Thanks for sharing your experience of the film!
Great review. This movie has deepened my faith.
Mark, I apologize for any disparaging remarks I have made on your blog.
God bless,
I think the point about physical suffering is more valid -- and your dismissal doesn't answer the charges.
How much physical pain, exactly, did Jesus have to go through in order to save mankind? Was there a particular amount necessary? Why?
I've known several people who died painful, excruciating deaths. Their deaths took much longer than one day. In my opinion, their suffering was as great as a human body can take before dying.
If Jesus died for them, it's a shame -- they paid a pretty hard-core price for their own lives.
I think specifically of my friend who died of muscular distrophy at 16.
For more than a year, he had a tracheotomy that required sticking a plastic tube into his lungs to slurp out mucus. Ever inhaled a peice of food or drink down the wrong pipe? Know how it burns? He had that done four times a day, for fifteen minutes a day. Meanwhile, he lay in bed, his limbs atrophied, a 16-year-old boy in a nursing home for old people, waiting to die.
He had no mother to comfort him; his parents abandoned him when he was a kid. The state took care of him as he died -- I was his only friend, having met him on a visit to the nursing home.
Eventually he drowned in his own blood, when the suction treatment caused a hemmorage.
That wasn't a quick process either. As a 16-year-old then myself, who had watched the suction treatment time and again, I had nightmares for weeks that I was him, watching them sucking massive amounts of blood out of my lungs through clear tubes.
He was a 16-year-old boy and he watched himself bleed to death, as his own blood burned in his lungs. And felt the inevitable death he'd fought for years closing in finally.
Jesus' physical suffering was, frankly, just one more miserable death among billions that have happened since earth began. Is that what the Passion is about?
If suffering is what is needed to pay the price for sin, was it not paid in the death camps of World War II, or in the machete massacres of Ruwanda and Burundi?
From what I understand the centerpeice of the movie is a whipping scene where chunks of flesh are torn from Jesus' body. Is this what was needed to save mankind? Because it happened hundreds of times over in the south when slaves were beaten to death.
I guess my point is that I find the idea that MORE physical suffering was somehow what was needed to save mankind a bit hard to swallow. What, God hasn't seen enought physical suffering? It just seems so bizzare -- God basically says "all this suffering caused by sin. It cannot be remedied without MORE suffering -- son, get down there and bleed."
I did find telling the point that this is "the most masculine Jesus ever committed to celluloid." It's not surprising that you consider this story "manly." Man has caused plenty of suffering -- more piled on top is certainly "manly." Is it Godly? I hope not.
Mel's Passion has made me think. Critics said the Passion of the Christ was anti-semitic, because it shows Jews as killing Jesus. Others would counter this by saying Jesus was a Jew. I disagree.
You are a Jew if your parents are ethnicly Jewish or if you adhere to the Jewish religion.
Jesus was born out of the virgin Mary. This means Joseph was not his dad. If that's so, than why should Mary be his natural mom? Isn't it possible that he grew autonomously in her womb? Maybe all she did was give birth to him.
Joseph taught the young Jesus to follow the Jewish religion. Jesus was a religious Jew then. When he was grown up, he rejected Judaism and preached his Chistian beliefs.
I'm not sure how Jewish Jesus is. Not at all I guess.
Another thing I heard critics say about the movie. It didn't absolve the Jews of deicide. They abhor the depiction of Jews being responsible for Jesus death. Problem is the Bible says SOME Jews were responsible for pushing Pontius to convict and crucify Jesus. The critics in an Orwellian way want us to read this passage in the Bible, but give it another meaning. 1 and 1 is not always 2. The critics are trying to change the meaning of the Bible texts. They cannot change the text itself so giving the text another interpretation is the second best thing. It has been done before. For instance gays argue without flinshing that Christianity is not against homosexuality although that's what the Bible states clearly. Personally I don't think it matters whether a few Jews in 30 AD wanted Jesus dead or not. It has nothing to do with Jews anno 2004. Nothing at all. I do reject though the Orwellian thought control process of reading X and saying it's Y.
I saw the film Saturday, the 28th, and was simply blown away. I think, as I process what I witnessed, my faith is in fact deepening. I pray that my fellow Orthodox come to realize how important this film is, and stop their baseless attacks. To my shame, I must admit, if you haven't heard this already, that the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Chicago has condemned the film.
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
"Jesus' physical suffering was, frankly, just one more miserable death among billions that have happened since earth began. Is that what the Passion is about?"
-Aaron
Jesus' death is one among billions. This is certianly true.That said, I would hestiate to say that it was "just one more death," because Jesus is God incarnate, and is "true God and true man." When God took on human flesh and died on Calvary, in one of the most painful ways to die (I believe the word 'excruciate' means 'out of the cross') he overcame death itself, by his death and resurrection. You may or may not believe this, you may or may not believe any Christian dogma at all, but this remains the reason for Christian devotion to Christ's Passion.
" It just seems so bizzare -- God basically says "all this suffering caused by sin. It cannot be remedied without MORE suffering -- son, get down there and bleed." "
This take on the Passion seems to stem from the idea that God the Father is wrathful, while Jesus is his whipping boy. I think that this divorces the unity of the persons of the consubstantial trinity. Remember Apostles Creeds, which says "I believe in ONE God." According to the bible Jesus and the Father are ONE, and have one will. The incarnation and the cross are the will of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These events are the self giving gift of grace and love for mankind, not sadism.
What I hear at the core of your objections is the sense that God wants blood, that God punishes Jesus, and that God approves of suffering. Also that the life and death of Jesus is some sort of normal occurence that happened 2000 years ago, and is not of import today.
The objections that God is bloodthirsty and uses his Son as a whipping boy aren't part of Christian doctrine. The cross, and the entire Passion are of utmost importance, because they are the way in which Jesus, of his own free will, overcame death (which is the result of human sin) and opened the door to resurrection. All the examples of suffering you write about in your comment show that you recognize that for mankind, suffering is a problem. I agree very much that we live in a broken and sinful world, but I believe that God offered himself , as one of us, to destroy sin and death. When something is broken, restitution must be made. The prisoner cannot pay his own ransom, but a sinless God incarnate can open the door of the prison of sin. You are not compelled to believe this, but this is the reason that Christians care about the Passion.
Ricky-
Mary is the Theotokos(God bearer) and is properly given the name "mother of God." She was in fact his mother, and she passed her Judaism to him. Also, as Jesus considers himself to be the "completion of the Law" and calls the Law "holy", he does not reject Judaism, per se, but fulfills it. The Gospel is not about Jesus going to college and finding a new religion!
I think that the quote that you attribute to Ephrem is from Philo.
One of the things I pulled from the movie how Mary gave Jesus strength - during the scourging, when he fell with the Cross, and on the Cross. I couldn't help but weep every time I looked into Mary's eyes.
Growing up Catholic, I've always listened to our priest tell us to look to Mary for strength. That advice never really hit me until watching this movie. I believe it's a great shame that so many Protestants have distanced themselves from Mary.
My wife and I watched the movie early this afternoon. It literally hit me on so many levels that I haven't even begun to consider the ramifications of what I've seen, nor will I be able to look at myself or my faith as worthy to receive Him.
It's an impossible example to follow, but all I can do is love.
Ricky, I can only speak as a Lutheran, but I assume Catholic doctrine is the same. We believe that Jesus did indeed receive his body, his "flesh" as it were, from his human mother. To regard Mary simply as an "incubator" for the Christchild is a heresy in our book.
And Mark, thanks for the outstanding review. I've been waiting to find a convenient time to see this movie amid a very busy schedule, but you've convinced me to go attend a 10 pm showing tonight. Already bought the ticket.
I've already heard from several people about a peculiar scene involving the devil toting a grotesque child. Presumably it is Satan's mockery of the Madonna, but does anyone know the source of this image? I could not find it when I skimmed through the account of Sister Emmerich's visions.
An Evangelical colleague saw the film (I have not), and remarked (among other things) how thought-provoking the portrayal of Mary was for him.
Very interesting...
To Aaron:
I think Robin has done a good job of addressing your concerns.
I add this only to expand on his/her points:
Jesus, because he was "one in being with the Father", was NOT in any sense His victim. This is why modern attempts to demystify the Gospels by calling Jesus's divinity into question are not merely erroneous, but actually miss the point of the story. If Jesus is just another human being in the sense we are, neither more nor less, then you are quite right: his death is just another bloody death in a, well, litany, a monstrosity, of bloody painful deaths throughout history.
But, Christians believe, Jesus was man and God. And so His death is something quite different from our own. His level of suffering is not in question: it's not about a competition for Most Painful Death. What was different about his death was that He gave himself up to it freely (he could have avoided it at any time). The rest of us can do no more than endure our fates with as much grace and courage as we can find.
