The Passion of the Christ

BronzeisGolden · Mar 1, 2004

Alright, this is bound to be an incredibly controversial topic. I'm not really looking for a big religious discussion, but rather what did you think of this movie as a film experience? I'm religious and don't attend church regularly, but I went to see this film on February 29 and found it to be extremely moving. Certainly, the graphic violence was (at some points) difficult to watch, but I felt that it depicted the events (as described by the gospels anyway) fairly accurately. The cinematography really pushed this film over the top for me. Almost all of the shots present in the theatrical release are so well done and chosen. There are flaws, of course, but overall I found it to be so thought provoking. Is this just because I was raised in the Christian tradition? I'm not sure. How did everyone else feel?

Grgranny · Mar 2, 2004

Ok, this is the first movie I saw since Driving Miss Daisy. I don't know why I thought I should go when I can't even watch ER. :laugh:

I thought they did a very good job. There were some things I didn't understand. I was told the wiping of Jesus' blood by his mother was something in catholicism. The movie is really gory. I ended up not watching most of the last half. I went with our church group and we are to meet Sunday night to discuss it. Hopefully some of the things I didn't understand will be explained.

RealtorGal · Mar 2, 2004

I'm just wondering why MG didn't make a movie about Jesus' LIFE rather than his death. This would certainly have been a good time to remind the world about the good things he taught in his lifetime and what he stood for rather than a divisive gore flick.

JOHIO2 · Mar 2, 2004

Hi all,

I haven't seen the movie and I doubt that I ever will. I've heard it compared to Braveheart (good and bad) and since I avoid that movie because it is so long and bloody, I suspect that I wouldn't like it much.

Soooo, why didn't Mel do a movie about Jesus' life? Good question! Sure, he knows how to produce an epic, gory blockbuster. He's been involved with enough of them. But he has also showed a much lighter side in other movies. If his religious beliefs mean that much to him, shouldn't he do another movie about Jesus's life?

I hope he gives it serious consideration. That one I'd seriously consider seeing. This one, I think I'll pass.

mike79 · Mar 2, 2004

RealtorGal said:
I'm just wondering why MG didn't make a movie about Jesus' LIFE rather than his death. This would certainly have been a good time to remind the world about the good things he taught in his lifetime and what he stood for rather than a divisive gore flick.

I agree. I really hope that it doesn't portray Jews in a negative light as has been reported. I know Mel says it doesn't, but come on, he's an ultra-right winger with a dad who claims the Holocaust didn't happen.

icenut84 · Mar 2, 2004

RealtorGal said:
I'm just wondering why MG didn't make a movie about Jesus' LIFE rather than his death. This would certainly have been a good time to remind the world about the good things he taught in his lifetime and what he stood for rather than a divisive gore flick.

There's a film about Jesus's life (IIRC it goes right through from birth to resurrection) called "Jesus of Nazareth", which is good, and was made quite a while ago (not sure when). Worth a look if you're interested in Jesus's life.

Michibanana · Mar 2, 2004

I'm just wondering why MG didn't make a movie about Jesus' LIFE rather than his death. This would certainly have been a good time to remind the world about the good things he taught in his lifetime and what he stood for rather than a divisive gore flick.

Quite simply because Jesus' suffering and death has had great personal impact on Mel's life. He has said in interviews that when about twelve years ago he was struggling with his own personal demons, he found that meditating on Christ's suffering transformed him and renewed his faith. There is a passage in the Bible, in Isaiah 53, that says "By his wounds, we are healed." Mel has said that the fact that "his wounds healed my wounds" has deeply affected him. Personally, I don't think that he should be judged on the movie he should have made or didn't make, in the sense of the scope of the story. (Many good movies have been made about the life of Christ by the way. And many not so good movies, too!) I think he should be judged on the movie he did make and how effective his retelling of Christ's passion was.

Tonichelle · Mar 2, 2004

RealtorGal said:
I'm just wondering why MG didn't make a movie about Jesus' LIFE rather than his death. This would certainly have been a good time to remind the world about the good things he taught in his lifetime and what he stood for rather than a divisive gore flick.

that wasn't the point of the movie... the BEST thing Jesus ever did was die for the entire world...

anyway... I thought it was really well done... some of the scenes were not from the Bible, but rather visions from some Catholic nun. However I think it was only one scene, and it didn't add too much or take away from the actual scriptures... I thought it was great, stopped looking around the time they hammered the nails into his hands and feet, but it really really really brought me back to where I needed to be. I have never really liked Mel Gibson's work save for "The Patriot" but I highly recommend everyone to go see it... whether you're remotely religious or if you're an atheist you should go. IT's the best movie of the year(but I doubt highly that Hollywood will recognize it for what it is)

and on the anti-semitism thing... I still don't see where they got it... yeah, the Jewish leadership brought Christ to the Romans, but that's a historical fact, not something Mel made up... but I don't hate any Jewish person becasue of it... there were many more Jews there helping Jesus and loving Jesus than there were wanting him dead.

