The Passion of the Christ

I haven't seen it, though I probably will sometime-- but I have a couple of very specific problem with the film. First of all, the title. To me (and I admit, I am seeing this from a literary rather than religious viewpoint, but here the viewpoints are compatible), "The Passion of the Christ" is the aggregate of the different texts in the New Testament dealing with the week leading up through the crucifixion. Works of art on the subject should have qualifiers on the title in some way-- like Bach's "St. John Passion," Zefirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth," the traditional Oberammergau "Passion Play," Steven Schwartz's "Godspell," etc. I expect there are probably some other works of art and theater that are also just called "The Passion" or "The Passion of the Christ," but that bothers me too.

The second thing is the marketing, which to me seems designed to make Christian people feel guilty for not seeing it. I think that is wrong-- if one thinks that seeing a Passion Play (or movie, or oratorio) is a religious obligation, or even a good thing to do, why wouldn't any of the many good Passion Plays (movies, oratorios) be equally good? I can only really see this from my own beliefs here, and I don't feel the need to watch The Ten Commandments (or Prince of Egypt) during Passover.

Full disclosure: since I do have a bachelor of music in vocal performance and care a lot about all its trappings, I am very sensitive to any possible insult against J.S. Bach and/ or Franco Zefirelli, and I do perceive an insult and attempt at pre-emption here (especially of the Zefirelli movie).

Becky...I'M compelled to watch The Ten Commandments during Passover! We have the video, but never-the-less, I MUST watch it on TV every year.

I've learned about Roman crucifixion, and prayed at Golgatha (in Israel), but I am not at all compelled to see the Mel Gibson movie. DH is interested, so I may go along, but I feel no "obligation" to do so.

It is my belief that the Passion was a means to an end; and that the "end" was not the crucifiction, but the ressurection.

(but that's just me)

Love to all,

Lenora
Who adores "Godspell" and "Jesus of Nazareth"

That being said, I think that Mel has demons that he must continually exorcise (figuratively speaking) in front of the camera or behind it. His characters are tortured physically, emotionally, &/or mentally in some way in so many of the movies he's done--Mad Max series, The Lethal Weapon series, Payback, Conspiracy Theory, Patriot, Signs, Ransom, Braveheart, Man Without A Face, even What Women Want. I think it's consistent that a movie of his that is about Christ is about the crucifixion. That being said, I've enjoyed nearly every movie I've listed here and own copies of several of them.

Mel has been exploring this cathartic/releasing theme his entire career. I'm genuinely interested in what his next project will be. How do you do more cathartic/releasing than the crucifixion?

To me, the point of Jesus' life is his teachings and the way he lived, holding up a mirror to the Judges and the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and showering all the suffering souls he encountered along the way with compassion, mercy, and healing. THAT is the story of Jesus that means something to me. THAT'S the part of Jesus' life that I want to see and talk about.

But then, I'm a heretic.

I've really thought about this, and I'm leaning towards waiting for the video. (FYI, like Mel Gibson, I'm Catholic -- though Mel is a pretty conservative Catholic, and I'm a pretty progressive Catholic.)

I avoid violent films because they are too upsetting to me -- LOTR has been a stretch for me, and I find myself thinking during the movies about how the Orcs and Oruk-Hai are completely inhuman and more like created machines, which makes it easier for me to root for the good guys. Anyway, I'm quite sure this would be too much. (Clearly, then, I have not seen many Mel Gibson movies, though I did see Braveheart and I thought some of the violence there was gratuitous and over the top, especially the disembowling scene at the end. Based on that I think it may be fair to say that as a director Gibson does have a tendency to linger a little too voyeuristically -- or something, maybe that's not the right word -- on violent images. A guy thing? (Thankfully, not my guy!))

I have felt guilty about this decision -- I haven't seen a lot of marketing, but of course I have heard and read the coverage of the film, which seems to send a similar message: "It's your Christian obligation to attend." But the more I read about it, the more I think it's not for me, at least not right now.

On a (Evangelical) Christian radio station, I heard someone say something interesting: "My prayer is that we will all find a way for God's Word to be as powerful for us as one man's movie version." In other words, God chose His way of presenting the Gospel, and that's the one Christians should attend to most. (I just thought that was a timely reminder in the midst of the hype, I'm not trying to suggest that seeing the movie means you are preferring it to the Bible, or that making a movie or other form of art means you're trying to surpass it.)

