Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Review: Passion of the Christ
Magwang
Veteran
Disclaimer: I am not Christian anymore, so you faithful out there may dismiss my ramblings as irrelevant. They are of course, but here they come anyway:
I finally saw Passion of the Christ, and I have to say it left me cold.
I'm not a theologian, but most of the story was already familiar to me, except for a few bits the director apparently made up. No real surprises. I was hoping to see some new angle or feel some new emotion, but nothing. Nada. Zip.
I had heard the publicity (who hasn't) about the shocking scenes of torture. Maybe I'm jaded by my TV upbringing, but I wasn't offended by it. I found it tedious actually. I lost count of how many times he stumbled and fell in slow motion.
Mel Gibson said he wanted the torture scenes to be graphic so we could see the enormity of his sacrifice. This I do NOT get. What's the few hours of his suffering compared to the infinite years of suffering of all beings? I feel bad for the guy, but let's keep his death in perspective.
And he practically dared them to crucify him. Wasn't that part of God's plan [i.e. for him to die]? Don't the pharises (sp?) and Judas play a vital role, despite their vilification? I guess every story needs a villain.
"He died for our sins". Really, what the heck does that mean? Somebody explain to me how this sacrifice changes anything. If I am a believer, then I am saved, off the hook for my past deeds, and I slide right into heaven?
Ahhh, there it is.
If you are a believer (i.e. that Jesus was God incarnate), then this film has meaning. For the millions who paid money to see this flick at the theatres, their faith is what made the movie. They already were fans. But for me, it didn't affect me they way it could have. And, yes, I was keeping an open mind.
Oh, and the cinematography was adequate, the dialog cartoonish, the acting was wooden. Only the actor portaying Pontius Pilate caught my attention.
Apparently while filming, James Caviezel (Jesus) was actually struck by lightning. Afterwards he laughed "I guess God didn't like that take."
Maybe God wasn't joking.
...
I finally saw Passion of the Christ, and I have to say it left me cold.
I'm not a theologian, but most of the story was already familiar to me, except for a few bits the director apparently made up. No real surprises. I was hoping to see some new angle or feel some new emotion, but nothing. Nada. Zip.
I had heard the publicity (who hasn't) about the shocking scenes of torture. Maybe I'm jaded by my TV upbringing, but I wasn't offended by it. I found it tedious actually. I lost count of how many times he stumbled and fell in slow motion.
Mel Gibson said he wanted the torture scenes to be graphic so we could see the enormity of his sacrifice. This I do NOT get. What's the few hours of his suffering compared to the infinite years of suffering of all beings? I feel bad for the guy, but let's keep his death in perspective.
And he practically dared them to crucify him. Wasn't that part of God's plan [i.e. for him to die]? Don't the pharises (sp?) and Judas play a vital role, despite their vilification? I guess every story needs a villain.
"He died for our sins". Really, what the heck does that mean? Somebody explain to me how this sacrifice changes anything. If I am a believer, then I am saved, off the hook for my past deeds, and I slide right into heaven?
Ahhh, there it is.
If you are a believer (i.e. that Jesus was God incarnate), then this film has meaning. For the millions who paid money to see this flick at the theatres, their faith is what made the movie. They already were fans. But for me, it didn't affect me they way it could have. And, yes, I was keeping an open mind.
Oh, and the cinematography was adequate, the dialog cartoonish, the acting was wooden. Only the actor portaying Pontius Pilate caught my attention.
Apparently while filming, James Caviezel (Jesus) was actually struck by lightning. Afterwards he laughed "I guess God didn't like that take."
Maybe God wasn't joking.
...
0
Comments
I remember, being a Christian at the time this came out and could not understand how Christians are supposed to believe that Christ died for our sins - but only the ones that don't involved touching potties.
-bf
Me too. I was a little younger, but still, big effect on me. Then I saw "Hair" when I was 13 and all hell broke loose. LOL.
Many questions I still have and very few answers I have on the validity of Jesus...
I researched Catholism more....and in the meantime, found myself moving farther away from it.
In my understanding of the Christian message, the film appears both sacrilegious and blasphemous. Worse, it appears to be a bad film, whereas the gospels, whatever else they may be, are engrossing reads. The whole circus of publicity and spin that preceded the launch was truly sickening.
