The Passion, the suffering, the price

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:33 pm

I watched The Passion of the Christ almost 2 weeks ago, I didn't know if I should write anything on it. But with its Box Office grossings going through the roof and catching up fast with LOTR 3, I feel I should write something.

Disclaimer with blinking lights: I'm Christian, so I am biased. But then this movie was filmed for this very bias, so I would say it's fair. I would even say that it wouldn't do the movie justice without an appreciation of the Christian belief, which is what this movie was all about. My rant / thoughts follows.

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:34 pm

Firstly, a note on possibly why The Passion as the movie's title. I heard that the word "passion" in the Jews' language can also interchangeably mean "suffering". And the fact that this very suffering of Christ is a result of God's passion and love for mankind, a creation "in His own image". And that it gives an artsy feel to the movie Wink

This passion, however, is _not_ what you may be accustomed to, with the typical Hollywood love story. Quite the contrary, with all the gory violence. Reading some reviews, I would say one of the biggest questions about the movie is: Why all the violence? Is it necessary? Yes, because this is what happened. Details of Christ's crucifixion was few as recorded in the Gospels, but things like the metal studded whips were real (yike). If you want to literally see the truth, this movie brings you closer to it than any of the older Jesus movies, where Jesus and the other characters are nicely shaved et al. Reality is painful sometimes, and is especially true with the story of Jesus.

The gory violence, quite ironically, is a reflection of the price God paid for Man's sins, a glimpse of His passion and love. Not to sound like a religious whacko, but this, as Jesus said to Pilate, is the truth. This is my belief, with a reason which I cannot put into words but that it is faith and personal experiences. If you haven't seen the movie and are going to see it, this is one thing you should keep in mind, even if you don't believe it. The movie wouldn't make sense otherwise.

And to emphasize on the relative shortness of actual biblical description of the event, the movie thus lacks "plot" as some people point out. This movie is not about plot, it's about an accurate portrayal of what happened. And it is well done, in terms of the overall impression and fine details. Seeing the event on the silver screen was much more visually striking then reading the factual description in the bible.

If you can bare this reason for the violence, you may ask just as I did, that why didn't God just snap his finger and forgive all sins? If He is God, He can do anything right? And this, I think, is the paradox of His power and justice. He can do anything He wants, but out of justice, He cannot pardon sins without a price being paid for it, and the "penalty of sin is death". And Jesus, fully Man but also fully God, bore the price for all Mankind with His death. Don't ask me how, I can never understand God beyond what He is capable of and what He has done.

As for the quality of the film itself, I would say that it's very well made, and Mel Gibson put a _lot_ of thoughts into every fine details of the movie. The music is suiting, the picture is vivid. It's a good movie in itself, if you can get past the violence.

And a personal note: the most touching part of the movie for me was when Jesus carrying the cross and met his mother on the way. He said, "See mother, I make all things new." Crying or Very sad

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:01 am

I think our point here is if this movie moved you, if it enhanced your faith and understanding, basically how you responded to it. Or at least that is how I'm going to reply.

Disclaimer: I was a professional movie reviewer for a number of years, it was a fun assignment as assignments go and was but a fraction of my duties at the newspaper. I was glad to move on (to news editor) when I got that chance and I don't miss reviewing new releases at all. It's not a good thing, personally, when going to the movies feels like going to work, and I rarely go to the movies now. And I never review them, not for fun nor profit, not anymore. So my reply is not a review and I just won't touch on those aspects of the film. This is just my reaction, as a Christian, to seeing this film.

But back to my reply... during and after this movie it really seemed like I was seeing a different film than many folks around me. They appeared profoundly moved by it, and most posts I've read since also reflect that. And it completely left me cold.

Now I could appreciate the the quality of the effort, well made, well acted, yada yada (told ya I wouldn't go into that). It simply did not touch my heart.

Part of the reason may be my own mindset. If I'm watching something very realistic, gory, loud (as in feeling the bass in my stomach)... well, it feels like a film to me. Now movies can touch me, make me laugh, make me cry, even make me think... but they almost always remain movies. Not once did I want to leap into the scene and stop what was happening, as I've wanted to with many other movies I've seen. I remained totally detatched from the action.

