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...

[Johann]

A polite request Kenneth.

Don't use the quote button so much. We don't have many members yet. Chances are pretty good we'll know who you're referring to-unless you wanna be specific.

My wrist hurts from scrolling....

[anduril]

I prefer to use quote, though... it helps me organize my replies and c'mon... it makes your wrist hurt... It also helps me to make sure that reply to specific things I've been asked or that's been written...

[cinemabon]

I have many objections to this film but I am not going to list them. Gibson has appealed to a wide audience and he has won them. The film is successful and he is making a ton of cash. I wish I could make a message film and be half as successful. So, I have to congratulate him on that point.

However, I have been follow the intelligencia on this as well. Anthropologists and Biblical Scholars have had a field day with Gibson's attempt at realism. No one can carry a 350lb piece of wood for very long (the typical weight of most crucifixes, many used over and over. Prisoners were tied with rope and lead to the site). Roman puts thousands of jews to death in Palastine. No Roman Governor (and Pilate was known to be especially cruel) would have hesitated to put one more to death. Everyone knows a nail driven through the hand will not support the weight of a man. It would have ripped out through his fingers.

Finally, I am sick of the way everyone obsesses over Christ. There have been many great men and women on this planet who have contributed so much to this world in terms of peace and understanding. In the name of Christ we currently have, in this country, a battle of our own going on. Namely, who is going to control the Congress and how the constitution is interpreted. For two thousand years zealots have quoted Christ for their own gain, starting at the Vatican to gain power through intimidation and fear. If Christ were alive today, he would weep over what the Christians have done in his name.

[anduril]

Originally posted by cinemabon
However, I have been follow the intelligencia on this as well. Anthropologists and Biblical Scholars have had a field day with Gibson's attempt at realism. No one can carry a 350lb piece of wood for very long (the typical weight of most crucifixes, many used over and over. Prisoners were tied with rope and lead to the site).
You are certainly right that there are some significant problems with Gibson's so-called "historical accuracy."

Just curious... do you have a source or sources for your particular information on the weight of the crucifix and the issue of how the prisoners were taken to the site?

Originally posted by cinemabon
Roman puts thousands of jews to death in Palastine. No Roman Governor (and Pilate was known to be especially cruel) would have hesitated to put one more to death.
Certainly, Pilate was even recalled to Rome for his brutality in Palestine. Though, it should be noted that even he might have hesitated depending on the foreseeable political consequences... the Romans were brutal but they were also calculated.

Originally posted by cinemabon
Everyone knows a nail driven through the hand will not support the weight of a man. It would have ripped out through his fingers.
True... it is well-established that the nails would have been driven through the wrists if nails were used (sometimes victims were only tied to the cross and allowed to starve to death). Still, in Gibson's defense, Jesus's arms, in the movie, are tied to the cross too, which makes nails driven through the hand plausible.

Originally posted by cinemabon
Finally, I am sick of the way everyone obsesses over Christ. There have been many great men and women on this planet who have contributed so much to this world in terms of peace and understanding.
Of course, the distinction is that no other great man or woman has claimed to be God. Sure, lots of crackpots have done so but they aren't generally remembered, except perhaps with disdain. The "obsession" over Jesus stems not only from his teachings but from his claims as recorded in the Gospels and whether or not they should be accepted as true.

Originally posted by cinemabon
In the name of Christ we currently have, in this country, a battle of our own going on. Namely, who is going to control the Congress and how the constitution is interpreted. For two thousand years zealots have quoted Christ for their own gain, starting at the Vatican to gain power through intimidation and fear. If Christ were alive today, he would weep over what the Christians have done in his name.
He certainly would... humanity is an imperfect executor of the trust given them by the teaching of Jesus Christ ... but, at the same time, no one should lose sight either of all the good that has been done in his name. No other religious tradition comes even remotely close to matching the works of social justice and charity in every part of the world that have been accomplished over two millennia by the Christian Church and its adherents.

[Johann]

Old Italian Proverb:

A barrel of wine can produce more miracles than a church full of priests

[JustaFied]

Now, now Johann, you're just asking for trouble with that comment. Little miracles abound everywhere...


