the Man were apparently able to converse in their own languages with the people in Jerusalem who had come from all over the Empire to attend the Passover Festival which was, of course, the result of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and disciples on the day of Pentecost (also known as the "birthday" of the Church). It must have been singularly unnerving, to say the least for the learned Pharisees and Sadducees to be lectured intelligently (and correctly) on Scripture by a group of nobodies that included a bunch of fishermen and an ex-tax collector.

joxy

04-13-2004, 06:16 PM

Malbeth

04-13-2004, 10:05 PM

Though it puts me in a minority, I still have strong reservations about both the purpose and the effect of Gibson's film. However, the reminder of Pentecost, and of those fishermen expounding the new dispensation, convinces me that two films, one on the Acts, and one on Paul's missionary journeys, could be both successful and beneficial. Both would start compellingly, in a blaze of light - but I hope that doesn't give ideas to P Jackson, or to Gibson himself, for that matter!

Interesting you should mention that; I couldn't help thinking in the scene of the Crucifixion, when Caiphas and John look at each other, that this confront would be continued, in that scene in Acts when Peter and John are imprisoned. So, I would not be surprised if Gibson decided to make a "sequel".

Tar-Ancalime

04-14-2004, 05:07 AM

Interesting you should mention that; I couldn't help thinking in the scene of the Crucifixion, when Caiphas and John look at each other, that this confront would be continued, in that scene in Acts when Peter and John are imprisoned. So, I would not be surprised if Gibson decided to make a "sequel".

I disagree with you there. Granted Gibson knew this film would cause many ripples, not to mention the expansion in his pocket book, but don't discredit the sometimes-called prophet. He's not some greedy Hollywood producer just doing this for the 'fat bounty'. You can tell from the film and the risks Gibson took that he had his heart in the last 12 hours of Jesus. When I sat and viewed this film, I saw it as a cleansing and beautiful film, which would not have occured if it was all for the money.Give Gibson credit for marketing off the waves "the passion" created, but dont slight him with accusations of a sequel.

Malbeth

04-14-2004, 08:21 AM

I disagree with you there. Granted Gibson knew this film would cause many ripples, not to mention the expansion in his pocket book, but don't discredit the sometimes-called prophet. He's not some greedy Hollywood producer just doing this for the 'fat bounty'. You can tell from the film and the risks Gibson took that he had his heart in the last 12 hours of Jesus. When I sat and viewed this film, I saw it as a cleansing and beautiful film, which would not have occured if it was all for the money.Give Gibson credit for marketing off the waves "the passion" created, but dont slight him with accusations of a sequel.

Hey, I'm on your side! :) I loved the movie and my admiration for Gibson is very great; I have seen the movie 6 times, and I have no doubt that Gibson did not do this for money, but that it was an act of faith for him.

So, it seems you and I have different takes on what a "sequel" implies; to me, it is simply the continuation of the story, how Christianity won the Roman Empire with the good news of the Ressurrection; and this would begin with the Jewish question and so would lead to the confront between John and Caiphas; it could be a very stirring movie I think (not as powerful as the Passion perhaps, but still very good), and while this time Gibson would be certain of success it could still be a work of faith; anyway, I have heard somewhere that he still plans to make biblical movies, and that his next movie is going to be about the Maccabeans' revolt against the helenization of the Jewish religion; so, not a sequel but a prequel.

Mrs. Maggott

04-14-2004, 06:55 PM

Actually, Gibson did not believe that the film would make any profit or, if it did, the profit would be miniscule especially given the negatives that would go with it. Indeed, when he interviewed the actor who played Christ, he asked him if he wanted to play a role that would end his career! Frankly, Gibson's profits are largely the result of the very people who tried to stop the film first from being made and then from being shown! All that controversy is bound to stir up an audience even if those who go to see the "controversial film" would not ordinarily have bothered to see a film about the subject matter shown.

Yes, Gibson appealed to traditional Christians - Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant - to find an audience, but he got a lot more than that as a result of all the hoopla and hysterics that surrounded the film. I don't know how many people might have seen the film other than what must be considered a fairly narrow Christian audience had it not been for all the carrying-on that happened directly prior to the film's March 25th release date. This was a "picture perfect" case, surely, of people who wanted one result accomplishing by their actions exactly the opposite.

Tar-Ancalime

04-15-2004, 04:23 AM

Hey, I'm on your side! :) I loved the movie and my admiration for Gibson is very great; I have seen the movie 6 times, and I have no doubt that Gibson did not do this for money, but that it was an act of faith for him.

