Posted on 03/31/2004 12:02:35 AM PST by JohnHuang2
When I saw an early cut last summer of Mel Gibson's "The Passion," as it was known then, I knew it was going to be an important film.
Frankly, the movie had more impact on me than any film I had ever seen. I was left speechless. A day has not gone by since that I haven't thought of the movie, drawn lessons from it, been inspired by it.
Since then I have gone to see the final cut twice. Each time I see it, there are new lessons, new inspirations to draw from it.
I'm glad to see I'm not alone.
This is the first movie released in my lifetime that has inspired criminals to confess to heinous offenses including murder.
The film is causing people to think, to return to their faith and, in some cases, to discover God and His purpose in their lives.
It is having a positive effect on our culture and is causing Hollywood to rethink the way it makes movies.
But the film is not without precedent entirely.
Back in 1927, another film shook the world. It was Cecil B. DeMille's "King of Kings."
Like "The Passion of the Christ," it faced enormous opposition when it was released, sparking fears of anti-Semitism that, fortunately, were never realized.
In fact, it had quite the opposite effect and, I suspect, so, too, will "The Passion of the Christ."
"In spite of excellent reviews ... what was harder to comprehend and cope with was the organized opposition of certain Jewish groups to the filmed history of the greatest Jew who ever lived," wrote DeMille.
Thirty-two years after its release, "King of Kings" had been seen by an estimated 800 million people. Because it was a silent film, it was used by missionaries around the world to reach people who spoke no English. Again, I suspect, the Aramaic and Latin languages used in "The Passion of the Christ" will lend itself to the same purpose.
DeMille also recounted a dramatic way the film was actually used to save hundreds of Jewish children from the Nazi gas chambers.
A year after the film was released, H.E. Wallner saw it in Germany and committed his life to ministry. In 1939, he was pastor of a church in Prague when Adolph Hilter's troops marched into Czechoslovakia. A member of his church, a Jewish doctor and recent convert to Christianity was sent to a concentration camp.
He was severely beaten and abused so badly one of his arms needed to be amputated. One night, an officer slammed his head against a stone wall, according to an account by DeMille. With blood pouring down the doctor's face, the officer mocked him: "Take a look at yourself. Now you look like your Jewish Christ."
"Lord, never in my life have I received such honor to resemble You," said the doctor.
Later that night, the officer was haunted by what he had done and by the words of the doctor. He sought help in a nearby church Wallner's church.
After praying with the officer, Wallner said: "Perhaps God let you kill that good man to bring you to the foot of the cross, where you can help others."
The German officer returned to the concentration camp, and, with the help of Wallner and the Czech underground, assisted in the escape of hundreds of Jews.
Wallner told DeMille in 1957: "If it had not been for "The King of Kings," I would not be a Lutheran pastor, and 350 Jewish children would have died in the ditches."
Some have ridiculed Gibson for suggesting the Holy Spirit guided him in the making of his film, but DeMille made a similar comment: "If I felt that this film was my work, it would be intolerably vain and presumptuous to quote such stories from the hundreds like them that I could quote," he wrote. "But all we did in 'The King of Kings,' all I have striven to do in any of my biblical pictures, was to translate into another medium, the medium of sight and sound, the words of the Bible."
I believe that is exactly what Mel Gibson has done in "The Passion of the Christ." And the reaction to it speaks for itself.
I agree with you 100%.
That is why I am perplexed at her comments, basically "dismissing" him as though he weren't portraying a legitimate message?
She told me personally a few weeks ago, that the movie "did nothing" for her, disputed Mary wiping up the blood after the scouraging, and thought it far too violent and unrealistic.
Fine, to each their own about the "details." The message behind the movie speaks loud and clear, to ALL Christians.
God Bless!
I can't agree with you more. That is why I am very disturbed at the things going on at my parish, and have one foot out the door after this coming Easter.
I draw your attention to Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6, and Revelation 22:18-19. What we fail to acknowledge is that God is a Holy God and does not take lightly ANYONE messing with what He has spoken. NOONE is allowed to say "whatever" when it comes to the Word of God.
Thanks for the references and reminders. Read them, and it reiterates my point, and yours.
I could never, in good conscience, ever recommend this movie to anyone. Gibson has added to and taken away from the Word of God for his own purposes.
I take it you saw the movie. It's not for everyone, even Gibson said so.
Could you tell me where he "took away" (i.e. key elements) from The Word of God in the movie? It was about "The Passion" of Christ, not his entire life and teachings.
More over, "he" is not adding to The Word of God. I take it you are referring to The Gospel here?
Again, I am talking about a movie, and not someone's official proclaimation to rewrite the Gospels. That was never Mel's intention.
He added concepts in his movie that were made by other sources (visionaries) to tie the story in. The Gospels leave details out. It doesn't mean they didn't exist (i.e. the way Christ died, the battle with Satan, ect..). Nothing in the movie appears to be contrary to The Gospel's overall teachings.
Does that (portraying a story in a movie) make him an inherently evil person, and leave reason to totally denounce the movie with the fear of being influenced the wrong way? It's up to God to decide if Gibson erred grievously. Our faith is not shaken by things we "don't agree with" either, is it? No, of course not.
True, this movie was filmed for his own purposes as you stated. The evolution of this movie did not start out as a thought to make it a "money making blockbuster" or piece of evangelism. This started out as a personal project that came from his own heart, his own $30 million+, to put on film, nothing else.
The readings (and other sources) that he used in this movie aided him in his own spiritual journey to get closer to God, after going through a dark hell in his past. He has added elements from visionaries to tie in the story to his movie. It was never intended to be an official proclamation from God.
This movie, as the very least, is a work of art, and the most accurate made picture about The Passion to date. It is not perfect (nor does Gibson claim to be), just more accurate with respect to sources (Gospel of John) used than what has been released in the past. If this movie brings one person closer to God, or even makes one examine their personal relationship with God, then it was worth all of the blood, sweat, tears (and $) he put into it.
And with the box office success, my guess is that it has influenced at least one person positively :)
God bless, and have a great weekend.
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.