But, back to the ponderous topic of anti-semitism in Mel's new passion play, here's the opinion of a prominent Washington Post columinist (published in today's Houston Chronicle):

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2435779

One issue that he brings up that hasn't been discussed much here either is the presence of Satan in the film:

<The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found ... where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people. >

Someone on this board said that it appears that Christians and Jews are seeing two different movies. As a non-practicing "skeptic", I'm just trying to look at this as objectively as possible. Funny, I seem to agree with most everything Anduril has posted. It seems to me that Gibson has failed at properly "contextualizing" the story in its place in history (which might be more effective in explaining the actions of the Jews and the Romans at the time), while at the same time taking liberties with the Gospels themselves. The result is an inaccurate piece of work, both from an historical and a biblical point of view (not mutually exclusive, mind you).

[anduril]

The point you make here is quite accurate... the appearances of Satan in the movie are quite disturbing and biblically inaccurate. It is very interesting to note that the only mention of a divine being in the Garden of Gethsemane, e.g., is in Luke 22:43, which mentions that an angel from heaven came to comfort and strengthen Jesus. In fact, this angel from heaven is the only divine being ever mentioned in the Passion accounts with the exception of Jesus and the Father of course.

[Johann]

Hey, I was just posting an old proverb...

[JustaFied]

Many, many people are going to see this movie, that's for sure. I am thankful for the advent of the Internet, which allows them (and us) to discuss and debate the film with people beyond their (and our) normal social circle. It inevitably will lead to a better understanding of the story of Christ.

Great discussion on this site, much of it well thought-out and articulated. IMDb.com now has 161 pages of posts on this film. 161! I can't possibly wade through all those posts, and many of them appear to be hateful and close-minded. But, as I said, at least the forum is there for them to see other viewpoints.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by Johann
Hey, I was just posting an old proverb...

"Gotta serve somebody? I serve myself." - John Lennon

[Johann]

Absolutely buddy!

[cinemabon]

I didn't want to come across as mean spirited. I just feel that everytime a filmmaker comes out with a film about Jesus the lines are drawn in the sand. If you take a stand for realism then you are labeled a heretic.

If you remember, the gospels were not written until over a hundred years after the death of Christ. Many of them had a thorough going over in places like the Council of Trent and at the hands of St. Augustine.

In my mind, the underlying message of spirituality that says we must love our brethren if we are to become a more civil society is far more important and profound than torture, suffering, and guilt about who is to blame and what those consequences might be. Gibson focused on the wrong aspect. All too frequently, we all do. We focus on death and mayhem. Then we say, "He suffered for us." But that tends to draw away from his life and the message spread during that life. A message that shook the foundation of his own religion, and has been at the core of what defines decency ever since.

[anduril]

Originally posted by cinemabon
If you take a stand for realism then you are labeled a heretic.
To what are you referring here?

Originally posted by cinemabon
If you remember, the gospels were not written until over a hundred years after the death of Christ.
This is wrong. Jesus's death and resurrection took place sometime between 28-33 C.E. The first Gospel, probably Mark, was written by ca. 60-75 C.E. The other Gospels were probably written by ca. 80-90 C.E., though it is possible that John was written (or least later redacted) ca. 100-110 C.E. (some also date Matthew to ca. 100-120 C.E.). In other words, all the Gospels were written within a hundred years of the time of Christ not "over a hundred years after the death of Christ."

Also, Matthew and Luke may have been based on earlier source material, namely a sayings source ("Q"), that could derive right from the time of Jesus or at least shortly thereafter. Furthermore, if we take Luke at his word, he investigated and interviewed relevant witnesses (including perhaps Mary) in the process of writing his Gospel.

The letters of Paul (those actually ascribed to him by scholars), which also talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus, were written even earlier than the canonical Gospels. Paul likely converted to Christianity somewhere between 30-36 C.E. (depending on how one dates the death and resurrection of Jesus) and he died in the summer of 64 C.E. The earliest writings in the New Testament, therefore, may date as early as 41-43 C.E..

