The Passion of the Christ

[Joel]

Well, if no one is going to start talking about it, I will!
I mean, come on, how could we not talk about it? My friends and I have been buzzing about it constantly.

In keeping with the forum's rules: "Tread lightly on religion and politics." I aim to do just that.

Anyway, I have my own theories about why this movie is sparking so much controversy.

1. Simply put, it's about Jesus. The fact that this movie is about the MOST controversial person ever to set foot on earth, it is not surprising that controversy looms on the horizon in the eves of the film's opening.

2. The fact that Mel Gibson took the lead in presenting this film. We all know that it's not appropriate to bring up religious issues in Hollywood. Heaven forbid that a famous actor would step up to the limelight and say I am such and such. It's just a bad career move. Once you do that, your bankability as an actor is finished. Well, I believe that it would take an actor of Mel Gibson's caliber and presence to have at least a chance of sustaining some of the backlash that will surely come from critics and religious figures alike. Especially (DARE I SAY IT?) the Jewish community.

3. It's not exactly Shindler's List. A few of the Jewish leaders state that the Passion will only incite anti-semitic feelings/attitude with the general population. PLEASE. First of all, Jesus was a Jew. Secondly, Gibson already addressed the fact that he feels his movie does not attempt to blame the Jews for killing Christ. He said, in his own words, "I did. We all did." (Diane Sawyer interview). If I were to blame the Jews outright, I might as well blame the Italians too. After all, Pilate was a Roman!

Feel free to present your views or even debunk mine. Just remember these are MY views and my opinion on the subject matter.

 

[NSX~Kleine]

Dont worry, I'm Sure Andre will make good use of this opportunity.
Personaly?
Never herd of it.
(which is not hard to do, I watch little to no TV. If I do its Disovery, Nat Geo, KCET, PBS, BBC or TLC.)
The only religion you find there, is the history of the bible, Foods of the bible, and the bibles take on dinosaurses )
You'll let us (me) know all the details when its out, right?

 

[NetViper]

Personally, I would have no desire to read subtitles for 2 hours.

 

[Tom Larkins]

I'm looking forward to seeing it. A private screening was done here locally last night. Many were seen leaving in tears! As for those that see it as Anti-Semitic I would ask them to be objective and not put people like me in a box that know its a historical fact. That much has been proved whether you think him the savior or not.

A fractional amount of people at best would have those feelings "anti-semitic" about jews. Those that know the Bible and what its many practical applications for living are, know having that type attitude about anyone regardless of what they believe is wrong! Those that make the statements I respect b/c they may have been on the end of foolish behavior by other folks, but they are painting w/a broad brush w/o even seeing the movie.

The emotional aspect of the film I suppose is the graphic nature of the crusifiction. In modern film making nothing has ever been presented like this. Let us not forget this was a normal practice of punishment for years for both jew and gentile.

I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM OTHERS AS WELL AND I HOPE THOSE THAT RESPOND USE GOOD JUDGEMENT IN POSTING B/C I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS THREAD DELETED

 

[O-Ace]

Personally, I would have no desire to read subtitles for 2 hours.

It's not in English?

 

[Jim]

No, it's in Latin and Aramic.

 

[Joel]

No, it's in Latin and Aramic.

Smart move by Gibson on that part.
Another English movie would ruin a great deal of its authenticity.
Also a good move not to hire another blonde, blue-eyed actor.

 

[ncdogdoc]

There were only 75 pages of script, so I do not think you will be doing THAT much reading. Mel wanted the visuals to speak the story. I am looking forward to it, as I first heard of the production almost 14 months ago. But I will admit that as powerful as the symbolism of the Green Mile was, I cannot imagine how emotionally draining this will be.

 

[jlindy]

[
It's just a bad career move. Once you do that, your bankability as an actor is finished. .[/i] [/B]

I think that is crap. You will see, this movie is going to blow people away Christians and non-Christians. I think this is going to be a huge blockbuster and is a first of it's kind. I have great respect for the courage of Mel Gibson to bring such a realistic protrayal to an otherwise predominantly religious free Hollywood. Whether someone agrees with the content or not, it is going to move people for a long time to come.

 

[nkb]

I'm looking forward to seeing it. A private screening was done here locally last night. Many were seen leaving in tears!

