The Passion

[Jade]

Hello everyone,
I went to see The Passion last night. I went with my best friend at a seven o'clock showing.

I am a Christian (Seventh Day Adventist) and I've known this movie was coming out for a while. My church is supporting the film and it's this huge whitness project. My church has been encouraging us to bring people we know who are not Christians. I thought, at the time, that this didn't quite seem like a great way to convert people. My thoughts were confirmed after seeing the film last night.

The following may be considered as *SPOILERS*

I really didn't want to see this movie, because I knew it would be two and a half hours of humanity at it's worst, brutally destroying an innocent human being. As a Christian I've heard sermons, seen movies, read the gospels -- all of which depict Christ's death. I know it's horrible, but there's an enormous difference that seems so obvious, yet it never occured to me how much I have intellectualized Jesus' sacrifice. It's one thing to sit and hear a sermon, imagine how horrible it must have been and then go out to eat with your family after church. It is entirely different to sit for two and a half hours and watch it. You can't escape the pain and suffering it's all there, it doesn't go away, you can't just think about something else.

When I exited the theatre the pentacostal church group that was hosting was greeting everyone as they came out of the film in their bright red "Passion" T-shirts saying, "Did you enjoy the film?" By the end of it I was so exhausted and emotionally numb I said, "no, there wasn't much to be enjoyed." He looked eager to change my mind so I could be saved, so I added, "I mean, I appreciate what Jesus did, I just didn't enjoy watching him be tortured and then killed."
"So you've accepted Christ?"
"Yes."
"Good."
"God bless you."
I walked away after saying that.
Today people asked me, if I didn't like it why did I go see it? I didn't have a good answer until my little sister asked me. And then it hit me. If I had lived during Christ's time and had been one of his followers, nothing could have kept me from trying to be near him while he was dying.

That's my long winded experience of The Passion. It's really nice to have a message board where I feel I can speak freely about my faith. God bless.

-Jade

Just as a side note, when I went there were at least 12 kids under the age of 10 in my theatre, including a two year old about three rows from the front. Please, don't take your kids to this, get a babysitter, if I live near you I'll do it for free. Just ask.

[Lissa]

Jade, if I had seen someone asking me "Did you enjoy the film?" as I came out of a movie like that, I suspect I would have smacked them! You have a heck of a lot more patience than I do!

I haven't seen it yet (no time, no ticket, and anyway, I refuse to see it at night), but I remember walking out of Black Hawk Down and saying "That was really good. I can't say I enjoyed it, but it was good." Some movies just aren't meant to be enjoyed

And I told my junior high girls about a couple cast members (including the guy who plays Jesus) getting hit by lightning. Once they actually believed me, they all agreed they'd be handing in their resignation so fast, Mel's head would be spinning.

Liss

[DocD83]

Who was the other guy who was struck?

[BDC]

Struck by lightning yes. Hurt at all? Nope.

[druidGirl]

My church has been encouraging us to bring people we know who are not Christians. I thought, at the time, that this didn't quite seem like a great way to convert people. My thoughts were confirmed after seeing the film last night.

Yeah, I don't get that either. I'm not a Christian, and there's nothing a movie is going to be able to do to convert me to Christianity, but really if you're attempting to convert people, perhaps showing them torture isn't the way to go. I think you'd be a lot more successful to show people a movie about the love, compassion, and teachings of Jesus than you know, beatings, and nails being hammered into hands, and such.

And why is it, in this country, that people feel comfortable showing their children a person being brutally tortured for two hours, but their heads practically explode when a not-completely-nude boob makes it into the Half Time Show? 'Cause I have the feeling that the people bring their 3 and 5 and 8 year-olds to this theater were the people offended by that whole Janet thing. I just have a real problem with people who are all about protecting their kids "innocence" by freaking out if a kids sees a part of the human body, but uncensored violence to A-okay!

"No Timmy, we can't go to the beach because you might be exposed to too much flesh, but jump in the car kids we're going to the slaughter house!"

I don't know, if I had to choose between say my 10 year old son looking at a naked woman, or watching someone get tortured, I'd go with the naked woman.

[DocD83]

really if you're attempting to convert people, perhaps showing them torture isn't the way to go. I think you'd be a lot more successful to show people a movie about the love, compassion, and teachings of Jesus than you know, beatings, and nails being hammered into hands, and such.

There is a certain logic to it, for some circumstances. A surprisingly large number of people think Christianity is just cheesy songs, passing the collection plate, and wandering around in a delusional wonderland where everything is good and happy and no one is responsibe for their actions. Well there are cheesy songs, and the collection plate is common enough (though I never quite got into it--my hometown church didn't use one), but the third point is way off. Christianity is at its core a system of responsibility, and some people might benefit from seing both that and the serious side of the familiar old stories.

