The Passion of the Christ

February 23, 2004 3:16 PM

"One of the cruellest movies in the history of the cinema." David Denby reviews The Passion of the Christ in this week's New Yorker.
posted by Armitage Shanks (432 comments total)

LOWER THE THUNDERDOME!!!
posted by Stan Chin at 3:25 PM on February 23, 2004

The final paragraph of the article makes one of the best points about the apparent gluttony of violence in this movie.

It's amazing how many religiously-moral parents shocked and offended at a curse word or a flashed nipple are likely going to take their small children to see this film and treat them to two straight hours of on-screen torture and mutilation.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:25 PM on February 23, 2004

To quote Cartman, "Jesus Tapdancing Christ!" We couldn't even wait until the wretched thing opened, we have to start in two days in advance of any of us even seeing this thing? It's an interesting and well-written article - it is, after all, by David Denby - but by what mangled criteria does a single post to a single review of a relentlessly hawked hunk of celluloid make a good MetaFilter post?!
posted by JollyWanker at 3:28 PM on February 23, 2004

Mad Mel: brilliant marketing, or serious paranoia?
posted by homunculus at 3:31 PM on February 23, 2004

dear jolly: the film is of great interest andmedia concern. Thus a review by a decent critic is always welcome...friend asked: going to see the film? Me: nah. I already know how it ends.
posted by Postroad at 3:32 PM on February 23, 2004

Wait, wait.. Danny Glover isn't in this?
posted by xmutex at 3:32 PM on February 23, 2004

I have an uncharacteristically late invite for a press screening, but I've decided to skip it. There'll be more than enough reviews out there, and it sounds like an ordeal to sit through. Rendez-Vous with French Cinema is bound to please me more.
posted by muckster at 3:38 PM on February 23, 2004

I've actually found that my lack of knowledge about this film or it's surrounding (manufactured) controversy is a good measure that I have lowered my TV intake to a suitable level.
posted by ao4047 at 3:40 PM on February 23, 2004

But how, I wonder, will people become better Christians if they are filled with the guilt, anguish, or loathing that this movie may create in their souls?

Let me try to answer that question (posed in the article:)

I think-no, I KNOW that we Christians have been guilty of taking the sacrifice of Jesus for granted. It has been a given that "He died for our sins" and few of us spare a moment to think of exactly what it meant for Christ Jesus to give His life for sinners. We have been complacent...we hear the message every easter, surrounded by lillies and bunnies...

The truth, the real Truth is brutal to the extreme. Here we have God Incarnate going thru a brutality of Hell that no one should ever endure-a brutality that He did not deserve in one iota....and he did it for people. Sinful people. Complacent people. People who have taken Him for granted. It hurts my heart to think of it, even as I recognize I am as guilty as the next. Those of us who have received His gracious gift of life need to be overwhelmed with gratitude for the enormity of what happened at Golgotha that day.
posted by konolia at 3:42 PM on February 23, 2004

* creeped out *
posted by xmutex at 3:44 PM on February 23, 2004

so, konolia, will you see the movie?

This movie may be saying much more about Gibson's mind than about Jesus (given that each of us see religion and belief differently), and i'm with Andy Rooney on the whole thing. "How many million dollars does it look as if you're going to make off the crucifixion of Christ?"
(i'm also wondering if Gibson's keeping the profits.)
posted by amberglow at 3:49 PM on February 23, 2004

And The Cow was sent down unto us all, and that we might suckle mightily from The Teat, for it is through The Teat that The Father and The Uncle and The Pretty Good Friend Of The Uncle will truly show us what it is to be free. So I say unto thee, gentle flock, suck, and suck well.

And lo The Dude Who Hangs Out With The Uncle Sometimes spake unto the masses: he who refuses to suck from The Teat shall receive the most grievous of wounds, and from these wounds shall he not recover, most likely, and while he suffers he shall be forced to wear a bib, for bibs look silly.
posted by xmutex at 3:50 PM on February 23, 2004

"As Gibson was completing the film, some historians, theologians, and clergymen accused him of emphasizing the discredited charge that it was the ancient Jews who were primarily responsible for killing Jesus, a claim that has served as the traditional justification for the persecution of the Jews in Europe for nearly two millennia. The critics turn out to have been right. Gibson is guilty of some serious mischief in his handling of these issues."

Between this and the claims that Mel's father is making about how the holocaust was exaggerated, I think the worst fears of Gibson's critics have been realized.

Please do not go see this movie. You do not need to "see it for yourself" to know that Gibson is exploiting you.
posted by gen at 3:53 PM on February 23, 2004

so, konolia, will you see the movie?

I'm planning to.
posted by konolia at 3:55 PM on February 23, 2004

you people are fucking insane -- this has been going on for weeks -- google news keeps me updated with the current psychosis of the bored masses -- those who have the pleasure of not having to worry about staying alive or eating -- philosophy is a luxury -- A hobby will do wonders for your mental health.

Wasn't it the destiny of Jesus to die for the sins of the world? so that we might be saved?

Shouldnt this movie spark pro-semitism!? Someody had to kill the bastard -- somebody had to save your soul! THANK GOD THE JEWS KILLED JESUS AND SAVED OUR SOULS.

GOD DAMN.
posted by Satapher at 4:01 PM on February 23, 2004

I wasn't planning on seeing this, but after reading that review I may go just to lead the cheering section.

"Yeah, harder, give it to him!" ;-P
posted by mischief at 4:01 PM on February 23, 2004

I <3 Satapher.

I don't quite understand him but I <3 him.
posted by xmutex at 4:03 PM on February 23, 2004

Please do not go see this movie. You do not need to "see it for yourself" to know that Gibson is exploiting you.

This man spent millions of his own money to make a film that he had extreme difficulty finding a distributor for in the first place. The actress playing Mary is Jewish and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Somehow I don't see this movie as either a moneymaking scheme or as a scheme to blame Jews.

I agree with the man quoted on Entetainment Tonight several weeks ago-He said it was not the movie that was controversial, it was the subject matter.
posted by konolia at 4:03 PM on February 23, 2004

so, konolia, will you see the movie?

I'm planning to.

Do let us know what you think after you have seen it.
posted by donfactor at 4:03 PM on February 23, 2004

why dont they (those opposed to the movie) just make another movie about jesus that makes them smile and feel historically secure?? no ones stopping you... thats the beauty of free speech --- that it is free -- pro-semitism or not -- anti-christianity or not.
posted by Satapher at 4:06 PM on February 23, 2004

my problem with The Passion of the Christ is the sheer reverence that the movie treats the main character with. it's like they're trying to deify him or something.
posted by graventy at 4:07 PM on February 23, 2004

>another movie about jesus that makes them smile and feel historically secure??

I don't think you want a historically authentic movie about Jesus. The religious didn't handle Kazantzakis' take on the gospel too well in either book or film form.

Those who carry the powerful religious meme around in their heads unquestioned more or less seem unable to handle criticism or the interpretation of others.

Whatever. I'm waiting on Zoraster: The Movie to come out.
posted by skallas at 4:15 PM on February 23, 2004

why dont they (those opposed to the movie) just make another movie about jesus that makes them smile and feel historically secure?

Or they could just go rent this one.
posted by homunculus at 4:16 PM on February 23, 2004

my problem with The Passion of the Christ is the sheer reverence that the movie treats the main character with. it's like they're trying to deify him or something.

LOL! In a way this explains everything I have against the uproar against, for, or about this movie.

Its fiction friends -- of course the mouse really pulled the thorn out of the lion's paw -- thats the most important part of the story too -- worth killinf AND dying for.

thank god.
posted by Satapher at 4:22 PM on February 23, 2004

So, this isn't going to result in a bloody crusade is it?
posted by moonbiter at 4:29 PM on February 23, 2004

From the review:

"He largely ignores Jesus’ heart-stopping eloquence, his startling ethical radicalism and personal radiance..."

This is a reviewer looking for a negative angle. He's trying to say "See, I love Jesus as a person, but I didn't like the film."

I'll admit to finding the early Jesus's proto-communist ideas intriguing, but "heart-stopping eloquence" is a bit melodramatic, especially since the reviewer probably hasn't read the original Greek and Aramaic sources. Also, he probably didn't know Jesus personally and therefore isn't qualified to comment on His personal radiance.

