Hesitantly...The Passion of the Christ

[astrangerhere]

Ok guys, here goes. I am more than nervous about starting a thread on this, but I trust that maturity and civility reign so we can all talk about this like adults without anyone attacking anyone else or their personal beliefs.



If you've seen it, what are your thoughts?



I went to a late show last night and for all intents and purposes was riveted. I come from a Christian background and am an actively practicing Christian now, and I realize and readily admit that my faith colors my interpretation. It would be quite impossible for it not to.



As to the historicity, there were a few technical flaws, e.g. the focus on Mary and the fact that we know very little about what happened on the road to Golgotha, but the rest of the film was relatively accurate according to Biblical standards. Mind you, by historicity, I mean the fact that Gibson says he based it on the gospels and that is the standard by which i look at it.



I realize a large part of what has been discussed is the brutality. I felt my own stomach turn at it. People gasped and cried, some even looked away. But I do not feel that it was gratuitous. I think we are all so prone to call this gratuitous because we have no concept of what it is like for this kind of cruelty to be standard forms of punishment.



As to the anti-semitism... I just didn't see it. The Romans seemed to me to be portrayed in a much more harsh light than the Jews as a whole. The only Jews who were villianized were the Sanhedrin who sought to have Jesus killed for being a threat to them and their following. As far as the Biblical account goes, this is a pretty accurate postulation. But I did not come out of the film thinking "the Jews as an ethnic group killed Christ." I saw it more as a few men sought to bend the will of a Roman governor and a mob in order to achieve their ends.



Alright, there is a ton more that could be said, but if there is no interest, i don't want to take up the space. So, thoughts?



a.s.h.

[dekalog]

Thought you might like to know that this film is being talked about in the religion thread on the kitten page.

[sam7777]

I think that it's impossible to separate this film from religious issues. It is being marketted to Christian Churches as a teaching and recruitment tool. IMHO not since the "Triumph of the Will" has the line been so blurred between art and an agenda (political in the former case and religious in the latter). This film is really all about religious issues. On the one side, it's the inspiring tale of how Jesus as our savior suffered for all of our sins. One the other side, it's a violent and brutal tale showing Jews as the murderers of Christ. Which side is right is impossible to say. It reminds me of the debate about the dead lesbian cliche in the death of Tara. The gay magazines and organizations and some fans said they saw it and there was no cliche whereas I and other folks saw it and saw the cliche. The same is true of "Tha Passion of Christ". There are those have seen it and not seen anti-semitism while there are those who have seen it and see anti-semitism. There are two point of view on this film and they are both very religiously charged. The controversy has sold alot of tickets to the movie but it has also taken it out of the realm of just being a movie IMHO.

_____________________

I see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 2/26/04 4:28 pm

[Jennpurr]

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I'm going to tomorrow with a friend from work.



astrangerhere,



Thank you for starting this thread. I was thinking about it, but I was hesitant. I know that there are alot of different beliefs on the Kitten, but mine is the same as yours.



I didn't really come from a Christian background. My family and I used to go to church when I was younger. I've raised myself to be a Christian, though.



Living in a house where there is a belief of God from all of us, but only one of us goes to Church and lives a Christian life, is hard. It's hard not having someone here to share that with. I have friends that are religious, but it's still not the same.



I've wanted to see this movie for months now and despite all the controversy, I've looked forward to it. This movie will probably be a very emotional experience for me, but it's something I feel I need to do.



I'll give more thoughts on this after I've seen it.



Jen

---

||My Fan Fiction and More!|| ||My Yahoo Group||
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Got to sing. Got to dance. Got to suck face with Alyson Hannigan." - Amber Benson (Toronto Trek)


Dory: Look, here's something! *points to a door that has the word, 'escape,' on it* Es-cop-ay! I wonder what that means... it's funny. It's spelled just like the word escape. ~ "Finding Nemo"

[sam7777]

When we discuss how it is to "be surrounded by those who do not believe", I believe that we move from a film review to a religious discussion. Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" may have originally been intended as a small art house film but now it has become a religous issue. Like the dead lesbian cliche, many do not see anti-semitism while many do. IMHO neither point of view is wrong and neither can really be ignored. I remember writing letters to try and get people to address the dead lesbian cliche in the death of Tara. Many ignored the issue in discussions which I felt did not present a balanced view of the episode. It's not a few cranks who see anti-semitism in the film but people on the street, theologians and religous groups. As most people did not call Joss Whedon a homophode for the images presented in "Seeing Red" so most people are not calling Mel Gibson an anti-semite but still seeing anti-semitic images in his film. The issue cannot be separated from the film IMHO turning any discussion of the film into one about religion.

