The Passion of the Christ

[C Roberts]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of "The Passion of the Christ."

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.


I'm going to try something unusual and give a link to the Now Playing thread for this movie as there is certainly some good discussion going on there as well. And from what I've read this is prime film discussion material.
The Passion of the Christ - Official thread

[LeCercleRouge]

What is the meaning of the flashback of Jesus building a perfect table? Is it a parable or a stab at Scorsese? In Gibson's film Jesus makes a table signifying the Kingdom of Heaven and Jesus talks about the need for tall chairs. Mary says something like "I don't think this idea will take." Scorsese, in his movie, had a scene of ironic foreshadowing where Jesus builds a cross for the Romans.




A good film analysis on the Passion can be found at http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=277_0_2_0_M

Remember that old bumper sticker that said, “What if they held a war and nobody came?” Here’s a new one: What if the messiah came and nobody wanted him? This is the story playing now at your local multiplex.

More insights on:

The Baby of Death and the fallacy of icons.


The raven plucking out the eyes of the crucified thief.



http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=277_0_2_0_M

[PALMERLIME]

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

What is the meaning of the flashback of Jesus building a perfect table? Is it a parable or a stab at Scorsese? In Gibson's film Jesus makes a table signifying the Kingdom of Heaven and Jesus talks about the need for tall chairs. Mary says something like "I don't think this idea will take." Scorsese, in his movie, had a scene of ironic foreshadowing where Jesus builds a cross for the Romans.

I just took it as an attempted joke nodding to that big ol' table from "The Last Supper" painting. He even quasi-aped on "the pose" for a moment. I'm sure some symbolic meaning could be obtained from this scene, but I have a feeling it was just an out of place joke.

[LeCercleRouge]

Gibson’s movie, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, presents Christianity in its entirety by capturing the enormity of the sacrifice. As you watch the film you feel as if you are a questioner of the Christ and a participant of the trial and execution, and the viewer is left to wonder: “If I were alive at the time, would I have been Judas? Caiaphas? Simon? Or the mother? Pilate, perhaps?”

The Passion is not based on the Gospels, it is the Gospels.

The Passion contains just as much characterization of the Christ as the New Testament testifies.
The Passion contain as much blood-shed, pain and agony as the Gospels relate. But the film doesn’t go far enough. The book of Isaiah (specifically Isaiah 53) is 77 times as painful, agonizing, and bloody as the Passion movie depicts, [Isaiah was written 800 years before Christ and prophesized his suffering and passion]

Those who have never read the New Testament complain that Gibson’s film is without context and omits the teachings of the Christ. This could not be further form the Truth! Christ’s teachings on peace were to soften the hearts of his followers for the coming Kingdom that would descend from Heaven. He spoke frankly to his disciples and entirely in parables to his followers about his coming sacrifice. But his Message was indistinguishable from the Medium. That is to say that Christ Crucified is the Teaching. Christ Crucified is the Message. Christ Crucified is the Good News. Christ Crucified is the Stumbling Block. Christ Crucified is the Way. Christ Crucified is the Purpose.

The reason why Gibson literally flays the flesh off of the Christ is to reveal the Truth of the Son of Man. That Jesus, the Lamb of God, was not human, but Divine, he was so Devine that he could survive with his Blood spilled and with his Flesh flayed from his bones. He shed his Blood and Flesh so that sin and Flesh would die; and through his sacrifice Man would once again have control over his facilities and talents.

For those who wonder why Christians cry themselves senseless as they watch Gibson's movie it is because we believe that our salvation will come only by dying in Christ and being redeemed through His Father’s Forgiveness and Grace.

Gibson’s film attempts to show that the Christ had but one purpose, that he came clothed in Flesh so that he could shed his Flesh and vanquish the Sin residing in the Flesh. Christ came and suffered so that Man might relate to the Medium of the Message (or the Message of the Medium.