I dislike Mel Gibson too, but Jesus H. Christ, go to the review with an open mind.

(disclaimer: I will never, ever see this movie, because I intensely dislike Mel Gibson and Jesus's followers. I'm peeved at the hack review, not the "thumbs down". I want objective movie reviews.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:34 PM on February 23, 2004

This wasn't so much a film review as much as a rundown of other things the movie could have been that Denby would have liked better. It wasn't strictly historically accurate. It wasn't a movie about the "existential" suffering of Christ. It didn't show the "radiance" of his personality. We can also conclude that Denby also doesn't like "death-haunted religious fanaticism" on an ideological level. What he doesn't address is how well the film succeeds as what Gibson intended.

(on preview: what Mayor Curley said.)
posted by transona5 at 4:40 PM on February 23, 2004

<yawn>the whole mess</yawn>
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:43 PM on February 23, 2004

Whenever "The Christians" (insert scary music) protest a movie they have not seen and tell people not to see it, "we the people" (insert heroic music) decry the fact that they would condemn something without seeing it.

Fortunately, "we the people" (insert heroic music) would never decry a movie made by "The Christians" (insert scary music) without seeing it. Unless somebody told us not to.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:46 PM on February 23, 2004

I was confused about the whole "He died for our sins, so it our fault" argument.

If Bob (or BoB for those in the know), decides to die for me sins, and I didn't ask him to or even gove me prior knowledge and or was pre-ordained, how the **** is it any ones fault but Bobs? Let bob take the blame if I can't talk him out of it.

About this whole crucifiction Seems the Jews were just a tool, Pilot the Rubberstamp and jesus a willing canablism victim,.

What a bizzare religeon, celebrate a "suicide by police" event.
Deism seems so inviting now.
posted by Elim at 4:48 PM on February 23, 2004

Hack review? I'm no David Denby fan, but you, apparently, don't read much film criticism. And Tryptophan, thanks for the eloquence.
posted by ghastlyfop at 4:50 PM on February 23, 2004

That all being said, this film seems a bit corry and a celibration of violence for a shock value only. Well done but not worht it just for a well known fable, see "Osama" instead if you want a film about the humanity in religeon.
posted by Elim at 4:51 PM on February 23, 2004

This wasn't so much a film review as much as a rundown of other things the movie could have been that Denby would have liked better. It wasn't strictly historically accurate. It wasn't a movie about the "existential" suffering of Christ. It didn't show the "radiance" of his personality. We can also conclude that Denby also doesn't like "death-haunted religious fanaticism" on an ideological level. What he doesn't address is how well the film succeeds as what Gibson intended.

I disagree. Any review worth its salt doesn't just say "it stinks," but rather points out its deficiencies. Who cares how well the film succeeds as what Gibson intended? Would that be a good way alone to evaluate "Triumph of the Will?" Why is it poor criticism to point out that the creator's intent is misplaced?

I heard a similar review of Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" on NPR recently. The gist of the review was that it was well-executed but poorly conceived. I find that kind of review useful to me, since I don't necessarily share the agenda and interests of every director.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:54 PM on February 23, 2004

Please do not go see this movie. You do not need to "see it for yourself" to know that Gibson is exploiting you.

According to Ebert and Roeper last night, not only is this an incredible movie (two thumbs way up) but it is also very even handed in its depiction of Jews. Though the story obviously does have some Jews who betray Jesus and call for his execution, it also has other Jews who were friends and supportors, and they even cited a particular example of a Jew helping Jesus carry his cross. It's not up yet, but check ebertandroeper.tv in the next few days to listen to the audio clip of their review. Though I don't always necessarily agree with their thumbs up/down decisions on particular movies, in their discussions they tend to give you a pretty clear picture of what a movie is like. Finally, they outright insisted that people really do need to see it for themselves before they decide to rally against it, because the anti-semitism is grossly exaggerated.

(On preview, they said a lot of the same stuff that Elim is saying, i.e. Christ was very willing, it was his purpose to die for our sins, he is more to "blame" than anyone. Ebert especially rallied around this point as it relates to the film.)
posted by rorycberger at 4:55 PM on February 23, 2004

While I think that it could be, in theory, appropriate to take something like the Crucifixion, which to many Christians has become an abstract concept, and make it a more real, visceral experience, focusing entirely on the last few hours of Jesus' life as a blood orgy of torture and pain seems obscene. And to ignore all of the historical data out there that provide a diferent contex for the writing of the gospels (like the historic records of Pilate's brutality) seems irresponsible.

I think it's very important to explain why Jesus was such a threat to the politically connected religious establishment - his embracing of societal outcasts, his condemnation of those who value their personal wealth over the lives of their fellow man, his slamming of religious hyprocrites, and so on. To me, those are the things that make Christ real to me - not the constant repetition of "he died to save us from our sins". To merely focus on the brutality of his death seems hollow and a cynical manipulation of people's emotions.
posted by echolalia67 at 4:57 PM on February 23, 2004

This man spent millions of his own money to make a film that he had extreme difficulty finding a distributor for in the first place. The actress playing Mary is Jewish and the daughter of Holocaust survivors.

Some of my best friends are Jews.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:00 PM on February 23, 2004

hi.

            ._                                            ,            
             (`)..                                    ,.-')            
              (',.)-..                            ,.-(..`)             
               (,.' ,.)-..                    ,.-(. `.. )              
                (,.' ..' .)-..            ,.-( `.. `.. )               
                 (,.' ,.'  ..')-.     ,.-( `. `.. `.. )                
                  (,.'  ,.' ,.'  )-.-('   `. `.. `.. )                 
                   ( ,.' ,.'    _== ==_     `.. `.. )                  
                    ( ,.'   _==' ~  ~  `==_    `.. )                   
                     \  _=='   ----..----  `==_   )                    
                  ,.-:    ,----___.  .___----.    -..                  
              ,.-'   (   _--====_  \/  _====--_   )  `-..              
          ,.-'   .__.'`.  `-_I0_-'    `-_0I_-'  .'`.__.  `-..          
      ,.-'.'   .'      (          |  |          )      `.   `.-..      
  ,.-'    :    `___--- '`.__.    / __ \    .__.' `---___'    :   `-..  
-'_________`-____________'__ \  (O)  (O)  / __`____________-'________`-
                            \ . _  __  _ . /                           
                             \ `V-'  `-V' |                            
                              | \ \ | /  /                             
                               V \ ~| ~/V                              
                                |  \  /|                               
                                 \~ | V  JGG                           
                                  \  |                                 
                                   VV                                  

I'm pretty excited for this movie.
posted by angry modem at 5:03 PM on February 23, 2004

OK, I skimmed through the article. It sounds like Denby wanted a documentary. "One of the cruellest movies in the history of the cinema"? Crucifixion is pretty brutal, what does he expect? Expecting it to be a nice easter play is like going to see Bowling for Columbine and expecting a real documentary.

As for the children part... I don't think there will be as many children as he thinks - besides, who is he to tell others how to raise thier children? If I had kids, they wouldn't be going to see it. And from everything I've read, they say "not a children's movie" - although I'm sure someone took thier kids to see Spun or Se7en.

The only people responsible for killing Jesus were the people there - some of them where Jews, but I think most of them died a few years ago. I don't blame Germans for the holocaust.
posted by tomplus2 at 5:04 PM on February 23, 2004

How can any of this be irresponsible? Who exactly is Gibson responsible to? He has a lot of money, he uses this money to make his film and good luck to him. If I had the same amount of money I'd make a film about the wonderful healing properties of beer. It's your choice as to whether or not to go and see it but it's his choice if he wants to make it and what viewpoint he takes in the telling of it.