I find the film's interpretation of the words "he died for your sins" is frankly immoral and silly. It removes personal responsibility from each one of us whilst still suggesting that we are complicit in the event. And it is barbaric!
Someone as diverse, open-minded, understanding of many beliefs and opinions and being so well read...
You should see it and give us your opinion. I would truly be curious to see what you think about it.
-bf
The kid was crying in the theater and the parents made her sit there like she was paying some penance.
I can't believe how ignorant people are at times.
-bf
Mel needs to learn how to read Greek. Christ dies only for us who are dead to the light of life (phos zoe = Christ) because of sin.
But those of us who are free of sin (sin = to lose one's way in the darkness of the flesh) we see Christ right now in all of our actions like the Zen master of old.
St. Paul never understood Christ to die for sinners! How crazy is that?
To be fair to Mel (I love Mad Max!) the whole thing about "died for our sins" was never explicitly mentioned or depicted in this film.
I added that in because it's a concept that I don't get. It's a movie review and I probably shouldn't have thrown that in.
It's not relevant to the thrust of my post that this movie...well... sucks.
::
:
I can not tell you how sad I was when I saw this movie. As soon as the movie was over, I got back to my daily lives because I knew that it was just a movie. I asked my pastor about the meaning of the movie. My paster said that the Jesus did not die for our sinners like most of us Christian were led to believe, he also said that Jesus symbolizes the Divine Light and by denying the Light, we "kill" him.
Also the example of the cross, my pastor also said that the cross symbolizes the flesh and the Jesus symbolizes the Light, once again. When you see Jesus on that cross, my pastor said, that is what happened when the Spirit is entrenched in the flesh. Namely, suffering.
I investigate Buddhism and found out that the Buddha mentioned about the Light all the time in the Avatamsaka Sutra (FLower Ornament Sutra). So there is similarity between Buddhism and Christianity, now golly we can agree to agree.
Halelujah
M Bolden
This religion stuff is way too much for me to comprehend. I likes me Buddha stuff
Plus, how can you not like a movie where Peter Gabriel did the soundtrack?!?!?!?!
-bf
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them"
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone
And you want to travel with him
And you want to travel blind
And you think maybe you'll trust him
For he's touched your perfect body with his mind.
L. Cohen
Several Sedicious Scribes?
or
Sid the Saducee Strangler?
But one of my favorite lines from the movie....
"You don't need to follow me...You don't need to follow anyone. You are all individuals! You need to work things out for yourselves!"
---Brian---
The crowd shouts, "Look! over there, it's a miracle, he has brought forth Juniper Berries!"
Brian replies, "Of course it's brought forth Juniper Berries-it's a Juniper Bush!"
And aother quote from Brian's Mother, "Look he's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy!"
mmm Life of Brian friggin' funny.
I agree.
-bf
I fart in your general direction!!!!! Bring out the Holy Handgranade!!!!!!
I preferred The Holy Grail too. LOVE that movie. Life of Brian was good, but I really think Grail was much better. I laughed a lot more and I remembered it much better than Brian.
Brigid
That's my favourite as well, Knitwitch! That's the best line in the movie. I still LMAO, even after having seen it 20 times!
And I love the "Bring out yer dead, bring out yer dead...". "But I'm not dead yet. I'm feeling much better actually...".
And the Black Knight "It's only a flesh wound..".
Man, I love that movie!
Brigid
Your mother was a hamster! To my shame I have actually used that one!
Have I kept my word to grandad? I could look him straight in the eye and say, "Yes sir," and mean it but that he might not accept it, my word, if he knew that I'd been to half a dozen Christmas Eve type services in some thirty years or more, and that was it. I have kept my word because I am very very clear in my own mind about who Jesus was and is. He was a Buddha.
And then there's this whole myth called Christianity which has been built up, purportedly representing Jesus and what Jesus himself represented. I remember arguing with some 'Christian' evangelical types who had me in their cross-hairs. I was playing music in the inner harbour to pay the rent and eat. Probably how I got their attention. I was in fact starving to be involved with somebody, but this was just not it. I told them that when they would cease and desist with this ridiculous claim that the only pathway to God (or being saved, or transformed, or reaching Nirvana, or being enlightened .. whatever) is by accepting Jesus as your savior then I would have an intelligent conversation with them. Elsewise go away. They finally left.