At my church I am helping to present an event called "Contemplating the Crucified" where Fr. Michael Joncas (if you know liturgical music you may know him as the author of the ubiquitous hymn "On Eagles' Wings") will be leading us through several centuries of art depicting the Passion. I'm glad to have an alternative, because naturally all this talk about the movie makes me think (as a Catholic) that I should be pondering the Passion about now, being Lent and all. I'm hoping those who have seen the movie will come and share too, because it seems like it could be interesting to discuss historically and comparatively the various artistic expressions of the Passion. (We're listening to something too, Becky, but it was not a composer I had ever heard of.)

Anyway, thanks Susannah for posting your thoughts. I hope anyone else who sees the movie does too. I think I will see it on DVD, but the big screen is just too much for me.

(I guess I'm like my DD almost-5, who used to say she'd watch Snow White when she's 5, but now has pushed it to 6 or 7 because she knows she's pretty easily scared!)

p.s. Susannah, I would be curious to see a link to any reviews mentioning homoerotic undertones. That's one thing I haven't seen. And I've never actually heard anyone say the film is anti-Semitic -- what I've seen in all the reviews is "Although some have called the film anti-Semitic, it's not." (I did rather dislike the somewhat snarky Salon review, but otherwise I've seen mostly positive.)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1129941/reviews.php?critic=col...

The quote I was referring to was in Lisa Schwarzbaum's review:

"It's a weave of Gospel versions, narrative add-ons (including a slinking, androgynous devil and a gentle, primed-to-convert wife for Pilate who disagrees with her husband's weak, hand-washing ways), and the age-old Gibsonian homoerotic fascination with the sight of a handsome male body undergoing torture."

I didn't get the impression that reviews were mostly positive. Some had positive things to say, but most of those were mitigated with negatives. Roger Ebert's was probably the most positive. The reviews gave me the impression that it would be worse (bloodier) than it was. These people routinely review films where people pump bullets into other people in a most graphic way...but they can't stomach a historically accurate crucifixion? A quick perusal of Rotten Tomatoes' digest reveals the general mindset of most reviewers. I think you will find audience polls generally more positive than the official reviews, because the movie is better than reviewers would lead one to believe.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ThePassionoftheChrist-1129941/

Yeah, there are things to nitpick about the film, but I am amazed by the incessant criticism of Gibson.

I think most non-Christians feel that Jesus' ministry (i.e., his teaching) is more important than his death. His ministry is important; it shows us the love and grace of the Father and it continues to this day through the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus showed us what the Father "looks like." However, his own teaching was that he came to die for us. Evangelicals don't refer to it as the "passion"; we simply refer to it as his death and resurrection. References to passion plays, etc. go over most of our heads.

Interesting that you brought up God's word, Shaun. The movie made me want to go home and read through the gospels again. It's not holy writ, it's just a movie, like many others based on the life of Christ (most of which I have seen as well). I think most Christians are going in droves, not out of guilt or marketing pressure, but because they love Jesus, and that "because he first loved us." People like this *Time* reviewer just don't get it:

"What is the audience for this Passion? Many Christians — who would appreciate the message — may be repelled by the film's unrelenting bloodletting. The teen boys who make box-office winners every Friday night may like the blood, but they want their heroes to fight back and blow stuff up. Nor is this exactly a date movie. No, the audience profile for The Passion of the Christ is fairly narrow: true believers with cast-iron stomachs; people who can stand to be grossed out as they are edified. And a few movie critics who can't help admiring Mad Mel for the spiritual compulsion that drove him to invent a new genre — the religious splatter-art film — and bring it to searing life, death and resurrection."

For one thing, if the audience for a movie about Jesus is so narrow, how does he explain the opening day numbers? But the main thing he doesn't get is that this isn't splatter-art. The blood of Christ is precious to those who trust in him.

I think Peter the Apostle summed it up:

For in Scripture it says: See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone," and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall."

"the age-old Gibsonian homoerotic fascination with the sight of a handsome male body undergoing torture."

I must say, if I had read this in a review of Braveheart I would not have found it offbase! But I can't speak to this movie or any of his others, so I'll have to trust your judgment in this case.

It does remind me that critics have to be free to critique Gibson's moviemaking -- which I think could fairly be called heavyhanded in earlier films--without it being a criticism of the Passion itself or a failure to understand its significance.