He's not obligated to give another point of view other than his own and why should he. It's like saying I'm not going to see Richard III because it's little more than Elizabeathan propoganda that bears little relevance to the historical record.
posted by ciderwoman at 5:10 PM on February 23, 2004

Thanks rorycberger, I think though Ebert said we all were to blame though and I disagree most srtidently on that point, Kinda like saying "Look what you made me do! Its all your fault argument" Giult Complex ion the extreme,
I feel if he did agree to it it was to make us all free, not for some a$$hat to hold over ANYONE, like most so called Fundamentalists do.
posted by Elim at 5:10 PM on February 23, 2004

okay it seems neither spell check nor HTML tags work here in Forfire. Danggit
posted by Elim at 5:16 PM on February 23, 2004

I love you, angry modem.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:17 PM on February 23, 2004

Mel, who claims he did extensive research to maintain historical accuracy, screwed up on the correct method of crucifixion. The nails are driven through the victim's wrists not the hands.
posted by lola at 5:21 PM on February 23, 2004

The book was better.
posted by ColdChef at 5:22 PM on February 23, 2004

I can't blame Jews or anyone else for being concerned about this film. People are so impressionable that a bunch of idiots got into car accidents on the way home from The Fast and the Furious. What are they going to do after this CAPS-Alert orgy of on-screen gore?

• fighting
• ear amputation
• beating, repeatedly, frequent, including after recent beatings, most intensely graphic and realistic
• physical brutality, repeatedly, often and increasingly brutal
• facial injuries from beatings/brutality
• brutal vicious whipping with graphic injuries, ripping flesh, repeatedly
• driving thorns into scalp
• intensely graphic full-body gore, repeatedly, frequently
• crowd control beatings, repeatedly
• crowd brutalization of near-dead Jesus
• continued beatings/whippings of our already mutilated Lord
• kicking our near-dead Lord
• hand/foot impalement with spikes
• a crow pecking the eyes of the thief to Jesus' right (the one who mocked Jesus as He hung on the Cross)
• spear impalement with exudates

It cracks me up that evangelicals and other cultural conservatives are so eager to see gore after years of deploring it. Even the CAPS people are on board with this idea -- graphic violence is wrong to put in movies unless it is inflicted on Jesus.
posted by rcade at 5:26 PM on February 23, 2004

The book was better.
Eh, that's just the sequel...the original is truly action-packed. Floods, sex, violence, salt, an ark--you name it!
posted by amberglow at 5:27 PM on February 23, 2004

That's the best movie review I have ever read.
posted by the fire you left me at 5:31 PM on February 23, 2004

MetaTalk.
posted by subgenius at 5:33 PM on February 23, 2004

Oh Lord, they didn't bring a victim child.
posted by Satapher at 5:36 PM on February 23, 2004

Bah. I'm with the less-blood-and-guts crew. What we need is more movies with Buddy Christ.
posted by krakedhalo at 5:46 PM on February 23, 2004

Jesus, Christians are sick, sick, sick.

Choose life, not death.
posted by rushmc at 6:04 PM on February 23, 2004

rushmc, we did.
posted by konolia at 6:10 PM on February 23, 2004

When the critics started attacking this movie, why didn't Mel Gibson simply turn the other cheek?
posted by ColdChef at 6:11 PM on February 23, 2004

I'm completely fine with the blood and gore I'll be seeing in this movie, just as I was with what I saw in several war films of recent years. And I wouldn't take my young son to this film or those ones because I don't think he's ready to see the graphic violence in either context.

I remember all too well the kind of fuss the press helped whip up over The Last Temptation of Christ and I'm seeing all over again with this film. In both cases, six months hence neither film will be much remembered because we'll all have gone on to whatever's next.
posted by alumshubby at 6:11 PM on February 23, 2004

I refuse to see such an openly anti-Italian film.
posted by Slagman at 6:16 PM on February 23, 2004

why dont they (those opposed to the movie) just make another movie about jesus that makes them smile and feel historically secure?

Or they could just go rent this one.

Or this one.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 6:32 PM on February 23, 2004

The truth, the real Truth is brutal to the extreme. Here we have God Incarnate going thru a brutality of Hell that no one should ever endure-a brutality that He did not deserve in one iota....and he did it for people.

You know, you can Loves That Jesus without feeling an obligation to pay $9.50 to watch him get the shit kicked out of him for two straight hours.

I seem to vaguely remember how a lot of Christians used to be against massive unnecessary obscenity on screen for the sole purpose of emotional stimulation- back when they called it "pornography."
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:36 PM on February 23, 2004

Matthew 6:5-6:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

I think Gibson's desire to make a spectacle of his "faith" is a prime example of what the verse above decries. I'm not exactly a Christian, but from most sincere Christians I've met and from my Catholic upbringing and Bible reading, I was always under the impression that Christian faith was about humility and compassion.

Also, I realize that crucifixion is a violent act and to portray Christ's sacrifice as painful would be essential to any honest portrayal, but I also find myself asking, what exactly is Gibson's intent here. If it was to win over new converts, he seems to be failing miserably.

Also, konolia, (and please don't be offended by this, I'm merely curious), I'm somewhat puzzled by your enthusiasm for this film. Gibson is a militant Catholic and I was always under the impression that evangelicals didn't hold Catholics in high regard.
posted by jonmc at 6:37 PM on February 23, 2004

From the article:

I realize that the mere mention of historical research could exacerbate the awkward breach between medieval and modern minds, between literalist belief and the weighing of empirical evidence. “John was an eyewitness,” Gibson has said. “Matthew was there.” Well, they may have been there, but for decades it’s been a commonplace of Biblical scholarship that the Gospels were written forty to seventy years after the death of Jesus, and not by the disciples but by nameless Christians using both written and oral sources.

And if Gibson were making a documentary film of exactly what happened in the time period, that might matter. As it is, he's making a movie from the Gospels, and even were the Gospels shown to be total fiction, films about such things are made these days. Or a director can be Oliver Stone and make films based on real events but with some changes/speculation.

It's perfectly valid to point out historical evidence or scholarship that would present a different view from what's found in Gibson's film or the Gospels, of course. But the problem I see here is this obsession with assuming this means the film is anti-semitic. Anyone with half a brain will realize what tomplus2 said -- "The only people responsible for killing Jesus were the people there - some of them where Jews." Implying complicity (or even the majority of responsibility) to the Jewish heirarchy of the time isn't anti-semitic anymore than criticising the current (or past) US Presidential Administration is anti-American.

It's like I'm waking up and someone said "Some people think that purple pigs must fly! Anyone who makes a movie in which some pigs are purple will make others think that pigs can fly!" The sanity of people who think purple pigs can fly isn't the only thing you start to question.

Incidentally, I do agree with all the comments about the violence and gore. I don't see the use, and I *am* a Christian, of sorts anyway. If the sacrifice of Christ is what Christians claim it to be, any attempt to depict the depths of somehow suffering the pain involved with the sins of the whole of humanity throughout history is probably outside possibility. Much better to understand the person of Christ by living his teachings.
posted by namespan at 7:00 PM on February 23, 2004

As a Christian, I can't say that I'm going to see this one. Why is Jesus's life not covered, just his death? Why aren't Jesus's teachings talked about so that we're reminded not just that Jesus died, but what he died for, and why it matters? If I read the reviews correctly, Gibson doesn't even put in the resurrection! It's just a really long portrayal of Jesus's death, with no context. Any idiot knows that crucifixion and torture are horrible and painful. The audience doesn't need to be told it. I don't think Mel Gibson is necessarily being self-serving; I think the movie probably means a lot to him. But as for me, I'm going to skip this one and watch "Jesus of Nazareth" again instead.
posted by unreason at 7:00 PM on February 23, 2004

Whenever I think of Romans, I think of them all talking like Sir John Gielgud. I want to see Gibson's version just because they speak Aramaic and Latin. It's a novelty, sure, but I think it might add something to the feel of the period that you can't get from watching "Ben Hur".
posted by stevis at 7:00 PM on February 23, 2004

konolia disturbs me on a regular basis. That's part of why I like her. I was baptized a Catholic and raised a Baptist, and I always found the adults' weird attachment to the brutal act of crucifixion as creepy and not unlike a sexual obsession. So, given this background, this film seems to me like a porn movie for the devout.