As for why Pain itself should be the vehicle of God's salvation of mankind (rather than, say, a miraculous reversal of human history in which all we had so far endured was wiped away), well, the answer is long and complicated, but it has something to do with free will, as Robin implies. God's willing submission to pain redeems it.
The novelist A.N. Wilson (now a non-believer) wrote this about Jesus:
The Christian story is one of a mysterious love so strong tht it led to self-abnegation on the part of the Godhead Himself; a story of one who was rich, for our sake becoming poor; a story of certainties and status abandoned, of sinlessness involved, totally, in the world of sin, to the point where it received the ultimate degradation and punishment for sn; of cosmic suffering; of darkness and abandonment by God; of Gethsemane and Golgotha.
Aaron--
To answer your question about why the suffering of Jesus was necessary and why the suffering of human beings is not enough, we should look to St. Anselm. Mankind has a debt to pay God (original sin plus all of our personal sins). But even if a person is 100% sinless, he cannot make up for the sins of others, since man owes everything to God anyway. To make up for the collective sins of mankind, someone would need to give more than 100% to God. But this is impossible for human beings; a divine act would be needed to repay the debt to God. And since the state of the world is the fault of man, a man should make up for the sins mankind has committed. Hence, the need for the sacrifice of Jesus, who was fully human and fully divine.
In the question of your friend who died so painfully and so horribly (and God bless you for the support you provided him), St. Thomas Aquinas answers your very concerns here http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4...umma/
404606.htm.
To sum up St. Thomas' arguments, Christ felt physical pain more accutely because of the perfection of His body, crucifixtion is a really horrible way to die, He was suffering from the sins of the whole world, and He was suffering from the anguish of being betrayed by His friend, Judas Iscariot.
Those are the intellectual answers to your questions. I know that they are insufficient on an emotional level, but I hope that they go a little way towards resolving these problems.
Being an Ebangelical, I was brought to believe that the most intense suffering that Jesus bore was not in his body but in his soul, because he experienced the wrath of God against sin when the Father turned His back on Him.
The idea being, Jesus took on that spiritual death as our substitute. So it was not so much the raw physical suffering, which, as Aaron pointed out, is esaily matched by other men.
What's the Catholic take on that explanation? My readings have shown me contradictory answers, and I am confused.
How much a being suffers depends on the complexity of the being. I'm not sure germs suffer at all (die yes, but not suffer). Worms, with an extremely primitive nervous system, probably do not suffer much. Fish suffer some(much of a fish's nervous system operates independently of the its brain from what I've read). Cats, more complex, suffer more. Man, with the mental capacity to anticipate and fear the future, suffers much. And Jesus, the incarnate God, with the greatest complexity and largest capacity, how much did he suffer? I'm not qualified to answer.
On another note, through our sin, we all deserve to die. But Jesus died in our place, taking care of the justice side of the equation. What's left is the mercy.
"On another note, through our sin, we all deserve to die."
I'm not sure you're either capable of making that judgement, or capable of judging that another is capable of making that judgement (since I know you'll say it's not YOUR judgement).
Tell my month-old nephew, who died in a hospital in L.A., that he deserved to die. My sister gave him a bath after he died because she couldn't let go of him. Thanks, for judging him deserving of death. Your opinion means so much.
Why is it that when an overtly pro-Christian/Catholic movie appears we spend all our time apologizing and defending against spurious accusations...
yet when anti-Catholic rubbish such as "The Crimes of Fr. Amaro", which is practically a Jack Chick production, appears we are expected to sit quietly and take the hit?
"Tell my month-old nephew, who died in a hospital in L.A., that he deserved to die. My sister gave him a bath after he died because she couldn't let go of him. Thanks, for judging him deserving of death. Your opinion means so much."
Anecdote isn't really argument. Besides, resorting to this sort of emotionalism misses the point entire. Nevertheless, let's engage this point a bit.
Yes, that tiny two year old deserved to die. He is human, is he not? Humanity has been nothing more than a blight upon this world since creation, since that first act of disobedience. But God saw it fit to bestow dignity upon every human, from the multiple-homicide criminal to the 2 year old child. And He died that the blight that is humanity be saved.
I've heard this "there are others who have suffered worse deaths" argument before, from an Episcopalian cleric, who said that the battered housewife, Palestinian landmine victim, (aborted child? nah, too much to ask) etc. suffered more than Jesus ever did. Frankly, it misses the substance entirely, but if they want to attack to form, they fail to consider this:
Let all these suffering people (yes, Aaron, even your 16 year old friend and your 2 year old nephew) all turn into cockroaches, creatures despised and purposeless in this world. Then, let them, as cockroaches, die excruciating, squishy, 3 hour-long deaths for the sake of all these purposeless and hideous cockroaches the world over. Then let them come back as humans and compare notes. This "some people suffered more" thread is highly unfair, so if you want to engage in it, lets get a little more perspective in. Because, for God to become man is a far more hideous and distant transformation than for a man to become a cockroach. It only illustrates the depth of God's love.
Jack,
You tread too close to various old heresies! 
Nestorianism - saying Jesus was adopted or abandoned at some arbitrary point. ("Abandonment" on cross)
Doecetism? - separation of spirit and body.
Gnosticism? - exaltation of the spirit over the material. (Spiritual suffering greater)
Jesus is God (just as the Father and HS are fully God also). Thus, if Jesus is God he can not die spiritually.
Also, try not to split the Holy Trinity up into seperate components! They're 1 in 3, 3 in 1. Seperate and inseperable.
Thus, it's not a nasty God taking out anger on poor little Jesus but God offering himself to himself to heal the Fall rift in the only way possible, since all human sacrifices of animals and fruit etc were insuffiecient to wipe out sin.
God makes the ultimate and perfect sacrifice of himself to himself for our benefit.
Mel is a champion!! The film was very difficult to watch, I do not see it as anti-semitic at all, perhaps anti-Roman... sickening bloodlust.
Jesus was portrayed as stronger than I ever imagined. So peaceful and clear about truth considering his body was wracked with pain and shock. His eyes were soft, loving and gentle. I could not bear the ongoing relentless flogging and felt the crucifixion couldn't come fast enough. I wanted it to be over for him and I couldn't understand why he suffered the way he did for me the worm that I am. I am so weak and unworthy. Jesus, You are My Lord and My God.
I realized that for years I have been avoiding reading the crucifixion in the NT because it is my least favorite or understood part. It frightens me because it challenges me to be something bigger than what I am, challenges me to take up my cross and follow him, it scares me because I am so weak. Have Mercy on me Oh Lord.
While I was watching this movie, I couldn't believe that anyone ever thought it was anti-semitic. There was nothing in it that implied that "the Jews" as a collective group, killed Jesus. In fact, the greatest hero of the movie (and in fact the greatest hero of anything) was Jewish. All the good characters were Jewish as well. There were Jewish villains, as well as Roman villains. To say that this movie is anti-semitic is simply false.
However, I watched the movie with a group of people from my school. I was driving back one other guy. He's a Lutheran who goes to a Baptist church, and describes himself as "a christian who lives today, not in the time of Christ." As soon as we were in the car where no one could hear us talking, he said "I f***ing hate Jews." I asked him why, and he said "They did that to him." I explained to him that Jesus Himself was a Jew, and so was Mary, and so was Simon of Cyrene, and so...etc. He said, "Well, he wasn't really....not Jewish like the high priests. They crucified him cause he had more power than them and they couldn't stand it. I hate Jews. I can't believe I ever dated one." I was shocked and dismayed by what he was saying. Of course, I had already known he didn't exactly like Jews due to his Jewish ex-girlfriend. Nontheless, I was disappointed that he would take that film as confirmation of anything he believed before about Jews. If anything, I would think that a Christian anti-semite would see the film and perhaps rethink his condemnation of Jews due to the presence of so many noble Jewish characters. Now, I've been defending this movie from charged of anti-semitism, and to be honest I don't think there is any in the movie. However, I worry about why my friend reacted the way he did to the movie.
Oops, Aaron's nephew is month old, not 2 years old. my mistake.
Aaron:
If there is no God then your nephew's death, like your sister's grief, is fundamentally meaningless. Just one more random pattern on the idiotic face of matter. If the suffering Christ is God, then your nephew's death, like your sister's grief, is a participation in a mystery at the very heart of God himself. I do not believe that your nephew was being "punished" for anything, nor that your sister's innocent suffering (or yours) is evidence either of their sin nor that God permitted it in anger (any more than he was angry at Jesus). Whether you are atheist or Christian, however, the fact of suffering and death remains. If you an atheist you cannot remove those hard realities. You can only remove every last trace of hope from them. If you are a theist (and particularly a Christian) you will still be faced with these impenetrable mysteries. But you will also have the even more mysterious consolation that God has drunk them to the dregs himself and shown that they are not ultimate realities but only the doorways into a larger Joy.
