The Passion of The Christ

[OULobo]

This scepticism is supported by Pilate's behavior, which was unlike historical accounts of him...he wouldn't have "washed his hands" of Jesus' blood. He was a murderous thug who wouldn't have hesitated to crucify someone he thought seditious...AND he wouldn't have necessarily sought the counsel of the Sanhedrin.

I'm not a huge fan of the depiction of Pilate in the new movie. Mel seems to protray him in a sympathetic light and the show him debating and wrestling with himself. I don't think he was anything like that. I also don't think he was a brutal bloodthirsty thug. I think he was a typical arristocratic arrogant ruler. He was a man who could care less what the Jews do as long as it doesn't get in his way. I see him as stern and uncompromising, but very detatched from the trial of Jesus. When basic logic failed him on why he should have this man (Jesus) killed, he just shrugs and says "Okay have it your way! I could care less." I have read about Philo's depiction of him and some of the other famous historians and I don't see any description that couldn't and hadn't been leveled on any other ruler in the lands. Very few effective and efficient rulers are seen in a positive light, especially in an occupied area.

 

[MA-Caver]

There have been stories circulating that some people have actually died in the theaters during the crucifixion scene. Do these have any merit? I have come across one on MSN. A woman in her 50s in Missourri. What do you all think this is about?

Ohhh PLEASE tell me that people aren't going to fall for THAT one??? geez
:idunno:

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Man...I hate not having anyone to go see The Passion of The Christ...everyone already bought tickets that happen to be on the night I work...phooey...oh well, maybe I'll make it next weekend...maybe next saturday...to a nice theatre...

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Ohhh PLEASE tell me that people aren't going to fall for THAT one??? geez
:idunno:

A woman actually had a heart attack and croaked while watching the movie. This isn't an urban myth...its been on the news sites.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

So, was it a pre-existing condition, or an act of God?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

So, was it a pre-existing condition, or an act of God?

Maybe we should blame the Jews for her death. We blame them for everything else.



Regards,


Steve

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Well, I think she went into shock...and then died...I don't think the Jews had a hand in it...not unless they are becoming terrorists, which does not seem likely at all...

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Well, I think she went into shock...and then died...I don't think the Jews had a hand in it...not unless they are becoming terrorists, which does not seem likely at all...


Uh...I was being facetious. Puh-leeeeze don't tell me that you took that seriously.


Regards,


Steve

 

[ShaolinWolf]

About what? the Jews or the lady dying?...It's a fact that Peggy Scott did die like the second day it was out...

And yes, I was just kidding about the Jews thing...unless they seriously targeted some woman and poisoned her...which, as I said is highly unlikely. I wasn't taking you seriously about the Jew thing...lol

 

[MA-Caver]

Uhh, I think it would be appreciated that no jokes at all (on this particular thread) be made concerning prinicpals in the movie. I am taking a rough guess here but I'd say we got folks of all races and beliefs on this forum and thus it would be (IMO) bad taste just to be joking around.
Forgive me if I stepped on a few toes just now. But I tink I might be making a point....just not 100% sure where... :asian:

 

[loki09789]

Just got done watching History Channel's History vs. Hollywood about the Passion of the Christ

They get a panel of topic experts and try and determine the chosen movie is more history or hollywood. They have done movies like Braveheart, Patton, Last Samurai...

The general agreement was that Gibson's movie was more hollywood than history - not because it was corporate or a money machine - but because the panel of theologians, movie critics understood that the gospels were primarily about inspiration than historical accuracy and Gibson was attempting to be as true to the gospels as possible. Also, he was upholding a tradition of earlier passion movies that used the euro-handsome hero images of Christ and others instead of the ethnically accurate images of Semetics of the time as well as movie devices like cross images, tomb structure and so on that audiences would recognize from earlier movies.

The use of language was mentioned as a great way to make the movie feel more intimate and bring the audience into the time. Some might not like reading subtitles so it might backfire and create a detachment for those not comfortable with subtitles.

The general idea was that, it would be a great age appropriate conversation starter or revealer for those who had questions about the gospels of Christ of any kind.

Paul M.

 

[OULobo]

Just got done watching History Channel's History vs. Hollywood about the Passion of the Christ

They get a panel of topic experts and try and determine the chosen movie is more history or hollywood. They have done movies like Braveheart, Patton, Last Samurai...

The general agreement was that Gibson's movie was more hollywood than history - not because it was corporate or a money machine - but because the panel of theologians, movie critics understood that the gospels were primarily about inspiration than historical accuracy and Gibson was attempting to be as true to the gospels as possible. Also, he was upholding a tradition of earlier passion movies that used the euro-handsome hero images of Christ and others instead of the ethnically accurate images of Semetics of the time as well as movie devices like cross images, tomb structure and so on that audiences would recognize from earlier movies.