I think it's terrible that Christianity has become in the west so entangled with puritan sexuality that this is what passes for a religious expression, for passion. The true import of Christ's death cannot be measured in pints of stage blood gushed, nor should it be gloried in through a triumphantly destructive spectacle.
posted by squirrel at 7:03 PM on February 23, 2004

[moderately off-topic]

jonmc:

Gibson is a militant Catholic and I was always under the impression that evangelicals didn't hold Catholics in high regard

There are in fact many Catholics who embrace the term you mention, and at least some of them are interested in the practices of the Protestant counterparts.
posted by BT at 7:15 PM on February 23, 2004

Like stevis, that's about the only reason I have for wanting to see it (but sneaking in through the back door and peeking through the curtain). I've studied Aramaic and the "historical Jesus" and my worldview regarding those events (where 'those events' have been largely collated from circumstantial, after the fact evidence) is the polar opposite of paranoid Mel's. Regardless of my opinion, he exemplifies a certain unforfurtunate American standard; if you have enough money and enough ideology, you can rewrite history and fill in the gaps any way you please, and as a bonus, the media will generate free hubbub to drive up your marketshare of pliant curiosity seekers.

Traces of Barnum, anyone?
posted by moonbird at 7:16 PM on February 23, 2004

"Jesus wept." --- Uncle Frank, Hellraiser

It's interesting to consider that Hellraiser and it's sequels were probably less violent than The Passion. I expect to hear less moaning from the right about the violence in other entertainments like Grand Theft Auto. ~wink!~

Then there's this: "Governor Pizarro wished to obtain intelligence from some Indians who had come form Cajamarca, so he had them tortured." (From the account of Hernando Pizarro.) I find this startling, how off-handedly, even proudly, a man selects torture as a convenient method for collecting data.

It's horrible to contemplate that the events portrayed in The Passion are not extraordinary. They were commonplace then, perhaps only a little less so now. I wonder how many moviegoers will see this as less of a paean to the redemptive power of "the Christ," than as a spectacle of man's monstrous inhumanity to his fellows.
posted by SPrintF at 7:21 PM on February 23, 2004

well said, squirrel. the messed-up relationship between violence/martyrdom and sexual desire in catholicism is fascinating and Creepy (i say this as a girl raised catholic, with a particularly devout mother). look at any of those picture books they give children of the saints...you've got stephen bleeding all over the place and many many farm girls and princesses-turned-near-rape-victim-martyrs. and then there's teresa of avila and the rest, who speak of jesus as if he is a passionate lover. (the last type i think is less creepy, and deserves more research.) the functionalist spin a critic could put on the tradition of catholicism makes me dizzy.
posted by ifjuly at 7:33 PM on February 23, 2004

what do you people have against bloody hippie movies? dang.
posted by damnitkage at 7:34 PM on February 23, 2004

OK, I skimmed through the article. It sounds like Denby wanted a documentary. "One of the cruellest movies in the history of the cinema"? Crucifixion is pretty brutal, what does he expect? Expecting it to be a nice easter play is like going to see Bowling for Columbine and expecting a real documentary.


"After a brief attempt at the religious life at the age of 14, he returned to finish out his scholastic career at Davison High School, where he was on the debate team, worked with Student Government and even wrote a play for his High School to perform. Moore said, “It was a religious theme and it ended when Christ [came] down off the cross and [was] nailed back up. The people who nailed Christ back up were modeled on people in my town. They could recognize themselves"

It's a novelty, sure, but I think it might add something to the feel of the period that you can't get from watching "Ben Hur".

"From this dreamy state Ben-Hur was aroused by the sound of hammering. On the summit of the knoll he observed then what had escaped him before-some soldiers and workmen preparing the crosses. The holes for planting the trees were ready, and now the transverse beams were being fitted to their places"
-Lew Wallace, Ben Hur

HMMMM

Overall, Wallace--an activist at heart--grew disillusioned with his declining impact. In March 1881 he took advantage of a new President, James A. Garfield, to submit his resignation. The territorial press pleaded with him to stay. ``We believe Governor Wallace to be about the only reputable and worthy gentleman who was ever appointed to a federal office in New Mexico,'' one paper declared.
At about the same time, as it turned out, Garfield was reading Ben-Hur. Garfield wrote in his diary that the novel so moved him that he would offer Wallace the ambassadorship to Turkey in Constantinople, hoping the author may draw inspiration from the modern east for future literary work"
posted by clavdivs at 7:50 PM on February 23, 2004

This man spent millions of his own money to make a film that he had extreme difficulty finding a distributor for in the first place.

So is Gibson going to donate the millions he sees in profit to anti-Semitic groups to compensate for any backlash?

The above quotation could have been made by any number of producers about any number of films. It simply doesn't justify the blood money with which Gibson's cup will runneth over in a matter of weeks.

Churches are buying tickets in groups most certainly including teens and pre-teens who would not qualify to see the R-rated film on their own.

In fact, churches are so excited about getting their impressionable young members into the film that a New Zealand group is protesting and appealing for a lower rating, saying that "a film of such historical, social and cultural interest should be made available to young people to view with a parent or guardian." But that's disingenuous crap, obviously, because children would already be able to see it with a parent under the current NZ R16 rating.

It's further disingenuous crap because the aforementioned Society for the Promotion of Community Standards has made its name in NZ by always appealing for higher ratings on movies and shows containing "gratuitous sex and violence".

I guess a movie that Time calls "The Goriest Story Ever Told" doesn't qualify as "gratuitous violence" as long as it's getting out the Word. Halleluia!
posted by pineapple at 7:53 PM on February 23, 2004

Sounds like the type of film that some sort of whacked-out death cult would create.

They'd have had some sort of charasmatic and eloquent leader. No one would really know what he had done during his younger years, but he hit his stride in late middle age. Started small, maybe with a few siblings accompanying him, attracted people from some nearby families; eventually had a small entourage supporting him.

Basically he'd been doing the talk-show circuit, promoting personal transformation. Telling people that they gotta do better to each other and gotta start taking control of their lives. Anyway, he got whacked. Pissed off someone, probably Pat Robertson or Billy Graham.

Did serious damage to his show, of course. Reran a couple times. Got people real excited the first time that happened, but then it was pulled.

Eventually some new guy managed to wrestle control of the dwindling organization. Renegotiated with the networks, got things going. New show, same as the old.

This new guy has a lot of business smarts. Makes a shitload off the cult, way more than the old guy. Laid down a bunch of new rules, most of them pretty harsh. You'd think most everyone would have quit the cult, it changed so much.

But the new guy was smart enough to "defer" to the dead guy, pretend that it's what the dead guy would want. Basically changed it into a death cult. Whacked out idea, I know, but it's working!

The cult members have a real serious fixation on the dead guy. Celebrate his damn death like it was the fourth of July. Freaking weird. Takes all kinds, I guess.

Anyway, this "Passion of Christ" movie sounds like the sort of thing this death cult would do.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:02 PM on February 23, 2004

please, Last temptation of Christ contained more political intrigue, violence, sex then alot of religious movies.
posted by clavdivs at 8:03 PM on February 23, 2004

Being a non-believer, it is tempting to pay to see Jesus get the beating of his life. I wonder what the crowd reaction would be to my laughing.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 8:03 PM on February 23, 2004

FFF, please get a clue into the events of the era. Judas for instance, was a spook to say it simple. He was tied to the zealots and perhaps was sent to kill or spy on Jesus.

but why would he follow jesus and not do what ever it was he was sent to do. (remember, jesus knew judas would portray him and it is even possible that jesus asked judas to betray him) also, why would the group accept a tax collector, the worst of the political worst, into their ranks. What about jesus' ties to the baptist, surly the mad pat robertson of his time to use your simple minded analogy.

perhaps jesus "got it". violence and hatred are not the way.

In reality the romans killed jesus by having the people choose between jesus and a popular bandit-political operative. Also, why would the jewish council even bring the "jesus question" to the Pilate? why not just kill him?

I wonder what the crowd reaction would be to my laughing
take a camera.
posted by clavdivs at 8:21 PM on February 23, 2004

rad
posted by poopy at 8:24 PM on February 23, 2004

As far as historical accuracy, if you don't think the Gospels are accurate accounts, then about the only thing we know for sure about Jesus is that he was tortured to death.