[LeCercleRouge]

The Passion of the Christ is (or was envisioned) as a silent film. It certainly follows the story of Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) and Gibson seems to be obsessed with the imagery of Christensen's Haxan (1922). The only difference being that Gibson replaced Christensen's demonic imagery with pornographic portrayals of violence.


Agree or Disagree? Should the Passion have inter-titles instead of subtitles?

Is Gibson taking these classic films a step further in his Passion of the Christ? Is Gibson's shocking use of violence similar to Christensen's use of torture in Haxan? Is Gibson's film similar to the films of the masters of the silent era. Is Gibson trying to show that the Elders tortured the Christ in an attempt to get him to recant his claims of divinity... That the Elders abused and savaged Christ in such a way (thankfully unsuccessfully) as to force Christ to renounce his divinity, yet in the end no amount of pain could force Christ to renounce his LOVE for mankind. I mean, in Gibson's film, it is the Elders who grow tired of the torture and walk off, while Christ stands up and asks for more scourging.

Just typing out loud.


On the excessive use of violence
But didn’t Dreyer’s imagery of Joan burning at the stake spark controversy? Is immolation and demonic possession any more objectionable than violence? Why do critics hail these silent films as masterpieces but attack Gibson’s movie as meaningless, pornographic, sadomasochistic, homo-erotic, and devoid of spiritual revelation?

[PALMERLIME]

Originally Posted by LeCircleRouge

Why do critics hail these silent films as masterpieces but attack Gibson’s movie as meaningless, pornographic, sadomasochistic, homo-erotic, and devoid of spiritual revelation?

I think the answers simple... the passage of time. Mel's flick is still pretty damn new. SO new in fact, that it made a few thousand as I just typed that sentence. Not only is it new, it "controversial" so everyone and their movie-reviewing brother has to put in their own 212 cents. As we all know, controversy mixed with popularity brings contrary positions. It's human nature. Even The Passion of Joan of Arc was heavily, and I mean heavily, attacked in it's day. The years pressed on, and as this happened it became easier to view this films as "art." It's an age thing. I fall prey to it myself. Would I ever dare proclaim anything with the name "Mel Gibson" to be a work of anything but a calculated box office draw? No. But take "me" and place "me" 50 years from now and see what I would say then. Even though I am fairly certain of my opinions in the here and now, I am well aware they are still created due to my environment. Whoever says otherwise is blind. Time changes perception.

That, and the fact we have waaaay more media outlets than in the days of silent film. TV, 24 hour new channels, internet, DVD themed message boards etc etc. With all of those outlets for opinions, the hard boiled contrary position thrives.

[elwood731]

Regarding the table, note that during the scourging scene one of the Romans sits in a chair at a small table, just like the one Jesus built. I don't think it is the same table, but realize it too late to check. Anyway, Mary tells him earlier that it will nto catch on and then he and she see that it does. So I found some irony in that aspect.

[Marq]

I saw this a couple weeks ago on the same day I saw The Dreamers. With that movie, I came aways pleasantly suprised by how much I enjoyed it, but with The Passion, I came away disappointed by it after thinking this would finally be the film to put Gibson in my good books.
I think far too much is made out of people only being able to get something out of this film if they are very familiar with the story, or are religious people themselves. I really don't think it makes a difference. Nor do I feel the filmmaker's religious bias is anything worth considering, as it's mostly a straight adaptation of that portion of the text (not that I'm anything near an expert on it, only so much as what a pretty standard Catholic upbringing would provide), so that can't really be held against him.

Instead, I just felt it didn't really work as a film. The story is already there, and it's a dramatic one of unparalleled sacrifice, so by not providing any context or backstory to the events and characters, it both alienates viewers who are unfamiliar with the tale and especially those who DO know some backstory but are presented with only the single chapter, making it far less effective than it could have been. Also, by rushing through the resurrection parts of the story, it was made all the more clear that little effort was made to make this story about more than just the most brutal part of the detailed story.

