The Passion of the Christ

[anduril]

For an interesting collection of articles on the Passion and the Bible, you may want to refer to http://www.sbl-site.org/. The SBL, or Society of Biblical Literature, is one of the oldest and largest learned societies in North America. It is devoted to biblical studies. The articles currently on display at this site are written by some of North America's most recognized scholars. There are some interesting articles further down on the page that may be of unique interest to some. They are entitled, "The Problem of the Cinematic Jesus" and "Teaching Film and Bible." All in all, there is a good cross-section of learned opinion for your perusal.

[Chris Knipp]

I would like to say I agree with Anduril--"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."

I appreciate Johann's recommending my review (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?t=267) of Passion of the Christ, and am sorry that my colleague Anduril found it tedious.

I'm coming to this discussion rather late. A lot of words have been spun already.

Personally, I am not a Christian, but I was raised in a family of Christian -- Protestant -- origin. I evaluate the movie as someone who knows enough from growing up in this culture and even doing some study of the Bible; also as someone with lots of Jewish friends and also one who's studied Arabic for many years, including the Qur'an, and who's had some Moslem friends too -- to be able to form an intelligent judgment about a representation of something so basic in Christianity as the Passion of Christ.

Priimarily I judge the Gibson movie as a movie, but of course within our collective western cultural context. As such, I find it "dangerous on its own," as Anduril says, for its failure to provide a context of hope. It's like the Germanic baroque crucifixions, rather than the renaissance Italian ones: it's brutal, harsh, and sado-masochistic, and it provides no very broad religious, philosophical, political or historical context in which to view the terrible events it describes. But above all I find it a bad movie. I find that last time I looked, a majority of the country's film critics agree with me on this, with the rather astonishing exception of Ebert and Roeper. They just may have carried their generosity too far this time.

However, the subject of Christ's Passion is an enormously emotional and controversial one to begin with, and Gibson has given it an immoderate and in some obvious ways an incoherent (not to mention historically inaccurate) treatment. Fuel on the fire? You could say that. I am happy for any Christians who derive a deep spiritual experience from the movie. But they have brought their own context. Personally I am troubled by the extreme fundamentalist Catholic sect Gibson represents and whose views inform the movie, and by the fact that it started out by being extensively promoted and originally viewed en masse by large numbers of extreme fundamentalist Christians.

Though I respect all the opinions expressed here and on the other thread about The Passion of the Christ as a film and about many related topics, a large part of the discussion has been not about the film but about religion and religious issues for which a viewing of the film is unnecessary.

As to the issue of whether or not the movie is anti-semitic and has the potential to foment hatred, I said in my review that though there is good reason to think it is indeed anti-semitic, in a sense the anti-semitic issue is irrelevant because in fact the movie is anti-everything.

But before anyone blandly states that either the movie isn't anti-semitic or that it doesn't matter because in fact "the Jews" historically actually were out to kill Jesus for the threat he posed, etc.,etc., I'd just like to hear from one single Jew on this site about that question.

Meanwhile I recommend Steve Weissman's measured examination of this issue (but note that he hasn't seen the movie -- as if that detered anybody) for Truthout. And yeah, he's a Jew. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/031004B.shtml

[JustaFied]

I finally saw this movie, and a couple of quick points I'll make:

1) Hard to believe that Pilate would take such a personal interest in Jesus. I imagine in reality he was simply trying to weigh the political consequences of punishing Jesus, but the movie, and perhaps passages of the Bible, seem to suggest some degree of sympathy for Jesus. I'm inclined to believe that view's been crafted over the years as the story's been told and re-told. Also, his wife saying that Jesus was "holy": As Anduril has pointed out, that's not the language used in the Bible (Matthew 27:19), which, in various versions, uses the word "righteous", "just", or "innocent". There is indeed a huge difference between calling someone simply "innocent" instead of "holy", but Mel Gibson unflinchingly uses the latter in the conversation between Pilate and his wife.

2) Images of Satan: the most grossly used image of Satan in the film was the third one, where Jesus is carrying the cross, looks over at the high priests, and Satan appears behind them in the crowd. As discussed earlier here, there are no Biblical passages at this time where Satan appears in human form. Even if it is supposed to be "symbolic", what is it supposed to symbolize, and why does Gibson choose to include these images when they're not in the Bible?

3) Reading over Matthew 27, it appears that the entire story of the crucifixiction of Jesus is told in this one chapter. Yet, the movie stretches this period of time into a 2-hour long film, including 10 minutes of a brutalizing whipping scene. Maybe the other gospels have a more detailed description of this period of time in Jesus's life.

4) Portrayal of the Jews: there seem to be two groups of Jews in this film, those who knew Jesus personally and those who didn't. Those who didn't know him are portrayed as mean, blood-thirsty murderers, and those who did know him are the sad, innocent victims. Seems to be a gross generalization on the part of the filmmaker.

It's great to be able to re-read some of the posts on this board and check out the links that have been provided. I'm certainly subject to correction on my views on this film, so I appreciate any comments on my biblical / cinematic analysis.

[anduril]

(1) Yup.
(2) They're in his source material, Anne Catherine Emmerich's book.
(3) Nope.
(4) Yup.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by anduril
(1) Yup.
(2) They're in his source material, Anne Catherine Emmerich's book.
(3) Nope.
(4) Yup.

THANKS!