_____________________

I see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 2/26/04 4:53 pm

[gspiggott]

From what I've read they should have just called it ,"The Nuttiness of the Mel.".

[astrangerhere]

Jenn-Thank you for that. I know what it is like to be surrounded by those who do not believe. I went all the way through college that way, and am still there to a degree.



The film is very powerful. The only thing I will say by way of expectations is don’t have any. Sure, there are some things you are gonna think “hmm, that wasn’t in the gospels” about, but every bit of that was just for dramatic effect, to show Christ’s humanity.



Looking forward to hearing what you have to say.



Gspiggott-if you see it and you think that, then more power to you, but until you do, really don’t buy the hype. That’s what most of it is anyway, just hype.



a.s.h.

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

As to the historicity, there were a few technical flaws, e.g. the focus on Mary and the fact that we know very little about what happened on the road to Golgotha, but the rest of the film was relatively accurate according to Biblical standards. Mind you, by historicity, I mean the fact that Gibson says he based it on the gospels and that is the standard by which i look at it.



I saw it more as a few men sought to bend the will of a Roman governor and a mob in order to achieve their ends.

---

a.s.h., I haven't seen the film and won't, so my comments here will be brief. From the reviews I've read (of those I trust--I've posted one already on the "Scary Religion" thread, and will post a couple more. Please check 'em out!), there were a large number of outright departures from the Gospels, and wherever the characterization was ambiguous, Gibson went w/ a "bloodthirsty Jews" one everytime. Moreover, the Sanhedrin weren't out to "bend the will of the Roman governor," they were just desperate to save their own arses *from* the Roman governor: offering up Jesus was a means to that end.



See you on the Religion thread!



GG: MA in Religious Studies, (almost) Doctor of Education in Religion . . . and happily practicing Christian (Episcopalian-rah!) Out

[Tempest Duer]

I'm not going to talk about religion on Plastic, partially due to my not wanting to offend the numerous Christians on this thread, but I will discuss Passion as a film.



It's violent, and gruesome. That much all the reviewers can agree on. I don't like gore, so I won't be seeing it. Well, I might. It could be an interesting experience. But I don't think it will be a religious experience for me.

Willow: Hey Buff. One more thing. Buffy: Yeah? Willow: I’m gay. Buffy: Okay, Will. Xander owes me ten bucks.

~Remember to Breathe by Yellow Crayon

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

Thank you for starting this thread. I was thinking about it, but I was hesitant. I know that there are alot of different beliefs on the Kitten, but mine is the same as yours.

---

I´m not sure why this would make you hesitant to start a thread about this particular movie when we also have a religion thread and a homosexuality & religion thread. I think kittens with beliefs other than yours are capable of discussing religion or this movie without personal attacks on another poster or their beliefs. I understand this movie has some rather controversial elements that might inspire a passionate debate, but as long as we are aware of the nature of those elements and how we conducts ourselves in a discussion with each other it should not be a problem. We do have a few posting rules to hopefully ensure that all goes well for everyone here. If someone happens to come across this board who´s beliefs include homophobia or racism etc., than said person would be out of luck because that would be something that cannot be shared here, but just liking this movie does not make a person a racist and not liking it does not make a person anti religion or anti all religious people.



Btw, if anyone wants to use some stronger terms to describe their opinion of this movie itself then they can do so, like we can for any movie, that is a different thing. There is no need to tiptoe around if you think it is crap, no more than you need to be careful if you think it is good. I have not seen it myself and I don´t plan to go to the cinema to see it, though I am curious if I would see anti-semitism in it. It probably won´t be long before it becomes available for download. I might give it a go then.

[J uk]

Mel Gibson made a bigoted movie? As an Englishman, I'm shocked...

[dekalog]

Tempest Duer : What you said and then some. Putting aside any debates on the emotional, spiritual, and ideological content of the film. The magnitude and sheer stomach turning scenes of violence in this film have me as a human being saying 'no thank you'. I feel the need to turn my head when I see the clips the news have shown - and apparently these are tame in comparison to the film.



