The Passion of the Christ

[bernie]

[bernie]

From your initial post, it didn't seem like it was meant to be a 'religious' discussion. It was about a movie. Whether it's based on a true story or not? That's a whole 'nother thread...

b

[baggins]

that post was in response to all the comments in multiple threads.

sure, it's a film, but you can't really separate the 'film' from it's subject matter when you talk about it.

i mean, you can comment on it as a film, sure. but the stupidity and arrogance i see in the posts on this site (not that all is stupid, but there is a significant amount of arrogance and disrespect and stupidity regarding the topic of this film) are all largely related to posters' reactions to the subject matter of the film, not it's filmic merits or artistic integrity...

obviously, I am a christian, and I disagree with a lot of people who have issues with that Faith. I think a lot of people have some pretty big chips on their shoulder regarding Christianity, and I can sense the animosity seething between the words they post on here. I wish my own biblical scholarship were stronger. Alas, it is not. and I am not in the position to fight this battle. All I am called to do is proclaim the power of my Lord Jesus Christ. It is not for me to decide how or when the Holy Spirit moves in the hearts and lives of the people who read my thoughts.

[Gamblor]

Gunners rule.

Do you find a conflict between the messages Gunners convey and your religiousness?

[John Cole]

Baggins,

This movie has become controversial exactly because the film's representation of the Passion, its marketing, and its reception with various audiences all have made it more than just a movie. The Christ story has been represented in countless films, including Ben Hur, King of Kings, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, and even Superman. Christ has been represented in other films, such as Bunuel's L'age D'or (to condemnation) and Whistle Down the Wind (barely a whisper).

Gibson's film, appearing as it does when it does, must be looked at historically, which may be hard to do right now; however, we can make some assumptions. First, those who don't like the film, even if judging it on its "artistic merits," have been labeled by some groups as part of the "elite" media. (I'm sure this comes as a shock to such mainstream, rather conservative critics such as David Denby.) Bland critics, such as Michael Medved, trumpet the film for reasons unrelated to its artistic merits; i.e., its celebration of conservative Christian ideals.

Right now, it appears the film cannot be judged solely on its merits, and, instead, has become a battle site where liberal and conservative ideologies wage Holy War. But, then again, I think that any artistic representation reverberates beyond the thing itself and cannot be judged on its intrinsic form or merits.

[baggins]

yeah. i do find that conflict. I just like the music. there's also just a lot of sappy romantic stuff in their music too.

mostly, I just like rock and roll.

[Gamblor]

mostly, I just like rock and roll.

At least you have better taste in music than Messiahs.

Now, before you go haywire about that crappy one-liner, remember how uppity the Jews are about the Passion, and how America is trying to calm them down, and how it's no big deal, even though the Jews in the movie are essentially barbarians.

[Zeno]

A lucid, intelligent, and enjoyable post.

By the way - Your Fired.

Zeno - Master of Ceremonies

[baggins]

hey. I know when you're kidding. at least i should.

I don't think it was The Jews in the film that were solely portrayed being bloodthirsty or barbaric. I think the message was very clear that every single person has a part in putting Christ on the cross.

anyway, I didn't see any antisemitism. the Jewish leaders couldn't have done anything different. Their part was to bring Christ to trial. they were afraid of the political potential he represented. they thought he was a blasphemer. it was inevitable. he chose to be lay down his life, that's a huge point that the film stresses.

[ZeeJustin]

I thought it sucked, primarily for 2 reasons.

1) The excessive gratuitous violence.

Three of my favorite five movies are American History X, Braveheart (also directed by Mel Gibson), and Fight club. Obviously, I don't have a problem with seeing violence. The problem lies in that this is a movie about Jesus. Where's the passion? Where's the message that you are supposed to love all men? Where's the story about a really cool dude? None of it is there. It is all replaced by gratuitous violence.

2) Historical Inaccuracies

These have been mentioned before, and I'm no historical expert, so I won't go into detail. Also, I have no problem with historical accuracies if they make the movie better, but in this case, they most certainly did not. Two exampless: 1) The Jews in the movie are portrayed as an angry mob filled with bloodlust, while the Roman leaders were portrayed very benevolantly. /vomit. Next. 2) The cat of 9 tales (the most brutal part of the movie) was never used on Jesus. If the movie needed the audience to feel some sympathy for Jebus or something, this would be a great addition, but the audiences are already vomiting mid-film as it is.

/end rant