Posted on 02/26/2004 10:06:37 AM PST by Pyro7480
Last week, I wrote a preamble column about Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion of the Christ. I said that I was extraordinarily optimistic. In fact, I have never before wanted to enjoy a movie so much.
But I was wrong. Oh, how wrong I was.
I love God and Jesus with all my heart, but for the life of me I cannot embrace this film.
Forgive me if I cause offence, but I have to be honest.
This is some pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic blood cult. It is populated with medieval-type caricatures, screaming out of context, laughing at suffering.
Everyone is gruesome and grotesque, apart from a handful of people such as the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene and the apostle John. Mary, by the way, is hardly off of the screen, when in fact she is seldom mentioned in the Gospel accounts.
Herod is some cross-dressing lunatic, the Pharisee leaders, some of the brightest men of the age, are all obscene brutes and the Roman soldiers and the mob resemble crazed gargoyles.
No, no, no! The point has been completely missed. Hate me if you like, but please listen. The point is this:
We would have crucified Him. We would crucify Him. You, me, us. We'd smile, be tolerant and loving, do the right thing as we see it, and crucify Him. Then go home to hug our children and talk about how bad the world had become.
Evil seduces and beguiles. It is frequently attractive. If it was as ugly as director Gibson has portrayed, Jesus would not have had to die in agony. And agony is what it was.
Modern Christians have tended to play down the blood and gore of the Messiah's death. But Gibson compensates to such an extreme that he gives us a virtual fetish.
Indeed, the scene where a Roman soldier plunges his spear into Christ's side is, I am sorry, almost like something out of Monty Python. The soldier and those around him shower in the water and blood that cascades out of Yeshua's body.
I suppose we should not be surprised. Gibson made Braveheart and The Patriot, with all of their disembowelings, throat cuttings and, of course, massive historical absurdities. Somehow I thought he'd be more sophisticated with something this important.
The shame of it all is that we know more about what really happened 2000 years ago now than we have done since shortly after the events actually took place. We think in nuance and truth. Not Gibson. Nor does he appear to have read any of the books written in the past 50 years that make the Gospel story so believable, so fleshy and, thus, so convincing.
One example: Barabas. He was a Zealot leader, possibly a local aristocrat. We read our Hebrew and Greek, know about Essenes, Sadducees and Jewish life and culture. We understand. Yet here he is portrayed as a dribbling psychotic. As are most of the Jews in the movie.
So, is it anti-Semitic? Not really. Jews are generally shown as hideous, stupid and barbaric, but then so are the Romans.
Apart from Pontius Pilate, who is here compassion embodied. The thing is, he was a notorious killer who crucified thousands of people without a second thought.
Movie-making requires subtlety, and The Passion is relentlessly violent and nasty. There is no rhythm, no chance for light and purpose and meaning to shine through.
Yes, meaning. More than pain and suffering, so much more.
The flashbacks seem, with one touching exception depicting Jesus as a child, to be mere attempts to push Catholic eucharistic theology onto the audience.
There are vile moments, resembling outtakes from some remake of The Exorcist. A mob of Jewish children morph into tiny devils with murderous faces. Maggots eat away at a dead mule. Satan creeps around, worms crawling up his nose, carrying a perverse baby with hairy back and adult features. None of this is Scriptural, of course. It is also so, well, so anti-humanity.
I wanted majesty and pathos but was given clumsiness and thumping. Yet God's grace and His love still surround me.
If the movie works for you, I am happy. For me, it is prayer, Bible and a dwelling in a God-given imagination that this hyped Hollywood product can never rival.
Michael Coren is a Toronto-based writer and broadcaster. He can be emailed at info@michaelcoren.com and his web site is michaelcoren.com.
The Romans used two quite different methods which were never combined, and whose employment depended on what, apart from the victim's death, was desired as an additional bonus by the State. They might best be described as 'fast' and 'slow'. Although death was the ultimate objective of both methods, the 'slow' was designed to inflict hideous suffering as well, on any particularly offensive criminal such as anyone guilty of treason. These poor wretches took up to six days to expire. Fitting a horn or saddle to the upright so that it projected between the victim's legs at the crotch and supported his body weight, they then nailed his wrists to the crossbar and left him for shock, pain, humiliating nakedness, starvation, thirst and the mockery of passers-by to finish off.
With the 'fast' method, however, used when it was more a case of speed than the infliction of unbearable pain almost infinitely prolonged, the horn was replaced by a tiny platform on which the doomed man stood, preferably on the balls of his feet. Now, instead of the wrists being nailed they were bound to the crossbar by leather thongs. Except for the strain of standing in that fashion, shame at his nakedness and the knowledge that death was only a couple of hours away, he was in no great distress or pain. When it came time to kill him, the executioner resorted to the crucifragium, a club-like horror with which he broke the legs. Deprived of their support, the body sagged and the entire weight was thrown upon the thongs, which promptly proceeded to strangle the circulation. In about an hour, it has been reckoned, paralysis, suffocation and heart-failure brought the execution to a merciful end.
