Posted on 03/23/2004 6:58:35 AM PST by presidio9
Gibson's movie is also WAY more factual than "Temptation".
If so, by your own logic, you've labeled yourself a whoremonger.
You would be right, if
the publishing industry --
and the medium
of books -- were the same
as the film business, and films
as a medium.
So what's the difference. They both use the gospel to make bucks, right? Surely, the 'medium' (e.g. print versus film) isn't the real issue for you, is it? (I'd LOVE to see the biblical support for THAT.)
Well, yes, like I said.
In fact, there are at least three
medium induced
issues between film
and books. Ethical things caused
by the "kind" of folks
in the current world
making up the industries
beind the products.
Political things
about the uses to which
people put the stuff.
And -- to my eyes key --
epistemological
things about the ways
the two media
affect the human brain. I
recommend Mander's
book on this last point.
If it makes you feel better,
there are certain books
that I would avoid
just as I do avoid some
movies. And, in fact,
the very book Mel
based his movie on is one.
But, you know, we all
try to be true to
God as best we can. You do
your thing, I'll do mine.
I agree --the depiction of satan was genius. And it did seem as if Jesus were the only one who saw "him/her."
For me, the portrayl of satan was more psychologically disturbing than even the flogging and the crucifixion, espeicially where the demon-children are tormenting Judas. Here we have absolute evil vs. absolute good --the ultimate showdown.
Satan's mocking of the madonna & child imagery was really powerful! But the crow pecking at the theif's eye was a bit over-the-top. However, I understand that birds and animals feeding on the bodies of the crucified was common, unless someone was there to shoo them away...
Overall, Mel does a fantastic job showing just how evil the entire crucifixion process was, which is something we need to see. The violence in this movie was the furthest thing in the world from the typical Hollywood gratuitous violence that one would find in a "Kill Bill" or "Dawn of the Dead" film. In 'The Passion,' the violence is the means of our redemption, and is probably one of the few, and perhaps only time where violence in a film has been redeeming.
When the critics complain of the violence of this film, it's not really the violence they're criticizing. Rather, they're complaining about the idea that violence can actually be redemptive. How dare we believe that something "good" can actually come from something "evil!" After nearly 2,000 years, the cross is still viewed as "foolishness" and "a stumbling-block."
I agree, Ronzo. What do you make of Satan's howl/scream at the end? I rather thought it had to do with the fact that Satan was aware that he/she/it actually "lost that round," that absolute good had defeated absolute evil.
I loved that part! Taken in context with satan's temptations in the garden, we see that the evil-one was doing everything 'he/she' could to stop Jesus from going to the cross. But if Jesus was going to go through with it, then satan would do the best 'he/she' could to have "fun" with it, though that "fun" would prove to be very short lived. ['he/she' being used because of satan's portrayl by a woman in the movie...which was also brilliant...]
What's really intersting about the satanic interpretation in 'The Passion' is that it's probably much more theologically accurate than the popular Christian myth surrounding the crucifixion. Though the myth in question takes many forms, the usual way it's played out is that satan was convinced that he was 'winning' by having Christ crucified. It was only when he saw Jesus descend into hell itself, that he realized that he made a mistake. This view is supported biblically by satan "entering" into Judas, in order to betray Jesus unto death. Why would satan want Jesus dead, other than he thought he could thwart Jesus' mission?
However, when Peter tells Jesus: "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You” (Mt 16:22) in response to Jesus' announcement that he was going to Jerusalem to die, we see that from Jesus' perspective, satan did not want the crucifixion to take place. "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s” (Mt 16:23).
So find ourselves in a strange place where a movie's theology is probably more correct than that of most evangelical Christians concerning satan's role in the crucifixion.
Personally, I think satan knew the crucifixion was an immediate defeat for him, and I also think he knew that Jesus would not remain dead. Realizing there was nothing he could do to stop it, satan decided to at least enjoy the pain and suffering that Christ would go through before his actual death took place. Not exactly a "if you can't beat, join 'em" strategy, but more like: "If I'm going to lose, then at least I'll try to extract what I can from my loss."