I think that's where the sense of guilt comes in for more than just me -- the idea that if you are truly Christian you will appreciate the graphic nature of the film. Or that if you were able to withstand the fantasy computer-generated violence of a film like The Matrix, you're a hypocrite if you find The Passion too much for you.

First of all, no one should feel guilt about avoiding violence in films! I think that's a pretty good impulse, if you ask me. I was drawn to see it out of curiousity and love of the subject, but I was dreading the violence. I found I was able to detach myself by focusing on the fact that they were acting. Also, as I said, it wasn't what I thought it would be based on reviews.

By the way, I read the USA Today review later on, and I thought it was a fair critique. Certainly people need to review it the way they see it. I just see some of the reviews as a bit reactionary.

I've never been able to bring myself to watch Braveheart a second time, even though I liked it.

But I couldn't resist yet another example. Do lots of people really think this way? I hope not. And this guy hadn't even seen it yet.

Article is here.

[Note: Edited by Lynn to remove copyrighted content and replace it with a link to the article. PLEASE DO NOT COPY THE FULL TEXT OF ARTICLES ONTO THE SITE. It gets me in all kinds of trouble, even if I'm not the one to do it. Just post a link to the article you want to share. A sentence or two, even a paragraph, with a link is appropriate, but copying the entire article is Not Good. I got an angry phone call today from the website this was taken from, hence this editing job. I'll put a note up in the forum guidelines to this effect. Thanks, everyone.]

I'm a Christian, and I have absolutley no intention of seeing The Passion of the Christ. And it has nothing to do with anything other than: I have done a good deal of research on what Jesus went through for us. I know how painful it was, I know what they did to Him. I see absolutely no need to actually SEE it. And I don't feel in the slightest bit guilty about that. I never saw Braveheart, or any other of the movies that everyone is talking about, I haven't even seen Lord of the Rings movies. I don't choose to subject myself to seeing that kind of thing. And that doesn't make me any less of a Christian. As Susannah said, no one should feel in the slightest bit guilty for avoiding violence in films.
That said, I think that it's really cool that Mel Gibson made a movie about it. I think that too many people have no idea what Jesus went through for us. The pain and horror of it has been glossed over, and rarely talked about. And if Mel Gibson's movie helps bring this home to some people, then more power to him. I sincerly pray that this movie brings more people to Christ. I also pray bring Christians to have a closer relationship with him.
Melinda

"I think that that review by Mr. Holleran reveals more about him than it does the film. I think he was mad because he didn't get to go to the prescreening party."

Ha!

Yes, I was thinking the review reveals his need to take a writing class. And it may also reveal his age (actual or mental) to be somewhere between 18 and 21 (no offense to anyone of that actual age!). It reminded me very much of the college-student writing I used to grade -- from the sloppy, lazy prose to the black-and-white, cynical stance.

I was especially intrigued by the comparison of Sister Act and The Passion! Take a memo, Miramax: here's an untapped concept for a musical tragicomedy!

Ah, but I am procrastinating. Just enjoy reading everyone's opinions. Had another friend tell me today he was blown away by the film, considered it a religious experience for him, and hopes his wife and 16-yr-old will go.

that Mel Gibson was really only known for his romantic comedy roles, yet everyone seems to have forgotten those, because it doesn't fit. Then of course there's the anti-English theory of Mel Gibson films, which could probably be substantiated too. Nobody can win this particular battle can they - either you're a lightweight fluff kind of person, or if you do something a bit more substantial everyone gets on yor back about it.

Who's to say that God isn't trying a new approach to get people's attention? No matter what the style or quality of a film like this, it will inevitably make you think, and most people will reach for that dusty Bible on their shelf and check a few things out. For some people it may be the beginning of a journey.

I'm a big fan of The Ten Commandments, but not a big fan of violent films, so I probably wouldn't go out of my way to watch this particular film either. I certainly don't think anyone should feel bad about that. As Shaun and Becky said, there's a ton of other art out there, but not all Christians feel compelled to go and look at every new religious painting that comes out. Celebrity is definitely being used here to sell tickets - it always will be. Whether Gibson himself has a hand in that I really don't know. I tend to feel a little cynically about any Hollywood actor, simply because they need to be pretty tough to survive. But anyone who can smile like that guy... And I hear he's a damn good father too, so I tend to find those to be mitigating factors!

anyway, just thoughts provoked by what I've read here. I doubt very much whether it will even be shown in Singapore to be honest - far too sensitive for such an emotive subject matter I expect.

