A guy (non-profesisonal) reviewing the film on the radio yesterday kept saying the Romans were speaking Italian and I wondered why. Maybe that was it.
It will be interesting to see where this film winds up cinematically. With the first day’s vote tally in, IMDb has it at 7.4 with 862 votes, 69.6% giving it a 10. Now, you got to figure the first day’s audience is skewed to those who really wanted to see it. Kind of like how the first Lord of the Rings movie shot up to #1 in the IMDb list the first week or two before settling down to a still-respectable #8 when all the dust settled.
DD
"For Short Material Written Directly for the Boards the Oscar goes to…
Sampiro!
(Thank God I was wearing boxers today…)
-
I felt it cast the Jews in a negative light, but do not feel that this will breed anti semitism in todays world. Its history.
-
disturbingly violent. i almost vomited.
-
I cried alot, and im not christian.
-
whats up with zombie jesus?
While I haven’t seen the film, I liked what Ted Koppel (who has) said last night on Nightline. I wish I could post or link to the entire transcript but it’s only available in a subscription database, so I’ll just link to the Closing Thought, which ends with
- magdelen, john and mary. ALWAYS together. John was jesus cousin, Mary was his mom, so that leads me to believe that Magdelen was his wife in this film, the lost gospels all state that Jesus and Magdelen were married. i saw this in the film. anyone esle?
Excellent, excellent, excellent. That’s all I can say. Fantastic. Well done! 
Can’t comment on the marital status, but I think you’re confusing two Johns. John the Baptist was Jesus’ cousin, but was dead at the time of the Passion. The Apostle John (aka the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, possibly = John the Evangelist) appears in the film, but was not (afaik) related to Jesus.
How were these relationships portrayed that they were seen as His brothers, and soemone in love with Him, respectively?
If there were lost gospels, we wouldn’t know what they say. If you mean apocryphal writings, they say many different things. Here’s an ongoing debate about the Magdalene issue: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=241541&highlight=magdalene
"Jesus said to his mother: ‘Woman, this is your son’. Then he said to the disciple: ‘This is your mother’: Gospel of John
References to “the disciple” in John are conventionally taken to refer to John himself, so some people take these verses as meaning that John was Mary’s biological son. Others take them as a metaphor, meaning that Mary became the spiritual mother of all Christians, or that Christians were to regard each other as family. A more prosaic interpretation would be that Jesus was appointing someone to take care of his mother after his death.
I’ve always understood your last suggestion to be the case: Jesus was making sure someone would be around to take care of his mother (since women didn’t have many options if they didn’t have a man to support them). Since he didn’t apparently make any similar arrangements for Mary Magdelene, it seems to me to be another argument against their being married.
Interesting point, Skammer. A professor of biblical studies told me that the “Son, your mother” bits were probably passing Mary’s welfare on to John as an official-ish legal obligation- aince Joseph was presumably dead, she needed an official male protector.
Oh, yeah. The professor’s name is Richard Ascough, and I think he’s working at Queens University, although he might have moved. So if anyone feels enthusiastic they can look up his email address or something, and ask him.
I saw the movie today. I sobbed. I am not a good person for an objective filmatic viewpoint. For me it was iconic, rather than being something I objectively evaluated- being Christian and almost Catholic. I’m awfully subjective about movies most of the time anyway. Same sort of emotional effect seeing the Isenheim Altarpiece had on me the first time I saw it- compassion and repentance.
Not really wanting to re-open the fundie debate, but I actually have heard several extremely Protestant far-right fundametalists say they won’t see it because it’s: a) too violent, and b) nearly blasphemous for a human to portray Jesus, and c) spiritually unnecessary. I thought that was interesting.
I just saw the emotions being portrayed, and read them that way. Strongly influenced by the fact that I always assumed that Mary Magdalene was in love with Jesus. I similarly projected the role of servant/master on to Peter, because it seems to me to be the nature of the relationship. James and John seemed to me to be more prone to set themselves close to Jesus in their own eyes, as brothers do.
I am sure that this is all strongly colored by my own views that the Lord knows our hearts, and our love for Him is from our hearts, and reflects our emotional biases. He loves us perfectly; we love Him, as we are able.
I certainly did not mean to describe some matter of theological significance to that, only that it felt like that to me as I watched the movie. Like being with my family as our beloved father/brother/son/loved one died. It was emotional, rather than analytical.
Tris
Atheist checking in here. Some spoilers, but not really if you’re familiar with Jesus’ story.
I just saw the movie and I have to come clean. This movie stirred much stronger emotions in me than I though possible. I can honestly say I feel sorry for Jesus.
BUT… not in the way you’d expect. I feel anger at God for putting that poor guy through that. The scourging, the beatings, the whipping, the nailing, and the scourging (I have to mention it twice). It was horrible. Of course I remember the Christian doctrine: it was a sacrifice for us, and it was actually our sins that put them there. To which I say BULLSHIT!
