I found The Passion of The Christ to be a very well-produced film with excellent acting and direction, an interesting story, but notwithstanding a rather dull experience. That's not to say it's a bad movie, it certainly is not, but it is rather dull.
The greatest reason for that is probably the scope of the movie; it's too confined to the very last hours in the life of Jesus for there to be enough character development to sustain the audience's interest. It wouldn't be necessary to invent a new story to provide these elements, simply to tell the movie from someone else's viewpoint will often make such things possible without altering the story which the film is being based on.
But I digress, the most interesting part about The Passion of The Christ is certainly not the film itself, but rather the reactions to it. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could possibly say that the film even hints at anti-semitism. Seriously.
First and foremost; the Jews weren't depicted as more vicious than the Romans, but rather the opposite: the Roman guards were easily the most vicious and inhuman characters in the entire film. From the top of my head, at least, I can't remember when I last saw such horrible, brutal, desensitized men on film.
Secondly, Mel Gibson's artistic addition of the androgynous image of the devil, who walked among the crowds, ostensibly instilling evil into it, eased the burden of guilt from the crowds. It gave me, at least, the impression that satan was influencing the crowds of people.
Thirdly, the jews were not portrayed as all bad. In fact, the characters which were the most sympathetic and kind, were jews. Heck, Jesus was jewish. To interpret the movie as anti-semitic, one must suffer from an extremely distorted perspective, in my humble opinion. I think the movie made it very obvious that Jesus died due to the sins of all men and women, not due to the evil nature of jews. Absolutely not.
The purpose of this film, I gather, is to make Jesus' death palpable. I think Mel Gibson, who directed the movie, is trying to say that this is not a myth or a legend. I think he is trying to say that the cross which christians often wear around their necks have been reduced to a gem and that people have forgotten what it is it symbolizes. He's saying that Jesus not only died for our sins, he was tortured to extreme lengths, spat at, deceived even by his closest friends, and then murdered. And don't you forget it.
Ps.
I'm not religious.
Comments
And exactly what means with religious?
Comment by Chadie at 16:09, 08 Mar, 2004 #
Religious: to embrace a religion.
Comment by Tomas at 16:15, 08 Mar, 2004 #
See Frank Rich's articles in the NYTimes for the controversy and why the movie is considered by some to be antisemitic. Rich is the reporter that Mel accused of conspiring against him and said that he'd like to have his guts on a stick and kill his dog. Mel was reacting, in part, to Rich's articles about Mel's father who preaches that the holocaust did not exist. There's a long history to this controversy documented here
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/arts/07RICH.html
I understand your post and reaction, but some research would enlighten you to this subject.
ps I'm not religious either or a jew.
Comment by dirk at 00:41, 09 Mar, 2004 #
The point of whether the movie itself is anti-semetic is irrelevant. The movie is portraying in very graphic and accurate detail the story of the death of one man who was also God for the sins of the world. Because of this direct taking of scriptures and placing it in viewable form, if the movie is anti-semetic, then so must be the Bible. The Bible is not, unless you think God would do such a think, the one that created us all, depending on your beliefs. I am not religious but I do practice a religion and have a belief system and yes, the two are different.
Comment by ArgonVesher at 03:39, 09 Mar, 2004 #
"I understand your post and reaction, but some research would enlighten you to this subject."
What do you mean research? Why would I need to "research" what others think in order to form my own opinion about the movie? In my opinion the movie isn't anti-semitic in any way what-so-ever, if someone else disagrees with me, so what, that doesn't change how I interpreted the movie, and it doesn't change that I think that whoever sees anti-semitism in the movie suffers from a distorted perspective.
Comment by Tomas at 16:12, 09 Mar, 2004 #
I agree with you Tomas. As well, no research is even needed to see the movie itself. The movie stands by itself. Even if there were not subtitles for the film, and we heard the movie in Aramaic, Latin and Greek, the movie-goers would still get the point that a man is wanted for something and severly beaten for what he did.
Comment by Swami Prem at 19:18, 09 Mar, 2004 #
I reacted to this sentence, " I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could possibly say that the film even hints at anti-semitism. Seriously." There are opinions contrary to yours and an ongoing controversy regarding the release of the film. If you can't believe anyone would think the film is antisemitic, see the link I provided and there's more you can find with some research (or not). Your opinion is valid and I'm not disputing that or anyone elses. But there is good reason for some to think the film is antisemitic.
Comment by dirk at 23:37, 09 Mar, 2004 #
"If you can't believe anyone would think the film is antisemitic, see the link I provided and there's more you can find with some research (or not)."
There is only like a paragraph or so in that entire article that actually attempts to explain how and why the movie is anti-semitic, thus it's not particularly thorough or convincing. The rest of it is just ranting and ad hominem bullshit.
Comment by Tomas at 09:48, 10 Mar, 2004 #
That's silly. Tomas is claiming that a reasonable person can't interpret the film as anti-semitic. To say at once that his opinion is valid and "there is good reason for some to think the film is anti-semitic" is logical nonsense. Each contradicts the other.
