Now that you've seen it - what do you think of 'The Passion'

Cafe Society
61

I just got back from seeing it. I wasn’t blown away. It didn’t change my life, but it was OK.

I actually was braced for more gore than what I actually got. except for the flagellation scene it’s not that much more violent than any other Jesus movie.

I thought Caviezel’s performance was a little one-note. A lot of grunting and agonizing and staring meaningfully into other people’s faces with his one good eye.

I did like the happy flashback scenes and would have like to see more of them but Gibson doesn’t seem to have much interest in what Jesus actually taught, only in how he died.

I thought the movie went overboard in trying to excuse poor, conflicted Pilate for the crucifixion, it basically showed him caving in to a bloodthirsty Jewish Mob. Caiphus came off as a one-dimensional villain with no real motivation. The Romans were also loutish cartoons.

Herod is portrayed as effeminate but not explicitly homosexual. I think the guy showing all the leg behind him was enough to get Mels’ message across, though. Herod as a drag queen is both ahistorical and unnecessary.

The resurrection was very brief and rather anti-climatic. When the drums started playing as he rose I was put in mind of a set up for a sequel in which Jesus returns to kick ass.

The devil-baby was creepy but who knows what Gibson meant by it. I thought it was meant to mock Mary as a mother but YMMV.

All in all, I give the movie three stars out of four. I though Last Temptation was more thought provoking.

62

I almost forgot. Coincidentally, I was in line with a bunch of fundies (very nice ones, excited about seeing the movie) and several of them complained about having to read subtitles.

I swear I’m telling the truth. I’m not drawing any conclusions from it but I was quite amused, still having this thread in my mind.

63

Did anybody stay through the credits to see the wacky outtakes?

64

I have a question about this. I haven’t seen the film yet, so I don’t know specifically what was done with this. Is it possible that those making these comments about Herod are imputing contemporary stereotypes onto historical figures improperly? In contemporary times, there are certain mannerisms stereotypically assigned to homosexuals, and others to heterosexuals. Perhaps the biggest ladies’ man ever to live as a Roman nobleman during that period had mannerisms that to us, now, are seen as homosexual? Also, effeminate mannerisms are not merely by default to be considered homosexual, any more than all tomboy-ish girls are lesbians.

Without knowing alot more about Roman sexual culture, I don’t see how Herod’s sexuality mandates any particular set of mannerisms or forbids another as inconsistent, especially when we are using contemporary stereotypes as a starting point.

65

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic

The resurrection was very brief and rather anti-climatic. When the drums started playing as he rose I was put in mind of a set up for a sequel in which Jesus returns to kick ass.

QUOTE]

I agree with this comment, and wonder why the resurrection was even shown if the point of the movie was soley to show Christ’s suffering.

What did you think of the scenes with Judas, especially his suicide?

66

LOL. How did you know they were “fundies”? Was it the big hair on the women, or the backwoods accents? :slight_smile:

I gotta weigh in on the “fundie” bashing in this thread, and gobear in particular. I’m a die-hard atheist, but I respect those who have religious convictions. If you want to attack the falseness of their beliefs, go ahead. Personal ridicule of the ad hominem type is despicable.

But you’re only showing your own ignorance. If Mel is a “Fundie” he violates every stereotype that has been thrown out here. Ask yourself, would you use the wording you did if you knew that “fundies” were regular posters in this thread? I guess they couldn’t figure out how to use a computer, so I guess it’s safe to bash them, right? :rolleyes:

Oh, BTW, I’m kind of looking forward to seeing this film. From what I’ve read, though, I’ll be disapointed-- I had pretty high expectations. I did like Last Temptation because it made you question so many assumptions that we make about Jesus that have no basis in reality. Not that the story in that picture has any truth, but neither does so much that we “know” about Jesus.

67

Rex: I might have thought the same thing and would have given it a pass except that there was a boytoy in the background.

moejuck: The Judas scenes more or less followed Matthew’s gospel except for the capering, demonic children. That may be an artifact from other passion traditions, particularly in the middle ages, when children were encouraged to jeer at Judas during the performance. Gibson literally demonizes those children, though.

John: I had a half hour to stand in line and talk with them. They were talking a lot about their individual churches and gushing on about Christ and so forth. They were nice and all but they were were sho’ 'nuff fundies. I saw nuns too but I didn’t talk to them.

68

Just saw the film. Thought it was pretty good. As I pretty much expected, all the talk about how offensive it would be was hot air. It’s not at all anti-Semetic. Caiphas is clearly the villain of the piece, but it’s clear he’s not meant to be representative of all Jews, or even all the Pharisees: when they try Jesus, a couple priests dissent, and one asks why only a part of the council has been called. They’re both shouted down and thrown out of the room. The trial was pretty clearly a political machination on Caiphais’ part, not the will of the Jewish people.

Herod comes off as somewhat effeminite, is all. I took that to mean that he was pampered and debauched, not that he was gay. I don’t know if he’s supposed to be in drag, or what. How is the king of Gallili supposed to dress?

Lastly, the flap over Satan being portrayed as a woman is way off. He’s played by a woman, but he’s portrayed as something barely human. There was certainly nothing remotely feminine in the character.

