off topic - Review of "Passion of the Christ"
Read/Post Comments (1)
So, we saw “The Passion of the Christ” this week. Our church is holding a discussion about it this Sunday, so we thought it was an opportune time to see it. I was a little leery of the violence that I’d heard about – but Doug really wanted to see what the hoopla was all about. So we went.
Huh. Wow.
I can first address that it is not anti-Semitic. It is my thought, not being anti-Semitic myself, that Mel actually portrays the Jews as a whole as sheep with a mob mentality.
The movie is, however, anti-Caiphas. From the beginning. I can announce that I came out of the movie being anti-Roman soldier. The symbolism is in-your-face, you can’t miss it. And we both walked out saying, “well, I know what he was trying to get at….”
It also is violent. Very. Very. I can handle bloody things, growing up watching “Nightmare on Elm Street” horror flicks, and I don’t even mind realistic, gritty war movies. However, I’d say there’s a good 15 minutes total, scattered throughout this movie, that I stared at the rows in front of me because I couldn’t stand to watch what was onscreen. I would say that Mel goes a little far. I understand what he was trying to portray (see end of above paragraph) but I don’t personally think it needed to go THAT far. Although your definition of “scourge” and mine could be different.
The Passion details are taken from all four Gospels. I know, because I read the ends again the next day. Historically, Mel was pretty accurate. I liked how Pilate was presented, and his wife played a role that touched me. I liked the musings of Pilate, and the dilemma he faced as a Roman governor in a Jewish “armpit” of the Empire, as Doug puts it. Mel also put in some details that went unmentioned, but if you paid attention, were very interesting. Such as the rabbis being paid by the high priests the night Jesus was arrested (“The high priests’ courtyard. Bring as many people as you can.”). A high priest being sent out of the “trial” for speaking up against the secrecy. One of the disciples accompanying Mother Mary everywhere she went (brother James?). James is also hinted at being Jesus’ brother again later as Jesus is on the cross (“Mother, look upon your son. Son, look upon your Mother.” He looks directly at them, and is clearly not speaking about himself – at least, in Mel’s interpretation).
Doug enlightened me about Veronica, and a long-standing “legend,” if you will, about Veronica’s Veil. Although not mentioned in the Bible (?), it is a prominent scene in the movie. Mary Magdalene is a brief supporting character only. No hints as to their relationship. I did not mind the Mother Mary playing prominence; if she was there, as one of the Gospels says, she certainly would have participated as shown in the movie.
There is also an interesting touch with Satan in the movie. It bothered me in the movie, but afterward I thought it was rather neat. All in all, I’ve ended up reflecting on the movie more a day or two afterward than I did directly after the movie. I still don’t believe (personal conviction here) that Jesus was beaten as badly as shown in the movie. I truly believe that Mel went overboard, and my own argument that although yes, Jesus was the Son of God, I also don’t believe a man could physically survive the beating shown; to then carry a cross through town, up a mountain to Golgotha, and there then be crucified? Nah. But, I know what Mel was trying to get at….
Oh, that brings me to the ONE thing that truly historically bothered me. It was Roman tradition to have the prisoners carry only the crossbeam of the cross; the vertical post was already at the site, waiting to slide into place. Therefore, there has always been arguments (in things I’ve read) about whether Jesus carried the whole cross, or just the crossbeam. Mel portrays it that Pilate, after he washes his hands of the matter, says to Caiphas – “you want him crucified – you take care of it.” So while the other 2 condemned just carry the crossbeam, Jesus drags the whole cross – because the high priests had to furnish it. I don’t agree with that. Historically, of course.
Huh. Wow.
I can first address that it is not anti-Semitic. It is my thought, not being anti-Semitic myself, that Mel actually portrays the Jews as a whole as sheep with a mob mentality.
The movie is, however, anti-Caiphas. From the beginning. I can announce that I came out of the movie being anti-Roman soldier. The symbolism is in-your-face, you can’t miss it. And we both walked out saying, “well, I know what he was trying to get at….”
It also is violent. Very. Very. I can handle bloody things, growing up watching “Nightmare on Elm Street” horror flicks, and I don’t even mind realistic, gritty war movies. However, I’d say there’s a good 15 minutes total, scattered throughout this movie, that I stared at the rows in front of me because I couldn’t stand to watch what was onscreen. I would say that Mel goes a little far. I understand what he was trying to portray (see end of above paragraph) but I don’t personally think it needed to go THAT far. Although your definition of “scourge” and mine could be different.
The Passion details are taken from all four Gospels. I know, because I read the ends again the next day. Historically, Mel was pretty accurate. I liked how Pilate was presented, and his wife played a role that touched me. I liked the musings of Pilate, and the dilemma he faced as a Roman governor in a Jewish “armpit” of the Empire, as Doug puts it. Mel also put in some details that went unmentioned, but if you paid attention, were very interesting. Such as the rabbis being paid by the high priests the night Jesus was arrested (“The high priests’ courtyard. Bring as many people as you can.”). A high priest being sent out of the “trial” for speaking up against the secrecy. One of the disciples accompanying Mother Mary everywhere she went (brother James?). James is also hinted at being Jesus’ brother again later as Jesus is on the cross (“Mother, look upon your son. Son, look upon your Mother.” He looks directly at them, and is clearly not speaking about himself – at least, in Mel’s interpretation).
Doug enlightened me about Veronica, and a long-standing “legend,” if you will, about Veronica’s Veil. Although not mentioned in the Bible (?), it is a prominent scene in the movie. Mary Magdalene is a brief supporting character only. No hints as to their relationship. I did not mind the Mother Mary playing prominence; if she was there, as one of the Gospels says, she certainly would have participated as shown in the movie.
There is also an interesting touch with Satan in the movie. It bothered me in the movie, but afterward I thought it was rather neat. All in all, I’ve ended up reflecting on the movie more a day or two afterward than I did directly after the movie. I still don’t believe (personal conviction here) that Jesus was beaten as badly as shown in the movie. I truly believe that Mel went overboard, and my own argument that although yes, Jesus was the Son of God, I also don’t believe a man could physically survive the beating shown; to then carry a cross through town, up a mountain to Golgotha, and there then be crucified? Nah. But, I know what Mel was trying to get at….
Oh, that brings me to the ONE thing that truly historically bothered me. It was Roman tradition to have the prisoners carry only the crossbeam of the cross; the vertical post was already at the site, waiting to slide into place. Therefore, there has always been arguments (in things I’ve read) about whether Jesus carried the whole cross, or just the crossbeam. Mel portrays it that Pilate, after he washes his hands of the matter, says to Caiphas – “you want him crucified – you take care of it.” So while the other 2 condemned just carry the crossbeam, Jesus drags the whole cross – because the high priests had to furnish it. I don’t agree with that. Historically, of course.
Read/Post Comments (1)
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