I had felt that the images of violence that have been on the screen had been bad before - it seems that the bar has been lifted.



I also find it interesting that children are being shown this crass violence. I bet some of these same parents are the same people that are outraged by the sight of two women kissing. This film underlies for me how, in North America at least, we seem content to become increasing violent, but are frightened and ashamed by sexuality.

[WebWarlock]

Well I am glad to see this thread.



Regardless what you might think of the movie, it obviously stirs up some emotions.



Myself, I am not a Christian, but I really want to see this movie.



I don't think Mel is crazy.

He is passionate about his beliefs to be sure. I also think Diane Sawyer attacked him in her interview.



About the violence. Well, guess what it was the start of the freaking Dark Ages. Cruxifiction is a horrible way to die, second only to being impaled, and it doesn't matter what is shown on the screen it is still no where close to the truth. It took days to die, usually from exposure. During that time nearly every bone in your body is breaking and you are being fed apon by carrion birds.



Of course Mel takes some liberties with the story and history. For example the Roman hammered the nails into people's wrists, not hands. They may have been cruel, but not dumb, you can hang anyone up their hands.

There is some evidence that people didn't carry their crosses, but rather the cross-beam. These things weighed upwards of 300 pounds.



But really, there is nothing in this film that people would learn in Sunday school or a history class.



As to it being a "downer" well for Christians the story has a happy ending, Jesus came back on Sunday and he went willingly, it was what he was supposed to do. Was it painful, hell yes, but that was the point wasn't it.



Will I see this film? Yes. Will I take my son? No, way too violent for him, I don't even let him watch Spiderman cartoons. But if he were a teenager then yes I would.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

"Razzle, dazzle, drazzle, drone, time for this one to come home." - The Replacements, "Hold My Life"

[sam7777]

Quote:

---

This film underlies for me how, in North America at least, we seem content to become increasing violent, but are frightened and ashamed by sexuality.

---

Dekalog: Agreed. This film should have been rated NC-17 for violence. The censors in North America are willing to put an R on blinding amounts of violence but ready to put NC-17 on sex in a heartbeat. "Henry and June" hardly merited an NC-17 nor does Bertolucci's "Dreamers". The latter got an NC-17 for The film has been stamped with an NC-17 rating for its explicit sexual content (shots of male and female genitalia) and lovemaking that leaves nothing to the imagination. Yet a movie can show a man being crucified on screen in gory and explicit detail and this is not considered obscene?! Violence has always been OK but not sexual content. I've also noticed that a higher rating is usually considered for more explicit GLBT sex than is given equally explicit heterosexual sex scenes. It's not suprising that there is so much resistance to gay marrage give the attitudes tworards sex and embracing of violence in US culture.



Gatito Grande: I read the articles that you posted in the scary religion thread and they make alot of good points. Since the film is being discussed here, maybe you should post any articles you find on the film here.



Mel Gibson must be very happy with the "hype" since the movie is selling tickets. and in the final analysis that's all that matters in the Media.

_____________________

I see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 2/27/04 3:16 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Well sam, I don't think the Religion thread is any less appropriate than this one. But I did want to bring one quote over from Richard Goldstein's Village Voice review, because it's so spot on:

Quote:

---

The real model for this film is Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, with its

relentless depiction of torture, along with every slasher movie that

cloaks its intentions in a higher message. Violence has become the

measure of verisimilitude. If it's bloody, it looks real. This illusion

allows us to enjoy what violence does provide: pleasure. If it weren't

so exhilarating, it wouldn't be so popular.



Many people who would never attend a Bible movie will flock to this one

because they get to see a man tormented by men as others look lustfully

on. The faithful will sublimate this sadomasochistic sensation into

religious ecstasy and find it profoundly moving. Either way, Gibson

wins. He's made a spectacle of joy in pain-the essence of boffo.

---

GG I just love it when the closet cases' fixations are exposed to the light of day. Out

[sam7777]

GG: Yeah. It's really impossible to talk about the film without bringing in religion issues so the issues must follow the discussion.



