The Passion of the Christ

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whaaaaat? Ok, let's get things straight. Pontious Pilate is portrayed as a benevolant Roman leader that risks his neck for Jesus. The only reason he crucifies Jesus is because he knows the Jews (high prists and other important figures included) are ready to start a mob. Yeah. Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
he chose to be lay down his life, that's a huge point that the film stresses.

[/ QUOTE ]

The movie did not explain this part at all. There was one flashback where he said, "The greatest thing a dude can do for his chums is to take a bullet in the face." There was no other explanation of why Jesus "layed down" his life. There was no message of absolving sins for manking or anything like that. The movie certainly lacked many explanations (and no, I'm not talking proof or anything like that. I'm simply talking motive and history).

[baggins]

the movie didn't have to tell the entire story of Jesus. there's plenty of places and opportunities for the viewer to do their homework and find out just why he was on that cross. the movie was to show the last 12 hours of his life. to show what unbelievable cruelty the process of his trial and crucifixion was. too bloody? it was probably worse than what we saw.

the whole point of the movie is to show what Jesus chose to endure to give up his life for you, and me, and everyone else.

Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a weak roman official. he had previously been warned by his higher-ups that he had been crucifying too many rebellious leaders, and that he'd better chill out. he also had the zealous jews demanding blood. he was weak. his choice was to ultimately give the jews what they wanted, even though he 'tried' to let the man go. he wasn't some benevolent man.

i think it's also clear that Christ could have leaned on Pilate's 'leniency' (as it were) and answered appropriately to get himself off the hook. the point is that he chose this crucifixion, he wasn't forced into it. He knew what he was going to endure, and what his point in coming to earth was in the first place. the fact of the matter is that he had the power at any point during the trial to end it. over and over the movie stresses (in subtle ways) that Jesus was making a choice to die here. he was laying his life down. this is a point that is not hidden in christian doctrine. in fact it is the central point of all christianity. the movie didn't emphasize the 'motive and history' more probably because you can do your homework, and the point was the last 12 hours of Christ ( the passion ).

[elwoodblues]

The question is whether this film should be judged on its own merits or whether it should be judged with an assumption that "everyone knows" the backstory. Should you have to do your homework before going to a movie? From what I've heard/read a lot of people who aren't familiar with the backstory didn't like the movie. Those that were familiar with the story brought with them that knowledge/experience and the movie helped them build on that.

I haven't yet seen the movie (and will probably wait until it comes out on video). That being said, from what I hear about the movie (as a movie, not as some theological/historical statement) it doesn't feel "whole" because of the lack of context. Gibson might very well be right that most people who see the movie will know the context, but it is a fair criticism of the movie (in my opinion) if the movie fails to provide the context. It would be as if you saw only the second part of a two-part (or even three-part) movie. If Peter Jackson decided to make ONLY the Return of the King, I would suspect people would have the same reaction --- the movie itself is well crafted and powerful, but there was something missing --- a context. Sure you could do your homework before going, but the movie should be judged on its own merits.

[ QUOTE ]
Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a weak roman official. he had previously been warned by his higher-ups that he had been crucifying too many rebellious leaders, and that he'd better chill out. he also had the zealous jews demanding blood. he was weak. his choice was to ultimately give the jews what they wanted, even though he 'tried' to let the man go. he wasn't some benevolent man

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely why many jews feel/felt the movie might cause anti-semitism. From what I hear (again, haven't seen the movie yet) Pilate is a character to pity...the blame is shifted from the Romans (as represented by Pilate) to the jews. The fear is that this shift (which is, arguably, historically inaccurate) will fuel undercurrents of anti-semitism that already exist.


What is difficult when discussing a movie like this is that there is so much "passion" about it that it is hard to have a civilized discussion. You've got people who are talking at each other, not to each other. Just this morning on the radio, there was a film producer who said that he didn't like the movie. Sure enough, the calls started rolling in about how un-christian he was or how "biased against religion" and on and on and on. All he said was that he didn't like the movie.

Ultimately, I think that requiring people to have "done their homework" before seeing the movie has shaped the conversation of the movie in a bad way (something that might have been avoided by adding context). By requiring a working knowledge of the christ-story, Gibson is in essence saying that part I to his movie is the Bible...thus, the underlying argument is that if you didn't like the movie, it's probably because you didn't like the prequal.

[baggins]

hey, if you didn't do the homework, you may not experience the film in the same way. that doesn't mean there's a problem with the movie. I think there is enough context in the film itself to explain what's going on - why he's on the cross. also, historically, Passion stories/plays/movies have always been about the last 12 hours of Christ's life. that's what that link in my previous post was for. It is a sad commentary on our culture that we always need a half hour of Cliff's Notes in every movie to explain the history that has come before the current scope of a film. If we can't be responsible enough to do our homework, how can we honestly expect to have an informed opinion on a film?

we all bring a unique life experience to a film when we see it. if that life experience includes historical knowledge surrounding the events in a film, then we are more likely to understand what's going on in the film and get the full effect. if not, then it is our responsibility to either acquire some historical knowledge or not complain when we don't know everything that has happened before.

sometimes you have to work to fully experience a film. unfortunately, that may be too much to ask for a large sector of american audiences.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
hey, if you didn't do the homework, you may not experience the film in the same way. that doesn't mean there's a problem with the movie.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a problem that a movie advertised as a standard blockbuster (i.e, for everyone) is only enjoyed by a specific group of people (edjucated Christians)?

So far, I have not heard a good review of the movie from a single non-Christian; all of them have been rather hard-core and closed-minded.

[Eihli]

How do you know the cat of 9 tales wasn't used on Jesus?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know the cat of 9 tales wasn't used on Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

From my understanding, this was a tool used for executions, and not for floggings.

[george w of poker]

I like the way they portray satan, taken from Genesis 12:2, with the evil mini-me lodged in his chest... errr. wait a second. that wasn't in the bible! and the bird pecking out the dudes eyes from... not in the bible either.