Saw it, was moved and shaken by it, almost as much as from watching "Irrev�rsible" (also with Monica Belucci). I loved hearing Aramaic and L atin spoken by trained tongues, it lended a not insignificant degree of authenticity to the project.
Since most people know the plot, there can't be spoilers per se, but there are some details I'd like to bring up, anyway.
When Jesus is being tortured with the "cat-o'nine-tails", we see Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) walking past the crowd, cradling a weird, demon-like infant that turns and giggles at the sight of the torture. Was this supposed to be the Antichrist? Or was it just some random wickedness, added via creative liberty on Gibson's part, like the similar demons that haunted Judas? It seemed too deliberate to just be that, that's why it stuck to me.
Second, the romans standing closest to Jesus (at the cross), the ones most reluctant to make him suffer, decided to give Jesus some water, from a sponge stuck on a spear. Wasn't this supposed to be vinegar, if I recall my gospels correctly?
Anyway, I've read about this production before watching the movie, there was a swedish journalist that mentioned some details about Mel Gibson and James Caviezel I didn't know before, such as them both belonging to controversial renegade outshoots of catholicism, both have very strict religious beliefs, apparently Mel's father is a holocaust revisionist and Caviezel has been quoted as claiming the Virgin Mary has revealed herself to him.
That being said, I didn't get the impression that this movie was antisemitic; true, more blaim for Jesus' death was put on the jewish priesthood than on Pontus Pilate, but the jews as a group weren't satirized or attacked, nor their religion. In fact, many of the people criticizing the affair were jews, as well as Simon, the man put to help Jesus carry the cross.
All in all, it felt like an important movie, nothing you stand up and applaud and cheer about, but very moving. There were some flashbacks of other moments in Jesus' life, but they were few and far between. I should've liked to have seen more of that, as well as more of his deeds and actions after the resurrection (like in the old Jesus of Nazareth, with superb Robert Powell).
Thoughts? Answers?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I didn't get the impression that this movie was antisemitic
I never understood that accusation. It'd be like calling "A Man For All Seasons" anti-English because it portrays the English wrongly killing an Englishman in England.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think the controversy is that this film has been touted as historically accurate, despite being based on a particular interpretation of the Passion written by a pair of Romanian nuns several hundred years after the fact. A pair who from what I gather are well know for their anti-Semitic writings.
I think there is also some question as to who actually condemned Christ to death. According to some bloke who was around within a generation of the events (as opposed to the gospel writers who weren't) it wasn't the Jewish priests who actually condemned him and that it was in fact to Romans. This tracks with the fact that crucifixion was a Roman punishment for treason and rebellion while the Jewish punishment for blasphemy at the time was (so I gather) stoning. Not that the priesthood wouldn't want a potentially threatening religious leader done away with, I'm sure they'd do it themselves if they had the chance.
I haven't seen this film yet so I can't comment on the accuracy of some of these points (not that a truly accurate account is even possible) but given that Gibson is a devout Catholic, his idea of accuracy probably involves taking the gospels word for word, misprint for misprint. Given his track record with films like Braveheart, with it's many licence taking elements, despite claims of historical truth, I'm not expecting an impartial version of what probably took place. I do expect it to be a deeply moving and glorious depiction of the Gospels.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
According to some bloke who was around within a generation of the events (as opposed to the gospel writers who weren't)
Um... two or three of them were apostles.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
The book never made any sense so I'm not going to see the movie.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I've not seen the movie, nor do I plan to. I gather, though, that it's a well made film, and visually, it appears to be absolutely stunning.
I hear on the news every now and again how this movie is moving people to re-engage their faith and start going to church again. That sort of irriatates me. "It wasn't so important to me before... but now that I've seen this movie..."
What makes my eyes bleed with anger is when I hear about church leaders using the movie as part of their sermon. Or using it to draw people to the church. Or holding FRIGGIN' MOVIE PREPARATION SERMONS to get people ready to see the movie.
