The Passion of the Christ

[Tom Larkins]

I had left this topic assuming it had faded away.

I said I didn't want to continue on this topic, but I have to respond, since you did not and still do not understand my point, and are questioning my credibility.

No, I don't understand ...and yes your credibility from my point of reference and context is flawed.....so we will agree to be on oposite ends.....I suspect that communication via the internet and keyboard has something to do with this. Neverless, I will let my posts answer for them self in regards to what others and yourself think about my knowledge of the Bible, translations that all have an account except some that don't recognize Christ, which is where this started, and my so called pushy preaching.

 

[Edwardo]

Ken,

The author of the article you posted makes quite a few observations. Which observations do you agree with and why?

I would just like to hear your opinion.

Thanks!

 

[nsxtasy]

The author of the article you posted makes quite a few observations. Which observations do you agree with and why?

- That the film was deliberately intended to be controversial, and that the end result of that controversy is greater publicity for the movie and greater resulting profits;

- That certain language is often used by those who want to minimize (or even deny) the meaning and impact of the Holocaust, and that Mel Gibson used that very language in interviews;

- That Mr. Gibson has not suffered in any way as a result of the movie's release, and that his cries of victimization and conspiracies are taking him all the way to the bank;

- That the controversy surrounding the movie seems to provide a pretext for the acceptability of anti-Semitism via thinly-disguised anti-Semitic comments; and

- That religion is being conveniently used by politicians through the demonization of non-Christians and non-believers for their own personal political advantage, and that the glorification of this movie is a part of that pattern.

 

[Edwardo]

Geesh Ken!

Can you please be more precise!

What did you think of the movie?



By the way, I thought I would mention that I just finished reading your article for NSX Driver. It was the second part of how to maintain your NSX for occasional track use. I very much enjoyed it.

 

[nsxtasy]

What did you think of the movie?

The article isn't about the movie. It's about the reaction to the movie.

By the way, I thought I would mention that I just finished reading your article for NSX Driver. It was the second part of how to maintain your NSX for occasional track use. I very much enjoyed it.

Thanks! I only regret... that I had it published before NSX Driver started giving honorariums for articles written!

 

[nkb]

I heard on the radio recently that James Caviezel, who plays Christ, had to hire bodyguards because of the threats he's been getting lately.

Morons live among us, that shouldn't surprise you. Anyone who threaten's an actor's life over a movie they starred in qualifies as a moron.

This movie just passed the $250 million mark on its 3rd week and still remains on top despite Johnny Depp's new movie debuting last weekend. That, to me, says a lot about the people out there.

Johnny Depp and Stephen King are generally not exactly outstanding box-office draws, so I wouldn't think that the debut of "Secret Window" would make a big difference either way.

Here's the standings thus far:
1 The Passion of The Christ = $264,041,000
...
9 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King = $371,176,000

What exactly do box office grosses tell you about people? Being an "unhealthy" cynic, the numbers above imply that more people believe in hobbits than Christ.
To me, it means that a movie about a subject that is interesting to the majority of people in this country, coupled with controversy, and a serious push by every Christian organization, will do well. I had no doubt in my mind that the movie would do well, but I am quite surprised at how well.

 

[SCS2k]

Well, if I read a book that states at one point that 2+2=4, but then in another part, states that the Earth is banana-shaped, the latter part tends to put a shadow over what may be correct.

You will have to be more specific on the scientific discoveries, as I have not heard about that. Are these references that were linked after the fact?

When in such a quandry I usually refer to the ultimate in religious authority, Mr. Ned Flanders of the Simpsons. Ned says:

"I follow every teaching in the Bible, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff."

I thought this thread could use a little leavity.

 

[jlindy]

Morons live among us, that shouldn't surprise you. Anyone who threaten's an actor's life over a movie they starred in qualifies as a moron.

Johnny Depp and Stephen King are generally not exactly outstanding box-office draws, so I wouldn't think that the debut of "Secret Window" would make a big difference either way.


What exactly do box office grosses tell you about people? Being an "unhealthy" cynic, the numbers above imply that more people believe in hobbits than Christ.
To me, it means that a movie about a subject that is interesting to the majority of people in this country, coupled with controversy, and a serious push by every Christian organization, will do well. I had no doubt in my mind that the movie would do well, but I am quite surprised at how well.

