The Passion

[evanovitch]

Re: The Passion

Originally posted by neutral:
[qb]

Originally posted by evanovitch:


if anyone doubts that somewhere , somehow, Mel Gibson has not been given some insight in some way, then they need to reexamine their interpretation of judging....

[/qb]

woa!!!pull up a second,people!! its a movieeee!!!
a film!..mel gibson directed the film,and kudos to him,he did quite a prolonged researc before embarking on such a sensitive topic.

but lets dispense with the emotional clap-trap,and the drama for a second,if you go into the cinema as a non-believer,you are going to come out as a non-believer....and if you go in as a believer,then you are only likely to come out feeling more entrenched in your beliefs.
the truth of the matter is,...the nature of film making presently, means that film makers can convey whatever message they set out to convey,and mel gibson made the film from the point of view as a believer.
there`s absolutely nothing made on celluloid that can possible convince me otherwise from a view point that I previously held.
if believers want to believe that jesus died for them,then feel free to believe,..just dont tell me that he "died for all of us"...duh!!!!!he didnt,he died because the romans saw him as an agitator,rightly or wrongly,...but they killed him,to prevent unrest.
he didnt die for me ,his death thousands of years ago,has absolutely no bearing,or importance on my life,anymore than the death of che` guevara,or mary queen of scots has on my existence.
mel gibson has managed to depict,..through special effects, a decent version of a man being thoroughly flaggelated,a very good piece of cinematic special effect even by today`s standards,....lets not start our own self-flaggelation by our emotional outbursts about what is simply an average piece of cinematic special effects. [/QB]

i keep forgetting that one has to be specific when posting as one's thought process and the flow of the thought is not conveyed via cyber space...

the direction, cinematography, editing, etc show inspiration...the effort to engage the viewer in an empathetic as opposed to just a sympathetic view is inspiring....many make movies but few are able to carry them without a lot of dialogue, sound effects, etc....while it is obvious that special effects were used to bring out the brutality of the acts done to the Lord, the nuances of the direction etc are brilliant...

e.g. satan is depicted in the Garden during Jesus' inner turmoil

...the decision to make the depiction as androgynous is brilliant

....when Jesus capitulates to God's will, the decision to have a serpent slither out and then have Jesus crush it beneath his heel is brilliant....it made me think back to the garden and what happened there...the statements made after the Fall re the serpent, the coming Seed......

...having satan moving at will among the throng is brilliant.....

the juxtaposition say of Jesus preaching His sermon on the mount, with His cross on Calvary, the difference in the scenes is so telling....two summits, same person, different human reactions ....

similarly when He has been whipped until He finally falls and then we r juxtaposed to His falling as a child and Mary comforting Him....i could feel the loneliness and the inability of any consolation ...

when He finally dies and the shift to the sky and the element of pathetic fallacy....we know that it stormed as told in the Bible, but the decision to have just one, solitary drop of water fall brought to mind a tear of sorrow ....the sorrow of the Father for His Son...

i make no apologies for what i appreciate in the depiction....these r just a few of what i see to be brilliant insight on the part of a director...

i reiterate that this is an insightful production which says a lot about the person who was able to bring this about and have, if it is even me, myself and I , appreciate these nuances...

and may i add that all the uproar about it being farfetched in the depiction of the violence, well in recent times, police have done what they have been captured time and time on video brutalising suspects...plungers, flashlights, truncheons come to mind...and they r twentieth century men.

..soldiers posted to the region in the time of Jesus, regarded such a posting as a punishment...it was the cesspool of postings

...if modern day police can take out whatever frustrations they have on a suspect , why is it so hard to see men of that era doing the same thing....abuse of power is just one of the traits carried throughout the ages....

