Some of my Japanese friends went to see the Passion (which didn’t even get an R rating here, btw) and came back very confused. I haven’t seen it myself, but my understanding is that Gibson didn’t put a lot of background into the film, having assumed that the audience was going to be familiar with the story. I have a Japanese translation of the New Testament (courtesy of the Gideons), so I thought that I’d lend it to them, having marked off what is covered in the movie. So, with that in mind:
Which of the Gospel accounts did Gibson use as his primary reference?
It’s an alamgamation of all four gospels - that from the official website and my own observation - along with many elements that are conjecture and some that must be chalked up to artistic license. Some details were not specified in the gospels and some may conflict with what is known historically such as carrying the entire cross rather than just the cross beam and the specific location of nails in hands and feet. It must be very confusing for someone who dind’t grow up in a western country so reading any of the gospels should help along with a bit of background info from someone who has a perspective on Jesus’ cultural significance.
Don’t bother, cckerberos. Gibson didn’t base his clearly (if perhaps appropriately) God-hating propaganda vehicle on the Bible. Instead, he based it to an overwhelming degree on the feverish “mystical” delusions of a deeply insane German nun – Anne Catherine Emmerich – whose bloody and viciously anti-Semitic ravings were published in the early 19’th century. Emmerich was not only what amounted to a devotee of incredibly detailed, disturbed and deranged erotic masochism involving the “Passion” of her “bridegroom” Jesus, but she also had equally despicable (and equally credible) “visions” of Jews slaughtering children to use their blood in their religious rites!
She was insanely delusional, just like her devoted follower Mel Gibson.
Here’s what you must understand: First, the Bible has very few details of Jesus’ alleged “passion”, so Gibson had to either invent or borrow material to fill out his psychotic, subtly anti-Semitic and homoerotic gore-fest (Gibson’s insanely fixated on homosexuality for some bizarre psychopathological reason; he can’t stop talking about it, and in the most childish terms imaginable). Second, Gibson ignored the Bible pretty much whenever it contradicted Emmerich’s “visions”. To learn the “back story” of his amazingly perverse slasher movie, you need to read Emmerich, not the Bible.
But in the end, Gibson’s message is indeed based on the Bible: God (certainly at least Gibson’s God) is so evil, hateful, and bloodthirsty, He didn’t even try to “save” humanity without having to resort, in what can only be understood as His pathetic weakness, to viciously butchering His own Son!
I’m far from a biblical scholar, but the movie seemed to be largely consistent with the New Testament gospels especially the scenes involving the Sanhedrin and Pharisees. Yes there were some artistic liberties (especially those demons/kids afflicting Judas). I would refer your friends to the relevent parts of John, Matthew, Luke and Mark. Here are some chapters that may be the most useful:
a. Matthew chapters 26-28
b. Mark 14-16
c. Luke 22-24
d. John 18-21
I am curious what specific points in The Passion that the above poster feels to be in thematic conflict with the New Testament?
Within my rant here, you’ll find the details of how the Gospel According to Mel is significantly different from the passion narrative found in the four canonical gospels.
Editorializing? I’m not sure you know what that word means. When the New York Times editorializes, it says something like, “What Senator Kerry ought to do, in our opinion, is admit that he acted carelessly in tossing his medals.” It doesn’t say something like, “What that traitorous demon from hell Kerry ought to do, if he had any balls at all, which he doesn’t, is admit that he is a coward, a liar, and a closet atheist who stomped on the graves of his fallen comrades.”
Also please excuse ambushed is looking to stir up shit. You see, he forgot to mention that Gibson made this movie because he deeply beleives in his personal relationship to Christ. :eek: Oh, no! We can’t have that here, ambushed! :wally
To the OP, the above is all you need for an explanation. Gibson never intended this to be a worldwide megahit. He wound up paying the whole thing himself, because he felt so strongly about it being seen by those that wanted to. He gave up on Big-Studio distributing, he risked his own money. The fact that it touched a few hearts and reaffirmed faith in a few million, well, some just can’t handle it.
cckerberos- tell them that after they read the four Gospels ‘Passion’ accounts, they can whiz through the Gospel of Mark which will give them a basic overview of the Life of Jesus.
If they want to see a relatively short intro film to Jesus- I really recommend the Gibson-produced (ICON Productions) claymation THE MIRACLE MAKER. Amazingly Biblical & touching & generally well-done.
RE ambushed’s comments- I think either Frank Rich or Christopher Hitchens is covertly posting here L
