It would seem that...
Mr. Cork's alleged "point" about the Gospel not being reducible to the last 12 hours of Jesus' life would sweep away every meditation on the Passion of Christ ever promoted by the Catholic Church, including the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary. I suppose Mr. Cork has found a way to meditate on everything all at once.
Some bibles refer you to key verses based on how you're feeling. "If you feel angry" - read verse ..., "If you feel lonely" - read verse such & such.
So what you reflect on may come down to what you need. If you need to feel His love or put your sufferings in perspective, meditate on the Passion. If you need to believe in His power and ability to overcome, meditate on the Resurrection.
"It's all good" as the homeboys say.
Jeff:
Actually, the Sorrowful Mysteries are explicitly only a part of the Rosary, so that's one devotion that seems to back Bill on this.
But while I think it's important for the Passion to be understood in the full context of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, I also think it's a weak criticism to say The Passion isn't what it isn't intended to be.
Tom -- Likewise, Gibson's "Passion" is explicitly not the entire Life of Christ. It's the just the Passion. What's the difference?
Yes. I agree: it's called The Passion, not The Gospel. Let it stand. We'll judge it on its merits when it comes out; too often in recent years the thought of Jesus's brutal physical suffering kind of glances off of us--no chance of that with this movie.
I think it will be a valuable film.
I hope it will provoke reactions like that of the Roman Centurion in Mark's Gospel: "Truly this man was the Son of God."
Dear Tom,
Thanks for this news. In response to what is said of Mr. Cork's review-- I shall seek out the trailer--but then trailers are made to represent those things that are most likely to entice an audience to see the film--so it is not necessarily a good representation of the quality of the whole. I suspect that I shall withhold comment until such time (if any) that I actually see the film. But thanks for the reference and the cogent comments.
shalom,
Steven
Steven,
For most trailers for most movies, you're right, but I suspect this trailer gives a pretty good sense of the look and feel, so to speak, of the movie. It's not the usual quiposuction job, and of course there's no attempt to explain the plot. But it obviously has very high production standards, and seems to be pretty much what people have been expecting (even if they've been expecting it to be a bad movie).
My favorite part is the devil, first looking creepy and well satisfied, then getting stomped on.
Why are we so excited about a movie about Jesus?
While film arguably reaches more people today than print or radio, I've always wondered if it isn't the poorest medium of communication for religious purposes. The difficulty of a film about Jesus is that it will perhaps inevitably cater to our curiosities - What was Jesus thinking? What does His voice sound like? What does He look like?, leaving us clinging to some sort of compelling technicolor portrait and making it so much harder to hear "Do not hold onto me, for I have not yet returned to the Father." This is why I think that the best Jesus film is Pasolini's 'Gospel According to St Matthew'. Pasolini, an unbeliever, resisted the audience's curiosity by only casting non-actors and by retaining the fragmentary character of St Matthew's Gospel.
Edith Stein got across what I'm trying to say, I think, in her Finite and Eternal Being:
"This is what makes the figure of the Savior - as it is depicted in truthful simplicity in the gospels - so mysterious and unfathomable. He is wholly human and precisely for this reason unlike any other human being. He cannot be apprehended and comprehended as a character like Peter or Paul. Any attempt, therefore, to bring us into intimate contact with our Lord by depicting his life and character in the manner of a biographical portrait means really an impoverishment and a narrowing down of his life to some particular aspects, and in some instances it even means a distortion and falsification."
"Truthful simplicity" is not something that one associates with movies (although I do think that Pasolini captured it). And, even though 'Braveheart' deserved its Oscars, in this case I don't think that it's a good precedent.
Best,
Neil
All roads in the Bible (for Christians) lead to the Passion and Ressurection. It is the keystone. More verses in the New Testament are devoted to this event than any other.
Mr. Gibson has picked the better part and the part for which we should all be most grateful for...
Neil--we're still living in the material world, and film might be the best medium many people have for apprehending the physical aspect of the price Jesus paid for our sins.
From there, they can more easily imagine the suffering in spirit.
