Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Book and Movie Reviews Mel's Passion of the ChristGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Mel's Passion of the Christ | Login/Join |
I think we already have a thread in the Lounge forum, but it's probably just as good here as anywhere. I have mixed feelings as well, w.c. I don't like movies with graphic violence or sex. OTOH, I did drag myself out to see "Saving Private Ryan" because I wanted an experiential sense of the horrors of war, rather than the trumped up heroism with sanitized violence as in so many war movies. I didn't serve in Viet Nam, having a high draft number and being in college at the time. Had my number been called, I had decided at the time that I would go. I've read quite a few reviews on both sides about this movie and have come to suspect that the reviews say as much about the reviewer as the movie itself. Perhaps it's a kind of Rorchach? (sp.) -- a mirror of sorts. As one who journeys with many people in spiritual direction and who dialogues with many on this forum and via private correspondence, I feel a duty of sorts to see "The Passion" so I'll know what's there and to study my own reaction to it. I can't say the prospect of doing so excites me, however. I already have a pretty good idea of what Jesus suffered . . . not pretty! | ||||
|
I'm actually a little skittish about seeing it, but will. As a teenager, the movie "Jesus of Nazareth" captivated me, and I was a tearful mess back then. I probably won't see it because I suppose the movie is very realistic. I remember � it must have been a couple years ago � watching a television preacher talk about the realities of crucifixion. He went into great detail. Great detail. It was something good to know � like the holocaust � but I doubt I've the stomach for another Schindler's List. What I will be very interested to know is if reviews such as the following are accurate or just thinly veiled anti-Christian bigotry. "People will see what they want to see in a movie shorn of any point of view not in literal accord with the gospels. True believers will bear witness to holy writ. Others � nonbelievers or even less literal-minded Christians � will be troubled by the film's staunch adherence to a story line and characters that have been used by bigots to fuel hatred for centuries." Are we really going to be so incensed by seeing one set of Jews helping to persecute another set of Jews? Don't most Christians already know this story? Is this movie going to provide a major revelation? And I don't remember anyone warning us about the potential harm to Germans because of the move Schindler's List. Phil said: I've read quite a few reviews on both sides about this movie and have come to suspect that the reviews say as much about the reviewer as the movie itself. Perhaps it's a kind of Rorchach? (sp.) -- a mirror of sorts. That's probably quite true. | ||||
|
I'm going to go see it and if it portrays the Romans/Italians as in any way culpable for the passion and death of Christ, then I'm going to fire off a few letters to the editor. I married into an Italian heritage and I'm tired of my wife being blamed for the fascist atrocities of WWII and for Jesus' scourging. She's really a nice person. One must simply get to know her better, that's all. | ||||
|
The reality is that Jews have no finer friends today than Christians � particularly conservative Christians. I wonder what all this concern is really about. The media, in general, don't seem all that outraged about violence against Jews by terrorists. Somehow they bring that upon themselves. To me that is a fictitious view of the world. "The Passion" is, of course, a movie, but apparently one fairly close to what is written in the Bible. Take or leave the truth of the Bible as you will, but one should recognize the close correlation between the movie and the book. How was Mel Gibson supposed to portray Christ's death? Would it have been more acceptable to portray it as the fault entirely of the Romans even if that wasn't entirely true? Maybe he should have been portrayed as succumbing to second-hand smoke. Maybe he was simply driving across a bridge in his D.U.V. (donkey utility vehicle) when he lost control and plunged into the river. Of course a discussion of "The Passion" will inevitably bring us back to "The Last Temptation" movie, which I did see. After all the bubbling and building controversy, "The Last Temptation", as I remember, was rather a letdown. It hardly trashed my sensibilities to imagine that Christ was tempted � and successfully avoided the temptation � of something of a sexual nature. Be that as it may, it was considered okay (and I agree) to challenge the sensibilities of Christians. The reasoning was one of "artistic interpretation." Again, apparently believers such as Mel Gibson don't also have that right. Christians are held to a different standard. They apparently somehow abrogate all protection of their sensibilities because of their beliefs. I assume that "The Passion" challenges the sensibilities of all those who suppose Jesus to be no more than a glorified Santa Claus. Watching the suffering of such a good and innocent man can and will challenge those sensibilities. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Except when it comes to Christians. I'm still waiting for an "artistic interpretation" of the life of Mohammed. I�m not holding my breath. | ||||
|
