Go to Stalking The Beast
- Add a comment
- Go to Finally Watched Passion Of The Christ
Very illuminating, Xeno-x. I wouldn't worry too much about making people
mad at you. Forgiveness is divine, and all that. It doesn't take a supersleuth to get to the truth of the gospels, although it certainly can shake the faith of some. Given your details, the Gibson movie was fairly accurate, albeit blood-drenched.
posted by
saul_relative
on February 13, 2006 at 8:19 AM
| link to this | reply
mel wanted a level of disgust there
he thought people would understnad the suffering a la the "sacrifice of the son of god for our sins"
however
I would propose that the reailty was not all that gory (haven't seen the movie -- i'll take your word for the gore) --
there is enough evidence in the gospels to point to Jesus seeming a threat to the religious authorities (just like many of us would seem to be today because we can't believe in what gives the religiious authorities power) and particularly the priestly faction wanting to get rid of him -- (several reasons -- to keep Rome from coming down on them, Jesua a threat to their authority, all that) -- and you can see where they pressured Pilate (in case you're wondering, Pilate and Caiphus and Annas were on pretty good terms -- real cooperation there -- mutual benefits) for crucifixion when he didn't want it (he saw that they were jealous of him) -- and we see that Pilate was also friends with Joseph of Arimethea -- so we can conclude a few things here.
the trial at Caiphus' house was a "kangaroo court", with Jesus' supporters left out -- Pilate did not see any reason to crucify Jesus -- He had him flogged to try to satisfy them -- because he wanted to maintain that agreeable arrangement with the High Priest, he conceded to crucifixion.
only
He made the arrangements with Joseph of Arimethea -- have Jesus placed in the tomb (because of the Sabbath (annual high holy day) before sundown -- the Roman soldiers would not break his legs like they did the others, and Jesus would not remain on the tree for days decomposing as was the custom -- and he would be taken down very prematurely -- a spear in the right place and other trauma would bring him into a deathlike coma -- and he would be taken down alive and rushed to the tomb.
then Jesus would be spirited away to a prison where, as Paul said, he "preached to the souls that were in prison", and kept there and being cared for until he recovered.
Mark is good for the empty tomb scene -- a young man is found sitting on the ledge where the "body" had been placed. The young man says, "he's not here. He has gone before you into Galilee -- meet him there. No resurrection here- he's just gone from the tomb.
I think i've made a few people mad at me today in my various comments -- it's just that kind of a morning.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 13, 2006 at 6:53 AM
| link to this | reply
No, writersjourney, I would not watch it again and again. Hell, I won't
even watch it again. The images are indelibly etched into my mind, much like the life-and-death struggle between the German and American soldier in Spielberg's
Saving Private Ryan. It will never leave me, but unlike the terrible struggle between the two men, one to kill and the other to not be killed, I find the grim and blood-soaked
Passion much too much. And I agree about the pillar scene. I have children entering their teen years and I try to leaven their appetite for the popular crap with popular movies with a point, like
Coach Carter and
Friday Night Lights and
Good Will Hunting and
Finding Forrester and
Billy Elliott.
posted by
saul_relative
on February 6, 2006 at 9:25 AM
| link to this | reply
Is This the Kind of Film You Could Watch Over and Over Again?
Saul, I saw The Passion when it first came out just to humor a friend of mine who goes in for that kind of thing. Now, my idea of an inspirational movie (and I don't mean a sugary sweet one) is one that I could watch over and over again and still get something out of it and that would inspire my "better angels."
The movies Becket, with Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton; or A Man of All Seasons, with Robert Shaw and Orson Wells; or Kon Ichikawa's the Burmese Harp come to mind.
The bloodfest known as "The Passion," by Mel Gibson does not come to mind. Each Easter I can listen to, and read along with, Bach's "St. Matthew Passion" and be moved to tears. I would recommend Bach's musical tribute to the Gospel along with the movies above to children without reservation.
I can't say the same about Mel Gibson's flick. It would probably give them nightmares but I doubt that it would make an impression on them them beyond the grotesque. Also, I don't believe it is historically accurate because it overplayed the scourging at the pillar, for example. Anyone who lost that much blood, even if he were the Son of God, never would have survived long enough to be crucified.