I liked the trailer, but unlike some others, I can't say that I was blown away by it. It certainly didn't draw tears as I hear from a few others.
Perhaps it's because I've seen my share of special effects to know that nothing can ever come close to the real thing. But that's not to say I've never been touched by a film. I have seen my share of films which lacked special effects but have also been able to draw tears! Such movies include The Song of Bernadette and A Man For All Seasons, to name a few.
Film is about reaching an audience. In my opinion, the best films reach you subtly without being "in your face", so to speak. I don't particularly care for "Braveheart-like" effects. We have only to wait and see!
It drew tears from me. And I went back to the wardroom to finish my lunch after it was interrupted by a fatal accident at sea in 1984.
I do realize that we live in the material world (well, usually). The question is: What sort of images help us pray? I've watched the trailer a few times, and must confess that I'm a bit sceptical that this movie will really have that effect. I hope that I'm wrong, and I realize that a trailer is only a trailer. I've got two reasons for this:
1) We first have to ask ourselves, What makes an image religious as opposed to merely aesthetic? The Catholic philosopher Louis Dupre says this about religious symbols: "They conceal more than they reveal. By paradoxical phrasing, distorted forms, unusual settings, they warn us that we must entirely surpass the empirical appearance in order to gain access to their inexpressible content. The negative element, present in all symbols, becomes predominant in the religious ones." The trailer, full of emotional close-ups and with blood everywhere, has a rather powerful appearance that tends to overwhelm, but there really isn't a negative element. One doesn't have the sense that there is something inexpressible going on beyond the horrific scenes of sadness and violence.
2) I'm struck by the difference between the images in the trailer and the classic Christian image, the icon. Rowan Williams says this about the icon (the name of Gibson's production company, after all): "The person looking at the icon is invited to let go of being an agent observing a motionless phenomonon: the idiom of the painting insists on its own activity, its 'bearing down' upon the beholder, shedding rather than receiving light, gathering and directing its energy rather than spreading from an invisible point of convergence. And this finds its fullest expression in the iconographer's depiction of the eyes of Christ or the saints. As the perspective 'bears down' upon the beholder's eye, the eye of the iconic figure acts, searches, engages. The skill of looking at icons, the disciplione of 'reading' them, is indeed the strange skill of letting yourself be seen, be read." What struck me about this movie, with its aestheticized, very cinematic scenes, was how much it wanted to be looked at. On the other hand, one never gets the sense of God looking at you through the film.
So I think that this will be a good film. Just not a religious one, so to speak.
Hm. I think I get Neil's point about it not being a religious film -- it certainly won't be a moving icon.
But I won't be surprised if it turns out to be a devotional film. That raises some issues about the passivity of watching movies compared to the activity of meditation, I suppose, but then the audience for the movie isn't perfect monks looking to increase in perfection.
What I do wonder, though, is whether it will be an entertaining film.
Dear Tom,
From the trailer, I'm willing to say that the last thing this film is likely to be is entertaining.
My impression is that, particularly if we continue with no subtitles as Mr. Gibson prefers, we will have something approximating a time-capsule experience of an absolutely horrendous event. Assuming that one has a more profound human sensitivity than Alex the Droog, it seems unlikely that one could be entertained. Enlightened--perhaps, edified--probable, entertained in the denotative sense of the word--unlikely.
shalom,
Steven
+J.M.J+
Bill Cork's panning of the film seems incomprehensible to me. Particularly when he complains that: "Gibson seems interested in "shock and awe," with his exaggerated graphic violence and gore."
Graphic violence and gore? Perish the thought that a crucifixion should involve violence and bloodshed! Look, Our Lord could have chosen to die a neater, cleaner way to die, but He didn't. He chose crucifixion. He chose to shed every drop of His Most Precious Blood out of love for us. What could be wrong with portraying that supreme act of Divine Love on film?