And it's not that I usually remain detatched. I go into a movie house wanting to become a part of the film, to really experience the film (no matter what it is) and I believe I'm predisposed to throwing myself into the action, mentally.

But not with this one. I think it was too loud, too visually stimulating, just too too. And perhaps that does have to do with my faith, but I don't think so. I was more involved and more horrified and more wanting to make it stop during the musical Jesus Christ Superstar, when He was whipped with ribbons. That stylized version touched my heart and my faith so much more than Gibson's film.

So go figure. I think this is definitely one of those films where "your mileage may vary" and I don't think it has much to do with your faith. But I suspect Mr. Gibson would be disappointed and probably shocked to know my primary thought during the whole thing was "can't they turn the volume down some?"

Just another viewpoint to perhaps start an interesting discussion.

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:09 pm

to each their own i guess.

nice to know a (former) pro movies reviewer on board Wink

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:17 am

(makes me wonder, are we the only two who have seen this film and had an opinion on it?)

My parents went to see this the other night. When I talked to them, approximately 24 hours later, they were still bickering about it. (it must be true love if you can bicker with someone for 53 years, eh?)

My mom thought it was just awesome. Totally wonderful and should be required viewing for every Christian in the world. My dad said Die Hard was a better action flick and he felt manipulated and didn't like the feeling.

So there we go. Two more opinions, different than our two. Surely someone else around here has an opinion... don't they??

I don't know how much value a former film reviewer is. LOL. Although... the last year of it I had to write a parents' advisory sidebar on every review. Now THAT skill could be valuable. Hardest one that I can remember was "About Last Night" which was a fairly decent film but also pretty close to soft porn, truly. And I jumped right out on that limb and said parents and teens could find value in seeing this movie, together or separately (although parents could feel quite uncomfortable seeing it with their kids and I personally was opting to see it separately and then discuss it together afterwards)... because it explored a relationship and the couple's different expectations of it. And because our teens would be likely to at least consider similar relationships, and it would be very cool as a parent to get the "mom spin" in on the kid before s/he moved in with a lover. I do remember I totally panned Disney's cartoon The Black Caldrun in the parent box (and praised it in the review for the lighting, story and skill of animation) because it was billed as a Disney cartoon and the action was simply too intense and the good/bad natures of the characters too mixed for younger children to integrate easily.

Anyway, it was fun for a couple of years, I was glad to move on and I'm definitely pleased I don't do it anymore. But I reckon I might be good for a review or two around here, on a "when I feel like it" basis. :)

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:41 am

yup, it's only fun if you write when you feel like it Wink

with a movie of this nature and a plot which many are familiar, people are bound to look at it differently.

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:32 pm

I'll contribute.

Background on myself:
My family is methodist. I am an atheist. Some people claim to be atheists and they believe in heaven, hell, some other form of life after death (Odd that some people claim to be atheists and think this but to each his own.). I believe in no life after death, in any form, nor in any "divine being," nor in some other plane of existence.

Thoughts about The Passion:
I thought the movie, overall, was well done. I think it accomplished what it set out to do ie: To display the sacrifice Jesus made for all sinners, according to those of the Christian faith. I think the violence was a necessary part of the film and because of it many people saw/believed/rejuvenated their faith of everything Jesus went through to save them.

However, I think there were a few problems (not major, but considering how real Mel Gibson made the movie, it did detract) In the movie Jesus''s palm was nailed to the cross. This is inaccurate, the wrists would have been nailed to the cross, not the palm. If the palm was nailed the person would have fallen right off the cross because the nail would have went right through the knuckles, there is nothing inbetween the knuckles of your hand to hold up your weight. "It says the hand was nailed in scripture though." Yes, most do, the reason why it says the hand is because during this time period "hand" consisted of your wrist, palm, and fingers, not just the palm and fingers as we think of it today.
Yea yea, nitpicky, but it is still an inaccuracy that many people continue to believe.
The other "issue" I had with the movie was the flashback to Jesus making the table that stood high. The movie basically claimed Jesus was the creator of the dining room table as we know it today. High table legs, chairs with high legs, things that didn't exist at the time because everybody ate on the ground. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus creates the dining room table?

