The Passion of Christ - My view and review of the movie

[Zeno]

I found the Passion of Christ to be a rather disgusting and overdone movie. Why the emphasis on so much blood, cruelty, and violence? The portrayal of the Jewish and Roman authorities was also rather bias and fixated on only certain aspects of the supposed trail and conviction of Christ. Many of the people were stereotypical or caricatures that Christian tradition has built up over the centuries. The portrayal of Herod and of Pilate’s wife is a good example of this, not to mention the Roman soldiers and the Sanhedrin. The part of Judas was the quintessential caricature and boarded on being almost laughable. The intertwining of following Mary and the flashbacks was interesting but I found much of it overdone and melodramatic to the extreme. The movie spurts and drips gallons of blood, and in so doing overshadows the message of compassion and forgiveness. Gibson’s fixation on the blood and cruelty detracts from a more important message.

It is a good movie in the respect that it stirs feelings, deep emotions, and passions in many people (and that is a main purpose of movies) that believe that the events actually took place as described in the four Canonical Gospels and also believe Jesus was the Son of God and died for the sins of the world. It will no doubt solidify those views in many people as the story follows Christian traditions, much of which are not even in the Gospels of the New Testament. But I have no such beliefs, so the movie remains to me interesting but in the last analysis I find it is an excellent metaphor - A metaphor for cruelty, blood, violence and ignorance that is the main legacy of many religions and Christianity in particular.

I am glad I went to see the movie but probably not for the same reasons that most people would. I could say and add much more but will end my ‘review’ for now.

-Zeno

PS – The famous ‘washing of the hands’ was not a Roman ritual and Pilate would have never done such a thing. Also, the nails would have been through the wrists about 2-3 inches above the joint, not through the soft middle part of the hands.

[krazyace5]

Why the emphasis on so much blood, cruelty, and violence?

Ummm.... because that is the way it happened.

[gonores]

[ QUOTE ]
PS – The famous ‘washing of the hands’ was not a Roman ritual and Pilate would have never done such a thing. Also, the nails would have been through the wrists about 2-3 inches above the joint, not through the soft middle part of the hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were a number of other misrepresentations and other factual errors in the movie, according to what I know of the Roman crucifixion process, which when added together, really do significantly distort what probably happened back then. The event that was the Roman crucifixion process was highly scientific and calculated, designed to extract a certain amount of pain from the individual while insuring the condemned made it to the site. This clearly was not the intent in the movie. The grossest misrepresentation of fact was using that wicked little multi-whip-with-hooks get-up, which I believe was called the "cat of nines." That device was used as an execution device in and of itself, and had no place in the crucifixion process. There are a bunch of other problems with the movie that added up to making the movie more gratuitous than what probably happened. The Romans would have never risked having such a high-profile figure die before he got to the top of that hill.

[jstnrgrs]

I have to say that I had expected the movie to be much more violent than it actually was. This movie really wasn't that bloody when compared to other movies.

[Zeno]

The whole dragging of the ‘cross’ bit was overdone, inaccurate, and at times inane. The four Gospel accounts are discordant and contradictory in many details of the arrest and ‘trail’ of Jesus (not to mentioned his supposed resurrection). A critical reading brings this out vividly. For example, Jesus was not beat up in the Garden as shown in the movie. That supposedly happened later at the chief priests house either before or after his questioning, depending on which gospel you read, and then later by the roman soldiers but no Gospel account even agrees on these simple details.

In John, at the High Priests house, a beating is not even mentioned and only the detail of his being slapped in the face is given when it was considered that He was being insolent when questioned. In addition, John does not relate that Jesus was even whipped by the Romans (nor does Luke) or that someone had to help him carry the ‘cross.’ In my opinion, having Jesus all bloody with a mashed up face when the Council questioned him is stretching even the Gospel accounts. Mel Gibson’s interpretation of the Gospels borders on being inane and is certainly overblown. But this is to be expected, especially in a movie in which a God is crucified by Roman soldiers, by order of a coward Roman Governor under the prodding and intimidation of a cadre of Priests and a rabble crowd. The whole movie becomes cartoonish towards the end, with earthquakes, skies becoming dark, the Temple floor splitting open, Satan in a funk, etc.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm.... because that is the way it happened.


[/ QUOTE ]

I submit that at best only a probability of what happened can be known and a sketching outline at that. A crucifixion is a barbarous and bloody act, but orderly soldiers would have done it in a strict way. Romans soldiers were in fact orderly, efficient, and disciplined in their duties. The Romans did not conquer much of Western and Eastern Europe and parts of Asia Minor and Africa by being inept and disorderly.

The tone of the movie certainly overemphasized the blood and cruelty and does so for obvious reasons. I thought it unnecessary, but that is my opinion.

[Zeno]

My response to Baggins.

One more thing, the Jesus actor used by Gibson resembles an lanky Anglo-Saxon hillbilly from West Virginia much more than a 1st Centuary Jew. (just visualize him with shorter hair and no beard)

I rate the Passion of Christ right up there with Women in Cages flicks. Interesting - Trashy - Sick - And worth watching.

-Zeno

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm.... because that is the way it happened.


[/ QUOTE ]

Says who? The bible? Now there's a real reliable source. Especially since many events in the 4 Gospels 'predate' christs' existence.