Please keep in mind that these private screenings (as I'm sure you probably know) were mostly organized by churches or religious groups, so, understandably, the ones seen leaving in tears are somewhat biased.

 

[nkb]

Mel Gibson is a genius (ok, maybe just really smart, since it's been done before).

He makes a movie in Latin and Aramaic, with very graphic violence, depicting a controversial figure, and everyone calls him crazy. But, he knew what he was doing. By creating controversy, this movie will be watched by believers and non-believers alike, just to see what the fuss is about. It will rake in the dough.

I have not seen this movie, but I remember back in the 80s when "The Last Temptation of Christ" was released, there was controversy galore. The producers couldn't have dreamed of better marketing on their own when every Christian group in existence was protesting about the depiction of Jesus.
But, alas, it was much ado about nothing. I thought the movie was a snooze-fest, and way over-hyped.

 

[nkb]

Re: Re: The Passion of the Christ

You will see, this movie is going to blow people away Christians and non-Christians. I think this is going to be a huge blockbuster...

I agree it will be a blockbuster (see my previous post), but I seriously doubt that it will "blow away ... non-Christians".

A lot of non-Christians will go to see the movie, because there is so much talk about it, but, by definition, it is not nearly as compelling to people who don't place as much importance in Jesus.

 

[Hrant]

Help me out here please

I tend to shy away from discussing politics and religion except among friends that have the fortitude to engage into open minded dialogue when viewpoints differ. But two comments caught my attention in these posts. I am just curious as to why these comments were made. I am not looking for a debate, just curious about what rationale is used to make these comments.

Joel wrote: "this movie is about the MOST controversial person ever to set foot on earth

Why would you assume or think Jesus is the MOST controversial person? Both Jews and Muslims have accepted Jesus' role in religion but NOT as The Prophet. I believe Christains, Muslims and Jews combined cover more than half of the world population. So why would Jesus be the MOST controversial, by whose definition or objectivity?

And

nkb wrote: "Please keep in mind that these private screenings (as I'm sure you probably know) were mostly organized by churches or religious groups, so, understandably, the ones seen leaving in tears are somewhat biased

Why would they be "understandably" more biased than any other person watching a similar epic and gut wrenching tragic human story? Is crying over deplorable but factually correct human conditions biased? Or is it because they are Christians and hence they have no objectivity? When Jews cry after seeing a Holocaust movie will they be biased too? How about Muslims crying after seeing some of the massacres by the Crusaders? Or the Native Americans after watching a movie of the massacres by the Conquistadors? Are they all biased as well or this applies to Christians only?

Just curious.

 

[NeoNSX]

I have a Pastor friend who saw it at a special previewing here in Australia.

He said it was a very well done movie. <B>He left the film feeling NUMB</B>. It's EXTREMELY VIOLENT and brutal -- afterall, Jesus was killed in the most inhuman way possible. It's about time the image of a lily-white Jesus with a few flesh wounds was done away with.

The fact that he said he left the cinema feeling numb reminds me of when i first saw Saving Private Ryan in a small cinema. I left feeling totally numbed, but with such an awesome respect for the men who fought in WW2. I'm hoping this film will produce a similiar after effect.


I definitely want to see this. I'm compelled to see it.

 

[cmhs75]

Re: Help me out here please

Both Jews and Muslims have accepted Jesus' role in religion but NOT as The Prophet. I believe Christains, Muslims and Jews combined cover more than half of the world population. So why would Jesus be the MOST controversial, by whose definition or objectivity?
.

Actually, Muslims do acknowledge Jesus Christ as a prophet. Just not as a god, or god's son or anything higher than a human being.

 

[nkb]

Re: Help me out here please

Why would you assume or think Jesus is the MOST controversial person? Both Jews and Muslims have accepted Jesus' role in religion but NOT as The Prophet. I believe Christains, Muslims and Jews combined cover more than half of the world population. So why would Jesus be the MOST controversial, by whose definition or objectivity?

"MOST controversial" is definitely debatable, but I believe the controversy is mostly based on Jesus' status (as cmhs75 says), on whether he is the son of God, or "just" another prophet like Mohammed. Of course, there are plenty of people in the world that believe Jesus Christ was just a guy, who was built up into something he was not after his death. And then, there are some (granted, this is quite a minority) that have doubts that Jesus even existed.