[neutral]

Re: The Passion

the film is nothing but sado-masochism disguised as religion,and panders to only those who previously believed in a non existent diety.
it throws up more questions than it answered,there is nothing in the film that actually throws any light on exactly *why* all this is happening.
the film is blatantly anti-semitic,but offers no insight as to why the jews are so blood thirstily worked up for jesus`s demise.
but at the end of the day,it is still a film and those people are all actors ,so lets get things into perspective...it would be foolish to accept the thing as realism .
mel gibson obviously made the film with sincerity,and no doubt christians will come away feeling as if they have had some kind of religious enlightenment,....but if my kid came away from a superman film and started copying his moves,I would have to sit the kid down and have a serious talk.
lets get back to reality folks.

[Guest]

Re: The Passion

Originally posted by neutral:
[qb] the film is nothing but sado-masochism disguised as religion,and panders to only those who previously believed in a non existent diety.
it throws up more questions than it answered,there is nothing in the film that actually throws any light on exactly *why* all this is happening.
the film is blatantly anti-semitic,but offers no insight as to why the jews are so blood thirstily worked up for jesus`s demise.
but at the end of the day,it is still a film and those people are all actors ,so lets get things into perspective...it would be foolish to accept the thing as realism .
mel gibson obviously made the film with sincerity,and no doubt christians will come away feeling as if they have had some kind of religious enlightenment,....but if my kid came away from a superman film and started copying his moves,I would have to sit the kid down and have a serious talk.
lets get back to reality folks. [/qb]

neut. did you go to see the movie love?

[neutral]

Re: The Passion

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by neutral:
[qb] the film is nothing but sado-masochism disguised as religion,and panders to only those who previously believed in a non existent diety.
it throws up more questions than it answered,there is nothing in the film that actually throws any light on exactly *why* all this is happening.
the film is blatantly anti-semitic,but offers no insight as to why the jews are so blood thirstily worked up for jesus`s demise.
but at the end of the day,it is still a film and those people are all actors ,so lets get things into perspective...it would be foolish to accept the thing as realism .
mel gibson obviously made the film with sincerity,and no doubt christians will come away feeling as if they have had some kind of religious enlightenment,....but if my kid came away from a superman film and started copying his moves,I would have to sit the kid down and have a serious talk.
lets get back to reality folks. [/qb]

neut. did you go to see the movie love? [/qb]

yes love.

[Queen]

Re: The Passion

.

[Guest]

Re: The Passion

Okay I just came back from seeing the movie.

And um! I thought it was very pro Roman Catholic myself...Mary was played up to the hilt. That's okay everyone is entitled to their opinions so am I. I didnot find the Jews any different from the man in the parking lot who wouldn't back up to let me out. Same difference people are innately wicked. Period.

And for once I must say that I agree with neutral that the beatings or special effects were overdone, considering that this is the same Jesus that fasted so often I believe that the body of the actor was too strong and muscular for the role.

Furthermore I thought that given the 1. severity of the first beating, 2. the number of instances where he fell head long after being so severely beaten. 3. being beaten continuously while carrying that huge cross, 4. all the while bleeding profusely 5. being tossed down with the huse cross on his back to adjust the nails and then flung flat on the ground while on top of the cross all the while bleeding from gaping wounds... that he should have died at least 5 times before the actual crucifixion.
And also I would agree that unless you knew the full detailed story of Jesus' life, death and burial there is nothing there to bring an unbeliever to faith, except to once again protray the gore and sadism of Roman rule in those days, a fact anyone who has seen a gladiator movie (such as Gladiator) can attest to.

However for the Christian it brings the story home in a very special way, particularly the fact of his obedience, for at no time did we see him shying away from his death except at the scene in Gethsemanie and we all know how that ended. The roles of satan and Judas were very well protrayed.

I felt Mary's pain as she held him after they took him off the cross at the end that is when I cried. Although I just thought she was a little too composed while watching what they were doing to her son before he was crucified, but that again could just be cultural. (Actually no! Jewish women are very reactive [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] at least the ones I know) So there again hmmm!

So on a scale of 1-10 I would give it an overall score of 8. Hey that is just my opinion don't hate! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Mutty]

Re: The Passion

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] Okay I just came back from seeing the movie.