So, it seems you and I have different takes on what a "sequel" implies; to me, it is simply the continuation of the story, how Christianity won the Roman Empire with the good news of the Ressurrection; and this would begin with the Jewish question and so would lead to the confront between John and Caiphas; it could be a very stirring movie I think (not as powerful as the Passion perhaps, but still very good), and while this time Gibson would be certain of success it could still be a work of faith; anyway, I have heard somewhere that he still plans to make biblical movies, and that his next movie is going to be about the Maccabeans' revolt against the helenization of the Jewish religion; so, not a sequel but a prequel.

You haven't seen A.D then! They already made an Acts of the Apostles movie, but it was crappily done now that i think about it (Oh painful religion class movies!) Perhaps it would be refreshing, or Gibson could tell the story of Paul that would be a good movie!

Niniel

04-15-2004, 11:46 PM

I just saw the film today, and I must say I really didn't see the point of it being made. It showed nothing of the Christian message, which many people -even non-believers- may sympathise with, but only how a man was tortured for 90 minutes. Maybe Christians feel like 'now I understand how much Christ has suffered for me, now I am strengthened in my faith.' But I find that hard to believe, since I always thought that Christ's passion was more psychological and not only physical, but the psychological side of it was hardly shown.
For not-Christians the film has no point at all; those who don't know the biblical story will not understand at all what's going on. Those who do know what's going on will not feel any more sympathy toward Christianity as they did before, because what Christ's actual message was is not shown at all. it was just pointless torturing of a man that dragged on and on far too long. Even longer than the Bible mentions.
In all I don't understand why this film was made; surely not evangelise, but I couldn't think of any other purpose.

Mrs. Maggott

04-16-2004, 12:22 AM

Tar-Ancalime

04-16-2004, 05:04 AM

Actually, I disagree that most Christians recognize what Jesus the Man endured for our redemption. We have become used to romanticized and "prettified" versions of Christ's treatment during His trial, torture and execution. Even Zeferelli's Jesus of Nazareth - a very good film - was only able to spend a short time on this aspect of Christ's mission. Gibson felt - correctly - that it was time for believers to actually see (as far as can be shown in the medium) what Christ endured for our sakes. I think that it came as a surprise to many who are used to a more sanitized version of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. Yes, it was hard to take, but Gibson hoped to reawaken the apathy that appears to be the condition of most Christians. I think he was relatively successful.

Was the film an attempt to "preach the faith"? I don't know, but I suspect it was more in the nature of a clarion call to those who consider themselves Christians - no matter how nominally - that taking that identity and wearing that Cross has a meaning - AND a price!

I also agree with Mrs. Maggot, natrually in a more crude and blunt manner. This film seemed important because who exactly knew what a scourging looked like, or what a physical--and phsycological torture the whole ordeal was. To see your apostle, someone who you drew into your confidence betray you. To know that you are to die and will not be rescued is only the part of the physcological torture we mere humans can comprehend. There is much more that is left unsaid because words are not fit to describe it.

But more than that, a central theme in any Christian denomenation is that Jesus is the word and Jesus is the truth, and what he did for us is the purest sacrifice God can make. If a person cannot discern that simple meaning they need to check up on thier theology.

Ireth Telrúnya

04-16-2004, 11:23 AM

I finally saw it too and thought that it wasn't so violent after all. The whipping wasn't so bad I had expected. Of course Jesus was all covered in blood, but he did look like a human. Isaiah says that he didn't even look like one.

Mrs. Maggott

04-16-2004, 02:21 PM

Another thing that the film showed in great detail was the various reaction of the rest of the people involved. For instance, except for the flashbacks and the few moments in the Garden, you never see most of the Apostles - and those you do see (except for John) are either in the process of betraying Christ (Judas) or denying Him (Peter). These are the men with whom Jesus had lived intimately for three years and yet, in His last hours, all but one of them was nowhere to be seen. Only John stands at the foot of the cross and receives Mary, the Theotokos, into his keeping.

Frankly, much more courageous and faithful are the women disciples who are represented by the two Marys - Jesus' mother and the Magdalene whom in a flashback Gibson erroneously presents as the woman caught in adultery. Yet there were other women who were never far from Him during His ordeal including the mother of James and John and the rest of what have become known as the "myrr-bearing women" whose faithfulness in bringing myrr to the tomb to anoint Jesus on that Sunday morning was rewarded by being the first human beings to receive the joyous news of His resurrection.

