# "The Passion of Christ"



## athenaeus (Jul 24, 2001)

Has anybody seen this controversial film yet?

I have participated in a couple of discussions and although I hate violence I feel that I have to see it to form an opinion of my own.Any opinions?


----------



## nicko (Oct 5, 2001)

It is an amazing film and I would encourage everyone to see it. It shows what Jesus Christ did for all of us by dying on the cross for all men and their sins. Although there were some diffcult parts to see I think it shows how painfull the death by crucifixtion was. I was moved to tears by this film.

I thought Mel Gibson had a great answer when asked whether the film was anti-semetic. He said that he saw the movie Shindler's list and that he did not walk away from that movie hating German's.

I don't feel this movie is as controversial as the press is making it out to be. It is a look at the last 12 hours of Christ and amazing one at that.


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

I had a moderate interest in seeing it, but now that more details are out, my interest is dropping.

And this is why my interest is dropping. From my religious perspective, this movie is not about what Jesus did, rather what men did to Jesus. That's my perspective.

It does seem to have been a well crafted, well worked and acted film. The technical aspects of the film still hold some appeal to me.

Phil


----------



## bevreview steve (Jan 11, 2000)

Over the weekend on _Ebert and Roper_, both gave the film thumbs up. Ebert was surprisingly emphatic about the film and the overall meaning. (Audio of the review can be found here)

Ebert's Sun Times review can be found here. Of note is the way he prefaces his reviewo I think Gibson would have edited it if the film had been given an NC-17 rating? If Mel was a traditional Hollywood director, he would reedit the film to get an R rating. NC-17 is the kiss of death for the survival of a film for two reasons. One, it greatly reduces the number of people who can see it in the first run. Second, and more importantly, stores like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video don't stock NC-17 films. Most films these days show at a loss until the DVD is released, and then they become profitable.

I think there have only been a few films that have been flagged as NC-17 since this rating was introduced 10 or so years ago. Usually, we associate sexuality with the rating, but in this case, violence would foot the bill. It's because of these economics behind the ratings system that you see PG, PG-13, and R movies all get raunchier as of late. It all has to do with the distribution system in the end.

All that said, Mel isn't a traditional Hollywood director. And he'd probably keep the rating.

Personally, I've read a lot about it and would like to see it eventually. However, because it's supposed to be pretty graphic and violent, I don't know if I could actually handle it at a theater (I can't even get through an episode of _ER_ or _24_ sometimes). I may wait for it on DVD 

No, the film doesn't seem perfect from a creative or Biblical history point of view. No film adaptation is (even the much hearlded _Lord of the Rings_ triology changed from the books somewhat). However, I admire Gibson's bold take and vision to tell the story. I think if you had someone else get together to do a film like this, it would be film by committee, which always results in crap. Mel is taking a risk by doing this, but it's HIS interpretation of what happened. He didn't try to make everything approachable for all parties involved, which I admire. I have a feeling that if a group of folks or a studio were to try to produce this, you'd have denominational infighting and a diluted message.

As for the violence that was done to Jesus, yeah, it's pretty heavy duty. It is a lot about what happened to him rather than what he did for others. That's the tradeoff in Mel telling only the 8 hours or so of the overall story.


----------



## mudbug (Dec 30, 1999)

Agreed. See it for yourself before making judgements.

This time, I don't think it's the media making it controversial, but rather the media reporting on all the religious groups, critics, and common viewers who have opinions. This film will be as different for every individual who sees it as there are individuals who see it.

I don't believe that it is anti-semetic and anyone who thinks that it is, needs to keep an open mind and get informed. It is depicting a place in time based on the status quo of that time, and there are plenty of positivie depictions of Jewish people in the film.

Keep in mind that in this case, 'Passion' in "The Passion of the Christ" means the 'Suffering'. I don't think some of the public realizes that this is the entire topic of the film.

In this respect, Gibson has done his job, and done it well, as an artist, a film maker, and fellow human being. With so much entertainment "fluff" out there, this is a refreshing application of the medium.