And um! I thought it was very pro Roman Catholic myself...Mary was played up to the hilt. That's okay everyone is entitled to their opinions so am I. I didnot find the Jews any different from the man in the parking lot who wouldn't back up to let me out. Same difference people are innately wicked. Period.

And for once I must say that I agree with neutral that the beatings or special effects were overdone, considering that this is the same Jesus that fasted so often I believe that the body of the actor was too strong and muscular for the role.

Furthermore I thought that given the 1. severity of the first beating, 2. the number of instances where he fell head long after being so severely beaten. 3. being beaten continuously while carrying that huge cross, 4. all the while bleeding profusely 5. being tossed down with the huse cross on his back to adjust the nails and then flung flat on the ground while on top of the cross all the while bleeding from gaping wounds... that he should have died at least 5 times before the actual crucifixion.
And also I would agree that unless you knew the full detailed story of Jesus' life, death and burial there is nothing there to bring an unbeliever to faith, except to once again protray the gore and sadism of Roman rule in those days, a fact anyone who has seen a gladiator movie (such as Gladiator) can attest to.

However for the Christian it brings the story home in a very special way, particularly the fact of his obedience, for at no time did we see him shying away from his death except at the scene in Gethsemanie and we all know how that ended. The roles of satan and Judas were very well protrayed.

I felt Mary's pain as she held him after they took him off the cross at the end that is when I cried. Although I just thought she was a little too composed while watching what they were doing to her son before he was crucified, but that again could just be cultural. (Actually no! Jewish women are very reactive [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] at least the ones I know) So there again hmmm!

So on a scale of 1-10 I would give it an overall score of 8. Hey that is just my opinion don't hate! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [/qb]

Now THAT is objectivity...I think. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Guest]

Re: The Passion

Now THAT is objectivity...I think.


Well these days mutty I am not even sure what you mean by that but anyway I woke up this morning with an unshakeable feeling of well, guilt [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I mean everyone I am sure who goes to see the movie has preconcieved ideas of the crucifixion of Christ already, and it is no wonder there are 4 accounts and each one varies slightly from the other, some such as Matthew and John are a little more detailed than others but by and large they all agree on one thing, He was crucified, dead and buried and He rose again. Another factor that plays into a biased opinion may be the particular brand of Christian faith that one follows, as I see it Mary was featured more than I seem to have read in the gospels, (but anyone can show me otherwise), hence my conclusion that the movie played up the RC side of the picture - Mary being divine that is.

As to my guilt this morning - I just can't seem to reconcile the horror that I saw. It was just too much and yet, something in my soul knows that human beings are hateful beyond our very own ability to comprehend, the paradox being that when faced with how wicked we are we tend to go into a state of denial. That perhaps is the guilt that I am contending with this morning. Denial, I can't accept what I saw because it was too horrible, but even if the movie over played on the audiences senses, I have to ask myself -what difference does it make? Whether they beat him as severely in reality as was portrayed on the screen or not, really what difference did it make? The word says He was beaten with lead tipped stripes, it also said in three accounts that the soldiers took him into their quarters dressed him in a robe stuck a crown of thorns on his head and put a stick in his hand and mocked him. Then they took the stick and beat him over his head with it.

See another bias of mine is (speaking of the movie depiction that is) I think medically, I mean this guy should have had major concussions, major tissue damage and how on earth was he to carry that cross that HUGE cross made of 4x6 planks? I mean the thing was HUGE, made of the type thick planks you see them making decks with. If that thing was to drop on your back your back would be broken, yet we see them nail him to the cross then turn the thing over and fling him on his belly with the cross on his back down on the ground, (but the word of God says none of his bones were broken). C'mon his back and his head would have been splattered in real life, then they turned him back over and fling him on his back attached more securely to the cross and my God it was too much! o/, too much. And I mean to say no one tried to stop them...except Simon the Cyrene which is not mentioned in the Bible, even his mother stood at a distance watching just bearly whimpering, I know that could not be a woman of African descent we would have been all in the grung, running over to take some of the blows ourselves. Aye sah!
But again what difference does it make?