Then you have the Sanhedrin who range from those desirous of destroying Jesus because they fear and hate Him to those who attempt at the 11th hour to intercede for Him and are finally driven from the chamber. These would include Joseph of Aramithea who took Christ's body from the cross and put it in his own new tomb and Nicodemus. So it is obvious that Gibson does not portray that ruling body as altogether blameworthy. Indeed, even the most hardened cannot watch the scourging and when they return to the Temple and see the damage caused by the earthquake, one cannot help but feel that at least some of them are having serious second thoughts about their actions - the first step in the process of redemption.

The Romans are also interesting. The first two soldiers one meets seem to be rather thoughtful and have a certain attitude that might lead one to believe that they are not the mindless bullies that one meets later on in the flogging scene. Indeed, these two soldiers and the leader of the cohort are the most sympathetic of the soldiery, most of whom are brutal, sadistic and stupid. One of these soldiers pierces His side and is showered with His blood while he kneels beneath the Body gazing upward in a sort of revelatory veneration.

Of the Romans, of course, the most well developed in the short time we get to see him is Pilate (naturally). He isn't a villain, but he isn't a saint either. He is a man who is concerned with his own survival and has been warned that future uprisings in Judea would not be tolerated. He is the consummate "official", busily subjugating his personal ethics to the needs of the job. Indeed, he is like so many modern "Christian" politicians who assure their constituents that their "religion" will never intrude upon their actions - and they make this promise as if it were something to be proud of! Frankly, if one will not allow one's "religion" to influence one's life, then one has no religion - merely some words written on a paper somewhere.

Pilate's most interesting reaction is that to Christ's claim to the Truth. The famous line, "What is truth?" says it all. I thought Gibson made a very telling point in the conversation between the man and his wife when he asks her if she "recognizes truth" when she hears it. When she says that she can - but when he asks her to teach him how, she simply responds that if he cannot recognize it for himself, no one can teach him how to do so. In these days of compromise and tolerance of far too much that should never be tolerated, Pilate stands as a shining example of many people who choose expedience over goodness and relativism over truth. Indeed, the man is the poster boy for modern politicians!

Herod? He is put in the film as an example of what happens when power is divorced from both morality and reason. The best part of that scene is the face of the beautiful black courtesan who looks on with pity as the King and his court mock and taunt Christ. She is at once part of that milieu and at the same time, far above the others in her human sensibilities.

It seems that in almost every scene of the picture, Gibson gives us contrast between those who hate Christ or just glory in His suffering and those who love Him or feel pity and sorrow at His plight. We are shown throughout the film, the gamut of humanity from its dregs to its height and, in a way, are given a chance to see where each of us might have stood and how each of us might have acted had we been in Jerusalem on that fateful Friday. It is a most thought provoking film from which the viewer gains ever more insight with each viewing.

joxy

04-16-2004, 06:03 PM

It is a most thought provoking film from which the viewer gains ever more insight with each viewing.
It showed nothing of the Christian message, which many people -even non-believers- may sympathise with, but only how a man was tortured for 90 minutes.
I would like to think that the first comment reflects the general view, but I think it more likely that the second comment does so.
As I listened to the readings of the Passion story at Easter, I was struck by the minimal nature of the reports of the physical details, contrasted with the extensive descriptions of the psychological and spiritual aspects; whereas I gather from most of the reports here and elsewhere that the film emphatically reverses that treatment.

Mrs. Maggott

04-16-2004, 06:35 PM

I would like to think that the first comment reflects the general view, but I think it more likely that the second comment does so.
As I listened to the readings of the Passion story at Easter, I was struck by the minimal nature of the reports of the physical details, contrasted with the extensive descriptions of the psychological and spiritual aspects; whereas I gather from most of the reports here and elsewhere that the film emphatically reverses that treatment.
You must remember that the Gospels were written for people who would have been more than well aware of what took place at a scourging or a crucifixion. They hardly needed it described to them because they were daily witnesses to such barbaric cruelty. On the other hand, we are far removed (at least in the "civilized" world) from such matters and an offhand-appearing comment: "They took Jesus and scourged Him" has little connection to anything but our intellectual recognition that something "happened". However, Gibson did not show what the Shroud does; that is, that the crown of thorns pierced one of Christ's eyes and ripped His eyelid or that the Roman soldiers forced him to sit naked on a broken wine bottle as a "throne". So, you see, were were spared some of the gory details.

