The Passion

[artificial_person]

Since I apparently killed this thread I though I would try to resurrect it (pun not originally intended, but once it was noticed I thought it should stay) with this:

www.gospelofjohnthefilm.com/

A new film version of the Gospel of John that actually looks like it might be a decent movie. It's three hours long, word for word from the text of the gospel, narrated by Christopher Plummer. So watch the trailer, then watch the Passion trailer, and compare. This may actually be the more entertaining movie. Wonder why there's been no talk about it? Because it wasn't made by Mel Gibson maybe?

“Mr. Gibson's film is one of two major movies on their way to cinemas this year. Both lay claim to absolute biblical authenticity. The other, produced by an impresario Jew -- Canadian Garth Drabinsky's The Gospel of John -- relied on an advisory board of biblical scholars to tiptoe carefully through the polemics of the Christian New Testament Gospels. The fundamental difference between the two films is that Mr. Drabinsky's John, which had its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, tells viewers they are not watching an account of the historical Jesus but rather a late-first-century narrative -- the Gospel as read by actor Christopher Plummer -- of a new religion trying to fend off theological challenges and state repression.”

a_p

[BDC]

That, and the gospel of John doesn't mention the repentant theif.

[Lissa]

Has anyone else heard the news that the guy playing Jesus was struck by lightning on the set of The Passion?

I'm just not quite sure what to say about that one.

Lissa

[DocD83]

I heard that...I also heard it was the second lightning strike connected with the movie, but they breezed by that one so quick I didn't catch who or what was struck.

Crosses make good lightning rods, I guess.

[Genetic Mishap]

Someone's trying to tell them something, perchance?

Karley- MOSES! MOVE THE BIKE!

[BDC]

Well, this is quiet the necropost, but I wanted to bring it back up since the release date is this week.

I was watching an interview with Gibson on a show called "The World Over," and I got curious how many people actually plan on seeing it. I know I am, but probably not to the 29th. What do you all think of the controversy now?

[DocD83]

I'll probably push this one back to "catch it on video" status, though I am curious to see it.

[Head Mutant]

I was actually going to go see an advance screening today with a projectionist checking the film for tears and whatnot, but they didn't get the print in yet and so I'll have to wait a week until I'm back.

My thoughts on it are these:

(1) I'm interested to see it, on a personal level, to see how (or if) it connects with my faith.

(2) I'm interested to see how biblically accurate it is.

(3) As has been said many times before, there's no surprise there's controversy around it... Jesus himself was pretty controversal in his time, and this has never changed. The largest thing people seem to be pinning on this film is the anti-semite charges, but most reasonable people seem to acknowledge that this isn't the intent or even a message that the film -- and that little book it's based off of -- portrays. If someone's going to see this movie and do something stupid and hateful against Jews because of it, then they're idiots and an idiotic minority -- just like how you can connect the Matrix with school shootings or whatnot.

(4) And as a film critic, I just want to view the movie open and honestly. I'm not reading any advance reviews, and hopefully people believe I'm honest enough that I'll give an honest opinion... and one that doesn't "automatically" like the film just because of the Christian connection. I absolutely hated the Omega Code and quite a few other preachy, condescending (not to mention poorly made) Christian-themed films. On the other hand, I don't want to feel pressured to pick it apart cruelly if it doesn't deserve it, just to prove my authenticity.

So, yeah. We'll see. As Stephen King says about movie adaptions of his novel, if anyone hates the film or thinks it's somehow lessened his work, it hasn't. The book is still on the shelf, there for anyone to read.

[Al]

Like a lot of people, I've been watching the insane hype this film has been getting for the past two weeks: the interview, the specials, the endless newspaper articles that all seem to say the same thing. Not that I'm denying that the film raises issues, but does anyone else get the feeling that the networks are desperately trying to pretend there is a gigantic war over this film? Everything I've seen and everyone I've talked to reaches the same conclusions: (1) It's ludicrous to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus; (2) The film isn't really antisemitic and neither is Mel, but it will likely be twisted to be used in support of existing prejudice groups; (3) Mel Gibson is not his father and does, in fact, believe in the Holocaust.

