The Passion of the Christ

[stevetseitz]

Stunning, staggering, powerful and beautiful

!MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! The "Passion of the Christ" is simply one of the outstanding films of our age. It transcends genre and re-defines what the motion picture can be. With beautiful cinematography, tour-de-force performances by the entire cast and top notch directing by Mel Gibson, "Passion" re-enacts the most important single moment in the history of mankind.

The film is staggeringly powerful with heart rending scenes of extreme human suffering. I do not recommend this film to anyone under around 18 years of age or at least some life experience. To a practicing Roman Catholic like myself it is at once one of the most painful and introspective experiences I've had at a movie theater and one of the most loving and celebratory experiences. The predominant emotion at the end of the picture is extreme gratitude: The feeling of being unconditionally loved. Leaving the theater, I was WORN OUT emotionally.

I will now address the issue of violence and Anti-Semitism because it seems to be unfairly tainting reviews nationwide. The film is extremely explicit in it's portrayal of the suffering of Christ, HOWEVER... to any Catholic who has been through Benediction, the stations of the Cross, or the Gospel reading on Palm Sunday or Good Friday it is nothing new or shocking. Gore, wanton destruction and random brutal violence is commonplace in many movies.

In fact, it is celebrated (somewhat artfully) in the films of directors such as Sam Peckinpah and Quentin Tarantino.

I guess what bothers people the most about violence in this film is that it's on their behalf. There is no innocent party here. This is no formulaic hollywood construct or trendy faux-art film where the intended viewer can sit smugly self- assured and safe, in spiritual "third person" sense, judging the film solely on aesthetic merits.

Even in some of the most violent great films of our day: "Saving Private Ryan", "Schindler's List" and "Braveheart", we watch everything through a historical lens. We are separated from the action by history, culture, or political climate.

Ironically, here we have a film without a word of english, in a completely foreign culture, about the events in a far land that happened almost 2000 years ago and the violence strikes to our very hearts and souls! Astounding. Bravo, Mr. Gibson.

The intened audience of this film believes that Jesus was tormented by and for OUR sins and that is what sticks in people's collective craw. Chalk it up to today's unaccountable society.

The issue of Anti-Semitism is more difficult. Dennis Prager, a man who I respect highly, said that Jews and Christians are seeing two different films here. Many complain that Mel Gibson overemphasized the Jewish leaders role in the death of Christ.

It is historical fact that the Jewish religious leaders feared the teachings of Jesus, clearly they saw him as not only a threat to their control but a blasphemer. Simultaneously, some of these same leaders saw him as a potential spark which could set off the tinderbox that was Jerusalem at the time. Any violent insurgence would have been met with swift and deadly response from superior Roman forces, so the element of self-preservation entered into the equation. Thirdly, there were a few truly rebellious radicals amongst the Jews who wished to overthrow Roman rule and fight for their freedom. The teachings of Jesus bothered this element also, because he preached things like "Love thine enemy" and non-violence. With all of these forces within the Jewish community conspiring against Jesus it is truly a miracle he lasted as long as he did.

It is clear from the scripture and historical documents that Pontius Pilate at least tried to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, it was the insistence of the Jewish leaders that led to the brutal flogging and crucifixion of Jesus. It was extremely rare that prisoners were both flogged AND crucified.

Whether the specific individuals in the Jewish religious leadership were culpable for the death of Jesus is without question. Simultaneously, it is an extremely irrational and decidedly non-Christian attitude to blame an entire people or race for the act or acts of any specific group of individuals.

We must also realize that an Anti-Semite won't be swayed from his ignorant beliefs because he sees a movie. Conversely, a rational intelligent person won't become an Anti-Semite because he sees a movie. Let's take a little more accountability for our own actions, habits and attitudes instead of blaming a piece of celluloid, people.

[MickeyMoose15]

Thank you!! Right on the money with the issue of Anti-Semetism.

