|
Post by mussolandia on Mar 29, 2004 20:52:14 GMT -5
I am aware this movie is generating quite a lot of debate and I thought I would bring it over here.
I consider it to be a good movie (enjoyable is not a term I would apply). My personal evaluation of the historical aspects of the movie, being aware of the basic outlines of the Gospels, is that it follows what is written (I try not to bring the word "objective" in because that would bring about another debate).
There is a lot of controversy in my country about the probable anti-Semitism of the movie. I did not find the movie anti-Semitic. I am a Catholic, but by no means do I adhere to the interpretation that the Jews are to blame for the conviction of Christ. I believe that it was humanity and all its inherent faults (embodied in this case by the Jewish people) who were responsible.
Opinions are more than welcome
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Mar 29, 2004 21:16:49 GMT -5
Well put Comrade Mussolandia. Unfortunately the Jews have felt the sting of the label Christ Killer so seemingly they have the right to take ready offense. Seems to me alot of people were involved in the death sentence of Christ, Sanhedrin, Romans, citizenry and the Apostles. I'm reluctant to use the term Jew since it would include Christ and the Apostles. The initial followers were Jews after all as was Christ. I don't remember non Jews standing up and pleading for clemency.
I like the fact they used the extreme violence. Too often the paintings whitewash the horrible tortures used at the time. Floggings tear and rend flesh exposing bone. Crowns of thorns had spikes 3 and four inches long. While one may wish to exercise caution allowing children to see it, the suffering is a very fundamental basis of Christianity making the suffering and therefore sacrifice all the more real and terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Mar 29, 2004 21:30:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the reviews. I was wondering what people were thinking about it (besides the usual critics in the media).
Yes, the suffering of Christ was always taught to me to be a rather horrible event. In fact, crucifixtion was a horrible death that often took days before the person died. I don't look forward to seeing that scene, but I do believe it is an essential component to understand regarding what Christ endured for all of us.
I am in total agreement with both of you regarding the role of the Jews. I have never believed that they were solely responsible for Christ's death, and the original christians were Jews. I often get sickened when "Christians" extoll anti-semantic remarks based on the belief that the Jews killed Christ. I like the way you put it Mussolandia.
By the way, were the subtitles distracting?
|
|
|
Post by mussolandia on Mar 29, 2004 22:37:01 GMT -5
I find Black Adder's comment of the Jews feeling the "sting of the label Christ Killer" very interesting. It is an observable characterisitic of their culture, and this I say in a merely descriptive way (we all have our particular faults), that they seem to feel they are constantly being accused or discriminated. I interpret this as a logical pattern resulting from the hardships inflicted upon them throughout history. Yet if a Jew finds this movie anti-Semitic, then, as Mell Gibson put very well, he finds Christianity anti-Semitic.
The images can be brutal, but they have revealed a side of the issue which sometimes as Christians we forget. Like Thorin said, crucifixition was a horrible way to die and it was only applied to petty criminals. As a human being, God suffered and refused to release himself of the pain, thus giving meaning to his sacrifice.
Comrade Thorin, I thought the subtitles were indispensible, since my Aramaic is a bit undeveloped. No, really, I understand your point. It would have been a real blow to film it in English. One of the ways I was immersed into the movie was by trying to understand some of Latin. Actually I caught the general idea of their phrases without reading the subtitles. I can only conclude that the level of complexity was kept to a minimum.
I also liked the fact that flashbacks were not widely used. The overall feeling I got from the movie was "straight and to the point".
|
|
Unlimited
Senator / Pacific Surveyor of Foreign Threat
Vanguard of the Pacific Revolution
Posts: 694
|
Post by Unlimited on Mar 30, 2004 9:06:28 GMT -5
I have heard much about this film, from "it tells the story exactly the way it happened" to "this film proves the existance of God" and of course, my friends review which was "it wasn't that violent. Could have used more sex.". So understandably (since nobody knows "exactly" what heppened, even the different Gospels disagree), I have laughed off most non-professional reviews.
From what I understand, this was an "interpretation" of the story that used excessive violence in order to sell and make money (something which it did in abundance). And since Mel Gibson holds the belief that Jews were to blame, I have no trouble believeing that he portrayed it in his film.
But then, an athiest who has not actually seen the film is probably not going to give the best thoughts on it. So I will leave it there,
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Mar 30, 2004 9:17:35 GMT -5
I have heard much about this film, from "it tells the story exactly the way it happened" to "this film proves the existance of God" and of course, my friends review which was "it wasn't that violent. Could have used more sex.". So understandably (since nobody knows "exactly" what heppened, even the different Gospels disagree), I have laughed off most non-professional reviews. From what I understand, this was an "interpretation" of the story that used excessive violence in order to sell and make money (something which it did in abundance). And since Mel Gibson holds the belief that Jews were to blame, I have no trouble believeing that he portrayed it in his film. But then, an athiest who has not actually seen the film is probably not going to give the best thoughts on it. So I will leave it there, You are right on some points, Unlimited, and wrong on others. The story was an interpretation of the Gospels, and at the same time Gibson made use of a number of private revelations from various Catholic saints to complete his picture. A good example would be the thorn that pierces Christ's eyeball. However, you are wrong when saying that Gibson believes the Jews are to blame for the death of Christ. He has stated publically and numerous times that his belief is that we are all guilty of Christ's death. This is in line with Catholic theology, which proclaims the neccessity of Christ's death and crucifixion because of the sins of all mankind. Gibson himself, has never come out to declare the Jews responsible. I do find the blood and guts of the film to be rather fitting. Isaiah 52 and 53 speak to the gruesome nature of the Lord's death. Isaiah 52: 13-15 See, my servant shall prosper, he shall be raised high and greatly exalted. Even as many were amazed at him - so marred was his look beyond that of man, and his appearance beyond that of mortals - So shall he startle many nations, because of him kings shall stand speechless; For those who have not been told shall see, those who have not heard shall ponder it. Isaiah 53 Who would believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him. He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem. Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed. We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all. Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth. Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny? When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people, A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood. (But the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.) If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him. Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear. Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses
|
|
|
Post by mussolandia on Mar 30, 2004 18:10:16 GMT -5
I had never read the prophet's words, but they are befitting to the manner of life and death of Christ. Commendable research, Comrade Abysseria.