I don't plan on seeing the movie for my own reasons (stated on my own blog, should anyone care), but I thank you for your review and your very personal reactions to the film: I'm sympathetic in a way I wasn't before.
I wonder (wonder if, not assert that) if what you experienced can be experienced by non-Christians. All the ones I've talked to so far haven't gotten beyond the overwhelming brutality. It's just been too shocking for them to experience anything else.
1. A very Catholic and very Jewish movie. Synbols of both faiths guide the film along. 2. Maia Morgenstern, as Mary, delivers the single finest performance by an actress that I've ever seen in any medium. This very Jewish mother, suffering along with her Son, becomes our eyes and ears throughout the Passion. 3. Kudos also to the actor- name unknown- who gives us a very conflicted, complex Pilate.
4. The subtitles could have been dropped as the movie reaches daytime on Friday morning. By now, if you haven't dashed to the restroom or bought more popcorn, you're completely dialed into the plot. 5. Saw the movie in the most diverse crowd possible on Saturday afternoon- black, Hispanic, white, whomever. Who didn't move or whisper once it went into high gear. Applauded at the end. Left the theater quietly- as in procession. Women were weeping openly in the lobby. I heard a woman exhulting, 'THANK YUH, JESUS' in the restroom. And happy to walk home- was seriously disoriented 10-15 minutes after leaving the theater. 6. Mel is a master cinematic storyteller. He
knows all the techniques and how to make them work. All in service to the story, not the other way around. 7. Graphic violence- for sure. Have no idea why so many 7-to-10-year olds were in attendance. 8. Anti Semitism? What Anti Semitism? It's more anti-Roman- focusing on the sustained brutality of the soldiers against Jesus. 9. So what was topic number one in the Hollywood fleshpots on Sunday afternoon? The usual Oscar chitchat? 10. Or that Mel singlehandedly revolutionized the business with his $117 million first weekend? Deo Gratias.
The article Mark posts, while being pretty much diametrically opposed to the movie, is interesting because it does bring up some of the issues which have been elided in the very good response to this film.
Some of those issues explain how people can totally not get the film, and criticize it on grounds (gnostic. . . ) totally alien to the films own context.
Its worth a read.
JonathonR:
You know that verse about millstones and leading little ones astray? Guess what: it doesn't just apply to the corruption of fiver-year-olds. If YOU drive people away from Christ through YOUR lack of Charity, YOU will be called to account for it.
Newsflash: nobody will be brought to belief by being told that God regards humanity as cockroaches. And guess what? If I thought God was that way, I wouldn't want anything to do with him. The notion that men are greater in compassion and love than God is simply insupportable.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
"Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!" (Isaiah 49:15)
Aaron:
First of all, let me express my sympathy and condolences at what you've seen and experienced. It probably doesn't mean much, but it needs to be said.
Secondly, let me throw in the disclaimer that I am an amateur not only at theology but also at Life, and I *cannot* speak with infallibility or expertise.
That said--it is *not* true that Christians believe that God simply needed more suffering. If this were so then the Incarnation would make no sense because, as you've pointed out, the sum of human suffering is incalculable.
Now, Christians affirm that the Incarnation is a mystery, which means that we will never totally comprehend it. But that doesn't mean it's completely illogical, either--the whole "faith seeking understanding" thing. And the best attempt at it that I've heard is in Athanasius's work, "On the Incarnation." It's a whole book, but essentially--
Sin entered the world, and through it came death and suffering. This brought up something of a dilemma: God, having given humans free will, could not just wave His hand and undo the Fall. Destroying consequences destroys meaningful choice; it would turn the world into a sort of game, which isn't *real* and where nothing means much of anything. *But* it would also be unthinkable for God to let humanity continue completely subject to sin and death. Therefore, Christ, Who was God, became man, and as man suffered the pain and death which Adam brought down on all humanity; then He rose again and ascended into Heaven, taking His human nature with Him. To heal the world, God had to become part of it.
It's not a quick fix-it, miracle-grow solution. Christ paid the penalty for sin, and by being baptized into Him we can participate in His victory over sin and death. And we have the promise that there *will* be a Judgement Day, when heaven and earth are re-made. But we're still in the middle of things, when an organic cure is working its way messily through Creation. And while there may be final salvation for those who have suffered and died along the way, it doesn't make what they suffered less important, or make i
Yergh. Stupid message cropping. To conclude:
It's not a quick fix-it, miracle-grow solution. Christ paid the penalty for sin, and by being baptized into Him we can participate in His victory over sin and death. And we have the promise that there *will* be a Judgement Day, when heaven and earth are re-made. But we're still in the middle of things, when an organic cure is working its way messily through Creation. And while there may be final salvation for those who have suffered and died along the way, it doesn't make what they suffered less important, or make it not have been.
Finally, let me repeat--I'm just an amateur. I can *try* to accurately represent the Christian position, but please don't take me as being definitive or even representative.
Great review. After seeing this "film", though I realize it's not a film at all.. it's a mystic experience, a vision, which Providence allowed to be captured on film by Mel Gibson.
More at et cetera.
Papist I'll check out Athanasius -- sounds interesting.
While I concur with most of Mark's review, I was more favourable towards the Washington Post critic he links to. There is a great irony here in evangelical Protestantism almsot uncritically embracing a film which is in a direct line from the sacred heart imagery, Stations of the Cross devotions, Mexican flagellantes, and other Catholic manifestations of ultrarealism and meditations on suffering in their art and devotion.
A movie like this fifty years ago (say and Italian movie, because it wuld never have been produced in the U.S.) would have been condemned on Protestant grounds.
As I blogged on my own site, I was wondering along with a couple of friends (one Catholic, one Protestant, both theologically quite well read) about precisely this issue a few days ago. Why were Protestants embracing something so alien to tehir own cultural tradition? Our tentative conlusions were, on the uncharitable side, that Protestants had largely lost their connection with their Reformation origins, and are inclined to see religious issues through a reductive lens of Christianity vs. secularism and to ignore the many complexities on both sides of that equation, and, on the charitable side, that while evangelical doctrine emphasizes the fact of the substitutionary atonement and the price Christ paid for our sins, it has not meditated deeply on the physical reality of Christ's suffering (at least in part in reaction to what it saw as exaggerated Catholic emphasis on it).
The Passion confronts many Protestants with something that they have never thought of before, just as it reconnects Catholics with something that we know from our Stations of the Cross, Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, and Baroque paintings, but which in the past generation we have deliberately downplayed in deference to Protestant and secular sensibilities.
A few thoughts:
1) Aaron's posts are obviously heartfelt and important. He asks very good questions and I, for one, hope Athanasisus can answer them for him. For me, the answer is felt and understood only by standing at the foot of the Cross and looking up. Gibson's film renewed that perspective in my mind.
2)I left the film with such a strong aversion to even the idea of sinning such as I haven't felt in years. May God grant me the grace to remain close to Him.
3) It is interesting to note how critics and Hollywood laud the "graphic realism" of Speilberg in Saving Private Ryan but object to the violence of Gibson in this movie. Such an obvious double standard.
I tended to chant through "suffered under Pontius Pilate" with barely a thought as to what that entailed. Never again, O Lord! Never let me forget, O Lord! Hide me in thy wounds that I may never leave thy side!
Oh, in case you missed it, I heartily recommend the movie. :P
Papist Girl - thank you very much... the "To heal the world, God had to become part of it" is so helpful to me because I am dealing with some hard (for me) theological questions from my 15 year old (who was blown away by the movie) and next week I'll be going again with some lapsed and poorly catechized Catholics (adults and kids) and I know there will be some pretty hard questions they'll have afterwards.
Aaron... you've had a lot of suffering in your life but I wonder sometimes if times in our lives similar to the ones you've experienced can point us towards the path of sainthood - your 16 year old friend was a suffering soul and you suffered right along with him - and you didn't have to do that, you could have walked away. Your sister's baby... when you described her giving him a bath I thought of the virgin Mary cradling her Son but having to let Him go and let life on this earth march on. I have a few little ones who I hope are in heaven and praying for their parents and brother and sister who are left here on earth waiting to join them.
+J.M.J+
TPOTC was excellent. I hesitate to say I "liked" the movie, because how can you "like" seeing Our Lord brutalized? But it was good for me to see it, and I certainly did not dislike the film. When the DVD comes out I hope to acquire it and view certain portions of the film for meditative purposes.
I would recommend it to any adult Christian who wants to see it, and to any Christian teen who can handle it. Not to children, though; the R rating was a good idea.