If it's a movie supposedly based on the Bible, here's a thought... teach them what the Bible says. When I read the gospel accounts of Jesus' death, I find them moving enough without the help of visual aides.
So I guess I see it as just a way for people to feel "Christian" without actually having to act like it.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Despite it being Easter, and despite the fact that I am Catholic (and therefore go to a Catholic church), barely ayone has mentioned it. In fact, the director of our Church (a WOMAN, by the way...it's too bad we haven't accepted women priests yet, but it's close) comes off in her sermons as not liking it. When I talk to fellow Catholics, many times they say Mel Gibson is going a little over the top. Also, they fail to see the point, since the film is about the Passion and not really the life of Jesus...
So not all churches are making a fuss about it. I haven't seen it and don't plan to. Maybe when it comes out on video, but NOT in the theaters.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Aban Rune: "This movie is moving people to re-engage their faith and start going to church again. That sort of irriatates me. "It wasn't so important to me before... but now that I've seen this movie..." --- So I guess I see it as just a way for people to feel "Christian" without actually having to act like it."
And you would rather they be begrudged that?
This is eerie, those arguments are practically identical to the ones the LOTR-"traditionalists" have against the LOTR movie-trilogy.
I see where you're coming from, I just think it seems like saying that the glass is half-empty, without taking into account what possible good can come out of it all. For those that haven't studied the bible for a long time this movie is a strong eyeopener, a view of what the sacrifice consisted of.
I don't have a dedicated faith, though I'm happy for you that you do, if I interpreted your post correctly. However, it saddens me if by that I qualify for a group of your dislike, that you see me as a hypocrite.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"If it's a movie supposedly based on the Bible, here's a thought... teach them what the Bible says."
Sorry, but that's like expecting racial equality to be a hot topic at a KKK meeting. It says what Gibson thinks the Bible says. Deafeningly so.
[ April 12, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I wasn't talking about Gibson making his movie. He can make whatever movie he likes. I was talking about church leaders using the movie, which people have already pointed to as taking license, as a religious teaching tool.
And I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite. I'm not belittling or begrudging anyone's beliefs. I'm just saying that I wish it didn't take a piece of popular entertainment to get people interested in their spiritual needs.
That's all.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Wait, so Jesus dies right?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Aban: "I wish it didn't take a piece of popular entertainment to get people interested in their spiritual needs."
There you go with the half-empty glass again; you would only be so lucky if "a piece of pop entertainment" was all it took to get people going.
And I sure prefer to get inspiration or an epiphany when reading a novel or watching a movie than to have it go so far that I "discover" it in prison, on death row or in a motel room in Texas, or to have it shoved down my throat as a child and be a believer-by-default, accepting the existence of God like the existence of the IRS.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: given that Gibson is a devout Catholic, his idea of accuracy probably involves taking the gospels word for word, misprint for misprint.
Just to clarify (again), Catholics are one of the denominations that don't take the Bible literally. They take it as a work of it's time, and realise that it has to be interpreted differently to be relevent today. They are not hardcore "we must attack our women with fish on the third Sunday after Penatost" fundamentalists.
Regarding Gobson: I once read an interview with him where he was talking about this film and his faith, and he mentioned his wife. She is also Christian, she goes to Church (more than him), she is good and kind and he loves her. And he knows that she is going to hell, because she is of a different denomination than him. He wishes it wasn't true, but he believe that it is.
This man frightens me.
[ April 12, 2004, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
All nitpicking aside... It still doesn't change the message.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
The "one and only religion/denomenation" thing always felt like a heavy-handed imposition to me. It's like the Powers That Be were afraid the beliefs wouldn't stand on their own.
In any case, if I remember my Catholicism correctly, the earliest gospel was supposed to have been written 30 or 50 years after Jesus's death. The reason was that after his death people thought the world was coming to an end within their lifetimes, so there was no point in writing it down for posterity.
