The Passion Of The Christ

[Mousebounce]

Anyone see this yet? I am going tomorrow. I am curious to hear people's opinions on it.

[Tashjbj]

I do want to see it. Let me know how it is!!

Tash

[MoosieFate]

It actually doesn't look that bad -- It's going to be interesting with the release of it, and how much contraversy this film has gotten so far. Now people who aren't professional critics get to put in their opinions about the whole deal.

[|| Panama ||]

ooh, i cant wait to see this movie! apparently its meant to be exactly what the Gospel says so we shall see how close it is and see if the Jewish people who are complaining about this actually have an argument.

[Mousebounce]

ooh, i cant wait to see this movie! apparently its meant to be exactly what the Gospel says so we shall see how close it is and see if the Jewish people who are complaining about this actually have an argument.

I heard a woman speaking about it on the radio today. She saw a sneak preview last night. She said it goes along with EXACTLY what the Gospel says. Of course the critics are tearing it apart for being too violent. I will see for myself later on.

[Becky]

Something I got in my e-mail this morning:

Subject: A review of The Passion
Written by Jody Dean, a Dallas local CBS news anchor.
*********************************************
All...
There've been a ton of emails and forwards floating around recently
from those who've had the privilege of seeing Mel Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ" prior to its actual release. I thought I'd give you my reaction after seeing it last night.
The screening was on the first night of "Elevate!", a weekend-long
seminar for young people at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano. There were about 2,000 people there, and the movie was shown after several speakers had taken the podium. It started around 9 and finished around 11...so I reckon the film is about two hours in length. Frankly, I lost complete track of time - so I can't be sure.
I want you to know that I started in broadcasting when I was 13-years-old. I've been in the business of writing, performing, production, and broadcasting for a long time. I've been a part of movies, radio, television, stage and other productions - so I know how things are done. I
know about soundtracks and special effects and make-up and screenplays. I think I've seen just about every kind of movie or TV show ever made - from extremely inspirational to extremely gory. I read a lot, too - and have covered stories and scenes that still make me wince. I also have a vivid imagination, and have the ability to picture things as they must have happened - or to anticipate things as they will be portrayed. I've also seen an enormous amount of footage from Gibson's film, so I thought I knew what was coming.
But there is nothing in my existence - nothing I could have read,
seen, heard, thought, or known - that could have prepared me for what I saw on screen last night.
This is not a movie that anyone will "like". I don't think it's a
movie anyone will "love". It certainly doesn't "entertain". There isn't even the sense that one has just watched a movie. What it is, is an experience -on a level of primary emotion that is scarcely comprehensible. Every shred of human preconception or predisposition is utterly stripped away. No one will eat popcorn during this film. Some may not eat for days after they've seen it. Quite honestly, I wanted to vomit. It hits that hard.
I can see why some people are worried about how the film portrays
the Jews. They should be worried. No, it's not anti-Semitic. What it is, is
entirely shattering. There are no "winners". No one comes off looking
"good" - except Jesus. Even His own mother hesitates. As depicted, the
Jewish leaders of Jesus' day merely do what any of us would have done -
and still do. They protected their perceived "place" - their sense of safety and security, and the satisfaction of their own "rightness". But everyone falters. Caiphus judges. Peter denies. Judas betrays. Simon the Cyrene balks. Mark runs away. Pilate equivocates. The crowd mocks. The soldiers laugh. Longinus still stabs with his pilus. The centurion still carries out his orders. And as Jesus fixes them all with a glance, they still turn away. The Jews, the Romans, Jesus' friends - they all fall. Everyone, except the Principal Figure. Heaven sheds a single, mighty tear - and as blood and water spew from His side, the complacency of all creation is eternally shattered.