I know Mel says it doesn't, but come on, he's an ultra-right winger with a dad who claims the Holocaust didn't happen.

Mel's dad is not Mel... you're doing something that you hope the movie doesn't do... spark hate for someone's past...

and I guess I am a Jew hater because I'm a right-winger? Didn't know that. Guess I should warn my friends who are of a Jewish background, eh? :rolleye:

mike79 · Mar 2, 2004

Tonichelle said:
and on the anti-semitism thing... I still don't see where they got it... yeah, the Jewish leadership brought Christ to the Romans, but that's a historical fact, not something Mel made up... but I don't hate any Jewish person becasue of it... there were many more Jews there helping Jesus and loving Jesus than there were wanting him dead.

Mel's dad is not Mel... you're doing something that you hope the movie doesn't do... spark hate for someone's past...

and I guess I am a Jew hater because I'm a right-winger? Didn't know that. Guess I should warn my friends who are of a Jewish background, eh?

I'm sorry if that's what you think I implied by my post Toni. I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that Mel, as a known right-winger who is said to support a very conservative Christian sect that supposedly condemns Jews in their association with Christ's death, along with the background that he comes from, i.e. his father's hate of Jews, may not be the right person to have made this film. It could spark anti-semitic backlash, something that I don't think Mel intends to do.

Sorry for the confusion. I hope that clears it up a little.

Tonichelle · Mar 2, 2004

well as I said... there is not one iota of "lets hate the Jews"

Mel had many Jewish people in the crowds of condemners who were totally against the persecution of Christ... he didn't villify one group exclusively

like he said we're ALL to blame for the Christ's death... not just the Jewish people or the Romans back when it happened...

Ptichka · Mar 2, 2004

1. Jesus' life vs. his death.

Ok, so I am not a Christian, so I guess it's hard for me to discuss this. However, didn't he spend his life spreading his philosophy and his vision of the world? Also, to me Art allows the artist to show suffering without all the blood and guts. For example, the movies about Holocaust that I consider effective (Pianist, Shindler's List) are relatively light on the physical suffering. There has to be a better way of showing Christ's suffering than by indulging in the gore.

2. Antisemitism

Sorry to all who liked the film, but I consider this movie to be very antisemitic. Please don't get me wrong -- I am not calling any of you antisemites. (Toni, anyone who assumes a right-winger is automatically an antisemite is obviously ignorant of current politics; through an odd politics-makes-strange-bedfellows thing, the Conservative right has been much friendlier to Israel than the Liberal left.) It places disproportionate blame on synadrion (sp?), and is much too light on Pilate. It presents Pilate as this compassionate man, while in reality he was the most brutal dictator who probably couldn't care less who was curcified. Granted, the version that Gibson provides is indeed very close to the scripture. However, I think there is significant scholarship showing how the scriptures' accounts of this could have been misinformed.

bronxgirl · Mar 2, 2004

I'm concerned that the film will further inflame antisemitism in other countries where antisemitic episodes are already on the rise.

Tonichelle · Mar 2, 2004

It places disproportionate blame on synadrion (sp?), and is much too light on Pilate. It presents Pilate as this compassionate man, while in reality he was the most brutal dictator who probably couldn't care less who was curcified.

well... Mel was going by the scriptures of the Gospel... and Pilot did wash his hands of the entire doing... in fact many of the Romans involved with the crucifixion didn't feel completely confident in actually killing Christ according to the Gospels.

yes it could ultimately start an uprising... but it'd just be an excuse...

you could say that Pearl Harbor would bring in hatred for the Japanese people... yet Hollywood praised it... and I really saw the Japanese people as being more vilified than the Jewish nation of Christ's time...

and on behalf of Mel he skipped over the part of the Jews saying that they would take the "curse" if in fact Christ was who he said he was(yet they were so confident that He wasn't the Messiah) because people were worried it would offend... and since it didn't take away from the rest of the story then it was able to be cut away (I beliece the scripture reference was Matt 25:27 or 26:27, I can't remember off the top of my head...)

and on the feeling that subtlity was nessecery: there have been many many many movies on this subject that were subtle... but Mel Gibson, FROM THE START, wanted it to be the actual ordeal that Christ went through... he wanted to shock the public... and it's gotten a lot of "religious people" looking at themselves and their beliefs...

sometimes I don't think Christians realize all that Christ did for them, and get this really haughty air about themselves... when really we shouldn't be proud of the fact that we caused Jesus's suffering

Grgranny · Mar 2, 2004

Very well said, Toni. I purposely tried to see how they thought it was antisemetic but it didn't come through to me. Had I not known that it was the jews, I probably would have never known. I just cannot see where they get this antisemiticism. Actually, I was really glad for the subtitles as I probably would never have understood what they were saying if it were in english. My hearing is none too good and certain tones just aren't even there any more.