(The Jesus Scroll)
As a Protestant, I ask the question: "Who is Veronica?"
I've not found the name in the Bible.
Interesting. Last year in a Confirmation class I helped teach, the leader asked the kids (HS Sophmores) if Jesus came back as a man would he be recognized as the Christ. Most people including her said "Yes definitely". I said NO, we would behave the same way people did 2000 years ago. The liberals would write him off as a freak. They were all shocked. To some degree the response to the movie bears this out.
The author is saying that Gibson portrays medievil myths and prejudices as truth. If he's correct then so is the ADL.
: )
Mar 15:7 And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
Joh 18:40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
Hardly what I'd consider an aristocrat. A robber and a murderer, who was rightly portrayed as a dribbling psychotic
In several regions of Christendom there is honored under this name a pious matron of Jerusalem who, during the Passion of Christ, as one of the holy women who accompanied Him to Calvary, offered Him a towel on which he left the imprint of His face. She went to Rome, bringing with her this image of Christ, which was long exposed to public veneration. To her likewise are traced other relics of the Blessed Virgin venerated in several churches of the West. The belief in the existence of authentic images of Christ is connected with the old legend of Abgar of Edessa and the apocryphal writing known as the "Mors Pilati". To distinguish at Rome the oldest and best known of these images it was called vera icon (true image), which ordinary language soon made veronica. It is thus designated in several medieval texts mentioned by the Bollandists (e.g. an old Missal of Augsburg has a Mass "De S. Veronica seu Vultus Domini"), and Matthew of Westminster speaks of the imprint of the image of the Savior which is called Veronica: "Effigies Domenici vultus quae Veronica nuncupatur". By degrees, popular imagination mistook this word for the name of a person and attached thereto several legends which vary according to the country.
SD
Pretty much. I saw it Monday, wrote a review here on Tuesday more favorable than this one, but saying that I basically numbed out about 1//3 of the way through, detached, had no emotional response whatsoever. I liked Gibson's depiction of Satan, found it thought-provoking--revelatory, really. I enjoyed the art direction very much. But the brutality of the action was a turnoff. It did churn up some deeply held doubts about whether God loves me. I've never been able to link blood and gore with love, though I was educated from nursery school through college in traditional Catholic schools that espoused beliefs as conservative as Gibson's.
I'm very familiar with the passion of Christ--those stations of the cross, you know, that once were displayed on the walls of every Catholic church. As children we went from station to station, pondered Christ's suffering, prayed on our knees.
Now three days after digesting this movie, I'm a little depressed about Christianity and my relationship to it. It always seemed more a religion for men than for women. I probably would have been better off staying home from the movie, perhaps from church, quite frankly. I knew in advance that I coould not stand violence. And I've been known to faint at the sight of blood (Florence Nightingale, I'm not.) I would advise others to keep their children home along with others who may recoil from blood and gore.
"I have always had a very deep and abiding faith in Jesus (or something similar)and so I approached this movie with an open mind, BUT ...
Sounds an awful lot like the legions of Mobys showing up around here claiming to be "true conservatives who voted for Bush in 2000, BUT ...".
Is it too much to ask of these screeching drama queens to a least TRY to come up with even a smidgen of an original idea?
I have a feeling he wrote the optimistic review last week in an silly attempt to give himself credibility knowing he would eventually write a review slamming Gibson.
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.Matthew 1:16
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.Matthew 1:18-25
18. This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
19. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
21. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
22. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23. "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us."
24. When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
25. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.Matthew 2:11
On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.Matthew 13:55
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?Mark 6:3
Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.Luke 1:26-49
26. In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,
27. to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
28. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29. Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.
30. But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.
31. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.
32. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
33. and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34. "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35. The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
36. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.
37. For nothing is impossible with God."
38. "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.
39. At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea,
40. where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth.
41. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
42. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!
43. But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44. As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.
45. Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!"
46. And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord
47. and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48. for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49. for the Mighty One has done great things for me-- holy is his name.Luke 1:56
Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home.Luke 2:5
He went there to register with Mary , who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.Luke 2:16
So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger.Luke 2:19But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.Luke 2:22
When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the LordLuke 2:34-35
34. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against,
35. so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."Luke 2:39
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.Luke 2:48-52
48. When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49. "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"
50. But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
51. Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart.
52. And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.John 2:1-121. On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there,
2. and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.
3. When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
4. "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come."
5. His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
6. Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
7. Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.
8. Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so,
9. and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside
10. and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."
11. This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.
12. After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.John 19:25-27
25. Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son,"
27. and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.Acts 1:14
They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
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.