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

[Dean Martin]

Thanks for the Dave Poland link. That was an interesting viewpoint from a non-christian. And that's the kind of thing I'm questioning. On one hand I agree that it is shock therapy for Christians to see and know Of Christ's suffering, but there's more to being a Christian than that. It's about the teachings before the Crucifiction and what followed. Sure the act of crucifiction was the sacrifice for salvation but does it really have to be shown with multiple beatings? Yes, Christ was broken but he lives again and there isn't much reason I can see to keep having not just 10 minutes of film but well over and hour devoted to that. All this movie seems to be doing is re-living those particular moments over and over again.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I could say that about a lot of movies, from Black Hawk Down to The Red Shoe Diaries.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Patrick Sun]

The film is done in the authentic language of its time, so it's subtitled when dialogue is spoken (mainly Aramaic).

Dean, perhaps, this film isn't for you. If you're satisfied with your level of understanding of the suffering that Christ endured, then you're fine. But for others, people have lost sight of the sacrifice and just skim over the suffering, collect $200 and go straight to the resurrection and eternal life.

For Mel to undertake this burden himself, he's opened himself up to major criticism as well. But obviously he felt so strongly about the film to put his money where his heart was and financed it himself to produce a film that spoke to him and the suffering that he understands Christ undertook to wash away man's sins (and you know the rest)...

Does Mel's version line up with everyone else's understanding of the Passion of the Christ, probably not, but it opens up the lines of debate and communication, and that's not a bad thing. Some may feel the film doesn't show enough brutality, that it doesn't do enough to prove that Christ kept suffering because he knew of no other way to produce the results he wanted to share with the world. But I'd venture the majority of viewers will conclude it was more than enough (but hey, at just over 2 hours, Mel spared us the other 10 hours, right?)

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Great point, Patrick. At the risk of moving into bad areas (I won't, no worries), any film that brings educated discourse is far more valuable than it's running time. We are far too complacent with too many critical issues, preferring to ignore rather than address. Communication is one of our greatest gifts, and I give the film credit for not pulling punches, allowing such a discourse to take place.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Derek Miner]

Patrick, your comments somewhat apply to the concern I voiced earlier. I think the reason the film can be so widely interpreted is because it lacks a dramatic context. If the film provide an unflinching, unsubtle view of the torture and crucifixion of Christ, then I think it only fair to suggest that the film give us something emotionally to build on to understand the sacrifice. The reasons for the sacrifice are in the film, but they are much too subtle compared to the rest of the film. I felt this was the one thing lacking in an otherwise noble effort.

 

[george kaplan]

I was planning on seeing this, but it's become pretty clear that this film is, whatever else it may be, extremely violent. Frankly I don't like violence, and I now have about as much desire to see this as I do to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Salo or Nightmare on Elm Street part 27. If history shows this to be an important film, I might still watch it, but I certainly have no 'desire' to do so.

I do have a question though for those who have seen it. Part of the controvery about this film was how much was from the gospels (I've read those many time, and the story is clearly laid out, but it certainly isn't full of enough gory detail to be a two-hour script), and how much was from the writings of a German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich. For example, in the gospel, when Christ is praying in Gethsemane, there is no mention of Satan. But in her writings, he is there and taunts Christ. Does this occur in the film? Also, she writes of some physical attacks by Jews on Christ that do not appear in the gospels. Are these in the film?

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

I don't agree. I think if there was every a story that didn't need an introductory context, this is the one. Probably 95% of the people who will see this film at least know the story, whether or not they believe it. Also, I think Mel is hoping that those who don't might be inclined to try to find out.

 

[Ray Chuang]

I think many people are missing the point of this movie, especially because they're so used to the Bible epics of the 1950's with their much more clean image of Jesus.

Consider a couple of things:

1. Execution by crucifixion was a particularly cruel and unusual form of punishment, but it was very commonly used all over the Roman Empire. Accounts of the day of how people were crucified showed it was an extremely horrible experience for the condemned, a form of capital punishment designed to deter others from suffering the same fate. In short, Jesus Christ went through the same experience that untold numbers of others condemned by the Roman Empire authorities went through; I remember reading accounts of Spartacus' revolt (not the movie, but real Roman accounts) and we know that some 6,000 slaves were crucified after that revolt was crushed.

2. People seem to miss the point of why the Jews of the Temple of Jeruselem wanted Jesus out of the way. I personally think that Jesus saw the decadence of the Temple in those days and wanted to do something about it, and the religious leaders of the Temple felt very threatened by Jesus. Fast forward to around 1,500 years later, when something almost the same happened when Martin Luther saw the problems plaguing the Catholic Church at the time and wrote the famous Ninety-Five Theses that criticized Church authority and kicked off the Protestant split of Christianity; small wonder why Catholic authorities quickly condemned Luther's commentary.

In short, if you look at The Passion of the Christ using the historical context of the time of Christ, it becomes all the more powerful film, to say the least.

 

[Robert Anthony]

I wanna thank everyone for their responses, I appreciate them.


This kind of bothers me, because now it sounds like the movie works mostly as a kick in the head for the ones losing faith. Like a faith endurance test. I'm not so sure I like the implication in that--that if I'm not eager to see this movie, I'm not willing to really look at what Jesus went through. Or that if the violence in the movie seems to go beyond it's purpose in the storytelling, for me, that I'm somehow not connecting with God as well as people who can grit their teeth and sit through it.