I'm not saying it would have been impossible to make a movie that ONLY portrays the final hours of his life, but this certainly wasn't it. The film is indeed brutal, and probably appropriately so. I had no problems with the intesity of the violence, as it really defined the impact of it all to the filmmakers (though I too am not sure why he felt it necessary to throw in extra "shocks" like the upside-down cross and shoulder dislocating instead of perhaps fully showing the full mess and intensity of the actually nailing to the cross). I also had problems with the mentioned style aspects. I'm usually a sucker for style, but I guess I only like it when it's appropriate. I saw no need for slow-mo, obvious CGI and other instances.

I actually liked the idea of the Satan character roaming through the proceedings and mocking, but he/she didn't seem to belong in this movie. If Gibson had chose to make a film that was moreso gounded in surrealism, it could have worked much better, but here Satan seems like nothing more than a tacky add-on to cause even more dread for the audience. Satan's end-scene from hell was especially pointless I found and didn't have nearly the amount of "hah, he got his!" effect it was reaching for.

All in all, I was impressed that Gibson was capable of following through on what was obviously a very important and vital story for him to tell (and to get it out to others). However, even though he was obviously successful in telling this vital story on his own merits, I didn't happen to agree with it's presentation much. I thought the violence was indeed important and necessary, but the fashion in which it was told was greatly disappointing, both in his choice to rely on some pointless cinematic flourishes and unfortunately choosing to not provide any prior context and an appropriate conslusion that are already well formed in the text it's based on. A definite disappointment. One that I feel will be unfortunately regarded as a great film of the times and through cinematic history simply because of the story it is based on, when I find it to be severely lacking through it's obvious shortcomings.

[LeCercleRouge]

….by not providing any context or back-story to the events and characters, it both alienates…
….choosing to not provide any prior context…

Marq, what back-story or prior context are you talking about? The Gospels, with the exception of one brief passage in Luke, give no back story other than Christ was born in Nazareth. And by prior context are you talking about Isaiah? Well, Isaiah was written 700 years before Christ. I hate to break it to you but the New Testament gospels are religious teachings, and not great works of literature. If you want back-story, intrigue, romance, and revolution read Tolstoy or watch a David Lean movie. Yeah, Gibson could have included John the Baptist paving the way for “one greater than me who will baptize the world in fire” and Gibson could have included Christ at age 12 spending time in his Fathers house (Luke) or casting out demons are pissing off the Sadducees. But there was no need to, because the Passion is the story, it is the teaching, it is the way, it is the message, it is the medium. Everything that came before was *less* of the same, The Passion is not just the best part, it is the only part. In the last 12 hours of His life he pissed of the Sadducees, suffered the most excruciating torture by death, forgave the entire world and He made all things new. And you don’t like the movie because Gibson doesn’t go out of his way to guide you step by step through the New Testament nor does he differentiate Mary from Mary called Magdalene. So you don’t know that John is John. What does it matter if you know his name or not? The point is not what was John like, but how could John watch his Rabbi being crucified over 12 hours yet hold no hatred against the aggressors.


You and others can cry that Gibson left out the spiritualism and the teachings of Christ, but the truth is that all of Christ’s teachings were directed at his dull disciples. You're basically admitting that your heart is hard and that you are duller (spiritually) than Peter. Do you take pride in saying that you didn't give a damn that Christ was tortured so badly that God had to look away? "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" I mean, did you even cry or feel badly for Christ? When you watched the Romans sadistically torture Christ did you not realize that YOU sadistically mistreat god's grace and commit worse sins on a daily basis?

[Marq]

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

Marq, what back-story or prior context are you talking about? The Gospels, with the exception of one brief passage in Luke, give no back story other than Christ was born in Nazareth. And by prior context are you talking about Isaiah? Well, Isaiah was written 700 years before Christ.

As you allude to later, I was mostly referring to providing some background on who this "Jesus" character was. Though, you say it would be only series teachings to dull disciples, I would not have minded some presentation of him as a teacher, performer of miracles, and watching him amass some followers. As I mentioned, I am far from a religious scholar, so it would be safe to assume I was not referring to any specific passages from the Gospels or Isaiah.

