Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Didn't need Gibson's gore to make me a believer
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | February 25, 2004 | CATHLEEN FALSANI RELIGION WRITER

Posted on 02/25/2004 4:20:56 PM PST by Chi-townChief

I believe. That Jesus was a real man. That he also was really God.

That he was Jewish. That he lived in Israel with his family and his disciples.

That he willingly suffered horrendously and died awfully so that my sins -- and those of all humanity -- could be forgiven.

That he did so because he loves us. That his death brought grace to the world once, and for all. That by his stripes, we are healed.

That he rose again. That he's alive today. That he'll be back.

I also believe that the movie I saw Monday night about the last 12 hours of Jesus' life did little to affect what, how or why I believe.

And that might be hard for Mel Gibson to believe.

But it's the truth.

"The Passion of the Christ" is the most horrific film I've ever seen. I mean that literally and not as an artistic insult.

About 10 minutes into the 126-minute film, the worst depiction of torture I've ever had the displeasure of witnessing began as the character Jesus was led away by temple police from the Garden of Gethsemane under cloak of night.

The beating, scourging, disfiguring, flaying of flesh, and unforgivingly slow, unthinkably brutal execution of Jesus continues almost unmitigated until about three minutes before the final credits begin to crawl across the screen.

It's horrendous. It's sickening. It was at times physically impossible for me to watch.

I hid my eyes behind my hand, peeked at the screen through my fingers, covered my face with a scarf for a few minutes.

During one lengthy scene where his Roman tormentors unmercifully whip him with a cat-o'-nine-tails until there is hardly any flesh on his back then flip him over and have a go at the front of his twisted body, the sounds of bone crunching, blood squishing and skin being ripped apart were so intense, I found myself plugging my ears like a child.

Horrific.

But true, Gibson and his supporters say. And necessary, and calculated, they say.

"I wanted it to be shocking," Gibson told Diane Sawyer in a recent ABC interview. "I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge. And it does that."

Indeed, especially if that particular precipice leads to nausea and nightmares.

Heartfelt overkill

Gibson also said he wanted audiences to "see the enormity of that sacrifice . . . that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness, even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule."

I believe that was his intention and that it was heartfelt.

However, with this particular member of the audience, it was overkill. It went too far, obscuring the story. That's the tricky thing with art, whether it's film, music, a painting or a dance. They all elicit responses from the audience. But the artist cannot control what the response will be.

Mine was revulsion. I felt as if I'd been visually assaulted. There was nothing spiritually inspiring about the brutality on film. It was just gross.

But a guy in the row behind me was visibly moved, in a good way, by the same elements of the film I found so troubling. From what he said, I think the film enlivened his faith, made him see anew the supernatural love that God has for him.

Gibson is a man whose personal aesthetics would seem (based solely on the films he's made in the past) to be much more comfortable with violent images than my own.

Maybe he needed to see the physical suffering of Christ to understand it. I prefer to use my imagination

After all, even though Gibson claims his depictions of Christ's passion in the film are based on what he says are strict, literal interpretations of Scripture, they are, despite all his reported research and scholarly support, at best simply a guess.

No one witnessed the crucifixion with a video camera in hand.

"The Passion of the Christ," which I believe is neither anti-Semitic nor gives the message -- explicitly or implicitly -- that the Jewish people collectively and for all time are responsible for killing God's son, is Gibson's idea of what the suffering and death of Christ looked like. It's simply his vision. He says that.

But it's a vision I didn't need to understand how much Jesus loves me, or how much he suffered on my behalf.

Back to The Book

After watching "The Passion," I reread those familiar accounts of Jesus' final hours in the Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I am not a scholar, but from my readings, by and large, the film sticks to the text. There are dramatic embellishments, such as the woman who wipes Jesus' face on the Via Dolorosa. That's not in the Bible.

Neither is the one scene that made me cry, the single moment that made me stop and contemplate the sacrifice I believe Jesus made for all of us. As Jesus staggers through the streets of Jerusalem dragging his cross toward Golgotha, his mother, Mary, John his apostle and Mary Magdalene run through a warren of alleys trying to get ahead of the procession so Mary can get closer to her son.

When the three catch up to the procession, Mary hesitates as she has a flashback to Jesus as a little boy, running through the dusty gravel in their backyard. The child Jesus of her memory stumbles and falls, and she rushes toward him and picks him up.

It was instinct. It was human. It was real, even if it wasn't necessarily true based on Scripture.

That one tender moment reminded me of Christ's humanity in a way that stirred my soul far more than two hours of brutal gore and suffering ever could.

Yes, Jesus was God. But he was also a man. A man with a mother who loved him and friends and a career and doubts and fears who chose to die a horrible, painful, humiliating death in order to save the world that killed him.

But I didn't learn that from a movie.

It's what I believe.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: thepassion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-270 next last
"Gibson is a man whose personal aesthetics would seem (based solely on the films he's made in the past) to be much more comfortable with violent images than my own."