One of the Heartland team members saw it and thought it was very good. She said the violence was quite explicit and extensive, but that's probably how it was. ------ Re. "The Last Temptation." The reasoning was one of "artistic interpretation." Again, apparently believers such as Mel Gibson don't also have that right. Christians are held to a different standard. They apparently somehow abrogate all protection of their sensibilities because of their beliefs. That's a good point, especially considering that this really IS Mel Gibson's interpretation of what went on. That he stays close to the Gospel text doesn't change the fact that the way he presents the material is in the realm of art. I assume that "The Passion" challenges the sensibilities of all those who suppose Jesus to be no more than a glorified Santa Claus. Watching the suffering of such a good and innocent man can and will challenge those sensibilities. Also a good point! I think, too, that some are probably bothered by all this heightened attention being given to Jesus. People who'd rather there not be moral and spiritual principles of accountability must be especially annoyed these days. --- Good one, JB!  | ||||
|
I think, too, that some are probably bothered by all this heightened attention being given to Jesus. People who'd rather there not be moral and spiritual principles of accountability must be especially annoyed these days. I agree, Phil. There's still a power struggle going on and you can see it more clearly during controversies such as this as some of the disguises and pretenses are partially lifted. It's a battle between the humanists and the religious. Theoretically, they needn't be at odds with each other if both were interested in keeping it a running question. But I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people on at least one of the sides that have no desire for this. | ||||
|
Here's what Rabbi Daniel Lapin has to say about all this. | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
Brad: You make some revealing comments. Is it ok to post what you've said on a liberal Mid-East website I frequent? | ||
|
You make some revealing comments. Is it ok to post what you've said on a liberal Mid-East website I frequent? Plagiarize, re-state, or cut and paste to your heart's content, W.C. | ||||
|
I recommend Gibson�s The Passion of the Christ: A Challenge to Catholic Teaching , not as a definitive view but certainly as a meaningful critique. The author cites the following: I do think that the overwhelming supermajority of moviegoers are in no real jeopardy of taking antisemitic sentiments away from this film and that that fear is being overplayed by Gibson's detractors. After all, the film's biggest target audience of modern day fundamentalists, evangelicals and mainstream Christian denominations in America, nowadays, is far more likely to be labeled Zionist rather than antisemitic. There are, however, other historical and theological perspectives that can inform our critical viewing of the film and this commentary from Philip A. Cunningham of Boston College, regarding those perspectives, seemed to be right-headed to me. pax, jb | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
JB and others: One thing that occurs to me is that liberals, and those who are Jewish, such as Simon-Rosenthal representatives, are playing the victim card and finding anti-semitism rather convenient. I'm sure some may hold this experience very deeply for painful, personal reasons, but that just fuels the self-perpetuating victimization, along with the plight of Israel as it struggles to maintain its identity in an Islamic world. My impression is that those in the liberal Jewish community (some are conservative, but perhaps more liberals who have the least to fear over religious innuendo?), and secular liberals as well, are simply poised to exploit anything that comes along that will play into their aggression. Gibson's movie was such an easy target for them, although it apparently lacks the deep bias they were hoping to find. And just a bit on the "Oscars." Anybody watch that festival of narcissism? Well, I do enjoy movies and the talented acting as entertainment, sometimes as a real expression of art, but sitting through the entire three hours of this is really hard to do. I think Billy Chrystal is one of the genuinely funny people of our day, but he got no applauds when he plugged Sadaam's capture into his monologue. I don't know if Chrystal is fodder for liberal spuriousness or not, since the narcissism in the Hollywood community seems to easily overwhelm any individual intelligence. And, of course, there were the ones we expected: Shaun Penn making his remarks, something like "There are no WMD, which all actors know." I guess the U.N. will have to recruit from Hollywood for the next inspection team . . . I mean, the U.N. probably wouldn't lose much credibility if it did. And then there was Chrystal's (perhaps) perfunctory sentimental remarks about our troops in Iraq, which came across like "Well, we're sorry your over there. Come home safely." Not "We support your purpose." | ||
|
Theological Concerns Finally, the film�s graphic, persistent, and intimate violence raises theological questions from a Catholic perspective. It closely resonates with an understanding of salvation that holds that God had to be satisfied or appeased for the countless sins of humanity by subjecting his son to unspeakable torments. This sadistic picture of God is hardly compatible with the God proclaimed by Jesus as the one who seeks for the lost sheep, who welcomes back the prodigal son before he can even express remorse, or who causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike. This understanding of salvation is constricted because it fails to incorporate the Incarnation. The Word of God enters into human history not to pay back in pain some debt that the Father will not otherwise remit. No, among other things the Word became flesh to take on human mortality and overcome it. This explains why none of the Gospel writers