Posted on 03/09/2004 6:00:17 AM PST by KriegerGeist
The Passion is Turning Things Upside Down
By Gene Edward Veith
World Magazine
Both sides should realize that if all Jews really were personally responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, then every Christian should love every Jew, since without Christ's death, God's wrath would have fallen on each of us instead.
CBN.com – CHRIST REALLY DOES HAVE A WAY OF TURNING things upside down. Crowds of Christians pour into an R-rated movie, while cultural liberals—who usually say violent entertainment is harmless and art is supposed to be shocking—are warning about too much violence and a movie's baleful effects. An "art house film" in a foreign language with a controversial topic, a cutting-edge style, and an in-your-face aesthetic—a film that could not even find a major studio distributor—has turned into a smash hit.
The Passion of the Christ earned more in one day than any other religious-themed movie in history has made total. It had a bigger opening box office than any movie ever outside of the summer and holiday seasons. "Playing on 4,643 screens at 3,006 theaters, the $30 million production took in a whopping $26,556,573" on opening day, reported Box Office Mojo, a Hollywood trade site, "ironically prompting most in the industry to use the Lord's name in vain out of sheer amazement."
And yet, Hollywood, going against its own business interests, is reportedly set to blacklist Mel Gibson. The New York Times reports that the powers that be in the movie industry—those defenders of artistic freedom who bewail the blacklisting of Hollywood's communists decades ago—are going to punish Mr. Gibson for making this movie.
The Times' Sharon Waxman cites a number of powerful industry leaders who have vowed to have nothing to do with Mr. Gibson. She quotes one head of a studio who would not allow his name to be used: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of."
The article shows that part of the hostility is sheer aversion to religion. A bigger factor is the conviction of many Jews, among them some of Hollywood's biggest players, that the film is anti-Semitic. The controversy has made clear that just as some who call themselves Christians have blamed all Jews, including those who were not alive at the time, and Judaism itself for killing Jesus, there are some Jews who blame all Christians, including those who were not alive at the time, and Christianity itself for the Holocaust.
Both sides should realize that if all Jews really were personally responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, then every Christian should love every Jew, since without Christ's death, God's wrath would have fallen on each of us instead.
But as the controversy grew, worries about anti-Semitism became only one of the complaints against such an explicit rendering of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection. Newsweek came out with a cover story attacking the Bible itself. The Dallas Morning News trotted out liberal theologians who denied that Christ's death was sacrificial and an atonement for sin. Said a New Testament scholar from Berkeley, "It makes God sound bloodthirsty."
As for the reaction among Christians, many evangelicals considered The Passion of the Christ too Catholic. But if the movie is more Catholic than evangelicals are used to, it is also more evangelical than Catholics are used to. Mel Gibson went on TV to tell about his fall into sin and how, at the pinnacle of his external success, he fell into despair and was near suicide. Then he picked up a Bible and read about how Jesus died for him, which turned his life around.
That is an "evangelical" testimony, not that common among Catholics, especially traditionalist Catholics like Mr. Gibson. For evangelicals, the center of their devotion is the Scriptures, something traditionalist Catholics tended to keep away from the laity, but here Mr. Gibson—defending the truth of the Bible before his inquisitors—follows the text of Scripture in a literal, highly realistic way. And the subtitles proclaim the gospel all the way through—how Christ is bearing our sins and suffering in our place (which means all of the horrors we watch Him endure should have been happening to us).
American Christianity had become superficial, happy-clappy, offering formulas for earthly success rather than the promise of eternal life and a call to radical discipleship. Our evangelism had become reduced to "ask Jesus into your heart," without sometimes even mentioning who Jesus is and what He paid for our salvation. This movie, for all its faults and limitations, has reminded Christians of the magnitude of the cross.
And, in an uncanny way, we are seeing the truth of Scripture demonstrated once again: "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:23-24). [ This about says it all]
Yes, there is. Personally, I thought it was a bit much, but I certainly didn't let it take away from the story. Mel is a Catholic. I would expect to see a more Catholic interpretation than if he were, say, a Baptist or a Pentecostal. The nuances that would be different in the telling don't change the historical facts surrounding the trial and crucificxion of Jesus nor do they change the message of the cross. There has to be some dramatic license with details since scripture doesn't address many details, but the details are dressing. The substance is biblically and historically accurate.
I hadn't considered that.
That had to do with Jewish custom at the time, if I recall correctly. After Joseph died, it fell to Jesus as Mary's firstborn, to see that she was cared for. Because He knew Hw would not be there to care for her, He conferred that responsibility to those He most trusted. That was His message from the cross to John and Mary when He said, "woman, behold thy son; son behold thy mother." I think the movie just took that message a step furthur in having other of the disciples refer to her as mother. It isn't in scripture, but it isn't contrary to scripture either.
I did too. It showed Jesus as being so ordinary, yet so full of life.
I kept expecting that too, although there was a tremendous amount of material conveyed by facial expression in the film and this was one such case. Simon of Cyrene was another.
Actually, all four gospel accounts have the cock crowing immediately upon Peter's third denial. In Luke's account, the cock begins to crow while Peter is still speaking. As far as the movie is concerned, it makes sense that the cock crowing might be drowned out by the noise, but the implication is there nonetheless.
Did I miss something?
I didn't make it clear I was talking about the next movie I would like to see Mel Gibson make?
I realize you didn't address the question to me, but allow me to respond anyway.
When I was a little girl, I loved the rich, colorful illustrations in the Bible, as well as in my Bible story books. They made the scriptures more real to me and, in some ways, more understandable. This movie is nothing more than an animated illustration of the scriptures. It is rooted in, and built on, biblical truth. Biblical art is a rich tradition in the history of the church, but art is always colored by the perception of the artist. The real art is in presenting it in such a way that it can be embraced in perception of the viewer. Mel has taken the truth of the scriptures and given them shape and color and sound, and done so very effectively. Sure, there are elements that are his perception, but how hard is it, when one encounters a perception that is different than one's own, to say, that is simply the perception of the artist? I would think that would only be difficult for one who was afraid his own faith might be changed as a result of seeing the film, and in my opinion, one who held that fear likely has a pretty shaky faith to begin with.
Maybe this movie isn't for everybody. I have no problem with people deciding not to see a movie for whatever reasons, but the fact that there are a lot of people posting on these threads shows that for whatever else people are about this movie, they are not indifferent. I avoided most of these threads until I had seen the movie for two reaons. One, I didn't want my own perception of the movie to be distorted by what others had said about it, and two; if I were going to offer an opinion about the movie itself, I wanted it to be based on my own experience from having seen it. I think it is fine to question something one hasn't seen, but not to judge it based on what others have said. I'm not saying that is what you are doing specifically, just that I see a lot of such comments in general that others make who haven't seen the movie, and I rank their remarks on the same level as those of individuals who don't vote and then complain about the results of an election.
Yes, you did. I guess I should have used a sarcasm tag. I thought it was obvious. I guess not. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.