And again regardless of whether Mel Gibson's portrayal was exaggerated or not the point is driven home, shere and utter wickedness.
And to see my reaction objectively (if that is possible) I can only conclude that we cannot know how truly wicked we are because we are in DENIAL about ourselves.

It did something to my senses alright, but somehow I dont' think this is a great tool for bringing others to Christ. It is great for teaching new believers maybe on the important roll the crucifixion plays in our salvation, but I don't know, I just don't know I think it is too frightening. It plays up the gore too much and unless you knew the full message it (the message) was not apparent enough.

[Mutty]

Re: The Passion

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] Now THAT is objectivity...I think.


Well these days mutty I am not even sure what you mean by that but anyway I woke up this morning with an unshakeable feeling of well, guilt [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I mean everyone I am sure who goes to see the movie has preconcieved ideas of the crucifixion of Christ already, and it is no wonder there are 4 accounts and each one varies slightly from the other, some such as Matthew and John are a little more detailed than others but by and large they all agree on one thing, He was crucified, dead and buried and He rose again. Another factor that plays into a biased opinion may be the particular brand of Christian faith that one follows, as I see it Mary was featured more than I seem to have read in the gospels, (but anyone can show me otherwise), hence my conclusion that the movie played up the RC side of the picture - Mary being divine that is.

As to my guilt this morning - I just can't seem to reconcile the horror that I saw. It was just too much and yet, something in my soul knows that human beings are hateful beyond our very own ability to comprehend, the paradox being that when faced with how wicked we are we tend to go into a state of denial. That perhaps is the guilt that I am contending with this morning. Denial, I can't accept what I saw because it was too horrible, but even if the movie over played on the audiences senses, I have to ask myself -what difference does it make? Whether they beat him as severely in reality as was portrayed on the screen or not, really what difference did it make? The word says He was beaten with lead tipped stripes, it also said in three accounts that the soldiers took him into their quarters dressed him in a robe stuck a crown of thorns on his head and put a stick in his hand and mocked him. Then they took the stick and beat him over his head with it.

See another bias of mine is (speaking of the movie depiction that is) I think medically, I mean this guy should have had major concussions, major tissue damage and how on earth was he to carry that cross that HUGE cross made of 4x6 planks? I mean the thing was HUGE, made of the type thick planks you see them making decks with. If that thing was to drop on your back your back would be broken, yet we see them nail him to the cross then turn the thing over and fling him on his belly with the cross on his back down on the ground, (but the word of God says none of his bones were broken). C'mon his back and his head would have been splattered in real life, then they turned him back over and fling him on his back attached more securely to the cross and my God it was too much! o/, too much. And I mean to say no one tried to stop them...except Simon the Cyrene which is not mentioned in the Bible, even his mother stood at a distance watching just bearly whimpering, I know that could not be a woman of African descent we would have been all in the grung, running over to take some of the blows ourselves. Aye sah!
But again what difference does it make?

And again regardless of whether Mel Gibson's portrayal was exaggerated or not the point is driven home, shere and utter wickedness.
And to see my reaction objectively (if that is possible) I can only conclude that we cannot know how truly wicked we are because we are in DENIAL about ourselves.

It did something to my senses alright, but somehow I dont' think this is a great tool for bringing others to Christ. It is great for teaching new believers maybe on the important roll the crucifixion plays in our salvation, but I don't know, I just don't know I think it is too frightening. It plays up the gore too much and unless you knew the full message it (the message) was not apparent enough. [/qb]

No, I'm just saying that as a Christian you gave the good and bad (in your opinion) and I find that very commendable.

The Catholic Church has always emphasized the suffering of Christ. Somehow they seem obsessed with that point.

[Mutty]

Re: The Passion

By the way, this whole Mary thing leads me to another question I have had over the years and did not dare ask or bring up because I was supposed to be believing the New Testament account. Let me start a new topic on it.

