"The Passion Of The Christ"

Probably like shebang but where everything under consideration is made into a bigger deal than it is. Don't really think it's a word but I swear that I've heard family members use it.

 

Okay, now THAT was clever. You've made your point well, so I will retire from that part of the debate. We can agree to disagree on the subject of Mel's handling of the subject of his father.

 

The elder Schwarzenegger was a member of the Nazi Party during WWII. I don't know about him being a neo-Nazi. Arnold has given generously to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. Wiesenthal Center's Rabbi Marvin Hier said, "He's done more to further the cause of Holocaust awareness than almost any other Hollywood star."

The same Rabbi Hier worried about The Passion Of The Christ will undo Vatican II and fuel anti-Semitism. He stated in Los Angeles Times, February 8, 2004, "I don't think the film is anti-Semitic. I think, however, it can inspire anti-Semitism around the world, by people who will view it and don't have a proper context." My translation: I can't prove that Mel Gibson's latest movie is anti-Semitic but because he didn't make it to our liking it should be considered as anti-Semitic.

 

imho
the passion is not as much about sin as it is about light.
as marriage is not as much about sex as it is about love.
lovelight.

 

I haven't seen the movie so I really don't know how violent it is so I really can't judge the content. But I would say that I have seen several of the "Jesus" movies that have been made and I have always been disappointed with the way those stories presented the Passion. They seem watered down in their depiction and do not represent what the bible says happened. I wonder if much of the protest is that it's just hard to swallow the fact that the situation was indeed as historically violent as depicted in the Gipson film.

The New Testament says he was beaten beyond recognition. That's pretty intense.

 

I don't think Gibson is so trivially-minded that "he would proudly wear it like a crucifix."

Like Colleridge's Ancient Mariner, Gibson appears to have been led to this moment.

 

Grant I think you might be thinking of Simon the Cyrene who helped Jesus carry the cross.

 

Then they got it correct.

You know, this movie still isn't as violent as the real deal though. There's no way to convey the emotions of actually watching Jesus being slowly killed. There's no smell, feel, etc.

The movie's still with me this morning. That say a lot. I be I'll talk about it today with most everyone I'm around. Mel's done well. The whole world will be talking about Jesus. Interesting, eh?

 

I have stayed out of this thread because I haven't seen the movie, and don't intend to see it, but the above "translation" is off the mark. The Rabbi's statement is perfectly lucid, and makes a ton of sense. It doesn't require a "translation". Something does not have to be anti-semitic to inspire anti-semitism. The Rabbi is correct. I would bet that this movie is not anti-semitic. It's Gibson's take on particular verses of the New Testament, how he sees the crucifixion of Christ as it happened. It is no secret that throughout history, at least until Vatican II, Jews were blamed for the crucifixion of Christ. This lead to much anti-semitism throughout the ages. I think it is the fear that, basically, reinforcing this idea in this movie, which may or may not be the case, may move people who are already inclined to anti-semitism to reinforce these beliefs. This fear is real, I believe. A person who is not an anti semite will not turn into one by seeing a movie. People who are tolerant of others and their beliefs will not be swayed by seeing something on a movie screen. However, someone who is inclined to be intolerant and prejudiced will garner reinforcement from perhaps seeing what they feel, validated on that movie screen. Understand, I am not criticizing this movie, or anyone who goes to see it. I do think that the Rabbi made a valid point, and that his statement shouldn't be dismissed as an "I don't like it so it's anti-semitic" rant. Sorry if I rambled a bit. Hope I don't get gorted on this one. I've tried to be careful.

Jeff

 

Daily News article

Gibson's 'Passion' is devastating, uplifting


The atmosphere inside the movie theater Wednesday night -- immediately following "The Passion of the Christ" -- was unlike any I had seen before. No one was munching popcorn. There was no idle chit-chat. A sullen, stunned crowd stumbled for the exits, faces pale and anguished. Patrons headed toward their homes or some other quiet place to think or pray.

This was no angry mob out to launch a pogrom. Hardly.

It was an audience of ordinary people who, after a year of hearing the accusations and the praise, were finally able to judge Mel Gibson's instant classic for themselves.

