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

[Lewis Besze]

I wonder what the same critics had said about Kill Bill Vol.1.?Did they still see the "intent"?

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Great points, Ernest. Thank you.



The question I believe Mel is "asking" is if you have ever really, and I mean REALLY, thought about the sacrifice that was made for you (meaning me and everyone else). Not only was He whipped and beaten and crucified, He also had the entire crushing weight of our sins put upon His back during the last hours. Ever wonder why He cried out, asking the Father why He had forsaken Him? Because at that moment, all sin was upon Christ, and the Father, abhoring sin, turned His back on Him in that moment. I believe that is the agony and sacrifice that Mel is trying to get across to us, not just the physical torture, but the torture of the soul for us. He could have made just another re-telling of the Gospels, but why? How many do we already have? Do you just want him to tell the same story, only prettier, with nicer visuals and special effects? This is supposed to be a sobering and wrenching film because there are a lot of people (believers and non) who probably take Christ's gift for granted without ever thinking about the cost. Including myself, until starting to discuss this film a few months ago and starting a personal study and meditation of the subject. This film is about Christ's sacrifice, not just our redemption, focusing on what God did for us, not just what benefits we received from God.

 

[Tommy G]

Well I saw this last night and I have to say this is a true love story. Gibson did a wonderful job in depicting the last 12 hours of Christ's earthly life. James Caviezel was incredible and is Oscar worthy with this performance. He had the ability to show the extreme suffering Christ was going through. Gibson also used the presence of Satan very well in this film. It truly showed that Jesus was tempted even at the time of His death to not take the sins of the world upon Himself.


I was originally considering having this be my kids first R rated movie because the violence is necessary but considering a woman fainted in the row I was in, I don't think now would be the appropriate time. Thumbs up to Mel on this one.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

I think the context question is kind of moot. If every film had to be taken "in context", then every World War II movie would have to start at the end of WWI with the treaties that decimated Germany and caused an entire country to follow the ravings of a madman. Every Vietnam movie would have to begin with the rise of Communism. Some stories and histories are well known enough that portions of them can be told, relying on a bit of knowledgeable context from the viewer. I think this is one.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

It's a very Catholic thing. As a Catholic, I can't even tell you how many times I've been told by priests and nuns to "meditate on the Passion of Our Lord, think about how much He suffered so that you might enter Heaven". I've also read this in books by saints and mystics. The positive ramifications of His sacrifice came at a great price-"His most bitter Passion", as one liturgical phrase calls the events described in the movie.

I have my tickets for a 12 noon showing today. I'm apprehensive, but also greatly looking forward to the film. One big surprise: The Philadelphia Weekly, a very liberal local paper, gave the film a rave review, calling it a masterpiece.

 

[Holadem]

Really, what does what I emphasized have to do with anything?

--
H

 

[Dave Miller]

Grant - Did you see Titanic? Knowing the ending of a movie is an interesting criteria for whether you'll see a movie or not?

I will be seeing this Saturday and I am concerned about the violence too. For me, Saving Private Ryan was disturbingly violent b/c it was based on an actual historic event. Dead Man Walking, Schindler's List, etc. same deal. I see a correlation to The Passion.

From Roger Ebert's print review:



Violence is much more disturbing to me when I know it really happened. I find the criticism of violence in The Passion ironic. Saving Private Ryan was a story about saving a private named Ryan. The term "passion of Christ" historically has meant the suffering of Christ. So why is it so surprising that this movie is about the suffering Christ went through?

During his ABC interview w/ Diane Sawyer, he said he's not telling the whole story. He never intended to. His goal was to make a movie about the passion of Christ. He wants people to see the movie and ask "Why? What was the suffering for?"

Peace,

DM

 

[Patrick Sun]

In some respects, this is shock therapy for christians, a wake-up call for many of whom who take for granted the sacrifice, the pain, the suffering, the burden of all human sin that Jesus had to endure to become the conduit for christians to gain eternal life. The level of brutality depicted in the film brings home the level of sacrifice required to assume that burden.

Is it disturbing? Yes. Is it needed? That's depends on each and every viewer or probable viewer of the film. Are they ready to come to grips to such brutality wrought upon Christ in his last hours? Also, it's a personal question with no universal answer. I expect this film to mean so many different things to each and every viewer because no one is at the same point on each person's spiritual journey and their appreciation for Christ's sacrifice.

Gibson's film confronts viewers with the prospect that personal sacrifice is required for life everlasting. To each person's sacrifice, it's deeply personal, and individual to each and every person. It's universal and individual at the same time, a duality not unlike Christ himself.

Am I bothered that some reviewers/critics didn't get the sunday school context they so craved to "balance" out the film? No, not really, it's what they thought they needed for the understanding of Christ's sacrifice, but for them the film overwhelms their capacity to "jump right into the action" so to speak, and produces very uncomfortable feelings, and it should, regardless of how much religious context each person brings to the film.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Anyone interested in learning more about WHY Mel may have focused on suffering, you may want to read Isaiah 53 before or after you see the movie. Brent alludes to the concepts contained in this chapter in a post above.

