I Just saw The Passion of the Christ. Very humbling. Forget the controversy. If you aren’t a Christian, suspend your incredulity for a moment and take one thing from this film, in which people of all faiths should see wisdom: “love your enemies“.
Tags: Movies
February 26th, 2004 at 8:21 am
How come you already saw it? I thought it’s gonna be released in April or am I wrong?
February 26th, 2004 at 9:04 am
In the USA, at least, it was released yesterday–Ash Wednesday.
February 26th, 2004 at 1:08 pm
“forget the controversy”?? like the glaring rewrite of history that paints the jews (instead of the mass murderer Pontius Pilate) as the villans behinds christ’s death? i’d rather not forget this, especially considering that 1/4 of americans thinks the jews are to blame for christ’s death already, and this distortion of history has helped fuel millenia of persecution of the jews.
sorry, it just really irks me to see people glossing over this.
February 26th, 2004 at 1:31 pm
Hello, anonymous. Please explain what this “glaring rewrite” is. I’ve read the Gospels many times, and I found the movie to be rather faithful to the accounts. I’d love to see analysis to the contrary, though, if it’s available.
February 26th, 2004 at 1:39 pm
I’d like to further add that I do not see how the movie or Gospels are saying that the Jews are responsible for Christ’s death. Jesus himself was a Jew. In the film a fellow Jew helped carry his cross, at first against his will, but at the end felt great sympathy for Jesus. His friends were Jews. Much of the New Testament was written by Jews. It was ignorance and sin that killed Jesus, and I thought that message came through loud and clear in the film. “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” If Jesus’ life had been in my hand I may well have done the same thing. Even Peter who swore up and down that he would follow Christ even to death ended up denying him three times. Everyone is capable of abandonment and rejection of something or someone that is good out of fear, ignorance, and sin.
February 26th, 2004 at 4:58 pm
the glaring rewrite is showing Pontius Pilate as a compasionate character, when in fact he was a rutheless murderer who routinely sent political prisoner to the cruxfix. aparently he is responsible for tens of thousands of murders. in the passion he was portreyed as empathetic and torn up over jesus, but the evil jews pressured and manipulated him into carrying out the cruely against jesus. i have no clue why gibson chose to distort like this, its really scary.
February 26th, 2004 at 5:03 pm
check out http://www.adl.org/adl.asp for more info.
February 26th, 2004 at 6:13 pm
Once again, I have to disagree with you. I’ve read the Gospels. I’ve seen the film. Pilate’s words and actions are practically straight out of the Gospels. Pilate said he found no basis for a charge against Jesus. He said several times that he wanted to set Jesus free but only when the chief priests and other Jewish official insisted over and over the Christ be crucified did Pilate give in. You can claim the Gospels are inaccurate if you wish, but the film is true to the New Testament. However, ultimately it doesn’t matter who killed him. Christ himself prayed for the forgiveness of those who were insisting upon his death and the Roman soldiers who were beating him and nailing him to a cross. You miss the point of the film and the Gospels if you think it’s about pointing fingers, my friend.
February 26th, 2004 at 9:38 pm
Amen.
February 27th, 2004 at 2:02 pm
my friend, if you think a film, even by someone with good intentions is not without a powerful subtext you re diluding yourself. there are serious reprocusions to how gibson chose to present Pilate as empathetic and the jews as bloodthirsty. some extreme sects, incidentally the one the gibson belongs to, lays blame with the jews and this has been used as justification for their oppression for millenia. you dont see this as problematic? i’m just sick of hear how flawless and pios this film is constantly
February 27th, 2004 at 2:04 pm
dont you see the effect his kind of propaganda has? look at this despicable act:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4458_12.htm
it is not christian to obsess on blame.
February 27th, 2004 at 2:38 pm
Pilate was empathetic, to the extent that anyone in his position and with his history can be. What I’ve been saying is that the film was practically verbatim from the Gospels. His lines were straight out of the accounts in the New Testament. Not all the Jews in the flim were bloodthirsty. Just the chief priests and jewish officials. This is exactly the same in the NT. I completely agree with you that no one should blame the Jews (or anyone) for the death of Christ. This would be like blaming Adam and Eve for bringing sin in the world.