felt it is necessary to communicate God�s love by writing extensive scenes of the unremitting torture of Jesus. Yet they have communicated God�s love for two millennia. Is it a sign of some cultural pathology that some people are looking forward to the feeling of being actually present at the scourging and crucifixion? That�s an interesting passage from JB's link. I�m still not likely to see this movie. My reasons are not the same as those of a person I talked to recently. She is a Christian and when I asked her if she was going to see the movie she said she did not wish to see such brutality done to someone she loved. She said, imagine that you had a daughter or son who had some high-risk occupation and was killed on the job. Now imagine that his or her death had been caught on video, which isn�t an uncommon these days. Would you want to watch that video of a loved one's death? I thought she made a good point. | ||||
|
And just a bit on the "Oscars." Anybody watch that festival of narcissism?] �Festival of narcissism.� Well said, W.C. I watched probably a total of about five minutes. I wanted to see the tribute to the actors we�ve lost in the last year. Gregory Peck. Such a marvelous screen presence. But I haven�t really sat down and watched the Oscars in years. It�s sort of like having one of those dreams where you�re back in high school and you�re late for class � or worse: you�re late for class and you�re running around the halls in nothing but your underwear. The Oscars has that feel of going back to high school and staying perpetually sophomoric. I�ll not say I�m anywhere near �grown up� but I�m definitely past marveling at whatever Nicole Kidman is wearing. | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
"Is it a sign of some cultural pathology that some people are looking forward to the feeling of being actually present at the scourging and crucifixion?" Mel Gibson, being ardently pre-Vatican II, could perhaps be described here. Anyone personally familiar with those who resist Vatican II reforms are aware of the retrograde psychology that can accompany it. In my experience, there is often a shame and aggression behind the intense piety in people who view priests as precious icons rather than common folk serving through grace. The harshness of this pseudo sanctity seems to involve almost an addiction to guilt in order to avoid authentic, mature feeling and awareness/accountability, i.e, "Jesus died for me, a poor wretch, and as long as I feel guilty and go through the motions with self-disdain, no one will have to know me more intimately." And so this could explain much of the incredibly strong response in the fundamentalist Christian community, where the psychology seems little different, and Christ is veiwed as almost relishing the apocalyse and sending souls to eternal perdition. The converse of this, though, may be found in the New Age community, that tends, more or less, to prefer a continual anaesthesia, with a movie like this probably disturbing for other reasons. The Christian fundamentalists want to bury themselves in self-flagelation, and the New Agers want their psychotic reverie undisturbed. I was surprised by the movie reviews that indicate so little of Jesus' early ministry being portrayed. An entire two hours of pain and misery, though it may approximate what He actually experienced, could be so emotionally disturbing that the fear of anti-semitism isn't completely irrational or contrived. | ||
|
The Christian fundamentalists want to bury themselves in self-flagelation, and the New Agers want their psychotic reverie undisturbed. And all I want is popcorn with real butter.  I was surprised by the movie reviews that indicate so little of Jesus' early ministry being portrayed. An entire two hours of pain and misery, though it may approximate what He actually experienced, could be so emotionally disturbing that the fear of anti-semitism isn't completely irrational or contrived. I think for some people it brings them closer to Christ. For others it may have the same appeal of a wreck on the side of the highway. I don�t know. | ||||
|
The USCC Bishops Review of The Passion is worth a look. Thanks for those insightful comments w.c. and Brad. You reminded me of a recent George Will column on where modern day anti-Semitism originates: The anti-Semitism of the Intellectuals . I seem to recall posting this link so I apologize if it is a repeat. Perhaps I just recall telling Phil about it over oysters and beer this past Friday  | ||||
|
-- An EU poll reveals that a European majority believes the greatest threat to world peace is Israel. This is a new twist to the left's recipe for salvation through elimination: All will be well if we eliminate capitalists, or private property, or the ruling class, or ``special interests,'' or neuroses, or inhibitions. Now, let's try eliminating a people, starting with their nation, which is obnoxiously pro-American and insufferably Spartan. Europe's susceptibility to political lunacy, and the Arab world's addiction to it, is not news. And the paranoid style is a political constant. Those who believe a vast conspiracy assassinated President Kennedy say: Proof of the conspiracy's diabolical subtlety is that no evidence of it remains. Today's anti-Semites say: Proof of the Jews' potent menace is that there are so few of them -- just 13 million of the planet's 6 billion people -- yet they cause so many political, economic and cultural ills. Gosh. Imagine if they were, say, 1 percent of Earth's population -- 63 million. I was once with a group of very liberal British Columbians, including a number of school teachers. I was shocked by their open prejudice of blacks. I suspect that much of the criticism of Mel Gibson�s movie falls under the category of �he doth protest too much.� Thanks for the link, JB. I hadn't read that one. Oysters and beer. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm. | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