Why would they be "understandably" more biased than any other person watching a similar epic and gut wrenching tragic human story? Is crying over deplorable but factually correct human conditions biased? Or is it because they are Christians and hence they have no objectivity? When Jews cry after seeing a Holocaust movie will they be biased too? How about Muslims crying after seeing some of the massacres by the Crusaders? Or the Native Americans after watching a movie of the massacres by the Conquistadors? Are they all biased as well or this applies to Christians only?

Yes, that is exactly my point. Christians have an emotional attachment to the figure of Jesus Christ, therefore will be more easily moved by this movie. If I see the movie, I am sure I will be saddened by the senseless violence and the ability of humans to be that brutal to each other, but it will not have nearly the same significance to me as it does to someone who believes this was done to the son of God.

And, absolutely, when Jews watch movies about the Holocaust, they are more affected by it. I was born and grew up in Germany, so I probably have more of an emotional stake in the Holocaust than the regular guy living here, who has never been to Germany and been exposed to the reminders of it. But, there is no way I am as affected by it as Jewish people are, because it hits home to them that these people were prosecuted and murdered because of the fact that they were like them.
And, if there were movies about the Crusades (which will probably never happen, since I can't see Hollywood releasing a movie on such an anti-Christian subject) or the massacre of Native Americans (whether it's by Conquistadors or by white settlers), of course those religious or ethnic groups will be more affected. How can you say they wouldn't be?
Would it be a stretch to think that black people would have stronger reactions to a movie about the injustices they have endured?

Obviously, you are taking the word "bias" in my post as a negative connotation. That wasn't what I meant. All I meant is that there is an obvious emotional factor involved, therefore religious Christians (my assumption is that they are the ones seeing the screenings being organized by the religious groups) are more likely to be moved to tears. Not too much of a stretch, is it?

 

[Tom Larkins]

Let me interject this:

1)Muslims-Muhammad "Their savior" Try remotely to bring the name of Christ up in any of those Mid-Eastern Countries and see what type of treatment you get.

2)Jews- Still waiting for the Messiah"Their savior". More unbiased in America and portions of Europe but thats it.

Muslims, Jews and Christians have been mentioned as the most popular practicing beliefs in the context of Christ being controversial. Yes they acknoledge him, but thats as far as it gets because the point of Jesus and this movie is the message of salvation and his choice & cost. Its not ours as the Bible says b/c its a gift "Salvation".

Thats where the heat gets turned up and controversy begins and for those reasons is why Jesus is a lightning rod to the other groups mentioned and those that were not. Heck yes he is controversial not to mention when you apply manuscript & historical evidence in the debate.

 

[Tom Larkins]

Re: Re: Help me out here please

And, absolutely, when Jews watch movies about the Holocaust, they are more affected by it. I was born and grew up in Germany, so I probably have more of an emotional stake in the Holocaust than the regular guy living here, who has never been to Germany and been exposed to the reminders of it. But, there is no way I am as affected by it as Jewish people are, because it hits home to them that these people were prosecuted and murdered because of the fact that they were like them.
And, if there were movies about the Crusades (which will probably never happen, since I can't see Hollywood releasing a movie on such an anti-Christian subject) or the massacre of Native Americans (whether it's by Conquistadors or by white settlers), of course those religious or ethnic groups will be more affected. How can you say they wouldn't be?
Would it be a stretch to think that black people would have stronger reactions to a movie about the injustices they have endured?

I would agree w/you in some aspects w/christian emotion and the movie, however I will ask that you be aware that we and America have much knowledge of what you mentioned about Hollywood not doing with the production of movies.

Education wise my kids and some of us have had it taught and told about the American Indian/Columbus and even the mis-treatment of Japanesse Americans in WWII. We know it for what it was... wrong! Some movies have been made most popular was Dances w/Wolves" maybe not to the extent of others but we know what happened. As far as the Crusades and Conquistadors, may I remind you that these conquest were done under the Cross! What right minded person now would accept that behaivor now under the direction of a church. Don't forget many a christian was slaughtered during this period in Europe as well as millions by the Muslims in southern Asia. If your really looking for movies in those context I would say certain groups other than Christians in this country would be in more of a outraged that what you see now. To say Hollywood & Christian in the same breath is like Bernie Eccelstone of F1 & Mike Helton of NASCAR together and asking them to come up w/a racing series!

