Replies

Well, for the most part, Mel Gibson makes action movies. Whether the violence in "Braveheart" and "The Patriot." is gratuitous or not is, of course, up to each individual to judge. Slasher movies like “Friday 13th” to use violence for its own sake. Braveheart and The Patriot were action movies that depict some of the violence of warfare. Trust me when I say that the actual battlefield is a great deal bloodier.

For the same reason, Buckley alludes to the brutality of pre-19th century punishment when he refers to sailors being lashed “around the fleet” and often beaten to death in the process. If you think this was done without bloodshed you are sadly mistaken.

What Buckley seems to object to is transforming the traditional version of the crucifixion. Before seeing The Passion, the crucifixion of Christ, to me, was almost abstract. A trial, Jesus being hit with a few willow wands, a thorn crown placed on his head, being made to carry his cross and then the crucifixion. All done is pastel colors, virtually without passion, certainly without unbearable pain (OK, maybe the nails on the cross hurt) and then on to the tomb and the resurrection. Rather antiseptic and certainly lacking in any grand passion.

The movie gave me a new perspective. As a student of history, I know of the inherent cruelty of ancient cultures. “Scourging” certainly meant more than the whipping schoolchildren once received from their teachers for misbehaving. While the gospels do not give us the details of the tortures that Jesus suffered before his crucifixion, the version the Gibson gives us is not inconsistent with the practices of the time or with the versions presented in the gospels. That is why I have to smile at those who condemn Gibson for historical inaccuracy. Unless one of the critics can produce a living eyewitness who will withstand cross-examination, I’m afraid that I side with Gibson.