Good links, JB. The one by the conference of bishops helps me get a better sense of whether or not I will see this film. As Brad says, it may move those already close to Christ, or at least affectionately familiar with his message, to a deeper devotion. Having a sense of His healing ministry, resurrection, ascension and presence in the Eucharist may give this portrayal of His immense suffering an implied context. One can only see the movie to know, and then it's just one's own experience, something that could take weeks or months to integrate. I could see churches creating classes to help people do this during the Lenten season and beyond. The piece Brad cites about the absorption of fundamentalists in an unhealthy sense of guilt, or even self-destructive piety, is at the same time, for me, an important description, since I have both tendencies in me. And so the movie seems capable of reflecting many different elements of secular and religious life. I wonder what I'll say once I see it . . . . | ||
|
One can only see the movie to know, and then it's just one's own experience, something that could take weeks or months to integrate. Yeah. Perhaps (but I doubt it) it's not as "bad" as I think. I remember hearing all the hype around the Exorcist. There were reports of people fainting and having nightmares for weeks after. I watched it and was completely underwhelmed � almost laughed in places where I certainly know they weren't going for a laugh. The piece Brad cites about the absorption of fundamentalists in an unhealthy sense of guilt, or even self-destructive piety, is at the same time, for me, an important description, since I have both tendencies in me. And so the movie seems capable of reflecting many different elements of secular and religious life. But ain't that the thing, W.C.? Isn't that perhaps why Mel's movie is truly art? It challenges us (the faithful, "the pragmatic" and the curious). I told my brother that if he was going to see it that he should ask me � just in case. Ambivalent as usual. But the more I hear about it the more curious I am to see the parts (if only a few bits here and there) that aren't extraordinarily violent. Besides � I've been a Mel fan since WAY before Hollywood and most of America had every heard of him. He did some small Aussie films a long time ago. Quite good ones.I wonder what I'll say once I see it . . . . I'm also curious about that, although I really doubt we'll have any desire to persecute Jews. Just a guess on my part. | ||||
|
Here's a rather scathing review of "The Passion" by William Safire. Well, that link worded via Google but now sends you to a sign-up page. Here's an excerpt:
| ||||
|
I still haven't seen it and there's not an opportunity to really shake free for that for another week. My 17 year old son saw it and found it very moving. He also said it was very intense, in places. Re. Saffire and others with the anti-semitism criticism: ridiculous! I mean, where is there one iota of evidence that people are coming out of the theaters upset with the Jews? Saffire and others of his ilk are in La-La Land, hallucinating. Can you see it . . . people walking out, mad as hell, saying to one another: "I didn't know THE JEWS had a role in putting Jesus to death! How dare them! And to think that we now lend support to them against those poor, helpless Palestinians! We must be on the wrong side of that issue!" Much ado about nothing, imo. No one is holding today's Germans responsible for the holocausts in the 40s; how much less the Jewish leaders for shoving Jesus into the hands of Pilate almost 2,000 years ago. | ||||
|
More and more, I am leaning toward this sentiment, personally: Would you want to watch that video of a loved one's death? | ||||
|
Re. Saffire and others with the anti-semitism criticism: ridiculous! I mean, where is there one iota of evidence that people are coming out of the theaters upset with the Jews? Saffire and others of his ilk are in La-La Land, hallucinating. Can you see it . . . people walking out, mad as hell, saying to one another: "I didn't know THE JEWS had a role in putting Jesus to death! I�ll I�ve heard, Phil, is that people come out of that movie deeply moved � and apparently they�re deeply moved toward pity and compassion rather than hate. I�m not surprised by this at all. This whole movement to charge every symbol with so much social and political meaning by today�s ultra-sensitive standards would seem apt to produce nothing but thinly veiled propaganda films rather than true art. And if you�ve watched TV lately you�ll know what I mean. But I think what the huge success of a movie like this shows is that, in our daily lives, just to get by, we genuflect to the PC types because it�s in our short-term interest to do so. But we don�t necessarily believe it deep down. Most people are more complex than that (and I surmise that the people who create the PC rules aren�t particularly complex). Most people will not focus on the Jews-as-persecutors aspect of this film and think �bloody Jews.� No, they�ll look at the entire movie and put all these elements in context � again, something PC types seem to have a real problem doing. And what is racism if not stereotyping people in a simplistic way? Jesus was a Jew, if one needs reminding. | ||||
|
Now for the lighter side of what has turned out to be a "cultural event." | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Book and Movie Reviews Mel's Passion of the Christ | View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |