I just saw The Passion of the Christ. I don't really have words to comment on it. I can't really say I'm glad I saw it. It was truly a horror. But it is, I suppose, true to my understanding of the events of that day. It appears to be accurate in as much as the scripture gives details, and creative in those areas where scripture does not give details.
The depictions of Evil (as a personification) was very disturbing. Which was, I presume, the goal.
I think that, by the end, I was becoming numb to the severe brutality, and was filtering it out somewhat. Perhaps folks that go see gory movies every weekend could deal with this better than I.
I don't know whether to recommend that folks go see this. It seems to accurately portray things, according to John, but I just don't know that this level of graphic violence is really necessary.
But, much has been written, and much more will be written, so that's about all I'm going to say about it.
I have as yet to see Passion... my understanding though is that it does depict the events of the day rather violently. Violence doesn't get my goat so that really wouldn't bother me. What I don't understand is why folks think that the events of that day were in some way, a picnic? It wasn't a walk in the park for the Christ. Why should it be for those who want to see his last moments on earth depicted?
Posted by: Restiffbard on March 21, 2004 07:43 PMNobody suggested that it was a picnic. What I suggested is that I don't deal well with depictions of that nature. If I had been alive in the 1800's, I probably wouldn't have attended public hangings, either.
Posted by: DrBacchus on March 21, 2004 07:52 PMThe numbness and desensitization to the horror of it that you felt is very interesting. It makes me wonder about how much more numb they must have gotten in those times when, not only was crucifixion commonplace and the roads around Rome lined with whatever parts the dogs and birds hadn't gotten to yet, but death was a rather popular spectator sport either in gladiatorial fights or at the hands of the lions.
How dark must have been the hearts of those who could stand in the square and send up shouts and cheers demanding that someone be put through any of those things.
I saw it too. As a non-practicing Catholic (catholic school until high-school) and somewhat practicing Lutheran (yes, my mother is disappointed), I thought it was over the top. I felt like I was watching a two and a half hour beating with an agenda attached to it.
I was most disturbed by how bad a film it was. I thought the embellishments were a problem given how it was supposed to be so rooted in scripture. I thought the inclusion of the satanic being (a woman no less) was too over-the-top and the satanic children (a FOAF with an autistic child raged at this) were completely unnecessary... and dangerous besides.
The problem with sprititual drama is the classic Spinoza problem. If I say my eyes are blue, you take me on my word and may even report it to someone else (without checking). To cut down on processing we take things presented as "fact" as Fact. That's one reason propaganda works.
So, if Mel Gibson's movie is presented as "true" it runs the danger of being cannonized in people's minds. People will find themselves quoting the Bible when they are actually referencing the film. Then when you get into the realms of interpretation, it spins out of control.
I have already had one conversation with someone addressing Satan in the Garden of Gethesemane. Huh? When I told them that it wasn't in the Bible, they swore it was. I asked them if they had seen the Passion, and they had. When I told her to look it up in Scripture, she couldn't find it... but it still left her unphased.
I heard from my mother that a Priest used the crow gouging out the thief's eye in a sermon! She was shocked that I was appalled at this.
Ugh! Hollywood has to f*ck up everthing.
Also, I don't think that Gibson is an anti-semite, but I could see why people might take it that way. The whole adversarial relationship between the head Pharasee and Jesus and the Pharasee witnessing the scourging (again, where is this in Scripture? I would love to know) seems to suggest that he is. Why else would he add such details? I have Jewish friends and I felt bad about this detail for them.