the Passion of the Christ

[Egeides]

From what I heard and read about it up to now (with the limits it has), The Passion of Christ seems to show more ugliness than beauty. All Jesus' story is supposed to be about beauty (of the soul, the message...) so when Gibson comes with the opposite, it's about like someone was presenting advanced civility by showing death camps with as much gore as possible.

Presenting Jesus as someone who suffered wont make him right or wrong. And showing him suffering as much as possible, whttever reality, is not only fake plastic Hollywood but also ignoring completely the point. Many persons suffered more than Jesus and it wont make them greater or right. It's no suffering contest.

[Acriku]

I completely agree Egeides, but it seems it did have its effect on people - crying in the movies, etc.

[Digital Guerrilla]

The story does have beauty, IMO the beauty comes from the ending.

[TMA_1]

the fact that the human aspect of christ being tortured is extremely important. Obviously the spiritual death on the cross was what allowed sin to be paid for, but the human nature of christ had to bear it as well, and we must face the facts that he did suffer and it is painful.

sorry aeon, I guess I thought you were saying tthat somehow it was terrible, I overstepped. I can understand why somebody wouldnt like it, I mean sheesh.lol

[Egeides]

TMA: Sure, but if you zoom on aspects that you chose and only take gore and ugliness, then the product as a whole is distorted, and the message itself gets even MORE distorted. It is the creation of a myth instead of enlightenment (light: show things, get a better understanding, helps you, etc.). It is to strengthen the aura, saying "follow" instead of "see". I don't believe that Jesus would have prophessed the aura of greatness (which goes towards myth), but the content instead.

And about the ending, well I didn't saw the movie so my data is limited. But from what it seems, I'd say that it gives more strength to the rest of the movie (aura) and is there for the rest, repeating again "how great He is" and why people should follow (not considering whether it is blindly or not). In an army on a crisis field, you may sometimes have a few minutes to act as a group so there's no time for thinking and bringing consensus (you need a correct act, nothing else), but you don't get spiritually good by following (copy someone's acts, obey) but by BEING correct. Gibson says "look how great he is and why he should be followed". Jesus becomes a general, and not a teacher of Truth.

To say everything in few words that a Dune-phile can understand, it's exactly like Paul fearing the power of his strong image as a messiah. This is what Gibbson brings.

[Cyborg]

I perfectly understand the level of gore in the movie, because things were done like that in Jesus' time.

[Acriku]

This article says that much of the violence wasn't even mentioned by the Gospels, it was only what Gibson put in as a director. So, is this just another Braveheart? As a reviewer of the movie, Betty, says: In the end, Passion is really just another action movie awash in gratuitous blood. Like Braveheart -- only the men's skirts are longer. ... .

[GUNWOUNDS]

This article says that much of the violence wasn't even mentioned by the Gospels, it was only what Gibson put in as a director. So, is this just another Braveheart? As a reviewer of the movie, Betty, says: In the end, Passion is really just another action movie awash in gratuitous blood. Like Braveheart -- only the men's skirts are longer. ... .

he didnt just go by the gospels.... and he didnt just use his director's privilege.... there are

[Acriku]

There's no telling what they did or did not do to Jesus Christ. What Gibson did was add tortures and gore to the story that he may have found in history books - exactly what the director's privilege is, adding to the story what isn't true (or atleast supported by historical evidence) to make the movie more dramatic, appealing, or whatever the director's intentions were.

[GUNWOUNDS]

There's no telling what they did or did not do to Jesus Christ. What Gibson did was add tortures and gore to the story that he may have found in history books - exactly what the director's privilege is, adding to the story what isn't true (or atleast supported by historical evidence) to make the movie more dramatic, appealing, or whatever the director's intentions were.

.. I am saying you could easily find documents of protocols for torturing and crucifying someone convicted of treason.... if he was convicted of treason then it would logically follow that whatever was documented

[Acriku]

.. I am saying you could easily find documents of protocols for torturing and crucifying someone convicted of treason.... if he was convicted of treason then it would logically follow that whatever was documented  in the protocols for such a punishment would then be carried out upon said offender.

