The Passion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
This discussion has been quite interesting. I haven't seen the film and don't plan on it, and I certaintly don't feel any less of a Christian for not wanting to. I really don't understand why some Christians are putting such a pressure on others to see it, and trying to make them feel guilty if they don't or if they don't have a high opinion of it. Personally, I don't believe it's necessary to witness the crucifixion in gory detail to really appreciate Christ's sacrifice. As Christ said to Thomas, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
I think the idea that someone would voluntarily die on our behalf is really beyond our full comprehension. The graphic depiction may close that gap.

I'm afraid I must disagree. What Christ did for us, the atonement, went beyond dying on a cross. It also involved bleeding from every pore, and feeling the weight, all the emotional pain, of the sins of all the people that have ever lived on this earth and ever will. I think that's beyond comprehension and the graphic details in this film may make his dying on the cross a bit more real, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it would close the gap.
 
I refuse to feel guilty for not seeing this movie. Countless people who never witnessed the crucifixion themselves or saw a graphic depiction of it believed in their faith so strongly that they were willing to die for it.
 
I really think it's silly to put pressure on Christians to see this or any other movie. It's not as important as Scripture study or prayer, and to a Catholic it sure as heck isn't as important as getting the Sacraments. It's OK if you really want to see this movie and get something out of it but it's shocking and upsetting to some people. Some of these people are writing reviews. I don't see the necessity in this. Aren't we taking show business *way* too seriously here?
 
Last edited:
maude said:
I'm afraid I must disagree. What Christ did for us, the atonement, went beyond dying on a cross. It also involved bleeding from every pore, and feeling the weight, all the emotional pain, of the sins of all the people that have ever lived on this earth and ever will. I think that's beyond comprehension and the graphic details in this film may make his dying on the cross a bit more real, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it would close the gap.

Agreed. We will never fully comprehend this - we can only start to close the gap. It's like the Trinity. The person who fully understands the Trinity would be the fourth member.
 
Did anyone see him on Leno last night? I missed it. I have read articles that accuse him of orchestrating/exagerrating the whole "campaign" against the movie for publicity reasons. Who knows :shrug: Conspiracy theories abound..and wasn't he in a movie w/ that title? :hmm: :D

Friday, February 27, 2004

Mel Gibson with Jay Leno on Thursday's "Tonight" show.

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Mel Gibson said Thursday that his film "The Passion of the Christ" was unfairly prejudged for a year before its release -- but he forgives his critics.

Gibson told Jay Leno on NBC's "The Tonight Show" that he would try to adopt a loving attitude "even for those who persecute you."

"For a year, it's been nothing but nasty editorials and name-calling," he said.

The movie, which grossed $23.6 million on its opening day Wednesday, is based on Gospel accounts of the last hours of the life of Jesus. Some have praised Gibson's commitment to his subject while others have called the movie excessively bloody, obsessed with cruelty and unfair in its portrayal of Jews.

Gibson acknowledged the movie is violent and said it was R-rated for a reason.

"The Bible is R-rated. I mean, look at that book. ... That's a hot book," he joked.

But he noted that many other films were violent, mentioning "Kill Bill: Vol 1," the Quentin Tarantino martial arts bloodbath.

"Why am I being picked on for this? There's far more violent movies," he said.

Gibson alleged that a copy of the script was obtained "nefariously" before the film was completed, leading to "all these accusations of anti-Semitism," which he denied.

"That's not what the film's about," he said. "It's about tolerance."

Gibson said he never considered changing the script because of protests.

"I don't know any director, any artist who would bow to this kind of pressure. It's un-American," he said.

In his opening monologue, Leno joked that the movie, which cost Gibson $30 million to make, was doing so well that "there's now talk of turning it into a book."
 
Here's a link for one of those "conspiracy theory" type columns. I just thought it was an interesting viewpoint, which of course could also be dismissed as paranoia

I haven't seen Kill Bill, but is there anyone here who has seen both and can compare the level of violence?

I also think those things Mel said about Frank Rich were in very poor taste to say the least..I guess he was just "joking" of course, but he scares me sometimes..that "leave it alone Diane" was menacing :D

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/02/26/gibsons_passion_for_movie_profits/
 
MrsSpringsteen said:

I haven't seen Kill Bill, but is there anyone here who has seen both and can compare the level of violence?

