When you go to religious movies, you have to understand that the plot is locked in and believers don't care if it doesn't make any sense. They have faith, but for the rest of us movies require more than that. The burden is on the filmmakers to make the story work. As I watched the film, I sat wondering about things that made no sense to me. Is this the best plan God could come up with? If Judas has to betray Jesus in order for the events to proceed, then isn't he just as heroic since he too gives his life so the prophecy can come true?
I'm not sure why the focus of the film is on the violence with no reference to the spirituality of the story. I don't understand Mel's point in brushing over Jesus' message, choosing to illustrate the savagery. If you look at the majority of art throughout time, it's hard to find anything showing a similar amount of punishment. Yes, Jesus suffered, but am I supposed to feel guilty? He was supposed to die according to prophecy, was he not? If that was God's plan, shouldn't Christians be glad about what transpired? Are Christians supposed to feel they aren't living up to their commitment to Christ when they see what Jesus endured? You probably need to have a serious relationship with Christ to get any meaning out of this film, and since he and I are just passing acquaintances, I had no epiphanies.
Now whether it's accurate is why people are so up in arms. Many historians claim it is historically inaccurate, so that leaves theologically. Is Mel presenting his interpretation or does he claim this is the interpretation? One of his sources is The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is based on the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), a German nun. So the film is Mel's interpretation of Anne's interpretation. But are the Gospels accurate? They were written anywhere from 30 A.D. to 100 A.D. How accurate can they be when there's no agreement on when they were written? And am I expected to believe that there's been no editing in 2000 years. Go to a bookstore and see how many versions of the Bible there are. Shouldn't there just be one?
A major issue is the argument over Anti-Semitism and I can see both sides of the argument, so who is right? Who gets to say what is and isn't Anti-Semitic? I didn't find the film to be Anti-Semitic, but then I don't find Little Red Riding Hood to be Anti-Wolfic. I understand the concern from Jewish leaders because over 95 percent of the Jewish people in the film want Jesus dead. The main villains of the film are the Pharisees and they are Jewish. I hear some people say that the Romans are the villains, but that's dishonest because even though they are responsible for the punishment, it's only because the Jewish people will settle for nothing less. There always has to be a bad guy and in this case it's people who are Jewish. In some stories Arabs are bad guys, in others it's the French or the English or the Americans. The Romans are very bad as well, but you never hear people protesting that the film will increase anti-Romanism. Why is that? Bigots don't need reasons to be stupid; they just are. Can anyone create art if they have to worry about what the most benighted people will do in reaction to it? Why should the instability of a few simpletons be the standard bearer for what the rest of us might watch, read, hear, think?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Chris Kent
Bigots don't need reasons to be stupid; they just are. Can anyone create art if they have to worry about what the most benighted people will do in reaction to it? Why should the instability of a few simpletons be the standard bearer for what the rest of us might watch, read, hear, think?
Great observation. I enjoyed this blog and agreed with much of what you had to say.
2 - slaveofone
An old friend of El Bicho here... Enjoyed the review, man. The only things I would add are...
Mel created what, to my understanding, is a totally new Satan mythos. Unfortunately, I have not seen this discussed anywhere. Perhaps people were put off by the demonology, which is understandable. I was having flashbacks of that cheesy Buffy the Vampire slayer show on WB when brows furrowed and fangs appeared so that people were suddenly "evil."
Despite the little Buffy devils, it was actually the story of Judas that interested me most. I was more impacted by Judas' story and death than Yeshua's.
And what about the music? Absolutely incredible! If you don't see the film, listen to the soundtrack. IMHO, it is as good as any of the music in the Lord of the Rings films.
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I was going to try to see this film because it was supposed to have been done in Aramaic. I was told the Aramaic was stiff, stilted and ill translated and probably wrong. So I never spent the 30 shekels to see an old relative killed on film.
Snuff movies aren't my thing.
4 - Scott Butki
Great review.
I love this bit:
"The scourge went on for so long and was so graphic that I felt like I was watching Kill Jesus, Vol.1. Jesus is brought out before the people and to Pilate's amazement they still want Jesus crucified. Pilate offers his yearly amnesty to one prisoner of the people's choice, but the multitude chooses the convicted murderer Barabbas. To satiate the crowd's blood lust, Pilate orders Jesus to be crucified."
5 - RacelRacel
The Passion opened my eyes to how miserable and painful Jesus' death was. I can not wait till I see him in heaven. I know this because I myself have excepted him into my heart as Lord and Savior. You can too. Just go to your local church and talk to the minister.The Passion was a truthful movie.
6 - RacelRacel
God oves you more than you know!
7 - El Bicho
Racel, give it a rest.
8 - RacelRacel
Bicho I really want to say something mean but that's not who I am. Because God loves you too. No matter who you are or what you've done.And Bicho, God will give YOU rest!
9 - El Bicho
I see, so writing something mean isn't you, but telling me that you want to is. That's called passive-agressive.
This is a film review, not an essay about religion, so your comments aren't adding anything other than feeding your own ego.