As a practicing Catholic and the grandson of Austrian Jews who narrowly escaped the Holocaust in 1938, I have both a yearning for a positive Hollywood portrayal of my faith and a revulsion for anti-Semitism. I bought my ticket in advance, then crammed into that packed theater on Ash Wednesday, curious and suspicious -- wondering whether the film would live up to the hype.

It did, and it didn't.

As a production, "The Passion" is an artistic masterpiece. It conveys with beauty and agony one of Christianity's greatest paradoxes -- that an event so excruciating, so cruel and so wrong could ultimately be so liberating, so generous, so right. That the worst imaginable Friday could forever be known as Good, by the grace of a God whose love for the people he created is as infinite as himself.

Artistically and spiritually, the film is all that supporters said it would be and more. The tender flashbacks of a young Jesus and his mother, the moment Christ prays for his tormentors while hanging on the cross, the converts he wins in his final hours, all bear triumphant testament to the "no greater love" of which he preaches.

What's utterly overrated are the two aspects of the film that detractors attacked before they even saw it -- the alleged anti-Semitism and the complaints of excessive violence.

Yes, angry Jewish mobs repeatedly and successfully clamor for Jesus' death -- just as they do throughout the Gospels. But these are hardly the only Jews we see.

They share the stage with Jesus himself, a Jew whose disciples -- also Jews -- fittingly call him "rabbi." The story is told largely through the eyes of the Virgin Mary, depicted as a faithful and devoted Jewish mother, who happens to be played by a Jewish actress, Maia Morgenstern. When Christ first goes before the Sanhedrin, two priests step in and denounce the show trial as a "travesty."

And along Jesus' journey to Calvary are Jewish mourners, openly grieving and protesting his treatment.

Most notably, there's Gibson's moving, extrabiblical portrayal of Simon of Cyrene, the Jew whom Roman soldiers forced to help Jesus carry his cross. In the movie, Simon is brave and compassionate, ultimately risking his life -- while enduring the naked anti-Semitism of Roman soldiers -- to come to Christ's defense.

For all the controversy over Gibson's portrayal of the Sanhedrin and the Jewish mob, it's the Romans who come across as the most mean-spirited and sadistic. The centurions take delight in the beatings, the scourging, the crucifixion. They mock Christ and laugh with ghoulish delight when his blood splatters their clothes.

Yet even here, Gibson is careful not to paint with too broad a brush. Pontius Pilate is more a coward than a villain, and his wife, a pagan, somehow senses something divine about Jesus, something blessed about his mother. "The Passion of the Christ" portrays Romans and Jews of both good will and ill. It conveys no sense of corporate responsibility for Christ's death, other than the guilt that all humanity shares because of our sinfulness.

Perhaps that's why some of the groups that most loudly suggested that Gibson and "The Passion" were anti-Semitic have gradually downgraded those charges. Now they claim that though the film itself is not anti-Semitic, its fans might be. Bigots will misinterpret "The Passion" and be emboldened by it, they say.

But bigots will misinterpret anything to support their prejudices -- that's what makes them bigots. If all entertainment and art must be sterilized so as to prevent extremists from misinterpreting it, then neither art nor entertainment can ever seriously touch on religion again.

Yet more curious than the charges of anti-Semitism, which stem from a real history of real suffering, is the hand-wringing over Gibson's violent depiction of Christ's final 12 hours. Newsweek describes the film as "relentlessly savage." The New York Times says it "seems to arise less from love than from wrath." The New Yorker calls it "one the cruelest movies in the history of cinema."

Yes, "The Passion of the Christ" is a violent film, but certainly not more so than, say, "Reservoir Dogs," "Gangs of New York," "Kill Bill" or any number of movies that have won the praise of some of the very critics now denouncing Gibson's gore. It contains cruelty, but it's not itself cruel, like, say the wretched and critically acclaimed "Seven."

And its violence, while intense, is never gratuitous. Unlike any number of bloody films that have made millions in recent years, the depiction of pain and brutality in "The Passion" isn't meant to appeal to our morbid fascinations, but to horrify us with the ugliness and the brutality of the sins we commit every day.

That, I suspect, is the real reason why "The Passion of the Christ" has aroused such consternation.

In an age when deriding faith passes for intellectual sophistication, where truth is considered relative and the very notion of sin is dismissed, the film offers an honest, unapologetic portrayal of Christianity. It explicitly documents the evilness of men in this, a culture that often denies the existence of evil. "The Passion of the Christ" tramples on all the rules and hypocrisies of political correctness. It says there is a God, and it names him.