Makes ya wonder, huh...

b

[baggins]

I'd love to see some of the evidence you people bring against the legitimacy of the bible. I've read countless sources that uphold the historical accuracy of the bible. most historians would agree that Jesus lived in the time the bible says he lived, and that he died more or less the same way, the same time that the bible reports. the bible is verified in multiple respected historic, scientific, archaeologic circles. I personally don't know enough to argue this point with you, but I think it's interesting how you *must* have widely different 'sources' to back up claims like this.

[Zeno]

Baggins,

There are different points of views to consider. If you note I said the film was good as a film. A bit overdone and trashy but worth seeing.

But I have issues with religion and Christianity in particular and I do criticize it and I think much of the criticisms are justified. Just because it is a religion and millions or billions of people believe it, does not mean it is true, sacrosanct, or above being critiqued or put to tests for evidence.

Most biblical 'scholarship' is bias as it is done by people that believe and have an agenda. Scholarship is also bias in the other direction but worth reading, for example: The Historical Evidence for Jesus by G.A. Wells or The Jesus Myth by John Robertson

A number of books by Elaine Pagels are very well done and are excellent unbiased books about early Christianity and the Gospels. I highly recommend them. Another excellent book is The Transcendental Temptation by Paul Kurkz. It is critique of religion and the paranormal. People like Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Joseph McCabe, Edward Greenly, Gerald Massey, Charles Watts etc wrote about biblical errors, the evidence for Jesus, religions as myths and other topics. Other more well-known and respected scholars are producing works today. It only takes a little effort to find and read them.

This not to convince you of anything; I am not in the business of converting anyone, but I wanted you to know that there is a large body of very scholarly and informative works on the origins of Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus. And much of it contradicts 'traditional Christian beliefs’ about the origin of this religion and it’s founder.


-Zeno

[Robk]

x

[bernie]

I find it intersesting how little many 'christians' know about the bible, yet still follow it blindly. Not seeing what a propaganda book that it really is. This is what really fascinates me about it.

Like how it was put together in the first place. For starters, the initial hebrew text still has 25% of all the words up for debate. That's quite a bit. Imagine how much was lost during the manipulative, self serving translation process by the church. There is a big dispute about where/when christ died. Even where/when he was born.

The bible is not a factual account. Only 1 is alleged to be a first person account. Even that has much stuff that was 'edited' to suit the story. Sadly, most of the prime stuff has been suppressed by the church. They won the war, so they wrote the history. Which is far from the truth, imo. Ever read about 'why' the crusades took place? What was so dangerous to the church about the people slaughtered?

I'm also sure that most of the 'experts' that agree with the bible being fact also have a very christian background. They usually do. It has been proven that much of the story was lifted from another story.

b

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it intersesting how little many 'christians' know about the bible, yet still follow it blindly. Not seeing what a propaganda book that it really is. This is what really fascinates me about it.

Like how it was put together in the first place. For starters, the initial hebrew text still has 25% of all the words up for debate. That's quite a bit. Imagine how much was lost during the manipulative, self serving translation process by the church. There is a big dispute about where/when christ died. Even where/when he was born.

The bible is not a factual account. Only 1 is alleged to be a first person account. Even that has much stuff that was 'edited' to suit the story. Sadly, most of the prime stuff has been suppressed by the church. They won the war, so they wrote the history. Which is far from the truth, imo. Ever read about 'why' the crusades took place? What was so dangerous to the church about the people slaughtered?

I'm also sure that most of the 'experts' that agree with the bible being fact also have a very christian background. They usually do. It has been proven that much of the story was lifted from another story.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

see, that's the thing. you assert that there is debate and question regarding a significant portion of text. and then assume that the translation came through in the most self-serving, manipulitive way possible because of it? this isn't fair at all. your bias is at least as strong as mine.

also, I will say this. some may question my Faith, or the principles it is founded on. that's fine. it is not for me to judge you or your faith, nor to persuade you. only you can change your heart. but I have seen God. I know he is real. If you seek him, he will reveal himself to you, too.

I'm not trying to evangelize, but I'm not going to back down or run away from this topic, either. you certainly have every right in the world to scrutinize and excercise great skepticism. but know that you cannot truly find God without faith. and faith is not only believing in what you can see and understand, but in what you can't completely see and understand.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
see, that's the thing. you assert that there is debate and question regarding a significant portion of text. and then assume that the translation came through in the most self-serving, manipulitive way possible because of it? this isn't fair at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

based on the factual history of how many died because of this book, it's perfectly fair to scrutinize it as a book of manipulative propoganda. Again, study on how it was put together. That's been well documented. It was political, not religious enlightenment that was the great motivation behind it. Still is. Especially when they 'revise' it.

If you feel you've 'seen' god, more power to ya. If it helps make you a better person for it, right on. I personally dont think 'god' is comprehendable to humans, if there actually is a 'god'. You can also have faith without attributing it to 'god'. Faith is one thing, but believing a book slapped together to serve an agenda without questioning or exploring it when there are many resources out there to do so, is a whole 'nother matter.

To not explore and recognize other possibilities of the truth, whatever it may be, is essentially putting one's head in the sand.

b