If you really are so committed to spreading the word, sign up with the site, and post your own article. I'm sure there's plenty of people who would enjoy engaging in dialogue with you.
10 - STM
El Bicho wrote: "Yes, Jesus suffered, but am I supposed to feel guilty?"
Loved the review El Bicho and the searching nature of the questions you posed, but the answer to this one is unequivocal: no, you're not ... no one is supposed to feel guilty about it; that's the whole point, and that's why the message of this movie is not anti-semitic. Or anti-Roman, either, for that matter.
El Bicho also wrote: "I'm not sure why the focus of the film is on the violence with no reference to the spirituality of the story."
The spirituality of the story is the story itself ... and the violence is an integral, and perhaps the most important, part of Christ's own spiritual journey.
The fundamental tenets of Christian belief are the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ ... without these, despite the beautiful and simple message that Jesus was trying to spread, there would be no Christianity as we know it today.
Nothing in this film is different to what's in the Gospels, including the depiction of Pilate. People who do believe it is anti-semitic need to a) know the story in its entirety and b) look beyond the obvious.
It is absolutely not anti-semitic (and it's worth bearing in mind here that Jesus was a good Jewish boy whose mum was always worried about what he was going to with his life!).
This film is as close as you'd get to the story of The Passion, which is really a story about love, not death: and anti-semitism has absolutely no place in genuine Christian belief as non-judgment, unconditional love, tolerance, forgiveness and inclusion (especially of the last, the lost and the least) are also fundamental to the practise of (most) Christian religious traditions.
And yes, I'm a practising Catholic, and glad that I have a role model whose great gift to this world was his selflessness.
Living up to it, however, is always another matter. Thank God for the sacrament of Penance (or Reconciliation, or Confession).
I always need it ....
11 - Nancy
If you want to believe in the divinity & deliberate self-sacrifice of JC, fine. That's your privilege, and if you get comfort from it, that's even better. But for most of us, he's a nonentity & utterly irrelevant to our lives. In any event, I certainly didn't ask him to suffer & die for me, and I don't see how his doing so benefits me 2 millenia later, anyway, which gets into the argument what kind of god demands that kind of reparation anyway? Certainly not one that I would even consider worshipping, therefore the 'sacrifice', if deliberate, is in vain & without application.
12 - RacelRacel
Okay sorry Bicho.That was very cutting though.Every comment I make has nothing to do with feeding my ego. If anything I've said has hurt your feelings I apoligize.
Nacy please think on what you recentley typed.
bi and God bless.
13 - RacelRacel
But Bicho I will say,you do have a way with words.
14 - STM
Nancy said: "If you want to believe in the divinity & deliberate self-sacrifice of JC, fine. That's your privilege, and if you get comfort from it, that's even better. But for most of us, he's a nonentity & utterly irrelevant to our lives. In any event, I certainly didn't ask him to suffer & die for me, and I don't see how his doing so benefits me 2 millenia later, anyway"
No-one's asking you to believe anything Nancy. What you believe is your business and I wouldn't presume to preach to you. This was just a discourse on a question posed in a movie review, and hopefully an explanation as to why the crucifixion as portrayed in the film is a fundamental component of Christian belief and why the story is not anti-semitic. But to understand why it's not, one needs to understand the meaning of the story.
15 - Nancy
Having seen the movie twice, I thought that on the whole it wasn't anti-semitic. I did think the point was made sufficiently for most EDUCATED people that the Sanhedrin was very much like today's congress: that is, they did not truly represent the will of the people, but rather only that of the plutocracy from which they themselves derived. But I don't think it was sufficiently well brought out for the rank & file, rather uninformed, uneducated, unthinking American who's used to being hand-fed every scrap of information. It certainly did present some pretty unattractive images of Romans, tho, didn't it?!
16 - S.T.M
Nancy said: "It certainly did present some pretty unattractive images of Romans, tho, didn't it?!"
I do worry about where Gibbo's head is at these days, but I did enjoy it in a horrified kind of way - although to be honest, I'd never recommend that anyone see it unless they REALLY want to.
The reason I have been plugging the not-racist angle is that I know him and he's not anti-semitic, just a fair-dinkum goose when he's drunk. He tries hard to be good, though, which counts. He always stereotypes Englishmen, though, which I find mildly offensive ... as he's actually American and therefore has far less right to join in the fun.
The Romans ... yes, I hadn't thought about that too hard. They could have been any colonisers: British, French, German, Russian ... American, even.
Good to see people thinking outside the square on this
17 - Nancy
Acually, those guys doing the flogging were so brutal (& stupid at the same time) it was almost humorous, and I would have laughed if I hadn't been so busy cringing & trying not to be sick w/horror & the gore. I had to see it twice, because I missed most of it the first time since I kept hiding my eyes & missed a good deal of it first time around (my neighbor the pastor insisted the gore was a must see and part of it). Yeasss...it was certainly in-yer-face graphic, which I suppose was the whole point of the movie. Yeah, I'd say on the whole it was less antisemitic than it was anti-Roman. Maybe it's the Italians who should sue for defamation...?
