[Restorer]

But I predict that Hollywood directors famous for gratuitous violence, such as Quentin Tarantino and Oliver Stone, will now find convincing arguments that violence in their films also serves an important social purpose.

That would make for a very interesting discussion. Seems to me that much movie violence in recent years has had a pornographic tendency to invite viewers to identify with the perpetrators and share their delight in treating other humans as objects to be tormented for personal pleasure.

I'd like to see someone justify this.

Haven't seem Mel's movie yet, but I understand this is absolutely not the way the violence in it is handled.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"Haven't seem Mel's movie yet, but I understand this is absolutely not the way the violence in it is handled."

You are absolutely correct.

1. They don't focus on the blows most of the time. The focus is on the other characters, and their responses, shown in their faces.
2. The focus for me was totally on Jesus. The "violence" -- I don't think of it that way at all, I think of it merely AS the Passion of Christ! Hard to explain. I saw Jesus' determination to defeat the temptations of the Satan in the opening scene (who taunted that He could not take upon himself all sins of humanity -- it was altogether TOO MUCH); as he repeatedly tried to stand up at the scourging pillar. See the faces of some of the Romans as He does this, resolutely and determinedly, to TAKE the punishment, not to shrink from it. The camera is not continually on the back, the blows, not at all. The FOCUS is certainly on the dignity and determination with which Jesus EMBRACED his Passion. The love, the generosity.

I will go so far to say that it is not a "violent" film AT ALL -- in the usual sense of the word. It is simply sublime.