Yes, Christ was portrayed as very masculine - and more Semitic than in most Jesus films. The Aramaic dialogue helped emphasize the latter. Speaking of which, the Aramaic and Latin really did add something to the film. There was a certain realism in hearing Jesus and His Mother speak the very language which they spoke while on earth. And I was struck by the beauty and lyricism of the language; His words during the Last Supper flashback sounded almost poetic!
Lots of violence and gore, yes, but I've long had a devotion to the Precious Blood, so that didn't offend me as it did some other reviewers. Long ago I read in the book "The Precious Blood" by Father Faber about Our Lady and the holy women wiping up the Blood of Christ, so that was also "familiar territory" for me, so to speak. I don't think Emmerich was the only one who taught that; it seems to be part of Precious Blood devotion in general.
The film's violence will be a real help to meditation on the Passion. A lot of prayers and devotions really came alive to me while watching that film. The graphic scourging scene brought new meaning to "By His stripes we are healed". When He took that first fall on the Via Dolorosa, I suddenly understood what the Third Station of the Cross really means. Watching a human being fall like that is more powerful than trying to imagine it while staring at a sanitized Station hanging on a church wall.
And when I prayed the Anima Christi yesterday after Communion, the words took on new meaning after seeing the film: "Body of Christ save me, Blood of Christ inebriate me, Water from the side of Christ wash me, Passion of Christ strengthen me...within Thy wounds hide me...".
Was the film perfect and flawless? Well, no, but no film is ever perfect and flawless. For instance, if I had directed it I would have left out the bit with the crow and Gesmas (I'm trying to avoid a spoiler here by not giving details). I felt that was gratuitous and unnecessary to the overall message of the film: Our Lord's redemptive suffering! But this is Mel's movie, not mine. It was still an excellent film overall.
In Jesu et Maria,
First of all, Mark, beautifully said.
"The awesome power of this film comes from the connections it makes (at least for me). I literally caught my breath when Gibson cuts to a scene from the Last Supper where the Passover bread is brought to the table, wrapped in cloth. The bread is set at the table and the cloth is taken off, then Gibson cuts back to Jesus being stripped of his garments. The bread is elevated for the consecration at the Last Supper, and Gibson cuts to the elevation of the cross ("If I be lifted up, I shall draw all men to me.")"
And one wonders why the holy mass of Padre Pio lasted 3 hours and with such an emotional connection! When our liturgies are celebrated in such an "efficient" way and the sublime act of consecration whisked over, I believe we all are subjected to some feeling of discomfort, irritation and we leave feeling, at least subconsciously, that we've been denied a certain effect (of grace) that was intended for us in that great sacrifice of Jesus - to go on and on until the end of the world.
This is why I love the mystics. They are permitted to live in that kind of space somewhere between heaven and earth - to help us to see beyond and through our blindness of the now. Re: the suffering of Jesus, highly focused and culminating in these hours of physical passion, we have Blessed Angela of Foligno expressing that 'Christ always lived in suffering. From the moment of his conception he was in extreme suffering, because divine wisdom had shown him all that he was to suffer. The suffering began at that moment and lasted until the separation of his soul from his body. This is demonstrated by his prayer: '
"My soul is sorrowful unto death." Because he said that death would be the end of his suffering, we are given to understand that its beginning was the moment of his conception. Since we are responsible for these sufferings of Christ, we ought to be transformed into them.'
And then we have the bloody scourging - that final demonstration of all the whippings and woundings given Him over His lifetime through rejections, insults, stubbornness, attachments jealousies, etc. - just the living in such a corrupt world by a being of such sublime purity was an ongoing martyrdom. And, BTW, as Mel has said, and other mystics have as well, this depiction doesn't begin to present what only a God/man could and did truly undergo in His real passion.
As far as Jesus' Jewishness as raised by someone above - obviously He was "more Jewish" than all those "unto whom He came (His own) who refused Him". If they were truly sons and daughters of Abraham they would have recognized Him ...and He wouldn't be forced to express that a rock without free will could be raised up to praise Him and fill in for what they and of course, we too, who have been grafted on, continue to miss out on!
I saw The Passion this past Saturday evening. I still do not have the words to express what I feel or the impact it had on me. For once in my life, I am truly speechless.
There is one thing I can say; ever since Saturday evening, I have prayed that the things I saw would be indelibly etched and imprinted in my mind and heart, so I may never, ever forget or take for granted the depth of the agony and suffering Jesus bore for me - and that I may never, ever forget or take for granted the suffering of Mary Our Mother, St. John, and St. Mary Magdeline bore in watching the One they loved die in such agony.
+J.M.J+
That being said, I'm going to make a statement now which might be considered controversial, especially in view of Catholic and Evangelical attempts to use this movie to evangelize. After seeing the movie, I'm not too sure how well evangelization efforts will work out. Maybe with fallen-away Christians, yes, but I'm not sure about non-Christians.
You see, as has been pointed out before, this movie focuses only on Jesus' death, not His whole life. Now, that's not a bad thing; I'm not at all criticizing Mel for making such a movie. But will non-Christians be able to appreciate such a movie the way we who are familiar with the life of Christ can?
Take, for instance, the scene in the beginning with the high priest tossing the bag of coins to Judas. We know the Gospels, so we can provide the context for that scene; we know that Judas was an apostle who agreed to betray Jesus, etc. But if someone who knows nothing about Jesus and the Gospels watches this movie, he may well wonder "Who are these people and what do they have against this man?". Unless one knows the whole story of Jesus' life, a cinematic depiction of His Passion may not mean very much.
Now, if a non-Christian watches a Gospel film which depicts Jesus' entire life from birth to Resurrection, he will get the necessary context from the rest of the film, so he will understand the Passion by the time that part comes along. So such films may be better suited for evangelism of non-Christians than this one.
Again, this is not a criticism of the movie; I would not criticize Mel for not doing what he didn't intend to do. He intended to make an unflinchingly brutal and graphic depiction of the suffering of Our Lord, and he has done a great job! This film will be a great help to Christians, to remind them of the price Jesus paid for their salvation.
But I really think this film was made, as Michael Medved said, "of the Christians, by the Christians and for the Christians". A Christian audience will understand it best; non-Christians probably won't understand it very well, unless they are familiar with the Gospels.
Of course, I could be wrong, and I do wish Catholic evangelization efforts the best and pray that they will bear much fruit.
In Jesu et Maria,
Papist Girl & Mark our Host,
Thank you for jumping in and offering compassion and condolences to the commenter Aaron. I am shocked to read the rather cold logic of some folks who sought to answer Aaron's very real and age-old question: Why does God allow suffering?
Aaron, I am very sorry for the suffering you and your loved ones endured. It is indeed a mystery that is difficult to comprehend and articulate. May your friend and nephew find eternal rest with Our Father. May your sister be consoled for the loss of her dear child.
The "saving grace" of Mel's film's concentration on the passion alone (but with flashbacks) is the whiplash effect it may have on the complacent - those who have been lulled into a laissez faire approach to the immorality surrounding them today. When someone is grabbed by an event - say, the younger or lapsed group for whom Christ has had no meaning - if it truly touches them, they will want to know more. That is when this new interest will be self motivated and what they discover and research will have greater and lasting meaning for them than some weaker, pablum approach that simply leaves them indifferent. There have been, obviously, lots of films on the larger life of Jesus where, in such films, the actual suffering was quickly done away with for a consoling ending that gave greater emphasis of a resurrection. No one was left to stew in his/her juices! And ... just how has such an approach made any lasting effect on people. We've felt good to just leave it all on Jesus' shoulders ....because, after all, there was that happy ending! No, I believe that this creative expression of Mel's is part of those "rivers of light" that some feel are coming to grace us, through God's mercy, in these present times.
The most thought provoking thing for me about the movie was watching and realizing that Jesus could have called a stop to the suffering at any time. Most people do not have that option, and if they did, they'd surely take it. But Jesus *embraced* His suffering at every moment of the passion out of love for us, in order to redeem us.
As Mary said "When and how will you choose to be delivered from this?" He could have at any moment. But He didn't. That's what sticks with me, and that is what separates Jesus' suffering from any other human beings suffering.
With out the meaning of corniness, Handel’s Largo played in the background and though the movie itself I have not witnessed, the mere reading of marks review, brought a welling of my eyes, why is it people take the wrong message from so much, why do they choose desertion over understanding, let us not break from the meaning, let us embrace it for exactly what it should be.
Jesus would have wanted that…
Aaron: yes, do by all means read Athanasius. Though I'll warn you that even he isn't perfect...along with splendid reflections on the Incarnation, he also has some really annoying Arguments From Success. Still worth reading, though.
though the movie itself I have not witnessed, the mere reading of marks review, brought a welling of my eyes, why is it people take the wrong message from so much, why do they choose desertion over understanding, let us not break from the meaning, let us embrace it for exactly what it should be.