So on that account, you might say Gibson's movie is more historically accurate than any other film of Jesus' life.
posted by straight at 8:27 PM on February 23, 2004

Feh. It's a snuff film. Fine if you're into that kind of thing. You'd have to be a real dummy to think it's like the real thing, but I guess that's part of the appeal.
posted by wobh at 8:32 PM on February 23, 2004

Christianity Metafilter : a blood orgy of torture and pain
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:34 PM on February 23, 2004

There's one good thing I can say about this review, and it is that the reviewer laid his bias on the table in the first paragraph and saved me the trouble of taking anything else he said seriously. The stories we have about Jesus are not histories; even if we did have contemporary accounts of his life and deeds, multiple interpretations of his character would be inevitable. Even a straight documentary is an act of editorial creation in which many viewpoints are possible - the more so when all we have to go on are four fragmentary, contradictory compilations of second-hand stories, a generation old when they were first written down. That the reviewer believes in "Jesus’ heart-stopping eloquence, his startling ethical radicalism and personal radiance" as a matter of history, not interpretation, is clear evidence that he is insufficiently openminded to present a fair review of this film.
posted by Mars Saxman at 8:36 PM on February 23, 2004

Denby wasn't debunking the Christ myth, Mars, or faulting the film exclusively for being historically incorrect. I think he was decrying the lack of context (i.e. the value of the Christ myth) in what he considered to be a joyless gore romp without it.
posted by squirrel at 8:46 PM on February 23, 2004

I am not a Christian, but I agree with unreason. I mean, really, what's the point of watching a man get tortured to death if the reason why and the Mystery of what happaned after are irrelevant to the narrative?

I mean, I've heard some people on TV say they want to use the movie a conversion tool. What, I say again, is the point? From what I understand, all someone might get from this picture is a "Woah, that's fucked up."

The power of the Crucifixion of Christ, IMO, comes not just from the horrible agonies he endured, but why he endured them. It is not enough that he didn't deserve them, but that he received them for preaching a message of forgives, redemption and love. Not only that, an eager and willing Christ undermines the point of the suffering he is undergoing, because if he is the Mystery of being both man and god then he must've had doubts and worries and desires, (which is why I think Temptation and even Jesus Christ Superstar may be better portrayals.)

When it comes down to it, crucifixion was a fairly commonplace event, and to glorify that, outside of Christ's message and Resurrection, I think is missing the point.

I probably won't be going to see it, because even though I find the idea of dialogue in Latin and Aramaic neat, I became violently nauseous halfway through the Stations of the Cross when I was an altar boy, so it's probably not a good idea to press my luck.

The anti-Semitism thing, I think is to a certain extent, a red herring. It does bother me a little to hear what Mel's father says about the Jews and other topics, as well as Mel's refusal to repudiate that, but from what I understand about the portrayals about Jews in the picture, they don't leap out and scream with anti-Semitic context. I do think that Denby has a point that the motivations for the Pharisees are ill-explored to the movies detriment.
posted by Snyder at 8:48 PM on February 23, 2004

Prove to me that you're divine; change my water into wine.

I'm just saying...1973's version of Jesus was a lot more fun.
posted by dejah420 at 8:49 PM on February 23, 2004

I think it's terrible that Christianity has become in the west so entangled with puritan sexuality that this is what passes for a religious expression, for passion.

Passion has a specific meaning here that isn't quite the same thing as little-p passion.
posted by rcade at 8:49 PM on February 23, 2004

Also, konolia, (and please don't be offended by this, I'm merely curious), I'm somewhat puzzled by your enthusiasm for this film. Gibson is a militant Catholic and I was always under the impression that evangelicals didn't hold Catholics in high regard.

Mel Gibson is my brother in Christ. Period.
posted by konolia at 8:53 PM on February 23, 2004

fff, the similarity your story has to the last 20 years of the Disney Corporation scares me to death.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:54 PM on February 23, 2004

Not only that, an eager and willing Christ undermines the point of the suffering he is undergoing, because if he is the Mystery of being both man and god then he must've had doubts and worries and desires,

You forget. He knew and communed with His Father here on earth -the struggle that He had was to make the final choice to choose the Father's will in the Garden of Gethsemene when He sweat drops of blood...He knew who He was and He knew what He was called to do and why. The scriptures say that He focused on the joy set before Him (which was our redemption) despising the shame. He wasn't a masochist, longing for the cross-that would be sick. He was longing for us-and the only way to have us was to go through with the cross.
posted by konolia at 8:59 PM on February 23, 2004

They crucified Spartacus as well you know. Him and 6000 of his closest friends. And hung the broken, rotted bodies along the Appian Way for decades. Besides this reaction to the closest Rome got a communitarian revolution, this little contretemps in Palestine was a tame sideshow.
posted by meehawl at 9:04 PM on February 23, 2004

I was talking Scientology, actually, but I suppose Disney is a close enough guess. Extra bisquit for Xquz[etc]!

Religion truly is the opiate of the masses.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:18 PM on February 23, 2004

konolia: You have to be the coolest Christian I have ever read on a message board.
posted by mischief at 9:35 PM on February 23, 2004

It had been arranged by the prison charlie, as part of my further education to read him the Bible. I didn't so much like the latter part of the book which is more like all preachy talking, than fighting and the old in-out. I liked the parts where these old yahoodies tolchock each other and then drink their Hebrew vino and, then getting on to the bed with their wives' handmaidens. That kept me going.

- Alex, A Clockwork Orange
posted by john at 9:38 PM on February 23, 2004

If I read the reviews correctly, Gibson doesn't even put in the resurrection! It's just a really long portrayal of Jesus's death, with no context.
posted by unreason at 7:00 PM PST on February 23

just wait til you see the follow-up movie,
The Passion of Christ II: Jesus Comes Back
posted by alicila at 9:47 PM on February 23, 2004

This chick who's really into S&M is telling me she'd "Love to see it", so I think I might go. She's also very hot.
posted by delmoi at 9:48 PM on February 23, 2004

He was longing for us-and the only way to have us was to go through with the cross.

Why's that again? I mean, his dad made the rules. Why did he make him get tortured and stuff?
posted by jpoulos at 9:50 PM on February 23, 2004

He was longing for us-and the only way to have us was to go through with the cross.

You want to try to explain the logic of this to the non-baptized among us, konolia? For my part, I sat through decades of "God's Son came to Earth for the purpose of dying so that future people could get "salvation" if we "accept" Him. That one never stopped being a head scratcher for me.

Pretend for a moment that you're talking to someone from an entirely different culture, to whom this talk of ritual slaughter and blood drinking and flesh eating sounds like, say, a hideous cult.

With that in mind, please illuminate the necessity of Christ's horrible/wonderful death.
posted by squirrel at 9:54 PM on February 23, 2004

Jinx, jpoulos!
posted by squirrel at 9:55 PM on February 23, 2004

Remember, this isn't the first time Mel Gibson has been accused of distorting history to shift responsibility for gory historical events.
posted by letitrain at 10:11 PM on February 23, 2004

To quote "Concrete Blond's' Tomorrow Wendy:
I told the priest, Don't count on any second coming,
God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming!
He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us!
No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us,,,?
Hey, hey, good bye
Tomorrow Wendys going to die
posted by Elim at 10:18 PM on February 23, 2004

With that in mind, please illuminate the necessity of Christ's horrible/wonderful death.

For that matter, what about the fact that god didn't actually die, since he's incapable of it? That would have been a miracle I could stand behind: an immortal giving up existence to make an example.

Jesus died? Big deal. I could give up eating eggs forever, considering that I already hate them.
posted by interrobang at 10:19 PM on February 23, 2004

Thanks Interrobang for ruining the film for me, Just for that, Anakin is VADER! HA! so there! Didn't see that coming did you?

(glad you weren't sitting behind me in the film)...
posted by Elim at 10:23 PM on February 23, 2004

Quick! Perform the special ritual to appease the invisible man in the sky!
posted by spazzm at 10:25 PM on February 23, 2004

gimme a virgin quick.....
posted by Elim at 10:27 PM on February 23, 2004

Sorry, Elim - I'm saving myself for marriage.
posted by spazzm at 10:29 PM on February 23, 2004

then you have doooomed us all with your selfish puritanical ways, fool!
posted by Elim at 10:31 PM on February 23, 2004

Are you experienced?
posted by spazzm at 10:41 PM on February 23, 2004

Bob has taught me much.... Some Frop?
posted by Elim at 10:45 PM on February 23, 2004

If you think it's too violent you can always blame the original story writer!