I get the impression that Mel ran afoul of lefties like Ms. Falsani when he quit making the "Lethal Weapon" series with Danny Glover and did "The Patriot" instead.
1 posted on 02/25/2004 4:20:56 PM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AbsoluteJustice; Barnacle; BeAllYouCanBe; BillyBoy; cfrels; cherry_bomb88; chicagolady; ...
CHICAGOLAND PING
2 posted on 02/25/2004 4:21:48 PM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
INTREP - THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
3 posted on 02/25/2004 4:22:18 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Why are people so bothered by this movie? The idea, to me, is very simple. To depict in a real and graphic way the suffering Christ went through. Why is that so difficult to deal with?
4 posted on 02/25/2004 4:24:21 PM PST by Huck (OK. I'm over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Lighten up. This is a good article.

I haven't seen the movie yet, and I dread seeing it. I fear its ugliness may actually obscure the Gospel rather than illustrate it.
5 posted on 02/25/2004 4:24:58 PM PST by ArcLight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Well, Cathleen, it could have been worse.
You could have been there, 2000 years ago.

But behold, we're for ya, just like "the man."
6 posted on 02/25/2004 4:25:35 PM PST by unspun (The uncontextualized life is not worth living. | I'm not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
"Didn't need Gibson's gore to make me a believer"

Good...then by all means...DON'T GO SEE IT. That will be one extra seat for those of us who will go to see it.

These lib writers will try any slant to cast a negative light on things with which they don't agree
7 posted on 02/25/2004 4:26:26 PM PST by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
I don't think Mel's purpose for the movie was to "preach to the choir."
8 posted on 02/25/2004 4:26:28 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
The patriot did make the left a bit nervous. I recall reading complaints about chidren with guns and ministers rallying thier flocks to war.

Those fools were just lucky the film didnt follow the events immediately following the war. The left would have flipped out over the mass eviction of enemy sympathizers. (nearly 1/3 of the population)
9 posted on 02/25/2004 4:26:42 PM PST by cripplecreek (you win wars by making the other dumb SOB die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Good point. And in some ways, a deep question, I think.
10 posted on 02/25/2004 4:26:57 PM PST by unspun (The uncontextualized life is not worth living. | I'm not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
I was with her until this part:

I also believe that the movie I saw Monday night about the last 12 hours of Jesus' life did little to affect what, how or why I believe. And that might be hard for Mel Gibson to believe.

With this dig, she gives herself away. I have no doubt Gibson doesn't take credit for people's faith. He is not an egomaniac.

11 posted on 02/25/2004 4:31:39 PM PST by jwalburg (We CAN Question their Patriotism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArcLight
"I fear its ugliness may actually obscure the Gospel rather than illustrate it."

Don't go then. It isn't primarily about his gospel. It is about a bunch of power elites who persecuted a man and had him murdered because they didn't like what he said. It is about a spineless Governor who didn't have decency to release an obviously innocent man. If all you are going to do is to concentrate on the brutality, and forget why this man suffered as he did, then don't go. But if you do go, ask yourself if you could suffer the same for him. And BTW, Christians need to be asking themselves that question in light of the growing persecutions of Christians. As for me, I don't know if I'm strong to endure what Jesus went through.

12 posted on 02/25/2004 4:32:47 PM PST by Enterprise ("Do you know who I am?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Plan to see it next week. Last movie I saw was Return of the King. I must be a conservative.
13 posted on 02/25/2004 4:33:47 PM PST by Land_of_Lincoln_John
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
I also believe that the movie I saw Monday night about the last 12 hours of Jesus' life did little to affect what, how or why I believe.

The movie wasn't intended to make an impression on people such as yourself, Cathleen.

14 posted on 02/25/2004 4:35:04 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (The way that you wander is the way that you choose. The day that you tarry is the day that you lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
I believe she needs to get another job,

That's what I believe.
15 posted on 02/25/2004 4:35:31 PM PST by chicagolady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Some folks prefer to take their religion with soft lace and tea rather than reality.
16 posted on 02/25/2004 4:36:30 PM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ArcLight
I think it's a fair-minded, albeit self-centered article. The funny thing is the movie has triggered all sorts of discussion and reflection about Christ and our relationship to Him. It almost seems as though it takes a movie like this to cut through our modern culture and get noticed, and yet, Gibson was able to achieve that without exploiting the gospel, simply by presenting it in brutal realism. In a way, the author's reaction to the movie, though one of repulsion, caused her to reaffirm her own relationship with Christ. Or so it seems.
17 posted on 02/25/2004 4:36:47 PM PST by Huck (OK. I'm over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
I don't think Mel's purpose for the movie was to "preach to the choir."

Actually, from what I have read over the last few months, it kind of was. Originally, the movie has no subtitles. Mel said that if you were familiar with the story, you wouldn't need them. It was only due to distributor demands that subtitles were added.

18 posted on 02/25/2004 4:36:55 PM PST by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: per loin
pls see my post #17, fwiw.
19 posted on 02/25/2004 4:37:25 PM PST by Huck (OK. I'm over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I believe it's called "conviction".
20 posted on 02/25/2004 4:40:33 PM PST by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-270 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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