Your sense of logic is humorous to me. How can someone compare a box office result to what a person believes? If I saw Spiderman and enjoyed it, does that mean that I must believe in Peter Parker? Movies are a form of entertainment, some more than others. The Passion is entertainment for some and much more for others, but as this thread illustrates, a person will believe what they want which is the beauty of America.

The Lord of the Rings has been out for 14 weeks vs. 4 weeks for The Passion so how can you compare that? Also, I loved The Lord of the Rings and would see it again and again. However, I only saw The Passion once, and would only see it once, but does that devalue it's content to me because it may not bring in as much money as The Lord of the Rings?

In Hollywood, you are only as good as your last performance. Considering Johnny's last film grossed over 300 Million, most anticipated a larger opening for The Secret Window, but unfortunatley for him, the film was not that good.

As much fun as this thread has been, I have said my peace and will retire, but your lack of logic leads me to believe you are arguing, just to argue. I believe you have your right to an opinion, and just because it is not mine, you are still entitled to your beliefs.

 

[nkb]

Your sense of logic is humorous to me. How can someone compare a box office result to what a person believes?

The logic was meant to be humorous. Thank you for noticing, that was exactly my point. If you read more carefully, I was questioning Joel's statement about box office results saying something about people.
I love when someone tries to slam someone else, and ends up proving their point.

In Hollywood, you are only as good as your last performance. Considering Johnny's last film grossed over 300 Million, most anticipated a larger opening for The Secret Window, but unfortunatley for him, the film was not that good.

Attributing the success of Pirates of the Carribbean to Johnny Depp is like saying Elijah Wood is a huge box office draw because of LOTR. Yes, Depp made the movie enjoyable, but it was a blockbuster movie that would have done very well without him.

...but your lack of logic leads me to believe you are arguing, just to argue.

Funny that you make this statement about me, considering that you agree with me on the box office argument, yet you are trying to argue with me anyway.
If you had been a little less eager to argue with what I'm saying (I'm guessing this was somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction based on your disagreements with my views earlier), you would have noticed that I made a tongue-in-cheek statement to illustrate a point.

 

[MsKadyB]

I remember seeing Mel Gibson speak about Passions at Loyola Marymount University's graduation ceremony last year. Apparently, he got help from some of the priests there. It sounded interesting when I first heard of it, but after viewing some of the images I am not sure if I can actually watch it.

 

[NeoNSX]

Neo's Thoughts after seeing "The Passion"

This thread has gone off-offtopic. I dont believe Mel Gibson made the film to make money. If he did, we'd be buying "The Passion" T-Shirts.

Back to the film...
I finally saw the movie tonight. My impression is ... it's very sobering. "enjoy" isn't the right word, but the movie was very very good, and i didn't look away once. Quality movie making (unlike a lot of the crap Hollywood has been pumping out lately)
I thank God that Jesus went through all that suffering so that I don't have too.

Regards the brutality and violence; yes, it's no movie for kids. But I didn't find it as horrific as people had made it out to be. If you've seen Braveheart, you'll be able to stomach this. I think many people have used the supposed "violence" just as an excuse not to see the film; just as i've heard some film critics condeming the film for the violence (since when do film-critics care about violence in films??? )


Check out this incredibly interesting medical analysis on how & why Jesus actually died. It gives a lot more detail into the crucifixion process which the film cannot portray. REALLY INTERESTING! WORTH READING!

<B>A Physician Analyzes the Crucifixion
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/crucifix.htm</B>

 

[nsxtasy]

I dont believe Mel Gibson made the film to make money. If he did, we'd be buying "The Passion" T-Shirts.

You mean, like the ones here, for which he presumably receives a share of the money according to a licensing contract?

 

[flaminio]

Thoughts on the film

I'm not going to touch any of the surrounding controversy about the film. However, I will comment on the film itself. (Disclaimer: I am a devout athiest.)

I found the film very moving and unsettling, yet somewhat lacking. It took me a few days of retrospect to figure out why, but I basically came to the conclusion that the problem is we're only shown the end of the story. I realized that the movie I really wanted to see would have been about 16 hours long, with The Passion as the final two hours. All the violence (which, like Neo, I didn't find as extreme as many have posted) would have held so much more meaning if it was presented more in context, rather than as an end in itself.

