Posted on 03/09/2004 4:37:39 PM PST by presidio9
The film by Mel Gibson is moving because of its central contention, namely that an innocent man of high moral purpose was tortured and killed. It happens that the man in question, Jesus of Nazareth, is an object of worship, and that harm done unto him, in the perspective of those (myself included) who regard him as divine, is especially keen because it is not only inhuman, it is blasphemous.
But suppose that a similar travail had been filmed centered upon not a Nazarene carpenter who taught the duty of love for others, but, say, an attempted regicide. In 1757, Robert-Francois Damiens set out to assassinate Louis XV. The failed assassin was apprehended, and the king quickly restored from his minor wound. The court resolved to make an enduring public record of what awaits attempted regicides, to which end were gathered together in Paris the half-dozen most renowned torturers of Europe, who in the presence of many spectators, including Casanova, managed to keep Damiens alive for six hours of pain so artfully inflicted, before he was finally drawn and quartered. What kind of an audience could Mel Gibson get for a depiction of the last hours of Robert-Francois Damiens?
The film depends, then, on the objectification of the victim as Jesus of Nazareth; but even then, the story it tells is a gross elaboration of what the Bible yields.
Consider Matthew: "And when (Pilate) had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. ... Then they spat on him and took the reed and struck him on the head." Luke: "I will therefore chastise him and release him" -- Luke records that the soldiers "mocked" him. And John: "So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. ... "And they (the soldiers) struck him with their hands."
What Gibson gives us in his "The Passion of the Christ" is the most prolonged human torture ever seen on the screen. 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. One sees for dozens of minutes soldiers apparently determined to flog to death the man the irresolute procurator had consented merely to "chastise." There are records of British mariners who were literally flogged to death, receiving 400 strokes of the cat-o'-nine-tails delivered on separate vessels, lest any sailor in the fleet be deprived of the informative exercise.
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.
I write as author of a book ("Nearer, My God") in which I included a vision of the Crucifixion by an Italian mystic, Maria Valtorta. A learned priest cautioned against taking this liberty. "Valtorta seems to have solved the Synoptic problem that's been plaguing scholars for centuries, viz., the contradictions between Matthew, Mark and Luke. She has St. Dismas, the good thief, blessing Christ; Matthew (27:44) has him reviling him (Luke and Mark do not); she has Our Lord drinking gall mixed with vinegar (Mark 15:36 has him drinking just vinegar). I was amused to see Joseph of Arimathea boldly traversing the line of 50 soldiers and the angry Jews in order to get near the cross, since in Mark (15:43) we're told he 'took courage' to go to Pilate to retrieve the body."
This kind of improvisation is headlong in Gibson's "Passion." Still, the film cannot help moving the viewer, shaking the viewer, even as he'd be moved and shaken by seeing a re-creation of the end of Robert-Francois Damiens or one of those British sailors flogged to death. The suffering of Jesus isn't intensified by inflicting the one-thousandth blow: That is the Gibson/"Braveheart" contribution to an agony that was overwhelmingly spiritual in character and perfectly and definitively caught by Johann Sebastian Bach in his aptly named "Passion of Christ According to St. Matthew." There beauty and genius sublimate a passion that Gibson celebrates by raw bloodshed. The only serious question left in the viewer's mind is: Should God have exempted this gang from his comprehensive mercy? But that is because we are human, Christ otherwise.
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.
So true. Mel was quite restrained.
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.
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.
|
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.
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.
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.
|
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.
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.)
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?
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.