Oh wait...
posted by clevershark at 11:17 PM on February 23, 2004

Discipline & Punish : The Birth of the Prison - the disappearance of institutionalized physical torture is a very recent development in Western societies.

Check it out, I can't wait for the Mel Gibson version...

On 1 March 1757 Damiens the regicide was condemned "to make the amende honorable before the main door of the Church of Paris", where he was to be "taken and conveyed in a cart, wearing nothing but a shirt, holding a torch of burning wax weighing two pounds"; then, "in the said cart, to the Place de Grève, where, on a scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs and claves with red-hot pincers, his right hand, holding the knife with which he committed the said parricide, burnt with sulphur, and, on those places where the flesh will be torn away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax and sulphur melted together and then his body drawn and quartered by four horses and his limbs and body consumed by fire, reduced to ashes and his ashes thrown to the winds" (Pièces originales..., 372-4).

"Finally, he was quartered," recounts the Gazette d'Amsterdam of 1 April 1757. "This last operation was very long, because the horses used were not accustomed to drawing; consequently, instead of four, six were needed; and when that did not suffice, they were forced, in order to cut off the wretch's thighs, to sever the sinews and hack at the joints...

"After two or three attempts, the executioner Samson and he who had used the pincers each drew out a knife from his pocket and cut the body at the thighs instead of severing the legs at the joints; the four horses gave a tug and carried off the two thighs after them, namely, that of the right side first, the other following; then the same was done to the arms, the shoulders, the arm-pits and the four limbs; the flesh had to be cut almost to the bone, the horses pulling hard carried off the right arm first and the other afterwards.

"When the four limbs had been pulled away, the confessors came to speak to him; but his executioner told them that he was dead, though the truth was that I saw the man move, his lower jaw moving from side to side as if he were talking. One of the executioners even said shortly afterwards that when they had lifted the trunk to throw it on the stake, he was still alive. The four limbs were untied from the ropes and thrown on the stake set up in the enclosure in line with the scaffold, then the trunk and the rest were covered with logs and faggots, and fire was put to the straw mixed with this wood.

"...In accordance with the decree, the whole was reduced to ashes. The last piece to be found in the embers was still burning at half-past ten in the evening. The pieces of flesh and the trunk had taken about four hours to burn. The officers of whom I was one, as also was my son, and a detachment of archers remained in the square until nearly eleven o'clock.
posted by meehawl at 11:26 PM on February 23, 2004

I can paraphrase Buddha and pull a rabbit out of your hat.

No hoopla about me. =\
posted by Satapher at 12:11 AM on February 24, 2004

Clevershark:
Problem is of couse Who wrote it, like you said, Problem is we don't know who wrote it do we?

First: probable that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In fact the names attached to the gospels-Mark, Matthew and Luke-are merely second century guesses as best we know.

Second: evidence also shows that the synoptics were all written after 70 CE. Close to half a century after the death of Jesus

But fear not after the 4th century AD 380 or there abouts I thin, The Latin Lulgate determined all was as is now. (At least untill Martin Luther) That Thes four bools were basically the bible.

http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN620NTHISTORY.htm
for a better idea who really wrote what. (Why do most apologists for Christianity not even now the history?)
posted by Elim at 12:15 AM on February 24, 2004

Bools being books of course, curse this Spellchecker
posted by Elim at 12:23 AM on February 24, 2004

who wrote the traditional folk songs and what makes them traditional?
posted by Satapher at 12:54 AM on February 24, 2004

Interesting review, prose is good but some of his facts are questionable.

He largely ignores Jesus’ heart-stopping eloquence, his startling ethical radicalism and personal radiance—Christ as a “paragon of vitality and poetic assertion,” as John Updike described Jesus’ character in his essay “The Gospel According to Saint Matthew.”

The film centers on the last twelve hours of Jesus' life, in which there was very little eloquence. All that jazz came before.

Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagerly involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate.

This is where I think Denby make a fatal flaw. Gibson in this pic is making the viewer focus on the human aspect of Christ. The bleeding, crying, gasping man. Traditional Christian thought maintains the Jesus was wholly God and wholly man at the same time. This (for me at least) is a muy difficil concept and one that tends to be overlooked. Most modern day Christian theology tends to focus on the Divine aspect and the man aspect is shunted to the side. I think it sounds like Gibson is trying to bring the visceral aspect of what Jesus the man went through as opposed to "It hurt but He was God so he could handle it." mindset. Gibson is trying to show what Jesus really went through in human terms.

The Jews speak in Aramaic, and the Romans speak in Latin; the movie is subtitled in English. Gibson distances the dialogue from us, as if Jesus’ famous words were only incidental and the visual spectacle—Gibson’s work as a director—were the real point.

The use to use the lingua franca of the day is a daring choice but a necessary one as it is a constant reminder this happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. My one minor quibble with The Last temptation of Christ (deliciously complex book, stunning movie) is that Judas, played by the incomparable Harvey Keitel, has a New York accent. I always thought of Judas as more a Philly guy.

But, as Gibson knows, history rescued the pagans from eternal blame—eventually, they came to their senses and saw the light. The Emperor Constantine converted in the early fourth century, and Christianized the empire, and the medieval period saw the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. So the Romans’ descendants triumphed, while the Jews were cast into darkness and, one might conclude from this movie, deserved what they got.

Completely not the point. To be blunt, if you don't accept Christ as your Savior, you are effed, regardless of ethnic/religious background. This reference to the Roman Empire at later dates is not in the movie and is a supposition by the critic. Again, I think Denby is off on this one.

“John was an eyewitness,” Gibson has said. “Matthew was there.” Well, they may have been there, but for decades it’s been a commonplace of Biblical scholarship that the Gospels were written forty to seventy years after the death of Jesus, and not by the disciples but by nameless Christians using both written and oral sources.

Both are slightly off. True a John and a Matthew were present but neither are thought to be the authors of the Gospels that bear their name. Canby is wrong because the figure he cites, "forty to seventy" is the accepted time line for the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) whereas John, which is completely different in pace, imagery and emotional content (compare the last words of Christ: "My Father, My Father, why hast thou abandon me?" to "It is Accomplished!" John wrote the latter and frankly, that is thematically what I want my Saviour to shout while dying, not the former quote which is confusing to me) was written, it is thought, around 120 C.E. Small point but it bothered me when Denby cites Gibson as getting his facts wrong then give wrong numbers.

But the central tradition of Italian Renaissance painting left Christ relatively unscathed; the artists emphasized not the physical suffering of the man but the sacrificial nature of his death and the astonishing mystery of his transformation into godhood—the Resurrection and the triumph over carnality.

OK, recall the God/Man thing I touched on earlier? Jesus was always wholly God and wholly Man. To imply that he became God upon his death is flat out wrong. The painters didn't depict the gory nature out of any sense of morality but, I suspect, that isn't what their patron wanted. Gore wasn't that big of a theme then. Not in paintings anyway.

The despair of the movie is hard to shrug off

This is where I think Denby misses another point. There was despair. The Gospels show that the apostles thought it was all over. The joy that many might feel is the great unfilmed after-the-movie.

Sorry for the long post. And for those keeping the running tally, I plan to see it when it comes out.
posted by Dagobert at 1:02 AM on February 24, 2004

What's up with critics this year? Ebert called Charlize Theron's performance in Monster "one of the greatest performances in the history of the cinema." Denby calls this one "one of the cruellest movies in the history of the cinema." A.O. Scott called Sean Penn's turn in Mystic River "one of the definitive pieces of screen acting in the last half-century."

Are we living in a Golden Age of Blurbing?
posted by luser at 3:01 AM on February 24, 2004

luser: That was the most astute insight in MeFi history.
posted by RavinDave at 3:20 AM on February 24, 2004

People love to call themselves Christians and make an idol of the bible and jesus and anything else handy (saints).

