Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Buckley: BLOODY PASSION
Yahoo! News ^ | Tue, Mar 09, 2004 | William F. Buckley Jr

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.


TOPICS: TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: thepassion; thepassioon; williamfbuckley
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: moneyrunner
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.
21 posted on 03/09/2004 5:23:57 PM PST by Little Bill (I can't take another rat in the White House at my age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
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.
22 posted on 03/09/2004 5:24:19 PM PST by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
"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.
23 posted on 03/09/2004 5:25:29 PM PST by Rennes Templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Some folks go to the trouble of seeing a movie prior to opining on it.
24 posted on 03/09/2004 5:25:48 PM PST by per loin (Ultra Secret News: ADL to pay $12M for defaming Colorado couple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

25 posted on 03/09/2004 5:27:21 PM PST by jwalsh07 (We're bringing it on John but you can't handle the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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.

26 posted on 03/09/2004 5:28:28 PM PST by NeoCaveman (New and improved is typically neither!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
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.
27 posted on 03/09/2004 5:29:32 PM PST by wimpycat ("Black holes are where God divided by zero.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.
28 posted on 03/09/2004 5:30:36 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: buwaya; Rennes Templar; sinkspur
Damn,

AM must have a trigger finger tonight.

This Passion thread lasted only about 45 minutes before getting booted to the back 40.
29 posted on 03/09/2004 5:32:42 PM PST by wardaddy (A man better believe in something or he'll fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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.

30 posted on 03/09/2004 5:34:00 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.


31 posted on 03/09/2004 5:35:49 PM PST by Sabertooth (Malcontent for Bush - 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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.

32 posted on 03/09/2004 5:38:04 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.
33 posted on 03/09/2004 5:40:51 PM PST by MoralSense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.
34 posted on 03/09/2004 5:41:38 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

35 posted on 03/09/2004 5:45:42 PM PST by jwalsh07 (We're bringing it on John but you can't handle the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.


36 posted on 03/09/2004 5:46:53 PM PST by Sabertooth (Malcontent for Bush - 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
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.

37 posted on 03/09/2004 5:47:44 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.)

38 posted on 03/09/2004 5:51:31 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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?

39 posted on 03/09/2004 5:55:31 PM PST by jwalsh07 (We're bringing it on John but you can't handle the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Thank you for that relevant/required quote.
[The lies of omission by the media, et al have become rampant]
40 posted on 03/09/2004 6:10:20 PM PST by Indie (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson