TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . ABOUT US . CONTACT . CHAT  
Bomis   Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through March 07, 2004

The TVClubHouse: Archives: Movies & Library 2003 -2004: Movies: May 2003 - April 2004: The Passion of the Christ: Archive through March 07, 2004 users admin

Author Message
Bigd
Member

09-13-2001

Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 4:55 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I saw this film yesterday. The most real thing I can tell you about my experience is, it absolutely exhausted me. Emotionally, physically, mentally, and spiritually. It was tough to endure. The theatre was packed and was erily silent. I started crying early on and was affected deeply by the image of Mary the mother of Jesus watching what was happening. She couldn't look and she couldn't look away. I felt exactly the same way. I now know that I did not need to see this film. I am glad that I did. I am glad I kept my eyes open most of the time, however, I will tell you that I closed my eyes and went to great mental links to distract my hearing when they were nailing Him to the cross. It was overwhelming. I was and am still exhausted.

There were young children in attendance and for the life of me I cannot imagine why the parents would take their children. It was hard for me to cope and I have no idea how those children will cope. My heart was racing and I was pressed by nerves through the whole thing and I am a grown woman intimately familiar with the life and death of Christ. On the way out I was walking alongside a teenage girl with her parents and she was crying uncontrollably and being lead to the car by her parents. It is allot to take in.

Do I hate Jews now? What a ridiculous question. I saw people on the screen, not Jews. According to my belief I am just as responsible for "The Passion of Christ" as anyone. How could I hate the Jews?

Once again, I would commend Goddessatlaw for her description of the movie. I cannot add anything to it, it was dead on. Thanks GAL.

Jbean
Member

01-05-2002

Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 7:52 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
i saw this movie today. goddess, i have to tell you, your review of the movies is RIGHT ON. for me the movie was emotionally draining, i will agree with you bigd, on that one. i started crying pretty much during the first torture scenes. i, too, couldn't handle the nailing part. seems like that was what shocked me the most to hear as a child in church hearing, too. something about the nails.

i didn't take this movie to be against any certain group of people, either (jews, romans...no one). just a depiction of what happened to Jesus in his last hours of life. and the audience was silent in our theater too, which, by the way, was filled to capacity. i am glad that i went. i am a christian, and i feel that it has really made me stop and take another look back. jesus praying for the people who are torturing him to death, because they don't know what they do? wow. there were also very small children in our audience. there was one child (maybe 3?) who stared screaming immediately into the movie! this movie is draining enough to endure without screaming children, who do not belong there in the first place....JMHO, of course. very intense, but worth it in my opinion. i think once was enough for me though.

again thank you Goddess, for your description and review, very well and accurately stated. i am still kind of a mess over the whole thing.


Wendo
Member

08-07-2000

Monday, March 01, 2004 - 8:28 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Hm, I had a completely different reaction to this movie, The Passion, than the majority of people who've posted.

I came away feeling that while the movie isn't blatantly anti-semetic, there are certain subtleties that could've been presented with more care, IMO.

I understand Gibson's purpose behind the violence presented, however for me, as a viewer, it was quite distracting and unecessary for the story. To me, it felt as though it was nothing more than presenting gore for gore sake. I agree with Maris that those who are not religious or religously moved by this film (as well as teenagers) are only focused on the "shots of skin flying through the air."

(Additionally, this movie is inappropriate for children. I was shocked to see children under the age of 7 in the theater. A child will get nothing out of this movie other than being traumitized.)

Further, I think Gibson's portrayal of Pontius Pilate to be most inaccurate. To make Pilate out to be a soulful, questioning man forced by the Jewish High Priests and the crowd to send Jesus to be crucified is not only ridiculous, but a disservice. Pilate sent numerous people to be crucified; he was an evil, heartless man. Gibson's portrayal of Pilate is not based in any historical fact whatsoever.

