The Passion of the Christ

I haven't seen it and don't fancy it at all.

Yours in Music

Syd

A Mel Gibson film

Not seen it, but my Mum's seen the REAL passion play - the one that only happens once a decade. I can't remember the spelling, but it's something like Brumagow or something - apparently it's very dramatic.

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

It's in Oberammergau and they're taking bookings for the next one already.

Passion play

Let me guess Mel has Jesus as a handsome cornfed Iowa boy and the Romans are all played by Englishmen and the Jews are all Arabs?

Matthew

I haven't seen it, and am hoping it just kinda goes away. I think it will.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Let me guess Mel has Jesus as a handsome cornfed Iowa boy

---

At the start, yes, but the controversy over this movie is about two forms of literalism: Gibson's Passion is rather divisive because it blames the Jews for killing Christ. This message has been toned down a bit in the editing room. To go by the reviews and the stills, the second half of the movie is excessively violent. The Iowa kid is literally beaten to a pulp right in front of the camera, and it takes forever.

Herman

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK:
It's in Oberammergau

---

That's the badger! I can't believe it's nearly a decade since my mum went on it...

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

The general consensus so far from those that have seen it is that it is an important and impactful film. That can mean whatever you want and kinda makes the point that condemning or dismissing this film without seeing it is dumb and lazy thinking. Reminds me of those freaks who blindly turned out to protest and picket when Life of Brian and Last Temptation came out.

Has everyone heard about the woman in Wichita, Kansas who died of a heart heart attack while watching it?

I for one think Christ should have significantly darker skin and nappy hair in the film. I'm sure the Pope would agree.

Yes, Tom, it's biblically true that Christ was killed by the Jews (and the Romans, too, of course) - though we're not real sure there was any single historical person who came within sniffing range of the scripture Christ.

Texts of this kind are 75 percent made up (at least).

There's just a little thing, which Matthew alluded to. Jesus being a Iowa kid, rather than a Jew among Jews. Gibson chooses to represent the Jews as Jews, however Christ looks like a handsome western European guy. One of us, who gets beaten to a pulp by the Jews.

That's what makes this movie incendiary, in a time that really doesn't need more incendiary material about the middle-east.

Herman

Let me guess Mel has Jesus as a handsome corn-fed Iowa boy and the Romans are all played by Englishmen and the Jews are all Arabs?

I just read a review today which said that, for the sake of authenticity, the film was in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin, with English subtitles.

Thomas

Will this do for Mel Gibson's career what Dances with Wolves did for Whassisname?

Fredrik, Ross-

The doctrine of free will I think helps point
a direction towards personal resolution of your
questions. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were two of the early religious scholars grappling with the implications. C.S. Lewis's
writing is a more contemporary read and deals with this and many other issues of Christian faith. As you've both probably read all of the
above, forgive the assumptions on my part.

As for the movie, I've not seen it yet but
look forward to seeing how Gibson deals with the
many issues around reconciling the subject matter to the medium, the current religious/political climate, and the films dealing with Jesus that come before it. If it
does nothing else than make each of us re-evaluate our own views and beliefs it counts for something.

kind regards,
Scott

I bet this thread is locked at some point!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
[QUOTE] How can these two ideas be reconciled?
QUOTE]

Ross-

First, I'll spare you an overview on Aquinas
as I have too much respect for your intellect and too much handle on the limits of mine!

I'll dance around the original sin question
a bit by tossing out these thoughts - I don't
believe God is bound by time so Jesus's death
on the Cross covering sins past, present, future
works for me. As for the practical applications
to one's life, yes, I could spend the rest of
my days (after a coming to terms with the subject at hand) breaking every "rule in the book". I don't believe that changes in any way
what Christ did. It will change me. What I've found in my forty or so odd
years is there's a lot to where the rubber meets
the road - the more I strive to live according to Christ's teachings, the more I find my life
to be satisfying personally, and a positive impact on those around me. I continue to sin and fall short, but I like having something better to aspire to.


kind regards,
Scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vuk's son:

But maybe, do you think you could reach these aspired values without the help of god, but only with some other searching, reading, moral, and finding these within

---

Omer-

Yes, I certainly do - but you speak of a greater man than I. When I look within there's a lot of "me, me, ME", pessimism, and intolerance. Still a long way to go, even with
the goal ahead.

best,
Scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
[QUOTE] if it is a worthy successor to Bach and Piero dell Francesca.
Ross

---

Ross-

Thought-provoking stuff. I'm going into
watching Gibson's film with the idea that this
is his offering, through the gifts he's been given, of worship and I'll look on it with the same way I do the a bit off-key, nervous high-school girl who sang "Amazing Grace" in church
awhile back. The beauty of her intent overpowered her musical shortcomings. We'll see what does the overpowering in the movie, yes?

Sorry about the work thing, btw.

best,
Scott

I haven't seen it but I can tell you it's not art as that was never the intention.