The use of language was mentioned as a great way to make the movie feel more intimate and bring the audience into the time. Some might not like reading subtitles so it might backfire and create a detachment for those not comfortable with subtitles.

The general idea was that, it would be a great age appropriate conversation starter or revealer for those who had questions about the gospels of Christ of any kind.

Paul M.

Some of those shows are worse than the movies they are examining. Look at how educated the recent XMA "documentary" was. I just saw the movie yesterday and although Mel chose handsome Europeans for the film, I don't think that it's too hard to see them as Middle Eastern or Semetic. I do have to say that the actor that plays Jesus has blue eyes and the brown contacts they gave him looked more red and distracted me quite a few times. I don't really remember seeing a tomb in the movie, except at the end and it was hard to see anything then. Otherwise I guess their examination sounds pretty close; an artistic representation of the "passion" of christ that shakes things up and seeks to give an interpetation of gospels. I do have to say the movie is extremely powerful and I cried many times.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Uhh, I think it would be appreciated that no jokes at all (on this particular thread) be made concerning prinicpals in the movie. I am taking a rough guess here but I'd say we got folks of all races and beliefs on this forum and thus it would be (IMO) bad taste just to be joking around.
Forgive me if I stepped on a few toes just now. But I tink I might be making a point....just not 100% sure where... :asian:

I've allready stated my strong (very strong) stance against anti-semitism. Other than Shaolinwolf I doubt too many would take my facetiousness as anything other than that. I doubt anything I wrote (when put into context)will cause Jews to take umbrage.


Regards,


Steve


Regards,


Steve

 

[MA-Caver]

Just got done watching History Channel's History vs. Hollywood about the Passion of the Christ

They get a panel of topic experts and try and determine the chosen movie is more history or hollywood. They have done movies like Braveheart, Patton, Last Samurai...

The general agreement was that Gibson's movie was more hollywood than history - not because it was corporate or a money machine - but because the panel of theologians, movie critics understood that the gospels were primarily about inspiration than historical accuracy and Gibson was attempting to be as true to the gospels as possible. Also, he was upholding a tradition of earlier passion movies that used the euro-handsome hero images of Christ and others instead of the ethnically accurate images of Semetics of the time as well as movie devices like cross images, tomb structure and so on that audiences would recognize from earlier movies.

The use of language was mentioned as a great way to make the movie feel more intimate and bring the audience into the time. Some might not like reading subtitles so it might backfire and create a detachment for those not comfortable with subtitles.

The general idea was that, it would be a great age appropriate conversation starter or revealer for those who had questions about the gospels of Christ of any kind.

Paul M.

I cut and pasted here a post from a different discussion group. I found it to be rawther interesting related to the current thread.

Film: The Passion of the Christ
February 29, 2004
Reporter : Peter Thompson

Peter's verdict: violent and heavy going
Director: Mel Gibson
Genre: drama

As a non-believer, I've always been mystified by the story of the martyrdom of Christ. It seems to me that an omnipotent God could have found a better way to save us from ourselves than sacrificing his son. I don't mean any disrespect to Christians — we're all free to say and think what we like within generally accepted limits, at least here in Australia. The problem with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is that it's almost impossible to see it clearly outside the inflated controversy that surrounds it. Indeed, Gibson himself has thrown down the gauntlet by suggesting any criticism of his film is
the work of dark forces. More of that in a minute, but first, the loaded question of anti-Semitism which has dominated so much of the discussion in recent months.

If you go looking for hatred of Jews in the film, you won't find it. The Jewish leaders scream for Christ's blood but even they are ultimately shocked by the depth of his suffering and there are many sympathetic Jewish figures. Although he's played by the non-Jewish Jim Caviezel, Christ's own Jewishness is acknowledged. And Gibson has explicitly distanced himself from anti-Semitism in his interview with the American journalist Diane Sawyer…

MEL GIBSON: "To be racist in any form, to be anti-Semitic, is a sin! It's been condemned by one Papal Council after another. There are encyclicals on it. To be anti-Semitic is to be un-Christian and I'm not."

But no matter how sincere these protestations are, it's hard to see how The Passion of the Christ can help to bring Jews and Christians, or anyone else, closer together. Any attempt at balance in Gibson's film is almost totally submerged under its unremitting, almost indescribable violence. It crowds out every other impression and yet it's precisely what he intended…

MEL GIBSON: "I wanted it to be shocking and I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge. And it does that. I think it pushes one over the edge. So they see the enormity, the enormity of that sacrifice, to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love."

We can't show you just how extreme that violence gets but I don't think it's unfair to predict that audiences will be initially nauseated and ultimately numbed by what they see. Gibson's defence is that, as the Pope may or may not have said, it is as it was. And this raises possibly the film's biggest conundrum. On the one hand, Gibson claims his film to be historically accurate…

DIANE SAWYER: "Do you have a literal belief of The Bible, every sentence of it?"