Because hearing it described is very, very moving. Watching it was miserably tedious.
I think one of the issues that critics and supporters alike are having trouble reconciling is the dual nature of the movie; it is a religious meditation and a box-office release at the same time. As a lentan meditation, as a way of reflecting upon the scriptures and making us acutely aware of Christ's sacrifice, it worked. As a movie, it's crap.
There is no background, no narrative context, and the flashbacks amount to Bible sound-bites which are ridiculously trite. (Baby Jesus skins his knee? Gratuituous emotion-jerking, Maia Morgenstern was doing a wonderful job without the Lifetime for Women moment. Jesus invents the dining room set? Horribly failed attempt at light-heartedness)
Does any of this matter since we all know the context anyway and this is all about the Passion itself? Not at all, if it's a lentan reflection.
Does it matter if we judge it as a movie? Um, yeah. A lot. As a movie it was grotesquely violent with nothing but the shock of seeing that much blood to make it a draw. It was so over the top that no man could have survived that much torture and cruelty, which made it all unrealistic and contrived. Mix that in with no narrative flow and watching the entire thing with your stomach in knots, your face half-sheilded, just waiting for him to up and save the world so the audience wouldn't have to sit through Gibson's sadomasicistic "labor of love" any longer, and you have yourself a not quite pleasent experience.
Of course, no "mere" man could have survived that much punishment - that' the point (or at least one of them).
"It was so over the top that no man could have survived that much torture and cruelty, which made it all unrealistic and contrived." I've heard this over and over in the last couple of weeks, so here we go. At time of Jesus, the Romans had been using crucifixion for about 400 years. They had PERFECTED the art of torture and death. Some have commented that the Gospels don't describe such a bloody death. The writers of the Gospels didn't have to be so graphic because crucifixion was an every day event. My understanding is that on any given day, one or more people would be "hanging out" just outside Jerusalem by the gates. This was Rome's reminder of who was in charge. The Pax Romana was so "pax"-ful because people were TERRIFIED of the Romans. The Nazi's weren't the first to try to wipe out an entire people. Ever meet a Carthaginian? The Romans new just how long to whip a man, given his particular size and condition, to bring him as close to death as possible and have enough left over to crucify. The film (from what I know) is very, very realistic. The Romans used to light the highways with burning, crucified bodies. All of Spartacus's followers were crucified (about 7,000 I believe) and placed evey couple of feet along the road to Rome. Romans were bad dudes.
Of course, no "mere" man could have survived that much punishment - that' the point (or at least one of them).
No, Christ was a "mere" man because He was fully human and fully divine. I'm not saying that He would have cracked under the pressure if He'd been being tortured for information purposes, say. I think He would have withstood it. But *physically* He would have died after the first flogging, or at least not survived the night. Christ was not a superman. And if He was, it diminishes the entire point of his sacrifice.
Romans were bad dudes.
I never said the Romans weren't bad. I never said they hadn't perfected the art of torture, or that people weren't afraid of them. I'm saying that nobody could have survived the level of torture that Gibson portrayed. No one. It was cruel to an unrealistic level. I repeat, he would not have survived.
Neither one of us were there, so we have no idea how violent the Romans actually were (I'm guessing pretty damn violent), but I know a fair bit about the medical profession and the treating of wounds like his. He would not have survived.
I *hope* that, should it be necessary, I can someday be willing to endure what the gospel has cost some of our brothers and sisters--and supremely, our Lord. But I don't know if I could.
Mark,
Of course you couldn't. No one could, apart from His grace sustaining us supernaturally. This is why, if any of us were called to be martyrs, we should trust wholeheartedly in Jesus' grace, rather than in our own ability to endure.
I fervently pray I shall never have to find out.
Is it not better to pray that the Lord's will be done, and that He grant you sufficient grace to bear your trials? Then, trust (which requires some work) that He will indeed grant you this grace. He says Himself He will.
Only once we make such an act of abandonment will we be released from the dread of future trials. He will accomplish His purpose within us--we need only let Him. All He requires of us is our trust and our love.
Pax.
Michael wrote:
I'm saying that nobody could have survived the level of torture that Gibson portrayed. No one. It was cruel to an unrealistic level. I repeat, he would not have survived.
True. Anne Emmerich's visions reveal that Christ several times would have died, had it not been for supernatural graces at intervals being granted to Him to continue to suffer, as it were, to fill up the cup of suffering that had been ordained for all eternity.
The fact is, dying would have been a great grace for Jesus during His agonies. He was made to continue to live, in order to drink His cup of suffering to the last, most bitter dregs.
I can only sing in awe with His Blessed Mother:
Magnificat anima mea Dominum,
et exultavit spiritus meus in Deo salvatore meo...
Michiel,
So if one made a film about the day of Lincoln’s assignation that would have to be "crap" too? What about "The longest Day" or "Saving Privet Ryan" or any number of other films and plays that depended on the audience’s knowledge of the background of the action to make sense? I think you simply didn't like this move and are reaching for rational reasons to call it "crap".
Christine:
Shortly after "Thy will be done" is "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil." I pray both every day.
Mark,
But what is the "evil" we are to be delivered from but that of sin?
Martyrdom is not sin--it is the opposite: pure self-sacrifice, a complete immolation of self that draws down graces in abundance for many, many souls (in the context of our role as co-redeemers with Christ). In this sense, we are each called to be martyrs--whether that martyrdom be manifested by a long life of self-denial, or a life willingly truncated by death at enemy hands.
Right John H.
"Saving Private Ryan" gave me no subtext as to why they were on that beach shooting. Terrible movie making! No narrative thread! What the heck is WW2?
I've heard that stupid critism many times.
I think you simply didn't like this move and are reaching for rational reasons to call it "crap".
You're right, I did not like the movie, and perhaps I should not have used the word "crap" because it weakens my argument, even though that's how I felt.
And I said nothing about it making sense. It made perfect sense. It was easy enough to follow even with only a rudimentary knowledge of the gospels. As a movie, it did nothing to build up tensions or feelings for its protagonist. To get a sense of who Jesus was we had to rely on Bible-lite soundclips of his ministry. Why did the Jews hate him? What did he actually do? What steps did the Pharisees take to silence him before they start crying for his execution and *why* do they hate him so much? Oh wait, quick let's do a trite flashback to cut up the violence and smack you in the face with why this is relevent! If Gibson had built up the character of the Christ at all before he started torturing him to death, it would have been a better movie.
I repeat, it made sense. It just didn't "work" as a narrative outside of intense and intimate knowledge of the subject matter. You only need to know a little bit about the Civil War to understand a movie about Lincoln.
"Jesus invents the dining room set?"
-Michael
Not to respond to Michael's snipe - but I thought that was an interesting scene. My brother thought it was a metaphor for making Christianity. Jesus spoke of a "new way" of eating at the table (Alter?) and it was made for a rich man (those who eat at the table are rich in Spirit?). Mary, of course, was the first person to try out this new way of eating.
I'm probably just slow to something that has already been discussed.
Any thoughts? Mark?
True. Anne Emmerich's visions reveal that Christ several times would have died, had it not been for supernatural graces at intervals being granted to Him to continue to suffer, as it were, to fill up the cup of suffering that had been ordained for all eternity.
Again, which is great if this movie is treated as something upon which we as Catholics meditate, in addition to other Lentan meditations. In the context of a movie being sold to the masses, it's unrealistic and needlessly gory.
At the same time, a few people have criticized the criticism of 'context'. To fully understand this movie then you'd not only have to have read the Gospels, studied the scripture, but also other extra-Biblical sources like Emmerich, which in my opinion makes for sloppy movie-making.
Michael wrote:
I'm saying that nobody could have survived the level of torture that Gibson portrayed. No one. It was cruel to an unrealistic level. I repeat, he would not have survived.
Now I may be reaching here, but I think the point of the whole movie is precisely that Jesus DIDN'T survive it. Within three hours of that beating, he was dead.
Terrible movie making! No narrative thread! What the heck is WW2?
I've heard that stupid critism many times.
If I had been criticizing the context to the level of "Who is this Jesus person? What the heck is this Roman doing here?" that would be stupid criticism.
It's not context of the subject matter. It's *narrative* context. Saving Private Ryan would have gotten its narrative and message across if it had been about a fictitious war just the same as if it had been about WW2. Knowing the context makes the movie richer. It had things like character development and dialogue. You need to know the scriptures backwards and forwards in order for the Passion to have any emotional impact upon you, other than ugh; not so for Private Ryan.
Michael- that scourging is why he did not survive as long as most people did with crucifixion. As you saw, they broke the legs of the two criminals so they would die more quickly nad be unable to raise themselves up for air. They didn't have to do that with Jesus because he was already nigh unto death when they(we) put him on the cross.
That's my take on it.