Having seen the movie (twice) I tell people to listen to the Music if they want to enter into a state of reflection. A particularly good version is directed by Philippe Herreweghe on the harmonia mundi label.
posted by
writersjourney
on February 6, 2006 at 3:26 AM
| link to this | reply
You nailed it, Blanche (sorry, couldn't help myself).
You are absolutely correct in your assessment. Depth is what the movie screams for, as do most of the Jesus-as-protagonist movies. Coming across as someone with a Christ-complex when you are Jesus just doesn't quite reach the realism it needs to attain. And then there is that gory distraction throughout...
posted by
saul_relative
on January 25, 2006 at 9:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul Relative,
I was disappointed in the Passion as well. I thought it lacked depth, it was probably a fairly accurate historical reenactment of the events of the last 72 hours of the Christ's life, but I was hoping for more insight into him, that would make the whole experience profoundly meaningful. It was gory, but the goriness did nothing to enlighten me, even Mary's hand-wringing and sopping up his blood did nothing to bring me to a greater awareness.
That is the problem that I have with any of the period pieces about Jesus, he comes across as a stoned hippie spouting peace and love, but I get no sense of the profound inner conflicts he must have suffered as he fulfilled his personal mission. The Garden of Gethsemane must have been an excruciating moment of self-doubt, fear, and acceptance, but it just didn't translate. I was not impressed.
posted by
Blanche.
on January 24, 2006 at 9:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Go ahead, Nanaroo. It is definitely an eye-opener. Everyone should see
it. As a grueling period piece. As an historical piece, well, that depends on how much faith you have in books written a couple hundred years after Jesus' death.
posted by
saul_relative
on January 24, 2006 at 9:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Pat_B: With all the trouble Mel had getting the film made and distributed
(I recall that he spent millions of his own money on the project), I have no problem with him making money off of it. My problem comes with the religious angle, the implied guilt factor. There is little doubt that Mel Gibson is a zealot. What is exceeding frightening about the movie is the rave reviews by Christians and the repeat showings among the evangelicals. Hell, it's become the gospel according to Mel. I know people who've seen the movie a dozen times. And there are those against showing the last minutes of a condemned man on death row.
posted by
saul_relative
on January 24, 2006 at 9:21 PM
| link to this | reply
thanks for the review
... I have not been able to bring myself to watch it.
posted by
Nanaroo
on January 24, 2006 at 10:40 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm not a Mel fan...
And I'd heard it was a gory spectacle. I hate slasher movies. Appealing to the worst in human nature has long been a thing for movie makers and politicians, too, for that matter. I try to avoid those religious kooks who read every salacious detail of any story about rape, child rape, etc., and keep repeating and repeating the details, with "aint it awful" as a disclaimer to their own prurient interest. Yes, the crucifixion had to have been a horrendeous thing to see by those who witnessed it. The impact was part of the foundation of a new religion. But the movie calls into question the values of those who replicate and dramatize it to make millions of dollars at the box office.
posted by
Pat_B
on January 24, 2006 at 10:38 AM
| link to this | reply
As for people of Jesus' day finding his crucifixion gory and disgusting,
some may have, but crucifixion was a common method of execution at the time, so I have a problem believing that many would have had too much of a problem with it, especially if that person was someone they believe was guilty of blasphemy.
posted by
saul_relative
on January 18, 2006 at 9:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Nothing too perplexing, I hope, Maine-iac. I am familiar with the four
gospels according to John, Paul, George and Ringo and the teachings of the subsequent books of the new testament. Dying for my sins is the part I don't believe. Oh, and the entire 'son of god' bit. Don't get me wrong; I don't have a problem believing in Jesus' existence, just his divine lineage. All a bit of a reach for me. What annoys me most is the overwhelming reliance upon guilt for Christianity to work.
posted by
saul_relative
on January 18, 2006 at 8:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Hi, saul_relative
I found your post interesting and perplexing.
I think we would agree that the crucifixion of Christ was not a pleasant scene. If the crucifixion of Christ is disturbing and unsettling to us today what must it have been like for those who observed it?
As for the "guilt" factor, that is exactly the message we are to extract from the crucifixion of Christ. All humanity ( you and I included) was the reason that Christ suffered the crucifixion. He did for our sins. Romans 5:8 Praise God!
posted by
Maine-iacPreacher
on January 18, 2006 at 7:58 AM
| link to this | reply