Kerri.

I am glad that someone has the guts (no pun intended) to remove the Disney-fication about the horror and torture of crucifixion. At least in my experience of the American evangelical church (of which I was a former member--almost went into missionary work, as a matter of fact), the cross was just something to wear around one's neck or as a focal (clean, smooth, unblemished) centerpoint of a beautiful sanctuary. This has been a pet peeve of mine from almost the first time I heard the 'real' story. I think that perhaps (though the cynic in me highly doubts it) this will inspire Christians to look inward and renew their understanding of the price paid for their personal redemption.

I can tell you, as a former Christian, that if people think this film is going to be useful for evangelical outreach, they've got another thing coming. I believe it will be helpful for those who once had a good foundation and drifted away. But it will not reach those who have made an informed and faith-based decision to reject the church. I think those pastors I've heard going on and on about how this will be a great tool for unbelievers do not really know their target audience that well. The Jesus film produced by CCC is much better in that regard. Too bad there isn't a film to incorporate both (though perhaps Gibson has a 'prequel' and a 'sequel' in mind? I think that would be truly wonderful.

I, for one, would have loved to have heard the sermon on the mount in Aramaic. Even though I am no longer a Christian, I still hold great love for Jesus, his teachings, and the ultimate truth of his life (which only partially is rooted in his death--I'll have to disagree with Susannah about that.) Though I wouldn't expect the words of the one who by bibical accounts was no great speaker or charismatic good looking guy to be flowery, I think hearing his words in his language would be intensely moving.

I don't understand the controversy around this film. So it's violent. I'm sure it doesn't come close to the reality of a crucifixion...and people watched worse in the circuses later. Jewish leaders may have paid a part in calling for Jesus' death--so what? Jesus WAS a Jew, and was directly challenging them. In addition, doctrinally everyone who sinned killed him, so blame is useless here. I am incredulous that people who are not shocked by scenes of graphic rape and slasher films would feign outrage at the subject matter of this film.

I am not surprised that this movie has touched a nerve, though. There are lots of people who have been damaged by the church (though in some respects, I think that those people might be well served by going to the film). There are many others that are turned off by the alternating lukewarm extremism of what people tend to think of as the political arm of the church--but that has nothing to do with religion. People are going to project their experiences onto the subject matter--and since Christianity is at the root of our culture, it's unsurprising that people get upset when their comfort level is challenged.

To cut my longwindedness short--I'm glad that this film was produced, and that it's doing so well. I'd like to think it could be a good shot in the arm to the folks that need it most.
-Kitty, mama to Fiona, Thomas, and Dylan.

I, too, get irritated by peoples view of the cross. It was a HORRIBLE way to die, but mose people either don't see it, or prefer to gloss over it. I also think you're right about the success of it being used in evangelical outreach. I know I said that I hoped it would bring more people to Him, but after reading your post, I thought about it a bit more, and I think that more likely it'd scare away most non believers.
Frankly, the reason that I think that this movie offends people, who'll watch slasher films and the like, is because I think the public, in general, like to think of Jesus, and the other Bible figures (Mary, Joseph, etc.) as some how above things like sweating, bleeding, crying, etc.. Look at most films, or cartoons, of the story of Jesus' birth! Mary is calm, serene, clean, and totally on top of things. Come on! She was a 13 year old virgin, she was IN LABOR, she'd been riding on top of a donkey for days through the hot, sandy desert, and now, ON TOP OF IT ALL, they couldn't find a room for her to have her baby! I'm willing to bet she was sweaty, stinky, and TOTALLY FREAKED OUT!
But that's off the point. I guess I'm just going to hope that it helps bring believers closer to Christ, and will help to break up some of their illusions. It's important to know, truly, how much he went through for us.

The specific concern about anti-semitism is, as Lotus said, the fact that Passion plays were traditionally an impetus for pogroms, not an issue with how Jews are portrayed in the movie itself. This could easily be a problem in Europe, which has more than its share of synagogue desecrations and rabbis and lay Jews getting beaten up. It is not likely to be a problem in the US.

A website which lists which parts of the movie were from the gospels and which were from other sources: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14097_1.html

Sometimes I would get a "cannot find server" message, but hitting reload once or twice would fix it.