 

[Joel]

Re: Re: The Passion of the Christ

I think that is crap. You will see, this movie is going to blow people away Christians and non-Christians. I think this is going to be a huge blockbuster and is a first of it's kind. I have great respect for the courage of Mel Gibson to bring such a realistic protrayal to an otherwise predominantly religious free Hollywood. Whether someone agrees with the content or not, it is going to move people for a long time to come.

Pardon me, but I don't quite understand your line of argument here. You quoted me on what I said about Gibson's beliefs affecting him as an actor--his future in getting roles he is normally offered but might be held from him because he will be tagged negatively as a "religious" person. That's what I meant by his bankability. Besides, Gibson himself acknowledges this movie as having its adverse affects on how Hollywood sees him. But as accomplished and as popular as he is, I personally don't think it's going to affect him THAT bad. But there is still that possibility of things going the wrong way for him.

But your reply concerns more on his career move as a director/producer to put out this kind of movie which will enhance his credibility as a filmmaker. This part I agree with you on.

 

[nsxtasy]

2. The fact that Mel Gibson took the lead in presenting this film. We all know that it's not appropriate to bring up religious issues in Hollywood. Heaven forbid that a famous actor would step up to the limelight and say I am such and such. It's just a bad career move. Once you do that, your bankability as an actor is finished. Well, I believe that it would take an actor of Mel Gibson's caliber and presence to have at least a chance of sustaining some of the backlash that will surely come from critics and religious figures alike. Especially (DARE I SAY IT?) the Jewish community.

I find this paragraph highly offensive. Its purpose appears to be to support the questionable hypothesis that "Jews control the media" - often circulated as part of anti-semitic propaganda, just like the similar myths "Jews control the banking industry", "Jews control the government", etc.

I have not seen the movie, and I do not wish to comment on a movie I have not seen. However, I found George Will's column in today's Washington Post to be an interesting commentary:

The Left's Anti-Semitic Chic

By George F. Will
Wednesday, February 25, 2004

It used to be said that anti-Catholicism was the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals. Today anti-Semitism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.

Not all intellectuals, of course. And the seepage of this ancient poison into the intelligentsia -- always so militantly modern -- is much more pronounced in Europe than here. But as anti-Semitism migrates across the political spectrum from right to left, it infects the intelligentsia, which has leaned left for two centuries.

Here the term intellectual is used loosely, to denote not only people who think about ideas -- about thinking -- but also people who think they do. The term anti-Semitism is used to denote people who dislike Jews. These people include those who say: We do not dislike Jews, we only dislike Zionists -- although to live in Israel is to endorse the Zionist enterprise, and all Jews are implicated, as sympathizers, in the crime that is Israel.

Today's release of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" has catalyzed fears of resurgent anti-Semitism. Some critics say the movie portrays the governor of Judea -- Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect responsible for the crucifixion -- as more benign and less in control than he actually was, and ascribes too much power and malignity to Jerusalem's Jewish elite. Jon Meacham's deeply informed cover story "Who Killed Jesus?" in the Feb. 16 Newsweek renders this measured judgment: The movie implies more blame for the Jewish religious leaders of Judea of that time than sound scholarship suggests. However, Meacham rightly refrains from discerning disreputable intentions in Gibson's presentation of matters about which scholars, too, must speculate, and do disagree. Besides, this being a healthy nation, Americans are unlikely to be swayed by the movie's misreading, as Meacham delicately suggests, of the actions of a few Jews 2,000 years ago.

Fears about the movie's exacerbating religiously motivated anti-Semitism are missing the larger menace -- the upsurge of political anti-Semitism. Like traditional anti-Semitism, but with secular sources and motives, the political version, which condemns Jews as a social element, is becoming mainstream, and chic among political and cultural elites, mostly in Europe. Consider:

• A cartoon in a mainstream Italian newspaper depicts the infant Jesus in a manger, menaced by an Israeli tank and saying, "Don't tell me they want to kill me again." This expresses animus against Israel rather than twisted Christian zeal.