This article provides a summary of why this film (and religion in general) can be uncomfortable for GLBT people:

Susan Mitchell: Passion for intolerance



ETA: This article shows how two people seeinng the film can come out of it with two deifferent views on whether it has anti-semitic imagery:

'Passion' could stall interfaith dialogue

_____________________

I see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 2/27/04 4:24 pm

[J uk]

I liked the AICN review:



www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17075

Quote:

---

I don’t know... maybe it just disturbs me that MONTY PYTHON’S LIFE OF BRIAN offers a better, more complete and accurate view of the political and social structures against which the Christ story played out.

---

[Tempest Duer]

Well, I can say that I'm going to go back on what I said. I'm actually going to go see it, since my girlfriend invited me. I'm more going to see it out of morbid curiosity than anything else though, really.



I've always had a bit of a sick sense of humor, and I've always felt bitter about organized religion. If it weren't for the stomach-churning violence, I'd probably find the film funny.



So, on that note, expect a review from me, probably on Sunday evening.

Willow: Hey Buff. One more thing. Buffy: Yeah? Willow: I’m gay. Buffy: Okay, Will. Xander owes me ten bucks.

~Remember to Breathe by Yellow Crayon

[darkmagicwillow]

Well, guess what it was the start of the freaking Dark Ages.



The Christ Myth is set in the Augustan Golden Age when Mediterranean Civilization was at its pre-modern height. Augustus Caesar had just ended two centuries of internecine warfare, reformed the Roman government, and established more secure frontiers in every direction. Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, and Rome were thriving metropolises with nearly a million people each, a population that couldn't be supported until Europeans re-invented much Roman technology in the 19th century. The libraries in Alexandria and Athens still contained the lost plays and philosophical writings of the Greeks, and while the works of the the great Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus couldn't be found in those libraries that was because they hadn't been born yet. As for the violence, yes, almost any pre-modern society's punishments are cruel by today's standards and the Romans had no tolerance for rebellion. However, they were tolerant rulers who gradually and eventually completely incorporated all the people of the Mediterrean world as equal citizens in their state.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Jennpurr]

DMW,



WOW... you really know your history. Very impressive.





Um, I haven't seen this yet. We decided not to go this Friday, but I will be going next Saturday. I should have my own review/thoughts then.



Jen

---

||My Fan Fiction and More!|| ||My Yahoo Group||
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Got to sing. Got to dance. Got to suck face with Alyson Hannigan." - Amber Benson (Toronto Trek)


Dory: Look, here's something! *points to a door that has the word, 'escape,' on it* Es-cop-ay! I wonder what that means... it's funny. It's spelled just like the word escape. ~ "Finding Nemo"

[darkmagicwillow]

A dialect of Aramaic was the common spoken language of Judea in the early first century, so it's historically accurate to use Aramaic in the film. For written communications, koine Greek was used so the Christian scriptures were written in Greek by people whose native tongue was Aramaic. While the Jews used a Hebrew Bible in their temples and rabbis could read Hebrew, its use was similar to that of Catholics reciting a Latin ritual centuries after their languages had diverged from the older tongue. Most Jews had to rely on spoken or written (the Septuagint) Greek translations of their scriptures to understand their meaning, in the same way that modern Christians rely on translations of theirs.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 2/29/04 4:37 pm

[Puff]

Well I went to go and see this today. Of course now my partner and I are arguing about Anti-Sematism. IMHO the movie isn't anti-sematic. It follows the doctorine (mostly) that I learnt at both churches I attended. I have too say that the violence was excessive and Mel Gibson could have gotten his point across with a few less beatings actually being shown and less falling on the way to calvary as that slowed the movie down and the audience already had the point by the fifth fall. There were a few things that were different than what I thought of as the events. I also expected them to speak in Hebrew and not Aramaic (sp?) anyone know why they chose this language?



Passion sure isn't 'entertaining' in the enjoyable sense but it is a good movie.



My one lingering thought during this whole movie though is that the woman that played Mary Magdalene is hot.

---

So, the day started and I knew my name and had my pants on. So far, so good. Yay.
Amber Benson

[The Partisan]

Gah, I had a really nice post, but EZ-Board proved to be not as EZ as its name implied, and ate it.



Just saw it today, and I was moderately impressed, having gone in not expecting to like it. The anti-semitism concerns are, in my mind, overblown by the media.