[anduril]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
It is historical fact that the Jewish religious leaders feared the teachings of Jesus, clearly they saw him as not only a threat to their control but a blasphemer. Simultaneously, some of these same leaders saw him as a potential spark which could set off the tinderbox that was Jerusalem at the time. Any violent insurgence would have been met with swift and deadly response from superior Roman forces, so the element of self-preservation entered into the equation. Thirdly, there were a few truly rebellious radicals amongst the Jews who wished to overthrow Roman rule and fight for their freedom. The teachings of Jesus bothered this element also, because he preached things like "Love thine enemy" and non-violence. With all of these forces within the Jewish community conspiring against Jesus it is truly a miracle he lasted as long as he did.

I largely agree with what you've written in this part of review above, though I'd qualify the statement "the Jewish religious leaders" by writing "some Jewish religious leaders" in order to share the same spirit as your second sentence and your statement later on that "specific individuals in the Jewish religious leadership were culpable."

In any case, however, while you've contextualized the drama of the Passion of the Christ with an outline of the political situation in which the events take place, the movie itself does not. Most of these political nuances (as well as others you've failed to mention) are largely absent from the movie. This is what makes the movie dangerous on its own.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
It is clear from the scripture and historical documents that Pontius Pilate at least tried to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, it was the insistence of the Jewish leaders that led to the brutal flogging and crucifixion of Jesus. It was extremely rare that prisoners were both flogged AND crucified.

There are no historical documents, other than Christian gospels, that attest to the points that you have made here. Also, the Christian gospels are not identical in their presentation of Pilate nor do they give any concrete evidence of the motivation behind Pilate's indecision. Only some later, apocryphal, Christian documents suggest that Pilate's indecision stemmed from sympathy towards Jesus.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
We must also realize that an Anti-Semite won't be swayed from his ignorant beliefs because he sees a movie.

Of course not! I only wish Gibson would have made a movie that could have. Instead, what this movie can do, and this is the crux of the argument, is inflame that person's anti-Semitism.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Conversely, a rational intelligent person won't become an Anti-Semite because he sees a movie.

Perhaps not an anti-Semite but they may come away with the position that "the Jews" wanted him dead. For instance, I saw this movie again just today with a good friend who afterwards, in our discussions, asked me, "So the Jews wanted to kill him, right?" In other words, this friend (a non-Christian, otherwise unfamiliar with the story of Jesus, and not an anti-Semite) left the theatre with the impression that Jews were responsible for killing Jesus. Clearly, in his case, this does not make him an anti-Semite but it does mean that had I not been able to answer his question he would have taken this anti-Semitic perspective into his subsequent interactions. This is the beginning of ethnic stereotypes that have the potential to lead to anti-Semitism.

[MickeyMoose15]

But the thing is he is right in a sense. The Jews did want him dead because he was threat to their religious beliefs. The Romans also wanted him dead because he was a political threat in an area that was already brimming with revolts and discontent. Everybody forgets that Jesus was Jewish as well and so were his followers, so to say we have to blame the Jews, is a ridiculous comment.

[Johann]

As Ebert said on his show last week: "It's not that the jews killed Christ, WE killed Christ". "We" meaning everybody.
If you believe in the story of Jesus at all you have to acknowledge the big picture.

If he didn't die on that cross Christianity has no foundation.

It doesn't fucking matter who "pulled the trigger" here.
Why do people keep harping about the jews? It doesn't matter WHO killed him. He died for our sins. He wanted to. (At least according to this movie). I don't come away from the film giving a shit about who killed him. The point is he suffered and died horribly, to be resurrected in all his glory. Man as God.

[MickeyMoose15]

That is what I am saying. We are all responsible. Jesus, according to the Christian teaching, died for our sins. If he hadn't, they believe, we would all still be remaining in Limbo or possibly Hell if the gates of Heaven hadn't been opened. In that situation, people would lose hope and Satan would win because he would lure more and more souls into Hell since they had no hope of ever reaching Heaven. That is why you get that one lasting image of Satan at the end film screaming ... he knows he has lost again.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
But the thing is he is right in a sense. The Jews did want him dead because he was threat to their religious beliefs.

Some of the Jews... not the Jews.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
As Ebert said on his show last week: "It's not that the jews killed Christ, WE killed Christ". "We" meaning everybody.
If you believe in the story of Jesus at all you have to acknowledge the big picture.

If he didn't die on that cross Christianity has no foundation.