With so much effort being put into the "realism" of it all the nail through the palm bugged me, but the movie overall was really well done and I enjoyed it.

(Extraneous stuff here.)
As for people claiming that what is written in the Bible is fact is not correct. The books written in the New Testament were written some 70 years after Jesus's death (those of the 4 gospels), and the New Testament itself was not put together for some 200 years after Jesus's death. Then you have the books that were not included in the Bible (Book of Mary, 3rd Corinthians, etc.), it all depends on how much faith you put into it, but claiming that it is fact is stretching a little too much. I haven't looked at Old Testament history yet.

This is also not to say that the Bible is the only place where such things occur (where the event is not written down till many years later and then claimed that what is written is what happened).

History is written by the winners, and truth is only a question of belief.

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 2:02 am

Interesting that although you don't share the belief, but enjoyed the movie and how it's well made.

About the nail on wrist instead of palm, it has been speculated by many and I think it makes more sense for the wrist too. But then it's a technicalilty, and since Mel Gibson is a Catholic where most statues portray the nailing on the palm, I think the movie portrayed the same for historical and traditional reasons.

About the table, I don't know. It's prob. there just for dramatic effect Wink

As for the factuality of the bible, you are talking about its Canonicity which is a widely debated topic I don't want or know enough to go into here. But your statement that "truth is only a question of belief"... a question: Do you think there are no truths other than what you believe is true?

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:04 pm

Or perhaps truth being a matter of belief, which I think I agree with, it's not so much a matter of MY belief being the only truth, as it is that each of us sees our own truth, based on our backgrounds and our beliefs.

Quite arrogant to say my beliefs are the only truth, but I think fairly accurate to say that each of us has a core set of beliefs we consider true, these may be (and surely are) different for each of us. But stating our personal belief systems are what determines what we see as truth.

In a simplistic example, you and you and me and someone else, we all believe rose leaves are green. This is truth to us, that the leaves on the rose bushes are green. But to the colorblind person? This is not truth, except when combined with the belief that most of the world sees those leaves as green, so they surely are.

My visual, for religions, is of us all walking through a wilderness... sometimes on a path, sometimes not. Some of us try to walk the path blazed by our religious leaders, and sometimes our paths converge and sometimes they separate. But all the paths are heading in the same direction. And our duty as people is to help those who have fallen or need help getting back to their feet. And none of us walk in lockstep every minute of our lives, even if we walk with the group of our faith most of the time. And I think it's important for us to recognize other paths, even ones we will never travel, as valid routes to the end of the journey.

Or maybe I'm just talking nonsense, just eager for the end of Lent and the beginning of holy week. I will be so glad to shout the A word in two weeks. :)

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 3:09 pm

lol yes, Easter is in 2 weeks.

btw I should rephrase my question: Is one's perception and belief the sole basis of truth? Coz just as thejanet says about the colorblind, there are so many things in this world I cannot explain, nor can science.

But anyways, kaletainer, i think i misread your quote, it's interesting nonetheless. The line "History is written by the winners, and truth is only a question of belief." Is it from a book or something?

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 7:23 pm

I agree with what thejanet has said, on everything pretty much.

"Is one's perception and belief the sole basis of truth? Coz just as thejanet says about the colorblind, there are so many things in this world I cannot explain, nor can science. "

I would say that one's perception and belief is the sole basis of truth. Faith is a big part of how everybody sees things. eg: As in the colorblind example: "This is not truth, except when combined with the belief that most of the world sees those leaves as green, so they surely are. "

The colorblind person has faith that what a majority of what other people see is true, even though he cannot tell it himself. He percieves that a majority of the world cannot be wrong and chooses to believe in what they say.

