Wow. What a movie. I saw it Saturday night right after our screening for Jersey Girl went in, and I wasn't disappointed.
The subtitles didn't distract from the enjoyment of the film (It was interesting to see what certains words were in Aramaic, like Peter is "Caipha"), and the Latin was easier to understand.
The pacing was very good. The scenes of torture and crucifixion were torturous for the audience as much as the characters (a couple sat next to me, and the guy put his head into the girl's lap), but the pre-movie hype's effect on my imagination naturally produced a feeling of dread worse than what was in the actual movie, and I the only shots where I was even tempted to look away was pehaps the shots of Jesus' ribs exposed by that cat-o-nine-tails weapon that was used by him, or when you see the anguish on his face once his cross is mounted upright with him on it.
The Gospels are not reliable as historical arguments (contrary to what the people handing out Christian literature today in front of a theater where I recruited for a Tuesday Mean Girls screening kept saying to me as they stopped me to debate me), but you can enjoy the story nonetheless. The nature of the story is simple, and there isn't anything resembling a plot twist or character arc that you might expect in any other story, but the fact that this story was produced in the way it was creates a fascinating movie experience. Does it deserve to get Oscar nominations? I dunno, maybe. It certainly is an ambitious movie, and a great achievement, but I thought The Great Raid was a better 2004 film.
If you can handle it, I recommend it.
I saw it on the 25th of last month (opening night, I think). I have to admit that on many (if not every) technical level I was very impressed with the film. The sound, the direction, the acting, the authenticity of the sets and costumes. It all did a lot to make the viewer feel a part of the action. But I am very ambivalent about it. Ultimately, I think the people who will get the most out of the flick is its target audience - born again Christians. As someone who is a non-believer, I have, over the past several days, found myself somewhat disturbed that a movie that so almost lovingly depict torture should be so well embraced by any audience. Take away the fact that this is about Jesus' death on the cross as described in the Bible, and you've got to wonder if it would be so widely praised? If the film was a depiction of the crucifixion of some other criminal, it would be most likely thought of as a rather sadistic film. Only the presence of Jesus redeems the film - in the eyes of Christians anyway. (An ironic way of putting it, yes, I know.)
Some questions that have occured to me while watching the movie and since then: Was Jesus' crucifixion really any more severe than anyone else's at the time? Don't you ever wonder what happened to Barabbas? Did he celebrate his freedom by murdering more people? Did the soldier whom Jesus restored his ear convert to Christianity?
There's one line I was somewhat disappointed it was not in the movie. It's that of the soldier's, who after Jesus died: "Surely, this man was the Son of God."
I personally would have liked to have seen more of Jesus' resurrection, if only to help relieve the almost unbearably depressing and dreary nature of the movie. I honestly kept wishing there was more of a counterpoint to how dark and harrowing the film is, despite knowing that the script could not really allow for such relief.
Anyway, like it or not, those are my thoughts and opinions on this film. Maybe not as important as LUIGI's, but there you are.
"I like to watch." - Chauncy Gardener
Did Jesus heal a soldier's ear in the movie too? (I did go to the bathroom once or twice.)
Benn: Maybe not as important as LUIGI's, but there you are.
Luigi Novi: Huh?
Yes. In the Garden of Gethsemane, as Jesus is being arrested, Peter lopped off a Roman soldier's ear. After telling Peter, "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", Jesus reattached the soldier's ear. This was very early in the film, and is regarded as Christ's last act of healing in his ministry.
"I like to watch." - Chauncy Gardner
I do have a couple more comments I want to make on the film. Unlike everyone else, I thought the guy in the black robe might have been Death, instead of Satan. But that's because I had just seen Bergman's The Seventh Seal, and the actor playing Satan looked superficially like Death from The Seventh Seal.
Was the child in Satan's arms meant to represent the Anti-Christ? Has any heard what was up with the child, who or what it was meant to be?
"I like to watch." - Chance the Gardener
I heard somewhere that it was supposed to be an homage to an old painting, maybe renissance (sp?) era, or some such.
Why did Gibson change the attacked man to a soldier? In the Bible account the man whose ear was lopped off was described as "servant to the High Priest" and named once, "Malchus." They wanted to show Peter as more daring because he attacked a soldier?