The violence, on the other hand, was even more than I was expecting. Someone compared it to Reservoir Dogs...not even close. Reservoir Dogs had one rather disturbing scene made disturbing largely by what wasn't shown directly. The Passion shows the tortures and wounds inflicted in stark detail. Nothing is left to the imagination, and believe me, there were sequences that made even me cringe (and I considered myself very desensitized to violence).



The net result of all this violence, I think, diminishes the effect that they were trying to achieve. By the end of the film, the shock had worn off, and it became tedious towards the end. Now, for someone not so overexposed to blood'n'guts, they might've been more affected by the sum total, but speaking just for myself, it got old after a while.



The acting was good all around, but particuarly noteworthy was Rosalinda Celentano (I think that's her name) who played Satan. She stole the show, and the character's very artistic interpretation contrasts beautifully with the very stark depiction of the rest of the film.



3.5/5 stars in my opinion. Good, not great.

[anyone somewhere]

Okay, so here's my two cents worth.

I really don't see a valid argument for the goryness to the movie. No one takes a second look at movies like Wrong Turn and the Silence of the Lambs movies. Crucifiction was not a pretty process and is an actual part of history. I want to raise the question that if someone were to make a historical film about crucifiction about some guy named Tom who slept with the kings wife and is now being crucified, would the gore be an issue? Or is it only an issue because the movie is religious?

[sam7777]

IMHO if someone made a historical and non-religous film about crucifiction with the same level of gore as "The Passion of Christ", it would have gotten an NC-17. I believe Passion got a free pass on the rating because it was religious even with gratuitous violence like slomo cat of nine tales whipping and adding gory elments like throwing someone off a bridge and letting the chanins catch them. Also, I belive that some of the people who defend the violence in Passion would be the first to complain about such a film and also the first to want an NC-17 for a love scene espcially if it involves GLBT themes. I don't think that level of violence is necessary



Also if someone made a historical and non-religous film about crucifiction, the crucifiction scene would have been more accurate. In ancient times, the Romans made people carry the top cross bar of the cross and not the whole cross which was mounted at the crucifiction site separately. They also nailed the wrist and not the hands because the hands cannot hold the weight of a human body. This has been confirmed with tests on cadavers. Scholars also believe the arms were also tied to the top cross piece for the same reason. Xena did a better job with their crucifiction scene on the show and were able to transmit the horror of it in a form that is suitable for TV and without horrific violence. I felt the impact of Xena's death on the cross more because of this restraint. I focused on her and not the agony and felt more of the loss of a human being as the result. I guess if the movie is religious, we also get a free pass on historical accuracy and can turn the historical Pontius Pilate who had put to death thousands of Jewish rebels into a reluctant executioner.



As I said before, this film has pointed out more strongly than any other to me how violence is OK in American culture but sex is still taboo especially explicit depictions of GLBT sex even if loving and part of the story. I'm certain that a movie about the torture of Matthew Sheppard in gory detail would also get an R but a movie about his life in all it's detail would get an NC-17. Personally, most of the movies I go to see are PG13. I've tired of excessive blood and gore replacing imaginative drama IMHO. Lord of the Rings rated R with each sword cut showing blood spewing as the arm or head is lopped off would not have improved the movie for me nor added to the story IMHO. The real horror masters know it's better to imply than show and leave things to people's imagination if you really want to make an impression.



J uk: I agree with AICN that "MONTY PYTHON’S LIFE OF BRIAN offers a better, more complete and accurate view of the political and social structures against which the Christ story played out".

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[Tempest Duer]

Well, I went. I saw. And actually, I kind of liked it, in an odd sort of way.



True, the flogging and crucifixation scenes were overly gruesome. The flogging scene is now my new definition in my head for "obscene." In my opinion, it was overdone, and while yes, it was probably accurate, showing the man's ribs through his torn flesh really wasn't necessary.



And watching the Roman torturers laugh as his blood sprayed their clothes and faces was pretty sickening. But hey, it was historically accurate, right? And it had religious significance so that makes it okay, right? Fuck no. It was obscene. It deserved an NC-17, because, as Sam said, that's what it would have gotten if it hadn't been a religious film.



I did like several things about it, though. I liked the scenes that dealt with Judas, his betrayal, and the thirty pieces of silver. I liked the way the demons chased him until, consumed by guilt, he hanged himself from the limb of a tree. I found it meaningful, and an excellent foray into the mind of the famous betrayer.