And that, for militant secularists, amounts to just plain poor taste.

Gibson has created a work that's both devastating and uplifting, making the abstraction of an infinitely loving God seem tangible in a way that only the big screen can. "The Passion" isn't about the Jews or the Romans. Nor is it about guts and gore. It's about each and every one of us, and our role in the greatest love story of all time.

Chris Weinkopf is the Daily News' editorial page editor. Write to him by e-mail at [email protected] .

 

I wonder if this thread has already sufficiently played out. I missed the comments that got deleted yesterday, so I don't know what was written. I must confess that while I'm interested in what people of various faiths (as well as agnostics and atheists) think about this film, a number of coments posted above seem to have veered into a discussion about the merits of being "religious" or not, with some not so veiled insults to those of us who are "non-believers."

 

Could you point out some instances of "non-believers" bashing?

BTW I'm off to make my meager portion of filthy lucre so probably won't respond for several hours.

Thanks for your input.

 

What a beautiful way of putting things. I agree.

 

I disagree, Jeff. FWIW, I have never heard in my life any kind of resentment against Jews for having killed Jesus (and I know a thing or two about this, having studied religion for 6 years). There's no resentment whatsoever - if anything, both at the Catholic school I attended and in the Christian group I frequent Jews are considered our "Brothers in Faith".

There's no resentment or anti-semitism whatsoever. Jesus could have been killed by the Jews, the Romans, the Greeks, the Ethiopians... or anyone else. It had to happen because that's the way it was written. Besides, the main issue on the Passion of Christ is not his Death, but rather his resurrection and his promise of a new life for all of us. He had to die for us to live - so the focus is on love and hope, not on who killed whom.

As someone else said so intelligently "you can find anti-semitism anywhere you want to if you are looking for it"...

 

I goofed. I didn't mean neo-nazi. You know how you hear a word or phrase so much that it sticks no matter what...

 

I'm quite offended by these paragraphs, in particular the first sentence. It comes across to me as saying that someone who questions another's faith lacks intellectual sophistication while trying to pretend to be smart; that this film and the events it portrays are "true" and "honest" and those who do not agree are false and dishonest; that those who have been painted with the broad brush of "political correctness" are hypocrits; and that secularists are "militant."

I'm also generally offended by some of the blanket statements about "all of us" committing evil sins every day. That's a personal world view that isn't appropriately applied to everyone, in my opinion. If someone else wants to vew life that way, that's his right. I don't appreciate someone labeling me a "sinner," particularly when those labels come with a lot of value judgments about what is or isn't sin.

I hope I haven't gone off into inappropriate territory with these comments. I just wanted to chime in because, in my view, this thread has already strayed into the territory of discussing religion and not the artistic merits of the film itself.

 

I suggest that anyone who already leans toward anti-Semitism will use this film for their own purposes. I honestly don't think anti-Semitism will increase just because of this one movie. It may politically galvanize some evangelical christians in this country, though...

Yes! my point exactly!

 

Geeeee! And, all this time I thought people got married because they thought they would get easy, unlimited sex, they didn't want to be lonely the rest of their lives, or because the girl got knocked-up!

 

Most Hollywood movies tend to romanticize or fluff historical things up because they don't want to offend the moviegoer. Holywood always wants the viewer to leave happy or feeling good. $$$ Hollywood was built on the idea of fantasy and feeling good. $$$

 

Uhm... I think you are quoting a critic there, not something anyone of us wrote...

 

I think this thread IS getting old, but I think it should remain open unless it gets ugly again.

I personally know many Christians who blame Catholics for wrongs in the world! I cannot agree with this.

Gibson made the film he believed he should make. I don't know about his timing, but this film is having it's day and will soon fade until the next big thing comes along. Time will tell if this really does harm Gibson's career. I don't think it will, though.

Let me say that I am a believer, but I don't believe in organized religion, as a body of people bounded by man-made doctorines, but I respect those who are a part of one.

Personally, I think a more important movie would be about the Revelation, and the events leading up to it. That is what I think would hit home to a broader audience. Maybe not.

 

Well, it's been done, several times.

It is so vague that it is open to a million interpretations. At least with the gospels one can be somewhat literal.

 

duplicate