Also, I think more of the movie could've been used to show more positive aspects of Jesus and his teachings. Yes, I realize that this is a movie about The Passion. But, even just a few minutes could've provided something. IMO, the flashbacks used in the film provided little to move the story along. (For instance, what was the purpose of the flashback to his time as a carpenter? That he could build a great table?)

As I wrote initially, I don't think the movie is blatantly anti-semetic. However, I do think there are certain subtleties in the movie that could be perceived as such. For instance, to have Caiaphus portrayed as more evil than Pilate. That the Jewish High Priests would be able to "sway" Pilate to crucify Jesus. (Not possible whatsoever from a historical perspective; ie: what's factually known about Pontius Pilate.)

Additionally, where were the crowds of Jews who were likely supportive of Jesus? Those that welcomed him into the city when he arrived days before for Passover?

Frankly, there were several scenes in the movie that I found unecessary and uncomfortable with regard to the portrayal of the Jews.

Yes, this is Gibson's film and he has a right to show what he wants. However, there's a reason why the Vatican has guidelines on how Passion plays are to be presented.

It's important to note that Gibson's religion, while Catholic, is strict traditionalist. It's considered a sect. They don't recognize the Vatican reforms in the 60's. (Plus, we're all aware of Gibson's fathers feelings about the Jews and the Holocaust.)

I don't want to seem completely negative about the film. As others have noted, it was shot very well. And, except for the first scene, the music is wonderful. While I didn't find the acting to be exceptional, it was adequate for the films subject matter. Additionally, one does get a powerful visual representation of what Jesus may have gone through those last 12 hours. (Gibson's view is but one representation of what may have happened.)

As far as those who should see it or not. Again, I wouldn't recommend it for children. Nor for people who are really turned off by realistic violence (there's fictional violence of the Terminator movies and there's realistic violence in a movie such as this.) This movies core audience will be those who are religious and those who are interested in seeing the movie because of the debate surrounding it.

As far as whether it's a good movie, I wouldn't say it's great. The acting is adequate, but, other than being nicely shot and scored, it's an average movie, imo. Unless you truly need to see it in the theater, wait for the DVD.

(JMO folks.)

Bigd
Member

09-13-2001

Monday, March 01, 2004 - 10:02 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Wendo, you said:

"As far as whether it's a good movie, I wouldn't say it's great. The acting is adequate, but, other than being nicely shot and scored, it's an average movie, imo. Unless you truly need to see it in the theater, wait for the DVD."

I agreed with you with one exception, I felt the woman that portrayed Mary the mother of Jesus did a wonderful job, especially considering the limited dialog.

I completely agree with everything else you said, even to the point of I seriously wish I had waited for the DVD version. I wanted to see the movie and I am glad I saw it, but hindsight is very valuable to me now. In hindsight, it would have been nice to view this in my own home with the ability to stop and take a rest from time to time.


Tishala
Member

08-01-2000

Monday, March 01, 2004 - 1:24 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I didn't want to be the first to weigh in with a negative review--and I respect that my opinion can be taken with a grain of salt on this matter because I am Jewish and I am not the religious/ideological target of this film. Besides, I got my tickets free from the Chair of our Jewish Studies Department so I didn't even have to pay...

The NY Daily News gave a very good [One Star] review of this film and I think I will be reiterating what it said. The cinematography is lovely. The film's cool colors (blues and cool browns with intense chiariscuro [sp] effects) is stunning and works well. As Wendo says, the music is mostly quite good, but the first scene makes it sound more like Psycho than anything. After that, it settles into one of the most majestic, if slightly intrusive, parts of the film.

That said, I don't think the film works very well. It has an incredibly stagnant narrative and the flashback scenes seem to rescue it for a while, but they never fill in enough of the story to make the film cohere and to make the sense of suffering seem reasonable. I'm not sure why this is true, but I believ the blame rests with the director: it seems like he needed to make decisions that would illuminate the nature of sacrifice, but instead let the violence itself speak--as if it were its own explanation. SO we are left with two options: a longer film that fleshes out the "back story" or a shorter film that works less well on a narrative level. Gibson opted for the latter and I think it was a bad decision. He would have made a better film at three hours that provided a sense of narrative coherence than the one he gave us at 2 hours, IMHO.

