---

Posted by arcticsunburn on 03-01-2004 at12:54:

 

I second the montion of what many of you are saying.

- I felt the russurection was too short.
- It was weird that people were bringing in popcorn and coke to watch Jesus' death (more so than often if I may say so).
- For people not familiar with the torture that Jesus went through, it is something everyone should experience. I personally felt that I had already walked every step of the way, but it was still a good reminder.
- And, as wes said, it was "art."

Interestingly enough though, two days after seeing it I got a chance to talk to an "unsaved" co-worker. The discussion didn't last long, but there was one interesting remark that stuck out in my mind: "I don't think people should have to pay to see this."

---

Posted by Mark on 03-02-2004 at20:40:

 

I saw this movie at 10:15 am. I liked it. I also liked that it was in the original languages.

I, too, came away with more feelings from Mary's point of view. I think I've heard others say this. In other words, I was looking at Jesus' death as though I were the parent. Man oh Man, I don't think I could stand there and watch my child die.

Of course I had the normal reaction of why did God actually do this for me? With that kind of torture, I would not have even been conscious.

Anyway I am going to see it again Sunday with my wife.

---

Posted by carl on 03-03-2004 at08:05:

quote:

Originally posted by zippetydoodaddy Try this TST lyric on for size. It always gets me for some reason. You've been a wide-eyed innocent Come to the garden, come to the hill Come to the tree, come to the kill Won't break your bones, but it can break your will You're too afraid of hurting Been playing cover-up Expose yourself to dying And in this real world, it is your calling

Heck, I'm gonna go for the full-length treatise. Zoom Daddy.

Saw it last night. Still processing. But since a couple immediate impressions haven't been mentioned, I'll mention them:

1) I think what struck me most, aside from "he did it for me," was how there was this vision of the powers-that-be on one side and the mindless mob on the other, both calling for his crucifixion. And in the middle are these characters who come and go but all in some way protest the wrongness of it all and/or try to comfort Jesus in some way. "What you did for the least of my brethren you've done unto me." That oughta be us. We can just as easily be the disciples, who mostly fled for their lives at "crunch time." And often are.

2) In terms of the violence, the only "gratuitous" scene was the bridge, Everything else belonged, whether we wanted to see it or not (I'm going to assume Mel did his homework and that the preliminary beating with the stick was conventional back then; the cat-of-nine-tails I saw coming). I MADE myself look.

3) Yeah, the resurrection could have been longer. Although if I'd known whether, during the first minute or so, whether the tomb was opening or closing, I'd've probably had time to appreciate it more.

4) Sort of back to #1 -- I was VERY impressed with the character/development of Simon of Cyrene, how he goes from someone who doesn't want to be involved/get inadvertently crucified himself to someone who gradually realizes what's really taking place here. The image of his arm over Jesus' arm as they carry the cross together, and the moment outside the gate where Jesus falls again and he pulls him up and says something to the effect of "We're almost there." Outside of the crucifixion scene, that was the one moment I cried.

---

Posted by zippetydoodaddy on 03-03-2004 at09:18:

 

Great points, big C. I was also impressed by the silent exchanges between certain bystanders and Jesus. Throughout the movie, in the midst of some important exchange, there'd be some inconsequential wallflower who would share a look with Jesus. Sometimes they seemed like someone Jesus had known before or had healed and Jesus was giving them a silent rebuke for just standing by while he was tortured. Other times it seemed that they knew him not, but He somehow spoke to them for the first time, calling their soul and attention to him. It was very haunting to me that some could see Him for who He was and others only saw the activity.

But my over-all favorite image was the rain drop/tear of God that started the earthquake! I'd explain it, but it's far more powerful seen than described.

Someone pointed out to me that the rain drop perspective was echoed in the devil's abyss perspective. I hadn't noticed it but I'll look for it when I see it again.

-zimp

---

Posted by PuP on 03-05-2004 at22:16:

 

Finally saw "The Passion" tonight. And wouldn't you know, Zippy infected me with "The Twist". When Mary is asking herself when and how Jesus will choose to end this, up pops "you always knew the price was sacrifice" in my head. And when what's-his-name is helping Jesus with the cross and he looks at Jesus (really looks at him for the first time), sure enough there's "look me in the face, at least what's left of it."

