The Passion

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:38 am

Is it only me or does there seem to be an awful lot of paranoia and venom directed toward this film and its director? What do you suppose these folks are afraid of or are we just seeing the anti-Christian liberal media spitting it's usual vitriol toward all things spiritual if it doesn't involve Indians? Maybe it really is a bad film, I haven't seen it, but the attacks border on hysteria.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:19 am

It may have something to do with Christ himself. People either love him or hate him. That's the way it was then and the way it is now.

For some positive and sympathetic reviews of the film, go to www.nationalreview.com

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:29 am

From my casual glancing, the film isn't so much being attacked as being described as easy to attack. "omg it might promote anti-semitism" "omg it might not fly with some christians because of it's violent nature" and so forth..

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:37 pm

If the very same film was put out by an unknown director it wouldn't have been such a problem.
Because Mel Gibson is a popular hollywood celebrity, a big box office draw, and not known for his faith, he is a threat.
Many people will go to see it, people who wouldn't go see it if it were not for his celebrity.

It's hard to sluff it off as just a religious product for religious people...it's not a production for a niche market if a hollywood heavyweight puts it out.

He's bringing Christ into the mainstream and the mainstream is usually run by people who don't like to be measured by the morality that Christ represents.
Scared people lash out in fear.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:39 pm

The only attacks I have seen are the charges of anit-semitism (sp). The coverage of this charge has more to do with the networks being sensationalistic rather than reporting hard news.

What do people expect. To some extent, jews had a hand in his death. That is history. For Gibson to change or alter that just so some folks don't get offended it ludicrous. Even though I am not religous myself, I am really looking forward to seeing this movie. Anyone willing to babysit?

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:43 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Will Robinson:
 Because Mel Gibson is a popular hollywood celebrity, a big box office draw, and not known for his faith, he is a threat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You so sure about that? I mean I don't really follow Hollywood all that closely and even I knew he was a die hard Catholic (no pun intended).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by [NuB] Dedman:
For Gibson to change or alter that just so some folks don't get offended it ludicrous<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just reading through a few articles this morning one thing sort of stood out. Sure, the people doing the prosecuting look Jewish, but Jesus and kin look Aryan. I suppose you could take that as putting Jews in a negative light, since Jesus was one himself.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:50 pm

I said he wasn't known for his faith, not that his faith is unknown.
I think of Lethal Weapon, Mad Max, Tequila Sunrise, The Patriot etc.. when I think of movies associated with Mel Gibson.

If The Church of Christ had made this movie do you think the press would have had such a reaction?

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:14 pm

Jesus looks Aryan? I believe that actor is hispanic. Where did you get Aryan? Aryan=blond hair/blue eyes. Tet, you're doing what I've seen many of the critics doing, namely going out of their way to say this is just Mel's interpretation. Maybe it is but from what I read there is very little artistic license used. Of course, there's always going to be a slight distortion and there's little outside of the Bible to refer to but I've read that Gibson tried to only use what is explicitly stated in the Gospels.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:19 pm

I think he meant caucasian. Regardless, the movie is based on the gospel of Matthew. Bring Lothar in here to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty confident that Matthew is universally considered the most "anti-semitic" of the gospels (note the quotes).

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:19 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bash:
Jesus looks Aryan? I believe that actor is hispanic. Where did you get Aryan? Aryan=blond hair/blue eyes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm just quoting the liberal press.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:38 pm

The Brits apparently gave the film the equivalent of an X rating (adult only) because of the graphic violence. Seems odd that a film about Jesus could theoretically be found on the shelf next to Deepthroat. I haven't seen it yet, but I've read a few reviews that said the gore was pretty over the top and not something you'd bring your kids to see. One even dubbed the film, "Jesus: according to the Marquis de Sade".

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:39 pm

I'm wrong. Apparently there's more than a couple departures from scripture. Also, yea, he does look very caucasian. But, also, it's not just the liberal press, Fox ripped him a new one. That surprised me.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:39 pm

The Jewish woman playing Mary is said to be the daughter of Holocaust survivers.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:00 pm

It's not just the anti-semtism angle, there is a real anti-Mel-making-a-religious-movie-ism out there.

*******************************
From the New York Times:

" Gibson is viewed not as an artist flouting convention and mainstream Hollywood orthodoxies, but as a lobbyist for the fundamentalist religious movement in the United States at a time when its clout is unmistakably on the rise."

"Critics worry that Mr. Gibson's film, which has already been embraced by Christian preachers as a tool of evangelization, will reawaken old prejudices â?? not that Jews are guilty of killing Christ, but that Jewish liberals control the entertainment and media industries and have imposed a secular, left-leaning bias on movies and television."