Originally posted by cinemabon
Many of them had a thorough going over in places like the Council of Trent and at the hands of St. Augustine.
This is completely, totally, and utterly false. There are many many manuscripts of these Gospels that date prior to the time of St. Augustine (and certainly the Council of Trent). No collection of ancient literature, not even Greek classics, are as well attested the Bible, Old and New Testaments. Classicists could only dream of having the sheer plethora of manuscripts available to biblical scholars.

[Cowman]

Originally posted by anduril


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.



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.



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.



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.

**APPLAUDS**

You know, of all the reviews I have read regarding this film, you are the first person who was able to actually articulate the concerns I had about it. I had been trying for weeks to write something that had precisely the same effect as your response here, but I guess I don't have enough patience or a big enough vocabulary... Hats off to you for this excellent post. I'm sure a lot more people feel the way you do, we just don't quite know how to say it. :)

[anduril]

Thank-you for your generous comments. I appreciate the feedback on my posts.

[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...

[cinemabon]

I listened with great interest today to John Dominic Crossan, Biblical scholar and authority on the crucifixion. I would highly recommend anyone who is remotely interested in this subject to check out the following.

Go to NPR.com; click on the left side link to Fresh Air; when that page comes up, click on the left side link to "Today's Program" (this being thursday, April 1st and this is no joke). You will need one of the players (like Windows Media or Real Player) to listen. Crossan completely debunks the entire crucifixion process, including the resurrection (an integral part of christianity). His knowledge is astounding. I found the program quite enlightening.

[anduril]

John Crossan is certainly an eminent and learned scholar in New Testament Studies, though also a very idiosyncratic one too. He is a member of the Jesus Seminar, a group of intellectuals, which incidentally includes director Paul Verhoeven, who have as one of their major programs the goal of discovering the "historical" Jesus. This group is well-known for their process of deciding authentic sayings of Jesus with beads in a bag. As is true of any scholar, but particularly true of the Jesus Seminar, there is a definite, noticeable ideological grid that informs their work and people should become aware of that grid in order to assess their work and contributions. Ideology is always a part of any research; no research is value-free.

Personally, I disagree with Crossan's particular views on the resurrection. He speciously dates some canonical and non-canonical Gospels at substantially different times than a majority of scholars in the field. These decisions seem more to reflect his own idiosyncracies rather than an argument of evidence. Also, I believe he, and the Jesus Seminar, place far too much weight on the Gospel of Thomas. These points lead him, in my opinion, to reach some false conclusions. In his books, articles, public lectures, and television appearances, he fashions an interesting counter-story to the crucifixition and resurrection that rests on considerably less evidence than the Christian story rests; it is complete conjecture albeit conjecture of the most educated and erudite kind, but still in the final analysis conjecture. It is noteworthy that all the Jesus scholars that take part in the Jesus Seminar and have written books on the "historical" Jesus have completely different accounts!

The resurrection as an historical event rests on some pretty substantial proofs, which I have yet to see a scholar who denies the resurrection adequately address, including Crossan:

(1) Textual support - The resurrection is documented in at least three independent text traditions, which were all likely written in the 1st century: the Letters of Paul (especially 1 Corinthinians), the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and the Gospel of John. In addition to these major textual sources, there are many more that mention the resurrection but they are likely derivative and dependent on at least one of these three earlier traditions. As any historian, particularly of the ancient world, can attest, there are few events that have left us with such a wealth of documentation. Three independent sources also provides a very good number to be able to measure and evaluate the ideological tendencies of each and the possible exaggerations or embellishments made by each. The textual evidence, when analyzed as dispassionately as possible, is remarkably solid. Certainly, there are events presented as "fact" in many ANE and Classical history textbooks that rely on less textual evidence that is just as, if not more so, a product of religious/political propaganda or ideology, e.g. events mentioned in the Assyrian annals, Babylonian chronicles, or the classical historiography of Herodotus, Thucydides, and others.