There are few people in this world who could do a film like this, do it as well, and have people still willing to see it. A film about religion, about torture, in three languages (Aramaic - a 2,500-year-old language, Latin, Hebrew), none of them English, and two of them dead. Now under what circumstances would most humans ever see a film with these attributes?

It's encouraging the public, religious or not, into theological discussions. It's a catalyst to learn about historical accuracy, religion, and individual beliefs.

It's bringing people to the theater who don't normally go, touching people in a way that few films can. People young and old, male and female, rich or poor, people from all over the world who speak different languages who are religious - or not.

_It's what great art can inspire..._


----------



## athenaeus (Jul 24, 2001)

From what I have understood it depicts what the four gospels record and the critics about antisemitism don't really refer to Gibson's film per se but to the fact that it revives ideas that lead to the suffering of many people for 2000 years because as we know until the end of Middle Ages antisemitism was based on the Christian teachings.


----------



## athenaeus (Jul 24, 2001)

Yes your opinion sounds fair to me Colleen.


----------



## chrose (Nov 20, 2000)

Leave me out of it thank you


----------



## gilbear (Sep 19, 2003)

If this movie had been called "Death of a Dissident", its exhibition would be banned in most places.
It shows the brutal torture and execution of a man who was guilty of making trouble for the local authorities. Crucifixtion is a historical fact. Torture and brutality are historically evidenced facts. Bloodthirsty crowds are also historical facts. These things existed throughout the ancient world. This film could have been set in any of the countries where Rome ruled by force.
I don't believe the depiction to be anti-Semitic, in and of, itself. However, I can easily conclude that any self-righteous, moralistic, piece of crap, correspondence school preacher man would be happy to use the film as an excuse to whip his flock into an inbred, cousin f^(king, jew-killing frenzy.
Nice job, Mel! I give it a big thumbs up(yer arse!)


----------



## cape chef (Jul 31, 2000)

Those who take scripture seriosly know who killed Jesus,

I do, and I didn't.

My Torah does not speak of Jesus.


----------



## jock (Dec 4, 2001)

I've always found it odd that people think of Jesus as a christian. I suppose it is just semantics but Jesus was a Jew surely? It is the followers of Christ who are christians. 

History from the beginning of time has demonstrated the violence of mankind. The Huns killed everybody in sight, Hannibal and his gang wreaked havoc over Asia and Europe, The moslems killed the infidels, the christians killed Jews, the native Americans and black people and the list goes on and on. The fact that we now kill with smart bombs from miles away does not diminish the violence or suffering of those who are bombed. We have the luxury (most of us) to sit in our comfortable armchairs and discuss intelectually the the state of the world as it is and as it was. But when somebody rubs our noses in the violent reality that happens to this very day, we are shocked. This kind of violence could only have happened in history, right? I think "civilization" is a thin veneer (remember Lord of the Flies?) and under extreme circumstances we are all capable of violent behavior. In the mean time we make like an ostrich and bury our collective heads in the sand.

I appreciate the symbolism of Gibbson's hand and Rembrandt in a Roman soldier's uniform but I think I'm a pretty good guy and I don't sin. So does that let me off the hook? I'm not jewish but I'm solidly with chrose and cape chef, don't blame me for something that may or may not have happened 2,000 years ago.

There is a real danger that this thread could develop from a movie critique into a religeous debate. I for one would not appreciate that. Too many people hold too many deep convictions for any good to come out of such a debate.

Jock


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

I have not seen the film and if I do it will be after some time has passed and when I can watch it without the echoes of the controversy in my ears.

Please understand that a good deal of the fears of anti-Semitism voiced by the Jewish community are founded in experience. Many, many communities in Europe built entire festivals around torment of the local Jews prior to, or during, the Lenten season. This period of the year has been a time of uncertainty and fear in Jewish homes and communities for centuries. I hope this bit of context helps.