Omer and Ross,
In a democratic state, when a person who believes because of religious reasons that people must not drive on Saturday becomes a minister, it must be ok with you, Omer. The danger starts when someone decides that another person is a crazy person because of his opinion - and it doesn't matter if the opinion based on religious manner or something else. This is the democratic way, and every citizen in a democratic country has the ways to try to convince other people in the way he thinks is the right one. Omer, the people like Herzel who wanted a country for the Jews in the years 1860 - 1880 knew then that the Jews in Europe are in danger (and it is wonder for me how great they were in predicting the future) so I'm not sure these days if it is not good for us to have few religious people in our government to remind us few things (and see what happens in the USA and Europe because of Gibson’s movie).
I'm not religious at all, but Israel is a country of the Jews and for the Jews.

The shame is that this movie is not aloud here.

Arye

Omer,
I think that you are out of the line...

A government rules by the laws!! The law is above all including governments.

So I can't accept your example - Some of the religious people in Israel are trying to force their ideas upon the others, but the balance of the political wings here puts borders to their influence.

The settlements for example, are to my opinion far more dangerous to us than the religious people, so why don't we say that everyone who supports the settlements is a crazy person? (The problem is that the political balance here may put me, according to your point of view about the democratic way, as a crazy person....).

Arye

quote:

---

So has anyone seen it yet. Is it a work of high art?

---

Erm ... yup .. saw it a week or so ago. Wanted to go to Starsky & Hutch but that was vetoed.

It goes down in my book as a film that you should watch at some stage, but one you'll probably never come back to. The most interesting bit for me was to hear Latin spoken. Sounds very much different to my recollections of boyhood incatations in the classroom.

As for the film itself, anti-Semitic? I don't think so. As far as I can see he hacked off the Pharisees by some (to them) blashpemous statements. The high priests (for it is they) rabble roused and the Romans found themselves with little option but to please the crowd by topping this chap in order to keep the peace. Two thousand years ago, and earlier, being a high prist/leader of some cult/religion was more a sinecure than a religious duty and people tended to protect their kushty way of life in whatever way possible. So it boils down to a story of some high powered, high positioned, relatively wealthy types trying to keep their gravy train rolling by whatever means necessary. Hardly anti-Semitic.

As for the violence I found it all a bit turgid after a while. It is OTT, and once you've seen a bloke having the sh*t kicked out of him for a few minutes the rest becomes boring. And the odd flashes of some other-world creature gave the film Stephen King high-farce at some stages. I think if the violence hadn't been so protracted and gratuitous the film would have slipped by on the radar un-noticed. As usual, YMMV.

Duncan

I think I'd have to echo Duncan's sentiments here, but there are one or two other things worth noting.

The look of the film is amazing. The director of photography and production designers deserve all the plaudits they're going to get. They really have got the 'Carravaggio' thing going really well.

The other-world creature is the devil.

Latin: we were taught Classical Latin pronunciation (Remember "Kaekilius entrat atrium et kirkumspektat"?), which dates to around 300-500 years before the events portrayed in the film. How far their Latin had progressed to Vulgar Latin by the First Century BC/AD is conjecture. However, it did sound very Ecclesiastical to me. "Eche Homo" instead of "Ekke Homo", "Seditzio" instead of "Seditio", etc. But it was really interesting to hear it spoken at all. And I thought the actor who portrayed Pilate was brilliant. But, oooh, weren't those Roman soldiers really nasty?

Anti-Semitism: Now this is where it gets interesting. Apparently the line attributed to Caiaphas (Head Pharisee Honcho) "His blood be upon us and upon all our generations" (or something) is spoken in Hebrew, but isn't translated in the subtitles. That this line is often quoted as the root cause of anti-semitism, and that it has absolutely no historical corroboration (like most of the content of the gospels), its inclusion has to be viewed as a little suspect. But then Gibson believes in the absolute literal truth of these stories.

The mechanics of crucifixion were based on Catholic iconography (nails through palms and feet, supporting weight of whole body), which doesn't ring true. People were tied to crosses. There's not much evidence that I can find that nails were ever used (apart from in christain texts, where it's good propaganda). They certainly aren't necessary for the process that causes death by crucifixion (asphyxiation).

The final scene is toe-curlingly, wince-inducingly bad. Go out there and score that winning touchdown, JC!

Oh, and Jesus invented the dining table, apparently.

Cheers,

Tim
_____________________________

Os nid Campagnolo yw hi, dyw hi ddim yn werth ei marcho...

Omer,
I'm sorry but I think that people with your opinion are a danger for democracy. If the religious parties will occupy 40% of the Knesset they will have the all rights to bring laws according to their power. You can't decide when a law that came by the Knesset is irrelevant for you because of your opinions.

Arye

Omer,

I will not be able to live in a country with such laws, but don't run so quickly to biblical laws (which are only hypothetical theory you describe) see how we act to the Arabs in Israel and nothing of it is due to biblical laws.

Arye