Kill Bill was violent but in a very kung fu japanese anime way. Does that make sence. It wasn't done in a very realistic fashion I guess is what I am saying. But Kill Bill also wasn't marketed throughout the nation by Churches who on every other Sunday would put down a film that was this violent if it wasn't about Jesus.
 
Thanks, that's what I thought re Kill Bill

Just as an aside, the only movie I've ever heard discussed at my church is LOTR..my Pastor just related it somehow to an issue he was discussing (and talked about how thrilled he was to get the senior discount :D) I'm ashamed to say I don't remember how he included that, but he definitely had no comment on the violence in it. So for what little it is worth, just at my church, I can't recall violence in movies ever being discussed.

I don't go to an Evangelical church though, if that's what you were alluding to. I wouldn't know how much they talk about it there.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Thanks, that's what I thought re Kill Bill

Just as an aside, the only movie I've ever heard discussed at my church is LOTR..my Pastor just related it somehow to an issue he was discussing (and talked about how thrilled he was to get the senior discount :D) I'm ashamed to say I don't remember how he included that, but he definitely had no comment on the violence in it. So for what little it is worth, just at my church, I can't recall violence in movies ever being discussed.

I don't go to an Evangelical church though, if that's what you were alluding to. I wouldn't know how much they talk about it there.

No, I was just talking about churches in general, I know not all of them do. But every church that I've been a part of, and I've been part of many denominations, have campaigned against certain films not so much during services unless it's a really controversial film, but on the community level sorta speak. Sunday school classes would encourage you not to see certain popular films, etc.
 
I just read some of these posts and I have to voice my view, I saw "The Passion" and cried my eyes out. I'm not religious, like to think of myself as a woman of science instead of spirit. Even though I liked this movie, this didn't revive my Catholic faith, it was just a movie, with one man's view on a story that is still yet to be proved as fact. I think many christian groups in the states, if not anywhere else, are going to try to use this film to maybe recruit others to the faith. I like to remember that this is a global community and christianity is not the only way.
But what the hell do I know?
 
OOh I went to see The Passion yesterday and after it was over there wasn't a dry eye in the theater. I cried so much my head was hurting. It was extraordinary portrayal of the last hours of Jesus' life. I don't think it was too violent...because it has to be to really impact people and show them the truth.

Mel Gibson made a cameo in the film, or rather his hand did. His hand was one of the ones that nailed Jesus' hand to the cross. :wink:
 
I saw the movie with my english teacher and a bunch of my classmates and I think every single person in the theatre was crying. I did not expect to cry until my head hurt. In my opinion this was an excellent movie that made me realize what Jesus did for us. The violent scenes did not gross me out and I am not one to sit through most violent movies. I think the movie had to be graphic to show the point.
 
macphistosmagic said:
I saw the movie with my english teacher and a bunch of my classmates and I think every single person in the theatre was crying. I did not expect to cry until my head hurt. In my opinion this was an excellent movie that made me realize what Jesus did for us. The violent scenes did not gross me out and I am not one to sit through most violent movies. I think the movie had to be graphic to show the point.

Exactly.
That is exactly what I think. :yes:
 
Well I've seen it and here's my take.
*
*
*
*
Spoilers
*
*
*
*
*
This is a brutal, brutal movie. Do not see this movie if you are at all weak of stomach or have issues with violence. And for God's sake (I mean that quite literally) DO NOT allow children to see this. That said I'd say about 80% of the violence served a purpose. Scourging and crucifixion are not nice things and it is a sobering dose of reality. But it realy did go too far at several points. This movie is an ordeal to sit through, the weakness and exhaustion from it have just finally left me.

However this movie is in my personal opinion not anti-Semetic in the least. There are numerous sympathetic Jewish characters, and the crowds are clearly being incited to violence. As positive Jewish figures you have Simon of Cyrene (the man who helps Jesus carry the cross), the weeping tormented people who look on along with the mockers, a pretty even split, probably more weighted on the mourners on the walk to the crucifixion. And of coursde there is Mary, Mary Magdalane, and John. The Roman soldiers are with few exception vicious and almost bestial even shaming their officers and sickening many. No concerns about any rational person walking away from this film blaming the Jews.