Tonichelle · Mar 2, 2004

GrGranny... my pastor was on one of the boards (Southern Baptist Convention Executive Board to be exact, I'm proud of my pastor, can ya tell? LOL) that got to see some of the movie when Mel was trying to get support from the Christian groups... and they said that the subtitles were needed

he went and saw the whole thing on Sat, and said that reading while listening it was almost like he actually understood the aramaic(sp) language...

I got distracted by it... but I have a hard time reading while people are talking anyway

kzarah · Mar 2, 2004

Dear Granny,
I have not seen the move yet so I am not sure about Mary wiping Jesus' face. I follow the same Traditional Catholic practices as Gibson. I go to the ancient Latin Mass as Mel so maybe I can explain the wiping of Jesus face. In the passion a woman pitying Jesus wipes Jesus face. The image of his face is left on the cloth. We, (the church have the cross, thorns from the crown of thorns, the nails etc, but we have not yet found the cloth with Jesus' image on it. People have been calling this image the Pius Veronica for a long time. Some think that the woman who wiped Jesus face is Veronica. However, It is actually called the Pius Vera Icona, vera icona meaning "true image." I don't know if this is what you are referring to or not. On Monday I will go see the movie and let you know.
Daniel and Little Lulu
PS
Did you like our Circus Pictures?
D & LL

Joesitz (RIP) · Mar 2, 2004

Kzarah (and Granny) - Wasn't it Veronica who wiped Jesus' face and his imprint was made in the cloth?

This would be the Shroud of Turin. But I think the shroud is in Paris and not in Torino. If it is still in Torino, then it will be a special tourist stop at the Olys.

Joe

kzarah · Mar 2, 2004

Joesitz
The Shroud of Turin and the Pius Vera Icona , (the Pius Veronica) are two different things. It was not St. Veronica that wiped Jesus face. Now the Shroud Turin is believe to not have been the bruial cloth for Jesus but is also believed to be the table cloth used at the Last Supper.
Daniel and Little Lulu

Antilles · Mar 2, 2004

I don't plan on seeing this film for two reasons. One, I'm not religious, and more importantly, I hate really violent movies. I don't care what it's portraying, I can do without violence.

There is one thing I don't get. When they show movie-goers on the news, so many of them have brought their rather young children with them. Aren't they afraid of scaring their children? Being afraid of Jesus probably isn't the angle they're going for. I saw Jesus of Nazareth whehn I was very young, and I still remember being freaked out by it. The resurrection is not a miracle to a five year old. It's a ghost story. Plus, how are little kids supposed to read the subtitles? Anyway, rant over.

Grgranny · Mar 2, 2004

There was another scene I didn't understand. Two women, one of them was Mary (mother) I think. They had cloths that they went and sopped up the blood on the street after they had taken Jesus from there to the hill.

I had always heard that the shroud was the burial garment. Don't they still call them that when they bury people? If I remember right, when they found what they thought was the shroud, it was supposed to have the shape of his body on it.
Of course, my memory is pretty much a thing of the past.

Antilles is so right about the children. No way should there be any children there and there were quite a few. I would even have trouble letting a teenager see it. One of the teenagers in our group of 100 was really sobbing on her mother's shoulder in the lobby after the movie. Don't think I would have ever let my youngest watch it. But then, she watches E R.

Danny, haven't had time to look at many of the pictures but enjoyed the ones I have seen. - Well, except for the "booby" girl.
:laugh:

The Passion of the Christ

BronzeisGolden

Grgranny

Da' Spellin' Homegirl

RealtorGal

JOHIO2

mike79

icenut84

Michibanana

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

mike79

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

Ptichka

Forum translator

bronxgirl

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

Grgranny

Da' Spellin' Homegirl

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

kzarah

Le Patineur et sa Petite Lulu

Joesitz (RIP)

kzarah

Le Patineur et sa Petite Lulu

Antilles

Grgranny

Da' Spellin' Homegirl

Similar threads

Connect with us