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

And you don’t like the movie because Gibson doesn’t go out of his way to guide you step by step through the New Testament nor does he differentiate Mary from Mary called Magdalene. So you don’t know that John is John. What does it matter if you know his name or not? The point is not what was John like, but how could John watch his Rabbi being crucified over 12 hours yet hold no hatred against the aggressors.

I most certainly was not referring to being guided through the entire New Testament. You're putting words in mouth. I was able to differentiate the characters fine (Mary[s]; John; Judas; etc). If I wanted it to be as simplistic as possible and to be spoon-fed I would have complained about the spoken languages/ subtitles (I actually thought those were a wise choice). Sorry for being so vague.

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

You're basically admitting that your heart is hard and that you are duller (spiritually) than Peter. Do you take pride in saying that you didn't give a damn that Christ was tortured so badly that God had to look away?

You're putting words in my mouth here again. Nowhere am I saying that my hart is hard and lack spirituality. You may think or infer that my heart is hard for not admiring the film and its telling of the story and that I lack spirituality, but perhaps I simply did not find this movie to be especially effective. If you interpret that as my "not giving a damn that Christ was tortured", that's fine. I don't think my religious beliefs are absolutely necessary to disclose when commenting in a "Film Discussion" forum, but if it makes you feel better to assume my spiritual stance, so be it, but I won't be baited here. If you'd like to go that route in another area, that's fine (though I'm not sure how into it I'd be, as I'm nearly as impassioned/ religious person as you, nor do I think emotions could be tamed very well by all members posting), but I thought I'd be interesting to focus solely on the film itself (such as your great comparissons with The Passion of Joan of Arc).

I'd say you should lay off the not-so-vague insults, Rouge. I like you a lot, but assuming what I do and don't give a damn over simply based on my reaction to a film is pressuming a lot.

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

I mean, did you even cry or feel badly for Christ?

If the film was more effective (for me) in telling the story, perhaps I would have cried. I did of course feel badly for him as it's a horrifying story, but I wasn't brought to tears in this case.

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

When you watched the Romans sadistically torture Christ did you not realize that YOU sadistically mistreat god's grace and commit worse sins on a daily basis?

I'm thinking you're taking my distain for the film a little too seriously. Your interjecting your obviously passionate religious beliefs (which are completely fine for you or others to have) by telling me how I should feel when watching a filmic adaptation of scripture is pressuming far to much about me again. To suggest I MUST feel that I "sadistically mistreat god's grace and commit worse sins on a daily basis" (or any other way) when seeing the movie not only assumes my spiritual foundations are identical to yours and the filmmakers, but also fails to realize, as I'd been arguing, that I obviously have failed to find the film effective on most levels, and would not nearly be so overwhelmed by my own sadistical sinning ways (were I to have that belief system myself [which again, your are pressuming]), if I don't think it's good filmmaking.

[LeCercleRouge]

some pointless cinematic flourishes….I saw no need for slow-mo, obvious CGI and other instances.

Slow-mo. The Passion of the Christ is a war film. The battles are spiritual and ideological. The first battle is the battle of Gethsemane--a battle of betrayal and denial. Then the battle of pain, suffering, and humiliation. Then the final battle of forgiveness, resolution, and reconciliation. The use of slow motion is pure genius. If Gibson had played the battle of Gethsemane in real time it would have been a two-minute scene of violence. If Gibson had filmed it in a Hollywood type of way you would have said to yourself “how trivial and boring, way to go Gibson for giving us yet another clichéd knife fight!” I mean, would you have preferred that Peter drop his knife and the Centurion and Disciple roll around on the ground for ten minutes with the knife sliding between legs and being lost in the olive groves? As Gibson filmed it, you don’t recognize violence, (your not supposed to see violence) instead you are given time to ask yourself why this man is sought among all men, why, when he was previously troubled to the point of death, does he now calmly identify himself and go peacefully with the guards and command “those who live by the sword die by the sword.”