[Guest]

Re: The Passion

[msgoody2shoes]

Re: The Passion

Originally posted by neutral:
[qb]


[/qb]

woa!!!pull up a second,people!! its a movieeee!!!
a film!.
if believers want to believe that jesus died for them,then feel free to believe,..just dont tell me that he "died for all of us"...duh!!!!!he didnt,he died because the romans saw him as an agitator,rightly or wrongly,...but they killed him,to prevent unrest.
he didnt die for me ,his death thousands of years ago,has absolutely no bearing,or importance on my life,anymore than the death of che` guevara,or mary queen of scots has on my existence.
[/QB][/QUOTE]


This is so sad, coming from a person that just recently wrote a poem in another forum about killing someone's family and granny. Yes, it is just riddim or poetry, but what's in the heart comes out of the mouth.

This is clear evidence that Jesus died for you, yes you, and you need Him badly! Whether you accept it or not, He died for you and hopefully one day, you will come to know and appreciate it.
It's amazing how people (per se) will believe Martin L. King died for them and Jesus' death means nothing whatsoever to them. Father forgive them, they know not what they do/say.

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: The Passion

Gore's the crime of 'Passion'

by Jami Bernardbn ( source )

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. With Jim Caviezel. Written,directed and produced by Mel Gibson. At area theaters (2:07). Rated R for sequences of graphic violence. In Latin and Aramaic with English subtitles.

No child should see this movie.

Even adults are at risk.

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.

It is sickening, much more brutal than any "Lethal Weapon."

The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here. And yet "The Passion" is also undeniably powerful.

Because of all the media coverage of this movie and the way it was shown only to handpicked sympathizers until yesterday's screening for movie critics, many questions hang in the air: Is it historically accurate?

Of course not. As with any movie, even a documentary, this one reflects the views of its filmmakers, who are entitled and expected to use their art persuasively. Gibson has been up-front about his own religious agenda.

But is it any good?

"The Passion" - once you strip away all the controversy and religious fervor - is a technically proficient account of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

The movie is sanctimonious in a way that impedes dramatic flow and limits characterizations to the saintly and the droolingly vulgar.

That said, there are many things in its favor - a heroic physical effort by star Jim Caviezel; stunning cinematography by Caleb Deschanel, and the chutzpah to have the actors speak in the dead language of Aramaic (with some subtitles).

Is Gibson devout, or is he mad?

Had Gibson claimed Napoleon helped him direct, instead of divine spirits, the answer would be clear. Even so, a touch of madness is often a good thing in a director.

But "The Passion" feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience.

Is it anti-Semitic?

Yes.

Jews are vilified, in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes.

Gibson cuts from the hook nose of one bad Jewish character to the hook nose of another in the ensuing scene.

He misappropriates an important line from the Jewish celebration of Pesach ("Why is this night different from all other nights?") and slaps it onto a Christian context.

Most unforgivable is that Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), the Roman governor of Palestine who decreed that Jesus be crucified, is portrayed as a sensitive, kind-hearted soul who is sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap upon his prisoner.

Pilate agrees to the Crucifixion only against his better judgment.

The most offensive line of the script, which was co-written by Gibson with Benedict Fitzgerald, about Jews accepting blame, was not cut from the movie, as initially reported. Only its subtitle was removed.

"Passion" assumes the audience already knows Christianity 101, and plunges right into the aftermath of the Last Supper. Taunted by an effeminate, seductive Satan and anticipating betrayal, Christ suffers.

Oh, does He suffer.

The movie is a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club. Gibson spares not one cringing closeup to showcase what he imagines Jesus must have endured.

The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill."

The Romans capture their prey with the help of a terminally regretful Judas, then haul Him around to be whipped, beaten, spat upon, mutilated and finally crucified - all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews. No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother (Maia Morgenstern).

Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities. "The Passion of the Christ" is a brutal, nasty film that demonizes Jews at an unfortunate time in history.

Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love?

Originally published on February 24, 2004

[dahjah]

Re: The Passion

Any black ppl een de movie?

Why isn't truth told about that area of the world, what colour are the ppl there.
Dem nuh look like dat.

[dahjah]

Re: The Passion

and yes it does matter, cah it een de bible fe a reason.