(2) The Socio-Religious Phenomenon of the Development of Christianity - Unlike any other major religion, Christianity claims that its tenets are based on a historical person who claimed to be God. Christianity also makes the unique assertion that this person died and then rose to life. Although some mystery religions of the Hellenistic world have loosely analogous traditions, it is important to note that none of these religions were based on historical personages nor did these mystery religions survive beyond, at most, a few centuries. On the other hand, Christianity not only survived, it thrived for three centuries before it became the official religion of Constantine's Roman Empire. It is hard to account for the rise of Christianity, given its distinctive claims, if no resurrection occurred. The martyrdom of many of the historical witnesses to the resurrection on account of their refusal to deny the event and the trans-Mediterranean, trans-cultural, trans-class growth of Christianity are compelling and unique socio-religious phenomena. Also, it is worth noting, admittedly as an argument from silence, that the claims could have been easily refuted but no Roman or Jewish source, even when these sources address the "problem" of Christianity or specifically the person of Jesus, does so in any significant way.

(3) Historical Witness, including Contemporary Witness, to Appearances of Jesus - Although I'm not presently aware of any scientific, psychological, or sociological study that attempts to catalogue and evaluate the history of alleged appearances of Jesus (and so I don't claim this point to be on par with the first two points or in any way an authoritative, definitive point), there is considerable anecdotal evidence that this has taken place throughout history, right up to the present day. While some might want to immediately appeal to Elvis sightings as a parallel phenomenon, I have a sense that the appearances of Jesus probably have a considerably more impressive and thus reliable genealogy. From my reading and interactions, I have noticed that these claims originate from persons in nearly every social class, people who originally were believers as well as people who claim that they were members of other religions (including nominal affiliations, atheists, and agnostics) prior to the appearance, and persons from nearly every part of the world in urban as well as rural settings. Some appearances have been alleged to occur not only to individuals but also groups. As with many disciples of Jesus in the 1st century, some of the people who have claimed to have witnessed an appearance of Jesus have died as a result of that conviction. I personally know one person (whom I trust) who claims to have seen and spoken with Jesus: my brother-in-law's twin brother, a man I have no reason to doubt and who attributes his conversion to this appearance.

Of course, all this said, no proof can exist that would decisively *prove* the resurrection, short of an appearance of Jesus to a universal audience. But, as historical events go, the resurrection is on fairly solid ground; there is little more that one could expect to have as proof. Cinemabon, if you are willing to consider the pro-resurrection argument from a point of view as skilled and erudite as Crossan's, I would suggest reading the scholarly work of Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, and N.T. Wright, Jesus and The Victory of God. Neither book is perfect but than is there a perfect book? Both books however are wonderfully written, thoughtfully argued, balanced, and take on among other scholars, Crossan and the Jesus Seminar.

[anduril]

One more thing about the Jesus Seminar scholars that is important to point out... their research begins with the a priori assumption that miracles do not happen and therefore the resurrection can not have occured. In other words, they reject the possibility of the resurrection before they even start the debate. But, as soon as the possibility of miracles is admitted, then one must necessarily admit at least the possibility of the resurrection. Miracles, however, are by definition unverifiable and, as such, they can only ever be documented, nothing more.

[anduril]

Crossan's comments in the NPR interview on Mel's movie are spot on. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I quite enjoyed listening to that interview; there's some personal information about him in there that I had only vaguely known about. Thanks for the heads up.

[cinemabon]

I wouldn't begin to refute your arguements as they are just too extensive and probably inappropriate for this forum on FILM! (Obviously, there are others who have strong opinions on religion as well, and not just Mr. Crossan!) However, I would advice readers of this ongoing mish-mash to keep an open mind. What scholars consider truth one year has often been disputed the next when new proof arrives on the scene (i.e. a little theory called evolution!). As we begin to learn more about the time when Jesus lived, it becomes apparent that we are just plain uninformed about what life was like in Palestine where he lived. I would also be so bold to add that the Bible is not journalism but a historic representation of religion based on symbolism. There are inherent dangers when anyone takes writing meant to teach and converts it into "truth", as many scholars will also agree. I, too, studied philosophy and religion at college. However, my instructor warned us on the very first day, that if we believe the Bible was the factual account of actual events as they occurred, we might as well close our books and take another class. Religion is based on the passions that men (and women) feel about God. Everyone feels that only their religious point of view is the most correct, or else why would we have wars based on religion that go back to the beginning of mankind?

