Mel Gibson's "Passion"

an agnostic's view

Published on February 28, 2004 By Angloesque In Entertainment

Saw "The Passion of the Christ" on Wednesday when it opened. Could have posted this sooner, but didn't because (a) I wanted to internalize the movie a bit more, and (

I'm at a place where the Internet is slower than my fiance's driving. Advance apologies for typos but the keyboard : monitor delay is a good three seconds sometimes, and I type really fast.

Entered the theatre wondering about the merit of the anti-Semitism claims. Figured I'd give the movie a fair shot since I have general respect for Gibson and no respect for racism. Was raised Christian, tend toward agnostic, like several things about buddhism and believe in evolution. Those are the claims I tried to put aside at the door.

I didn't find the movie to be anti-Semitic, and I looked. At one point Jesus says to Pilate, "The sins of the one who brought me here are greater than yours." At first I thought he was referring to the Jewish leaders, which would obviously be viewed as anti-Semitic by some (though, can a Semite be anti-semitic? can I hate white people even though I am one? or the french because I'm french? no; maybe?). Anyway, I think Jesus was referring to Satan as the one whose sins were greater than Pilate's, or else the sins of the world. If it was God's plan for Jesus to die that way (and I'm not going to get into that), then Pilate (or the Sanhedrin) didn't actually have a choice (also not going to discuss pre-destination). Perhaps that's why the Christianity I have known, which isn't Gibson's version, has viewed him so sympathetically, and the juxtaposition of his sympathetic character next to the Sanhedrin makes for a very stark picture.

As for the Jewish leaders, the Sanhedrin, at one point even Caiphas, the Jewish head honcho, turns away from the flogging because it was too much for him. So there was humanity in those leaders, particularly in the end where they enter the temple after the earthquake to see the curtain dividing the sanctuary from the most holy place rent into two; the looks on their faces are, "What have we done?" It's almost like their realisation of their actions came too late, but was there nonetheless.

I liked the movie very much; it felt real in that gritty way. The acting was well-done except, perhaps, for John the beloved; he seemed pretty flat. There were a few continuity issues from frame to frame, though noting compared to any of the LOTR continuity problems. Overall the story line and characters were very similar to the gospel story; there were some additions, including Jesus' dialogue, but it stayed pretty close. I didn't feel there was too much violence, and it was never gratuitious. Even when covered my eyes I could still hear it, and when the camera was focused on the crowd during the flogging, it was the sound that elicited the emotions in my brain more than the pictures. It was real; it was hard to grapple with; but it wasn't gratuitious. The character of Satan added complexity and intrigue. Didn't like the part where he was holding that naked child devil, or whatever that was; seemed unnecessary. Good acting. Good lighting effects in the Gethsemane scene. Even the extras were believable, and they're the ones that can ruin movies for me. Judas was complex, though not as much as I read into the story.

I would fault the movie on a couple things: I think Pilate could have been weak behind doors, but not in front of the crowd--not a man in his position. His character did seem too flimsy. Similarly, I think that two of the Roman guards (note: not Jews) were too vindictive about their task (if anything, the film is anti-Centurian). Both Pilate and those guards just went a little too far with their roles. The part with the crow or raven was sick and shouldn't have been there.

Phenomenal ending. Best. Panned. Shot. Ever. (the one in the tomb)

The bottom line: I see it reinforcing the faith of Christians. I don't see it evangelizing athiests, Jews, or Eastern religions to Christianity. Agnostics, maybe. The view Gibson's portrayed of Jesus, the Sanhedrin, and Pilate is a very traditional view the Christian church has held. I don't think it is anti-semitic nor was I ever raised to think so.

I once heard a rabbi say, "The Christians, they're looking for the second coming; us, we're looking for the first. Maybe it's the same thing." Maybe.

