Replies

I just got back from seeing the 12 noon showing, which is the first public showing in my neighborhood. I came to the theater 45 minutes early, and waited outside for about 20 minutes before they let us all in. Our theater was packed. I heard they already sold out for the evening shows.

My first thought was how wierd it was to see so many people buy popcorn to watch the crucifixion. Once the show started, people became more drawn in, and you could hear sobbing throughout the theater.

I guess, to me, the movie seemed different than how I had envisioned Christ's last hours. Most of my information comes stright from the gospels, and Mel certainly added to them. Of course, the gospels restrict themselves to the bare bones story. To tell the passion in full, one would have to take certain liberties. Otherwise you would only see occasional snapshots, not a full story. I think Gibson told the story well, and substantially accurately. As a non Catholic, I did sense a Catholic slant, which was fine. To me, it was like reading the Bible from a different translation than I was used to, but the story was the same.

I was somewhat taken aback by the portrayal of the Romans. They seemed to be shown as a bunch of hedonistic drunks, except for the occasional enlightened ones. I would think that the Roman soldiers would be have been required to maintain some decorum during a public execution.

I loved Gibson's portrayal of Pilate. I knew he made a show of washing his hands of the matter, and then handing Jesus over to the crowd. But seeing this happen really highlights Pilate's weak resolution of his political dilemma.

Mel did research on crucifixions and how they were conducted.
Not everything is laid out in the Bible...but there are historical writings on how crucifixions were done. Concerning the Romans, I'm sure Mel did his research on that too. Ever hear of Roman baths? There was much decadence with the Romans...from having public killings to mass orgies to drunken parties...they were barbarian in many ways.