The other, more minor, problem I had with the film was its depiction of supernatural elements, particularly Satan. To me, one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that the Christ is human. If we introduce elements like "can see Satan" and other stuff, it makes him more than human, and (in my opinion) diminishes his sacrifice. I would have preferred that these elements be more implied rather than explicit.

Again, like Neo said, this isn't a film you can say you "enjoyed", but it's certainly more worthwhile than the latest J.Lo tripefest. I'm glad I saw it, but I most likely won't see it again, nor purchase the DVD.

 

[Edwardo]

Ken,

Have you seen this movie yet?

 

[nsxtasy]

No. I have absolutely no desire to see this movie.

 

[Edwardo]

No. I have absolutely no desire to see this movie.

Strange. You seem to be on a mission in this thread yet you have not seen this movie. You also have no desire to see this movie.

I find that...strange.

 

[nsxtasy]

I don't think it is a "mission" to understand the societal context in which any popular work is presented - do you? Do you object to consideration of its context?

I find it amusing that there are 115 posts on this topic - about everything from the context (as mentioned) of the movie, to the movie itself, to various religious questions ranging from the meaning of Jesus's life to the accuracy of the Bible as history - and you single out me as being on some crazy "mission"...

Or perhaps you are using the word "mission" intentionally, as a pun (a play on words) because of its religious connotation?

Please tell us about your missionary position.

 

[Edwardo]

Let me just clarify what I said. When I say you are on a "mission", I mean you have a goal, or an objective. I believe your objective is to cast a bad light on this film (because you are reading in to the hype).

I was not talking about the missionary position as in the standard sexual position...or was I??? hehe

I singled you out because you have not seen the movie. It is clear from your opinion that you have not seen the movie. If you had seen the movie, you would not have the negative opinion.

That article you posted is tripe. Articles like that incite readers to think bad thoughts about good people. If you had seen the movie you would put not one ounce of stock in to that article.

Gibson goes out of his way to differentiate between the Jewish high priests, corrupted with power, and the Jewish people. As others on this thread have mentioned, there is an extremely emotional scene which spoon-feeds this point to the viewers.

Societal context? If folks want to write about the societal context they can write an editorial about how there are strong parallels between the corrupt, ancient Jewish priests behavior and the modern day Catholic Church pedophilia cover-up. You will find more evidence of that in the film than you will ever find evidence of anti Semitism. Thus, I do not think Gibson was stirring the pot with bigotry to market the movie.

Now, let me get to my opinion of this movie. I have been too busy typing up personal attacks against ken
I think the movie was great. Everything about its production was just top notch. The sounds were phenomenal in this movie. I imagine some of you folks cringe to remember some of these sounds. The sets, costumes, blocking, etc...just sweet. You could pause the movie at any time and you would have a scene that looked not unlike a Botticelli painting. It really is a well done film. It is quite graphic, but I think it is necessary. Braveheart was graphic film as well and many folks did not like that aspect of it. I think the graphic nature of Gibson's films adds a serious sense of realism. In Braveheart, it almost felt like I was there in a medieval battle. I could hear the clanging swords and smell the coppery scent of spilt blood. Gibson brought out these same sensations in the Passion.


As you can see, I really enjoyed this movie. I do not believe any other religious movie has moved me like this one. I think the only story that really put me in an emotional state like this is when I read Victor Frankl's book, Man's Search For Meaning
I will not disclose information about this book as I think folks should read it. I will tell you this. The book is extremely graphic, and extremely gut wrenching, just like the Passion. If someone made a movie of this story one day, folks would walk out of the movie theater with the same stunned expression as when they walk out of Passion.

Anyway, I am not the kind of person who reads articles that try to convince people to think there is some sort of hidden racist agenda. I remember when Star Wars episode I came out and everyone was calling George Lucas a racist because of the mannerisms of Jar Jar Binks. Simply ridiculous.


Ken, I am sorry I singled you out. It was just my impression that you are the only one in the thread who has not seen the movie. Hope I did not offend
Perhaps I will find someone else to attack to even things up! j/k

 

[nsxtasy]

I believe your objective is to cast a bad light on this film (because you are reading in to the hype).

That is merely YOUR OPINION of my objective. To the extent that I have an objective with my posts here, it is to communicate that a film (like other popular works) does not necessarily exist in a vacuum, and that it may play on, or exacerbate, or exploit, or moderate, or run counter to, trends and events in our society. And that it may do so intentionally, in order to increase publicity for the film, in order to increase revenue. Perhaps you disagree that this is Mr. Gibson's objective. Regardless, I feel that this is a legitimate concern, and that this contention is supported by various actions by Gibson, as described in the article by Mr. Rich.