Comments (Page 2)

aconservative

on Mar 02, 2004

I went to see the movie yesterday and I am one of those who can say that it is not anti-semitic. Be that it may, if I were a Jew, I would use that movie as my evidence that the land that is presently called Palestine is all Jewish land. This movie proves that there were Jews over 2000 years ago and not a single Palestinian soul. I am not aware that there were any Jews that became Arabs.

That the word Palestinian was a British invention and has no historical basis before 20th century.

Encourage all members of the UN to watch the film and explain that more than 2000 years ago, the people that lived in Galilee, Narareth, Jordan River, etc were all Jews. Pilate and his legions were there just like MacArthur in Japan.

The British, through wars, governed those lands and gave land titles to the Arabs and Bedoins, but historically, the land belongs to the Jews. God through Moses endowed these lands to the Jews.

See yuh!

aconservative

BulbousHead

on Mar 02, 2004

Encourage all members of the UN to watch the film and explain that more than 2000 years ago

Right after you encourage the UN to kick all the white people out of the Americas; two thousand years ago, they belonged to the Natives.

Angloesque

on Mar 02, 2004

A point I was just about to make, BulbousHead. Good one.

aconservative

on Mar 03, 2004

What I was referring to is this - The theft-by-expropriation of more Palestinian land for the fence will certainly result in Palestinian families leaving or being forced out of their ancestral lands and homes.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/Closure/ethnic_cleansing_with_guns.htm

Palestinians claim that it is their ancestral land.

I did not encourage the UN to kick all the white people of the Americas. Only liberals and socialists do such a things. To conservatives, the UN is a debating society without guts, yet liberals use it to air their leftist thoughts as if they can do anything. But then, if you remove the UN, where will the leaders of those emerging countries get their "wealth".

I am a minority and I am not white. I respect the fact that without the white race, the natives as you say will still be "natives".

aconservative

Wahkonta Anathema

on Mar 03, 2004

aconservative: The land wherein the jews resided in that time was not Jewish, but Roman. The jews were subjects who located there as Rome allowed. Palestine does have mention in the Bible though and the 'converso' Jews have attached themselves to many, many cultures and powers throughout history, Christoforo Columbo himself being one. For purposes of the Census in the USA, the Jew is actually counted as "White" or European, the only group of the Middle East to receive such treatment. They don't object, wonder why. A further reading of the land of Palestine will show the Moslems once gave sanctuary to Jews when the world was hunting them down. Trumans Order allowing the creation of the Israel State does not legitimize them as owners of that sand.

Alan

on Mar 03, 2004

For those of you who doubt that Jesus is the Son of God, who may feel they have been "educated beyond such conclusions," I would implore you to read a book called "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel, who was an unbelieving investigative journalist at the time he wrote it.
While our intellect will not ever get everything correct, it is refreshing and amazing to see just how completely the gospel is true, not only for our heart and spirit, but also for our intellect, if only we investigate the real facts, instead of trying to come to conclusions with the bits of incomplete information we pick up in life without much effort.

BulbousHead

on Mar 03, 2004

While our intellect will not ever get everything correct, it is refreshing and amazing to see just how completely the gospel is true, not only for our heart and spirit, but also for our intellect, if only we investigate the real facts

The Gospels' value as journalism must be questioned since they were written decades after Jesus died based presumably on oral histories and memory.

aconservative

on Mar 03, 2004

wakhonta:

I hope you are not "agnostic". Didn't "God" gave Moses the land title of those lands? If you believe this - Moses was a Jew.

aconservative

BulbousHead

on Mar 03, 2004

Didn't "God" gave Moses the land title of those lands?

God gave out deeds? This is a new twist...

d880640

on Mar 03, 2004

Isaiah 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary;
but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence
to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for
a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Psalms 22:16 For dogs (Gentiles=The Romans) have compassed me:
the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me:
they pierced my hands and my feet.