Again, this is not to undermine the discussions that this film has and will raise, but I keep seeing people on TV who are supposed to be staunchly against this film, yet none of them seem to actually hold the 'The Passion is evil' position that I think the networks are hoping for. Is there some wing of Judaism that is truly up in arms and dead-set against the movie that I've simply missed? Just curious if anyone agrees with me or can shed some light on where I'm wrong.

Al

EDIT: Just to answer BDC's question: I'm definitely seeing it, hopefully opening weekend.

[DocD83]

I agree with you on your first conclusion (I havn't seen the movie and I know nothing about Mel, so I don't know about parts 2 and 3).

I saw a report on some cable news channel (either CNNHL or Fox News, most likely) where they had several people REALLY up in arms over it, saying how it'll destroy society and cause another halocaust blah blah blah (ok so that's an exaggeration, but not by much). The trouble being the guys who had a problem with it didn't see the movie, but everyone they interviewed for the "it's not that bad" camp had seen it. So while there are a bunch of people upset about it, if I were you I'd hold them on the reliability level of conspiracy theorists.

[BDC]

I agree. The media seems to be trying to find some pissed off people, and as Justin said, they're an inanely small minority. The ADL condemned the movie without even seeing it. What does that tell you? To me it says that they don't know what they're talking about it.

Another question to raise is why does the media care? I think it boils down to the fact that this film may very well ring true with the majority of America (man did what I just wrote have some sidestep words or what) and if they can possibly try to make people mad about Jesus, they get more publicity.

Gibson in an interview said that people that go into the movie looking for anti-semitism really don't get what's going on. They're offended. Guess what, you don't have the right not to be offended. There are a few other things that get me. First off, the ADL said it MIGHT POSSIBLY lead to anti-semitic sentiment. I'm glad they were so adamant on their position. Second, have you noticed how often the accusations of anti-semitism are echoed? Almost like the Big Lie, but then, that's a nazi thing, right?

The other group raising a stink was apparently the historical biblical scholars that got on Gibson's case. According to the interview I saw, they stole a copy of his script then published in big papers how it should be changed, and to quote them, "or else." Great, I'm glad all three of them have that kind of power.

Sorry, I can't wait to see this movie, but so many people frustrate me I just wanted to air this out.

I'm going to go see it and I expect it purely for what it is: a spiritual movie. Anyone expecting anything else or wanting anything else need not apply.

[Lissa]

I'm actually starting to get incredibly sick of hearing about this in the news, but hey, at least it's something positive.

My two big thoughts:

1.) I'm very, very sick of the blaming Jews for the death of Jesus thing, because, well, the Jewish people in the area at the time DID call for the death of Jesus. Sorry, that's the way it happened. It doesn't mean that every Jewish person ever to walk the Earth approves of that- and heck, I'll bet once the bloodlust and mob mentality that can affect every freaking race on this planet faded, a lot of them regretted the way things worked out, too. I know that some terrible things have happened to the Jewish people, and I respect that, but that doesn't mean that no Jewish person anywhere at any time didn't do anything wrong. A group of people at the time are portrayed as doing something non-saintly does NOT constitute as an attack on an entire religion. Sorry, but without seeing the movie, the anti-semintism sentiment is getting NO support from me whatsoever.

2.) The Biblical accuracy thing. I'm tired of hearing about that one too, because let's face it, the Bible's pretty short on words. After seeing The Prince of Egypt I went back and reread the story of Moses, and man, if you tried to make a story out of that and be 100% faithful, you'd have a very, very short movie. I think more the point of the movie is what it felt like to be Moses, or those around him at that time. Same thing with The Passion. As long as Jesus isn't strutting around with Rufus there and calling his apostles "The Boyz" and taking communion with cookies, I'm not going to care so much about the details. I think more the point of a movie like this is, again, what it was really like to be there.