Catholics also believe that Genesis was a conglomerated work written by four different authors and then attributed to Moses (a popular practice at the time -- writers attributed their work to famous people to give it more credibility). Protestants (but probably not all of them) believe that Genesis was literally written by Moses. These are just a couple of examples where Catholic and various Protestant doctrines differ, but as you can see the differences are quite fundamental.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
if I remember my Catholicism correctly, the earliest gospel was supposed to have been written 30 or 50 years after Jesus's death.
Luke was written by 75, not likely to be later. Could have been as early as about 60. Christ was crucified in about 25-30. And Luke mentions multiple earlier attempts to chronicle the life of Christ, which would include Mark at the least.
Protestants (but probably not all of them) believe that Genesis was literally written by Moses.
I fail to see how that qualifies as a fundamental difference. I mean, some of Exodus and such had to be recorded originally by Moses, but does it really matter who wrote the rest?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I loved hearing Aramaic and Latin spoken by trained tongues, it lended a not insignificant degree of authenticity to the project."
"Second, the romans standing closest to Jesus (at the cross), the ones most reluctant to make him suffer, decided to give Jesus some water, from a sponge stuck on a spear. Wasn't this supposed to be vinegar, if I recall my gospels correctly?"
Depends upon whom you believe. Matthew says it was wine mixed with gall. The others say it was vinegar.
"According to some bloke who was around within a generation of the events (as opposed to the gospel writers who weren't)..."
"Um... two or three of them were apostles."
There are still people who think the gospels of Matthew and John were actually written by the Matthew and John mentioned therein?
And what do you mean "two or three"? You don't even know that there were no apostles called "Mark" or "Luke"?
"Just to clarify (again), Catholics are one of the denominations that don't take the Bible literally."
True, but I think Gibson belongs to some sort of weird Catholic offshoot. So, he might be a fundie; I'm not sure.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
I think for the difference can be fundamental because the question of who wrote it affects whether or not people believe it literally. I suppose if you believe Divine Inspiration (tm) over all human differences, then it wouldn't matter who wrote it at all. The belief that Moses was the actual author is more romantic than saying, "well, actually, it was probably written by four different people." At least that's the impression I got when they told me that at church way back when.
"True, but I think Gibson belongs to some sort of weird Catholic offshoot. So, he might be a fundie; I'm not sure."
From what I know, official Catholic doctrine is definitely not fundamentalist, but Catholics include such a wide range of people that you'd probably find believers at either end of the spectrum. Many don't seem to have a real problem deviating from what is "official". I've heard a number of Catholics criticize the pope when he came out and said Catholicism was the one true religion/denom.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Do you think they'll be a sequel?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
What, you think he's going to pull a Spock and just come back from the dead? Please, I hope the writers of this so-called "Bible" have better taste than to copy Star Trek.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Nim: I see your point. But to be fair, there are people who have taken an interest in spiritual things neither by having it force-fed to them by their parents or as the result of some violent / tragic event in their lives.
Just as much as I may be being "glass-half empty", you're excluding everyday people who have worked hard to cultivate a spirtual interest in simple, everyday circumstances.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well I'm not, that's exactly the core of the poodle. It's exactly those people, that take interest in spiritual development in their everyday lives, that might benefit from watching this movie.
I am one of them, I've begun actively developing my spiritual and ethical self. I'm studying religion, philosophy, psychology and ethics at post-secondary education levels right now, to make some sense out of it all and be of better service to myself and everyone else in my life.
That's why I took the movie seriously when I saw it, not as entertainment but as a relevant entry in the science of interpersonal relations. If anything, Jesus seemed to have strong character.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You don't even know that there were no apostles called "Mark" or "Luke"?
Mark is believed by some to be Peter's scribe.
There are still people who think the gospels of Matthew and John were actually written by the Matthew and John mentioned therein?
Yes, quite a few. Is there some reason to think otherwise?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
No disrespect intended, Nim, but I submit that people who have developed an active interest in things spiritual on their own can also decide for themselves which entries they might or might not benefit from and which they should or should not take seriously.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Absolutely. Our privilege, as free peoples.