Many of these people go around posing as someone with a thoughtful understanding of the bible and jesus and anything else handy.

Some of these people write books and make movies about their idolatry.

You can be a christian without believing in the resurrection, without believing in the trinity, without believing jesus died on the cross, without believing in miracles or any of the other scifi $#%@.

Gibson is focusing on the same thing that all these other phonies love to focus on: Not what jesus taught, but what pretenders pretend gave jesus's pretend death meaning, and by extension their own pretend self interested lives.

So sad and embarrassing, like every time anything attributed to Paul is part of a christian service.
posted by ewkpates at 5:26 AM on February 24, 2004

Jesus Scholars Find Fault in Gibson's 'Passion'
posted by amberglow at 5:49 AM on February 24, 2004

As someone who has already seen the movie, I thought it was two hours of gratuitous, graphic torture and brutality offset by short flashbacks to Jesus' greatest quotes - love thy neighbor, you will deny me three times, why have thou foresaken me, etc. Gibson's direction is heavy-handed and predictable, and he sets up the film perfectly for the sequel - Passion II, Three Days Later.

There is no subtext - pro-christian, anti-jew or otherwise. It's just a bad film.
posted by FreezBoy at 6:00 AM on February 24, 2004

Boring, listless, uninspiring savior-on-a-stick!

I'm sorry, but... die already, 'k?! The idea of Xtians paying their $8.50, buying popcorn and coke, then watching Jesus get flogged and logged is beyond satire.

I'm half-tempted to get a crowd of people together to get obnoxiously drunk before the movie, dress in devilish clothing (or Santa suits!) and shout out lines at the screen or chant "Die! Die! Die!" at appropriate times. My only reservations are that I'm generally polite and wouldn't want to pay the $8.50 to encourage the success of this widely panned "must see" movie. Even God hates bad films.

Jesus Horror Picture Show!
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:11 AM on February 24, 2004

The truth, the real Truth is brutal to the extreme. Here we have God Incarnate going thru a brutality of Hell that no one should ever endure-a brutality that He did not deserve in one iota...

good thing for us god called it even after the crusades, huh?
posted by quonsar at 6:20 AM on February 24, 2004

Here continues the superlatives: Ebert says, "The most violent film I have ever seen."
posted by PrinceValium at 6:30 AM on February 24, 2004

"The most violent film I have ever seen."

Now you're talking.

Could this film actually desensitise christians and draw them in to proper violent films? At the very least it should act to undercut some arguments (or at least some arguers) about the role of violent film in society.
posted by biffa at 6:41 AM on February 24, 2004

I still haven't found a review that answers the important question here: How hot is Monica Bellucci in this film?
posted by straight at 6:45 AM on February 24, 2004

Jack Chick's The Light of the World. "You can almost feel the crackling flames of hell as you watch!" (Now that's a tag line.) Here's some promotional pressage they archived which describes the movie more and briefly discusses it's co-occurance with The Passion.
posted by wobh at 7:16 AM on February 24, 2004

You want to try to explain the logic of this to the non-baptized among us, konolia? For my part, I sat through decades of "God's Son came to Earth for the purpose of dying so that future people could get "salvation" if we "accept" Him. That one never stopped being a head scratcher for me.

Pretend for a moment that you're talking to someone from an entirely different culture, to whom this talk of ritual slaughter and blood drinking and flesh eating sounds like, say, a hideous cult.

With that in mind, please illuminate the necessity of Christ's horrible/wonderful death.


It's about sin. People want to think that they get to Heaven and escape Hell by being good. Being kind. Helping others. Etc. But the problem is that sin has a penalty and that penalty is eternal death. Fair enough, since in order for Heaven to be Heaven it can't contain any evil in it. Since one of God's attributes is Justice, He cannot just say, okay, you're forgiven-because the moment He did Satan could rightfully say he should be admitted back into heaven.
Meanwhile, God is also a God of mercy and love. Here He is caught between His justice and his mercy-so the solution was for Him to be incarnate on earth and take all sin upon Himself on that cross. The penalty on that cross was not just the physical torture. That was actually the least of it. Jesus took the very wrath of God for sin on Himself so we would not have to experience it.

That means for every child molestation. Every rape. Every murder. Even for every stripe laid on His back by the soldiers-being fully God and fully Man He took every bit of it into his being suffering the penalty. He died, and the bill was marked paid in full. That is why we who trust Him for our salvation call ourselves the redeemed.
Those that decide they don't need Jesus get to reap the consequences of their own sin on their own. That was not God's intention. He did not intend for Hell to be a place for people to go. I think the greatest pain in the Lord's heart right now is that so many people don't understand just how much He loves us and wants us with Him...Only Love in the extreme could cause Someone who created the universe to submit to such torture from His creatures-when all He had to do is say the word and legions of angels would have delivered HIm from the cross. God could have obliterated the whole world and started over if He wished. But each one of us was infinitely precious to Him.

The stupidest thing satan ever did was to incite men to crucify the Lord.
posted by konolia at 7:31 AM on February 24, 2004

You can be a christian without believing in the resurrection, without believing in the trinity, without believing jesus died on the cross, without believing in miracles or any of the other scifi $#%@.


No you cannot. You may CALL yourself a Christian but it would be a lie.
posted by konolia at 7:32 AM on February 24, 2004

Konolia, I still don't get it, and believe me, I tried for many years.

Why did god sacrifice himself (Jesus) to himself (god) in order to save humanity from himself (god's judgement)?

I also find it interesting that you are able to speak in detail about god's opinions and hobbies, yet you actually have NO WAY of knowing them (or even if a god exists). This seems dishonest.
posted by jsonic at 7:54 AM on February 24, 2004

Ummm, no offense, konolia, but come to New York and I'll introduce you to Jesus Christ at least three different times. That they're crazy homeless men doesn't make them any less, or more, an arbiter of truthful religious identity than you. You have different levels of faith, but you have as much proof as they do.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:55 AM on February 24, 2004

straight I've wondered this myself, but what it comes down to is that it doesn't matter how hot she is. This makes at least four movies she's been in now that I will never see: those Matrix pieces of shite, Irreversible, and now this. I'm not sure which of my sins got me in this hell but it must have been dire. (or perhaps it was one of those trivial ones most ignore these days, like masturbation or mental adultery. Wouldn't that just be poetic justice though? God save us all.)
posted by wobh at 7:56 AM on February 24, 2004

Why all the hooha about some loopy God-botherer making a movie that preaches to other christians? All religion claims to be about love, but seems to me hell-bent on hatred, whether it be Israel, Al Quaeda or Gibson's chosen cult.

( I say "loopy" because anyone who feels the need to evangelise is an egocentric fool who believe (s)he's got it right and other people are wrong - and the whole thing is unprovable anyway).

It's the 21st century, not the dark ages.
posted by Pericles at 7:58 AM on February 24, 2004

the reviewer probably hasn't read the original Greek and Aramaic sources

Mayor, if you have Aramaic sources for Jesus's life you should share them with the scholarly community ASAP -- nobody else knows about them.

konolia, I don't share your beliefs, but you're an eloquent gal.
posted by languagehat at 8:02 AM on February 24, 2004

The stupidest thing satan ever did was to incite men to crucify the Lord.

I don't think I understand why if this wasn't preordained how it isn't God who was behind the whole incitement thing and why anyone but him has to carry the can.

Fair enough, since in order for Heaven to be Heaven it can't contain any evil in it.

Yeah but God can absolve, the question is when (or if) he's prepared to do so.

Also, with regard to accepting Jesus to get into Heaven, why doesn't being sorry simply cancel things out? There are clearly various standards regarding forgiveness according to various christian doctrines, why can't an infinitely loving god just let things ride on having a lived a good life?
posted by biffa at 8:05 AM on February 24, 2004

Why did god sacrifice himself (Jesus) to himself (god) in order to save humanity from himself (god's judgement)?