So .. to the Passion of Christ.
I personally feel that this is an exquisite work of art. If one was setting out to address the crucifixion then this did a superb job of making clear what happened. I haven't heard anyone argue that the course of events was not as described .. although I'm not satisfied in my own mind that that the whole idea of the crucifixion is not a story conjured up by the people who wrote the bible. A story to keep the people transfixed. I do rather like the story that Jesus married and had a family and settled in the south of France. Or the other one being that he in fact returned to the far east. But I digress ..
Within the context of the crucifixion story, did anyone see how intricately 'evil' was woven into the story. Throughout the movie I could see this evilness, gloating at the suffering and delighted at the attempts to break Jesus' spirit and his will .. and in the end did not succeed. It was brilliantly done.
If I rambled, I'm sorry .. but thanks for the opportunity.
On your point about "no man cometh to the father but through me" - I used to have a bit of a knife out for that saying until a much brighter person than me (Simon, in fact) pointed out to me that it could be read that anyone who came to realisation, salvation, enlightenment (whatever you want to call it) was doing the right thing and therefore doing as jesus taught. It could consequently be a very INclusive phrase rather than one that says "Welcome to Heaven - Christians only need apply"
.. and maybe it's like we're all wandering around in this
thorny forest and someone finds the stream which is the pathway
out. If you were hot enough and tired enough and pissed off enough
you might well lie back in such a stream and yell out, "I AM the
WAY! Yes!!"
It wasn't how graphic it was that upset me, it was the scenes that showed Mary having to watch this torture being brought upon her child. As a mother, this aspect really hit me in the gut. The feeling I got coming away from this movie (what I saw of it anyway) was a question.
How could any human inflict this kind of cruelty on another? (whether this other is Divine or not)
I know that question could be deemed as unrealistic or even childish, but I am a believer in the notion that humans are naturally good....not evil.
I used to like Mel Gibson as well. However after his refusal to deny his father's views are his own and his subsequent arrest (and racial slurs) I no longer even enjoy watching the Lethal Weapon movies...and they used to be some of my favorite movies.
Indeed, how could his father plan the execution of his son. Xians tell me that their god sacrificed his son because of his love for mankind. This I do not get.
::
So I explained that, even though they knew the house was full of sinners, they'd save them regardless...but God condemns non-christians to burn in hell unless they take him into their hearts in Jesus' name?
Doesn't that make them better than God then?
I haven't had a reply yet.....
Wow. Good one. Really hits at the core of one of my deepest problems with what people like to call 'christianity' these days.
metta
_/\_
Palzang
*nods*
metta
_/\_
I think it has to be seen in the biblical context, of which i have not much knowledge of.
One possible inerpretation is the demonstration of the lack of own-will, in that case, even god having the lack of an own will because he sacrifices his only son for the sake of mankind. This is otherwise known as Altruism. Sacrificing oneself for the sake of others finally is a demonstration of non-attachement to oneself.
Regards
May I suggest that there is an additional alternative way of looking at the death Jesus 'gave himself up to'? If we take Moltmann's idea that the Cross is a 'family matter' within the Trinity, see the Father as Justice and the Son as Compassion. Jesus life can be seen as the work of Compassion over Justice and, to show his total commitment to it, going beyond Justice, he hands himself over (see my work on the verb moods in Mark) to death, in whatever form it is imposed on him. In his last word, tetelestai, he proclaims that Compassion has trumped Justice.
That's a brief outline.
BTW, I find the whole idea of the film disgusting. Would Buddhists go and see a film in which the Tathagata achieves parinibbana (?sp) shitting and vomiting from foos poisoning? Itis just plain unnecessary - and unkind.
LOL!
Thank you Simon, indeed I see the real meaning of christ`s sacrifice as a symbol of altruism or compassion, too. Thanks
Regards
You might enjoy the thoughts of "the Buddha of Frankfurt" on this:
...then what is called allegorical in profane things is called Mystery in Religion. Christianity is highly of allegorical nature. .... One has to admit, that christianity is not only morally superior over the two old religions (judaism and greek "paganism"), whit its teaching of caritas, forgiveness, resignation and denying of the own will, which is - of course only in the occident - it`s unique characterisitc, but also in matter of dogma.