It makes you ponder then why are the Jews still waiting for a mesiah. Quite understandably from my perspective as a non-Jewish person, I cannot comprehend what is it they expect.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Mar 30, 2004 19:45:36 GMT -5
I had never read the prophet's words, but they are befitting to the manner of life and death of Christ. Commendable research, Comrade Abysseria. It makes you ponder then why are the Jews still waiting for a mesiah. Quite understandably from my perspective as a non-Jewish person, I cannot comprehend what is it they expect. And in all likelihood they most likely can't comprehend why Christians have accepted that point of view. For that matter the Muslims probably can't comprehend why the Jews and the Christians haven't accepted their refinement of the previous texts. Faith is a slippery thing, can't back it up with fact like a mathematical formula. As such I leave everyone to believe what they want in peace unless they have the audacity to wake me at 8 AM on a Saturday waving a Watchtower magazine in my face. Then I tend to be less liberal.
|
|
|
Post by mussolandia on Mar 30, 2004 20:40:21 GMT -5
Good point, Comrade Black Adder.
I knew before formulating my question that it was a vacuous, naive statement that nevertheless I had to formulate. I am a Christian because I choose to follow a certain philosophy, not because of my awareness of dubious historical events. Yet, overall, I think the same way as you do. A Muslim, or a Jew or any other has chosen to honour their God in a certain ritual way, but the essence of belief in a superior being still holds for everybody.
Thoroughout my life I have had to defend my religious beliefs against Atheists much more than against people of other beliefs. What I could extract from my discussions is that the Atheists I have encountered (again this is by no means a generalization and by no means at all an attack to our benevolent senator) were usually patronizing towards me. They associated belief in God with a Child's amusement at a fairy tale.
I found this extremely unintelligent.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Mar 30, 2004 22:58:40 GMT -5
The hypocrisy of the enlightened. They plead for understanding on everything but where they come from. In all likelihood the Athiest who preaches so vehemently against Religion has issues. Same for the Christian Fundamentalist. I sometimes wonder if they attempt to compensate for a doubt or a shortcoming in their own philosophy.
Whatever the case everyone is free to pursue what they wish so long as you don't try to ensnare me in it.
|
|
Sir Paul
Senator / Director of the Pacific Press
This is PNN
Posts: 617
|
Post by Sir Paul on Mar 31, 2004 0:31:57 GMT -5
Actually, the jews really didn't feel a "sting" from this movie. If anything, it was a boon. The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) raised more money before the release of the Passion than it ever has.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Mar 31, 2004 0:38:23 GMT -5
Hehehe. Good for them! Python is re releasing Life of Brian as well.
|
|
|
Post by Antigone Memorial on Mar 31, 2004 6:32:49 GMT -5
Life of Brian generated just as much controversy on it's release, and the funny thing is that it isn't even a serious film! It was slammed by just about every major religion at the time. The python crew were quoted as saying "We don't know what all the fuss is about. At least we've got them all agreeing on something for the first time in 2000 years!"
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Mar 31, 2004 9:06:29 GMT -5
Good point, Comrade Black Adder. I knew before formulating my question that it was a vacuous, naive statement that nevertheless I had to formulate. I am a Christian because I choose to follow a certain philosophy, not because of my awareness of dubious historical events. Yet, overall, I think the same way as you do. A Muslim, or a Jew or any other has chosen to honour their God in a certain ritual way, but the essence of belief in a superior being still holds for everybody. Thoroughout my life I have had to defend my religious beliefs against Atheists much more than against people of other beliefs. What I could extract from my discussions is that the Atheists I have encountered (again this is by no means a generalization and by no means at all an attack to our benevolent senator) is that they were usually patronizing towards me. They associated belief in God with a Child's amusement at a fairy tale. I found this extremely unintelligent. I agree, comrade Mussolandia. I find myself defending my faith more from Atheists than those that practice a religion. I find that those who are religious, regardless of God or sect, are more tolerant of faith. It was Gandhi that said, all roads lead to God. The experience of faith creates a shared understanding in many. You might find it of interest, as you are Christian, that the Blessed Mother has promised an apparition that will be proof for those that do not believe. This promise will be revealed at Medjugorje, a shrine to the Virgin where she has been appearing to visionaries for over twenty years. The site is here: www.medjugorje.hr/ulazakenstipe.htmJust some food for thought, as I don't know your beliefs on Mary. Best regards, Abysseria
|
|
|
Post by Lactating Nuns on Mar 31, 2004 11:58:38 GMT -5
Actually, the jews really didn't feel a "sting" from this movie. If anything, it was a boon. The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) raised more money before the release of the Passion than it ever has. That's a bit snarky, isn't it? I'm sure Jews, generally speaking, cared more about the (negative) portrayal of Jews in the movie than about how much money the ADL raised in response.
|
|