The other part I liked was the man who helped Jesus carry his cross, and how he went from outright refusing to help to having respect for Jesus and carrying him as well as the cross those last few steps. I found it quite meaningful.



Jesus Christ is not my savior, but he was a good man, and I admire him.

Willow: Hey Buff. One more thing. Buffy: Yeah? Willow: I’m gay. Buffy: Okay, Will. Xander owes me ten bucks.

~Remember to Breathe by Yellow Crayon

[Hemiola]

I thought I would add some clarifications to the language issue.



Aramaic is, in fact, "vulgar" Hebrew, but it is still Hebrew, with some differences in grammar and vocabulary. In much the same way, Vulgar Latin was still Latin and Koine Greek was still Greek. Most of our "Latinate" words come from Vulgar Latin rather than "classical" Latin (i.e. the language of Cicero and Pliny).



Now, it is absolutely true that the average 1st century Judean would certainly have ordinarily spoken Aramaic (much the same way as I spoke "brooklynese" English while living in Brooklyn ), but certainly spoke and understood Hebrew (if only because they were familiar with it in a liturgical context). Likewise, an educated Roman would have spoken "classical" Latin (not the ridiculous Italianate Latin heard in the movie--"Etch-ay Omo" indeed ), while his soldiers would have spoken Vulgar Latin, although they could certainly understand the "educated" speech of the Procurator.



Now, this brings us to the next important point. Jesus and Pilate would certainly not have spoken to each other in Latin, nor would Pilate have addressed "the crowd" in Latin. Rather, everyone would have used Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean at the time. This was, in fact, the language used by the Romans and Judeans to communicate with each other. Much the same situation existed in Vietnam 35 years ago: most Vietnamese couldn't speak English (although many picked it up, after a fashion) and most American GIs couldn't speak the immensely difficult Vietnamese language (although many picked up a few words and phrases). So, how did they talk to each other? The answer is by using French, the language of their previous colonial occupiers. Exactly the same situation obtained in 1st century Palestine: most Judeans could speak (at least in part) the language of their former conquerors, the Macedonian Greeks. The average Roman "miles" (a Roman "GI") certainly wouldn't have taken the trouble to try and learn Aramaic, but could probably manage a few phrases of Koine Greek.



So, there we have it. Gibson makes ridiculous claims of "historical accuracy" with his use of Aramaic (badly mis-pronounced) and (Italianate) Latin, but as far as language-usage is concerned, he isn't even remotely accurate.

[Kieli]

Interesting....if the Aramaic was so badly mispronounced, why is it that those who still speak Aramaic in their communities who watched the film, said nothing? Passion Revives Hope for Dying Language. I'm talking native speakers, not some scholars who think they know the language well. Do you, perhaps, speak Aramaic, Hem? And could you quote some sources for your info? I don't ask these questions to disrespect you, Hem. I'm just curious. Diana always says that just because one has a PhD, does not make them an expert (and she knows of whence she speaks. She got her PhD at quite an early age), so I often try to get a little background info on things so I can get the big picture.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 3/1/04 7:21 am

[sam7777]

Mel Gibson himself has said that PhD's do not know more than he does about his faith and that's certainly true. However, he does not know more than them about the history and issues of the 1st century. You can't ignore decades of research and then call you film historical IMHO. Scholarly works are vetted by their peers and religious works are debated among representatives of the different faiths and biases are thus revealed. The Catholic church has great praise for the doctors of their church folks like Augustine and Teresa de Avila (these are pre Vatican 2 so even Gibson must acknowledge these "PhDs"). Mel Gibson should be more upfront. He put his faith up on the screen and his interpretation of the gospels without much regard to the research in the field so his movie can neither be seen as historical nor more than the gospels as Mel Gibson sees them IMHO.



On the issue of anti-semitism, whether you see it or not seems heavily skewed by your religion. Most Christians don't see it while most Jews do. It's harder to criticize a film if it is seen as a true reflection of your faith. Take that out and some folks start seeing more of the violence and anti-semitic imagery. Why? Because strong Christian faith has often meant intolerance and prejudice to non-Christians (and GLBT folks BTW). Simply because the anti-semitic imagery is in the eye of the beholder doesn't mean it should be discounted out of hand. People who were gay or gay friendly were more likely to see the dead lesbian cliche in the death of Tara. The gay rags dismissed this viewpoint out of hand because they "didn't see it" which I thought was unfair. I see both views as valid. The movie is anti-semitic to some and not to others and I respect both views though I agree with the former personally.