Will people look upon it as merely a lengthy sado-masochistic presentation of a handsome man almost naked (Christ, in fact WAS naked) being whipped? Perhaps. Certainly columnist William Safire saw it that way. But others (myself included) did not. I suppose it depends upon where, as they say, the viewer "is" with regard to the event. I'm afraid that this is one of those films - perhaps more so than any other before (or after) it - where the mind-set of the viewer is all important regarding what he or she experiences while watching the film. That in itself makes the film unique in my opinion.

joxy

04-21-2004, 10:03 PM

Gibson did not show what the Shroud does
Will people look upon it as merely a lengthy sado-masochistic presentation....columnist William Safire saw it that way.
Is that the Turin shroud, and do you believe it is authentic? I haven't heard before of the details you mention; to what extent do they appear on the shroud, and how accurate is the understanding of how they were caused?
I happened recently to see part of Gibson's Braveheart and certainly saw strong signs of s-m in that. You have been fortunate in being able to see through the Passion film beyond that aspect, but I have always thought that my reaction was likely to be similar to that of Mr Safire. I would be interested to know whether Gibson has made other films, and whether the s-m content of these two films is a continuation from them.

Mrs. Maggott

04-21-2004, 10:28 PM

Is that the Turin shroud, and do you believe it is authentic? I haven't heard before of the details you mention; to what extent do they appear on the shroud, and how accurate is the understanding of how they were caused?
I happened recently to see part of Gibson's Braveheart and certainly saw strong signs of s-m in that. You have been fortunate in being able to see through the Passion film beyond that aspect, but I have always thought that my reaction was likely to be similar to that of Mr Safire. I would be interested to know whether Gibson has made other films, and whether the s-m content of these two films is a continuation from them.
I have seen many things that I believe authenticate the Shroud. Firstly, the pollen found in it were from flowers and plants limited to a 5 mile radius of Jerusalem, NOT medieval Europe. Secondly, the only way they have been able to obtain anything similar to the image on the Shroud is with radiation and since that was not exactly handy in medieval times, one must assume that no artist used it. Thirdly, there were details on the Shroud simply unknown in that period such as the nails going through the wrists rather than the hands (remember, there is no Hebrew word for hand as opposed to wrist; the word "hand" refers to that part of the arm from the finger tips to the elbow and hence, when the Gospel writers said that the nails were placed in Christ's hands, that did not preclude the wrist). Also, the different angles of the blood flow indicating when the Person was "standing" and when He had collapsed once more (which gives a very different angle of blood flow) would have been something that a medieval artist would not have even considered! Finally, because of the nature of linen (it is a natural fibre), there are biological life forms built up on its surface which influence the carbon dating analysis. The same thing happened with Egyptian mummies. When they carbon dated the linen wrappings, they kept finding that the cloth was much newer than the mummies. This led many scientists to wonder if the Egyptians kept digging up their mummies and 're-wrapping' them every thousand years or so. Well, of course, they weren't, but the nature of the linen was such that it's microscopic life kept interfering with an accurate carbon dating finding! The same thing happened with the Shroud! Also, the blood type (and it definitely IS blood) on Shroud is AB, a rare type in Europe, but fairly common among Semitic peoples.

Anyway, that's just a few points that lead many people - myself included - to accept the legitimacy of the Shroud. Oh, and now they have found a faint image even on the BACK, something which they are saying could not have been done using any technique known even to this day.

As for S&M in Braveheart, well Gibson didn't show the worst there either. As you know, Wallace was hanged (shown) drawn (NOT shown) and quartered. He is shown being stretched, but that isn't what happened in that type of execution (he was only the second man to undergo this horrible death). Actually, after being cut down half throttled, he was stretched out on the block and his genitals were cut off, his belly cut open and his intestines "drawn" out. His head was then cut off and his body cut into four pieces (quartered). Then the head and body parts were dipped in pitch. The head was then displayed on London Bridge and the parts sent around the country for display. I would say that Gibson was fairly "low key" in his representation of Wallace's end.

Let's face it, these films aren't drawing room comedies! They are filled with violence. Frankly, I think that what violence had to be shown was done with considerable care. I don't think that any of it was gratuitous nor was it done to titillate (2 "t"s?). When Wallace's "private parts" are amputated and his belly ripped open, all you see is Gibson's face blank with horror and pain. You don't even see any blood splashing up onto his neck and face, something that probably would have happened in that type of scenario.

Is this "pleasant"? Hell no! But if your're going to do William Wallace (or Jesus Christ) there are going to be unpleasant parts of the story. It goes with the territory. Will there be people who will "get a rush" out of it? Hell, there are people who "get a rush" out of torturing animals and children - but neither the animals nor the children are at fault.