The [Perfect] Passion: Three Reviews and a letter (The Most Complete and HONEST review yet)

The Ornery American ^ | Feb 29, 2004 | Orson Scott Card

[Fledermaus]

Video will do nothing...get the DVD! lol

[gobucks]

"Its a small descrepency, but makes alot of difference. Jesus died for those that accept His sacrifice. If He died for all mankind, there is no need for Hell. He died for His sheep, His church, His people."

First, are you assuming salvation and redemption are equal terms?

I'm not sure this is the best way to state your idea. True, he died for me. But, did he die for me only b/c he knew beforehand I was going to one of his sheep?

Maybe a better way to say this is that all mankind has the chance, now, to turn to him, b/c he created the option via defeating Satan. It's up to us to exercise the option. Otherwise, his death is sold too easily as a mere doorbell event for only those he has chosen, as if he has sent out a specific set of invitations to a chosen few, and only those folks get to consider whether or not to RSVP.

Kind of muddled, but do you see where I'm headed?

[Fledermaus]

I find it most interesting that this movie, because it is about Christ, is one of the only movies ever discussed about content. Sure, movies like Kill Bill might get discussed as to it's violence, but rarely are they discussed for their content.

And when the so-called "right" object to a movie for it's content, the same Hollyweird folks denounce them as against free speech.

But Mel makes a movie based on the Gospels and they all go nuts. No one was complaining when Robin Williams made that awful movie about a family in heaven and he went to hell to get his newly dead wife. Oh, that's called "visionary" and lauded as "artistic".

It's okay to parody heaven and hell in movie after movie, comedy or otherwise but once you actually take it seriously, it's now forbidden.

And to think this is the same Hollywood that once lavished awards on C.B. DeMille and movies like "The Robe", "Ben Hur", and "The Ten Commandements".

By today's standards, or lack thereof, these films today would be equally attacked.

Wake up America! Just quit paying money to see their crap in the theaters, on TV, vidoes and DVD's and believe you me, they'll change to what you want to watch.

I haven't been in a movie theater since "Spider-Man" and that was only to kill a few hours while family visited! lol

I'll rent some everyonce in a while but most are boring and predictable. I even get free HBO and Showtime (basic) on my cable system and there is hardly anything worth watching other than "The Sopranos".

I watch two, maybe three primetime TV shows (Frasier, That 70's Show, MadTV and I suffer through the occasional Enterprise).

The rest is canned laughter crap.

[gobucks]

I went to the NRO review you referred to, and thanks for your link.

You're right. The violence angle, so totally maligned, is properly covered in the NRO review. But, I got the sense the reviewer was not really hit by the movie like OSC was.

I think that more than a few non-believers, especially leftists, who took the time to see this movie felt that being 'detached', 'objective', during the violence was like earning a scout badge of intellectual honor.

[gobucks]

The implications of the distribution company I have given some thought to as well.

The Hollywood leftists must be really, really ticked over that one. Think of all the indie films, politically incorrect films that will finally get made.

I nominate the following stories:

A George Washington movie. There is none even worth renting. (Now why is that do ya think?)

A movie about Stonewall Jackson and or Robert Lee. These two men, on the losing side, we're nonetheless an embodiment of something distinctly American. That distinctness is missing from almost all movies that address the 'South'.

A movie about missonary life. The only one made I know of that is half way decent was 'Hawaii'. Missonaries, in my view, are the 'soldiers of courage' without peer. They risk it all, and I'm in awe usually. Even my own pastor - man does he catch it.

[gobucks]

"Therefore the contention that the manner of Jesus' death was not important is quite wrong. He had to shed His blood. Why else is His blood mentioned so many times?"

You're correct of course. I considered noting that OSC was a Mormon in my initial post comment. But, given all the anti-Mormon stuff I've seen here, though its meant well, I didn't want to detract from OSC's overall insights.

Too often, sectarianism serves the Enemy's purpose all too well.

[gobucks]

Maybe sectarianism is the wrong word .. let's just say strife.

[gobucks]

"I watch two, maybe three primetime TV shows "

What, you mean you don't faithfully watch NBC Nightly News w/ Tom HeeHaw??? What is WRONG with you? Don't you know its a sin to be uninformed???

[gobucks]

"...its something else".