----------



## lawyerly (Feb 26, 2004)

My hope is to convey to those of you on Cheftalk who are Jewish that I do not want to be insensitive or offensive. Rather, I care for and respect you all a great deal. 
I suppose it could seem that I am trying to have a religious debate. I really was not; I was hoping to point out why this movie should not be considered anti-semitic. Perhaps the lawyer in me gets carried away!
When I pointed out that it was all of us who killed Christ, I was trying to convey that this is what Christians believe, and was not trying to force this upon anyone else. I was trying to point out that Christians don't blame the Jewish people or the Romans or the leaders in power at that time for Christ's death. Rather, Christians believe it was all of mankind's sin nature that sent Christ to the cross, as well as God's sovereign plan from the beginning of time. 

No, Cape Chef, I wasn't trying to imply that Jews don't take scripture seriously. That was not my intent at all. I am sorry if that is how it came across.

Mezz - your information was helpful and does provide a perspective for me. I do not mean to minimize in any way the suffering and persecution that the Jewish people have endured.

Jock, as for Jesus being Jewish, indeed he was, and no, Christians do not believe Jesus himself was "Christian," but rather that he was the basis upon which Christianity came into existence. There was no such thing as Christianity until after Christ's resurrection, and even the first church did not coin the term, "Christianity." The term, "Christian" is rather just a label which came about to distinguish those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.


----------



## lawyerly (Feb 26, 2004)

To quote gilbear:

"I can easily conclude that any self-righteous, moralistic, piece of crap, correspondence school preacher man would be happy to use the film as an excuse to whip his flock into an inbred, cousin f^(king, jew-killing frenzy."

What is inconsistent is that it's not acceptable for any other group to be slandered but somehow you find no problem slandering Christians. Why not try to treat with respect those who have views different from yours?


----------



## ritafajita (Mar 2, 2002)

I'm not sure I will see the movie - not because of the message (whatever that is) but because of the violence. 

I grew up in a very religious household that was strict when it came to what we were allowed to view on TV and in movies. Violence and scary situations were not allowed - but for one exception. When violence was used to depict anything having to do with Jesus, it automatically became okay. I remember being very young and being exposed to a film about the rapture. It was very scary, especially to someone like me who was not sensitized to violence and scary situations being depicted in movies. The other thing I remember is how guest speakers used to come to the church sometimes and speak graphically about what Jesus went through during the crucifixtion - what would have happened to his organs, how he sweat blood, etc. All that info did for me was make it harder to go to sleep at night. It didn't make me believe in Jesus any more (or any less). 

I just don't need such graphic description to help me make up my mind about what I believe. 

RF


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

Hmmmm... maybe it's time to switch to a more neutral topic, like politics!


----------



## lamington (May 2, 2003)

I really don't see why people engage in these conversations when it is obvious that they will turn into religious debates, producing offended and offensive participants, and generally being unnecessarily divisive on a site which is about entirely unrelated topics.

ColSahlas decided that gilbear was slandering Christians (in toto), but gilbear's strong wording is clearly referring to a specific type of person. And lo! we have people getting grumpy with each other.

Just get off the topic and keep religion out of the kitchen. I don't care about your faiths and I'm sure there are others on this site who either have a different faith, your faith (but not needing to wave a flag about it), or don't feel it is appropriate for members to be making strong faith-specific statements anyway.


----------



## cape chef (Jul 31, 2000)

I offer this link to a well written piece from the New York Times.

I had posted it here today with full credit to the times and writer in it's text because you need to register to read the piece.

It was deleted for not useing a link to it.

so heres the link

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/op...David%20Brooks


----------



## chefboy2160 (Oct 13, 2001)

My 2 cents is its just a movie , its not real .
Thats why the people on the screen are called actors and actresses . Yes it is a depiction of the brutal death by crucifixion
which was a favorite of the Romans during this time period . And Jesus either being the son of god or perhaps more like a sage and teacher as depicted in the Book of Thomas well who knows . Its realy just a concept either way you feel so just sit back and enjoy the movie .


----------



## lamington (May 2, 2003)

hear! hear!


----------



## nicko (Oct 5, 2001)

Closing this thread before it gets too out of hand. 

Sorry everyone.


FYI about posting copyrighted material taken from the ChefTalk community guidelines:


----------