I am as disturbed by that link as you are. That pastor who posted that sign is wrong and that act is indeed completely unchristian. I am totally in agreement with you that it is not Christian to obsess on blame. That’s my entire point. The film isn’t about blame. Christians have done some horrible thing in the name of Christianity. Atheists and nihilist have done horrific things which are a logical consequence of their beliefs. People of all faiths and all walks of life are broken and screwed up. This is what led Jesus to die. The actual groups of people that set things in motion are just the historical subplot; and the film stuck to that faithfully.
Having said that I am going to reread the four Gospels and I’m going to go to the theatre and watch the film again to see if I missed anything.
February 29th, 2004 at 11:01 pm
I think that some of our Jewish friends should try to relax a bit and get away from this knee-jerk defensiveness. If one perceives themself as a perpetual victim, they will miss far more important things, and that may be the greater loss…
5
March 1st, 2004 at 1:08 am
I havent seen the film yet, so i cant make any personal comments on how it portrays the Jews as being the “bad guys,” but, from viewing the trailer, and reading countless reviews from well-acclaimed sources (that would not include sites such as this one), I can definately, without a doubt see how such a film, using very graphic and prolonged violence along with the corresponding vocal music, can be used to change people’s minds about this major historical event. With Jesus as the main protagonist, any audience member (whether Christian, atheist, agnostic, or what-have-you) automatically identifies with that character. The same is true with any protagonist in any film. And, when the violence against the character occurs, with the music aiding it, it can cause everyone to act and believe on a particular intent, purely from an emotional level- right after seeing the film in its entirety. Is is quite possible to say that this film can have very similiar effects as 9/11, with drastic increase in church attendence directly after viewing.
I’m not going to say Propaganda, but, whether that was meant or not, can make a pretty strong argument. However, I’m not going to make the argument but only comment on the film’s capacity for such. When I see it, I’m going in with a pen and A LOT of paper; and after I do, you’ll hear from me again. Right now, case is postponed for lack of evidence. Will reconvene after I watch it.
March 1st, 2004 at 4:51 pm
i am sure all of the esteemed members of this forum can tell the difference of how some Jews aided Jesus while others goaded the Romans to crucify him.
I’m afraid that this subtlety may be lost on some less advanced beings that might see the culpability of the *entire* Jewish leadership at the time (the Sanhedrin) as the culpability of the jewfish people as a whole, can you blame them?
That said it’s important to note two very important historical inaccuracies:
1.The Sanhedrin supposedly met at night to convict Jesus. We know that not to be true because we have the transcripts of the meetings (the Talmud) that were written hundreds of years before the accusations were made, that tell that the Sanhedrin never met at night and
2.The Sanhedrin required a total majority of all 72 members to sentence a man to death and that majority was never achieved
March 4th, 2004 at 10:54 pm
C’mon folks .. its just another movie based on a book of fiction. Lets just treat it a such.
March 4th, 2004 at 10:58 pm
Actually the book is a historical document. There may be inaccuracies as in any historical document, but authors did not write it as a book of made up fiction. They were attempting to tell about historical events.
March 13th, 2004 at 10:34 pm
please don’t tell me that any of you guys think that this movie is a documentary. Mel Gibson is a great director and he would have lots of things exaggerated in the film for his own purpose(s) according to his brand of cult catholicism. it (the movie) being fiction is beside the point.
March 20th, 2004 at 2:02 am
The Gospels were written as evangelical tools between 50-90 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The purpose of the Gospels was/is to try to convince non-believers that Jesus is the Messiah. The bible is not a history book, it is a religious book. The movie is not a history lesson, it is an evangelical tool. Mel Gibson made a contemporary religious film that is consistent with his faith. The film doesn’t need to be consistent with history to achieve its aims.
March 27th, 2004 at 11:08 pm
Yes. I couldn’t have said it any better. (referring to just above.) Like the Tim O’Brien novel, The Things They Carried (for those of you who have read it). It is about an actual event (yes, the Vietnam War), but the story he tells in the book is fiction, yet the emotions and attitudes he wanted to convey were the sole purposes of the novel- which were entirey based on a certain popular sentiment towards the war at that time. In summation, nothing needs to be consistent or accurate in order to convey a sentiment or attitude. As a matter of fact (quoting O’Brien himself) “Sometimes the story-truth is truer than the real truth.”