During the battle of the flesh, you don’t see violence, but hatred and sadism. You see men vainly trying to persuade the Son of Man from forgiving the world.

During the battle of reconciliation you see….well, you get the point.


Obvious CGI. THE TEAR DROP. Well, how would YOU have portrayed the Holy Spirit descending to earth and baptizing the whole fucking world and tearing the temple curtain from top to bottom? Again, pure genius on the part of Gibson. It is so simple, yet it is so true. A single tear to reconcile mankind with God.

Obvious CGI. THE DEMON CHILDREN Demons and spirits were rampant in the New Testament.

Obvious CGI. SATAN SCREAMING IN HELL

Well, sorry Satan was portrayed as the insignificant choir director he is. I mean, Satan, indeed, has *less* power and authority than Darth Maul. That Satan is all alone in hell without a single soul singing praise for him is ironic.

[Marq]

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

Slow-mo. The Passion of the Christ is a war film. The battles are spiritual and ideological. The first battle is the battle of Gethsemane--a battle of betrayal and denial. Then the battle of pain, suffering, and humiliation. Then the final battle of forgiveness, resolution, and reconciliation. The use of slow motion is pure genius. If Gibson had played the battle of Gethsemane in real time it would have been a two-minute scene of violence.

I'm glad it worked for you, and I wish it did for me. But it didn't. It took me right out of the story.

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

If Gibson had filmed it in a Hollywood type of way you would have said to yourself “how trivial and boring, way to go Gibson for giving us yet another clichéd knife fight!”

I suppose I'll never know how I would have felt, but I'd hope I'd be more captivated by the scene. Another trivial use of slo-mo, and an admittedly short scene, was the throwing of the coins.

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

I mean, would you have preferred that Peter drop his knife and the Centurion and Disciple roll around on the ground for ten minutes with the knife sliding between legs and being lost in the olive groves?

Yes, that is exactly what I'd prefer. I'm being sarcastic. I'm not sure what the best methods would be to change the feel of the scene and its impact on me, but needless to say I didn't like it as it was. However, I would probably be in a minority, as most do appreciate the scene, and the film as a whole, more than I do. Different tastes elicit different emotions, etc etc ad nauseum.

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

As Gibson filmed it, you don’t recognize violence, (your not supposed to see violence) instead you are given time to ask yourself why this man is sought among all men, why, when he was previously troubled to the point of death, does he now calmly identify himself and go peacefully with the guards and command “those who live by the sword die by the sword.”

I did think that actually. So I suppose he was effective in providing me/ the audience a good understanding of the situation, but at the same time I felt removed from the moment due to his camera movements and other cinematic choices.

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

Obvious CGI. THE TEAR DROP. Well, how would YOU have portrayed the Holy Spirit descending to earth and baptizing the whole fucking world and tearing the temple curtain from top to bottom? Again, pure genius on the part of Gibson. It is so simple, yet it is so true. A single tear to reconcile mankind with God.

I didn't have too much of a problem with this scene (hell, I love the [much more effectively done to me] God-looking-down scene in Breaking the Waves).

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

Obvious CGI. THE DEMON CHILDREN Demons and spirits were rampant in the New Testament.

I realize this. I felt his use of them for shock value and heavy-handed reminders were ineffective.... to me.

We're obviously on very different pages regarding this film, so I'm not sure how much more "convincing" is needed on either side...

[LeCercleRouge]

Sorry for being an ass and putting words in your mouth Marq. I was preaching at your expense and taking you out of context and imprinting a whole bunch of heavy shit on you when I don’t even know you.


When I first read your original review, it sounded somewhat similar to comments I’ve heard from other people like “I just didn’t feel anything… it was no big deal…it wasn’t that graphic of a crucifixion. I didn’t really feel bad for the guy; I mean there are worse things than a scourging.” That coupled with your praise, admiration and admission of how you had a strong emotional response to an NC-17 story of three-way sex but felt nothing while watching the crucifixion, scourging, and humiliation of Christ just sent me over the edge. I’m rash. I wasn’t attacking you, but trying to be blunt, so that you might hear. I mean I just don’t understand how a great many number of people can care more about camera movements than analyzing the concepts of Truth, mans hatred for mankind, and forgiveness.




