The 'Passion' of Mel: an exclusionary tale

Seattle Times ^ | 2/29/04 | Leonard Pitts, Jr

[independentmind]

FOS and a troll to boot.

[whereasandsoforth]

"Well, you've excluded the Jewish FReepers...So, ain't they free???"

If the Jewish understand Christ, then yes. My statement wasn't meant to be any more than what is says.

I stand by the Jews. I love the Jews. But I can't pretend to be honest and say the Jewish, as a religion, is equal to Christians. My Savior, as is the world's, is Jesus Christ. I won't deny Him for a second. And denying Him is what it would be to pretend alls well in the Jewish faith.

I'm honest if nothing else. I wish all Jews were Christians. But I know that will never be. So I stand by the Jews and I love the Jews.

[TheBattman]

Where's Frank Peretti when one needs him?

You hit a bullseye with that one! His books are written in such a style that they beg to be turned into movies - visually descriptive along with being captivating stories. This Present Darkness would make an extra-ordinary screenplay.

Maybe with Gibson's success with The Passion of The Christ, studios may become more willing to "take a risk" with something more "Christian" in nature.

One can only hope....

[AnnaZ]

This (overly-panned) movie screamed Peretti-inspired: 

 

 

And it's from Icon!

[FreeReign]

One middle-age white guy vouching for the racial blamelessness of another was hardly the most ringing endorsement.

What? A "white guy" can't have an objective opinion on the racial blamelessness of another white guy.

How is the author of this artcile not making a racist remark?

[Mr. Thorne]

Similar experience.

Wife cried through the scourging, the via dolorosa.

Biggest hits on me? Well, first off, the beginning, the agony in the garden, was well done, and I was doing fine: good movie, says I. Then...

Malchus reaction to his healing...
The denial of Peter... the first 'blow to the gut' feeling I had.
The Mother of Christ and The Magdalene wiping up the blood after the scourging; Magdalene's reminiscence.
Jesus and Mary meet on the Via Dolorosa. "... I make all things new."
Simon's statement; the statement Jesus COULD have made...
Veronica wipes the face of Jesus...
"It is accomplished." I've seen that rendered 'it is finished,' 'it is done,' etc. Somehow, this seemed more powerful.
The Resurrection.

Mel says he was inspired. I don't know, and I cannot convince those who find this movie offensive for whatever reason, but I believe him.

This strikes me as a work of devotional art, in a medium I would not have thought possible.

"It is as it was," indeed.

IMHO, of course.

PS. Wife and I will probably go again on Good Friday.

[Gumdrop]

"An exclusionary Tale". The author does have some worthwhile reflexions here. I found it to be at least thoughtful. I was struck by another word to describe the reaction of believing Christians to this film - it's Personal!

[stands2reason]

The only thing greater than your humility is your understanding of other faiths. In my opinion, you are a true Christian.

What are you trying to say?

[stands2reason]

You are on these threads to bash Christians.

Why don't you get a life?

[stands2reason]

Makes sense, as the name Calvin means "bald."

[NYCVirago]

I felt "excluded" by the fact that American Beauty was picked for Best Picture, and the only Republican in the movie was a Nazi-worshipping ex-Marine closeted gay killer. But nobody in Hollywood seemed to care about my complaint, for some odd reason.

[Eva]

I thought that some of "the excluded" might feel as you do. That's why I posted this. This movie is not an evangelical production and it is definitely not meant as entertainment. it is a worshipful experience for believers.

This movie is not the starting point for non-believers, and it won't be a big hit with the social Christians either. So if anyone feels excluded they should go see another movie.

[Eva]

That's the point, this movie was not intended for all audiences, neither are a lot of other Hollywood productions.

[Eva]

I don't think that the author necessarily meant "exclusionary" as a negative description. I think that he meant that a lot of those who were criticizing the film were left outside the realm of understanding.

[Eva]

If the treatment of Jesus during his last twelve hours was so unusual, why did almost all of the apostles suffer a similar fate. John was the only one to live to old age. The others were all either hung, decapitated or stoned. One was hung on a cross upside down. They were brutal times.

The Catholic church has not always been innocent either. That is the mistake that many Christians make, particularly Catholics, priests are mortal and sinners like the rest of us.

[William Martel]

Some people have little better to do than to go from thread to thread to bash Christians. They want to stir up antipathy and angry responses so that they can feel secure in their anti-Christian bigotry. I suppose it is like a faith that they feel the need to confirm at times.

In all honesty, they're not worth the effort or the time it takes to deal with them.

[lonevoice]

It's hard to say that the film isn't intended for non-believers. Perhaps Mel didn't intend it for other audiences, but there've been some important developments I've witnessed from a few non-believers who've seen The Passion.

Personally I know of two people who've decided they want to learn more about the Jesus they didn't know of before seeing this movie. There's something else that's been quite interesting to learn. I have two very well-educated friends, one a Ph.D and one with a Masters, who believed it was a scientifically documented fact that Jesus wasn't an historical figure. I had no idea this belief was so entrenched in our culture until my friends saw this movie. From our subsequent discussions, they have absolutely no idea where they learned their belief that even the mere existance of Jesus has been proven to be fiction. Now they want to know why. It's an important question, I think.

[NYCVirago]

That's the point, this movie was not intended for all audiences, neither are a lot of other Hollywood productions.

Yes and no. The author is implying that it's Gibson's fault in a way that the movie is exclusionary. He says, "To understand "The Passion," though, you need at least familiarity with the four Gospels and, ideally, faith in them. The movie does not concern itself with back story; it assumes that you come to it with a certain body of knowledge." Yes, Gibson could have included more of a back story, but then his movie would have been a lot longer. The increasing secularization of American culture has contributed to this lack of knowledge, so it's not Gibson's fault here.

My original point was more of a general one about how Hollywood excludes half the voting population from its movies, and they never get called on it. I can name exactly one sympathetic character in recent years who was a Republican -- Ralph Fiennes' character in "Made in Manhattan." And even then, he was more of a RINO anyway.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Hmm... I'm not sure there is an "excluded," anymore than someone would be "excluded" from the movie version of Rosencranz & Guildenstern are Dead by not being familiar with Hamlet. Or from Bob Roberts if they're not already a left-winger.

There's a lot of movies that assume a certain mindset on the part of the audience. That doesn't excluded the excluded from seeing, commenting, and even getting something out of it. But that does change the viewpoint.

I spent some time as a music reviewer on folk-music website. As a libertarian/conservative, a lot of folk music did not appeal to my beliefs, but I taught myself (successfully, I think) to learn to recognize good music of a style and/or politics I didn't care for. I think I can apply the same thinking to this movie, if I see it.