We are talking about the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Lord of all creation here. In all his infinite power and wisdom, WHY did he decide the only way to solve the sin issue was to torture and slaughter Jesus in front of his own mother? :mad: :mad:
“Making God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed his son when he could not revenge himself in any other way. The idea I had that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it” – Thomas Paine
It would be like my dad telling me these guys are going to kill your brothers unless I give then $100 and let them beat you up a bit. I’d be like, no Dad, you have more. Give them a $1000 and we can negotiate the beating.
As an atheist, I know it is a story, and, if anything, I am more relieved. Even if I were to one day believe again in a higher power, Yahweh would be the last one my list.
“Considering the picture that is drawn for us of the Supreme Being, the most righteous soul must be tempted to wish that he did not exist.” –Denis Diderot
“Let his blood be on us and our children” the line is in the movie , but Gibson took out the subtitle.
I’d love to see the VERY real shot of Mel putting a red clown nose on the Mother Mary actress!
OK. I saw it yesterday- my thoughts-
The brutality (which I think was overdone in three areas- by the Temple Guard, the Sanhedrin, & yes even in the Roman scourging) did indeed get to me, but I was able to hold up through it all. What made me choke up were the human moments- Peter’s shame before John & Mary, Judas’s hopeless guilt, the flashbacks of Jesus & Mary- esp the water splashing & little JC falling down,
Veronica & Simeon of Cyrene. Finally, the Divine Teardrop, the Pitting of Satan & the Resurrection (with the collapsing graveclothes & the nail hole in the hand) made me lose it. I cried for a few minutes.
I thought the AntiMadonna&Child was genius. Also the demon-urchins tormenting Judas.
I tend to believe Pilate really was awed by JC & so tried to release him. The mentions about his prior warnings by Ceasar were rooted in real incidents (he was deposed 3 yrs later for roughly putting down a Samaritan uprising- which one novelist ingeniusly attributed to Simon Magus), and his wife having bad dreams over JC might well have played upon whatever belief in gods Pilate might have had. Still, I’ll concede an imbalance in the guilt attributed to Caiaphas & Pilate. I’d have loved to have been shown an insight into Caiaphas reasoning.
BUT I don’t think the film was truly anti-Semitic. (Tho Jews & anti-Semites can find such in the film).
But two really good points Mel critics ignore- the Repentant Thief telling Caiaphas that JC’s “Father, forgive them…” is on his behalf & then, in the Quake at the Temple or Sanhedrin Court, Caiaphas is shown sobbing- perhaps in realization & repentance?
Btw, if it was the Temple that was hit, that was obviously non-Biblical, but could be seen as a reference to the events surrounding the 70 AD Destruction, which I do hold to have been Divine Judgement.
“Pilate’s power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he could have done so; he certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killin someone he admired.”
-Telushkin, Jewish :iteracy
The second Temple was destroyed by the Romans after the Great Revolt.
-Ibid.
Sorry for the typo. 
Telushkin, Joseph. Jewish Literacy. William Morrow & Company, 1991.
My wife and I saw it last night. I am an atheist, and her beliefs are best summed up as agnostic, if it matters. I’ve read the Bible (though it was a long time ago), so I knew the story fairly well. I knew, for example, what the “thirty” was in relation to Judas, though nobody ever explicitly said “thirty pieces of silver.”
First things first… nobody has yet commented on this, but this is not a movie for kids. If you’re considering bringing your young children to the film to underscore your beliefs or their beliefs to them, please reconsider and find another way. If you’d seen the 10-year-old kid sobbing uncontrollably that my wife and I saw last night, for the entire last half of the film, you wouldn’t even consider it. The child was inconsolable, but her parents forced to to sit through the whole thing. This poor traumatized kid know knows the true meaning of torture. The movie is brutal enough, and realistic enough, to be entirely inappropriate for kids not yet in their teens. My kids, who loved Lord of the Rings, wouldn’t be able to take this.
I can’t stress this enough: not a movie for children. You may think you have great reasons for wanting your kids to see it, but trust me, it’s not worth it.
OK, that’s done… now onto the film.
As a movie, The Passion of Christ is good, but flawed. It is definitely a brutally violent film, and it does not sugarcoat the violence at any point. However, I never felt that the violence was gratuitous or “too much.” In places I wanted a violent scene to end, but it occurred to me that I felt it was going on too long, that’s probably because it was intended that way – the audience is meant to feel that it’s going on too long. That’s part of the point of the film.
The film was shot beautifully. There are some shots (even some of the blood-soaked ones) that could be works of art. A shot at the end of the crown of thorns and nails, sitting on a stone and soaked with Jesus’ blood, was amazing. The next-to-last shot of mother Mary, holding Jesus’ body and looking endlessly out at the audience, is nearly perfect. In fact, it would have been the perfect place to end the film. Unfortunately, Gibson went on for a short “Resurrection” scene which didn’t do much for me. As Diogenes said, the last scene seemed anti-climactic, and the “hole through the hand” shot seemed unnecessary and even borderline cheesy.