It doesn't fucking matter who "pulled the trigger" here.
Why do people keep harping about the jews? It doesn't matter WHO killed him. He died for our sins. He wanted to. (At least according to this movie). I don't come away from the film giving a shit about who killed him. The point is he suffered and died horribly, to be resurrected in all his glory. Man as God.

Of course, from a theological point of view Ebert is correct, but the movie does not convey this very well, especially if you do not have the entire story. Everybody in this thread is bringing information to the movie that is not there... not everybody in North America or this world is Christian and not everybody cares about this story in the way that Christians do (yet they are still going to this movie). Those people are unlikely to take the position you've described here after seeing this movie.

[MickeyMoose15]

That is what I have said. Some did ... Some didn't. And the Jews aren't fully responsible either. Jesus died for all of us. It was our sins who killed Jeus, so says the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[stevetseitz]

>>I largely agree with what you've written in this part of review above, though I'd qualify the statement "the Jewish religious leaders" by writing "some Jewish religious leaders" in order to share the same spirit as your second sentence and your statement later on that "specific individuals in the Jewish religious leadership were culpable."<<

Well, I guess my point is that the high priests were the Jewish religious leaders of the day it wasn't a two-party system. Jesus was a threat/problem for them on a host of levels.

>>In any case, however, while you've contextualized the drama of the Passion of the Christ with an outline of the political situation in which the events take place, the movie itself does not.<<

But I think that's what Gibson intended. This wasn't "King of Kings" it's called the "Passion of the Christ" which refers directly to the suffering and sacrifice of the last hours of Jesus' life.

>>Most of these political nuances (as well as others you've failed to mention) are largely absent from the movie. This is what makes the movie dangerous on its own.<<

Gibson probably assumed that the intended audience would be familiar with the situation surrounding the Crucifixion.




>>There are no historical documents, other than Christian gospels, that attest to the points that you have made here.<<

Incorrect. There is a load of documentation and historical records of on the corporal punishment punishment practices of citizens within the Roman Empire. The fact that the historical figure Jesus Christ was flogged and crucified is noteworthy not only because it was extremely rare to do both, but also because these fulfilled scriptural prophecy.

>>Also, the Christian gospels are not identical in their presentation of Pilate nor do they give any concrete evidence of the motivation behind Pilate's indecision. Only some later, apocryphal, Christian documents suggest that Pilate's indecision stemmed from sympathy towards Jesus.<<

None of the gospels are identical, but the tell largely the same story. Matthew's gospel mentions the wife of Pilate and her "dream" about the "Holy man" Jesus.


>>Of course not! I only wish Gibson would have made a movie that could have.<<

So, you think a movie can do all that? Wow.

>>Instead, what this movie can do, and this is the crux of the argument, is inflame that person's anti-Semitism.<<

Any ignorant racist can find any number of excuses to be an ignorant racist. It's certainly not going to be a movie about a man who preached tolerance and love of one's enemies that is going to sway him one way or the other. If anything, a hardened Anti-Semite might come out of this movie and say "If Jesus could love and pray for his accusers as he died in pain on the cross, I can change too!"

[anduril]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Well, I guess my point is that the high priests were the Jewish religious leaders of the day it wasn't a two-party system. Jesus was a threat/problem for them on a host of levels.

You are right that it wasn't a two-party system among the Jewish religious leaders... it was a multi-party system... Herodians, Sadduccees, Pharisees, and the list goes on....

But, more to the point, whoever the Jewish religious leader were, Gibson's movie does little to elucidate the motive of those who wanted Jesus crucified. As I've mentioned elsewhere, he could have at least had the discussion between a Pharisee and Caiaphas as reported in John 11:47b-50.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
But I think that's what Gibson intended. This wasn't "King of Kings" it's called the "Passion of the Christ" which refers directly to the suffering and sacrifice of the last hours of Jesus' life.

It's still what makes it dangerous... There are better, more responsible ways to tell the story of Jesus, especially where those unfamiliar with the entire story will see it.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Gibson probably assumed that the intended audience would be familiar with the situation surrounding the Crucifixion.

Hardly, he entered into agreements with Campus Crusade for Christ to do evangelism related to this film. Furthermore, not even alot of Christians are sufficiently aware of the political nuances of the time. He also released his movie in major theatres.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Incorrect. There is a load of documentation and historical records of on the corporal punishment punishment practices of citizens within the Roman Empire. The fact that the historical figure Jesus Christ was flogged and crucified is noteworthy not only because it was extremely rare to do both, but also because these fulfilled scriptural prophecy.