A word, if I may offer it to you is 'real'. I couldn't agree more with your post and thanks.

[.30Carbine]

gobucks, thank you for this post and for pinging me to it. Thank you also for the FReepmail. You have been the better man in continuing to extend the hand of friendship to me through this forum, despite our differences, and I thank you.

I enjoyed this real review and yet agree with TheBattman that one point struck me as inaccurate as I read through the article. I agree that lethal injection would not have sufficed for the death of our Savior. I am convinced of this because I believe every word of Scripture. Yes, the essentials of our faith are that Christ died for my sins and rose again for my justification. Yet it must not be overlooked that those essentials are replete with significant and necessary details as the gospel accounts unfold, and these details are the very real fulfillment of prophecy, ref. Psalm 22.

1) Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, see Hebrews 12, specifically verses 7, 11-15, and 19-22. Christ's blood was the fulfillment of the New Covenant, the implementation of which was foreshadowed and given structure through Moses in the Old, seen in this one verse: Exodus 24:8.

2) Christ's death on the cross was a prophecy that had to be fulfilled, as He fulfilled all prophecies concerning the Messiah. As you will see in Galatians 3:13, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Deuteronomy 21:23)

I wish I had more time for this discussion. Thank you for the invitation to fellowship.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If they do honor the film, he can decline to accept it -- but not rudely and ostentatiously like Brando did.

Another way to look at is that anyone can judge any work of art by their own standards, and Mel Gibson nor any other artist can stop any of us. Thus, it's not up to Mr. Gibson to say what movies the acadamy will judge, nor which they will or will not honor.

He just doesn't have to show up at the ceremony, is all. If "Passion" is nominated, he should consider sending someone to the ceremony who would take the occasion of any award to give God the glory--a representative not of Mel Gibson but of the Author of the Book.

[gobucks]

You're quite welcome. It's neat our thoughts are mirrored in this way .... did you see my post number 86 above?

[gobucks]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Mel asked the Pope to be the acceptor of all those little guys? Can you IMAGINE the chaos in LA??? LOL!!!!!!!

[Dataman]

He is a Catholic, and this is a profoundly Catholic interpretation.

No, that is positively incorrect. It is a profoundly biblical and historical interpretation. The only thing that can be said to be uniquely Catholic is the incident with Veronica which is not a problem.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I am mystified that the implosion of the USSR has not dissuaded their efforts an iota. How is it that data point, along with the collapse of the Eastern bloc is so easily ignored do you think?

I think that GHWB let them off the hook. With the folly of the tax increase, not least--but with his priority on stability where freedom is the necessity.

It started at the Republican National Convention of 1988 when, after a speaker said that Republicans had won the Cold War, Mark Shields types challenged that claim by pointing out that Truman had started containment and that Democrats as well as Republicans had fought in Vietnam.

And no Republican, not Bill Bennett nor anyone else, had the wit to reply that no credit accrued to anyone who had ever used "Right Wing Cold Warrior" as a one-word term of abuse. And that of course leaves out the entire post-1972 leadership of the Democratic Party. But of course given that "objective" journalism is the pilot fish of liberalism, no other result than a muddying of responsibility was ultimately possible.

It would seem that If Kerry is indeed the Democrat nominee, we will have to refight the battle over the responsibilty for Vietnam--and surely that battle starts with a fight over the credit for Cold War victory. The Cold War victory the invalidates the Democrats' condemnation of "right wing Cold Warriors"--and that condemnation followed directly from John (expletive deleted) Kerry's critique of the Vietnam-era military.

[King Prout]

minor quibble: doctrine of the "natural" christian, in Romans IIRC - knowing Jesus not mandatory for salvation.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Mel asked the Pope to be the acceptor

That would be a riot!

But as the winners are not announced in advance, not a good idea. In fact it would need to be someone of no reputation, lest they be embarassed by being "all dressed up and nowhere to go" if the movie won no awards.

[PLOM...NOT!]

Bump for an excellent review.

[Skooz]

If some critics can't see the difference between this film and movies that delight in casual violence, they're in the wrong line of work.

Ditto that.

This is probably the best review I have yet seen.

[Texas2step]

*Ping* to an excellent Passion commentary. Best I've read, yet. You may have seen it already, but it deserves a bump, anyway. <><