Incidentally, Matthew 26:51 doesn't specify which of the disciples drew his sword. Nor does Mark 14:47. Nor Luke 22:50. It's only the Book of John (18:10) that identifies Simon Peter as the man with the sword. But all four Gospels do agree that it was a high priest's slave who had an ear removed. (John 18:10 is also the verse that gives the slave's name.)
I heard somewhere that it was supposed to be an homage to an old painting, maybe renissance (sp?) era, or some such. - Zarm Rkeeg
The question still remains as to what it's supposed to symbolize.
"I like to watch." - Chauncy Gardner
Some questions that have occured to me while watching the movie and since then: Was Jesus' crucifixion really any more severe than anyone else's at the time?
Since there is no account of Jesus cruxification outside the gospels, we don't know how cruel it was compared to others. But I would guess from other accounts about Roman discipline and research about cruzification that most roman punishments were very severe and cruel (according to today's standards), and that cruzification is a very painful way to die, anyway. (This is why Paul chickens out, claiming to be a roman citizen, who has the right to a quick and more honorable death by beheading with a sword).
Don't you ever wonder what happened to Barabbas? Did he celebrate his freedom by murdering more people?
Since the whole Barabbas issue (together with the hand-washing, the dreams and the indecisivness of Pilate) is more likely a story to whitewash the roman authorities by blaming the Jews - being written at a time when christians had given up hope of converting jews, but hoped to get along well with the roman empire - I'm not sure if Barabbas really existed and if he was a murderer or only a rebel against roman authority.
Since there is no account of Jesus cruxification outside the gospels, we don't know how cruel it was compared to others. - constanze
Personally, that doesn't matter to me. To many Chirstians, Jesus' crucifixion seems to have been worse than others. We have the Gospels' account of the crucifixion. Surely, we have contemporary accounts of other crucifixions. So, the question is how do they compare? Was Jesus' any less harsh or more harsh?
Since the whole Barabbas issue (together with the hand-washing, the dreams and the indecisivness of Pilate) is more likely a story to whitewash the roman authorities by blaming the Jews - being written at a time when christians had given up hope of converting jews, but hoped to get along well with the roman empire - I'm not sure if Barabbas really existed and if he was a murderer or only a rebel against roman authority. - constanze
I believe that according to the Bible, Barrabas was both a murderer and a rebel. My thought process on wondering about Barrabas is how incomplete the Gospel narratives often seem. I found myself idly wondering if Barrabas (whether he existed or not, I accept him as a Biblical character. Take that mean however you want it to.) committed any more crimes, causing the people to regret chanting for his release.
It's interesting. I can accept the Bible as literature in its own right, and not worry about how historically accurate it is. Sort of like reading The Iliad or Homer's Odyssey. Thus I can consider many of narrative threads and characters as fictional (or even semi-fictional) characters. Other non-believers seem to have a problem doing that. They often have to point out how there is no outside record of Jesus' crucifixion or the existence of Barrabas or whatever. Personally, I don't think you have to believe in the truth of the Bible to think about, or talk about these things. To me, the Bible is just another work of literature.
"Since there is no account of Jesus cruxification outside the gospels, we don't know how cruel it was compared to others." - constanze
The idea that Jesus was crucified and never really died is also found in the Koran. The Talmus also speaks of Jesus, though that text calls him a false messiah and magic practitioner.
There is also the writing by first century historian, Josephus (born in 37 a.d.). His writings refer to James and Jesus and also to Jesus' death in the "Testimonium Flavanum."
Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Jesus and historian Thallus wrote about a great darkness at the time of Jesus death.
There are also some Jewish documents of the time that attempt to refute Jesus as messiah.
"Was Jesus' crucifixion really any more severe than anyone else's at the time?" -constanze
Jesus, knowing what what was to come could have sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. Under periods of great psychological stress the release of chemicals can break down the capilaries in the sweat glands. This is known as hematidrosis. This would also have a side effect of making his skin fragile and sensitive when he was flogged.
Pilot was in an extremely weak political position with the emperor at the time of Jesus crucifiction. His patron Sejanus had fallen from power in 31 a.d. for plotting against the emperor. It is likely that he would have Jesus flogged with a Roman flagrum in order to passify the vocal dissidents of the time. The Roman flagrum was a stick with long leather cords ending with metal or bone weights similar to that shown in the film.
There is archeological evidence showing that rope and/or nails have been used for crucifiction. They most likely would have been placed through the upper wrist in roder to support Jesus body weight.