I was imprecise... I was referring specifically to your claim that historical documents exist supporting the events of Jesus' scourging and crucifixion, and in particular the respective roles of of the Roman and Jewish authorities. The only documents to this specific incident are Christian documents with the exception of later "formulaic" statements that can not be regarded as independent evidence; and to be truly forthright, at least two but perhaps all of the four canonical Gospels are technically hearsay. Interestingly, Tacitus, a Roman historian, only mentions Pilate as responsible for the crucifixion. Similarly, some early Christian creeds from the third century onwards again mention only Pilate's role.

I'd appreciate knowing your historical sources/documentation with respect to the claim that criminals were typically not flogged AND crucified.

You've brought up the general issue on crucifixion... while there are historical records/documentation from Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians attesting to the practice of crucifixion starting with the Persians, there is not the "load" of evidence one might expect, particularly on archaeological grounds... for starters, archaeologists have only uncovered a few bones that show evidence of being crucified.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
None of the gospels are identical, but the tell largely the same story. Matthew's gospel mentions the wife of Pilate and her "dream" about the "Holy man" Jesus.

Matthew 27:19 gives us only Pilate's wife's impression of the situation and not Pilate's motives. Furthermore, it does not say "holy man" (it says innocent, which is different) and does not go on to say anything more.

Also, the stories of the Gospels are in some respects quite different; it is easy to pass over those differences. Still, they of course share the fact that they are telling the story of Jesus.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
So, you think a movie can do all that? Wow.

Sure why not?

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Any ignorant racist can find any number of excuses to be an ignorant racist. It's certainly not going to be a movie about a man who preached tolerance and love of one's enemies that is going to sway him one way or the other. If anything, a hardened Anti-Semite might come out of this movie and say "If Jesus could love and pray for his accusers as he died in pain on the cross, I can change too!"

Ignorant racists start as ignorant human beings. Ignoring that people have the potential for this and that the process by which people become racists is deceptively simple is the first step towards letting that into our society. There are better ways to tell the story of Jesus than a Passion Play.

[stevetseitz]

>>But, more to the point, whoever the Jewish religious leader were, Gibson's movie does little to elucidate the motive of those who wanted Jesus crucified. As I've mentioned elsewhere, he could have at least had the discussion between a Pharisee and Caiaphas as reported in John 11:47b-50.<<

The question becomes did Gibson feel the "motives" were the essential reason Jesus was crucified. In his interviews and watching the film it is apparent he doesn not. He has said that Christ did for all men for all time. This would include his enemies or those who conspired against him. What he "could have" done in the film is irrelevant.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stevetseitz
But I think that's what Gibson intended. This wasn't "King of Kings" it's called the "Passion of the Christ" which refers directly to the suffering and sacrifice of the last hours of Jesus' life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>It's still what makes it dangerous... There are better, more responsible ways to tell the story of Jesus, especially where those unfamiliar with the entire story will see it.<<

The artist does not censor his work because it will bother or offend some people. The suggestion that Gibson should change his film to be politically correct doesn't make any sense to me.


>>Hardly, he entered into agreements with Campus Crusade for Christ to do evangelism related to this film.<<

What he did to promote and publicize the film has little to do with it's content. He has stated in interviews his intentions regarding the content.

>> Furthermore, not even alot of Christians are sufficiently aware of the political nuances of the time. He also released his movie in major theatres.<<

And I suppose those elite who are "sufficiently aware", will be responsible for determining who has enough historical context to see the film? The idea is absurd. As for the wide release, it has been justified by the free market. The box-office returns speak for themselves.



>>I was referring specifically to your claim that historical documents exist supporting the events of Jesus' scourging and crucifixion, and in particular the respective roles of of the Roman and Jewish authorities. The only documents to this specific incident are Christian documents with the exception of later "formulaic" statements that can not be regarded as independent evidence; and to be truly forthright, at least two but perhaps all of the four canonical Gospels are technically hearsay.<<

Many fundamentalist Christians believe the text of the bible to be literal and factual. Catholics venerate the scriptures and believe that men were the inspired authors of the bible. So...personal opinion on whether Gibson's source material meets some technical or legalistic standard is, again, irrelevant. The New Testament was written the second half of the first century (50-100 A.D.) so it's authors, in addition to divine inspiration, had plenty of eyewitness accounts and material to draw from. In 382 A.D., St. Jerome translated the New Testament from Greek to Latin.