It is gory as hell, but I can see the point of it. Gibson is focusing on the “died for our sins” aspect of Jesus. The brutality he suffers is symbolic of those sins, to get across the idea of the pain we cause him when we sin. And it makes his forgiveness all the more amazing. Still, this is a brutal movie. I was somewhat bemused by the trailers in front of it: Spider Man 2, Agent Cody Banks 2, Garfield. all kids movies. And then we watch a guy get flayed alive for twenty minutes. I was also amused that a movie about God would be preceded by a trailer for Garfield: The Movie, which is itself proof enough that there is no God.

I did have one question, though: who was the disciple who stayed with the two Marys throughout the movie? I don’t think they ever said his name.

69

Per the Gospels, it should’ve been John.

70

Just saw the movie this afternoon.

For those who feel it important when considering my opinions: I am fundamentally a Christian, but not a biblical literalist. I know of no individuals to whom I am related more than once, in the last few generations. I never completed College. I have only the most mild of southern accents. I am not a homosexual, but then, for the last decade or so that has been an intellectual distinction. I have been accused of being a liberal, although in fact I am far more to the left than that.

First, things I noticed about the crowd: Regular theater about half full of mostly folks my age or older, which is atypical of the early afternoon show on Wednesday. They were very quiet. They stayed quiet, aside from a few sobs for the entire film, and the credits, and the walk out of the theater. I cannot, therefore report on their accents, their verbal abilities, or their theological positions. I strongly suspect that Christians were overwhelmingly represented, when compared to movie audiences as a statistical universe.

So, now the movie.

I saw a gut wrenchingly vivid portrayal of the Lord I love being betrayed brutalized, and murdered in front of his mother and the people who loved Him. It was relentless, it was beyond my reach to change, and it hurt very much. His mother, who loved Him as a woman loves her son. James and John who loved Him as a man loves his brother. Mary Magdalene, who loved Him as a woman loves a man. Peter, who loved Him as a servant loves his Master. And each and all of us stood by, and watched Him suffer, and die.

I started crying out loud when Peter confessed his betrayal. I pretty much wept from then, until the Resurrection.

I didn’t see any Jews. I didn’t see any Romans, either, and I didn’t realize that Herrod was gay. (But then, I never realize that anyone is gay, unless they tell me.) Like Mel, I think the point is that I crucified the Lord, my redeemer. It was me that He forgave, and if He can forgive me, I am very obviously supposed to forgive those who helped me murder Him. Consideration given to any trivial sins other than that seems absurd.

I doubt that I will watch it again. I don’t recommend going to see it, if you cannot look at it as the experience of someone you love deeply. Without that, it just becomes a carnival of violence. I have no doubts from that perspective there are a lot of groups available for blame, and hatred. Give it a miss, and save yourself the bad trip. I have no doubt that the movie affirms or offends your theology, if you are so inclined. I cannot recommend it to you, on that basis either.

The technical aspects of the movie, such as production values, scripting, and the like were sufficiently high in quality that I did not stop to consider them until this very moment. If they had done the movie without subtitles, or in Greek, or in Urdu, it would have made no difference to me, since I don’t speak in Greek, or Urdu, and I was not surprised by the dialog at any point. I don’t remember the music.

I have a very strong feeling that the actors themselves were, at times overcome by the realities they were trying to portray. I would like to hear some of them discuss that. I wish I could believe that military executioners of the first century were not as blatantly sadistic as portrayed, but I have my doubts that their enjoyment of torture was significantly less than the real contemporaneous roman soldiers’ might have been. Crowds cheering for blood, suffering, and death are certainly not unique, or even uncommon in any part of human history, including this brand new century. That this crowd was mostly Jewish was a geographical consequence, not evidence of some racial guilt.

Why Mel Gibson chose to make it is an interesting question, unrelated to the content. Why, having made it, he chose to market it to religious groups is a classic example of no brainer. On an average weekend, movies split the take on a 15 to 40 million member audience of moviegoers. During that same weekend, in the United States 135 million people attend Christian churches. Do the math. I don’t object to the fact that Mel noticed that his movie would appeal to a lot of folks who were going to be going to Christian Churches. I think he may actually think that these are his primary audience. I think I have experienced the movie he intended to make. Perhaps that makes me his dupe. I got my money’s worth. ($5.50)

Tris

71

Just saw it. It is clearly meant for those already with an intimate relationship with Christ. I could have used about an hour of exposition to develope a relationship with Jesus. I really felt little more than pity for him for most of the movie. The characters that I really felt sorry for were Mary and Pontius Pilate.

There wasn’t enough struggle for Judas either. For me, his whole plotline just kinda happened it sucks that he felt the need to act the way he did, but that’s about it. A little more time put into that storyline would have been nice.

Mary was awesome. She really made that movie for me. The vast vast majority of emotion i felt through this movie was due to her. The scene where she runs up to Jesus as he’s carrying the cross really hit me. It wasn’t so much because of jesus though, you could really feel Mary’s pain, it was very well done.