18 - Martin Lav
I was born a human being in 1922 A.D. What does “A.D.” signify? That commemorates an inmate of this lunatic asylum we call Earth who was nailed to a wooden cross by a bunch of other inmates. With him still conscious, they hammered spikes through his wrists and insteps, and into the wood. Then they set the cross upright, so he dangled up there where even the shortest person in the crowd could see him writhing this way and that.
Can you imagine people doing such a thing to a person?
No problem. That’s entertainment. Ask the devout Roman Catholic Mel Gibson, who, as an act of piety, has just made a fortune with a movie about how Jesus was tortured. Never mind what Jesus said.
During the reign of King Henry the Eighth, founder of the Church of England, he had a counterfeiter boiled alive in public. Show biz again.
Mel Gibson’s next movie should be The Counterfeiter. Box office records will again be broken.
One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.
- Kurt Vonnegut
19 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"This was just a discourse on a question posed in a movie review, and hopefully an explanation as to why the crucifixion as portrayed in the film is a fundamental component of Christian belief and why the story is not anti-semitic. But to understand why it's not, one needs to understand the meaning of the story."
Jews get very uncomfortable with this particular story because of all the misery Christians have caused Jews for 17 centuries. "Understanding the story" is not the issue for Jews. "Understanding the consequences of this story" is. In other words. what Christians have done to us over all those centuries is what is anti-Semitic, not the story of a man nailed to a piece of wood.
Now. I don't have to really give a damn because of where I live. But a story that has Christians genuinely excited about condemning the Sanhedrin and Jews and Jewish institutions gets Jews in exile scared. And that was what the big stink about this movie was in the first place. It didn't help any that Gibson's father is essentially a holocaust denier or that Gibson delivers himself of anti-Semitic sentiments when drunk.
Just a few thoughts for your to swill around with the Molson's...
20 - Martin Lav
"Jews get very uncomfortable with this particular story" Because you only have half a bible?
21 - zingzing
yeah, martin, but at least they got the good half with all the killing and the floods and the beating of slaves and women and all that jazz. we christians got the fucking washing the feet part and breaking bread part and healing the sick fucking lepers boring shite. and they only have to believe HALF of the total bullshit we have to. all the fucking memorization...
22 - RacelRacel
Zingzing I don't know how you can call yourself a follower of Jesus and use such dreadful language.
Jesus' death was not meant as entertainment for anyone. It was a serious matter him going to the cross. If not no one would have a hope of being in heaven with him.
23 - Nancy
Ruvy, the Sanhedrin were about as representative of the Jewish people as a whole as congress is of the people of the US - i.e. NOT. Therefore if the Sanhedrin were the ones involved, that is not a condemnation of the Jews as a whole. In fact, taking this story at face value, if anything they acted in defiance of the sentiments of the Jewish people altogether, who (if the NT is to be believed) were pretty enthusiastic about JC. So the Jews come out clean as a whistle, IMO, based on scripture. The Sanhedrin, the Herodians, and the Romans - that's another matter.
24 - STM
Ruvy: As evil as all those centuries of anti-semitism have been, the most recent example of murderous misguided mass hysteria, in Hitler's Germany, has probably galvanised the western world into making sure it never happens again, so if anything good comes out of those situations, it probably has - and I'll add here that many members of my own family have died at the hands of the Germans in a war they didn't want (and the one before, which cost them literally the flower of their youth), although I know it's different.
You are right, of course, but times have changed we hope and as Christianity's a major religion, there's no point in pussyfooting around the story.
My own view, however, is that anti-semitism isn't about this as Jews have fared well in secular societies like the US, Britain, The Netherlands, Australia, etc, and that in centuries gone by, it was the lack of integration that highlighted the differences and enabled maniacs like Hitler to use the Jews as convenient scapegoats.
I will say this: I have never seen any anti-semitism in my country. Jewish kids even go to Catholic schools here - they just don't listen in religion education class.
I guess we are lucky. If we could bottle what we have here in terms of our genuinely multi-cultural society, it'd be worth a squillion.
There are problems, of course, particulary with young Muslim Arab kids in gangs, but what we've achieved here in 200 years, some places couldn't achieve in 2000.
The only really maligned race are the English, and they are officially exempt from our heavily policed racial vilification laws.
There must be a law somewhere that says you can still be prosecuted in Australia for NOT giving them a gee-up.
25 - El Bicho
STM, thanks for the compliment, but I must disagree slightly when you write "The spirituality of the story is the story itself". That might be all well and good for followers, but the film does a very poor job of explaining it. It's too much Good Friday and not enough Easter Sunday.
I understand how meaningful it is to believers, but the film doesn't completely stand on its own because it relies too much on what the viewer should already know about the story. If this was someone's first encounter with the story of Christ, they would not understand what was happening. It takes way too long into the film before flashes back and by that point, the viewer might already be turned off by the level of violence.