The only critcism I am willing to concede is the line of thought that characterizes this movie as ":aphoristic" or "allusionary" i.e. alluding to things or events with which the artist assumez the viewer is already familiar: "Yup, Jesus fall the 2nd time; uh hum, here comes Simon of Cyrene; and there's Veronica with the veil...."
Those Catholics (sic) who dont like this movie will fall into 2 categories:
1- Quisling apostates-in-place lie James Carroll whose next agenda item is, precisly, to invalidate what he and his Jewish handlers call "the founding docuents" of Christianity." (Read The Sword of Constantine) Ditto for Mary An Boys whose self-hatred has reached a pathological point.
2- Those Catholics (other sheep but dumb sheep) who, literally have never said the Rosary or did the Stations of the Cross. As an usher at my parish, otherwise enthusiastically supportinve of having baprisms as part of Sunday Mass, I have chosen to be amused by the raving , pathetic ignorance of the "the pagan in-laws', i.e. the chowderheads chosen by baptismal parents as godparents. The depth of ignorance is hilarious. Q: "We would like you as godparents to carry the offertory gifts." A:"What is the Offertory?"
The Passion is a litmus test of basic religious literacy, both in society at large and in the post-Vat II church specifically.
+J.M.J+
My take on the "no one could have survived that" argument is that Jesus said no man could take His life, and that He had the authority to both lay it down and take it up again. He could not die until He said "Father into Thy hands I commend my spirit", regardless of the severity of the beatings and torments.
I thought the table-building flashback was interesting, and yes, I did think of an altar for some reason.
As for the film lacking context, I do agree, in fact I said something about that earlier. One would have to have some knowledge of the life of Christ to appreciate this movie, otherwise watching it would be like starting to watch a TV movie when there's only a half-hour left, and you're saying to yourself "Who are these characters? what's going on? What have I missed?"
I wouldn't say the movie is "crap"; it essentially does what it's supposed to do, and not much more. IMHO, this movie is better as a meditation tool for Christians than, say, an evangelism tool for non-Christians. I don't think the latter was Mel's intention in making it, but the former certainly was.
In Jesu et Maria,
"To get a sense of who Jesus was we had to rely on Bible-lite soundclips of his ministry. Why did the Jews hate him? What did he actually do?"
I found the flashbacks to be masterfully placed Gospel commentaries on the action of the Passion, as well as respites from it. Mark points out the cross-cutting between the Last Supper & crucifixion, but that's just one example. All of them are equally well thought out.
And "the Jews" didn't hate Christ, Michael. His followers were Jews. The Sanhedrin, as was made abundantly clear in the film, did not tollerate blasphemy. They thought Christ was blaspheming. The sentence for blasphemy is death, usually by stoning. Since, under Roman law, the Jews could not execute their own people, they had to do it through the Romans. That's why the Gospels say that it was the chief prists who incited the crowd before Pilate. Just a is depicted in TPOTC. It's not about "hate," Michael - from Caiaphas' point of view, it's about the just sentence (were Christ not God incarnate) for the crime of blasphemy.
I am still overwhelmed by the movie, but have a comment and a question.
In the scene with Mary wiping up the blood I was struck that not only was it a very Catholic thing to do, but also a very Jewish thing to do. As in the modern day scenes of the dedicated clean up crews wiping up the blood of the victims of the horrific bombings.
And can anyone shed light on the crow, I can't reconcile it with the rest.
I wouldn't say the movie is "crap"; it essentially does what it's supposed to do, and not much more. IMHO, this movie is better as a meditation tool for Christians than, say, an evangelism tool for non-Christians. I don't think the latter was Mel's intention in making it, but the former certainly was.
Exactly, Rosemarie. This is what I was trying to get at (although I still think it was crap, as a movie). We can examine it two ways; as a meditation tool and as a movie. I contend that as a meditation tool it succeeded; as a movie it did not.
And I completely ignore fenwick's comments above about what types of Catholics won't like the movie, or that the only valid criticism is that is "allusionary". The allusion was one part that was actually good, for the "insiders" so to speak, and that's fine.
The Catholics who don't like this movie are the ones that can separate the religious messages Gibson was trying to get across for his intended audience from the qualities of decent movie-making. Because to criticize the movie, and even the film-maker, is not to critisize the theology behind it.
Michael, I recomend that you read
Doctor at Calgary; the punishment inflicted on Christ by the Romans was not that unusual, nor were they immediately fatal- indeed, the slaves of the Spartacus rebellion survived their crucifixion for up to a week.
I found the flashbacks to be masterfully placed Gospel commentaries on the action of the Passion, as well as respites from it. Mark points out the cross-cutting between the Last Supper & crucifixion, but that's just one example. All of them are equally well thought out.
See, I disagree that they were masterfully cut. In my opinion it would have been more powerful and less insulting to the intelligence of the viewer if they had had the "flashback" scenes as actual scenes and we were meant to draw the parallels on our own.
I may also be important to note that Gibson has said in interviews (I can't remember where (O'Reilly? Sawyer?)) that he went back and *added* flashback scenes in some cases to cut back the tension on his over-long torture scenes.
As, I believe, has been said above by other, the film assumes knowledge of the Bible, especially the Gospels. Those who have limited or no Biblical knowledge will have trouble with *getting* the film. It's easy to say that the Gospels never have Jesus saying "See, mother, I make all things new" after she see's Him fall & recalls Him falling as a child. But if we have the knowledge that Christ said that in Revelation to John, it gives depth & complexity to a meditation of His Passion & suffering for our sins. I, for one, would have never thought to include readings from Revelation while praying the Rosary prior to seeing TPOTC. I now wonder how many other insights can be gained by doing this with that & other books in Scripture?
I believe that this film has accomplished one great thing if no other: It has millions of people talking and debating about Christ and His sacrifice for us. I have never witnessed such a phenomenon in this society ever before. It has been THE topic wherever you go. And just at a time when this culture is undergoing some massive tensions about moral issues.
Has anyone else heard about the California Supreme Court decision today requiring Catholic Charities there to provide contraception coverage. I wonder what the California church's next step will be. The US Supreme Court? Or the state legislature for an exemption?
Michael, Gibson also said yesterday on Sunday Morning Shootout on AMC that he removed some flashbacks as well because they diminsihed the power of the Passion narrative. So I'm not sure the point can be made that they were place purely for reprieve purposes.
And I'd remind you that the same "cross-cutting" technique can, indeed should, be used in Biblical study as Gibson used in TPOTC. To think of His words from the Sermon on the Mount, again as Mark pointed out, to love our enemies while meditating on the Passion is apt & effective. This is why the Church chooses specific readings from the OT, Psalms, & NT for Mass. "The NT is concealed in the OT & the OT is revealed in the NT." Why is it any different in a film? I don't know my Scripture as well as I should, but I found the cross-cutting to be an extremely effective way to impart the teachings of Christ's that were most pertinent to the action. I found it to be almost cinema verite-like, or maybe a little stream-of-consciousness in it's use. Jesus sees the Roman soldier's foot & thinks of the washing of His apostles' feet only hours before. This technique has been used in film for decades, almost since the beginning of film. (Ever seen Un Chien Andalu by Salvador Dali, 1929?) Not so much recently, though. Today's filmgoers might not be as familiar with it as they were 40 or 60 years ago. There's a film called Providence by the French auteur Alain Renais that uses this technique to harrowing effect at times. It allows the viewer to *get into the heads* of the characters in a way that a linear narrative does not. Indeed, can not.
Michael wrote:
I still think it was crap, as a movie.
I'm puzzled. Did you go there to be entertained? You also mentioned it was "not quite a pleasant experience." Didn't you know going in that it was not supposed to be? The title gives it away: THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Passion=suffering. Gibson himself said the audience was supposed to suffer alongside Christ throughout the duration of the film.
I can understand Gibson's wishing the movie to be seen by as wide an audience as possible--all are free to love or hate the movie. What I cannot understand is Michael's clearly recognizing this film as a work of devotion, not meant to stand in the same lists as blockbusters, The Titanic or Gladiator or Hollywood-critics' acclaimed The Godfather, yet he continues to bash the film as though it were. It's defenders in this forum continue to defend it as Catholic work of art, not just a work of art by a Catholic (and most emphatically not a tool for evangelism). Our oft-met rhetorical little Martian would probably like the movie even less than Michael. MY point is that each side sort of misses the other's point.
As for me, when I came home from my first ever audience of Bach's The Passion according to St. Matthew, I was greatly disturbed. Judas didn't really sing, did he?
I thought it was an excellent movie. But unlike other commentators, I didn't cry during it. I don't know if I'm a crying type. But I was greatly moved by it, and it helped me to understand more profoundly the reality of the Gospel teachings. I also think that all of the criticism of the movie was so overblown.
