***Official THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST Discussion Thread (including THE PASSION RECUT) (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

Must be one very old Baptist minister.

As with most ancient historical events, there is no one surviving who knows the real "reality." All we have are surviving historical writings subject to the interpretations of their authors, which are then subject to further interpretations by whoever is discussing/adapting/dramatizing them. It's like a big game of grade-school "telephone" across the ages.

And as Chuck says, that quip can be applied to all sorts of films. At least in the case of the "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan" types of films, there are still living witnesses who can authoritatively say whether or not "reality" has been captured.

Once the actual eye-witnesses have passed away, I'm not sure anyone can claim to know the "reality" of any situation at which they were not present.

 

[John Doran]

the pivotal personal moment in the whole drama of the passion for individual christians is the comprehension that, in some very real and critically important sense, they themselves, with each and every one of their sins tortured and killed christ.

the point of making the violence visited upon jesus so unflinchingly graphic is to make clear just what it is that we do when we sin, in an effort, presumably, to make the idea of sin that much more horrifying.

it's one thing to know that jesus died on a cross for you; it's quite another to know that you yourself flogged him until his ribs were visible through the ruined flesh of his back, and to see what that was like.

and as far as i can tell, we all need that.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Chris,
Having lived in South GA, I am well-aware that about 24,899 of those denominational differences are based on pot luck dinner content, donut availability, and petty squabbles.

Not on the events of the Passion, but certainly major differences exist between the focus of Christ's life. His death would be meaningless if his life had not been lived a certain way. My comment was that the film predominantly shows his death and torture (according to those "in the know"). Christians have taken many different views on the key element of Christ's life, hence the Protestants with the Christless cross vs. the Catholics, with the Christ on the Cross (and the guilt, never forget the guilt ).

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Yikes! Let's not debate epistemology now!

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Chuck, you are soooo wrong! It's 24,927 now!

 

[Ray Chuang]

(a bit off-topic)

I want to thank you the administrators and moderators for keeping the discussion of this movie so surprisingly civil.

(back on-topic)

Like I said earlier, if you watch the movie using the contemporary accounts of what Jeruselem was really like during Roman rule in circa 32 AD, then the movie makes a tremendous amount of sense. Was Jesus' crucifixion very difficult to watch? Of course it was--that was the very point of the Romans using crucifixion as a means to deter others from suffering the same fate. This is why I think Mel Gibson may have actually read accounts of the use of crucifixion as a form of capital punishment in other parts of the Roman Empire written back then to get sense of what kind of agony Jesus went through.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Brent,
And growing every minute. I lived in a great small town of a few thousand for about a year. I could have attended a different church every day I lived there, all within a 10 mile radius

Take care,
Chuck

 

[RobertR]

I listened this morning to an extensive discussion of the film. From what was said, Gibson did engage in significant artistic license. For example, he showed people in places they were not, according to scripture, and couldn't have been, according to the laws of the time. Also, the nails are shown going through his palms, but they should have been shown going through his wrists.

So the film DOES deviate from reality, even if the counter argument is that the deviations are "ok" or "don't change the central message" or "make it a better film".

 

[Stephen Orr]

I'm a "moderately conservative" Christian who will be attending a sold out showing of PASSION tonight. I'll post my views sometime this week.

 

[Patrick Sun]

And don't forget, there is a left hand shown that holds the stake that is hammered through the palm, and that hand is Mel Gibson's left hand (sinestro, evil hand).

 

[Seth Paxton]

Having read the reviews but not having seen the film, I wonder this one thing...

Would this film be a family friendly film if it were about, say, an Indian woman being betrayed by her husband's family for dowry problems?

I mean that is a real issue and hundreds of Indian women are actually BURNT to death every year. But would the public, especially parents, view an unflinching 100 minute look at a woman being beaten, tortured and then burnt to death? It would be a reminder to us all of the daily HUMAN sacrifices being made because people still haven't learned to be human to each other, despite the Bible, Koran, or whatever.

Or would the film be criticized for its violence fetish and inhumanity, even its misogyny.

I ask because families are going to this and I've heard many critics describe the film as being far too focused on the pure violence, portraying the Romans as practically gleeful in their torture. Maybe it is described in such detail elsewhere, but as far as I can tell there are only a few bits of violence in the book of John's description of his trial and death. A flogging, some face slaps/hits, crown of thorns, carrying the cross, nailed to the cross (crucified actually), and then stabbed in the side after his death. That doesn't sound like a hours worth of violence even in real time, excluding his time just being on the cross waiting to die.