************************************

From Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes:

Rooney said God had spoken to him, saying, "I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos."

"They're crazy as bedbugs, another earthly expression," Rooney said, quoting God. "I created bedbugs. I tell you, they're no crazier than people."

"My question to Mel Gibson is: 'How many million dollars does it look as if you're going to make off the crucifixion of Christ?'"

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:19 pm

I love the argument that this movie is "too violent". Read your bible.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:54 pm

hrm....Rooney talked to God, God talked back and Mel's the wacko?

I don't really see what the big fuss is about. It's just a friggin movie for Christ sake. (Pun most definitely intended)

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:15 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bash:
I'm wrong. Apparently there's more than a couple departures from scripture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what i have heard, the "anti-semitic" departure is that the film "lets the Romans off the hook", i.e. depicts the Romans as almost unwilling participants in Christ's crucifixion, and places the blame on the Jews alone. that would be a departure, and a curious one.

i'm not criticising the film or calling it anti-semitic, but it does raise an eyebrow. if it's true, why would the story be presented that way?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:20 pm

DCrazy, perhaps you're thinking of Matthew being the "most Jewish" gospel? The very first thing in Matthew is a genaeology linking Jesus to Abraham -- you can't get more Jewish than that. About the only way to spin it as anti-semitic is to say that it's insulting to the Jews to use their prophecy and their culture to reference Jesus.

I haven't heard anything about the Romans being "let off the hook", except for a couple of ADL level reviews that seem to think the Romans should have taken every single ounce of blame for everything, and that even mentioning the existance of Jews is anti-semitic.

I remember a good response by Mel Gibson, when someone suggested he was trying to place the blame for Jesus' crucifixion on the Jews -- he said something along the lines of "what this film says to me isn't that the Jews are responsible for Jesus' death. What is says to me is that I'm responsible for Jesus' death, because I'm a sinner." The movie was meant to make people uncomfortable, and from what I hear, it's done a good job so far. It's no surprise that it's controversial.

And in case you're wondering... yes, it's extremely violent, and as Goob said, if you think it shouldn't be, go read your Bible for a bit.

I'm seeing it Sunday afternoon. I'll probably write something up afterwards.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lothar:
I remember a good response by Mel Gibson, when someone suggested he was trying to place the blame for Jesus' crucifixion on the Jews -- he said something along the lines of "what this film says to me isn't that the Jews are responsible for Jesus' death. What is says to me is that I'm responsible for Jesus' death, because I'm a sinner."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Along those lines, Gibson used his own hand in the close up shot of the hand holding the spike as it's driven into Jesus' palm when he was staked to the cross.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:49 pm

Does the Hand Model Union know about that?

Here is by far the best quote from a (negative) review in Time Magazine...

But to charge the film with being anti-Semitic is like saying those who oppose the Bush Administration's Iraq policy are anti-American.

What liberal bias?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:52 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bash:
Does the Hand Model Union know about that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, but if there is a god he does

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:00 am

well the Bible kinda lets the Romans off the hook too, i mean, what about poncious pilot? (i CANNOT spell that). he wanted to let jesus go, but the Jews were going balistic! and remember that ROMAN soldier who after the earthquake looked up and said "this man surely was the son of god"?
the Bible places the blame squarely at the Jews, or you could say on humankind as a whole. but not the romans, that's for sure.

i don't really place too much blame per-se, since Jesus's death was all prophesized and had a greater meaning for humanity on the whole anyway (the whole "1 perfect life = sacrificial price for finally redeeming adam's sin" thing). it's the religous leaders who were to blame.

i mean, if anything it's a story about how religous leaders can whip a nation into a blood thirsty frenzy to kill a blameless man. so it's got a good "don't get led along by propeganda, think for yourselves dumbasses and don't go around killing people coz you'r all excited like, lol!!!111ONEONEONE" message to it, that is quite relevant in our world today.
well... i mean i HOPE the movie brings this out.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 3:25 am

I love the argument that this movie is "too violent". Read your bible.

I'm not a big Bible reader, I just picked up on one article that said the Bible doesn't detail every tortuous, agonizing, blood-dripping moment of Christ's suffering like the film apparently does. I believe the word they used to describe the Biblical account was "laconic" (which sounds about right from what I know of various descriptions in the book -- brief and not long on description). I just thought that Christ's death was supposed to be about a much bigger idea than how gruesome his death was. But, if blood and guts makes the story more poignant or real for people, super.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 3:52 am

I'm beginning to see some of the reasons for the disconnect among reviewers. On the one side, I believe Gibson starts from the premise that Christ is Lord and here is what happened to him in all it's bloody detail. But, on the other side, I'm picking up an undercurrent of dissatisfaction that the movie doesn't try to provide any of the usual character development expected in films that would endear the Christ character to people unfamiliar with him or his teachings.