Zeffirelli's film may be artistic, but it doesn't convey the full force of what Our Savior did for us. Maybe my devotion to the Precious Blood colors my judgment here, but I actually prefer a "gory" crucifixion to an artificially sanitized one. It reminds us that Jesus prodigally shed every last drop of His Blood for our salvation. It's hard to get that impression from watching _Jesus of Nazareth_, whatever other merits that film may have.
And if it's wrong for Christians to focus on the Passion of Christ, then let's just remove the Stations of the Cross from every church in the world! Let's drop the liturgical celebration of the Triduum during Holy Week. Let's disband the Passionists. How far should we take this "logic"???
In Jesu et Maria,
I suspect that, while the film may not provoke the same sort of spiritual response as an icon, it may provoke thought and astonishment--which might well lead to spiritual squestioning and even meditiation in some who had previously been noncommittal in their response to the Lord.
I hate to say this, but I must wonder a bit if Bill had already dug his heels in too much on the issue to have liked the trailer. I'm not suggesting that everyone must like it, but for Bill you have to remember that he was bringing to this the experience of having read the report written by that scholars group. I suspect anything short of a screening of the whole film would have been unable to overcome his concerns after having read that report and having been roundly criticized for his stand.
Edith Stein got across what I'm trying to say, I think, in her Finite and Eternal Being:
"This is what makes the figure of the Savior - as it is depicted in truthful simplicity in the gospels - so mysterious and unfathomable. He is wholly human and precisely for this reason unlike any other human being. He cannot be apprehended and comprehended as a character like Peter or Paul. Any attempt, therefore, to bring us into intimate contact with our Lord by depicting his life and character in the manner of a biographical portrait means really an impoverishment and a narrowing down of his life to some particular aspects, and in some instances it even means a distortion and falsification."
Thank you Neil. I am sure Edith experienced what she was talking about, how all depictions other than the Gospel text itself get in the way of that certain intimacy between the soul and Our Lord. I'm surprised that no one here has
picked up on what Edith knew.
I hear you, Caroline--but nobody is saying that the guy on the screen will actually be Jesus.
Our minds are finite; we might wonder why He, the Infinite, bothers to communicate Himself to us at all. Surely even the most profound, ineffable intimacy anyone can experience on earth is no match for what we will experience after we are transformed in heaven.
I wonder if even the Blessed Mother, in her Immaculately Conceived love and understanding, gained a far superior knowledge of Him after her Assumption.
+J.M.J+
Jack, you're probably right. Even if this film *did* depict the entire life of Christ, wasn't the least bit gory and had all the artistic value of _Jesus of Nazareth_ and then some, but Bill was still convinced it would be antisemetic, would he have liked the trailer? I doubt it.
In Jesu et Maria,
There have been many depictions and portraits of Jesus. Some 2 D, some 3 D (statues), some life-like -- (plays and movies). All can lift our mind and hearts up to God even though none can capture the essence of God. That essence is poured into hearts and soul by God himself. That is the message Jesus came to deliver: You will have new life within me. My blood is everlasting life. I will live within you. If the Lord uses the film to raise the mind and heart and soul of one person closer to Himself, it will have been worth it. From the evidence thus far it will raise the minds, hearts, and souls of many towards God. God can work through anything. The trailer already moved me.
While I can appreciate Neil's points, I would encourage him to accept that not all icons move all viewers and so the same will be true of the movie. Success for me if is it it moves some viewers. We already know that the artist in this case like an icon painter gave much of himself to create this work and he did so in a spirit of reverence for Our God. I think that is wonderful!
Caroline,
I think I see what St. Teresa Benedicta meant, and I agree with her.
The fact remains, however, that as I sit here and type I have in my own mind an impoverished, narrow, distorted, and partially false understanding of Jesus. So when I encounter someone else's similarly imperfect understanding of Him, it should not be a matter of swapping one bad idea for another, but of using what is richer, wider, straighter, and truer in the other understanding to correct my own.
Now, movies have a way of overpowering the mind; the wise viewer is aware of this and will not accept all he sees in The Passion as Gospel truth. (Or historical truth; the nails-through-the-palms and the carrying of the entire cross were two things I saw in the trailer that are doubtful according to what I've read of historical research.)