• The European Union has suppressed a study it commissioned, because the study blamed the upsurge in anti-Jewish acts on European Muslims -- and the European left.

• Nineteen percent of Germans believe what a best-selling German book asserts: The CIA and Israel's Mossad organized the Sept. 11 attacks.

• On French television, a comedian wearing a Jewish skullcap gives a Nazi salute while yelling, "Isra-Heil!"

• If Israel is not the Great Satan, it is allied with him -- America. European anti-American demonstrations often include Israel's blue and white flag with a swastika replacing the star of David, and signs perpetuating the myth, concocted by Palestinians and cooperative Western journalists, of an Israeli massacre in Jenin: "1943: Warsaw / 2002: Jenin."

• Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University, writes in the New Republic that much of what Hitler said "can be found today in innumerable places: on Internet sites, propaganda brochures, political speeches, protest placards, academic publications, religious sermons, you name it."

The appallingly brief eclipse of anti-Semitism after Auschwitz demonstrates how beguiling is the simplicity of pure stupidity. All of the left's prescriptions for curing what ails society -- socialism, communism, psychoanalysis, "progressive" education, etc. -- have been discarded, so now the left is reduced to adapting that hardy perennial of the right, anti-Semitism. This is a new twist to the left's recipe for salvation through elimination: All will be well if we eliminate capitalists, or private property, or the ruling class, or "special interests," or neuroses, or inhibitions. Now, let's try eliminating a people, starting with their nation, which is obnoxiously pro-American and insufferably Spartan.

Europe's susceptibility to political lunacy, and the Arab world's addiction to it, is not news. And the paranoid style is a political constant. Those who believe a conspiracy assassinated President Kennedy say: Proof of the conspiracy's diabolical subtlety is that no evidence of it remains. Today's anti-Semites say: Proof of the Jews' potent menace is that there are so few of them -- just 13 million of the planet's 6 billion people -- yet they cause so many political, economic and cultural ills. Gosh. Imagine if they were, say, 1 percent of Earth's population: 63 million.

 

[matteni]

I haven't seen it but I did find this review enlightening from our local newspaper and seemed different then many of the other reviews I have seen (gave it 2 out of 4 stars):

Gibson film is overkill on Jesus' death, not life
By JOE WILLIAMS
Published: Wednesday, Feb. 25 2004

If we can believe what we read, Jesus was a pretty cool dude. Dissing rich
people, performing miracles, proclaiming the power of love - this is a guy we'd
like to have supper with. But as played by James Caviezel, the Jesus we meet in
"The Passion of the Christ" is as gloomy and narcissistic as a coffeehouse
poet. His first line of dialogue is a scold - of the apostle Peter, for not
being a better lookout while Jesus was moaning in the moonlight of Gethsemane.
It's more than 90 minutes into the film before we hear a word of sermon, in a
brief flashback.

The point of this overwrought exercise is not how Jesus lived, but how he died.
Mel Gibson, an action hero turned director, hammers the point by confining the
story to Jesus' final 12 hours and underscores the nobility of his suffering
with a bleating neo-celestial soundtrack. At its best, the film has an almost
trippy richness, thanks to Caleb Deschanel's slo-mo cinematography and such
fanciful inventions as an androgynous, milk-eyed devil who lurks in the
shadows. At its worst, the movie is an eroticized wallow in torn flesh.

In Gibson's version of events, the only earthly reason our hero is subjected to
this interminable flogging is because he was betrayed by Jews. Those who feared
that "The Passion of the Christ" would have an anti-Semitic subtext will have
their worst fears confirmed. The unmistakable villain of the movie is Caiaphas
(Mattia Sbragia), the leering, lip-smacking high priest who orders Jesus
arrested and pays hecklers to demand that he be crucified. By comparison, the
Roman overlord Pontius Pilate (the excellent Hristo Shopov) is a fair-minded if
fretful bureaucrat who only consents to have Jesus executed to avoid civil
unrest.

In a scene that has been the subject of much prerelease debate, Gibson plays it
coy, eliminating the subtitle when the Jewish onlookers shout, "Let his blood
be upon us and our children," but retaining the offending line in Aramaic.