Great acting by the main characters, overall. Cavaziel was very convincing, and mother Mary was incredible. The flashback scene between them, in which he is building a table, was wonderful.
In fact, Diogenes is right that the flashbacks throughout the film are where it really picks up steam. It is the flashbacks which convey the message most clearly overall, and they provide good breaks from the agony of the torturous scenes. They are well-handled and not overdone. Without the flashback scenes, the violence would have been utterly gratuitous. With them, it gains meaning and depth.
Though I found it well-made overall, there were a few things which annoyed me about the film. Slow-motion was overused throughout, and in particular “slo-mo of Jesus falling down” was used four or five time too often, to the point that it distracted me from what was going on. I found myself thinking, “oh look, another slow motion shot of Jesus falling to the ground.” Not what I’m meant to be thinking, I’m sure.
Satan, while a visually compelling character, seemed completely extraneous to the film. My wife and I both said that he/she served no real purpose.
As someone else said earlier, many of the Roman soldiers are portrayed as almost cartoonish villains, laughing evilly as they torture Jesus. It might have been all right if it was only a couple of instances, but the soldiers feature heavily from the Scourging on. It was too much.
John Debney’s music, while quite good, seemed to be almost a carbon-copy of Peter Gabriel’s music for The Last Temptation of Christ (Gabriel’s soundtrack album is actually called Passion, interestingly enough). I found myself wanting to go and listen to Gabriel’s music, because Debney’s was so similar. Granted, Gabriel may have set the standard for this sort of film with his excellent Last Temptation score, but Debney could have been a little more original, it seems to me. At a couple points I noticed he strayed away from the “Gabriel-esque” style, and the music was a little more original, and it still worked well.
As to the ideas the film expressed, I felt that it sent the right message, though I’m not sure everyone will understand it. The scene in which Jesus is about to be nailed to the cross, intercut with Jesus telling his followers to “love one another, and love your enemies,” was the one that really got to me. I was moved to tears by the philosophy of this man, who could find it in his heart to forgive others even as the committed the worst acts. “Love one another” was not the only theme of the film, but it came across as the strongest, clearest message for me. It was not only about Jesus’ suffering at the Scourging and on the cross, it was about his attitude and his belief that love, not hate, is the most powerful force in the world. That’s what I took away from the film.
The controversies around the film are all a load of bunk, as far as I’m concerned. The movie is not anti-homosexual, it is not misogynistic, and it is most certainly not anti-Semitic.
Yes, Satan is played by a woman. However, he is never played as a woman. Satan is portrayed as being consistently (even disturbingly) androgynous, as most angels (even fallen ones) are supposed to be. The person playing Satan happened to be a woman, but this is no more a slam against women than a man playing Satan the same way would be a slam against men. In short, there’s nothing to the accusations of misogyny.
Similarly, the only people who can really talk about the film being anti-Semitic are those who haven’t seen the film. I don’t see how anyone could walk away after the film with such an opinion. It is a Jew (explicitly stated in the film) who helps Jesus carry the cross when He couldn’t do it alone anymore. It is the Roman soldiers who come across as the clear (if cartoonish) villains of the story. The movie is in no way anti-Semitic.
Overall, the film was more brutal, and in ways less complex, than Last Temptation of Christ. The Passion also isn’t quite as thought-provoking as Last Temptation. They’re two very different films, focusing on different aspects of the story. However, where The Passion is lacking in complexity it makes up for in clarity. The message is clearly this: love one another. There is reward to be found in loving both your friends and your enemies, and in the end all can be forgiven.
My wife and I both walked away from the film emotional. My wife was angry, and I was sad. Strangely enough, we were angry and sad at the same thing… that so many modern Christians have forgotten the true message of Christ. I hope that they see this film and hear its message. There are Christians out there who already know this, but they seem few and far between. My hope for this film is that it reminds Christians about the message their Christ tried to bring to the world, to love one another regardless of sin or circumstance. In fact, I hope that it can do that for anyone who sees it.
It served as a strong reminder to me of the importance of that message. I don’t even believe in Christ (as the son of God), but I do believe in the message Christ conveys, and I believe that The Passion of Christ did a good job of conveying that message.
Thanks, Avalonian, for reminding me. I realised last night that there are many… I guess they’re tableaux?.. shots that I thought were like looking at paintings of the different Passion scenes. The Pieta, certainly. Veronica. Mary Magdalene and Jesus at her attempted stoning. A bunch of others that I can’t remember.
When we were discussing Judas being chased out of the city, and whether the children were real, or externalized, demonized feelings of guilt, Mr. Lissar said that he thought they weren’t real because when Judas opens his eyes (after the head-down-shouting-bit) he’s in a totally different location. I don’t remember- can anyone back this up? I have a feeling that he was on top of a cliff at the beginning, and that the tree and donkey are in a valley or something, but I’m not sure.