And your post reminded me of how my parents let me watch all four blood-soaked hours of Gettysburg (I was 10, maybe 11) but not one minute of Robocop. Because apparently violence that never really happened is more damaging to my tiny little mind than a triple dose of violence that cost tens of thousands of lives.

Wonderful parents I have.

[Jade]

Lissa,

I was so exhausted by the end of the movie, I didn't have the strength. After the movie ended I had a little post-movie lump in my throat so I wasn't quite in combat mode.

Before the movie I did ask a couple with four kids in front of me what movie their children were going to:) Yes, I am a passive agressive ass sometimes.

I totally agree with Druigirl. It is way worse to see this kind of violence then some nudity. Not to mention the hypocracy involved with the same people angry about Kill Bill, who are now praising this film.

-Jade

(still haven't had the guts to watch Black Hawk Down... patriotism gets to me even more than the religious stuff)

[Al]

Magill said:

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.

He is indeed there and he could certainly be construed as gay or least a drag queen. However, the whole 'Palace of Herod' sequence is meant to be loud, gaudy, dizzying, and as sickeningly and flamboyantly decadent as possible, and Herod as he is protrayed really worked for me. I know you had mentioned earlier that Herod was most certainly not homosexual, but how come it is all that I have ever seen him protrayed as? EDIT: I'm not saying you're lying, of course, I'm just interested.

Al

[BDC]

Yeah, I just saw it. Man, I'm worn out.

Just for this post: Herod was a decadent. The stuff that could be construed as a gay overtone is basically just the fact that they're trying to produce a hedonistic atmosphere. Anything that feels good... well, yeah, that's pretty much what they were going for and hit it right on the head.

[Magill]

Al said:

I know you had mentioned earlier that Herod was most certainly not homosexual, but how come it is all that I have ever seen him protrayed as? EDIT: I'm not saying you're lying, of course, I'm just interested.

Al

Well, having not known the guy personally, I guess I can't say for sure one way or the other. But considering the major story in the Bible involving Herod has him rewarding his step-daughter's (correct me if I have the relation wrong) dancing by presenting her the head of John the Baptist, I would have to say he seems to be at least bisexual.

Interestingly, if you want to see a very different (and more favorable) portrayal of Herod Agrippa, look to I, Claudius, either the book or the mini-series.

edited because ahs != has and wrogn != wrong

[BDC]

Jesus Christ: Superstar is a big offender (word choice?) of this as well.

[Al]

I've always loved JCS, so I have no doubt that a large part of my perception is filtered through that lens.

[artificial_person]

I saw The Passion last Saturday, and left the theatre with mixed feelings. Standing back and viewing it on a purely artistic level, it was well-crafted and beautifully filmed. Its purpose was to graphically portray violence and torture, and that it did (and very well).

But I didn't leave feeling any closer to Jesus, my life wasn't changed, I didn't cry all the way home, and I didn't not feel like eating for days (all as some viewers have commented). I simply felt I had watched a brutal crucifixion scene caught on film.

Gibson also, IMO, made the film silly and unrealistic by adding demons in the form of Jewish children who chase after Judas, having a maggot crawl out of Satan's nose, showing Satan carrying an impish demon baby, etc. All of this is fine if one wants to portray a supernatural retelling of the gospel, filtered through the eyes of medieval piety. But it makes for poor history.

The film abounds in medieval traditions and reflections upon Christ's death. The Stations of the Cross are evident, Veronica wipes the face of Jesus, etc. The script is more derived from the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, an Augustinian nun, than Scripture (ex: rather than showing the veil of the Temple being symbolically torn, the whole Temple is broken in two). This is fine, but Gibson doesn't claim to be filming Emmerich's visions, he says he is being "true to the gospels."

The concept of focusing on Jesus' suffering did not fully emerge until around the 13th and 14th centuries. The Gospels have one sentence about his scourging: he was flogged and sent to be crucified. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with relating to or meditating upon Jesus' suffering, but it's not "in the Gospels" as some have claimed. In the film, the criminals crucified on either side of Jesus are portayed as not having been beaten, and on the way to Golgotha, they carry only the cross-beam, while Jesus hauls a full cross. IMO, they would have all recieved the same basic treatment. Gibson attempts to make Jesus' crucifixion worse than all the rest. Why?

I can not relate with those who claim Jesus' suffering was more intense or different than that of any other human, or that it was necessary that he suffer. I do not believe in a God who was punishing Jesus in our place; while I believe Jesus' death was sacrificial and has saving power, I don't accept the theory of Substitionary Atonement.