It makes the movie sound more like a sport/test and less like film.

But I don't feel I need to be beat over the head with a graphic interpretation of Jesus suffering in order to "Truly understand" his pain. I think I'm lining up more with Derek's views on this.

Ernest: I appreciate the walking on eggshells concerning "Substance is what you bring to it" but that seems to be at odds with Patricks's interpretation as "Faith Endurance Test." But then again, maybe that's what you mean--for Patrick it's this thing. For Derek, it's this thing.

I think the problem comes in that I believe I don't NEED a movie to somehow re-affirm, bolster, or strengthen my faith in a higher power at all--It is not necessary for Mel Gibson to whip the hell out of Jim Caveziel to really really REALLY drive home how much Jesus suffered. It's not really an abstract to me, the crucifixion. so I'm not going to the movie looking for that sort of filmic power to strengthen my faith. Apparently, according to some, this movie ONLY works IN that context.

That might not be enough for me to see it. Which is why I'm asking if there's more to it. I didn't necessarily NEED to see the battle of normandy up close--but I knew there was more to Private Ryan than just that. I didn't NEED to see Schindler's List to know the horror of the holocaust--but I knew there was more to it than that. If there wasn't, I would consider it more of a morbid voyeurism with no deeper meaning, "You are there to watch human suffering" and not much more. But there was more to it, much more. The battle, the concentration camp scenes, they were powerful and lent an urgency and immediacy to what was going on, but it wasn't the entirety of the movie. I guess I'm just wondering if there's more to "The Passion" then just torture and death to outline in big bold black letters that "Jesus Suffered."

But I DO seriously appreciate the level of discourse here. I may not agree with some things, but I understand and appreciate the various ideas being tossed around.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

That many of us focus on different teachings of Christ rather than his execution, which as Ray said, was meted out to many undeserving people? Or that Mel reads into the Gospels the fact that his sacrifice is the element of Christianity that needs to be brought to the forefront?

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

One other point. Although Christ's teachings are, obviously, very important, he is essentially teaching us how to be more like Him and telling us why we should believe in Him, the pivotal event of the entire Gospels is contained in these 12 hours. It's not the miracles or the parables that should stick in the Christian's mind, as these are tools to make people believe and understand, but Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection. If you closely read the Gospels, everything is leading to this sacrifice, and I think that is what Mel is trying to get across. He's just distilling the essence of Christianity to it's most basic tenet ("For God so loved the world...").

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Brent,
There are 25,000 denominations of Christians in the world. For the very fact that even the "experts" cannot agree on what Christians should focus on. Not every Christian feels that these twelve hours define all of Christianity. Many do. Many don't. TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DENOMINATIONS.

That's a lot

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I think this is an excellent point. Let's face it, the story here is only reporting the political biases of some of the Jewish people at the time.

It is not an inherently anti-semitic movie, as the Christian faith is not inherently anti-semitic. Indeed, there are many bible verses about loving Jews as the "chosen people" and that their beliefs are similar to Christians. I personally have many, many Jewish friends and would be absolutely horrified at any racism or discrimination toward that faith and its people. After all, we both share a love for the Old Testament even if we diverge a bit from there. Indeed, the movie's message is that all people who believe shall receive salvation. That's as universal as it gets in my opinion.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Eh, I may not have said that well. I certainly don't want to downplay any aspect of Christ's work here on earth, but I still think that He didn't become a man to just teach us how to be nicer people, but to deliver us by his sacrifice, and I think that's why Gibson is concentrating on these 12 hours.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Chuck, I would argue that those 25,000 are mostly disagreeing over things outside the scope of THE PASSION.

 

[Patrick Sun]

As flippant as it may seem, the Passion is like the saying, "without the lows, the highs wouldn't be as meaningful or as sweet".

For christians, I think there is meaning and value in coming to grips with the suffering, the passion of the Christ. As far as the endurance aspect, life is not a sprint, it's a marathon. The last 12 hours was a marathon for Christ. He remained true to his character, even though he had every opportunity to ease his own pain, his own suffering for relief, but he perservered for the greater good, he sacrifice himself for man's salvation.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Chuck,
Good point, but are you trying to say I'm not an expert?
I will try to be less "all-encompassing", however. I see where my posts could be taken that way.:b Maybe I'll put one of those disclaimers at the end like they do for commentaries on DVD's these days.

 

[Nigel McN]

Reading through this thread one of the things about the film that appears to have overlooked (or not realised) is it isn't just the last 12 hours of Christs life played straight out, the film is sprinkled with flashbacks to other key events. The Sermon on the Mount, The Last Supper, etc.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Violence disturbs me as well but you cannot relate the violence shown in Passion or SPR, or We Were Soldiers, with the violence for Violence sake in Slasher and horror movies. THe violence is just as disturbing but the context is way way different.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I think Gibson is concentrating on those twelve hours because that's the central tenet of the Catholic faith, and central to Mel's beliefs. It's easier to focus on, and it almost uses the element of fear to keep the faithful (EDIT: oops, that sounds like a generic take on the Catholic faith...it is not. It is a generic take on the beginnings of the Catholic Church). But any real further discussion of that issue is theological, and not germane to this thread. I'll pass on it.

I have heard excellent things from all regarding the cinematography. The trailer was absolutely beautiful, and I ssume the film is the same. Anything specific that anyone who has seen it wants to share?

Take care,
Chuck