The film grabs you in the first five seconds, and never lets go. The
brutality, humiliation, and gore is almost inconceivable - and still probably doesn't go far enough. The scourging alone seems to never end, and you cringe at the sound and splatter of every blow - no matter how steely your nerves. Even those who have known combat or prison will have
trouble, no matter their experience - because this Man was not conscripted. He went willingly, laying down His entirety for all. It is one thing for a soldier to die for his countrymen. It's something else entirely to think of even a common man dying for those who hate and wish to kill him. But this is no common man. This is the King of the Universe. The idea that anyone could or would have gone through such punishment is
unthinkable - but this Man was completely innocent, completely holy - and
paying the price for others. He screams as He is laid upon the cross,
"Father, they don't know. They don't know..."
What Gibson has done is to use all of his considerable skill to
portray the most dramatic moment of the most dramatic events since the dawn of time. There is no escape. It's a punch to the gut that puts you on the canvas, and you don't get up. You are simply confronted by the horror of what was done - what had to be done - and why. Throughout the entire film, I found myself apologizing.
What you've heard about how audiences have reacted is true. There
was no sound after the film's conclusion. No noise at all. No one got up. No one moved. The only sound one could hear was sobbing. In all my years of public life, I have never heard anything like that.
I told many of you that Gibson had reportedly re-shot the ending to
include more "hope" through the Resurrection? That's not true. The
Resurrection scene is perhaps the shortest in the entire movie - and yet
it packs a punch that can't be quantified. It is perfect. There is no way
to negotiate the meaning out of it. It simply asks, "Now, what will you
do?"
I'll leave the details to you, in the hope that you will see the
film - but one thing above all stands out, and I have to tell you about it. It
comes from the end of Jesus' temptations in the wilderness - where the
Bible says Satan left him "until a more opportune time". I imagine Satan
never quit tempting Christ, but this film captures beyond words the most
opportune time. At every step of the way, Satan is there at Jesus' side -
imploring Him to quit, reasoning with Him to give up, and seducing Him to
surrender. For the first time, one gets an heart-stopping idea of the sense of madness that must have enveloped Jesus - a sense of the evil that was at His very elbow. The physical punishment is relentless - but it's the sense of psychological torture that is most overwhelming. He should have quit. He should have opened His mouth. He should have called 10,000
angels. No one would have blamed Him. What we deserve is obvious. But He couldn't do that. He wouldn't do that. He didn't do that. He doesn't do
that. It was not and is not His character. He was obedient, all the way to
the cross - and you feel the real meaning of that phrase in a place the
human heart usually doesn't dare to go. You understand that we are called
to that same level of obedience. With Jesus' humanity so irresistibly on
display, you understand that we have no excuse. There is no place to hide.
The truth is this: Is it just a "movie"? In a way, yes. But it goes
far beyond that, in a fashion I've never felt - in any forum. We may think we "know". We know nothing. We've gone 2,000 years - used to the idea of a pleasant story, and a sanitized Christ. We expect the ending, because
we've heard it so many times. God forgive us. This film tears that all away. It's is as close as any of us will ever get to knowing, until we fully know. Paul understood. "Be urgent, in and out of season."
Luke wrote that Jesus reveals Himself in the breaking of the bread.
Exactly. "The Passion Of The Christ" shows that Bread being broken.
Go see this movie.
His, and His alone.
Jody