The people who are condemning the film strictly because of it's violence, I believe, don't quite understand what they are being shown. In Gibson's mind, he is showing a human sacrifice. Showing that each lash and thorn was accepted for us. That, I believe, is why it is so violent and so graphic; to show the depth of the sacrifice. However, remove that context for watching the violence and then it may just be too uncomfortable for some folks to sit through.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 5:12 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>by lothar:
I remember a good response by Mel Gibson...
"what this film says to me isn't that the Jews are responsible for Jesus' death. What is says to me is that I'm responsible for Jesus' death, because I'm a sinner." The movie was meant to make people uncomfortable...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya that's what i figured too. it makes sense, from what i hear all catholics have this same "we killed jesus, we are navel lint" depressed attitude in their churches. (i'll re-word if requested.)

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:24 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by roid:
. . . from what i hear all catholics have this same "we killed jesus, we are navel lint" depressed attitude in their churches. (i'll re-word if requested.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to me that if God goes to the trouble of sacrificing Himself for those people, at least He doesn't consider them to be 'navel lint'.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:49 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by roid:
ya that's what i figured too. it makes sense, from what i hear all catholics have this same "we killed jesus, we are navel lint" depressed attitude in their churches. (i'll re-word if requested.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol... I remember writing an essay about that in my Rennaisance art class--how the paintings in cathedrals were supposed to evoke pious emotional responses from viewers. I remember a particular woodcut of Adam and Eve reaching for an apple that was sexually graphic--to make the viewer feel, well, dirty and sinful. And I know paintings of the crucifixion usually were *really* graphic. I dunno if Catholics still are like that, but they do seem a bunch that likes their religious art *expressive*.

As a non-Catholic, I'd say the proper thing to focus on is the atonement rather than the sacrifice, but... hey, whatever

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:36 am

I saw it last night, definitly one of the most gory movies I've ever seen. Brings new meaning to being free from "cruel and unusual punishment"

Gibson does take a few liberties with the film, especially with Lucifer and some of the flashbacks, that add a great deal of characterization to it. From a purely cinematic stand point, I think the movie is very good. A story that has been told over and over and takes place over the course of only half a day would have the tendancy to drag, but here it does not. Makeup was a very good too, the wounds looked like they freakin' hurt.

One thing I didn't understand, which maybe someone else who's seen it can, is what was the whole part with Lucifer holding the baby/midget? I don't understand what that was suppose to symbolize...

As far as being "anti-semitic", I left the movie feeling angry at the characters, like the high priest, Judas and the tortures, but not against the Jews overall. The Jews are seen hurting and helping Jesus through out the entire movie, so it's not a one sided thing at all. I don't think this claim is true by a long shot.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:13 am

The Bible doesn't detail every tortuous, agonizing, blood-dripping moment of Christ's suffering like the film apparently does

Perhaps not, but it still was agonizing, blood-dripping, and torturous.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:02 pm

Just for reference, Mel Gibson isn't exactly adherent to modern Catholic thought/teaching....

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:27 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DCrazy:
Just for reference, Mel Gibson isn't exactly adherent to modern Catholic thought/teaching....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is a staunch traditionalist. He prefers Mass in Latin -- I suppose for him it preserves the quality of 'mystery' in the sacrement.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:19 pm

Roid, I've been attending Mass for 17 years, and I've never heard or experienced that sentiment.

And no Lothar, I haven't seen a lot of that type of art recently either. It seems as though those Middle Ages/Renaissance folks weren't as pious and chaste as we give them credit.

It truly amazes, and often amuses, me that there are so many misperceptions about the Catholic faith. I'm not taking offense at anything any one of you has said, and I can't pinpoint any specific areas, but I often get the feeling that people make generalizing statements about Catholicism without knowing anything about it. If you do want some questions answered, there are plenty of good resources out there to help you.

Getting back to the movie, I'm going to see it this weekend. I'll post my response to it afterwards.

P.S. I personally wouldn't mind attending a Mass said in Latin. Latin is a much more formal and beautiful-sounding language than English is. Plus, I've taken Latin in high school in the past four years, so I would probably understand quite a bit.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 5:06 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Top Gun:

P.S. I personally wouldn't mind attending a Mass said in Latin. Latin is a much more formal and beautiful-sounding language than English is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I know what you mean. If I could attend the service of my choice, it would be the Anglican Order of Holy Communion from an older version of the Book of Common Prayer. To my ear, the King James English is the most beautiful.

