Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ

[spiritmech]

So, since I hadn't seen this movie, and it's the time of Lent, and I'm researching the RCC in general, I bought the DVD yesterday and watched it last night.

I thought it'd be closer to the 14 stations of the cross, and while it had those elements, it didn't really follow it exactly.

So, a year later, how do you perceive this movie? Good? Bad? Do you ever think of it when you think about Jesus?

SM

[Thedonhopeless]

I still think it a poweful movie, because no matter what, it has changed lives and spread the gospel. No matter the controversies, it has done good as a powerful witness to christ. It got non believers to stop in their tracks and take jesus as a serious issue, if they haven't before.

[spiritmech]

I was watching the McLaughlin group a few weeks ago, and it was recapping the year of 2004. I thought this interchange was sort of interesting:

http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=446

MR. BUCHANAN: Honorable Mention for Person of the Year goes to Mel Gibson, for "The Passion of the Christ" -- a very courageous individual. Nobody would help him out, and he defied Hollywood, and he turned in the greatest movie triumph in a decade.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You saw the motion picture?

MR. BUCHANAN: I saw the motion picture. I certainly did.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think it's based on the Gospels?

MR. BUCHANAN: It's based on the Gospels and Catherine --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Who -- and who?

MR. BUCHANAN: -- and Blessed Catherine Emmerich's writings on the scourging.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: More Emmerich than the Gospels.

MR. BUCHANAN: No, more Gospel than the Emmerich.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I don't know about that. (Laughter.)

Eleanor?

MS. CLIFT: "The Passion of the Christ" was the biggest conflation of religion and violence in modern movie-making.

© source where applicable

Neither Ms. Clift nor Mr. Buchanan are people I agree with on any regular basis, but it was an amusing interchange, to me at least.

SM

[Piebald]

My $.02:

The Passion was violent, but not violent in the way that most hollywood movies are violent. I like to think of the Passion as Jesus paying for the violent sins of Hollywood's past 20 years. He takes that violence upon himself. Everybody cringes, everybody gets nauseous, some people are outright disgusted. This is the same audience that has been watching heads get chopped up, people sliced and diced, mutilated by zombies, etc. What they are now experiencing when they see the innocent Jesus suffer under the terrible and unjust Romans is the appropriate response to violence. People who complain about violence don't understand that The Passion is an outstanding testimony against violence.

[attachment=1]

[Thedonhopeless]

My $.02:

The Passion was violent, but not violent in the way that most hollywood movies are violent. I like to think of the Passion as Jesus paying for the violent sins of Hollywood's past 20 years. He takes that violence upon himself. Everybody cringes, everybody gets nauseous, some people are outright disgusted. This is the same audience that has been watching heads get chopped up, people sliced and diced, mutilated by zombies, etc. What they are now experiencing when they see the innocent Jesus suffer under the terrible and unjust Romans is the appropriate response to violence. People who complain about violence don't understand that The Passion is an outstanding testimony against violence.

[attachment=1]

well said Hammy. It was a violence that had depth and meaning, it wasn't a violence for entertainment purposes, or even shock value,atleats the shock value we are accustomed to, but more historical in nature. It was how a movie should be, no matter the topic. Honest, truthful to its context, and provocative.

[b488]

It's easy for me to want to criticize Mel Gibson's effort in the film by saying to myself "This is Mel's M.O. for movie making: violence sells, so adding the religious element ought to really make people curious and I will make lots of dough."

Dont get me wrong, I think Mel's faith is sincere. But that assessment will be seriously challenged if his next film ONLY shows in painfully graphic detail Sampson's killing the 1000 Philistines with a donkey's jaw. and only shows it beginning with him getting juiced by the HS, picking the thing up and then ending with a jig on the top of the bodies singing "With the jawbone of a donkey, I've made heaps on heaps! With the jawbone of a donkey, I've killed a thousand men!" Judges 15:14-17

To be fair, this was a modern version of a passion play...this didnt have to have a plot line, just a lot of splots of blood and tears. This was not a movie for evangelizaton. That would be like taking someone who never run before on a half marathon in a hail storm. Its nature makes it more geared toward preaching to the choir, or the modern day equivalent of biblebashing your pew mate with your metal encased bible.....(yes, there is such a thing!) Causes 2d10 worth of damage with full swing and follow through. http://www.parable.com/parable/item_..._A_Closer_Look

[Thedonhopeless]

despite the mo, and despite your claim it preaches to the choir, that may be so. BUt it truly has made people question and search, no nbelievers and believers alike. how many believers had some weird less then accurate view of what Jesus actually went through?

[Teallaura]

I saw on the Today Show this morning that they are re-releasing "The Passion" for Easter. It will be an edited version with some of the more graphic stuff taken out.

[Thedonhopeless]

so itll only be half an hour long then? lol

[b488]

Thedon,
I concede that the movie was well made and that it was thought provoking. It certainly had an effect on me. I remember groaning at one point and thinking (probably out loud) "Oh, what are they doing to my Lord?!?"
My post above was an attempt, in a sarcastic way I admit, for me to point out that the violent and tear jerking aspects of the film made it seem the proper response was pre-cognitive, as in viscerally emotive, rather than provoking thought. If that is what Mel Gibson was after, then he did a bang-up job.
The movie did nothing for me to answering the why question. I definitely came away with the impression that jesus suffered. But I somehow missed how the movie goes about showing why this was necessary. Perhaps im in the minority to suggest that the flashbacks and the 30 second rez scene at the end was not enough of a backdrop to explain it adequately. Needless to say, I question whether or not i would have gotten the gist of it if I were not xian. This is why I say that it does not seem as tho it was necessarily made for evangelization, and rather is a passion play. a very well made one.....

I hope this explains better where I am coming from about this movie...I agree with you in the main, but with some reservation and with a couple of concerns and caveats.


Grace and Peace to you.

[Thedonhopeless]

Thedon,
I concede that the movie was well made and that it was thought provoking. It certainly had an effect on me. I remember groaning at one point and thinking (probably out loud) "Oh, what are they doing to my Lord?!?"
My post above was an attempt, in a sarcastic way I admit, for me to point out that the violent and tear jerking aspects of the film made it seem the proper response was pre-cognitive, as in viscerally emotive, rather than provoking thought. If that is what Mel Gibson was after, then he did a bang-up job.
The movie did nothing for me to answering the why question. I definitely came away with the impression that jesus suffered. But I somehow missed how the movie goes about showing why this was necessary. Perhaps im in the minority to suggest that the flashbacks and the 30 second rez scene at the end was not enough of a backdrop to explain it adequately. Needless to say, I question whether or not i would have gotten the gist of it if I were not xian. This is why I say that it does not seem as tho it was necessarily made for evangelization, and rather is a passion play. a very well made one.....

I hope this explains better where I am coming from about this movie...I agree with you in the main, but with some reservation and with a couple of concerns and caveats.


Grace and Peace to you.

ok that is more understanding now and i agree it isn't for evangisling, because it doesn't present the gospel in an explanitory way, which is the neccesity of evagilism. I just know it had to get peopel to further seek and ask more questions, which probably led to the full gospel at some poitn for some people ect.

So yea we agree. I don't liek the fact it washed over the ressurection, which was vitally more important then the death. well they both go hand in hand,neither is more important without the other, so both should have been given atleast equal impact if not equal time. I think he onyl tossed in the rezz part because he knew he woudl be critized heavily for leaving it out by the christian community.