But I don't think so necessarily. Were the Romans air-tight in their protocols or was it possible for them to change it? I don't know myself, I'm not much a Roman history buff.

So if the Gospels said he was convicted of treason.. then they dont have to say the exact torture or punishment.. as it would be obvious...

But they did say what he went through in the end when they didn't have to, so if they didn't do the same in the beginning then it's possible that it never happened according to the Gospels.

[thomas]

ok I saw it today and have one thing that you must do before you may judge this movie at all

1. See the movie, IMO it wasn't really as gory as it was hyped-up to be

this being said I felt the movie was rather good and the gore and blood was not the focal point but rather an aid to emphasize his suffering.

[TMA_1]

you obviously dont know how people were put on the cross acriku, and dont know the prophesies and statements of how jesus was hung on the cross. It is indeed horrible.

[Acriku]

TMA that had nothing to do with what I explained.

[thomas]

Acriku to answer your last post the Roman were very very strict on their laws, they followed their orders and laws very tightly.

[Acriku]

Acriku to answer your last post the Roman were very very strict on their laws, they followed their orders and laws very tightly.

Ok, thanks. So yes, I can see how it be logically inferred that this is what Jesus went through. However, to bring up another point, doesn't this detract even more from the spiritual aspect of the story? If it contains a lot of scenes that aren't anywhere in the Bible, what exactly are we seeing here - an action thriller with a Biblical spin on it? I guess I can't say more without actually seeing the movie.

[Digital Guerrilla]

??? Acriku- have you actually seen the movie? All I can gather from your posts is that you have a friend who has seen the movie and what you have heard from what critics have to say about the movie.

[Acriku]

I said a page ago that I've not seen the movie, and that I am only going off of a friend and a couple reviewers :) That's why I mentioned that I cannot say anymore until I see the movie.

[Dante]

Bumpity bump...

Newspaper review from The Independent:

There's little point in talking about The Passion of the Christ in strictly filmic terms. Why not talk about the fortune Gibson is expected to make from it, or the range of "Crucifixion Nail" jewellery he has authorised, or the Holocaust denial of his father? Why not talk about its "blood libel" line, the infamous Gospel basis of anti-Semitism, which impugns the the whole Jewish race for the murder of Christ and which Gibson promised to remove, but has in fact left in (unsubtitled however - ready to be resubtitled in muslim countries)?

There's no doubt in my mind that these are much more interesting subjects than the actual film - a crude work of pornographic icongraphy which pales beside Pasolini's magnificently moving The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Its CGI demons on every corner have led some to dub it The Gospel According to Clive Barker, and horor-film addicts enjoy every flesh-flaying minute of it. Other delights include Satan looking like that woman from the Scottish Widows advert, Jewish priests looking like hook-nosed nazi cartoons and Gibson's own hand seen nailing Caviezel to the cross.

Everyone is talking about it and you have to see it: poor you. But despair not: help is on its way in the form of the just-announced re-release of Monty Python's Life of Brian. He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Aaaah, that's better.

The film got the lowest rating possible. I thought that this was an opinion worth sharing.

[Anathema]

Seen it yesterday. Not as gory or disgusting as they said it would be. I thought it was actually a pretty good movie.

Though there's one thing even I know they got wrong. In the movie, they put the nails through Jesus' hand palms, while it has already been historicly proven that the Romans put the nails in the victims wrists.

[sneezer3]

Though there's one thing even I know they got wrong. In the movie, they put the nails through Jesus' hand palms, while it has already been historicly proven that the Romans put the nails in the victims wrists.

Thanks i din't notice that i'l have to check into that part of the movie again.

Your defintely right though. In Rome the wrist was considered to be part of the hand.

Not to mention if they put a nail in the hand alone. It might slide out and tear your flesh.