 

[JonZ]

Regarding SPR
"...and the old man bookends were overkill"

I disagree. It would be a bitch for anyone to go through life knowing that a dozen guys died so you wouldnt.He never forgets that as he claims when he got to his knees to thank Cpt Miller.I think its a appropriate ending.


"Am I bothered that some reviewers/critics didn't get the sunday school context they so craved to "balance" out the film?"

Not only tat but its been told so many times before, weve known for awhile the film would focus on the suffering of his final days.

(Though I really wouldve liked to a film version focusing on what scholars believe to be the most "probally" accurate Gospel - Johns - including more on Mary M, Lazarus(whos role in Jesus life has been SEVERLY downplayed)and some of the otehr stuff in John Gospel, not mentioned in the others)

 

[Dave Miller]

Check out Isaiah 52 in the Old Testament as well.

Peace,

DM

 

[Nick Totoro]

My thoughts exactly, Patrick. We feel safe reading the Gospels and seeing words describing the Christ's passion, knowing only that He died so that our sins might be forgiven. This brings it home, so to speak. This shows us the sheer brutality of the experience.

This shows to me with imagery that our sins killed Him, not the Jews, not the Romans. It does upset me a little that the mainstream Jewish groups aren't giving Christians (and we Catholics, in particular) the benefit of the doubt in this regard, but what can you do? At least one theater here in DC received threatening phone calls for showing the film and it was publicized on the news.

I give Gibson a ton of credit here. Big-time guts and faith. He had to know going into this that he would suffer criticism. I'm not saying he's taking the martyr role. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He's certainly not a martyr and I don't believe he feels that way. I do believe he had conviction, though, and a passion (no pun intended) for us to see the reality of what the Christ experienced the last hours of His life.

Nick

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Well, since the paper doesn't exactly speak of religion favorably most of the time, I was surprised by the review, which is as positive and gushing as any I've read from the likes of Billy Graham and other conservative religious leaders.

 

[Dean Martin]

The difference here though is we have more source material that being the Bible and it isn't the property or vision of just one person like a Quenton Tarantino film.

 

[Brian Perry]

That may be a valid goal, but some reviewers have complained that Gibson included brutality that is nowhere to be found in the gospels. While many previous accounts of Jesus' final hours may have glossed over the agony, it is possible that this version goes to the other extreme and is therefore just as inaccurate.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Won't see it for a few days, but there is plenty of conversational material in the thread already

Some excellent posts, showing multiple sides of the prominent concern (violence). Did Gibson succeed in his intent? Certainly. I do not hold the prospect of the unimaginable violence against Mel. It is clearly the center of his faith, and previous movies have shown a real propensity to examine these themes in his previous films (Braveheart, for example). In this film, he simply commits to screen what he has been leading up to. I take no issue with that. As Ernest said, the substance is what we bring, and the film appears to not nearly be the evangelical tool some have stated, but the "wake up call" for the already converted someone in here mentioned. Taken out of context, the sacrifice of God's only son is meaningless. JUST the cruxifiction. Many (including myself) would argue that the teachings of Jesus HIGHLIGHT and illuminate the nature of the sacrifice. Without that balance, the film itself becomes a visual record/recreation of the genesis of the faith, but without the bedrocks on which it is laid. I cannot comment on the film, and I do not hold what it doesn't have against it. I merely point out that some key elements might be missing for some viewers, based on Mel's adherence to what is so powerful to him.

All of that aside, much respect to Mel Gibson and Icon.

I look forward to the film.

Dave Poland raised some interesting viewpoints in his review yesterday. I may or may not agree, but it's a worthwhile read.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Ernest,

I think your comments are brilliant.

Why is it that extreme violence of Pulp Fiction or Saving Private Ryan is "sophisticated" but Mel Gibson's attempt at his view of biblical reality is "too violent"?

Why is the needle stab to the heart in Pulp Fiction any more or less violent than the stabbing of the hand in The Passion?



Does that mean you will never see a movie that you know the story of? Don't you want to see Mel Gibson's interpretation? I do.

I think a Baptist minister in Atlanta here summed up the violence aspect well when he said:

"It's rated R for Reality"

Classic.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Chuck beat me to the mark. The most interesting part of his article to me was the following:

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I'm on the fence about going to see this in a theater. This seems like such a deeply Personal gut wrenching mvie that I think I'd rather see this at home in my HT. Now I expect this movie's crowd to be alot better behaved than most movie audiences, I still would want to concentrate on the subs and the movie and I think it'll be tough to do in a theater with people constantly getting up and down to go to the bathroom. Also I'm not sure if I can handle seeing people muching the large size popcorm during this one..

 

[mike_vigneau]

For anyone that has seen this, I heard there is not a lot of dialog and that if there is, it is subtitled? Just wanted to know what to expect when going there.