[Lurking Libertarian]

Gibson is not merely telling the Gospel account, but adds to it in ways that consistently accent the culpability of Jews and mitigate that of the Romans. He adds violent beatings of Jesus--by Jews--that are not in Scripture. He changes the entire feel of the story as the Gospels tell it. In the Scriptural account, Jesus is snatched quietly, at night, to avoid the crowds. Jesus is willing to go quietly, and keeps the disciples from fighting back. He is held while the high priest gathers his council. During it, there is some physical abuse by the guards and some taunting and one slapping of his face, but the Evangelists don't elaborate on this or draw it out. Then he is delivered to Pilate. Gibson changes the tenor of all these scenes, making them more dramatic, more violent, more frightening. He also adds scenes that contradict explicit statements in Scripture. According to John, the Jews refuse to enter the Praetorium. No Jew--not even a disciple--is depicted as present in the Praetorium. But Gibson has them there.

[JohnGalt]

The Lefties (and the phonycons) can't stand an authentic hero from the Old Right.

[RFT1]

RED FLAG ALERT

This review is associated with the now infamous blogger Bill Cork. Here is his blog

http://billcork.blogspot.com/

As you can see, he has a vendetta against the Passion and uses quite hetrodox sources to justify his own misgivings about the film.

[tbird5]

Catholics are taught that Jesus "SUFFERED" and died for our sins. Mel seems to get that point across well.

[dead]

"I was probably the only person in the whole audience who understood large parts of the film because Aramaic is like Hewbrew and I speak Hewbrew," he said.

Hewbrew?

Beer made with an ax?

[stanz]

I just saved $10.00. Why bother to see it, I now know every frame.

[b9]

Thank you for posting this.
If it's inappropriate for children, it's too gory for me, too.

[WFTR]

These are interesting reviews, and I appreciate your posting them. If they are right in what they say about the film, I would also be annoyed at the inaccuracies. I realize that any director is going to try to tell a story "as he sees it," but I'm one of those people who tends to become very annoyed when the movie doesn't follow the book. I don't try to live the Christian life anymore, but I used to be amazed at how little some people knew about what they claimed to believe. Often, the people who were the most "enthusiastic" for their faith were also the most ignorant. This movie would better serve Christianity if it were more accurate and less dramatic.

Well, four and a half
Bill

[OpusatFR]

Were you this passionate defending the Gospel against the play, Corpus Christe, or say, The Last Temptation of Christ?

Gibson said it is his vision....are you ready to deny another person's vision?

[Dialup Llama]

> In the version I saw, after Pilate gives in to their demands the crowd shouts, gleefully, ?His blood be upon us and our children.? Pilate gives up, and says to his men, ?Do as they wish.? Rumors say Mel has taken this line out. That's good, as it was traditionally understood by Christians to extend the guilt for Deicide through history to contemporary Jews;

The author does not wish to be identified, but this little throw-away reveals the bias he approaches the movie from. I can't recall any Christian tradition that calls for collective guilt. Does not the Nicene Creed say he suffered under Pilate? Can't recall any assignment of collective guilt there. But I recall many critics of Christianity casually making the atom bomb charge the Christianity teaches there is a collective guilt.

[JohnnyZ]

frankly, I found that two hours of Aramaic and subtitles is hard going

What, he's never seen a foreign film before?

That's pretty pitiful.

And don't even talk to me about dubbing . . .

[Clintons a commie]

Immediately after the "trial," the priests take turns hitting and spitting on Jesus, and then the guards and observers join in, beating him with sadistic glee.

I hate to tell the author of this piece, but this in Scripture.

Mark 14:65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

As far as the Jewish Priests being present at the Crucifixion and taunting Our Lords, this is true too.

Mark 15:31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

As usual, this guy doesn't have a problem with Mel Gibson or his movie, but with Scripture. The other things-the scene on the bridge, the Priests on Donkeys-are artistic license, and certainly not inappropiate. As far as the Jews entering the Praetorium, if this is in the film, it is a historical blunder. But there was an antechamber to the Praetorium, and Jews could go there. Perhaps this is what is intended in the film, but it may not be explained correctly.

What I get from this review is the impression that it was written by someone who has a modernistic bent, and doesn't like the politically incorrect parts of the Gospel(ie, the Jewish establishment's participation in the event, Pilate's vacillation). His problem isn't with Gibson or his film, but with the divine revelation contained in the Holy Gospels and in Sacred Tradition.

[Dr. Frank fan]

And it does exaggerate the role of the Jews. There are many examples that could be cited. Jesus is beaten to a bloody pulp by the temple guards (and thrown off a bridge) before he ever gets to Caiaphas. Jews are present in the Praetorium for the scourging of Jesus--and only Romans express concerns about the excesses inflicted by both their own guards and the Jews. There are no sympathetic figures on the via dolorosa, except for figures from Scripture and tradition, such as Simon and Veronica, who have generally been seen as people who came to believe in Jesus--Gibson inexplicably left out Jesus greeting the women of Jerusalem. Caiaphas leads the procession to Calvary on a donkey, and presides over the execution as if he were in charge.