But even if he had made it longer, I don't know that the violence was entirely necessary. I couldn't stop thinking how appalling the sound effects were--the tearing flesh, the ripping, etc.--and what kinds of artistic decsions went into making those sounds as "accurate" as possible. I have seen many violent films and none of them have offended me, so this didn't either. But this had a kind of fetishistic quality I have only seen in a couple fims and it borders on a kind of pornographic violence (I can't think of a better way to describe it).

The acting is servicable. The woman playing Mary is the best part of the film; the gentleman playing Pilate is probably the worst. My opinion about the film's real or imagined anti-Semitism is unimportant, I think, so I won't address it here--that is another question entirely.

As I look at MSNBC right now, they are asking whether this Hollywood will be brave enough (or something) to give this film Oscars next year. I don't think it is a question of bravery in my mind; excepting the cinematography, I think it doesn't deserve any nominations.

That's just my opinion.

Midlifer
Member

04-16-2003

Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 10:02 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Unfortunately, I let my likes or dislikes for performers influence whether I watch a movie or TV show. I used to be a really big fan of Mel Gibson, but his current (to me) archaic views on religion scare me. I grew up in the Catholic church, both before and after Vatican II, so I am very familiar with the positions of the church. I am no longer a Catholic for many reasons, and thus I do not wish to see what I consider to be one man's narrow view. The violence is not so much an issue for me (I'm sure I've seen worse), just the fact that I consider this to be Mel's sensationalization of a very powerful story. IMHO

Spunky
Member

10-08-2001

Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 2:49 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
At least Mel Gibson had the courage to bring this view (the traditionalist) back for discussion and it's helping me understand why the whole Vatican II was created.
I grew up with the same traditionalist view of the whole story and so it didn't disturb me in the least.
Of course Pontio Pilato had sentenced many many more before Christ without a second thought but in Jesus he saw someone who didn't deserve to be crucified, and was suspicious of the real motives of the High Priest. In the end he washed his hands of the whole mess and threw Jesus in the hands of the Roman soldiers who were portrayed even worse than the Jews.
If Gibson thought to revive this unjust and horrible treatment of Jesus I commend him because so many of us forgot or don't care and if to do so he saw necessary to use the violence card, so be it, "it is as it was", it did shake many of us from our complacency.
It's really impossible to have an agreement on this whole topic and so we agree to disagree, but at least people talk about it and that's important.
I too have my own opinion of the 'real reasons' Jesus died but I'm not condemning Gibson for telling me otherwise with this movie. It's an excellent movie in the sense it shook us, and it brought us together again to discuss this extraordinary story.

Wendo
Member

08-07-2000

Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 2:38 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
The portrayal of Pilate thinking Jesus didn't deserve to be crucified just doesn't sync with historical fact about his term as prefect nor the kind of man he was. It's historical fact that he was brutal, evil, devoid of morality and was willing to crucify anyone suspected of causing uproar. And, based on what is known about him from history, he would not have been swayed by the High Priests nor the crowd when it came to crucifying someone.

Additionally, as pointed out by some scholars (see this weeks US News and World Report), had the High Priests really convicted Jesus of blasphemy, he would've been stoned, not given to Pilate and then crucified.

Crucifixion was a Roman penalty. Based on what we now know historically, Jesus was likely rocking the political apple cart, as they say. Not only for the High Priests, but for Pilate too. With regard to Gibson's film, if he intended the film to be accurate according to the Gospels (as he said in his interview eith Dianne Sawyer) then where is it written that Jesus was beaten before being delivered to the High Priests?