Thanks for pointing that out, Howdydoody'sdaddy. I won't look at that song the same way again.

FWIW, this is an excellent movie. See it if you haven't yet.

---

Posted by PuP on 03-05-2004 at22:19:

 

Oh, did anyone else notice how Jesus' blood got on everybody? Roman soldiers, Mary, passers-by in the crowd. It seemed like just about everybody got splattered by his blood or went out of their way to touch his blood. It drove home for me how he shed his blood as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, not just one group of people.

---

Posted by Squidzit on 03-05-2004 at22:19:

 

Hey PuP. Can ya come and baby sit while my wife and I go see the movie!

---

Posted by PuP on 03-05-2004 at22:26:

 

That's right, you wouldn't have a babysitter yet! You wanna see the movie in Bucyrus?

---

Posted by Squidzit on 03-05-2004 at22:37:



That's what? And hour an a half drive?

I'll wait for the dvd, thanks anyway.

---

Posted by PuP on 03-06-2004 at00:46:

 

Ah, fergit it Squid.

No matter how good the movie is...

...the Book is still better.

---

Posted by Joey T. on 03-06-2004 at00:51:

quote:

Originally posted by PuP Ah, fergit it Squid. No matter how good the movie is... ...the Book is still better.

i know it was a cheezy ccm song, but "don't wait for the movie, read the Book!" )

















although i am one of the few who still hasn't seen the movie and i want to......

---

Posted by Vox Robotica on 03-06-2004 at02:05:

 

I saw it the day after it came out, and I couldn't get "Every Mother's Way" by Adam Again out of my head.

It was a good film, but felt sorta let down that the resurrection scene was 30 seconds long.

~ Vox

---

Posted by PuP on 03-06-2004 at08:28:

 

I've heard a lot of people say that about the resurrection. I don't feel that way at all. I guess because it's titled "The Passion of the Christ" and not "The Passion and Resurrection of the Christ" I wasn't really expecting much after the cross. I really don't think Mel intended or needed to tell the whole story. Let the Church do that.

---

Posted by audiori on 03-06-2004 at11:20:

 

We saw an interveiw with Mel and the person asked him
what he would work on next... he said there are a lot
of good stories in the Bible.

I took this film as I said before as "the suffering of Christ",
the tiny resurrection scene I took as a wink that there is more
to the story...

I do wonder if non-believers will catch that when he said he would
tear down the temple and build it back in three days that he was
talking about his body..? The pharasee didn't catch it... they mentioned
it... I kinda think thats why the one resurrection scene is there
to show the things they said he said were true..not just mad talk
or blasphemy. He said he would raise the temple in three days
and he did, he said his kingdom was not of earth and it wasn't,
he said he was the son of God and he was, etc.

I read an article in the paper yesterday about how much the film
is anti-jewish. I think that is sooooo ridiculous, yes the crowd that
yelled out "crucify him!" were jewish, but so was Jesus, his Mother,
the disciples, probably 90% of his followers and most people that
didn't want him crucified. It's not as if 100% of the jewish population
was against him, basically it was just the religious leaders and those they
had influence over. Christians see that.

I also saw someone complain that the Romans were portrayed as
mindless brutes. 98% of the Romans you see in the film are Roman
centurians who were basically mindless brutes. They were trained
to be soldiers from the time they were very small children, pretty much all
they knew was war. Pilate himself was an awful person, crucified
many, many people at the time. In fact thats why he said he was
in trouble with Ceasar, because he was killing too many and it was
causing outrage. I think the only thing you see in this film about
Pilate is not that he was a good man, but he didn't understand
why the jewish leaders wanted to kill one of their own wrongly.
He still went through with it, but was uneasy about having an
innocent man like Jesus die on his hands. As warped as he was,
I think he probably saw himself as a just ruler. That the crucifictions
he carried out were right. Saddam claimed he was a just ruler too,
and in his own mind he probably does see what he has done as justice.
Pilate even when he crucified thieves, thought that was justice after
all they were thieves. But an innocent man? That was not justice
even in his warped head.