And either way, does that make it appropriate for kids? And does focusing on that aspect really work as a book adaptation, or does it miss some of the points?

It's just that I'm not really sure our society normally is so understanding of artists who soak their films in blood and gore. I don't recall church groups buying out Requiem for a Dream showings, but certainly that film has a strong moral message about the pitfalls of addiction and "bad" behavior. "Let's load up the car and take the kids to that Saving Private Ryan. If only the film was the first 20 minutes for the whole film they'd really love it."

And that inconsistency bothers me to be honest. I don't think a Christian film deserves a bigger break than a film by someone who is focused on other moral issues, at least not in American society.

Robert's points seem to be in-line with mine as to the true worth of such a film, which is why I asked about its worth if the context was changed.


Frankly, I always thought being nailed to a cross was bad enough. If you believe in Christ's sacrifice do you really need more "proof"? "Sure he got crucified, but show me a REAL sacrifice if you want me to appreciate the effort."

 

[Chris Atkins]

Seth:

You make a great point. Many movies do have worthwhile (and redemptive) messages even though they have sex, violence, etc.

Even the Bible has worthwhile messages in the midst of sex, violence, etc. Think David and Bathsheeba, Onan, etc.

Of course, Christians believe Christ was the son of God, so we would naturally think Mel's movie shows the most senseless (and God glorifying) violence that is possible to be shown.

Nice post.

 

[Brian Perry]

Great point, Seth. Roger Ebert said that if it had been anyone other than Jesus on that cross, the movie would be NC-17.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"The most unexpected thing about The Passion is that rather than being a powerful piece of art demonstrating unrelenting faith, I found it to be evidence of an absolute crisis of faith. It is a document of rage and I do not consider rage to be an outcome of real faith."

If that doesn't describe post-9/11 America, nothing does. Every decade gets the movies it deserves. Modern America, screaming with rage at our enemies, at our allies, at each other...here comes a movie drenched in rage and blood, with a flashback to a little something called the Sermon on the Mount, with Christ asking us to have the strength to love and pray for our enemies as well as our friends. That's my biggest sin - I have a very hard time doing that. Like Judas in Last Temptation, I have a hard time turning the other cheek. I'm more likely to try and hit you so hard that you don't even think about trying to come at me again.

Every decade gets the movies it deserves. Now, here comes "The Passion", for the modern America at war with the world and with itself.

Talk about perfect timing.

 

[Patrick Sun]

It's quite obvious to me that different people will react differently to this film, and if you go in with pre-conceived notions that this film is solely for the morbid voyeur peeping at a film with shallow depth and context, well, you may as well stay at home and perform thought experiments. It's totally possible to think your way through the amount of suffering that is inflicted upon Christ. You're not the target audience for this film.

 

[Pete D]

For those that have seen it, I'm just wondering if it includes his resurrection, or if it just ends after his death. Very curious.

 

[Dean Martin]

Do you say this as a recommendation then against people seeing this film who have expressed my viewpoint? I think people should still see the film regardless but I am dissapointed that Mel did not take better advantage of the opportunity he had in front of him. On a related note I see in an article today that he would not be opposed into making other biblical stories into films.

 

[RobertR]

It does.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Seth,
For certain the film has gotten a "free pass" where few others would. But no more than Schindler's List was given when it aired on TV with full frontal nudity a few years back. Ignorance is bliss, and people are more forgiving when something "real" and sacred is put to screen.

I'd certainly see the film before I took a family to it. But not everyone feels that way.

As with the Minister who said "R for Reality" (along with my snarky comments)...that attitude is a very dangerous thing, as that blade cuts so many ways.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Patrick Sun]

I think Mel's passion for the subject is what drove his vision for this film. Obviously it's not everyone's cup of tea. Fine. This is how Mel Gibson (along with his research) perceives the last 12 hours of Christ. You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to endorse it, but there are millions who have expressed an interest in being subjected to these events and want or need to experience this in a film. I find nothing wrong with wanting to see this film (as long as you understand the parameters of the film), and I find nothing wrong with not wanting to see the film.

I'm certain that for many who see this film, they will have their spirituality awakened, perhaps with more purpose than ever before. I don't think that's a bad thing. These are the people Mel is trying to reach with this film. The Passion was that important for Mel to try and get across to all segments of society.

For the squeamish (can't/won't handle the depicted brutality) or those preferring to maintain their current understanding of the events of the Passion, they have no obligation to see this film. Even if they feel there is no value in such a cinematic venture. I feel there is tremendous value in using cinema to transport the viewers to this time, from which many denominations of faith came forth and tapped into the spirituality of mankind.