As I wrote in my prior post, I didn't feel the movie was blatantly anti-semetic. I just feel there are subtleties to the movie that present an anti-semetic feel in certain instances. Certain scenes and portrayals of characters that made me feel uncomfortable.

As to the Gospels themselves, how can one take them as historically accurate when they contradict themselves? I understand the importance of the Gospels. However, I don't think the historical facts known about the time should be dismissed altogether either.

Lastly, I don't condemn Gibson for telling his story. I just think that he could've done a more reasonable, accurate, and true representation of the people in it.

Bigd
Member

09-13-2001

Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 8:27 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I believe the four gospels are written from the perspective of four different men with four different experiences and so therefore each one would interpret or experience an event a little more like the others or even a little less than the others and so therefore be driven to record their own personal experience. Just exactly like we are all doing right here, right now, in this thread.

I believe Pontius Pilate was simply a despicable man with no backbone. He was afraid for himself politically. He was afraid to ignore his wife's request. I think he just epitomized a true coward. And I think this is all that drove him to his action. Besides all that, this was all divine designation anyway. God had already predestined everyone's parts in the life and death of Jesus and there is nothing anyone could have done to prevent his death.

Faerygdds
Member

08-29-2000

Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 9:19 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    

quote:

He was afraid for himself politically. He was afraid to ignore his wife's request.




Yep. If you look at what is written in all of the Gospels (hodgepodge so to speak) Pilate's wife told him she wanted him to have nothing to do with Jesus' death. She had apparently been having nightmares about it.

Couple that with the fact that he was in fear that if this situation erupted into civil unrest, he would have Caesar to deal with. He certainly did not want that. At the very least it would have meant his career, but more likely it would have been his life.

I have actually always felt a little sorry for Pilate in this one case No matter what he did, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

His wife is on one side saying, "If you hurt him you will surely pay". With what she never says... his career... his life... his soul???

On the other you have the crowd yelling to crucify Jesus. If you don't, then you have to face Caesar and possibly death yourself.

Rock.......Pilate.......Hard Place

I'm not painting Pilate as a rosy guy. He wasn't, but in this particular case he really was in a lose/lose situation.

Oh... and in John it talks very briefly about Jesus being struck when he did not answer Ciaphas (sp?) appropriately and with enough respect. But it did say struck and not beaten.

Funny... why is it that the Pagan in the group is the one looking up all the information???

Spunky
Member

10-08-2001

Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 10:48 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Again, Gibson's version is yet another one to be added to those of John, Mark, Luke etc.. As they did "resurrect" the whole event to "spread the word" so did Gibson with this movie. It is true that those who like me became too complacent were shaken by this movie and made us re-consider the whole event and its meaning. Yes, it made me think and will keep me wondering for ever and ever, and so I made up my mind that I will think of this event as a spiritual experience, a spiritual healing based upon the teaching of Jesus, to bring me closer to the great mystery of life, so to speak. How things really happened we will never know, but the story is simply too poignant to ignore.
Some have said Christianity was created to weaken the Roman Empire and why not if you think that even Roman soldiers started to convert and turned the other cheek instead of fighting, a weakened army meant the end of an Empire, and the more persecuted Christians became martyrs the more this religion increased until eventually even the last Emperor (Constantin)converted and made Rome the centre of Christendom. How ironic, isn't it?
It's unfortunate that this same Church at one point became so corrupted that others, like Luther, saw fit to cast doubt on this religion and other forms of religions were created.
It's no wonder why so many of us are confused, but Gibson's movie is clearly an attempt to re-direct us to "the truth", which again will remain a question mark for many.

Bronxie
Member

07-29-2003

Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 9:24 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Very well said, Spunky.

Reading, and hearing any story quickly passes from my memory bank. A visual stays indefinitely. Gibson reached me far better than any of my past Bible/religious classes.

Wendo
Member

08-07-2000

Friday, March 05, 2004 - 2:34 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Faerygdds, who's the pagan here? LOL! Is it I, you? I must say, I'm quite confused. LOL!