Jesus would have most likely died from systemic shock while hanging on the cross (from blood loss and pain). Those that lasted longer tended to die of asphysixiation (sp?). Hence, when in a hurry, the Romans would have broken the legs of the crucified that were still living. With broken legs, Roman criminals would be unable to push upward and get air.
Ghel: The idea that Jesus was crucified and never really died is also found in the Koran.
Luigi Novi: The Koran was written 600 years after Jesus’ alleged life. Thus, its material is hearsay removed by 600 years from the events it describes.
Ghel: The Talmus also speaks of Jesus, though that text calls him a false messiah and magic practitioner.
Luigi Novi: The Palestinian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion, so this cannot serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
Ghel: There is also the writing by first century historian, Josephus (born in 37 a.d.). His writings refer to James and Jesus and also to Jesus' death in the "Testimonium Flavanum."
Luigi Novi: Which most historians, including Christian ones, consider to be 3rd century forgeries. Earlier versions of his work dating from before the second century do not mention Jesus at all. The flowery and worshipful paragraph on Jesus is totally inconsistent with what we know about Josephus, and was probably added to Josephus's work at the beginning of the 4th century CE, during Constantine's reign, by Bishop Eusebius (who said that it was permissible for Christians to lie in order to further the kingdom of god).
The two mentions of Jesus by Josephus are questioned for a number of reasons. For one thing, it is curious that whereas Christians torched entire libraries of antiquity, two works by Josephus—Testimonium Flavianum and The Antiquity of the Jews—survived. In short, sometime in the fourth century, while most else of ancient scholarship was being thrown into bonfires, a Christian scribe – probably Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea– 'rescued' the histories of Josephus and 'doctored' them to provide convenient 'proof' that Christ had been flesh-and-blood and was neither a fiction (as pagan critics maintained) nor solely a spiritual being, as gnostics reasoned.
In a single paragraph of Testimonium—just 127 words—Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth (his existence, his divinity, his miracles, his teachings, his inclusiveness of both Jews and Gentiles, his status as the Messiah, his fulfillment of prophecy, and his condemnation, crucifixion and resurrection, despite the fact that not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defenses against pagan hostility, made a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.
The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defense of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this single paragraph from Testimonium, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ." The likely reason Origen did not quote this paragraph is because it had not yet been written. It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.
And then there are other problems with Josephus. For example, how could he claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew? Some Christian apologists try to claim that Josephus was a closet Christian, but if this was true, and Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, as a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story, wouldn’t he? In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed “Egyptian Jew” messiah. It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.
The most glaring problem with the passage is that it is out of context. Book 18 starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talking about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies among the Jews with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues:
'And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews . . .'
Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it. Outside of this tiny paragraph, in all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere. In addition, the phrase “to this day” confirms that this is a later interpolation. There was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus's time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century. And then there is the hyperbolic language, which was uncharacteristic of Josephus:
“…as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him…”
This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.
In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, the great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, who said, “How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived” and “We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity”, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness. Whole libraries of antiquity where torched by the Christians, but unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.
To name one example of how modern historians treat these passages, the following passage is from The Jesus Problem, pages 121-122, by historian J. M. Robertson, published in 1917:
"If the defenders of the historicity of the gospel Jesus would really stand by Josephus as a historian of Jewry in the first Christian century, they would have to admit that he is the most destructive of all the witnesses against them. It is not merely that the famous interpolated passage is flagrantly spurious in every aspect -- in its impossible context; its impossible language of semi-worship; its "He was (the) Christ"; its assertion of the resurrection; and its allusion to "ten thousand other wonderful things" of which the historian gives no other hint-- but that the flagrant interpolation brings into deadly relief the absence of all mention of the crucified Jesus and his sect where mention must have been made by the historian if they had existed. If, to say nothing of "ten thousand wonderful things," there was any movement of a Jesus of Nazareth with twelve disciples in the period of Pilate, how came the historian to ignore it utterly? If, to say nothing of the resurrection story, Jesus had been crucified by Pilate, how came it that there is no hint of such an episode in connection with Josephus' account of the Samaritan tumult in the next chapter? And if a belief in Jesus as a slain and returning Messiah had been long on foot before the fall of the Temple, how comes it that Josephus says nothing of it in connection with his full account of the expectation of a coming Messiah at that point. By every test of loyal historiography, we are not merely forced to reject the spurious passage as the most obvious interpolation in all literature: we are bound to confess that the "Silence of Josephus," as is insisted by Professor Smith, is an insurmountable negation of the gospel story. For that silence, no tenable reason can be given, on the assumption of the general historicity of the gospels and Acts."