Ok, lemme give this one a try. God, theoretically, can do anything he likes. He is, after all, omnipotent. However, in reality he's somewhat limited. Not by His power, but by His own ethics. Here's an example for comparison:

Let's say you're on a desert island with your best friend, and short of food. Your theoretical options are to a) ration yourselves until you're rescued, or b) kill your friend in the middle of the night and eat him in the morning for breakfast. In reality though, b isn't an option. You're a nice fellow (I assume), and wouldn't be capable of killing and eating your best friend.

God's in a similar situation. He has moral feelings that He cannot violate. For example, He's good, and therefore can do nothing bad. The problem is that He's also just. This causes a problem, because according to justice, we're all guilty of various sins. And therefore, God is supposed to punish us. Most of the time He doesn't really want to. But his nature requires him to punish sin. And the penalty for sin is death, Hell, etc. Hell was originally created for the punishment of the devil for his sins, but because God is fair, there must be equal sentencing. If Satan deserves Hell, then so do we. So, God needed a way to keep us out of Hell while keeping Satan in. And the only way to do this was to have someone else take the punishment instead, to even the scales, so to speak. Since every human sins, no ordinary person could take the place for us; since he himself would be guilty already. The replacement needed to be entirely innocent, which means God. But the sacrifice also needed to human to take our place. Hence Jesus.
posted by unreason at 8:10 AM on February 24, 2004

"Since every human sins, no ordinary person could take the place for us; since he himself would be guilty already."

what sins does a baby have?
posted by Pericles at 8:14 AM on February 24, 2004

Excellent review - saved me the time of having to see the movie myself. As usual, the New Yorker delivers.

I don't know if this movie will incite hatred, but it has already incited some strangeness (via linkfilter).
posted by cup at 8:14 AM on February 24, 2004

The problem is that He's also just. This causes a problem, because according to justice, we're all guilty of various sins. And therefore, God is supposed to punish us.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise (ie. we sin, therefore we must be punished).

Also, your premise is unfounded. Please prove that your version of god is 'just', or that we are all guilty of sins.

And I'll repeat my point for konolia to you. You seem to be able to describe god's opinions and motiviations in detail, but you actually have NO WAY of knowing them.
posted by jsonic at 8:21 AM on February 24, 2004

Pericles, duh! The sins of the father!
posted by thebigpoop at 8:25 AM on February 24, 2004

konolia, you may CALL yourself a Christian but it would (probably) be a misconception on your part.

Anyone who reads the bible can interpret it any way they like. People with wild jesus fantasies can SAY that they know who the REAL christaians are, but that just silly nonsense.

Christians are those who associate themselves with Jesus. Defining "christian" as anything more than that is the end of reason and the beginning of madness. Since much of the bible can be read in contrast to the gospels themselves, it can be effectively argued that people who associate themselves with parts of the bible that aren't Jesus quotes aren't Christians. They are probably bible worshipers (biblians) not jesus followers.

Do yourself a favor. Focus on Mathew, Mark, Luke, and maybe a little John, and stop pretending that you understand what Jesus wanted to pass on and what the requirements might be for a club you imagine that he wanted to start.
posted by ewkpates at 8:25 AM on February 24, 2004

Christians are sick, sick, sick.

Jews are sick. Muslims are sick. Native peoples are sick. Gays are sick. Hispanics are sick. Blacks are sick. Liberal Democrats are sick. Men are sick.

Wheee! Ain't bigotry fun?

Oops, forgot. According to the MeFi Guide to Snide, it is only allowable to paint certain groups with such shallow but broad strokes.
posted by NorthernLite at 8:30 AM on February 24, 2004

all He had to do is say the word and legions of angels would have delivered HIm from the cross

All he had to do was say the word, and all sin would be erased permanently, from the beginning of time, without all this nailing up and bleeding and such. All he had to wo was say the word, and satan would be unmade, never existing in the first place. All he had to do was say the word, and everything would be perfect, without all this dancing around these made-up rules and without needing to use little loopholes to explain this insane behavior.

An infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god would not need to resort to such jiggery-pokery. It all feels like a cruel game, like having a psychotic parent who tells you that you need to cross the living room without touching the floor, because if you do, you'll die. But it's okay, because they'll carry you across, even though they have a bad back, so you should really thank them. And they don't even have a bad back! It's just madness.

Your god makes himself all these strange rules, and then can't use his super-powers to get around them. It's all so inconsistent and hypocritical... bah.

Next time, coffee first, then with the posting.
posted by majcher at 8:31 AM on February 24, 2004

Konalia, with all due respect, there is one thing that I've never understood.

Jesus was crucified for us. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus was resurrected by his father. What exactly did he give up? This seems like a pretty low risk proposition, being the son of God and all.
posted by cedar at 8:34 AM on February 24, 2004

Please prove that your version of god is 'just'

I was thinking the same thing, particularly in regard to this:

And the only way to do this was to have someone else take the punishment instead, to even the scales, so to speak.

Since when is punishing someone a just thing to do when the sin in question isn't attributed to them?

Silly me, thinking that justice meant we punish the ones who are actually guilty.

Come to think of it, if this is what this particular god conceives of as 'just', maybe I don't wanna hang around his heaven. I'm kinda scared.
posted by beth at 8:36 AM on February 24, 2004

what sins does a baby have?

Possibly none, depending on your feelings about original sin. But baby killing isn't a nice thing to do. Also, since being punishment for something you didn't do is unfair, God has to take it himself, rather than let somebody else be punished.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise (ie. we sin, therefore we must be punished).

Part of justice means paying for the bad things we do. If someone commits murder, we punish them. That's justice. Sin is a kind of crime, and like murder requires punishment for the sake of justice. The scales have to be balanced, and if we can't do it, then someone else has to. Someone else has to be treated worse than they deserve that we may be treated better than we deserve.

And I'll repeat my point for konolia to you. You seem to be able to describe god's opinions and motivations in detail, but you actually have NO WAY of knowing them.


I believe I know them through the Bible and my own thoughts and experiences. If you don't except the Bible as having any truth, then you're right, I don't have any way of knowing. I believe in the Christian faith, extrapolate from its tenets. If you don't believe in Christ, you've got nothing to extrapolate from. What I am saying in these arguments is that assuming God is as described in the Gospels, this is why he did things the way he did. Whether you except the assumption or not is your own decision.

Christians are those who associate themselves with Jesus. Defining "christian" as anything more than that is the end of reason and the beginning of madness

Um, no. Christians are those who associate themselves with The Christ. Hence the name Christian. And Christ is a theological title for the messiah, the son of God, etc., etc. So, if you're calling yourself a Christian, you're saying that you follow Jesus as Christ, not merely Jesus as man.
posted by unreason at 8:43 AM on February 24, 2004

konolia,

Your logic may be internally consistent, but I suspect the reason it's so convoluted is that you are attempting to reconcile various unfounded assumptions (Jesus is God, there is a God, God is good, God is just, there is a hell, we are all sinners deserving of hell, God/Jesus saved us from hell.) It smacks of Ptolmey's epicycles.

The obvious explanation which does not unnecessarily increase the number of entities is that the Jesus story is a myth similar to every other culture's myths, created for the same reasons.
posted by callmejay at 8:44 AM on February 24, 2004

Your logic may be internally consistent, but I suspect the reason it's so convoluted is that you are attempting to reconcile various unfounded assumptions

So, if there's a simple explanation of Christianity, then we're believing without proper evidence, but if there's a complicated explanation then it can't be true?
posted by unreason at 8:47 AM on February 24, 2004

unreason,

A simple explanation would involve proper evidence. A complicated one with proper evidence would be believable as well. The suspicion comes from the fact that the explanation seems unnecessarily complicated, since it does more to create hypotheses than to explain existing ones.
posted by callmejay at 8:52 AM on February 24, 2004

No, it merely derives explanations from existing hypotheses. Look, I think we're talking past each other here. I'm not trying to offer you a proof of the existence of God. I'm not trying to prove that the Bible's right. Those are things you have to decide for yourself. What I'm saying is that if God in the Biblical sense does exist, this is the way things are. I'm explaining the Christian position, I'm not giving a proof of its validity. I'm saying that this is what true Christianity is and assumes. Whether or not you choose to accept Christianity or not is another matter entirely.
posted by unreason at 8:59 AM on February 24, 2004