All of these cited examples are portrayals of actions undertaken (or not) by a few individual people, and not one of them has anything to do with "the role of the Jews", whatever that means.

The only person here so far equating the actions of the individuals described above with "the role the Jews" is the author of this piece.

This movie needs to be evaluated in terms of the objective criteria provided by the US Catholic Bishops, and in the context of the history of passion plays.

It does? Personally I'll be evaluating it (or trying to anyway) based on something resembling these criteria, which I think are darned good criteria by which to judge films. I will not be told by this author how I am required to evaluate a film.

But the reaction to this film (and questioning of it) does underscore the question of how well Catholic theologians and leaders are communicating contemporary Catholic teaching on the Passion and on relations with the Jews

A small group of people raise an artificial stink over a movie (which no one would have batted an eye at otherwise) to get publicity, and this proves that Catholic leaders need to communicate better. Got it!

[Dialup Llama]

>In the Scriptural account, Jesus is snatched quietly, at night, to avoid the crowds. Jesus is willing to go quietly, and keeps the disciples from fighting back. He is held while the high priest gathers his council. During it, there is some physical abuse by the guards and some taunting and one slapping of his face, but the Evangelists don't elaborate on this or draw it out. ... Then he is delivered to Pilate. Gibson changes the tenor of all these scenes, making them more dramatic, more violent, more frightening.

I wish this guy would learn to read. 'Few words' does not equate with 'not much happened.'

A detachment of Roman legionnaires and temple guards all armored and carrying swords came to arrest Jesus. He then was delivered to somone who was the Hitler of that region, whose word alone could condemn someone to death. Dramatic, frightening, violent...yes. Peaceful and quiet, no.

[Pagey]

On a trip in 1990 to Oberammergau Germany, I was able to see "The Passion Play". The horror of the crucifixion (and we were about the 20th row back in a place that seats around 5,000)was quite serious and totally believeable. The stage and sets were enormous.They only do it every 10 years. I recommend that trek to anyone who believes Jesus died so that we may live. IMO The way society is going, Mel Gibson is doing a great service to the world. What makes it even better, is Mel's movie dialogue is in the Latin and Aramaic, therefore anyone that doesn't speak either one will be totally engrossed in the visuals, which is why Hollywood makes movies, right?. Jesus didn't die a painless death, and that's something certain segments of society (in general) haven't thought about for years.

[kimoajax]

Now I get it! How could I have been so dumb?

Mel should have cast the drama as having occured somewhere other than where it actually occured in time and space.

Let's see now....perhaps if he had cast it as having occured on a space ship or other planet way into the future where Jesus and those who crusified him were aliens of some sort, then he would have been able to more credibly tell the gospel story in such a way no one would take offense.

Gee, cause the way Mel cast his movie made the gospel story such a rock of offense to some.

[Tribune7]

Some viewers left the theatre in tears at the end of the screening and many, including Treasurer Peter Costello and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, were visibly shaken. 

Wow.

[goldstategop]

Its Mel Gibson's version and presents a very traditional understanding of Christian faith. As a Jew I don't relate to the theology and I can understand why Jews are offended by the elements in the film that seem to recall the ugly deicide charge rightly repudiated by Vatican II. Still the fact of the matter is Mel Gibson has taken a stand and as Rush Limbaugh said to be firm in your beliefs is frowned upon in polite society. The movie I think is resented by liberals less for the way it depicts Jews (and I reject that depiction as virtually Jews do) than for the fact it says faith is as much a part of human nature and carries historical consequences that reverberate down to our day. Gibson's "Passion" if nothing else, is a good illustration of how something that happened thousands of years ago can affect our lives, our politics, our culture, and even the relations between people of different faiths. Its worth thinking about.

[Texas2step]

They sat like strangers in the auditorium, unable to understand the emotional reactions of the Christians around them, and unable to understand, when they spoke with those Christians later, how they could have missed the parts of the film that so troubled the Jews.

And, that statement sums up what this entire controversy is about. The Jews (for the most part) do not understand our scripture. They don't understand what is meant by what is written.

These Jews who saw the film did not see anger on the part of any Christian who watched. They don't understand how the Christians didn't see what they saw, but the Christians are guided what God wants them to see by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, I guess you could say that all the Christians that saw this movie and did not react they way these reviewers did are all anti-Semites already.

Either the Christians are anti-Semitic (which is close to what abe foxman claims), or some Jews just do not have the capacity to understand the New Testament in the same way as the Christians do (which I credit to the Holy Spirit).

I know this statement will get flamed. That's fine. But my belief in the Holy Spirit which indwells within all Christians is my belief, and nothing you can say will change that.

Flame if you must, but that's my opinion.

[MarMema]

Thank you so much for posting these reviews, as they contained information I had not seen before that was very helpful to me.

Kosta, thought you may not have seen this post.