Christ had only one teaching. The Passion of the Christ shows Christ also giving only one teaching, in an ingenious way. In the movie, when Christ is taken to Golgotha there is a flashback to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, were Jesus says: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength. Equally important: Love your enemies as you love yourself. For if you love only those who love you, what reward is there in that?

Performer of miracles: Jesus gave up on miracles, and he stopped using them after Lazarus because they were counter productive and the people weren’t thankful or believing. Why should Gibson waste your time showing Jesus curing dry skin and giving sight to the blind when His most important act of Sacrifice is all that matters?

Amass some followers: Again, Gibson has in his film a powerful scene of Jesus entering Jerusalem on the back of an ass as thousands bow and greet him with palm leaves. Gibson juxtaposes these images with the 1,000 meter marathon. But why would Gibson waste time with showing Jesus amassing followers and giving sermons on mustard seeds and harvests when the betrayals and denials are infinitely more impacting. What is important is that His Disciples abandoned Him, yet he died for not only his Disciples but for many.

Throwing the 30 silver coins. The reason why Gibson shot this in slow motion is because it fulfills a 700 year-old prophecy of the pauper’ s field. It has great significance, especially to Jews.

[Marq]

I appreciate that last post, Rouge. Thanks for explaining your motives. Just as I hope you have no severe problem with my reaction to the film (I can see how it would seem confounding to you), I certainly have no problem with your enthusiasm and devotion to it and the teachings it presents.
We are all passionate about different things and I admire your intensity and passion in this area, I just didn't like it being forced upon me or having things assumed about me. Believe me, I hear you. Your rashness and bluntness certainly work in getting your opinions across, but I'll be maintating my stance as is. I'll probably watch it again when it comes to DVD, though.

Note: I liked the very brief scene of Jesus entering on the ass among the palms. I'm not sure why, but it was very simple and did a nice job of showing that arrival. Perhaps it's part of the reason why I craved more similar references. I also appreciated the referrence to the Sermon, not because I felt I needed to be hand-held through the story or that I needed to be hit over the head with the significance of this man or his teachings, but rather it humanized the story and made the brutality even more relentless.

Hopefully some more folks will join this discussion...

[Templar]

As I said before, strictly from a technical and historical standpoint, the Romans would not have beaten a condemend man as badly as depicted in the film. The Roman who whipped Jesus from behind on the walk to Golgotha was not there to beat Jesus so bad that he fell down...he was there to make sure Jesus walked expeditiously to his execution...as you can imagine most people would drag their feet on that trip. By whipping him and knocking him down it kind of defeats the purpose of his job...which is to make sure the execution goes off before they all die of old age. I mean it's mid-spring in the Mid-East...it's fucking hot outside.

As I mentioned in the other thread there's the discrepancy in the languages used by some Romans, which I thought would have made almost no difference to the average movie-goer...but if you're going to do it in an ancient language you should get it right...the Latin pronounciation was also ecclesiastical and not classical...which is another very minor mistake.

I don't know much behind the story of the movie, but I thought the table building scene was inserted to give Jesus a personality outside of the gospel story. Almost like George Carlin in Dogma said "...he was a booster" not dreary and prophesizing and spending his time being all preachy. I liked that addition. Although I felt that it takes away from the "veracity" of the direct porting of the story into film, I thought it was an appropriate addition to make. I really didn't read as much into it as LeCercleRouge did, but I'm really not in a position to say. I think the whole movie was devoted to "Jesus as Savior" and that 4 mins was "Jesus as Man" (which, to Catholics, he was).