The crucifixion and death were an immediate loss for satan. Jesus' resurrection from the dead was just the icing on the cake. Having the evil-one scream in defeat at the foot of the cross was an absolutely brilliant way for 'The Passion' to visualize what happened in the spiritual realm.
To go one step further, I truly believe that Satan, like God, is a creature who exists outside of the dimension of time. Therefore, he absolutely KNOWS his ultimate fate, and that he can't change it. However, he works within the dimension of time to mock and contradict God in every way he can, especially by getting as many men as possible to mock God along with him. He does this not to change his own fate, which is sealed, but to deny God of as much "satisfaction" as possible. Of course, in doing this, satan is actually working for God, not against him, in that he's participating in winnowing out the 'wheat' from the 'chaff.' In a very real way, satan is God's threshing sledge.
Lovely, Ronzo -- a brilliant insight, lucidly put. I agree with you, satan cannot "win" and he knows it; he just wants to take as many of God's children as possible down with him to defeat, and to obscenely mock God and man throughout all of space and time.
Gibson used another wonderfully evocative image, at the time of Jesus' death on the Cross. Do you remember that one, perfect teardrop that fell out of heaven and, when it struck the earth, the sky darkened, the winds shrilled, the earth quaked and rocked -- the Veil of the Temple was rent in twain? And then we see the high priest Caiphas, rending his garments, presumably in horror, grief, and fear? There's a kind of parallel here to satan's hellish howl....
I remember seeing the sign somewhere... maybe here...
God is dead. - Nietzche
Nietzche is dead. - God!
I've always liked that.
I loved Schrader's comment:
"They are two totally different movies."
Got that right!
I think I know the answer to this.
You're exactly right!
You have an autistic son?
I work with a young autistic boy at school. You are a special person. God bless you with your son, and may you receive abundant blessings with the coming of your new child.
You're in my prayers.
Jay
Satan battles with Jesus over the sins of mankind. If you notice that as the scenes become more vicious in nature do you see Satan:
There is the mockery of the Madonna at the point when Satan carries the evil incarnation of a child in his arms. He and Mary do lock eyes during the Vina Dela Rosa.
This great ape of God can only imitate. He can't bring about the glory and redemption of man.
Both realms a battling for the souls of man."
Most of this information was given by Mel Gibson during an interview from The World Over. A Catholic Radio production.
On the point about the bird plucking at one of the criminal's eyes - as I recall, this happens right after Christ assures the other that he will be with Him in paradise. At least I took it that way - as visually emphasizing the difference between them.
And I agree about Christ's reaction to Peter when he said "Get thee behind me, Satan." Satan has tried to prevent prophesy through the ages - the killing of the children when Christ and Moses were born, for instance. In this meditation, I believe it is consistent to show in the garden Satan trying to convince Christ that we are not worth it.
And as his eyes follow Christ from the crowd, with almost a grin on his face - I took the imagery to mean that he was expecting the sacrifice was becoming too much for Jesus to bear and that He would stop it at any moment.
Likewise, I saw the visualization of an evil Madonna the same way – as if taunting Christ that what is pure and right to God will be maligned among mankind. Again, the point being that we aren't worth it and Christ should just call it quits and return home leaving all of this physical realm to Satan forevermore.
All along the road to Golgatha, it looks as if Satan thinks he will win. Thus, Satan's screaming at the completion of Christ's sacrifice was a great visualization to me – he lost all hope.
Is that supposed to be a profound statement? Christ as metaphor?
Yes, Alamo-Girl. To take this point just a little bit further, my response to this scene was that Gibson meant us to see that the thief in question was spiritually blind. And thus, the crow would probably make better use of his eyes than he could. Just a conjecture....
Didn't the crow get both eyes? I really do have to see this film again. So many details....
So, let's have your "What did you think of the movie?" post... if you please!
(Thank you again for your fine words, logos.)
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.