Comment by Michael at 08:59, 11 Mar, 2004 #
Well, let's let them explain. If you happen to think there is a good reason to consider the film antisemitic, what would the reason or reasons be? C'mon, you have an opinion, support it with evidence.
Comment by argonvesher at 13:33, 12 Mar, 2004 #
The greatest reason for that is probably the scope of the movie; it's too confined to the very last hours in the life of Jesus for there to be enough character development to sustain the audience's interest.
Don't just see the movie. You can get the real character development from the Bible. Amazing what Christ did for you and me.
Comment by hartmurmur at 19:52, 12 Mar, 2004 #
hartmurmur: Most people think a movie should be enjoyable without one having to read the book which the movie is based upon.
Comment by Tomas at 20:44, 12 Mar, 2004 #
Most people think a movie should be enjoyable without one having to read the book which the movie is based upon.
I agree somewhat - except for the enjoyable part. I think when it comes to non-fiction movies, it is best to know the history behind the story before seeing the movie. A movie will never be able to depict all events thoroughly or adequately. It's unfortunate that some people will only see this movie and never read the Bible. But I don't expect them to either.
But it really depends what your intent is in viewing this movie.
- Some went to be entertained (hey, this is just another movie to go see).
- Or, I've heard of this guy Christ and know he died and stuff. What's it all about? (Seeker)
- I know Christ and his sacrifice for me. This is another medium (beside the Bible, church, etc.) to experience (visually) the story.
Whatever your motive, I hope you came away from the movie with an understanding of God's grace.
Comment by hartmurmur at 20:01, 16 Mar, 2004 #
Whatever your motive, I hope you came away from the movie with an understanding of God's grace.
hartmurmur: Like I said, I'm not religious, so no.
Comment by Tomas at 20:22, 16 Mar, 2004 #
I think when it comes to non-fiction movies, it is best to know the history behind the story before seeing the movie.
What does non-fiction movies have to do with the film in question?
Comment by Fraggelpjott at 14:44, 17 Mar, 2004 #
What does non-fiction movies have to do with the film in question?
Non-fiction = true. But I suspect you know that and your comment was meant to question whether or not the story of Jesus is true. I'm no theologian, but there are plenty of facts that this story is indeed true. You don't have to look very far.
Why is that that the mention of the name of one person, Jesus, can stir so many emotions? This is a guy that lived 2000 years ago. Put simply, if there was nothing to this story, why are we still talking about it to this day? If this one man didn't do anything, who cares?
Pick up a copy of More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell. If you don't buy the book (I'll send you a copy at my expense if you want), at least read the description on Amazon.
Tomas, you don't have to be religious (a term that has bad connotations associated) to understand God's grace. Understanding God's grace is knowing that Jesus was nailed on that cross in place of you and me. He died the death of a criminal, but was in fact, sinless (sin being defined as anything that causes a separation from God). You and I can never accomplish that. He states that by saying, "No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6.
Don't stop seeking.
Comment by hartmurmur at 20:09, 18 Mar, 2004 #
hartmurmur: Regarding the credibility of the story of Jesus: there are good reasons to believe that Jesus did exist and that he had a following that believed him to be the son of God, yes. But there is no viable evidence that he actually was anything but a simple man.
You do have to be religious to acknowledge the existance of (a) God. I'm not, so I don't. Hence, for me and other atheists (and agnostics), there is no God's grace to understand.
Comment by Tomas at 21:00, 18 Mar, 2004 #
Depends how you define simple. I wouldn't call someone simple if they have the ability walk on water, calm storms, raise himself and others from the dead, feed thousands on 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread, heal blind, sick, cast out demons....and the list goes on. Simple men still bleed blood when they are dead, not water.
He was simple in the fact that his treasure was in heaven, unlike us who store up everything possible on earth. He was also simple in that he had one purpose.
Jesus was also a guy who would put it to you straight...e.g. his many conversations/confrontations with the Pharisees.
Gotta run, but certainly a great conversation.
Comment by hartmurmur at 00:28, 20 Mar, 2004 #
hartmurmur: There is no proof he was anything but a simple man, that could do any of those things. That's just what his followers, then and now, believe.
Comment by Tomas at 02:12, 20 Mar, 2004 #
Actually, there is. While the Bible is considered a religious work, and it is, it is also a book of historical fact, created by many writers, some of whom were eye-witnesses to Jesus' deeds. So the proof is there. How do we know what happened in our history, both immediate and ancient? It was written down, by one, by many people. While someone writing down any one thing doesn't necessarily make it fact right away, other writings and works support claims and entries in the Bible, thus it can be considered a historical text. So therefore, the historical account of Jesus' miracles, performed by a 'simple man' as you say, can be proven to have happened.
Comment by argonvesher at 07:00, 21 Mar, 2004 #
argonvesher: No, it is not. Your defination of "proof" is ridiculous. Just because something is written down on paper doesn't mean it's true.
Comment by Tomas at 14:19, 21 Mar, 2004 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.