Isaiah 53:
[4] Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows:
yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

John 11:
[49] And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
[50] Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
[51] And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
[52] And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Isaiah 52:
[13] Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
[14] As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man,
and his form more than the sons of men:
[15] So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him:
for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had
not heard shall they consider.

Isaiah 11
[10] And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse,
which shall stand for an ensign of the people;
to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Isaiah 42
[1] Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect,
in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him:
he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
[6] I the LORD have called thee in righteousness,
and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee,
and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

Isaiah 50:[6] I gave my back to the smiters,
and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair:
I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

The movie is Wonderful. We are in a world-wide Spiritual
Revival right now! A woman told me she was in a "big" book
store and it was filled with teens wanting to buy
books on Jesus. This is only a tip of the iceberg
of what the Holy Spirit is going to do.

aconservative

on Mar 03, 2004

d880640

I understand the shock that is tormenting these godless creatures. I should have said "beings". For years they have been busy eliminating God from our beliefs, teaching our kids that we came from monkeys, covering our declaration of independence saying our rights was given to us by the constituion, kids unable to pray in school, calling the birth of Jesus some other name, eliminating the words "under god" from the pledge of allegiance, etc.

Now a movie comes up showing that Jesus suffered, died and rose again. How can that be says the agnostics. We didn't teach these in schools. It's not true. No one can rise again from the dead.

They lied saying it is anti-semitic, even tho' it's not.

Yet people came to see it. They try to think of all the reasons in the world to make it as if it was not real, a Snow White fantasy. It's only a move.

They failed.

Waalaah - in 3 days it grossed $128 million.

aconservative

BulbousHead

on Mar 03, 2004

For years they have been busy eliminating God from our beliefs

Schools aren't supposed to teach religious beliefs.

teaching our kids that we came from monkeys

We did.

covering our declaration of independence saying our rights was given to us by the constituion

They were.

kids unable to pray in school

You can pray in school; the school just can't lead or organize the prayer.

eliminating the words "under god" from the pledge of allegiance

They don't belong there.

No one can rise again from the dead.

All evidence suggests that no one can rise from the dead.

They try to think of all the reasons in the world to make it as if it was not real, a Snow White fantasy.

Yes, it's a vast conspiracy by liberals to denounce Mel Gibson's movie.

Every post of yours makes you look more and more like an ignorant idiot. Keep 'em coming!

bakerstreet

on Mar 04, 2004

BulbousHead : I resisted the urge to give that last one a 'trolling'. Ain't I nice? I think you are a decent person, but you need to learn that you can't disprove opinion with opinion. These 'point-by-point' retorts are great if you want to take a stab at 'truth', but as far as 'rights' and what 'should be', people decide that, like it or not.

Unless you are a literalist following some architecture for living, I figure you are stating your opinions. That said, I like to read your posts, you make really good points from your perspective. I just hate the way you seem to think they refute other people's equally valid opinions. None of this stuff is objective 'truth'.

As far as Israel, I fall squarely in the middle. As for Gibson's movie, I don't see how the danger of artistic expression is even an issue. I mainly looked in to see how you guys could still possibly be talking about it, lol.

BulbousHead

on Mar 04, 2004

just hate the way you seem to think they refute other people's equally valid opinions.

Your error is in your evaluation of the opinions of others as equally valid.

Okay, okay, point taken, though I really only did that on the Constitution point and the Pledge of Allegiance point. The others are either legal facts or scientific theories, not my opinions. Also, I think that aconservative thinks that liberals will back off their views in shame if they are presented from his ultra-Fundamentalist "waah waah they hate God" angle; I just want it to be clear that no such cowardice will be exhibited here.

dante

on Mar 09, 2004

One thing I think everyone needs to remember when they are watching this movie, Mel Gibson made it. It is not because he make bad movies, it is because he does not make christian movies in general. People who watch tv today tend to suck in everything they see on tv and the movies and say that is real because I have seen it. Nobody today knows what really happend then more than what we can say from the books we read, The bible or other

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!