Ghel: Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Jesus and historian Thallus wrote about a great darkness at the time of Jesus death.
Luigi Novi: Tacitus didn’t live during Jesus’ alleged lifetime. He was born in 64 C.E., at least 30 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals, Book XV, Sec. 44, but gives no source for his material. In addition to the numerous disputes of the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that he was born after Jesus’s death can only provide us with hearsay accounts.
Ghel: There are also some Jewish documents of the time that attempt to refute Jesus as messiah.
Luigi Novi: There are no documents that specifically mention a Jesus of Nazareth that are contemporaneous with his alleged life.
constanze: Was Jesus' crucifixion really any more severe than anyone else's at the time?
Ghel: Jesus, knowing what what was to come could have sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. Under periods of great psychological stress the release of chemicals can break down the capilaries in the sweat glands. This is known as hematidrosis. This would also have a side effect of making his skin fragile and sensitive when he was flogged.
Luigi Novi: But wouldn’t this also happen with other victims? The two crucified on either side of Jesus in the movie are not so bloody.
Ghel: There is archeological evidence showing that rope and/or nails have been used for crucifiction. They most likely would have been placed through the upper wrist in roder to support Jesus body weight.
Luigi Novi: In addition, a documentary I saw showed that the weight of body will not rip the hands off the nails, and the body off the cross if the feet are supported by a something like a wooden block placed underneath them, on which they can rest. This is actually what is done in the movie.
Hooboy. I ran across this site while looking for something else. (Somebody at work had given me a "Paul Harvey Comments" about Mel Gibson that sounded like an Urban Legend. It is.) Sounds like somebody has a bit of an ax to grind: An Anti-Passion of the Christ site. I only scanned over it, and read parts of it, but whoever the author is, he certainly is vehemently against the movie.
(This link is to a church's website. I couldn't figure out what denomination the church is. But they are clearly anti-Catholic. Anyone have any ideas?)
The church appears to be nondenominational, possibly a group that broke off from a Baptist church (just a guessl; after all, it is South Carolina, and that isn't unheard-of in that area). It could be Apostolic, from the introduction to the Gibson article, but I don't think so.
It was a pain just to determine the church's name (Church of Greenville).
P.S. I've not seen the movie. I go back and forth over whether I want to, or would just rather wait until it's on DVD. We'll see ...
Luigi Novi: But wouldn’t this also happen with other victims? The two crucified on either side of Jesus in the movie are not so bloody.
But nobody said that they other guys were flogged. As I understood the movie Jeasus was flogged as punishment, hopping to satify the angry mob. Remember the line "I will chastize him, not crucify him." The other guys were just held and crucified. BTW I'm not arguing the historical validity of the scene, I'm talking about why it would be so in the movie's world.
I've already talked about this over in RM, but I liked the movie a lot. I flinched a lot and yes, that one-particular-scourging scene (you know what I'm talking about if you've seen the movie) prompted a lookaway, but I could stand it...and I'm sort of a wuss.
I did tear up several times. A few times, I disliked the movie for being shamelessly sentimental (Mary rushing to Jesus' side had the annoying effect, to ME and probably no one else, of reducing Jesus to a TV movie of the week spectacle), but the one scene where Jesus is being flayed and we see a quick flashback of Jesus saying "Don't be surprised when the world hates you" really got to me. Kinda makes you think about priorities.
What about the Bible saying Jesus (or was it an apostle?) having two different lineages in two separate books? How do they deal with that?
And I have yet to see it, but to me, this is an S&M snuff film. It doesn't show any of the good things Jesus supposedly did.
I also love how fundie Xians that decry violence in the media herald this film, which makes Kill Bill look like child's play.
What do you guys think of the Oscar situation? Will the Academy award it to avoid pissing off the fundies (and their God), or will it be passed over?
And I have yet to see it...