But if we take the holy Carmelite's words in too absolute a sense, we're flirting with Iconoclasm, and I don't think that was her intent.
Now, of course, no Catholic can be an iconoclast. And I do appreciate that some of the posts above want to give Mel Gibson the benefit of the doubt.
But we have to ask ourselves: WHEN do images "raise the minds, hearts, and souls of many towards God", and WHEN do they "get in the way of that certain intimacy between the soul and Our Lord"? I've suggested that a film raises our finite minds to God when it communicates that something Inexpressible is going on behind the scenes and then lets that Inexpressible place us, the audience, into judgment.
After watching the trailer (which is, of course, only a trailer), it seems that 'The Passion' is less about an Inexpressible behind the scenes than the emotional intensity of the scenes themselves. It seems less about being drawn into the judgment of God -"looking with God", as CS Lewis once put it - than with looking at Jesus in an especially theatrical manner and feeling admiration, pity, and guilt on cue.
Is this a help or a hindrance? Does it "raise our minds" or "get in the way"? One could suggest that it is at least potentially the latter. Jesus leads us to the Father, and thus, as Rowan Williams says, "there is (as Christian writers from Gregory of Nyssa to John of the Cross to Michel de Certeau have recognised) an absence at the centre of the Christian imagination, a space opening up to the final otherness and final intimacy of encounter with the Father." For, as Solomon said, "The Lord has said that he would dwell in thick darkness" (1 Kgs 8:10-12).
That "absence" is why the Jesus that confronts us in the Gospels is so, as Edith Stein put it, "mysterious and unfathomable," so resistant to our inevitable attempts at idolatry. The danger is that we will still avoid this "absence" by clinging to Jesus like Mary Magdalene. One form of this clinging occurs when we confuse God with our feelings about Jesus, trapping Him always on the Cross so that we can gaze at Him, every scar perfectly seen on the technicolor screen, and feel the same admiration, pity, and guilt that we would get from a passionate love affair. This problem can especially be seen today, I think, in certain Evangelical praise songs that speak of Jesus in almost erotic terms. The same was true, I am told, with the late medieval piety that was so focused on the suffering of the Cross.
Agreed, Neil, but I return to my point above that this movie isn't intended for monks seeking greater perfection in their enlightened-by-darkness relationship with the ineffable Godhead. It is (or at least seems to be) for schlubs who have never really seriously considered what happened to Jesus, on a strictly human level, on that Friday. (Of course, the movie also signifies what happened on a supernatural order, but I expect most of that center to be absent from the film. I may be wrong, but I doubt anyone will come home from seeing it and toss out his Anselm. Although he might reread it.)
If there is nothing richer, wider, straighter, or truer in the movie than is already in my mind and heart, then seeing it won't help and might hurt.
Maybe it's a me vs. the Carmelites thing, because I had a similar discussion with Steven Riddle about St. John of the Cross and detachment. Yes, things get in the way -- and yes, attachments in particular can hinder us -- but they don't get in the way (or hinder) until we've reached a point where they can. Such things as The Passion are clearly intended for the majority of us who have plenty of things other than emotionally manipulative filmmaking keeping us from that certain intimacy with the Lord.
Your point about the movie is multi-faceted, Neil. I'd like to focus on your idea that "The Passion seems less about being drawn into the judgment of God -'looking with God', as CS Lewis once put it - than with looking at Jesus in an especially theatrical manner and feeling admiration, pity, and guilt on cue."
That concern I share with you. I hope that it's not just an extra-gory version of the same treatment we've seen a dozen times.
+J.M.J+
Mr. Cork's latest post on this topic suggests that the film will bomb because of the foreign language and graphic violence. He even says, "Will all those gushing about its "accuracy" and "power" and "faithfulness" take their children to see it? I don't think so."
All I can say is, I can think of a number of parts of the Bible which I wouldn't want my children to read, but I'm not gonna pan the word of God because of it!
In Jesu et Maria,
Commenting by HaloScan
