The Passion

[Head Mutant]

My feelings on taking kids to see it is that if they're younger than high school, they should go with their parents (if at all), but I'll take high schoolers if they give me a signed permission slip from a parent saying it's okay.

Like I tell my kids, the Bible isn't a PG book, full of sunshine and rainbows. It's a real depiction of how evil the world is, how fallen it's become, and it doesn't lie to us and say it's not. Personally, I'm more inclined to listen to it when it says "The world is a bad place, this is why it's bad... but, there's hope, because God hasn't washed his hands of us yet." instead of "Well, the world's a basically okay place and humanity will eventually perfect itself and then we'll be on board the Starship Enterprise." line of thinking. Gimme the hard truth over the easy lie any day.

[Magill]

Uber said:

Just a note: according to his IMDB listing, this is actually the first movie Mel's directed since Braveheart.

Doh! Me and my self-proclaimed nitpicker status have just gone up in flames. For some reason I thought he directed The Patriot.

If I really wanted to be mean, I could say my opinion stands, but as I haven't seen his latest directorial effort, I'll keep my mouth shut (at least in that regard).

[Hucklebubba]

I'm going to derail again, because I showed up late.

druidGirl said:

Second, 40 times? I doubt it.

I think we've fairly well established that hyperbole is bad, and wrong. Badong, even.

Let me be relatively short-winded, and just say that the reevaluation of the traditional family structure is a classic example of fixing something that isn't broken. However, seeing as how I'm a guy, I'll admit my perspective may be somewhat skewed on this issue.

Good gravy. This, combined with my thread in the TV section means I'm well on my way to making the Fat White Conservative stereotype into an actual law.

[Magill]

Hucklebubba said:

Let me be relatively short-winded, and just say that the reevaluation of the traditional family structure is a classic example of fixing something that isn't broken. However, seeing as how I'm a guy, I'll admit my perspective may be somewhat skewed on this issue.

All I'm going to say on this one is, what's "the traditional family structure"? It's changed through history. Only in the last 50-75 years have we really had a nuclear family only, in which the father leaves the house to work and the mother stays home alone with the kids. Before that, you had big extended farm families, where both parents essentially stayed at home with the kids. Different cultures have different family structures. Looking at the Bible, what about the polygamist pastoral lifestyle of the great patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac--though he only had one wife, and Jacob)? Those are obviously different than the way people live now.

[Hucklebubba]

Yeah, I should've been more specific. Perhaps eschewing "traditional" for "present" in my wordage. Or maybe "A few years back."

[BDC]

Lissa said:

Okay- new vent.

My favorite quote:

"It looks scary!" the 13-year-old from East Windsor, N.J., says of the film that has some wondering if it's too graphic and violent for young people.

I'm fine with the girl, and quite agree with her, to be honest. But the people wondering if it's too graphic and violent for young people? Um, hello!! Not only is it about a crucifixtion, which is just a nasty way to die, it's RATED R. FOR A REASON. Sheesh.

Just wanted to do a followup for Lissa on this one, at least from my perspective.

Did people ever wonder why Jesus was put on a cross at the time he was? The Persians originally came up with crucifixition. The electric chair is a harsh way to go.

Simply put, the scourging and Roman crucifixtion is pretty much one of the absolute nastiest (intentional) ways to go throughout human history. You had huge spikes driven through major nerve centers in your extremities. You were scrouged with a cat o' nine tails which would, according to Roman accounts, leave your muscle and organs bare. You were hung on a rough, splintery cross after dehydrating for most of a day (especially in Israel) and to top it off, you died of suffocation. Either your lungs filled with fluid or if you didn't die fast enough, Romans came by to break your shins so that you couldn't push down on the nails in your feet to breathe.

Does that sound like the relatively calm, bloodless crucifixtion scenes you see in many movies? I'll admit, watching the Passion is going to rip my heart out and I'm glad it will, because no matter what, I never can imagine that kind of pain. Actually SEEING a fairly accurate representation of sacrifice is going to make it far more real to me.

Oh, wait, back to the point. Sorry about that tangent-agraph there. No, this is not a pleasent movie. Like Justin said, the most real parts of the Good Book are the harsh ones. It seems that if the word Christian is associated with something, people label it a happy go lucky kind of thing. I wish these people would open their eyes and take this seriously.

Side note: guy that lives down the hall from me referred to Gibson as a "christian that wants to be a scientologist." ARGH.

[Magill]

Going along with what you said, BDC, the NY Times had an interesting op-ed piece (sorry, registration required).

Basically, the author is of the opinion that many Christians today have forgotten the suffering that Jesus had to undergo. He talks about how most Protestant churches have a cross, but no crucifix (not being a Protestant myself, I've read that it's because they prefer to reflect on the resurrection rather than the crucifixion. I could be wrong). He also says that while Catholics still do Stations of the Cross during Lent (which starts at Pilate sentencing Jesus to death and ends with his burial), that "even Catholics have muted the ancient tradition of fast and abstinence that commemorated the Passion of Jesus."

It was an interesting perspective.