I also love how fundie Xians that decry violence in the media herald this film, which makes Kill Bill look like child's play. - Cynical Chick
If you haven't seen it, you can't pass that kind of judgment on it. I haven't seen Kill Bill, pt. 1 myself. But I have seen The Passion. I will say that I somewhat agree with the "snuff film for Christians" tag (my paraphrase). I have thought of it in such a manner. I honestly think, as I've already said, that if the element of Jesus was removed from the film, there'd be massive protests about the gore and sadistic scenes in the movie. The presence of Jesus is really the only "redeeming" quality of this film.
I think it'll get both an Oscar nod and win. Something really, really good would have to come out later this year to keep that from happening. But I think the Janet Jackson boob exposure will cause Hollywood to want to prove they have something "wholesome" in them; some kind of "good ol' fashioned Christian family values."
"I like to watch." - Chance the Gardener
I never decry violence with a point. You may not believe it, but the suffering of Christ as portrayed in the movie was for the salvation of humanity. I enjoy movies such as Saving Private Ryan and Gladiator, where the violence has purpose. I have not seen Kill Bill, but it seems the violence there has no purpose save homage to 70's flicks.
As for the lineage of Jesus, that is commonly explained as one tracing his legal heritage, through his legal father Joseph, and the other tracing his genetic heritage through Mary.
A critic (Roger Ebert) said that had this film not been about Jesus, the MPAA would have likely rated it NC-17. And that it only gave it the R rating so as to avoid controversy.
I don't doubt it. I think that fact that it's about Jesus has given this film a free ride it otherwise woild not enjoy.
"I likew to watch." - Chauncy Gardner
I see a made a typo in my last post. The tag should read:
"I like to watch." - Chauncy Gardner. No dubya at the end of "like". We regret the error.
Yeah, if you covered Jesus and the guy with the cat 'o nine tails in black leather, it'd be a totally different type of film.
Directed by Martin Scorcese or David Lynch, right? Maybe Tim Burton? Or even Bryan Singer. (Jesus: "Why the leather outfits?" Roman whip expert: "Would rather wear yellow spandex?") (Apologies to any and all who find that last joke profane.)
"I like to watch." - Chance the Gardener
Benn, I've seen enough from previews, clips, and walking it at my theater.
Oh, and "traditional values"? You mean like violence? We ignore violence in the media, and protest when some washed-up star flashes her boob for half a second.
That's still not the same, Hannah, as actually watching the movie.
Hm. I never said, "traditional values". I said, "Christian values". There's a difference. I hope.
"I like to watch." - Chauncy Gardner
Since this is a nitpicking site how about some nits. This one is actually a lift from the boondocks comic strip. They went through all of the trouble shooting in Latan and Aramic for realism but they cast a white guy as Jesus. He was Jesus of Nazareth, and I'm told that the people of Nazareth have semenic features and are very dark skined.
Another nit is the use of Latin at all. Although the Roman officials might have used it privately among themselves, and may have cussed in it, the lingua franca of the Eastern empire was Greek, and that would have been the language used in the public forums and for conversing with "foreigners" (even "foreigners" more native to the land than they, such as the Jews).
(That's why the New Testament is in Greek.)
The use of Aramaic, on the other hand, was an interesting touch.
Aramaic, not Hebrew was the language of the general populace at the time.
NANJAO, the Mourners Kaddish (the Jewish prayer for the dead) and its derivate (The Hatzi Kaddish) is in Aramaic. All the rest of the common liturgy is in Hebrew.
I felt this movie captured the true suffering of Christ. It didn't sugar-coat it like the movies of the 1950's-1960's did.
Showtime is currently running this film; they seem to have done so every Easter season for the past couple of years. Here's more information.
Mel Gibson is working on his
Sequel to the 2004 film
"The Passion of The Christ"
The 2024 sequel will be Titled
"The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection”
Starring Jim Caviezel as an inexplicably aged Son of God, Donald Trump as God and a bottle of Jose Cuervo Gold as the Holy Spirit
A spirit I can get behind (though there are far better ones).
The god not so much.
I think a better title would have been...
Jesus Christ Beyond Thunderdome!
;-)
And the final movie the trilogy:
Second Coming: This Time it's Personal
Trump would be better as the ruler of the Other Place.
I'd actually want Trump to rule the other place, then the dammned would have a chance to escape.
No chance to escape. There'd be a wall.
Actually a very good chance to escape, Trump could never even get a wall built. Even all the contractors in hell expect to still get paid.
LOL!