I've got a ticket to see the movie tonight.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:05 pm

Anyone else think all these accusations of anti-semitism will actually foster anti-semitism? It's ironic but, on a metaphoric plane, it almost seems like the Passion all over again. We have the Jewish power brokers crying for *justice* when all they really want is silence and no one to rock their boat, and the little director and his Christ film whipped, scorned and crucified in the media. I've read in the NYT where Gibson's career, as far as Hollywood is concerned, is finished. Literally, he'll never work in that town again. It's politically incorrect to point out that Hollywood is run primarily by Jews but we all know it. Have these Jews done more damage to themselves and their faith by attacking Gibson and his Christian film than Gibson ever could have managed by himself even if he was an anti-semite?

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:06 pm

I think they have, Bash. Their claims seem almost completely unfounded, to say the least. Also, most of the points that Jewish leaders have addressed, such as the role of the Sanhedrin and the high priest in Jesus' death or the line, "His blood be on us and our children," are taken directly from the four Gospel accounts. So if you're calling the movie anti-Semitic, you're also calling the Gospels anti-semitic. Considering the Gospels were written by Jews for an early Christian community that was largely Jewish, I highly doubt that.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:58 pm

Agreed Bash. There was a prominant writer having a chat about this on Israeli TV. He was saying the Jewish "power brokers" create more anti -s than the IDF.

If we have to have religion then the major faiths would do well to get their friggin head out of 2000 year old sand that they bury it in and concentrate on saving the human race, which is in a sad sorry state at the moment. To make such a hue and cry about a "story" whilst countless problems are left to fester just proves to me that the world has a cancer, and that cancer is religion.

Statues in front of buildings, same sex marriages, headscarfs, women preists, contreceptives and Hollywood films. All religions and all "faiths" are corrupt and perfidious.

FC

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:10 am

ok so to those who have seen it, what was so gory?
can you describe specific moments pls?

ribboned flesh from the whiping?, the sweating blood during prayer? the interesting effects from being nailed to a stake or cross? (ie: you have to stand UP on nothing but the nail in your foot to take a breath, this is why they break their legs when they finally want them to die, then they can't breathe.)

i mean, i came outof watching fightclub and i didn't think that was gory, but supposedly it was. to me it was just REAL.
i can't really imagine being too shocked being shown what happened to jesus. i've supposedly grown up knowing the gory details, how shocking could it possibly be?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:40 am

Apparently Gibson did take out the subtitles where the (primarily Jewish) crowd yelled, "His blood be on us and on our children," as to avoid some antisemetic criticism. Well, it's still there if you are fluent in Aramaic.

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie, but I don't know when I'm going to get a chance.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:47 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by De Rigueur:
He is a staunch traditionalist. He prefers Mass in Latin -- I suppose for him it preserves the quality of 'mystery' in the sacrement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has nothing to do with the "Mystery" thing.

He is a traditionalist (as well as I, how cool to have a hollywood spokesperson

) because he rejects the changes brought upon by Vatican Councill II. I wont go into detail, but in a nutshell the importance of God has been thrown out and hits more on humanism (throwing the tabernacle to the side or even out of view), recieving the body and blood of Christ by hand and throwing away the idea of how precious that host is and many other things which were intended actually to destroy the church.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:50 pm

I watched the film last night and would describe it as an exposition and amplification of one line from the creed, "He suffered under Pontius Pilate." (It is worth noting that both the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds--that millions of people still recite-- say that Jesus suffered and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and make no mention of Jews.) This emphasis on suffering is a valuable corrective to the idea that the purpose of Christianity is to give people 'warm fuzzy feelings'. There are many people in the world who suffer unjustly and they should be able to relate to this aspect of the Gospel. A number of characters in the film were transformed by witnessing the suffering of Christ.

Regarding the charge of anti-semitism, there was something I noticed. During the crucifixion itself, Jesus makes seven utterances. In the movie, Jesus says, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" at two different times. That repetition, coupled with Jesus being portayed as willingly undergoing the ordeal, leads me to think that Gibson was saying that no one should be singled out for blame. There was also a sense that people didn't fully comprehend what was happening until it was over. Even the high priest at the end had a look on his face that said, "My God, what have we done." Also, for some reason the group of Romans in charge of the scourging reminded me of Nazis. I'm not sure if it was there methodical, business-like manner or what. Maybe it reminded me of a scene from Schindler's List or something.

I wasn't really blown away by the casting or acting. (Jesus reminded me a little of Kevin Klein.) By far the most prominent feature was the realism of the suffering inflicted on Jesus and I didn't think the violence was overdone (although it did make me cringe.)