A fairminded review from Ebert, who is otherwise (let us be frank) a liberal agnostic of sorts.
It was clearly alien stuff to Ansen, who did not make much of an effort to grapple with the film on its own terms.
That guy in the LA Times this morning was frightened by this movie's potental for casting the differences between believers and non believers into sharp relief - he anit seen nothin yet!
I'm a regular reader of Ebert's reviews. I don't often agree with his conclusions, but I like to hear his insights. Seems like this film touched him personally and he let it show.
I don't see a lot of movies. Maybe 8 to 10 a year. (Some folks I know see one a week, practically.) Usually, I'm stoked to see a movie, amped up & excited. It's an event, like ROTK was. But as it gets closer to tomorrow night, I'm feeling . . . well, a bit queasy. I still want to see it & am praying that it will be efficacious to my faith & deepen my understanding of Christ's Passion & how my sins caused it; much like icons were used in the past, visual representations of what we already know to help us on our spiritual journey. Maybe that's why I feel uneasy. Like I'm going to an execution. In a way, maybe, I am - if it affects me as so many have said it's effected them. I'm not expecting it to change my life - the Gospel did that. I don't think Mel made the movie for that reason, anyway. I think he wanted to make it personal for each one of us. Because it is, isn't it? Personal.
But I do know that I'm not going to read any more reviews, though.
+J.M.J+
>>>"The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him"
I guess there's many ways of answering the question "Who killed Christ?". We can certainly say "Our sins killed Him", and in one sense that is true. But another possible answer is: "Nobody killed Him; He laid down His life willingly":
Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself. And I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (St. John 10:17-1
Note His words "No man taketh it away from me". How can anyone say "the Jews killed Christ" when He Himself said that no one could take His life? He surrendered it willfully on the Cross: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit". There are many ways of looking at this mystery, I think.
In Jesu et Maria,
I think it's important for everyone to know that I passed Roger Ebert on the sidewalk while walking down Michigan Ave. in Chicago.
Gene,
I know just how you feel, and your discription pins it for me too. But I really think that once the film starts, all of that will vanish for me. I'm taking my 14-year-old son along with the rest of my family, and he may not be able to take it, but I think he will. I think that the key to watching TPOTC is to take our que from Mary as others have said.
GoodForm,
You won't believe this, but I was just going to ask you if you'd seen him! Did he mention me...
Gene - I agree with you entirely. My boyfriend got our tickets for Saturday, and I'm very uneasy about it. I think it will be a good experience, in the "good for us" sense - not the easy sense. But obviously, that's the point. : (
Took my daughter to it last night (13 y.o.). She thought it was the most moving experience yet - her first reaction was to want to go to confession.
I would suggest going to confession, reading the Passion narratives, the stations and/or some time with the blessed sacrament. Then take a deep breath before the movie starts. It will hit you like a stake through the heart.
I've been holding my breath waiting for Bill Cork to take notice of Ebert's review. I'm feeling a bit faint....
Here in NZ the censors have given TPOTC a R 16 rating. Heaps of people are complaining because they can't take their younger teenagers. Still, what do you expect from a PC lefty censor.
The reveiwers and Talk back radio have been full of it for a week now.After reading a lot of it on this blog and elsewhere over the past few months, I just want to get to see it.
Bring It On !!!
Stars today - Ash Wednesday here, late afternoon - I'll see it in the next few days.
This isn't directly related to Roger Ebert's review, but I wanted to ask this somewhere...
I've been reading plenty of reviews today (courtesy of metacritic.com and rottentomatoes.com) and I've noticed a recurring assertion. The idea is that Mel Gibson "rejects" Vatican II (and thus, presumably, the parts of it that addressed the question of Jewish culpability for the Crucifixion).
Now, I'm a Protestant and very poorly versed in Catholic theology (and not terribly sharp on Protestant theology either), but from watching the ABC interview a couple times -- and his dad's views notwithstanding -- it seemed to me that Gibson was saying he accepts the Catholic Church as it is. He referred to encyclicals as sources of reliable judgment, he referred to having the Latin Mass performed by a properly ordained priest, he took pains to point out that the Latin Mass is still permitted by the Church; in short, I got the distinct impression that he accepts Vatican II as church policy but does not have an interest in the "user-friendly options" it offered, so to speak.
My question is: is that a reasonable interpretation of Gibson's statements, and if not, what am I missing?
I had a flash today about the cultural impact of this film. Many have thought that the main effect of TPOTC would be to bring in serge of newly minted Christians who would be drawn to our faith by the experience of seeing this film. After seeing the reviews, I am pretty sure that this will not happen to any great degree - those unfamiliar with the theology behind "The Passion" and unused to the notion of atoning sacrifice and devotion to our Lord will most likely be turned off by the extreme brutality of this movie. I think that the real positive effect of this film will be to bring various sorts of Christians closer together around the Truth that is Jesus the Christ. If a significantly greater level of unity among Christians is achieved in the coming years, [i]that[/i] is what, IMHO, will bring about massive conversions and the rescuing if our culture from the clutches of death.
Guy,
Some others here are probably much more informed on Gibson's relationship with the Church, but I'll take a shot at answering you:
I'd guess that Mel accepts most Catholic doctrine — even as understood since Vatican II — but is not submitting to the authority of his bishop, in that he sponsors a valid but unauthorized Latin Mass.
(A Latin Mass by a "properly ordained priest" is ineed a real Mass — and a beautiful one. But it is "illicit" if it is celebrated without the approval of the local bishop. I assume (but am not certain) that the chapel and priests Mel supports are not authorized by Cardinal Mahoney).
Rick -- thank you for the information!
John Hearn -- I think (and hope) you're right about greater unity.
When I heard Ebert give this review on the show with Roeper (who said essentially the same things), I all but fell out of my chair: here were two of the top critics in the country telling the gospel story with a clarity you might wish from more priests. God speaks from many mouths, not all of them the ones we think they should be.
Ted Koppel, however, said a true thing last night,though he said it in a negative way: the movie is a Roschak (sp?) test in that you see what you bring to it. Clearly, the evangelicals don't see the Catholic film I saw, while Jews see anti-semitism. So it may turn out to be more useful to strengthen the faithful than make converts directly. But strong faithful are better evangelists than a movie anyway.
> I passed Roger Ebert on the sidewalk
Was he wearing his surplice?
"Ted Koppel, however, said a true thing last night,though he said it in a negative way: the movie is a Roschak (sp?) test in that you see what you bring to it."
That explains all the vitriol from those who saw it bringing only their hatred of "hard religion".
So, the question is - Did Mark ever get invited to a screening of the Passion or did Mel just keep leading him on? Methinks Marks crying over not being invited was a publicity stunt to boost Passion intrigue.... Good thinking Mel.
Eberts review was ok. I must admit I am anxious to see it, kinda scared kinda curious...
"Ted Koppel, however, said a true thing last night,though he said it in a negative way: the movie is a Roschak (sp?) test in that you see what you bring to it."
Quite so! And all the liberal screeching about this movie as "anti-semitic," "pornographic," "hate-filled," "bigoted," and other equally absurd things reminded me of William Sloane Coffin's famous line about Fundamentalists interpreting the Bible, which he likened to a mirror:
"When an ass peers in, one ought not expect an Apostle to peer out."
Humm, I think I'm going to point this out twice:
Interesting article on The Passion
Frederica Mathewes-Green may have a point. OTOH, the others. . . .
Commenting by HaloScan
