Bill Buckley: BLOODY PASSION

Yahoo! News ^ | Tue, Mar 09, 2004 | William F. Buckley Jr

[Little Bill]

Billy, as much as he contributed to the Conservative movement, we all cut our teeth on "National Review", still lives in the '70's. Those of us that were boppers and AUH2O supporters have redefined the Conservative movement far beyond what Goldwater would have found acceptable.

[NewHampshireDuo]

Bach's St. Matthew Passion is intensely moving. Gibson's Passion is also intensely moving but in a different way. The great thing about the subject matter is that it can be presented in different ways and be true to the original. Bach's work has been around for quite a while and I think the same will be true for Mel's creation.

[Rennes Templar]

"I hate to say this..we all here owe WFBj a lot, but this review has a Kerry style waffling that is undesirable."

I think an intellectual trying to analyze it can't but help engage in major waffling.

[per loin]

Some folks go to the trouble of seeing a movie prior to opining on it.

[jwalsh07]

I'm forming the opinion that Gibson knew he had to make the movie violent in order to differentiate it from all the saccharin stuff that has gone before.

I would suggest seeing the movie before forming opinion.

And thats what it was , a movie, based on scripture but an artistic endeavor. And the most powerful one I have ever seen.

There is a disconnect in ths country between the elite and the rest of us and Mr Buckley is one of the elite.

[NeoCaveman]

Isa 52:14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

So true. Mel was quite restrained.

[wimpycat]

I think Mr. Buckley is under the impression that because the Gospels mention the scourging and beating with not very many words and no graphic details, that the violence done to Jesus was therefore brief and perfunctory. In other words, there's nothing in the Gospels that says whether Jesus was struck (or punched, or spat upon, or hit on the head) seven times, or...seventy times seven times, so while Mel Gibson's rendition is more violent than we're used to seeing, it in no way means his rendition is outside the realm of reasonable conjecture.

[gusopol3]

some evidence of the violence of the scourging by Pilate's surprise that Christ was already dead when Joseph of Arimethea approached him to ask for the body: thus allowing for the fulfillment of O.T. scripture that not a bone would be broken, as happened to the others crucified that day to hasten their deaths before the beginning of the Sabbath.

[wardaddy]

Damn,

AM must have a trigger finger tonight.

This Passion thread lasted only about 45 minutes before getting booted to the back 40.

[sinkspur]

I would suggest seeing the movie before forming opinion.

Nope. I can form an opinion based on what's been written here, and I've read most of it.

There is a disconnect in ths country between the elite and the rest of us and Mr Buckley is one of the elite.

See, walsh, you're part of a contingent that will brook absolutely no criticism of this movie. It's almost as if Jesus Himself is being attacked, if anyone, no matter who, has an objection to it. Jesus didn't make the movie; Mel Gibson did.

And, I'm not picking on you. You number in the vast majority.

Buckley liked the movie; he just thought the violence was overdone.

I'm surprised someone hasn't suggested boycotting NATIONAL REVIEW yet. Buckley would be made to join Charles Krauthammer in the true believers' doghouse.

[Sabertooth]

That doesn't mean that Buckley is senile; it just means that he thinks Gibson was a bit loose with some of the account(much of which was based on the recounting of "visions" of a mystic, Catherine Emmerich). It appears that he was.

Have you read Emmerich?

I haven't, but I found a link to all of her "Dolorous Passion" here.

I'm a few pages into the scene at Gethsemane. To early to form an opinion on how much Mel borrowed from her that wasn't in the Gospels or related Scriptures.

[sinkspur]

Have you read Emmerich?

You may or may not be reading Emmerich. Her "visions" were transcribed by her secretary, who is widely believed to have embellished what she recounted.

That's why the Church has basically discounted these "visions" in its consideration of her canonization.

[MoralSense]

Thank heavens you weighed in with your measured comments, sinkspur. In the Gospels, it's clear that Jesus survived only about eight hours on the cross, when the usual was about three days. That argues for extra suffering pre-crucifixion for Jesus, mortal suffering. Forget which Gospel now, but it was written that near dawn the soldiers came out to break the condemned mens' legs, which would force suffocation on them. Jesus was already dead.

[anniegetyourgun]

While I would agree that we don't know for sure the extent of the actual violence, I think Buckley is pretty harsh on the artist. And, you'd have to admit...the success of the artist has it all over the Buckley review.

[jwalsh07]

Leave the drama to Gibson.

I>

What Gibson gives us in his "The Passion of the Christ" is the most prolonged human torture ever seen on the screen.

Violent, no doubt about it. More violent than turning on HBO, hardly.

It is without reason, and by no means necessarily derivative from the grand hypothesis that, after all, the crucifixion was without reason, as Pontius Pilate kept on observing.

It is not without reason at all. It is Gibsons vision of what was and a dramatic tool for impressing on the audience the depth of the gift given to us by the Lord.

One sees for dozens of minutes soldiers apparently determined to flog to death the man the irresolute procurator had consented merely to "chastise."

Buckley here has lost his mind. The Romans were not simple "chastisers", they were violent and cruel men. "Chastisers" do not nail innocent men to crosses to suffer and then suffocate. Both Buckley and you should know better than this.

See the film, make up your own mind.

[Sabertooth]

You may or may not be reading Emmerich. Her "visions" were transcribed by her secretary, who is widely believed to have embellished what she recounted. That's why the Church has basically discounted these "visions" in its consideration of her canonization.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, but it's not what interests me here. I'm curious as to how much of Gibson's dramatic license was inspired by the "Dolorous Passion," whoever it was that wrote it.

I've seen the film twice, and while not everything in it comes straight from the Bible, I didn't notice anything in it that contradicts the Bible. Someone mentioned on another thread the timing of Jesus' trial before Caiaphus, and Peters denial of him three times. Not sure, I'll need to reread the Gosples before seeing it again.

[sinkspur]

And, you'd have to admit...the success of the artist has it all over the Buckley review.

Well, if "success" is the measure, you're right.

I just don't get the unwillingness to tolerate any criticism of this movie on Free Republic.

In fact, given the movie's success, it would seem an overreaction to trash anyone who objects to one thing or another in the movie.

Gibson has a reputation for producing violent, bloody movies, and The Passion apparently doesn't disappoint.

[anniegetyourgun]

Having seen it, I would say it was the best film of the subject yet made. Is it the best movie I've ever seen....no.

One thing I do know is that the success of this film is never going to approach the "Jesus" film - now in over 800 languages and seen by over 6 billion worldwide. (It is direct account, line-by-line of the gospel of Luke.)

[jwalsh07]

It isn't only the interminable scourging, which is done with endless inventories of instruments. The Bible has Christ suffering the weight of the cross as he climbs to Golgotha, but that is not enough for Gibson. He has stray soldiers impeding Christ every step of the way, bringing down their clubs and whips and scourges in something that cannot be understood as less than sadistic frenzy.

Why should this surprise a man who lived in a century when Germans marched Jews into ovens and immolated them? I find his amazement at Romans being cruel and sadistic historically inaccurate and downright wacky.

He never mentions Gibsons dramatic license with srcipture when it comes to Jews displaying inordiante humanity toward Jesus, such as Simon and Veronica.

Why do you suppose that is and would that affect your opinion of the movie?

[Indie]

Thank you for that relevant/required quote.
[The lies of omission by the media, et al have become rampant]