As a movie, I think that it was excellent. I think that the movie is internally consistent, and that it's clear why the chief priests were upset with Jesus. He says, in response to the question if he is the Messiah, "I AM...." Even without knowing the underlying meaning behind those words (God's name), the reality of the "blasphemy" is made clear throughout the entire movie.
I really liked the part with Veronica. I thought that part was masterfully done, since the face of Jesus on the cloth is obvious, but not overblown. It's been so long since I had done the stations of the Cross, that I had nearly forgotten about her. Gibson is really doing Catholics a great service with this movie.
Arnold - I just read about that. The California Supreme Court has made its decision, now let it enforce it.
What I cannot understand is Michael's clearly recognizing this film as a work of devotion, not meant to stand in the same lists as blockbusters, The Titanic or Gladiator or Hollywood-critics' acclaimed The Godfather, yet he continues to bash the film as though it were. It's defenders in this forum continue to defend it as Catholic work of art, not just a work of art by a Catholic (and most emphatically not a tool for evangelism).
Actually, John, I think you summarized my position quite well. It is a work of devotion, and it succeeded in that. I did indeed suffer along with Jesus. But I suffered as well through tedium and boredom.
But it is also a work of art. And there is where I believe it failed. I felt, for a work of art, the violence was gratuitous and overwrought. I felt as though a lot of the imagery was unimaginative and unoriginal. And I felt it was terribly paced.
I also feel it is my right to be able to appreciate it as a work of devotion and dislike it as a work of art, and that it is neither an attack on the theology or on the emotional responses of those people who did like it. But at the same time it isn't unfair to attempt to hold it up to "movie" standards. It was promoted as a movie. It was played in your standard movie theater. It was produced and directed by a major film-maker. It was a movie.
I was moved "artistically" several times, of course, and each time was because of Morgenstern's Mary. Each time I saw how it could have been both an excellent piece of devotion and an excellent piece of art.
But for me, it wasn't. And believe me, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect but I was really looking forward to seeing it and ended up disappointed.
I'm puzzled. Did you go there to be entertained? You also mentioned it was "not quite a pleasant experience."
I went there to be wholly moved. I was not. It was badly paced, tedious and boring. It was not a pleasant experience. It was not pleasing to my soul, my eyes, my mind or my heart.
Damn right Meg.
Michael,
As a MOVIE, I thought it was pretty good. Certainly it was much better than the usual dreck Hollywood spits out these days. Boring? Hardly. Badly paced? I didn't think so.
I guess you just have different standards.
The marketplace disagrees with you as well.
I saw the movie at the Loews 84th Street theatre in Manhattan. You couldn't find a place more situated in modern liberalism, with a fairly significant number of Jews in the neighborhood. The audiance was extremely diverse: people of all races, some older people, many young adults and late teenagers, dressed in their typical teenage clothing (baggy pants, baseball hats, sports jackets). Groups of teenage girls in their overdone makeup, punk boys. I sat next to a college professor. This is to say, the audiance was quintesentally American.
And they clapped at the end. I can't remember the last happened. People LOVE this movie.
My first indication that this was different was that there were no previews. The movie just STARTS. It's a different experience from the get-go. I liked that. I wish more movies would cut the previews (as much as I like the idea of them, they always disappoint).
Since so much of this movie was different from the usual experience, I can understand why some would complain that it's not good as a "movie." But that complaint seems to really be saying: "I'm not used to this." It is a good movie. People like it. It's won in the marketplace. The thing is, it has challenged what people usually accept about movies, and that's the thing that people don't like.
+J.M.J+
Gene:
>>>I found it to be almost cinema verite-like, or maybe a little stream-of-consciousness in it's use. Jesus sees the Roman soldier's foot & thinks of the washing of His apostles' feet only hours before.
That flashback really struck me because it had Jesus saying "No servant is above his master; if they persecuted me they will persecute you". A disquieting thought for us servants while watching a film of what was done to our Master!
Bobbert: I rather dislike movie previews, though my husband loves them.
In Jesu et Maria,
I wish there had been no previews when I saw it! I had to sit thgouh 6 of them. Gladly, there were none for *offensive* movies, but it was like going from the rediculous to the sublime.
And I do think it's a style of filmmaking that folks aren't used to. We're used to being handed the story in a nice little package. Some films scream "This is what this movie's about" in the first 15 minutes. This one does not. The kicker is Mary's riveting look at the end. "You. You did this. All of you." We have to wait 2 hours for that. Very rare in cinema these days. Then the brief Resurrection scene. I had the same thoughts as Mark (or was it Secret Agent Man?) on that scene. I could see the decision being made to leave the tomb. It was there on Caviezel's face. Amazing. In a way, it was comforting, Death had lost. But in a way, it's even more intense than Mary's look. "OK. I've done this for you. Now what will you do?"
OK. That should be "ridiculous".
I am a coll-eeg grad-ewe-ate! 
Michael
Please do create a work from your heart, be it pencil, pen, paint or movie, a truly passionate work from your heart… then let us crap on it!
It is but a section from a story of biblical proportion (pun) it is upon myself to investigate further if I’m blind to it. Churchill produced a six volume set on world war II (I own it) would it be fair to read only Triumph and Tragedy and ignore the rest, perhaps MY context would be wrong. It is what it is, take from it what you wish, but let us not demean another for your own sake of a pious grandeur, obviously it struck a cord with you, for your point in here seems to be written over and over in a tone of how can any one not agree with me, in another words you have made your POINT totally clear numerous times that says more about the affect of the movie then comments that you include.
One thing that surprised me about the experience of seeing "The Passion" last night was that I came away feeling that the violence was not disproportionate to the subject matter. Maybe, that's due to all the advance debate about it, which caused me to anticipate much more violence than was the case. Or maybe it is also due to the way that Gibson cut away at crucial times for the flashbacks, relieving the tensions. I found myself more moved to tears by some of the flashbacks, particularly the Last Supper. The driving of the nails into his hands, however, was the hardest scene for me.
Robin, R.W.,
I think Maria was not Jesus biological mother as in her egg was the basis of his conception. We know it was a virgin conception, so Joseph was not the biological father. God provided the seed. Problem is. Jesus is God. So if you think Maria's blood and DNA was passed to Jesus through her egg, this would mean Jesus impregnated his own mother. That's incest. I refuse to believe this. I think Maria and her womb was an incubator in which Jesus grew autonomously untill she gave birth to him.
The Passion has made me think more about the Bible than I've ever done before. It's making me question and seek answers to so many things.
Ricky. Trinity = One God; three Persons. The fact that they are 3 separate individuals in one God is a mystery to us. We, with our finite human brains, can never begin to understand the Trinity. Many very great thinkers have tried. None have even come close. We can not rely on our own understanding & our own, limited knowledge of the ways of God in the attempt to describe Him & His actions.
The Gospel of Matthew begins with Christ's genealogy. Genealogies are passed down through humans. Christ had to have blood ties to David in order for the prophecies about Him to be fulfilled. Those genealogies are there for a purpose.
And, Arnold, I agree with you about the violence. Though I didn't see it, I'm pretty sure the violence in a film like Kill Bill is truly gratuitous & glorified. I see a very big difference between that & what was used by Gibson.
Hey! That's something I have to look foward to: no idiotic previews of movies I'll never see. Can't wait!
John Simmins,
You have no idea how wonderful it was not to sit through any previews and just have the lights darken and the movie start. I couldn't believe it at first. It was amazing.
Grreat review, however, re: your last sentence:
Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria: "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
Somebody way up the list asked about the meaning of Mary wiping up the blood around the scourging post. I think this scene is meant to be understood as Eucharistic symbolism. Here's a quote from Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite by Msgr. Peter Elliot:
Q. What is to be done when a chalice spills on the altar or elsewhere?
A. A purifier or larger towel should be carefully placed on the area affected so that the Sacred Species is gradually absorbed. This is then reverently taken away....
Ricky,
I don't think we can say that "Jesus impregnated his own mother." For one thing, while it is certainly orthodox Catholic teaching that Mary provided the human matter for Jesus' body (i.e. the ovum), the Church does not teach that God provided the seed. Rather, she was told that "the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the shadow of the Most High will overshadow you." This is not a natural conception. If we want to think naturalistically, I think we would have to envision God miraculously altering the genetic material within Mary, not the union of sperm and ovum.
Secondly, while Mary is Jesus' mother, and Jesus is God, and Mary conceived by God, it does not follow that Mary conceived by Jesus. In the order of divine economy, it was the Spirit by whom Mary conceived. St. Maximillian Kolbe points out that Mary was intimately related to all three members of the Trinity: daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit.