Emmerich was a 19th century German, correct? I believe I read that her writings were anti-semitic?

[anduril]

Yes, I believe it was 19th century, although I don't know that for fact. She was a Catholic mystic and a nun. Typical of the Christianity in Europe before WWII, there is a noticeable characterization of the Jews as "Christ-killers." It's not "racist propaganda" per se; but it is nevertheless clearly anti-Semitic and part of that whole stream of "Christian" thought that shares complicity for the Holocaust. Although Gibson excised many anti-Semitic elements from the book in his movie, it is troubling to me that he speaks so highly of the work and would use it as the basis of his film.

[Johann]

Is there any other Christ film that is more realistic in terms of the crucifixtion?

I mean, shit, I was stunned with how Gibson gives you a definite "warts and all" series of images of Jesus on the cross. Specifically, when the Romans flip him over and pound down the nails (dripping blood). Poor Jim Caviezel. I hope Mel cut him a check from the box-office receipts!

The best part of the movie is the end- the shroud deflates, Jesus is crouching and he prepares to blow everyone's minds....
Now THAT is what Christ means to me.

[anduril]

Well, most Christ films show it at some distance, so its difficult to answer your question but, in short, I would say yes... there are more accurate presentations of the crucifixion on film. It's been some time but the ones that come immediately to mind are Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus: The Epic Mini-Series, and Jesus of Nazareth. Are any of them as visceral? Well, no, of course not. But, if accuracy is the name of the game, Dafoe sets the standard by not wearing a loin cloth [I say tongue-in-cheek]. But really, Scorsese did his research; you can see some of that research on the Criterion DVD. He looked at respected scholarly journals, something I'm sure Mel didn't. As I've mentioned before, Mel's Jesus doesn't survive the scourging, let alone be able to carry that monstrous cross on the Via Dolorosa.

[anduril]

Incidentally, Mel Gibson didn't originally end it with the resurrection (as Passion Plays typically don't go that far). It was a concession to Evangelical Christians.

[Johann]

Why tongue-in-cheek? Did I miss something?

Mel did exactly as I had hoped- just a shot of Jesus' holy hand, fin.
He didn't go on and on with scenes of people in disbelief at his return. We know how it would have looked.
Monica Bellucci was a sexy mama for being in such anguish...

Did the weather start acting funny after the death of Christ? Is that in the bible?

[anduril]

I say tongue-in-cheek because, while it is certainly conceivable and I believe there is even evidence it occurred, the nudity is not necessarily more accurate.

RE: The Weather. Yes, the Bible does describe changes.

Matthew reports in 27:45 that "from the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land." He also reports in 27:51-55 that when Jesus died,

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life [Dawn of the Dead, oh, the Box Office Irony]. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city [Jerusalem] and appeared to many people. When the centurion [John Wayne] and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened they were terrified and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"

Mark reports the darkness in 15:33 and the curtain being torn in 15:38 (as well as the centurion's declaration) but mentions nothing about an earthquake. Luke reports in 23:22-45,

It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shinning. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

Then, Luke goes on to report Jesus' death and the centurion's declaration, which suggests a slight disagreement on the exact sequence of the events. Like Mark, Luke mentions nothing about an earthquake.

The Gospel of John does not mention any changes in the weather nor does it mention the curtain torn in two.

[Johann]

A yes or no would have sufficed. ;)

[anduril]

Oh, I suppose so but at least now you learned some additional knowledge you'll forget shortly after you log off. Isn't that fun?

[JustaFied]

Last September, the New Yorker had an article about Gibson and this film, titled "Mel Gibson's Obsession". It's an interesting insight into the mindset of the filmmaker.

First thing: The quote at the beginning of the film, "He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities. By his stripes we are healed.", is from the Book of Isaiah, which is from the OLD TESTAMENT. So who is the "He" that this is referring to? This book was written 400 years before the time of Christ.

Gibson is clearly a pre-Vatican II Catholic fundamentalist. He believes that only those who have the same strict beliefs will gain salvation in the afterlife. "There is no salvation for those outside the Church. I believe it. Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it".

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
First thing: The quote at the beginning of the film, "He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities. By his stripes we are healed.", is from the Book of Isaiah, which is from the OLD TESTAMENT. So who is the "He" that this is referring to? This book was written 400 years before the time of Christ.

It may have been written even earlier than that. But, suffice it say, the quote is specifically from Isaiah 53:4. The pronoun refers to a rather enigmatic character who recurs in Isaiah, known as the Servant of the Lord. In Isaiah, there are approximately four servant songs of which Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 is probably the most well known, especially in Christian circles. Typically Christians regard the Servant Songs as prophecies of Jesus since there are many telling parallels and he seems the best fit especially with this last Servant Song. The Jews generally take the position that the Servant is Israel; indeed, at one point the Servant is identified in an earlier song as Israel. However, this last Servant Song clearly refers to an individual, which may mean that the nation is simply anthropomorphized. Other suggestions made have been Isaiah, Moses, prophets in general, a hypothetical servant, Cyrus, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, etc. etc.

Originally posted by JustaFied
Gibson is clearly a pre-Vatican II Catholic fundamentalist. He believes that only those who have the same strict beliefs will gain salvation in the afterlife. "There is no salvation for those outside the Church. I believe it. Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it".

Rather funny of course that Gibson thinks all the Evangelicals he courted to see the movie are going to hell...