MEL GIBSON: "Yes, you either accept the whole thing or you don't accept it at all."

And yet he also confirms what would seem to be patently obvious: it's his own, often poetic, elaboration on what's found in the four New Testament Gospels…

MEL GIBSON: "It really is my vision. Boy! I'm not taking myself out of the equation here. I'm a proud bugger! I did this! But I did it with God's help. I mean, this is my vision of what happened, according to the Gospels, and what I wanted to show, the aspects of it I wanted to show."

The other controversy, largely fuelled by Gibson himself, is that dark forces marshalled themselves against the making of the film and are now working to undermine its message.

MEL GIBSON: "For me, I think evil is something, when it comes to you, it's not necessarily going to come with a sign saying 'I'm evil' — it will usually come in an enticing form."

DIANE SAWYER: "And you said at one point 'the big dark force doesn't want us to make this film'. What was the force?"

MEL GIBSON: "It's the thing you can't see. See, I'm a believer, by the way. So if you believe, you believe that there are big realms of good and evil and they're slugging it out."

It reminds you of the fevered gossip surrounding the making of The Exorcist, a film I greatly admire, all those years ago. But apparently there were no Satanic manifestations on the set of The Passion of the Christ. Gibson is, like the rest of us, free to hold to his beliefs. But it's a bit rich to claim victim status in any debate over the film.

Spending a large slice of the personal fortune he's made as one of the most popular movie stars of all time, and an Oscar-winning producer, he's made exactly the film he wanted to make. It's a film of prodigious energy and overwhelming emotional intensity. But as passionately as he believes in the literal truth of the story he's telling, he also believes he has enemies.

DIANE SAWYER: "Is the world full of conspiracies to you?"

MEL GIBSON: "See, it's gotten a bad name, conspiracy. Ha ha. It's only logical to assume conspiracies are everywhere because that's what people do. They conspire! If you can't get the message, get the man. So I think that's what we're engaged in here. We're engaged in character assassination."

But a last word on what he believes is the true message of his film…

MEL GIBSON: "Jesus Christ was crucified for all men of all creeds for all time and he died for all of us."

Hopefully, Mel Gibson has been reassured by the unanimous support he's received from the churches and by the large audiences flocking to see The Passion of the Christ. Personally, I found it heavy going but, even as a non-believer, I'm convinced there is enormous value in the Christian tradition.

One only has to listen to Handel's Messiah, for example, to be overwhelmed by its inspirational power. And whatever the failings of the churches over the centuries, many devout Christians have proven themselves extraordinarily courageous people.
But, like Islam and unlike many other religions, Christianity is also a proselytising faith; it actively seeks converts. In the service of that faith, Mel Gibson has produced not a thoughtful treatise on the nature of the divine like Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ but a blood-soaked battering ram.

 

[loki09789]

"All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire.
Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)"

Men communicate faith in the imperfect language of man, with imperfect understanding and imperfect intentions. To be perfectly human is to be imperfectly divine. My Tolkien signature speaks to that.

Faith is inspiration and outline of what it ultimately possible, but men will fall short of that perfection. "The Church" or any other institution is made up of men, therefore it will not make perfect decisions.

This is one of the reasons for the Protestant movement and where the personal study and relationship is emphasized. Even under Vatican II, Catholics are encouraged to study scripture and make personal discoveries. Martin Luther may not have intended to break from the church, but it went that way, and the emphasis on personal relationships with God also, politically, was like the difference between Republican and Democratic views of representation and citizenship - in a religious sense. Again, human structures, not necessarily divinely blue printed. Remember that Nations without a National Religion is a very young occurance, but the same rhetoric/values are translated from faith to patriotism.

There are some who would say that the Roman Empire, later the Holy RE, still exists in the form of faith if not geographical borders because of the similarities between values of citizenry and loyalty (not practice in all cases, thank god) from then to Vatican I. Vatican II is different, but still very demanding.

My big problem with language like "The Church" this or "Christians" that is it is prejudice in root. Good intentions or no, it is prejudice. We find it horrible to start phrases with "Those Blacks" or "Those People" in general because it lumps the actions and behavior of a few with all of a type. How can it be acceptable for "Christian" or any other faith discussion, yet it is wrong everywhere else.

"Jews" or "Christians" as a whole didn't do the horrors or ugly things that a group from within that culture have done through history. It was the corrupt or misguided actions of a few in power of that political/religious body that started it, other individuals jumped on board....

I have used this language as well, with good intentions, but it when I do, I know that I could have to clarify and that it is imperfect description. Here, in this forum, it seems commonly accepted because we are treating each other maturely, but, for my own sake, I have to remember that I have to consciously remember this is a short hand description only.


Analogy: Did you see people who voted for Clinton getting lumped in with Clinton when the Lowinski incident was in the paper? He was taken to task for his action, but those who voted for him were not lumped in with that incident.

Paul M.