>>Ignorant racists start as ignorant human beings. Ignoring that people have the potential for this<<

Who is ignoring anything? Gibson is simply holding his audience to a higher standard. He has publicly stated that he is not anti-semitic and has admitted that anti-semitism is counter to his own religious beliefs.

If we are going to adhere to some politically correct standard determining what we will and will not portray in a movie we will be doing a disservice to the art. We will also be making movies for the lowest common denominator.



>>There are better ways to tell the story of Jesus than a Passion Play.<<

If I were Mel Gibson, my answer to that would be " Fine, then get $25 million of your own money and you can make your own movie."

[anduril]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
The question becomes did Gibson feel the "motives" were the essential reason Jesus was crucified ... What he "could have" done in the film is irrelevant.

I disagree.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
The artist does not censor his work because it will bother or offend some people. The suggestion that Gibson should change his film to be politically correct doesn't make any sense to me.

Artists have ethical responsibilities too.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
What he did to promote and publicize the film has little to do with it's content. He has stated in interviews his intentions regarding the content.

Well, I could say that Gibson's intentions as stated in an interview also have little to do with its content...

But, in any case, how he promotes and publicizes the movie has direct bearing on who he expected to view the film, which is the point I was addressing.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Many fundamentalist Christians believe the text of the bible to be literal and factual. Catholics venerate the scriptures and believe that men were the inspired authors of the bible. So...personal opinion on whether Gibson's source material meets some technical or legalistic standard is, again, irrelevant. The New Testament was written the second half of the first century (50-100 A.D.) so it's authors, in addition to divine inspiration, had plenty of eyewitness accounts and material to draw from. In 382 A.D., St. Jerome translated the New Testament from Greek to Latin.

Unfortunately, the Gospels weren't even Gibson's source material... Anne Catherine Emmerich's The Dolorous Passion... was the source material.

Some New Testament texts, including possibly at least two of the canonical Gospels, were likely written after 100 C.E.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Who is ignoring anything? Gibson is simply holding his audience to a higher standard. He has publicly stated that he is not anti-semitic and has admitted that anti-semitism is counter to his own religious beliefs.

The people ignoring something are those who refuse to acknowledge the potential of this movie to create and inflame anti-Semitism. They wholeheartedly embrace the movie without empathy for those it may oppress. That I think is sad... especially because it's Christians who should want to show compassion.

RE: Gibson and anti-Semitism. His public statements have left something to be desired.

Moreover, why Gibson's refusal to openly condemn/criticize his father's Holocaust denials? Oh, and please don't regurgitate Gibson's drivel about his love for his Dad... I love my Dad too but if he ever openly denied the Holocaust I'd have no qualms about openly challenging those views... in fact, I'd consider it an ethical responsibility. And, to be sure, my criticism would say nothing about my love for my Dad.

Furthermore, Gibson's choice of source material (Emmerich's book) leaves much to be desired... Emmerich's book is clearly anti-Semitic.

Originally posted by stevetseitz
If we are going to adhere to some politically correct standard determining what we will and will not portray in a movie we will be doing a disservice to the art. We will also be making movies for the lowest common denominator.

As I said above, artists have ethical responsibilities; that is all that I am calling to attention.

[Johann]

As Oscar has pointed out, Chris Knipp's review should be read by everybody here. It's clear, concise and a joy to read. He articulates what I wish I could.

"One sick, mega-rich movie-dude". That just about sums it up for me...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
As Oscar has pointed out, Chris Knipp's review should be read by everybody here. It's clear, concise and a joy to read. He articulates what I wish I could.

"One sick, mega-rich movie-dude". That just about sums it up for me...

Personally, I found his review of The Passion of the Christ tiresome and laborious to read... almost like seeing Jesus hit the dirt over and over again... anyways, everyone's entitled to their opinion...