Tempest Duer: Agreed. I would have nothing to say about the violence of the film if it had gotten the appropriate NC-17 rating. More censorship is done on sexual content because that is what the conservative right screams most about IMHO. Knowing that group would not criticize the violence in this film, the censors gave it a free pass IMHO. It sets a bad precedent that could lead to more intensly violent films getting an R because "The Passion of Christ" did. I think the NC-17 rating is more appropriate for extreme violence than it is for non pornographic (people actually having sex as opposed to faking it) sexual content. I find flaggellation for 10 minutes and partly in slo mo to be more obscene than full frontal nudity in the course of a love scene. "Dreamers" should not have gotten an NC-17 but Passion should have IMHO.



One thing is certain about this film. It is not very inclusive. If you are not already a Christian with a knowledge of the Bible, you will certainly get a lot less out of this film. Leonard Pitt's of the Miami Herald had this to say:

wDebate avoids the message of Passion

Quote:

---

Similarly, as someone who'll never experience anti-Semitism, I don't know that I have standing to say there's none in Gibson's movie. But I didn't see any. And anybody making that charge will have to go some to convince me.



Which is not to say I'm without empathy for the fears expressed by some in the Jewish community. To the contrary, those fears offer a visceral and poignant reminder of how tenuous a thing acceptance can be, how fierce a grip history can have. Jews have made inroads into the nation's mainstream to a degree that would have been unimaginable 50 years ago. Yet even in the midst of that success, they live with this constant nugget of fear, this need to be on guard, lest acceptance erode and yesterday's nightmares come roaring back.



I can relate.



But there's something critics of The Passion, Jewish and otherwise, are missing. Namely, that this movie -- there's no delicate way to say this -- was not made for them -- or for that matter, for Muslims or atheists. It is deliberately exclusionary to a degree I've seldom seen. You didn't have to be Jewish to get Schindler's List or African-American to get Roots. Being those things might have deepened your appreciation, but they were not necessary.



To understand The Passion, though, you need at least familiarity with the four Gospels and, ideally, faith in them. The movie does not concern itself with back story; it assumes that you come to it with a certain body of knowledge.



Otherwise, all you will see is a man being hit over and over and over again, such extravagantly brutal torture that you cringe and pray for it to be done. But it never is. There is always another blow, a fresh gout of blood. If you know the Gospels, however, you might see something more than violence. You might see the embodiment of Christ's message. Which was not simply ''love and faith'' but redemption, ransom, sacrifice, the willingness to take upon Himself, upon His body, punishment for all the sins of humankind.



I'll leave it to others to argue whether it makes sense to exclude so many people. I will say only that within its narrow confines, The Passion is a work of shattering immediacy and devastating power.

---

Mr Pitt's statements are the argument in a nutshell for me. Different folks will see a different film depending a great deal on what their religion is. He doesn't agree with the charge of anti-semitism but he addresses it and doesn't dismiss it out of hand. I wish more of the gay rags had shown this kind of even handedness in discussing the dead lesbian cliche. It's simply not a viewpoint that can and more importantly should not be ignored IMHO.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 3/1/04 1:01 pm

[Hemiola]

Hi Kieli!



No, I am not an Aramaic speaker, but I have some familiarity with both Hebrew and Aramaic "academically". As far as I know (perhaps you can inform me otherwise), the only current native speakers of Aramaic live in a few villages in Southern Syria. I don't believe (again, unless you can inform me otherwise) that Mr. Gibson has exhibited his film in these villages, so I doubt they would be in a position to complain about the accents . In any case, the few times I have heard some of these individuals (in documentaries and in ethnographical recordings), the modern spoken language certainly resembles Hebrew (although it has been heavily "infected" by arabic). Except for the actress who plays Mary (who, I believe, is an Israeli who was born in Romania), none of the others in the film even came close.

There can be no question about the Italianate Latin ("faciam" should, for example, be "fak-iam", not "fatch-iam" ) or the lack of any Greek at all!



I hope I have managed to address some of your questions.