Our purpose here is a forum for film and film criticism, not philosophy about whether Christ existed, or could walk on water, or even float away into the clouds where "Heaven" was supposed to exist. Our purpose, or at least I thought our purpose, was to express our views on film. I for one, cannot stand a filmmaker who exploits a book like the Bible and claims to have a great passion for its work. But I guess he is the one who is laughing all the way to the bank.

[anduril]

I more or less agree with alot of what you've written... though, I have a slightly different perspective on some of the conclusions. On the matter of how to read the Bible, I've discussed this in the Bible Questions thread in the Lounge at some length. On the matter of scholarly knowledge, knowledge doesn't change that drastically that frequently cinemabon... scholars are always learning but the contours of our knowledge have not changed so significantly, especially in biblical studies, as to make the present consensus on the "historical" Jesus, e.g., that radically different from past consensus nor are we so completely ignorant of what life was like in Palestine. Even though Crossan and I, e.g., have some very different views on the resurrection, we would actually agree about a lot. The study of history, while not a science, is still possible and still productive.

Incidentally, I'd point out that you introduced the "non-film topic" by bringing up Crossan and his refutation of the resurrection. I simply responded to what you had written. In any case, I don't think it is inappropriate to discuss the philosophical or religious topics that relate to a film in these threads. If film has value, it is in large part due to its ability to provoke such discussion.

[Howard Schumann]

PASSION OF THE CHRIST

In times of great change, people's religious beliefs often become polarized, veering toward either extreme fundamentalism or very personal experience. Over the past few decades, a spiritual movement has arisen that encourages people to look inward for truth rather than relying on external authorities. Now Mel Gibson has countered with the Passion of the Christ, a powerful but bombastic film that restates, in excessively graphic terms, fundamentalist Christian beliefs about how the death of Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind. The film chronicles the accusation of blasphemy from the Jewish high priests to the trial overseen by Roman governor Pontius Pilate and Jesus' eventual crucifixion at the hands of the Romans at Golgotha, while restricting the message of his teachings to a few unconvincing sound bites. We are shown, in explicit detail, Jesus being whipped, scourged, mocked, spat on, getting spikes driven through his hands and feet, and left to die on the cross. Use of the original tongues of Aramaic and Latin add realism, while special effects such as female demons, satanic children, and a sinister figure screaming at the heavens lend a dark and surreal touch, but seem strangely out of place.

The film opens in the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus (James Caviezel) is praying alone, fearful of what he knows is his fate. A black-coated Satan hovers around tempting him to surrender while his disciples have fallen asleep and Judas (Luca Lionello) collects his thirty pieces of silver from the temple guards. The film heats up when Jesus is arrested and hauled before the Sanhedrin High Priest Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia) to stand trial for blasphemy. In the crowd are Jesus' supporters, including John (Hristo Jivkov), Mary Magdalen (Monica Bellucci) and Mary, beautifully performed by Maia Morgenstern. In touching sequences, the relationship between mother and son is shown in flashbacks from the time Jesus was a child to the present when she runs to help Jesus as he slumps to the ground.

Unfortunately, every character other than Jesus and his followers is portrayed as bloodthirsty, hysterical, and corrupt, with the exception of Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov) who is depicted, contrary to biblical accounts, as a suffering saint, perplexed and shocked by the crowd's brutality. Whether or not the film is overtly antisemitic is questionable, but passion plays have for centuries reinforced the notion of collective Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus, and have created a climate for antisemitic acts. At the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1988, bishops issued recommendations urging producers not to show "a teeming mob" calling for Jesus' death. These recommendations are violated in Passion of the Christ, which shows a vacillating Pilate giving in to a bloodthirsty Jewish mob demanding Jesus' crucifixion.