Accuracy. A fair bit is added to the account in the gospels, much of it beneficial to the story but a lot of it can be guessed at coming from that 19th Century nun. The personification of Satan was largely effective though certain points annoyed me (there's one point right after Jesus death which was gratuitous and I really wished wasn't there). Basically used to make subtle points blindingly clear. The most glaring inaccuracy was teh trial before the Sanheidrin (the council of priests). In the gospels it is a private affair at the High Priest Ciaphas' house, in the Passion it's a public spectacle. Pilate is handled well and while a tad bit too sympathetic, he is presented as man in a no win situation (whatever he does people will be pissed and he can't afford another rebillion which will make the emperor will be very unhappy - true to histopry that one, Pilate was reprimanded for all the trouble in Judea -and his excessive brutality - and eventually removed) as he should be. Judas gets taunted and harassed by demonic children... disturbing and uneccessary. But overall not too bad.

In the end a compelling if somewhat flawed creation. You cannot help but be moved if only for the tragedy. Mary is truly heartbreaking as a mother losing her son and there are many very moving moments (the one involving the thief who accepts Jesus while being crucified was particularly powerful for me, but the moment was tainted by having the scornful thief immediately after have his eye torn out by a crow - not something I was please with). There are just enough flash back moments of Jesus with his disciples his mother, and some key areas of teaching (love one another, love your enemies basically the big stuff) - I would have preferred more of this to give it more meaning and to be more accessible to non-belivers (the flash-back to the adultrous woman Jesus spares - you know the whole "ye who are without sin cast the first stone" thing - would mean nothing to anyone not familiar with that story and it's details as only a little bit is shown which explains little). But again overall very compelling and powerful. A film more for insiders, and those who know the gospels somewhat rather than people who know nothing. Again I'd have cut about 20% of the gore and some of the added on material, in favour of showing more of Jesus teaching. Good but flawed. I found it useful for me to see, but not for everyone. Very compelling. You'll cry buckets unless you're a robot. Draining but rewarding.
 
bonocrazy88 said:
Mel Gibson made a cameo in the film, or rather his hand did. His hand was one of the ones that nailed Jesus' hand to the cross. :wink:


His left hand--left is "sinestra" (sinister) in Latin. Nice touch!
 
a good one , it deserves an oscar , however , my heart was beating too fast during the movie , and i never saw such a mixed crowd in cinema , full pack , all colors , Mel , this is a historic great epic ( the greatest , since Caligula ) .
 
Blacksword said:
Well I've seen it and here's my take.
*
*
*
*
Spoilers
*
*
*
*
*
the flash-back to the adultrous woman Jesus spares - you know the whole "ye who are without sin cast the first stone" thing - would mean nothing to anyone not familiar with that story and it's details as only a little bit is shown which explains little

Does anyone know the significance of Jesus writing in the dirt here? I believe he draw a line and then an S?
 
bonosloveslave said:


Does anyone know the significance of Jesus writing in the dirt here? I believe he draw a line and then an S?



Don't you mean John Cadisel or what ever his name is?

Or why Mel Gibson had the actor do this?


From news reports and things I have read
some people seem to think the entered a time warp and witnessed the actually event

instead of Gibson's warped interpretation.
 
Mel Gibson does,

remember what he endured in Braveheart, and Madmax



But, of course this Passion is "just" his interpretation.
 
bonosloveslave said:


Does anyone know the significance of Jesus writing in the dirt here? I believe he draw a line and then an S?

I am working on it....there is something about this question that kind of tripped something in my mind. I cannot remember right now what that was....:mad:
 
I vaguely remember hearing during a sermon on this passage that there was a theory that he was writing down the names of people there and the sins they committed. I am not sure though....it is coming back to me slowly.
 
There is another version of that story. It starts the same way. The scribes and Pharisees bring the woman before Jesus, quote the law to him, and ask him what he has to say about it.
He writes with his finger in the sand, and then says, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." At that moment a stone comes flying out of the crowd, hits the woman right in the forehead, and kills her instantly.

Jesus turns and says, "Oh Mother, I was just trying to make a point."
 
bonosloveslave said:
Does anyone know the significance of Jesus writing in the dirt here? I believe he draw a line and then an S?

Scripture does not say what he was writing. The emphasis seemed to be Jesus' full comprehension of the situation without looking up.
 
Back
Top Bottom