Though you can only go so far in any book- or movie-discussion before actually having to experience it for yourself. Like all art.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Is there some reason to think otherwise?"
Well, my understanding is that bible scholars think otherwise, and I'm sure they've got more information on it than I have.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tora Ziyal: Many don't seem to have a real problem deviating from what is "official". I've heard a number of Catholics criticize the pope when he came out and said Catholicism was the one true religion/denom.
I've also heard Catholics (including teachers at the school I went to) disgree with him on other subjects. The biggest three are:
1/ Women priests 2/ Sex before marriage 3/ Artifical contraceptives
Interestingly, those are the only 3 areas where the Catholic church is even remotely "fundamental". With everything else it's as laid back as can be.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
What does fundamental mean with regards to religion? Does it have a specific definition, or is it just something people get called when they hold to beliefs that seem out of date?
I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know. I've heard the term before, but I don't really understand what it means. For instance, I don't believe sex before marriage is scriptural. But the Bible says nothing about contraception and I have no problem with that. Does that make me a fundamentalist?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
quote: Fundamentalism
1: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism[/].
2: An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and *secularism, insisting on the [i]inerrancy of Scripture.
*Secularism: The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
As all academic words, this isn't inherently bad, it depends on the context. And in the context of a changing world, fundamentalism can be seen as trying to stop time, covering your ears and dreaming of the good old world, one that often had never existed anywhere but in the minds of populists.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Makes sense. Though it still doesn't really explain what "fundamental principles" are in that first definition. Fundamental according to whom?
I guess that's one of the reasons it might get misapplied and misunderstood alot of times.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
In that first instance, it looks like it means "Basic". Ie, the most basic principles a person could have. But basic could also mean barbaric/out-of-date.
Generally, words mean what people think they mean. And fundamental usually means:
1/ Old fashioned religious wackos, or
2/ That word in the constitution that looks good and stuff.
quote:For instance, I don't believe sex before marriage is scriptural. But the Bible says nothing about contraception and I have no problem with that.
When you say that sex before marriage isn't scriptural, do you mean that it isn't in the bible? And therefore you don't have a problem with doing it?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I mean that the Bible holds premarital or extramartial sex to be unacceptable. So I don't do it. But it says nothing about contraception, and I don't have anything against the use of contraception.
You had pointed out 3 areas in which the Catholic church is "fundamental", and I was just asking, if I agree with some of those points, but not others, does that mean I'm a Fundamentalist by the accepted definition.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The bible holds many things to be unacceptable, like homosexuality, and many things to be acceptable, like selling your daughter into slavery. Obviously, if you don't agree with something that (according to the bible) is acceptable but do agree with something that (also according to the bible) is unacceptable, then you're not a fundamentalist. But I think a better definition is simply how laid-back you are in interpreting and adhering to scripture, as Liam said.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Just curious: Whose daughter are you talking about?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So, according to the bible, if I buy someone's daughter, it's okay but I cant go to a prostitute?
Is'nt that just "renting" someone's daughter?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Whose daughter are you talking about?"
I don't know if that's some sort of trick question, but I was speaking in general.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I think he wants to know where exactly in the Bible is/are the instance/s of daughter-sale to which you refer. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I mean that the Bible holds premarital or extramartial sex to be unacceptable."
Well, extramarital sex is okay, as long as you call her a "concubine".
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, it's in Exodus 21:7:something.
quote:And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
If you take that literally, of course.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
It wasn't a trick question at all. I was just wondering what yspecifically you were referring to. Thaz all.
As far as extramarital sex being ok, it *happened*, but I don't think it was ever necessarily ok. Certainly not after the establishment of the Christian congregation where the guidelines for men of responsibility included being "a husband of one wife" and "looking at a woman so as to develop a passion for her" was likened to committing adultery in your heart.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)