This is followed by ten minutes of exaggerated blood-soaked violence, as Jesus is tied to a post, whipped with a stick, then sadistically flayed again with a whip that has metal barbs at each end, his flesh torn out by the hooks. When he is finally nailed to the cross in slow motion hammer strokes, we breathe a sigh of relief because emotional numbness has taken over and we know the end is close. Gibson self-servingly describes his film as "the most authentic and biblically accurate film about Jesus' death," and says that he used excessive violence to help us to better understand the sacrifice Jesus made for humanity. This completely ignores the fact that the biblical accounts of the trial are contradictory and do not contain details of the punishment except to say that Jesus was "scourged."

Whether it "is as it was," or as it never was and never will be, I found Passion to be heavy handed, emotionally draining, and lacking in spiritual feeling. Caviezel's performance is lacking in presence and conviction. Jesus spoke with clarity and eloquence about man's unbreakable connection to his creator, and saw the potential for humanity to live the truth without guilt. In the Beatitudes, Jesus blesses those who hunger and thirst after justice. His intended result was not to incite anger but to enhance our capacity for love and forgiveness. If the purpose of Gibson's film is to stun audiences and encode images deep in our psyche, he has succeeded, yet his legacy may be to damage interfaith relationships and our view of religion as a way of bringing people together.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree with your reading of the movie and would describe it very much the same way; in fact I have (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?t=267). It would be a shame if James Cazievel's performance lacks conviction because he apparently is a passionate "fire and brimstone" Catholic (whatever precisely that means) and his shared beliefs with Gibson are obviously one of the main reasons why he is in the role of Jesus Christ. It may be that it's simply impossible for Cazievel to have "presence" under the brutal circumstances of the way the movie is staged and shot. He seems to have produced a heroic physical effort, and suffered a dislocated shoulder during the filmiing, I seem to recall. The role was an ordeal. I recommend to anyone seeing the gentler, more truly "Christian" cinematic version, Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Il vangelo secondo Matteo" (Gospel According to Saint Mathew) from 1964 in black and white and otherwise restrained from gore and excess. It's a bit odd; Pasolini's movies always are. But his use of post-neorealist methods lends a simplicity and authenticity to the production that is very touching. Have you ever seen the bumper sticker, "How would Jesus drive?" Well what would Jesus drive? Would he drive a Mercedes SUV with supercharger and 4-wheel drive like Gibson's film, or would he drive a little 1960's Citroen 4C? I think the latter.

I have been told by an friend who's a Catholic priest in Istanbul that Pilate is a saint in the Armenian church; for, obviously, his attempt to prevent Jesus from being killed; and my clerical friend points out that Pilate is not as negative a figure in the Christian tradition as some of us have been led to believe. I think anduril may have given information on this earlier. The good father also has told me that Gethsemene is traditionally linked with the Garden of Eden, hence the logic of having evil snakes present.

I agree that Maia Morgenstern is excellent, though I find the flashbacks sketchy and sentimental.

YOu describe the role the movie is likely to play and the general philosophical and religious issues very well, as is usual in your writing. In my case this movie has only heightened my sense of the combativeness of the three major monotheistic religions and put me off sympathizing with any of them, for the moment anyway. It's really been a huge turnoff, and in that sense it has had the powerful effect it seeks, but the wrong one.

One can't certainly avoid getting extensively involved in theological issues in discussing any film on this topic, and we have done so. But we shouldn't ever forget that this is a movie and can be judged on how it suceeds as one. In that essential context the cheesy quality of the subsidiary characters, many of whom appear to be standard-issue Cinecittà heavies, is ultimately damning to the quality of the movie, despite all Mel Gibson's personal millions spent. I can think of a lot of ways he could have spent his money better to accomplish Christian goals.

[Howard Schumann]

Your reviews and comments are so intelligent and well thought out that it doesn't leave me with much to add. I personally don't subscribe to any organized religion but, to paraphrase a prominent rabbi, I have a Jewish soul, a Sufi heart, and a Buddhist mind. Besides my wife is a Catholic.

[Chris Knipp]

Thank you, Sir. May we meet in Sufi heaven.

[films2watch6]

It was totally life changing for me! It was very touching! I am very religious & I thought it was great. The graphics were very well done! Perfect!

[Chris Knipp]

Graphics? You mean the images, the visuals?