And if another colorblind person chooses not to put so much faith in the rest of the world? To him the color of the leaf can be whatever he chooses it to be, or he can not take a stance on leaf color and say that he simply does not know.

I would agree that there are things in this world I can't explain, nor can science, and there are stances you can take, much like the colorblind person. You can choose to believe what the majority say (or believe themselves), you can believe what you want to believe, or you can choose to not know.

Most people have a mixture of stances. I for instance, do not know how we all got here, I have no answer. On after death I choose to believe that there is no other plane of existence, that what we have at this moment is all there is, and past this there is simply, "nothing."

I don't think believing in a god is bad though. In my minds eye he is simply a father/mother figure. I know a few people who have ended up bettering their lives because of a turn in their beliefs toward christianity, and as thejanet has mentioned, it would be arrogant to say my beliefs are the only truth.

As for the line, "History is written by the winners, and truth is only a question of belief." Truth is only a question of belief, is what we've been discussing and a simple observation by myself. History is written by the winners, is something my highschool teacher thought was true, he was an engaging teacher. I dunno if I totally think what he said is true, but I believe it to be at least a half truth. I think he meant that there are always more than one side to an argument, but many times only one side gets passed down for any reason (popularity, control of publishment by the "winners," those who "lossed" are simply no more to pass their side down). Often times other sides of history are presented to the public eventually but the popular one is entrenched into everybodies mind, and people are very hard to change once grown up with a certain mindset.

Kinda rambling.

Good Night.
Wink

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:13 pm

Looking back at what I wrote, it reads as if I am saying people can very easily choose to believe whatever, at anytime. This was not my intention. It is not a simple matter to just change the way you believe. Take myself for instance, as stated earlier I do not believe in any sort of life after death. Do you really think I want there to NOT be some sort of life after death? I wish I COULD believe there is something afterwards, for as every year passes it seems as if life is moving faster, and soon, death will occur. Like most sane living beings, I want to continue on with existence.

"Well then let me tell you about God, and his son Jesus."...

I've heard it all before, hundreds of times, by family, friends, coworkers, and complete strangers. It is great that it works for so many people, it just does not work for me. (sorry for stepping on anybodies toes, I know it might offend somebody in some way) When I hear "God" I think of Greek Mythology, but instead of many gods you simply have one. God is a way for people to explain things they can't explain. How did we get here? Why are we here? Is my life meaningless? Is there any reason why I should do "good?" What happens when I die? These are just some of the questions that are answered, but in MANY different ways, by many different religions. So what makes christianity so special? I, myself, do not see anything special. Jesus. That is what is so special. A man who under went extreme torture, died, and then was resurrected. By who's account? The New Testament. The New Testament, a group of books originally sent anonymously to the church (which IS the government during the time of Jesus) written decades after the resurrection of Jesus, the authors reputed to being his disciples, and were picked from among many other "books" that did not make it into the New Testament for one reason or another and finally, 200 years after his Christ's death, released. There was no printing press during this time, documents could not be simply "copied" thousands upon thousands of times over very easily or independently. This new testament is what the church backed, it is what got passed down over the centuries.

(There are many other "issues" I have with believing the bible, this was just an illustration)

All of this is not an issue if you believe in God. The bible is his word, it is your truth.

Just as all of this has probably not changed anybody else's view (it was never meant to, I gave up on "conversion" a long time ago), their views will probably not change mine. All it was meant to do was to show that choosing to believe something (or not to believe something) is not necessarily an easy thing. Even though I want to believe in a life after death, I can't see christianity as a viable answer to that want (Nor any other religion I have heard of for that matter.).

It is sort of like an insane person. A person TRUELY believes God said to put their little baby in the oven. Their lunatics of course, but you can't just make an insane person sane. Some may eventually come around, but it won't be overnight, so it is with beliefs. We are all a little insane.

I know I haven't really introduced anything new, more or less just restated things I've heard over the years or through books I've read. I apologize if I stepped on any toes.

For me, the walk through the wilderness is the walk through life. Any path is alright, as long as you keep walking forward.