I think it is important to realise that he did suffer, that he was human, because it reminds us what we can be, it shows the potential we all have to be cruel to one another. We can be so fearful or power-driven as to torture another human being. In Jesus' pain I see the victims of the Holocaust, POWs, those killed on 9/11. I am struck by the fact that he did enter into suffering, and am called to action by it.

His message was threatening to the authorities of his day, and they wanted it silenced. That is why Jesus was killed. We can read back onto his death whatever theological interpretations we want, but only after that one point is realised. In Jesus' mind, his message was worth suffering for, worth dying for. That is what I see in Jesus' sacrifice. It calls me to fight against all human suffering, and especially that which we inflict upon one another.

One final quibble. I find it dangerous to incorporate language from the Johannine Gospel into a film made about the historical Jesus. Gibson borrows from John's Gospel claims such as "I am the way, truth, and life. No one comes to the father but through me." While spiritually true from a Christian perspective, I do not believe that the "I am" statements of this Gospel go back to the historical Jesus. I see them as later Christian reflections upon what Jesus meant to the Christian community. John's Gospel can easily be used to breed exclusivity.

That said, I love the Gospel of John and think it is a beautiful reflection on the life of Christ, and it is particularly important to me as a Christian. I also realise that for Gibson, there is no differentiation between the historical Jesus and his presentation throughout the Gospels. He believes they were written by eyewitnesses or were divinely inspired so as to be wholely accurate. I disagree.

Anyway, back to the movie. It is well-made and well-acted. It is a powerful portrayal of Mel Gibsons' faith, and I deeply respect it for that. It will be very moving to those who feel the need to meditate upon Jesus' suffering. For those who have little background in the Gospels or Christian theology, it may be hard to follow or relate to at times. For myself, I realise that crucifixion was a brutal way to die, and don't feel much of a need to watch it carried out.

***SPOILER*** The one moment that did bring the hint of a tear to my eye is a scene in which Mary sees Jesus stumble and fall while carrying his cross. She flashes back to when he was a small child and stumbled and fell. In the memory she runs to him, says "I'm here, I'm here" and cradles and rocks him in her arms. This is intercut with her running to the now grown Jesus saying "I'm here, I'm here." It tore my heart out. To see a mother watch that happen to her son.

I loved the way they under-played the resurrection- very minimalistic. It was a powerful, yet very short, scene. And with that, I will end my ramblings. And by the way, it's good to be back.

a_p

[Hucklebubba]

artificial_person said:

All of this is fine if one wants to portray a supernatural retelling of the gospel,

As opposed to the correct version, where Jesus comes back from the dead by way of advanced technology.

Sorry. It's just been so long since I made use of passive-agressive sarcasm. Like, a day or so.

while I believe Jesus' death was sacrificial and has saving power, I don't accept the theory of Substitionary Atonement.

This sentence strikes me as a bit self-defeating, no offense or mockery intended. Care to explain?

[artificial_person]

Hucklebubba said:

As opposed to the correct version, where Jesus comes back from the dead by way of advanced technology.

LOL! You're absolutely right. I suppose I meant "supernatural" in a spooky Exorcist/Poltergeist kind of way. The Gospel accounts, if taken literally, are full of supernatural occurences. I was only referring to his creepy Hollywood portrayal of demons.

Hucklebubba said:

This sentence strikes me as a bit self-defeating, no offense or mockery intended. Care to explain?

Not at all. I do not believe Jesus was paying any kind of blood-debt. While the idea of God taking our sins upon himself through Jesus and canceling them with the shedding of his blood is, IMO, a powerfully true metaphor, I believe it is a later interpretation of his death. It is a metaphor that makes beautiful sense in the context of Jewish animal sacrfices, but when taken out of that system it can present a barbaric, legalistic God.

I do not believe God ever required animal sacrifices in order to forgive, and therefore see no reason to believe Jesus was such a sacrifice. It is a Jewish understanding of Jesus' death, seen in the context of Temple sacrifice. This theory would be later expounded upon by Christian theologians, but was never the only interpretation of his death.

When I use the word "sacrificial" I mean it in the sense of "giving of one's self." Jesus freely gave of his life, even unto death. When I give something I love to someone else, I make a "sacrifice". Jesus (as have others) made the ultimate one. I believe his death has the power of salvation because of what it teaches us. It shows us what is most important, what is worth living for, even when it means death.

If people learn from this sacrifice, they take part in it saving power. They can be "washed by Jesus' blood," cleansed by his life and by God's love.

a_p