Yes, I do recall in the gospels one point where Jesus was struck by Caiaphus. I'll have to see where that occurs this weekend. (Pull out both my reading Bible and the Bible I used for Religion class in college.)

Spunky, you do make a specific point. That at this time, there is no way to know, with certainty, what happened exactly. (Maybe it's lies within the Vatican's Secret Archives?) Or, with faith, we wait until we move on and are able to find out.

Well, my sleeping pill is kicking in. Later gators. Love the debate; hope you guys want to still talk about it. (I'm gonna dig up my Religion notebook from college this weekend.)

Spunky
Member

10-08-2001

Friday, March 05, 2004 - 11:00 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I found this somewhere else, in relation to why the High Priest accused Jesus of blasphemy and wanted him dead.
Both Matthew and Mark say the council tried to get false witnesses.
Mark 14:
55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
59 But neither so did their witness agree together.
60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands

I don't really know how the ancient Jews expected another Messiah and did not believe Jesus was the one. What is the belief nowdays? Are the modern Jews still waiting for "their" Messiah? I wonder why and what sign are they wating for.

Faerygdds
Member

08-29-2000

Friday, March 05, 2004 - 11:14 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Wendo... Yes, I am the Pagan here. :-)

But I don't go on memory of the Bible (I was born and raised Catholic)... when I want to know what Christian Theology says on an issue I look it up myself. :-)

Zules
Member

08-21-2000

Friday, March 05, 2004 - 3:08 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Spunky to answer your question and not get into a religious debate, I'll tell you that yes, modern Jews are still waiting for the Messiah.

Instead of arguing about signs and everything else (I have a feeling this is where we're headed), why don't we just agree that when He gets here, we'll just ask Him if this is His first coming or His second. Deal?

Tishala
Member

08-01-2000

Friday, March 05, 2004 - 3:18 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Thanks Zules. I wasn't sure how to deal with those questions, especially the part about "'their' Messiah." I typed an anser and erased it...and you did it better than I did.

Zules
Member

08-21-2000

Friday, March 05, 2004 - 3:28 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Thanks for the positive feedback Tishala. You know as well as I do how far this can go and how fast. I refuse to argue about it anymore, I just agree to disagree. Either way, He's coming or He's coming back so I'm willing to wait and see which it is.

I'm enjoying reading everyone's review of the movie. Thank you all for sharing.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Friday, March 05, 2004 - 4:16 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I think you all ought to just wait for the Robin Stone Movie.

Ketchuplover
Member

08-30-2000

Friday, March 05, 2004 - 6:23 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Who?

Texannie
Member

07-16-2001

Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 7:59 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Zules, love your comment.."He's coming or He's coming back..."!

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 10:53 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Dummy me, I meant Oliver Stone.

Ketchuplover
Member

08-30-2000

Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 3:46 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Who? j/k :-)

Spunky
Member

10-08-2001

Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 7:38 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Actually my question was intended for someone who has extensive knowledge on what the modern Jewish community base their religious beliefs.

I can see I'll have to ask that question somewhere else.

By the way I'm the first who said we agree to disagree. But I'm glad the general feeling about the movie is more good than bad.

Tishala
Member

08-01-2000

Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 8:30 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Spunky, there is no monolith of "the modern Jewish community," but Zules answered the question. In Judaism, we believe the Ma­shi­akh has not come and, in fact, Judaism is not structured around waiting for a messiah (small m). I am a reform Jew and we don't believe in the notion of an individual messiah; Lubavitch [I'm not sure I know how to spell that] Jews, on the other hand (a subset of the Orthodoxy) believe in the imminence of the Messiah's arrival. Most Jews I know never talk about the idea, but then I know mostly reform and vaguely conservative Jews and very few Othodox Jews.

These religious questions might be better answered in a thread not devoted to a film.