Except for Jesus' disciples and the two Marys (Maia Morgenstern and
Monica Bellucci as the mother and Magdalene, respectively), the Jewish
characters are sinister and slovenly. Even some Jewish children are demonized,
as they morph into monsters and drive the apostle Judas to suicide.

Like his father, who claimed last week that the Holocaust is mostly fiction,
Mel Gibson is neither a theologian nor a scholar. Historians - the kind who
look at evidence - surmise that Jesus of Nazareth was executed because he
fought back when his Middle Eastern homeland was occupied by the world's most
powerful army. That doesn't fit the obviously heartfelt agenda of the director,
who adheres to an embattled offshoot of Catholicism and often portrays a martyr
in his movies.

At least the torture that was inflicted on Gibson's character in "Braveheart"
had an explanation. Here, the suffering is scrubbed clean of everything but
predestination and dogma.

This is a film that will polarize its audience. Half will love it, and half
will loathe it. This raised-Catholic critic can see the rationale for both. If
you share the director's convictions, you might find that "The Passion of the
Christ" is a powerful reaffirmation of faith. But the Romans executed a
quarter-million prisoners in Palestine, and if you don't already accept the
proposition that this particular man was sacrificed so that humanity might be
saved, you won't be enlightened by this two-hour treatise on torture.

In Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles.

"The Passion of the Christ"
** (out of four)
Rating: R (for sequences of graphic violence)
Running time: 2:10
Opens: Wednesday, Feb. 25

Critic Joe Williams
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 314-340-8344

 

[Joel]

Mel Gibson is a genius (ok, maybe just really smart, since it's been done before).

He makes a movie in Latin and Aramaic, with very graphic violence, depicting a controversial figure, and everyone calls him crazy. But, he knew what he was doing. By creating controversy, this movie will be watched by believers and non-believers alike, just to see what the fuss is about. It will rake in the dough.

Do you really think that Gibson's intent was to put out a money-making film? I agree that the controversy and the hoopla surrounding this movie will undoubtedly make it a blockbuster hit. But to say that it was the motivating factor behind making it is superficial. If he was set out to do that, why finance the ENTIRE movie with his own money? Why not use the studios money?

 

[nsxtasy]

Like his father, who claimed last week that the Holocaust is mostly fiction, Mel Gibson

The news story about this can be found here.

One paragraph stands out:

During his lengthy radio interview, Hutton Gibson, 85, said Jews were out to create "one world religion and one world government" and outlined a conspiracy theory involving Jewish bankers, the US Federal Reserve and the Vatican, among others.

Note - I posted my alarm in my above post, regarding common myths spread by anti-semites, before reading this article...

 

[coolnsx]

I did see the movie last night at a screening. There is certainly more then enough violence shown and mans inhumanity to man is illustrated far too well. I don't think I've ever left a theater where the entire group filed out in nearly total silence. Very powerful and graphic film, I'd leave the young children at home.

 

[Joel]

Re: Help me out here please

I am not looking for a debate, just curious about what rationale is used to make these comments.

Joel wrote: "this movie is about the MOST controversial person ever to set foot on earth

Why would you assume or think Jesus is the MOST controversial person? Both Jews and Muslims have accepted Jesus' role in religion but NOT as The Prophet. I believe Christains, Muslims and Jews combined cover more than half of the world population. So why would Jesus be the MOST controversial, by whose definition or objectivity?

Good question. I deem Jesus as the most controversial figure in all of history from what I gather to know and from my own personal experience. I can think of no one else in the past and present who would have the audacity to claim divinity and actually be able to back it up. Anyone else who have tried ended up being nothing but charlatans (ie. David Koresh). In doing so, Jesus has put himself in a position that struck a nerve with so many people--for such a long time. Over 2000 years later, people are still talking about him and questioning his claims. Genghis Khan, Joan of Arc, Napoleon, Mahatma Gandhi, Adolf Hitler.....people who have made an impact in our time whether positively or negatively don't harness the same buzz as what Jesus has done.

From personal experience, I can say he's controversial because I've been in different countries on mission trips and wherever I went, the mere mention of Jesus' name invited scoff and disdain. And let me tell you, it's not fun being on the receiving end of that.