Most of the criticisms I've seen have been outrageous over the
top or just by people who don't know the story well enough
to know what they are talking about.

Watch the movie then read the Gospels, or read the Gospels
and then watch the movie. The story is pretty close, yes it's an
artistic visual representation of the story. But how do you make
a visual representation of text without being artistic or using graphics
to display it?

That article in the paper also said that only three of the Gospels
say that Christ was scourged, so why not tell the story the way
the fourth Gospel did? Stupid. Three out of four Gospels recommend
telling it with the scourged part in.

---

Posted by DrDanAmos on 03-06-2004 at14:57:

 

I saw this movie and thought it was a very moving experience, and I am thrilled that so many people are seeing this. Granted, the majority of them that see this will walk away with out making any commitments to Christ, and in some ways I think that's sad. I truly hope that if anybody sees this who is not in Church and becomes interested in Church, that God leads them to the right people to guide them. But there are so many comments that just bother me, comments like this is just another movie, no different from something like Freddy Vs. Jason or whatever. But the Bible says everybody knows by instinct the truth and they will have no excuse in the end. As glad as I am in seeing this, I am also disheartened that so many are choosing to take the side that it's just a movie and treat it so glibly. I guess we can only do what Jesus would want us to do, and that's simply pray for those people.

---

Posted by DwDunphy on 03-07-2004 at19:02:

  A thought

I'm a supporter of this film, but over the past couple of days I've been feeling pretty ambivalent about it, sorry to say.

I wasn't worried that people would see "The Passion" and suddenly get caught up in a wave of anti-semitism. I was mostly worried that they would become so involved with the movie that it would start becoming a religion itself.

Looking at it from either side, as a brutal, one-sided argument or as a means to reconnect believers with the crux of their faith, it's still a movie. But there are sunday school classes going on "field trips" to multiplexes for this. There are study guides and tchochkes being produced parallel to this, CBS collectables much like any other movie merchandising, and it really just makes me confused.

It's still a movie. If anyone seriously was looking for Biblical truth, maybe they should try cracking open a Bible? For anyone to say that a movie about Christ is beyond reproach and criticism is to abandon all reason. Faith has nothing to do with materialism or celluloid. Art is only valid if it provokes thought and conversation. Like it or hate it, this movie has done both but it is, by no means, a tract.

I appreciate the intention and I think it carries it off in a bold and startling way... But it saddens me that people aren't taking it back to their faith and, instead, are defending a movie as if it were solely the cause of Christ.

One of the commandments: do not erect false idols. Sadly, there are a lot of people out there who are doing just that with this film.

I think I'm just cranky today.
DwD

---

Posted by audiori on 03-07-2004 at20:09:

 

I don't know, it's not the film that is my focal point. It's Christ,
I see what Christ did through the film and I think the emphasis
should be on that. How it reached your heart, the story in a visual
representation.

I am well aware there are flaws with the film, if I told the story
of Jesus I would get some things wrong or leave some points
out myself. But we are still supposed to share the Gospel.
Mel Gibson is sharing an integral portion of the gospel with thousands
of people.

I would equate the films criticisms as this; Lets say you wanted to share
the Gospel with some people in another country and the only means
you had was to write a letter. So you wrote the best, thought provoking
letter you possibly could. Trying to capture the subtle nuances and
importance of the Gospel with them. And they responded by attacking
things your father stood for, your grammar, what your motives were
for writing it, any slight techinical error in your translation, etc.

Their focus should be on the Gospel. The people that understood
your letter and the importance of what it was relaying might hold
copies of the letter with importance, not that the letter itself is
important. But if it is what brought them to Christ, it would mean
something to them. The people that got hung up on the technicalities
would be missing the point, which would be really sad.

This film is a graphic veiw into Christs suffering, it does that well.
When I saw it I let that speak to me, my thoughts went back to the text,
what I already knew and visualized that. I came away with a better
respect for what Christ went through, not a better respect for the film
perse. The film itself is not sacred, but the story is. I think the
people that get hung up on the grammar, the technicalities, the
stories about Gibson, etc are actually more hung up on the fact
that it's a film than those that just go see it and let the images
speak to them about what they already believe. They are missing
the point and that again is sad.