[LeCercleRouge]

Anti-Semitism. First off, what is a Semite? A Semitic race is anyone in the Middle East who speaks (or spoke) Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew or Arabic. How in Hell could Gibson’s film be against all of these diverse races and ethnicities? But for the sake of this argument let us re-define Anti-Semitism in a post-holocaust vernacular as being or espousing violence or intolerance solely against Jews. The Passion of the Christ is not ‘virulently anti-Semitic” because it portrays not a single Disciple as holding anger, hatred, or intolerant views against his*fellow* Jews, nor does it encourage, portray, or espouse the use of violence against Jews. There is plenty of violence in the film directed against the Christ, but the violence does not achieve the political ends of the Elders, but instead the violence strengthens the sole teaching of the Christ, which is to love your enemies. Further more, those who do harbor anti-Jewish sentiments will not be able to use the Passion as propaganda because…

A) No Moslems are in the movie,
B) No Palestine either
C) No revenge killings or suicide bombings
D) No disciples scream for vengeance or blood
E) Jesus says to love your enemies
F) Jesus doesn’t stay dead
G) The Passion is a movie of Christian faith
H) God forgives everyone at the end



Will the Passion of the Christ open in the following countries, and if so, what will be the response?


[Will not be released]

China
North Korea (although The Diary of Ann Frank is used to indoctrinate Anti-Semitism and propagandize the schoolchildren into believing that all Jews are cowards so I guess it’s possible the Passion could be released here in a heavily altered and edited form, including new fotage of John donning a suicide vest and blowing Caiaphas up)


[limited release]
Russia
France
Germany
Poland
India
Jordan
Egypt

[Will be released]
All of South America and parts of Africa



[Wide Release]
Cuba
Japan
South Korea


[Anyone caught seeing or distributing the Passion in the following countries will be put to death]

Iran
Pakistan
Syria
The Occupied Territory of Palestine

[Steps]

Class Act!

I'm not talking about the movie (which I haven't seen - yet), but about Marq and LeCercle. Various forums have differences of opinion that evolve into a ridiculous level of flaming. Both of you, in a few posts, worked through your differences admirably!

[LeCercleRouge]

I was being really stubborn and had gone a few days without exercising. I see now what many of you (and others elsewhere) are saying. Sorry for going ape-shit and lobbing grenades.

Gibson’s movie is just a film. It is perfectly acceptable to judge it as a film. I perceive the film as ingeniously using slow motion so as to allow one to contemplate, pray and reflect; others simply find the use of slow-motion to be distracting and unnecessary. I mean, who wants to be reminded of the Matrix or Charlie’s Angels while watching a movie about Christ?

The Passion is also a unique film. Some see the film as an overly somber and dire statement of faith that is myopic and selective. Some see the film in a non-religious context but find the film to be meaningful because of its contemplative (or singular) examination of human intolerance, indifference and closed-mindedness. Others view the film as an evangelical tool that is beyond reproach or criticism. At least one NY critic thinks that Mel Gibson made an NC-17 porno with spurting bodily fluids, orgasmic contortions and pounding music that reminds one of hard-core grinding.

It is not a perfect film. Even devout Christians can have a cool reception to the film. I mean, I personally would rather read Luke than watch the Passion for a third time. Gibson left out several important emotions from the Passion. He left out joy, jubilation, celebration, euphoria, and elation. I can see how this would alienate many.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by LeCercleRouge

Anti-Semitism. First off, what is a Semite? A Semitic race is anyone in the Middle East who speaks (or spoke) Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew or Arabic. How in Hell could Gibson’s film be against all of these diverse races and ethnicities? But for the sake of this argument let us re-define Anti-Semitism in a post-holocaust vernacular as being or espousing violence or intolerance solely against Jews. The Passion of the Christ is not ‘virulently anti-Semitic” because it portrays not a single Disciple as holding anger, hatred, or intolerant views against his*fellow* Jews, nor does it encourage, portray, or espouse the use of violence against Jews. There is plenty of violence in the film directed against the Christ, but the violence does not achieve the political ends of the Elders, but instead the violence strengthens the sole teaching of the Christ, which is to love your enemies. Further more, those who do harbor anti-Jewish sentiments will not be able to use the Passion as propaganda because…