If you had seen the movie, you would not have the negative opinion.

Well, I can't tell you if I would not have such-and-such opinion OF THE MOVIE if I saw the movie, because I don't believe I have such an opinion OF THE MOVIE now (although I do indeed have a negative opinion of Mr. Gibson's objectives, which is NOT the same thing). Perhaps my lack of a negative opinion about the movie would not change if I saw the movie.

That article you posted is tripe.

That is YOUR OPINION. MY OPINION is that the article tells what is REALLY going on with the release of this movie. MY OPINION is also that those who try to ignore the societal context of a movie like this may be doing so in order to deny the existence of certain prejudices and hatreds (e.g. anti-semitism) in our society, and to deny the fact that those prejudices may be exacerbated by this movie. And also that some of those who try to ignore the context may even share those prejudices, although most will almost certainly deny this, to others as well as to themselves.

I have been too busy typing up personal attacks against ken

Well, on THAT point, MY OPINION matches YOUR OPINION.

 

[xsn]

MY OPINION is also that those who try to ignore the societal context of a movie like this may be doing so in order to deny the existence of certain prejudices and hatreds (e.g. anti-semitism) in our society, and to deny the fact that those prejudices may be exacerbated by this movie. And also that some of those who try to ignore the context may even share those prejudices, although most will almost certainly deny this, to others as well as to themselves.

Wow! Anyone who disagrees with you may be anti-semitic. Nice.

 

[nsxtasy]

Wow! Anyone who disagrees with you may be anti-semitic. Nice.

That certainly is the most ridiculous distortion possible of what I said. Nice, indeed.

What is very obvious is that you do not think it is legitimate to discuss anti-semitism in our society, in the United States and around the world; and you do not think that it is legitimate to discuss this movie within that context; and that you do not think that it is legitimate to raise the possibilty that there may be ulterior motivations by Mel Gibson, not just in making this movie, but in his actions in dealing with (and amplifying) the controversy surrounding it. Can you please explain why you feel that these are not legitimate concerns?

And this time, please try to do so without slamming Mr. Rich or myself. So far, the ONLY thing your posts have done is to attack both of us, without even bothering to address what either of us says. That certainly seems to imply a position of prejudice (pre-judging) instead of giving any indication that you have given any serious thought whatsoever to what many would consider legitimate issues.

 

[coolnsx]

I am quickly learning why religion is of the topics that is difficult for an open forum to discuss

 

[xsn]

That certainly is the most ridiculous distortion possible of what I said. Nice, indeed.

To quote a wise man: "That is merely YOUR OPINION" of my interpretation. Which is in turn my opinion of the implication of that statement in the context of the discussion. Isn't the opinion debate game fun?

What is very obvious is that you do not think it is legitimate to discuss anti-semitism in our society, in the United States and around the world;

Sorry to dissapoint you but I do think anti-semitism is a legitimate topic for discussion and that anti-semitism or any similar hate of a group of people for who they are is a real problem. But I do not think it has anything to do with the film [the topic of this thread] because I --- like virtually every one else --- did not find the film anti-semitic.

Also I think careless tossing around of the term "anti-semitic" by alarmists devalues and strips it of it's true meaning and impact, as with the fable of the boy who cried Wolf.

and you do not think that it is legitimate to discuss this movie within that context;

The discussion was valid before the movie was released. I do not think it remains legitimate for people who have not seen the film. If any one who has seen the film thinks it was anti-semitic I would be interested in discussing with them to understand why.

and that you do not think that it is legitimate to raise the possibilty that there may be ulterior motivations by Mel Gibson, not just in making this movie, but in his actions in dealing with (and amplifying) the controversy surrounding it.

Ironically Mr. Rich and other alarmists did more to "amplify the controversy" and hype and media flurry surrounding the movie than Mel ever could. So what are Mr. Rich's ulterior motives for amplifying the controversy? (See how silly that is?)

Q: Are you worried about Mel Gibson's motives or about the content of the film?

If you are concerned about "ulterior motives," please state exactly what you believe the motives are --- and based on what evidence.