What else is there than the allegory that is adequate to be given to the huge masses- which is unable of understading truth directly- as a guide to a practical life and a means of comfort and hope? As such an allegory needsa certain degree of absurdity, so that its allegorical character can be regognized. If one understands christian dogma sensus proprio [in litearally sense], then Voltaire is right. But when it is taken allegorically, then it is a holy mythos, a vehicle that brings truth to the masses which otherwise was not possible.
- Arthur Schopenhauer, Parergra and Paralipomena II, "Über die Religion", §177"Über das Christentum".
One possible interpretation is the demonstration of their lack of goodwill.
The story of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph is Our Story. For a "Christian" to see anyone, even Christ, as "other" or as "a stranger" is simply a failure to see, period. Christ is the True Self of All. If it were not so, he would not have said, "Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."
All this Hero-worship that paints every step along the way in painstaking detail is none other than idol worshipping. And that is expressly what the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions are most against, traditionally.
One must differentiate between the religion about the significance (or divinity) of Jesus, on the one hand, and the Religion that Jesus lived and taught, on the other. No doubt, the former has kept the latter alive, by helping to build up and sustain the Body of the Church. However, there does come a time to grow up. Hero-worship is for children and adults have to let it go.
-
In terms of the movie part, all the characters were caricatures. They were all either pious to sickening degrees, or sadists, who seemed to get real pleasure from torturing Jesus.
(fact: Augustine wrote a stern letter to the Roman authorities because they were doing nothing to hinder the child slave trade in Africa. The reason they were lax is that the lash was mandatory punishment for anyone caught dealing in child slavery, and the Roman soldiers did not want to carry out that punishment because they felt it was too cruel.)
As a form of religious media, I think it was was worse. It was anti-Semitic (I felt this before Mel's little tirade to the LA police.) Also, when the Gospels handle this part of the story, they simply say, "Pilate handed Jesus over to be flogged." No theatrics, no tear jerking descriptions of the pain of the lash--just a simple statement of fact.
What the passion does is glorify the suffering of Jesus over and above the victory of the cross. We are saved because it hurt Jesus so much, or something like that. In fact, what is downplayed is the whole Christian notion of the victory over death. ("Death, where is thy sting?"
If anyone other than Rob Zombie did a movie that was this violent, we would call him sick. (and some people have that reserved for Rob Zombie as well!)
I caught a lot of flack up here because I wrote a review of it, expressing my displeasure. Some people actually left the church were I was preaching, and people wrote letters to the editor...but I still stand by it.
Pretty sick shit, eh?
Jesus "dying for our sins" is one bit that can be explained - please allow me...
In ancient times it was believed that the sins of a person, or group of people could be averted by a blood sacrifice to 'the power/s that be' (however the group defined them).
The term 'scape goat' comes from this. The Jews would regularly slaughter some animal or other to appease the wrath of God. Other cultures too used animal (sometimes even human) sacrifice to curry favour.
Jesus was the "Lamb of God" - so took the role of the animal in the ritual sacrifice.
It's a cultural relic from a different time and place that would have made sense to its early audience.
Namaste
My point is that there are other possible readings of the gospel writer's words and, further, that it is incumbent on believers, according to one approach to Scripture, to re-assess every possible interpretation until a real, personal challenge arises.
I guess there are as many approaches to this as there are Christians. It's the fundamentalists who are never willing to move beyond a narrow interpretation.
Sad, isn't it? And it's there in all the disciplines. Many of us have suffered from the verbal lash of literalists on other, even 'Buddhist', boards.
And I recall being taken to task as a teenager when I confessed to liking both Mahler and Bruckner, Dickens and Scott: I was told it 'should' be one or the other. I have always refused to impoverish myself by refusing to try an unfamiliar dish.
Anathema to any absolutist. Pragmatic expediency obliges me to limit the amount of dishes I savour. Few in number though they are, I cannot, in many places, openly compare and share their content.
It was a beautifully made movie though!