[Mousebounce]

:shock: Wow, thanks Becky. Good to see another view on it. Interesting that the majority of the movie "critics" are destroying it.

[tawtami]

along this thread... im gonna post something i posted on my webjournal - if the film hadnt been delayed it would have been the draft of one of my essays xept it was so had to do my essay on Scorsese's 'the last temptation of christ' instead...

i made this in respense to someone having the nerve to flame me for mentioning it...

i /will/ be going to see this film.. if only because its relavant to my course

the passion of the christ:

having followed the progress of this film, due to us supposed to be watching it as part of our 'the bible and the arts' module last semester, its been really interesting to watch the controversy and stuff around it unfold- and there are a lot of echoes here....

the group project i was involved in last semester for said module was on the film 'the last temptation of Christ' and a LOT of people refused to do it on the grounds that it disagreed with their beliefs- there was a lot of controversy surrounding its release, mainly because of its depiction of, and focus upon Jesus' humanity, and i really do have to ask why...

with 'the passion of the christ' the same thing has happened- there is a lot of controversy surrounding it, because it /could/ be seen as being anti semetic, because it indirectly points at the Jewish people being responsible for Jesus' crucifiction..... this for me causes several problems with their arguments, just like 'the last temptation'

Jesus was a jew. so whats wrong with that- americans pass the death sentence on other americans, the romans passed the death sentence on other romans... at the end of the day, if you believe this stuff, you know that Jesus had to die in order for God's plan to be accomplished so where is the problem (i know this raises issues in the Jewish religion but im not qualified to go there), if you dont believe it, then what happened in that situation is no different to the other situations ive pointed out.
I understand that in recent history, anti-semetism has unfortunately been at the forefront of the history books, but i really dont see a problem with this as a scenario- having not seen the film i really cannot comment on its content, but i cannot see this film inciting racial hatred towards the Jewish community- especially on the grounds of being responsible for the death of Jesus.
At the end of the day, this is only someones opinion and their interpretation of events depicted in the bible, and other places, and whilst it might not be 'right' in your eyes, it shouldnt be slated- just like Scorsese and the author of 'last temptation' shouldnt have been slated so vehemently in their (as stated throughout the film) 'FICTIONAL explanation of the eternal spiritual conflict' (summed up as spirit vs flesh)


call me young, innocent, and naive if you like, but they are my thoughts...



another development in this is the complaints about the violence in it - i find it amazingly interesting how all these people who are complaining have no problem with violence in films that is not relevant to the plot, and is often mindless, and thoughtless and is often added to attract a few more punters - and yet when something comes along that makes you feel slightly uncomforatble you suddenly develop morals.....

[Mousebounce]

Cheers Sara!! Well written!

I just got back from seeing the film, and I have to say that it was amazing. Yes, it was violent, yes it was awful in the sense of being tragic, but as Sara has said, it is no more violent than a lot of films out there today. It is probably the best film that I have ever seen. I am ashamed to say that religion has not been a huge part of my life, and I am ignorant about it, but after watching this film I don't think it portrays the Jews in such a harsh light. If anything, the Romans are the ones who are portrayed as ruthless animals. They are shown drinking and laughing, as they are beating a man to death. In the film, the Jews are shown handing Jesus over to the Romans, but then their part is done. I can't see how the Jews are complaining, when in fact the Romans are the ones who are made out to look like horrible human beings. But even some of them, in the end, realize what they have done and show regret. I don't really know what else to say except that I will never look at the picture of Jesus nailed to the cross in the same light again. It now has taken on a whole new meaning to me. I don't think there is one person in the theater who did not shed a tear during this film.

[Cowgirl77]

Saw the teaser trailer on Tuesday - it looked very bloody and violent but still interesting. I think it will be a while before it comes out here, but I'm def going to see it

[allmike]

I'm really dying to watch this movie. but not sure when i get it here.

[Stut]

I'm really dying to watch this movie

Woman Dies of Heart Attack During 'The Passion'

http://www.imdb.com/PeopleNews/#1

Mel Gibson's new film The Passion Of The Christ caused more controversy on Wednesday when a woman suffered a fatal heart- attack during the graphic crucifixion scene. The story of the last twelve hours of Jesus Christ's life has been criticized for alleged Anti-Semitism in the months leading up to its release in America yesterday - but the film's gory conclusion has become the focus following the tragic incident in Wichita, Kansas. Peggy Scott, a 56-year-old advertising sales manager, suffered the seizure during the 25-minute scene in which Jesus, played by James Caviezel, gets nailed to the cross. She died before reaching hospital. Ashleigh Murray, a local TV reporter, described the incident, "She had a seizure during the crucifixion scene, which is very graphic. She was taken to hospital but later pronounced dead. I do not know if she had deep religious convictions, but she must have felt something to have been at the theatre at 9:30am to watch this movie."

[Shaz]

This is a great review...it says in simpler terms what I have been sitting here trying to type.

S.

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES

Review by ROGER EBERT
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html

If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.

The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.

I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:


At the Cross, her station keeping ...

Stood the mournful Mother weeping ...

Close to Jesus to the last.


For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."

This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.

This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.)

If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts.

The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo.

In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous.

Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.

"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."

This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.

A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.

This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.

Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it).

It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.



Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.