I do not presume to know Mr. Gibson's personal views. If he is truly anti-semitic that is a shame, but it is not evident in the film. Though I guess those who go looking for something can always find it, like people playing records backwards looking for Satanic messages.

So far, the ONLY thing your posts have done is to attack both of us, without even bothering to address what either of us says.

In fact I talked about my impression of the film as well as attacking Mr. Rich.

I am not really sure where you believe I attacked you other than the simple fact that I disagree with you.

That certainly seems to imply a position of prejudice (pre-judging) instead of giving any indication that you have given any serious thought whatsoever to what many would consider legitimate issues.

There is nothing "pre" about it. I judged Mr. Rich as an alarmist after I read his articles. I judged the film after I saw it. I judged your comment for what I believe it to be. The only "pre" judging I see is from Mr. Rich about the film and Gibson's motives/beliefs and from you about what you think I do not believe is appropriate for discussion.

 

[nsxtasy]

Sorry to dissapoint you but I do think anti-semitism is a legitimate topic for discussion and that anti-semitism or any similar hate of a group of people for who they are is a real problem. But I do not think it has anything to do with the film [the topic of this thread] because I --- like virtually every one else --- did not find the film anti-semitic.

When a topic is created on NSXprime, there is no restriction on which aspects of the subject can be discussed. The fact that this topic is about a movie does not mean that we are limited to talking about the movie itself, and not the promotional campaign used to hype the movie. Related aspects of the topic are fair game.

So when "The Passion of the Christ" is the topic, you (and others) do not have the ability to censor this topic by dictating which aspects of the topic may or may not be discussed. When Mel Gibson intentionally uses language that trivializes the memory and meaning of the Holocaust in publicizing his movie, that is fair game for discussion - and I find that language offensive. When Gibson excludes Jewish journalists from interviews about the movie, that is fair game for discussion - and I find that exclusion offensive. When religion, in the context of this movie, is exploited by politicians for their own personal advantage, that is fair game for discussion - and I find that exploitation offensive. When this movie, and its promotional campaign, take place against a backdrop of the largest rise in worldwide anti-semitism since World War II, that is fair game for discussion too. And I am offended by the repeated attempts to prevent such topics from being discussed openly here; I find it very similar to Gibson's own similar efforts to restrict the examination of his movie through these same exclusionary measures.

If you liked this movie, and found it personally meaningful, and thought it was well made, you are welcome to your opinion, and I am glad for you. Maybe it's a great movie, with excellent production values. You say that you did not find it anti-semitic. I don't know, since I haven't seen it. But I've seen enough of the campaign surrounding the movie to recognize patterns of anti-semitism in its promotion - in what Gibson has said, in whom he has permitted to interview him, and in how others have tried to exploit the movie for their own advantage.

Also I think careless tossing around of the term "anti-semitic" by alarmists devalues and strips it of it's true meaning and impact

I feel the same way about your careless tossing around of the explosive term "alarmist" (three times in your previous post) to refer to anyone whose opinion is different from yours. I find your repetition of such terms to be every bit as deliberate and offensive as Gibson's choice of demeaning wording about the Holocaust in his interviews.

I am not really sure where you believe I attacked you other than the simple fact that I disagree with you.

It is quite evident in your "leap of faith" posts, such as your gross distortion of my earlier post immediately above. Anyone here can go back and read them.

I'm sure there are going to be people going around, years from now, denying that September 11 happened (and even today, there are those who claim that it was all part of a conspiracy by our government). And there are going to be others who trivialize its meaning and memory by saying, "Oh well, terrorism happened, and some people died." I think that most of us can easily recognize now that there is more to 9/11 than that, and find such statements and such language offensive. And I don't think any of us would want to be prevented from saying so.

 

[naaman]

On a small tangent...

I'm sure there are going to be people going around, years from now, denying that September 11 happened (and even today, there are those who claim that it was all part of a conspiracy by our government). And there are going to be others who trivialize its meaning and memory by saying, "Oh well, terrorism happened, and some people died." I think that most of us can easily recognize now that there is more to 9/11 than that, and find such statements and such language offensive. And I don't think any of us would want to be prevented from saying so.

This is not an attempt to join the debate from which this quote was picked....

That said, what happens when we apply this logic to the events described in the Bible (including the depiction of Pharasees[sp?] as corrupt, miracles performed by Christ, and the crusifixion etc...)