Passion of the Christ

[sdctlc 0]

What do you think??? Lots of talk and groups/people making racist statments about the movie and what it stands for!! Religon always seems to spur the most passionate for and against on any topic, even politics. That said, I just saw the movie and I have to say it is what I expected and yes I liked it. Not for reasons of bible thumping or Jew or Roman bashing. I liked it because it was an attempt at an accurate account of the last day of Christ as told from the Gospels. I am not a big bible thumper but to refresh my memory and to try and go into the movie with an idea of what it was based on, I read some of the applicable areas before going. End result is I think that the movie held very true to what is written in the Bible, at least what I have read and have been taught.

Since it was made as a movie giving an accurate "story telling" based on the bible gospels, you have to include that the Jewish leadership, not the Jewish people mind you, pushed for the crucifixion of Christ. If you’re not a believer in the bible then maybe you could look at it as a racist movie. The fact is that this is a movie and it was made specifically based on the word of the bible. Is there some liberty there, yeah interpretation does that. From what I saw it was pretty close to whats written in the Bible. Was there lots of violence, yeah. Personally I feel that the times well before and long after the time of Christ, people were extremely violent towards each other and this is probably only a small glimpse into the attitudes and actions at the time towards human life.

I did not see the movie as Jew hating as has been said by some. Hell I felt more distain during the movie for the Romans and the callus attitude towards the lower tier of people in their eyes Yes I winced at some of the graphic and continuous violence but it seemed that when it really went over the edge the movie took a step back to take off some of the “hit” on the audience and get it back into a watch-able movie.

Overall I liked the movie as a STORY, which is what it was. It makes you think and consider religion a bit. I don’t want to go out and hurt anybody because of seeing it. I don’t think it was the the Jewish people that are shown in a bad light but instead the Jewish leadership shown to be in a bad light. Overall the Romans were much worse then the Jews.

Honestly, the only real problem I had was not with the movie but some of the people at the movie. I saw lots of people taking their younger kids to see it, 10 nd under was my guess for some of them. That is just wrong in my eyes and I don’t think they need to see that graphic of a depiction.

Just a couple of thoughts after seeing the movie,
Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[tunaplanet 0]

Wow, can we get a few more threads about this movie? I think we only have 2 dozen right now.

Forty-two

[tbrown 26]

Since it was made as a movie giving an accurate "story telling" based on the bible gospels, you have to include that the Jewish leadership, not the Jewish people mind you, pushed for the crucifixion of Christ.

[sdctlc 0]

Quote

Haven't seen the film yet, though I plan on seeing it soon. By now it's so big and controversial I'll just have to see it for myself and make up my own mind.

One of the problems with the Gospel of John is that it was written considerably later than the other Gospels. And unlike Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which were all written by Jewish believers, John was written by Greeks. The Greeks did NOT like the Jews, it can be said with some evidence that the Greek church had a real agenda to seperate Christian belief from its Jewish roots. The other Gospels blame the leadership, John blames "the Jews". If the film is a faithful rendering of John, it is then portraying all the ancient baggage of whatever it was the Greeks had against Jews.

But I'm gonna go see the film on its own merits first.

I dont think the film was an exclusive adaptation of John. It seems to cover a number of the Gospels. I agree that you will need to judge it yourself by seeing it but it will greatly help the flow of your watching the film if you have an understanding off the gospels, even if it is a quick read before going.

As a side, since it was released last wednesday it has pulled in just under $120M according to the news. That is amazing for the content of the film not usually being a huge draw in theaters..

Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[Kennedy 0]

I haven't seen it. nor do I know the gospels well enough to say it fit one more than others, but I was watching a "the making of" kind of report, and I think they said it excluded pieces of John in favor of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Specifically they mentioned a quote from the Jewish mob before Pilot about "let his blood be on us and upon our children."

I have heard that Pilot is not made out to be some nice guy, and the Romans (particularly the soldiers) are portrayed as mindless hate machines, so I don't know where the idea of picking on the Jews came from.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[aprilcat 0]

(I moved this from my own thread--didn't realize there was a poll--sorry folks!)~~april

I said I would start a new post after I saw it. Well, I saw it and I braved it alone.
Film is my area of study. I got my degree in the dark--I can take notes and keep an eye on the film at the same time; and understand the codas and iconography within the text. I had NO idea what I was getting into here. There is a term in art..'auteur' which is just plain French for 'artist' and theory defines and 'auteur' as an artist who maintains a common theme throughout their work. Some use colors, Hitchcock had the 'red herring', Kubrick had a thing about social status disguised as a form of chess. Gibson has specific and explicit violence.
I've never gotten ill at the movie. I came close today. Don't get me wrong--the film is remarkable. But if you have a weak stomach at ALL this is not the film for you. I found the violence realistic, so realistic that I had to look away a few times. Was this necessary? I believe Gibsons version of the pain and torture was more realistic than anything I've seen in other 'Jesus of Nazareth' films and YES, there is a payoff, so I believe his version is justified.
The language was effective. Most of the actors were believable and heartbreaking. I was in tears more than a few times. The only complaint I have are the actors who played Roman soldiers. These guys must have came from some tailgaiting party still full of beer and burgers. Talk about hamming it up! They somehow were sadistic and cartoonish at the same time, if that is possible. Pilate and The Elders of the Temple came across as men who wanted to pass the buck. I can't see who would be so stupid as to begin attacking Jewish people in writing OR in person after seeing this. There is an absence of a REAL antagonist that can be identified as 'todays' Jews. And Christ's point was that he would arise and change everything in 3 days.
The 'Marys' of the film will break your heart. There is a scene of 'La Pieta' that will sadden and uplift you at the same time. The running joke is 'so how does it end?' I won't spoil it, but it ends on a high note and I came home and got my bible and checked Matthew and Mark and it looks like Gibson was right on the money. The minor disagreements seem to be over artistic license, and I give him credit for sticking to his perspective.
So, in all the posts that I've read here, my recommendation is--see it if you have the GUTS! I do believe this is a wonderful testament to FAITH but don't eat anything from the concession stands.~~April

Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!

[WFFC 1]

No opinion on it yet. Going with a group from church on Wednesday. Should be fun - I generally make the pastor's head spin on Sunday's now...

-----
~~~Michael