Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ officially opens tomorrow, but some groups have arranged screenings today (I’ll see it tonight with several hundred people from my church). There has been a lot of speculation, but now we can finally react to what we’ve seen on the screen.
Is the violence too much? David Denby of the New Yorker says it is, and calls it “One of the cruelest movies in the history of cinema.” He said that the movie is so “fixated on the scourging and crushing… and so meagerly involved in the spiritual meanings… that [it] falls in danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into hate.”
Roger Ebert, on the other hand, gives it four stars. He says it is the most violent movie he’s ever seen, but found it profoundly moving.
Is it anti-semitic? Some reviewers say that it confirms the old Jewish stereotypes as Christ-killers. Others, like Ebert, point out that it was the people in power (the Romans and preists) who were the bad guys, while most of the common Jews are portrayed positively.
I’ve also read complaints that Kind Herod is portrayed as an effeminate – a needless slam on homosexuals. I’ve only read that on this board, though, so I can’t comment until I’ve seen the movie tonight.
I think, though, that the violence is entirely on point.
Christ suffered on the cross and died for our sins. That is the central meaning of Christianity. I think the meaning is even more vivid if the suffering is shown without any sugarcoating.
I thought this film was supposed to be accurate? What’s with the long hair on Jesus and the nails through the hands at the crucifixion? I thought that stuff was a no-brainer or am I wrong? Discovery Channel don’t fail me now.
Yeah, but his love for the Trinity [as played by Monica Bellucci] brings him back.
Nah, she played Persephone
I want to see this movie, although I’m reluctant to put any money into Mel Gibson’s pocket for obvious reasons. From what I’ve seen so far, it seems this plays much more to the fundie version of Christianity–thriving on persecution and hating and fearing the non-Christians. It seems like forgiveness and redemption, that are supposed to be the point of the Atonement, have been jettisoned in favor of the celebration of the pain and suffering of their Savior and hate for the fundies’ putative enemies.
I’m curious to know what the liberal Christians will make of this film’s content.
Haven’t seen it yet. But I’m surprised that people are surprised about the focus on the suffering. Gibson is (ultra-)Catholic. Catholics focus on the torment of the crucified Christ a great deal, much more so than Protestants do. Witness all the crucifixes in Catholic churches that show the impales, bleeding, suffering Christ in as realistic, graphic detail as possible. Catholics want to remind themselves of everything their Lord had to go through–and that, really, it’s all their fault that He had to.
Scholarsdon’tlikeit, which is hardly surprising. Annoying is Gibson’s comment:
What cancelling was this? There’s no debate as to the use of Koine Greek as the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, it’s an anatomical fact that nails through the palms will not support the weight of a human body, that the crossbeam, not the whole cross, would have been carried, that Herod Antipas was a roaring hetero and other of the inaccuracies in his movies. In other words Mel decided what he wanted in there and couldn’t give a twit if it was true or not.
[Hijack]Incidentally, in Mel’s defense (a rare place to find myself) I find the complaints about the movie’s violence and goriness to be downright silly. Jesus was CRUCIFIED AND SCOURGED! How family friendly do you think that would have been? I’m also increasingly irked by the numerous denunciations of Mel for things that his father said: my parents were both rabid football fans, ardent racial separatists, card carrying NRA members and Republicans and blazing homophobes and I’m none of the above, but I would also not condemn them or distance myself from them in public as a matter of filial respect. [/Hijack]
I haven’t decided if I’m going to see it in the theater or not. I figure Mel’s going to be richer than mayo on cheesecake with me or without me so that’s not a factor, and I definitely plan to watch it on video. I’ll probably split the difference and see it at a discounted matinee showing.
I agree with so much that gobear said, above (quoting: "I want to see this movie, although I’m reluctant to put any money into Mel Gibson’s pocket for obvious reasons. From what I’ve seen so far, it seems this plays much more to the fundie version of Christianity–thriving on persecution and hating and fearing the non-Christians. It seems like forgiveness and redemption, that are supposed to be the point of the Atonement, have been jettisoned in favor of the celebration of the pain and suffering of their Savior and hate for the fundies’ putative enemies.
I’m curious to know what the liberal Christians will make of this film’s content.")
I guess I’m a very liberal Christian, and I have no plans to see this movie. Many innocent people at many times and places have gone thru horrible physical suffering and torture - many at the hands of Christians. The only thing that makes Jesus’ story different is what he preached beforehand. And if Gibson’s movie doesn’t emphasize that (& from what I’m reading, it doesn’t), then what is the point.
I’m curious to know if the language barrier is a problem. So folks, when you report back, can you address that aspect? I mean, obviously you can visually figure out a lot of things, and if you know the story, you know what should be happening. But I just fear that not understanding the language at all will be a dealbreaker.
I’ll probably put this in my Netflix queue, rather than seeing it in the theater.
I, for one, suspect that the film’s fundie fan base will find the subtitles challenging. (Y’all didn’t say they’d be any readin’!"). I suspect that this will be the first time many of them have ever been to a foreign-language film, so it’s a good thing they already know the story.
It has subtitles (at least, the clips shown on Ebert & Roeper had subtitles).
I think gobear is going pretty far out on a limb, based on “what I’ve seen so far”. Perhaps we should heed the words of the OP: Now that you’ve seen it…
Wow gobear, what a brash statement. Coming from Texas to the center of Alabama (that’s Baptist country) and not being a Baptist member I can based on observation say: people aren’t utterly ignorant and stupid to allow words to get in the way. Fundies love a solid story about the central topic of their faith and words won’t stop them.
Although somewhat godless heathen, I’ll be attending tonight’s showing (got some free tickets through a long and complicated story) and can provide my inarticulate impressions. I have some misgivings going into this (everyone being a bit too white, the weight of the body vs. the spikes, Herod’s sexuality, etc.), but will certainly try to keep an open mind. There is supposedly a ‘talk’ after the film as well. If I hang around, I can try to provide what the Godfearing said during as such.
My biggest curiousity right now is a) how many children will be going and b) will I be able to get some of those tasty Sweetarts to enjoy during the show?
Good point. I’m going by the reviews when I really should se the movie first.
Exactly, which is why I said that it’s a good thing that the fundies already know the story so the difficult task of reading won’t interfere with their enjoyment.
Still, it would be entertaining to hear an entire room of fundies attempt to sound out the subtitles together: “A-a-nd, Oh, Betty Sue, that says ‘and’ v-v-er-i-ly Ah say un-to Yew.” Plus each of them having to peak over the ladies’ high hair to see the screen must be a treat.
I intend to see this movie soon. My biggest curiosity is, during the 40-minute crucifixion scene, will anyone else have the strong urge to start whistling “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?