[DocD83]

not being a Protestant myself, I've read that it's because they prefer to reflect on the resurrection rather than the crucifixion. I could be wrong

That's right, at least as far as anyone has ever told me. It could also be a general desire to avoid idol worship. I know a lot of protestants are non-Catholic because of the high emphasis Catholocism seems to place on shrines, saints, and Mary.

[Magill]

I know you aren't calling Catholics idolators or polytheists, but those are common misconceptions. As far as praying to saints or Mary goes, the way I had it explained to me was this way: say you want to talk to someone important, and maybe ask them for a favor. In addition to talking to that person themselves, you could also go to one of their close friends and ask them to help you out. That's what praying to saints is like. It's never intended to replace praying to God.

Mary has a unique place in Catholic theology because they believe she was the first person to be born without original sin. This is what the Immaculate Conception refers to, not her conceiving Jesus (that's the Virgin Birth). I will admit that there are some Catholics whose devotion to Mary does veer a bit towards outright worship, but that is definitely not okay dogmatically.

As for shrines and statues and all that, I'd have to look up some catechism on that, but I believe they're just intended as aids to worship. I know that one of the origins behind stained glass windows, in addition to decoration, was back when Mass was still conducted in Latin, a lot of people didn't speak it. The windows were another medium to teach important stories and doctrines.

[BDC]

Or perhaps examples of people that have done really good stuff?

Sorry, I was raised baptist and consider myself non-denominational right now. If that makes any sense. Former roommate was Catholic, though, and that's pretty much how he explained it.

BTW: It is FRIGGIN' IMPOSSIBLE to get through to the ticket office today!

[PoolMan]

BDC said:

BTW: It is FRIGGIN' IMPOSSIBLE to get through to the ticket office today!

Well, good to know the hype machine still works.

[Al]

/\ Mini-Review /\
Thar Be Spoilers Below, But Nothing Too Bad. Really.

Well, I just got back from the 8pm show slightly dazed - this is the most violent movie I have ever seen. It's not necessarily a detriment, just the simple truth - from start to finish, it's (as the title implies) about the suffering of Jesus. And be He man or God or both, he certainly did suffer.

BDC wrote a few posts back "I can never imagine that kind of pain," and any plot The Passion of The Christ has is pushed to the wayside in favor of showing exactly what a heinous torture crucifixion was, and hopefully bringing the audience as close as they will ever come to experiencing it. It's almost like a really well shot documentary of gospels of Luke and John, just a sequence of increasingly violent events (some glossed over, some dwelled upon) leading up to it's inevitable end.

A coworker of mine mentioned a week or so ago that the crucifix in Church makes Jesus look like he's only sleeping, and that's a misconception Mel Gibson clearly has decided to change. Whether or not he succeeded in bringing this unbridled agony to the screen is not a question: he set out to display Jesus' suffering in all it's horror and glory, and he did it. No doubt. Whether it will have the effect on people he intended is to be seen - I think the bareness of the plot makes it a very personal film for each individual person. At least that's what I gathered from the friends I saw it with - some were religious, some agnostic, one actually tends to mock God and make fun of religion pretty regularly - and the film had visceral effect on all of us similarly, yet with definitely differences. For me, I know it made me think maybe I should go back to Church this weekend instead of getting there again "one of these days when I wake up early enough."

To the credit of the films detractors, I think it does indeed portray the Jews as the people who killed Christ, but as Lissa posted a few days back, that *is* the way it happened. I don't think they are portrayed in a completely negative light, and I do think that it takes a conscious effort on the part of the moviegoer to transfer said blame to the Jewish community of two thousand years later.

My only other note (not a complaint, but a note) is that this is obviously not a film that includes too many smiles, and I didn't expect too many, but the picture's mood moves from 'serious' down to 'depressing' (to say the least) without every really spiking to the other side of the emotional spectrum. At least Jesus Christ Superstar has a spirit of joy to it. But that's not the film Mel set out to make and he's said as much from day one, so I can't fault him. Like I said, not so much a complaint as a notation.

So, overall, I enjoyed it as much as one can enjoy a picture of this kind, and I think public response will be interesting. I recommend people go see it, as long as they know what kind of film they are walking into. It's dark, it's brutal, and I'm probably going to see it again tomorrow night.

Al
-Wow. That didn't turn out quite so mini, did it?

[druidGirl]

On the news last night, they reported that a woman got so upset watching the violence, she had a heart attack in the theater and died at the hospital.

Crazy, man.

"I want a disclaimer 'Those with a heart condition MUST leave the room.' You can't buy publicity like this!"

[Magill]

So, Al, is Herod even a character in The Passion (upthread, I had repeated something I had heard about him being portrayed as gay)? I was a bit worried about posting that, as I didn't see a character named Herod in the IMDB listing.

[Genetic Mishap]

druidGirl said:

On the news last night, they reported that a woman got so upset watching the violence, she had a heart attack in the theater and died at the hospital.

Crazy, man.

"I want a disclaimer 'Those with a heart condition MUST leave the room.' You can't buy publicity like this!"

Between this and the two cast members getting struck by lightening, the religiously inclined have to wonder...