A) No Moslems are in the movie,
B) No Palestine either
C) No revenge killings or suicide bombings
D) No disciples scream for vengeance or blood
E) Jesus says to love your enemies
F) Jesus doesn’t stay dead
G) The Passion is a movie of Christian faith
H) God forgives everyone at the end

Well, I think it's a little simplistic to dismiss anti-semitism on these grounds if only because historically almost every major Christian religion has (at one time or another) blamed Jews for killing Jesus, and really Hitler is only the latest installment of a widespread intolerance and general hatred of Jews that stretches back into prehistory.

I don't want to bust out the technicalities, but "Semitic" really refers to the "other" western family of languages (Proto-Indo European being the main family), it also relates to the speakers of those languages, Arabic, Hebrew, are the big ones, Aramaic is sort of a dilaect of Hebrew and there are some other ancient ones I know of (Phoneican, maybe?) However, the word "anti-Semitic" specifically refers to a prejudice against Jews.

All that having been said I agree with your overarching point, that the movie is not anti-semitic. Everyone in the movie except for the Romans are Jewish...including Jesus. In addition to this in the text of the Gospels (I don't have the reference, perhaps you can help me out LeCercleRouge) and in the movie there is a depiction of at least a few of the priests who step forward and say that the whole group of people who brought Jesus in are mad for doing it...etc. Although these people are in the minority it's an important detail...it's not:

The Jews killed Jesus.

Properly:

Evil People Who Happened to be Jewish Killed Jesus.

It's an important distinction to make. These Jewish leaders were bad people...bore out by the fact that not too long after Jesus was crucified they managed to piss off the Romans so bad that the Romans scattered them away from Israel for almost 2000 years.

[LeCercleRouge]

it's not:

The Jews killed Jesus.

Properly:

Evil People Who Happened to be Jewish Killed Jesus.

Yes. Or, even if the Jews did kill Jesus it’s a moot point because He didn’t stay dead. It would be silly to hold a grudge against Jews for *unsuccessfully* killing a Rabbi who taught his disciples: “love your enemies as you love yourself for you will be rewarded in heaven by my Father”

Further, the Sheiks, Imams and Ayatollahs in the Middle East are more afraid of this movie than the Rabbis in Israel. Most if not all Middle Eastern Moslem leaders will dismiss The Passion as a Zionist propaganda film (In that it shows the Jews living in the Middle East under the heel of Roman authority centuries before the Palestinians invaded)

(I don't have the reference, perhaps you can help me out LeCercleRouge)

Um, in the movie Caiaphas has Jesus arrested in the dead of night without calling a full assembly of all the Elders, and then when two or three Elders say that the witnesses against Christ contradict themselves they are promptly thrown out on the street. This is done almost verbatim in the movie. In fact, looking at the source material it appears that Gibson added the part of the minority Elders calling shenanigans and being thrown out. Maybe the King James or Msg. translations are slightly different, but i'm too lazy to check.


To be honest I use this hyperlink as much as my NIV student bible.
Matthew 26: 59-67

59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for
false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to
death.


60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came
forward. Finally two came forward


61 and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the
temple of God and rebuild it in three days.'"

62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not
going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are
bringing against you?"

63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I
charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the
Christ, the Son of God."

64 Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In
the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand
of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken
blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now
you have heard the blasphemy.

66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered.

67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists.
Others slapped him


Mark 14: 53-65:

They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together.

Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.
The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any.
Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.
Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him:
"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.'"

Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?"

But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked.

"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death.

Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him.



Luke focuses more on Peter during the first arrest



And John 18 has this to say:

Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him

and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.

Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.

Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest's courtyard,

but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in.

"You are not one of his disciples, are you?" the girl at the door asked Peter. He replied, "I am not."

It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.

Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.

"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."

When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded.

"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"
Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.