On to the violence. What it needs is editing. Some of the violence was necessary, but it went on far too long. It went past the point where I felt bad for the character all the way to where I simply felt that we needed to move forward a bit. Like I said, remove 5 minutes of the beating scene and I’d have felt it a lot more.

As for the scene where he’s being nailed to the cross…the scene was very well put together. Really, the last hour or so I have no complaints at all. This is why I’m a little annoyed. This movie had such potential.

I don’t really think the movie was all that anti-semetic. Jews didn’t come off so well during the trial scene but they saw the error of their ways long before the end of the movie. As stated earlier, there was one bad guy. That’s it.

Regarding the subtitles, they weren’t really all that necessary but there was an appropriate amount there. Not too much, but enough for explanation.

All in all, a decent movie that needs another hour in order to be friendly to everybody. Right now it sits at a movie clearly aimed at someone with an intimate relationship with Christ. I also could have made some tweaks here and there.

It should be noted, I guess, that I am a not a Christian, Athiest or a Jew but I do have a fair amount of knowledge of the bible.

72

Duuuude!

73

You knew it would happen - a church is using the movie to promote anti semitism:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/2873395/detail.html

I don’t know if the pastor decided to use the popularity of the movie to make this statement, or if he saw the movie and decided it was so. In any case, its disgusting. I know, the Colorado Council of Churches has spoken out against it… but still. I knew some people were going to use the movie in this manner.

74

The paragraph about Judas could use a little more punctuation, couldn’t it. I was mainly trying to say that there wasn’t enough time spent on that whole aspect (if that’s what you were getting at). What he did was terrible, just needed more time devoted to it.

75

I just returned from the film.

Many of my thoughts and reactions have already been detailed by other posters. I too was bemused by the Garfield and Spiderman trailers before the main feature. Were I the religious sort I might have considered that a sign, or at least a post-it note, of something. The presence of two young girls in Catholic school outfits across the aisle from me, showing lots of leg, also gave me pause.

Crowded theatre. Sniffling and some soft crying. A much more enrapt group than at other films. I hardly go to the theatre anymore because people are always talking and making noise, but none of that this time.

I enjoyed the use of language very much. I’m a bit odd in that I like foreign language films with subtitles, and I found the Aramaic and Latin beautiful to listen to.

The violence was indeed extreme and difficult to sit through. But viewed from the standpoint of a believer, I can see the point. Here’s what Jesus went through for you, and here you sit watching in comfort with an extra large bucket of popcorn in your lap (I couldn’t believe people brought snacks into this film!).

It was powerful stuff. I grew up Catholic, but haven’t been a believer of any sort for many years. But the message is seductive. One can’t help but have enormous sympathy for Jesus, and want to comfort him as we see Mary try to do. I agree that was one of the most moving elements of the film - that of seeing a mother watching the ultimate and unending brutalization of her son. In my own mind I could see wanting to surrender to the… well, “passion” of the event and desiring to buy into all the beliefs it represents.

As it happens, I view Jesus as an interesting historical figure. From that standpoint, I found the film fascinating, if a bit single minded of purpose. Growing up Catholic I heard and thought about the crucifixion all the time. But it was never personalized in this manner. This was in-your-face brutal. Here’s what the guy actually went through. Any two minutes of it would be too much for you to bear. It was a visceral experience, and one that I didn’t get from growing up Catholic. I wonder what I would have felt had I seen this film in my youth when I was a believer.

I agree that Herod was a bit out of place. I could see the idea of showing him to be debauched. Just seeing Jesus standing in that environment was interesting and a bit jarring, but could have been done better.

Finally, about the anti-Semetic thing. I agree with what I heard a commentator say on the radio today: the film isn’t anti-Semetic. However, if you already dislike the Jews, the film won’t disabuse you of that notion.

76

No, I wasn’t talking about punctuation, drm. The words “sucks” and “awesome” are rather, well, dude-speak for a review of the passion of Christ.

77

How is that church “using the movie”? The marquee uses scripture and makes no mention of any movie.

78

I SAID I was bowing out of this thread because I didn’t want want to hijack it further.

Fundies, the Religious Right, are the audience that Mel has cultivated. The entire Christian populace certainly is watching this, but he didn’t market this to to the liberal Christians, but to the literalists, and as Dr. Righteous demonstrated, it’s having its effect.

79

OK, one last bit of fundie apologia :slight_smile: and I’ll bow out: I imagine if there was ever a movie, on any topic, that managed to have broad market appeal and subtitles (a most unusual combination) – you’d probably find people standing in line complaining about having to read subtitles. In other words: I bet most people – regardless of religious leanings – would rather not read subtitles at the movies.

80

True, but those people don’t go to subtitled movies in the first place. I remember seeing La Reine Margot in 1994 at the Banpo Cinema in Kangnam-gu, Seoul, with French dialogue and Korean subtitles, both of which I understand, so movies with English subtitles aren’t a problem.

I look forward to seeing the movie to determine if I’ve retained enough Latin to understand the dialogue without the subtitles, although I’d feel better if I knew Mel was giving his cash to charity because I despise him for his anti-gay views and the prospect of putting money in his pocket makes me queasy.

I’m going to open a Pit thread so we can stop hijacking this thread.