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:36 pm

Pretty interesting. Agree with some of what you said like history is written by the winners (yes, the writing of differing viewpoints of history is Historians' job), but obviously I don't agree with your belief that nothingness is the eventualilty of existence.

kaletainer wrote:

The colorblind person has faith that what a majority of what other people see is true, even though he cannot tell it himself. He percieves that a majority of the world cannot be wrong and chooses to believe in what they say.

Isn't perception that of an individual, instead of that of others? When you believe what others perceive, I think that's faith. As defined by the bible, "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

As for the bible and Christianity. Firstly, on an intellectual level, there are many historic and archeological evidence in its support, that should not be ignored. Walls of Jericho in OT collapsed outward for example, and most importantly, prophecy of the Messiah in Isaiah, which was fulfilled in Jesus' death down to every single detail.

But what makes me believe in Christ? I would say there's more than just physical evidence and faith, as no doubt anyone would refute them. What makes Christianity special is it's NOT a religion. It's a personal relationship with God, through the Holy spirit. I speak of this from me personally, and... certain events in my life. Faith is only a start. It is important as the basis, but without the experience, it's only blind faith, and any scientific evidence in support or against would be moot.

Other religions is different in ending in the faith part, from as far as I know about them. Buddhism believes in escape to nothingness from the karma of suffering, Hinduism believes in personal god(s), Islam believes in personal and lesser angels and is somewhat of a big twist on Christianity, just like many other cults like Mormonism, etc. But they all take one's
"deeds" as precedent (correct me if I'm wrong), while Christianity is faith and acceptance of Christ first, deeds later through the relationship you develop.

btw, I'm somewhat a scientist (or, let's just say I "believe" in science) and I see no contradiction with it and Christianity.

Hope it didn't sound like a lecture. Consider it my Christian counterpoint.

Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:36 am

I just want to say that I did not see this movie, nor do I want to see this movie, nor will I ever in my life see this movie. I also want to say that I am a VERY strong and active Christian.
Christ is the center of my faith and beliefs, and from what I have heard about the violence and gore of this movie, I honestly do not believe that Christ himself would even want me to watch it. As a Christian, I try to focus on his life. He lived as he would want us to strive to live. He gave the perfect example of life, and that should be our focus, not his gory death, but instead his glorious life.
I also believe that the most important event in the entire history of our world was the Atonement, Christ's act of pure selfless love for us that allows us to gain repentance, be forgiven and return to live with our Heavenly Father in the world to come. However, Christ suffered for the sins of the world in the Garden of Gethsemane, where he bled from every pore. The crucifiction was just the final act of the Atonement, not the whole thing.
Christ would want me to do what's right and make good choices. Seeing his bloody dead body on the bigscreen is not one of them. Will it make me more appreciative of what he did for me? Maybe, but my life will not be any better for it, nor will I be more apt to follow his example from life for it. Perhaps, most people just will just stare out of pure awe at all the blood and gore, and be thankful they are not in his position, but blood and gore is not what his death for us is all about, nor is it what his life was all about. Christ himself, I cannot see in my mind --would even be pleased to watch this movie, and that is the question I think we should all be asking ourselves before we make any worthwhile decisions as long as we live, though difficult as it may be to Choose the Right.

Thanks,
~Gabe S.

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2004 9:46 am

I'm a Christian and I watched the movie and after watching it, to me personally it wasn't a movie but an experience. I appreciated Jesus for what He did through the suffering and humiliation that He had to endure. I cried as Jesus was whipped and then crucified for my sins. I was supposed to go through that and worse in Hell but instead Jesus took my place and He redeemed all those who believed in Him.
However not all was gore as the last part saw a smile on my face as Jesus arose and walked out of teh tomb. I thought how great it was if Mel showed the last bit whereby Jesus gathered His disciples at Galilee and gave them His last commandant before returning home to heaven.
Like what IH said, Christianity is a relationship, its personal as its between you and God. He wants the best for you and indeed He has given His greatest gift: His son.