Something else I noticed when I did Molokai- a movie where there is less lisence taken is just a little more boring. Molokai seemed very disjointed and documentary-ish in spots, and it took me a while to really get into Father Damien's character, because they kept you at arm's length. I'm all in favor of a little artistic liscence... as long as Danny Walker and Rafe McCawly aren't flying planes at Pearl Harbor

Definitely going to see it, although I admit I'm terrified about it, because I don't do too well with graphic violence. I had to leave the room at the beginning of The Last Temptation of Christ because of that first crucifixtion scene- it's just such a brutal, cruel method of death. (And I really wonder who was sick enough to come up with it.)

That's my thoughts. Sorry so cranky!
Liss

[Magill]

Well, I'll be on the dissenting side. I have no particular interest in seeing this movie. It's not that I'm not spiritual or not Christian (though I have fallen away a bit from my Catholic faith, for reasons that are personal), but I just don't feel any desire to see it. After years of reading the Bible and going to Stations, I have a pretty firm idea of just what Jesus went through. In looking at previews, I don't see much that interests me cinematically. I also think Mel Gibson's directing hit a high point at Braveheart and has been falling since.

I'll admit that the cynic in me has some reservations about Mel Gibson's motives in making this film. And although I haven't seen it, I wouldn't toss out the concerns of people who are afraid of an anti-Semetic message so lightly. I'm sure as we all know, there are plenty of people who use religion as a justification for some pretty hateful beliefs. I know I've been told by some of them that the Jews deserve our hatred because they killed Christ. If this movie is as anti-Semetic as some people claim, I could definitely see some of them who see this as further justification for their contempt of Jews. Especially if it is Biblically accurate in other ways (as in, "they were right about this, so this other viewpoint must also be correct.")

I've also read another thing that disturbs me. Again, I haven't seen it yet, so it's based on hearsay. Evidently, Herrod (who most definitely was not gay) is portrayed as a homosexual. Herrod was also a pretty evil dude. If this is so, and Gibson is using "gay" as shorthand for "evil," that disturbs me as well.

And this isn't about the film per se, but I also get sick of my fellow Christians using this as an example of how much they're persecuted in the US. The US still has a Christian majority, and if they think they're being persecuted now, why don't they talk to their forebears who were getting tossed to the lions? While I'm sure one of the reasons Mel Gibson did this was because the message is close to his heart, the only reason a studio released it is because they thought it would make money. So let's not declare Mel a saint just yet.

[DocD83]

The US still has a Christian majority, and if they think they're being persecuted now, why don't they talk to their forebears who were getting tossed to the lions?

I've not heard anyone claim The Passion as an example of how they're being persecuted (I don't doubt some do but I probably just missed it); however, you do not need to be slaughtered or tortured to be persecuted. Take for example blacks and women in America--I doubt any of the vocal people in those groups today have seen the business end of a whip, and I can bet most of them make over 40 times what I do, but are you going to whine to them to shut up about slavery and pay inequalities? I doubt it.

[Magill]

I was using hyperbole, and what I was trying to get across (badly, I might add) is that I've read some comments in which people use some of the protests about this film (mostly about secondary messages, not the fact that it's a Christian film) as "proof" that Christians are a persecuted group in the US. Which I believe is false.

1)I don't think objections about possible anti-Semitism in this movie mean people object to the followers of Christ.

2)I don't think Christians are persecuted in this country, considering

3)The majority of people in the US (including many political figures with quite a bit of influence) identify as Christians.

I don't see blacks or women as having analogous situations, because while women may technically have a majority in numbers, they're definitely in the minority when it comes to positions of power and influence. Ditto for blacks, with the added fact that they're a minority. Also, you can tell a woman or black person based on purely visual inspection, and unless a Christian is wearing a big cross (and even then, you might not be sure) or sporting lots of Jesus fish, you can't tell them from a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or agnostic.

I just wanted to add that I'm not trying to start a religious flamewar. I just wanted to present a different viewpoint. Email me or send me a message if you would like to further discuss this off line.