---

Posted by DwDunphy on 03-07-2004 at20:24:

  My appreciation

I appreciate mostly that the movie is serious. It is unflinching and not a watered-down consideration of the occurrence. Today I defended the use of the subtitles, stating it was a way of really identifying this with ancient times, and that for myself, having Jesus speak with a clean Californian accent would have taken me out of the film.

I wish that such thoughtful depictions of Biblical account were standard fare in movies. I mean, there's a lot of story in the Bible... But for now, this is quite an achievement.

And for me it goes back to, what I have to believe is the main statement of the film... This man went through hell on earth for me. Look at the effect of my sin. Get in touch with the reality of my own faith and would I have stood up and stayed up under the same circumstances? Isn't it then my calling to take my place alongside Jesus in that infamous perp walk, cross and all?

And these are thoughts that should drive people back to the Word. But the side profiteering of t-shirt designs and moreover that Prayer of Jabez-like, WWJD-like guidebook to the lessons of the movie irk me to no end...

I ask myself what my thought process is, then. Am I afraid the film is moving eyes away from God and toward a silver screen replica in stead, or is it deeper and somehow I'm trying to keep my God in a box, getting antsy that He's busting out? I need to really get in touch with what my motivation really is, I think...

DwD

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 03-07-2004 at20:36:

  RE: A thought

quote:

Originally posted by DwDunphy I'm a supporter of this film, but over the past couple of days I've been feeling pretty ambivalent about it, sorry to say. I wasn't worried that people would see "The Passion" and suddenly get caught up in a wave of anti-semitism. I was mostly worried that they would become so involved with the movie that it would start becoming a religion itself. Looking at it from either side, as a brutal, one-sided argument or as a means to reconnect believers with the crux of their faith, it's still a movie. But there are sunday school classes going on "field trips" to multiplexes for this. There are study guides and tchochkes being produced parallel to this, CBS collectables much like any other movie merchandising, and it really just makes me confused. It's still a movie. If anyone seriously was looking for Biblical truth, maybe they should try cracking open a Bible? For anyone to say that a movie about Christ is beyond reproach and criticism is to abandon all reason. Faith has nothing to do with materialism or celluloid. Art is only valid if it provokes thought and conversation. Like it or hate it, this movie has done both but it is, by no means, a tract. I appreciate the intention and I think it carries it off in a bold and startling way... But it saddens me that people aren't taking it back to their faith and, instead, are defending a movie as if it were solely the cause of Christ. One of the commandments: do not erect false idols. Sadly, there are a lot of people out there who are doing just that with this film. I think I'm just cranky today. DwD

WOW!!! You said exactly what I have been thinking and afraid to say. Over the last few days, I have been feeling, maybe even being convicted that I should not see this movie. I can't put my finger on what it is but it bothers me to no end. I can't even explain it to people. I love that "open the bible" kind of thing. Seek and you shall find. We don't need a fast food version of Christ's death to make us get emotional and carried away. We need something real and I don't think mel gibson or any other movie producer has that to offer.

---

Posted by audiori on 03-07-2004 at22:04:

 

I agree in that I don't like the 'commercializing' of the Gospel.
But that is done pretty much anyway, there are those T-shirts
with slogans. And there is 'Bibleman' and a lot of other crap out
there.

Concerning this film, I went to see it for me. What it would mean
to me, and what I would get out of it. Period. The film is really,
really good. It is very visual, it does make you think. I am far
from an emotional person, but my thoughts of Christ the movie
inspired did at times affect my emotions. But, beyond that
it made me see with a clearer picture how the world is influenced
by satan's suggestions. Not that I didn't know that before,
but seeing it from this particular perspective was good.

It's the same with Christian music or anything else... I listen to it
for what I get out of it. I am irritated by the 'commercial' aspect of
a lot of CCM, but that doesn't stop me from listening to the artists
I do like. Or getting something from their music or interpretations.