I perceive that Mel's film is an artistic masterpiece. I have no doubt that it will stand for a millennium or more as such. Why do we have very old and great icons, statuary, frescoes, and paintings on Biblical and Gospel themes, often as one of the few material artifacts from a given time and culture? Because their themes are often the only things that people permanently cared about, thus causing people to care for the objects that gave form to the timeless ideas they convey. Can it be so for film, for "movies", a medium just a century old? When, not if, another of the periodic waves of iconoclasm (religious or, more likely, political) sweeps through, what will people take risks to save? I suspect TPOTC will be among the protected items.
Is it too much to hope that we are on the verge of a Catholic recrudescence? This is the first time in a very, very long time that an explicitly Catholic theme and sensibility has, even if for a brief moment, and even if forced to use an unconventional path, DOMINATED the culture. How did this come about? Not through whining, carping, grievance procedures - necessary thought they might be in a given case, but dead as they are as a path to a better future. It was simply fidelity and unflinching commitment to the uncompromising, unashamed embrace of the fullness of the Truth. Not deliberately offensive or cheaply provocative, just an approach of honest integrity. The Holy Father wrote a Letter to Artists. It looks like Mel read it. More can happen. We need a truly Catholic health care system, with all that implies. We need a truly Catholic educational system K through grad school, with all that implies. We need truly Catholic homes and family life, with all that implies. The Catholic springtime will come when we are confident enough to face outward to the culture, and transform it. Mel had a rough time. So will we. So did Jesus.
For several years now, I have explicitly meditated on the specific impact of my sins, past and prospective, on the sufferings of Christ. I have found this practice to be one the best gifts of grace to grow in holiness, however slowly and haltingly it has turned out in my case. I also have benefited from access to the traditional Latin Mass, to the movement of reconciliation of Catholics with Jews which the Holy Father has led. I suppose all of that could be thought of in some way as an advantage as preparation to "get" TPOTC. But somehow that seems too narrow. The Catholic Church is catholic. It is for all times and all people. The great gift of culture of and from the Church is a heritage of mankind. Folks who happen, by an accident of birth, to have the whole patrimony intact should not be so harsh on those who aren?t equipped to "get" it yet. So many exalted commentators have made fools of themselves over the place and meaning of the Passion narrative itself. Our reaction should be to help them climb down from the dangerous position they have taken. They SAY that they don
Our reaction should be to help them climb down from the dangerous position they have taken. They SAY that they don?t WANT to be part of this narrative. If we don't help them, they may get their wish. Suffering will remain meaningless for them, and all ultimate meaning will be only what they can think up, and they will be consumed by their own despair. Don't be harsh with people who don't see. Help them see. Help them see with more than words.
ottanbrus, also, think of the guys in Israel in the yellow vests, after a bus bombing. According to Jewish law, every drop of blood is sacred and must be given a proper burial. This is why today after an attack these guys get out there and collect every piece of tissue and drop of blood. This is what I think of with Mary wiping up the blood. I don't know if Gibson knew that but perhaps that is the basis of the Catholic practice.
Regarding the crow; if a person hung on the cross for days, it would attract these flying rats who would feast on the dying person. I thought it added to the horror.
Here’s another one, what did the baby (midget) in Satan’s arms signify?
JMJ
Excellent analysis Mark!
Hear, hear, Glenn Juday! like your comments, while reading the part of how going to a Latin mass and taking part in Catholic-Jewish reconciliation helps a person "get" POTC, I recalled the lines from the Passover that Mary and Mary Magdalene say to each other in the beginning of the film. The connections to the Passover and the Eucharist as sacrifice are so wonderfully done in TPOTC, but I wonder how many people will be prepared to "get" it. I'm still making connections after seeing it this weekend, twice. I pray that the "passionate" images that sear themselves in the mind help bring people to ask deep questions, bringing them closer to Christ and His Church.
Ken,
I think and have read that it was kind of a satanic counterpoint to the Madonna w/ Child images. While Mary was there at the scourging to console Him,Satan was there to tempt and mock Him, w/ what appears as something good (like giving up in the suffering) and is really something ugly and demonic, the baby is really a demon when it turns around. When Jesus was carrying the cross, there's a scene where Mary appears opposite Satan who looks at her evilly through the crowd. Both those scenes I think also allude to Gen. 3:15, Satan and its seed on one side vs. the woman (Mary) and her seed(Jesus) who crush the serpent.
Just got home from seeing the movie.
Mel has done a terrific job in making this film. After resding all the critics pro and agin over the past month or so, I was expecting to be shocked, traumatised by the violence, and carried up in a wave of emotion.
There were three occasions where I had to wipe a little tear - all of them scenes involving Mary - and a bit emotional at the final stages of the crucifixion. Most of the time though, I watched the story unfold reaaly enjoying the cinematography and the little cut backs - especially to the last supper.
Why did I not respond as I felt maybe I should? Because every Easter for most of my life I have contemplated the Passion in the Staions of the Cross during Lent, and re-live the Passion Gospels in my mind. So the story is very familiar. I recall when I was a younger being emotionally moved. But now as a hopefully mature adult (senior almost ) I find a spritual dimension which leaves a sense of peace, gratitude, humility and sorrow for sin.
Mel has made a great movie prviding a defining moment in our Faith's history.
O! The sly strategy of anti-Christians using all kinds of subtle arguments, and the folly of the believers who spent time and effort trying to answer an unending flow of wisefully krafted objections, ALL OF THIS WITH THE INTENT OF ROBBING US OF OUR SPIRITUAL DELIGHT AND CONSECUENT IMPROVEMENT, THANKS TO THIS MOVIE. Will you believers keep on falling into the trap????? LET'S CELEBRATE!!!!!
Lot of earlier talk was of lack of context with the context only provided by flashbacks. What's wrong with that?
In "The Quiet Man", all we know about Sean Thornton is that he is returning to his ancestral home. It is only when Danaher knocks him out at his wedding that we see him flashback to the ring as a boxer who has killed someone. That short, silent scene provides the entire context for the story.
It's an old technique that can be very effective. I'll find out tomorrow if it works in TPOTC
+J.M.J+
Mark Cameron answered Ricky well. Neither Scripture nor early Christian writings ever present the Incarnation as a "mating" between God and Mary, so God certainly did not "impregnate" Mary with some divine "seed". The virginal conception of Christ was miraculous and non-sexual.
Here are some more points:
Jesus is God, yes, but in order to become a member of the human race He had to take flesh from a woman and be born of her. He assumed our common humanity in order to redeem it. Early Christians had a saying about Jesus: "That which He has not assumed He has not healed". If Christ had not assumed a human nature from Mary, then He would not truly be a member of the human race and so could not have redeemed the human race.
Some Bible verses to consider:
Hebrews 2:14 - "Therefore because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner hath been partaker of the same: that, through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil"
According to this passage, Jesus partook of the same flesh and blood which we share in order to save us. He truly became one of us, a member of our race, by taking flesh from the Virgin Mary. Had He not taken flesh from her, He would not have partaken of our flesh and blood.
Romans 9:5 - "They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen."
According to the Bible, Christ is of the Israelite race according to the flesh. He is ethnically Jewish.
Genesis 3:15 - "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
Jesus Christ is the seed of the woman, Mary. Her biological offspring, born without the help of man.
Galatians 4:4 - "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law"
Note here that Christ was "made of a woman". The term "made" here is ginomai, which means "to become, be made of or formed (from geino, "to form")". The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus' Sacred Body was actually formed from the very substance of Mary's body.
So the Bible makes it clear that Jesus IS the biological son of Mary, miraculously and non-sexually conceived of her "seed", her ovum.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>Lot of earlier talk was of lack of context with the context only provided by flashbacks. What's wrong with that?
IMHO, there's nothing "wrong" with it per se. That's how Mel chose to make the movie, and it will work out fine with Christians who know the Gospels well.
The main drawback is for those who don't know the Gospels. A few flashbacks really can't provide all the background information for such people, because there is a whole lot that they will need to know to appreciate the characters and events portrayed.
I used the example of Judas in a post above. In the film we see him receive the coins, lead the temple guards to Jesus and betray Him. Then we see a few more scenes showing his remorse and torment, until finally he kills himself.
But the movie does not tell us who Judas was: that he was an apostle, that his last name was Iscariot, that there were thirty pieces of silver in that bag...a lot is left out. A lot of knowledge is assumed on the part of the viewer.
We can see Judas up on the screen and say, "Oh yeah, that's Judas Iscariot" and fill in the gaps for ourselves based on our knowledge of the story. Yet I imagine a non-Christian who has never read the Gospels would just scratch his head, wondering who this guy is, how he knows Jesus and why he is betraying Him.
That's just one example; there are many others. We Christians can just dive into the movie and appreciate it because we know the full context. I don't think non-Christians can do the same unless they know the Gospels.
I don't necessarily consider that a "failing" of the movie, because the film was made by and for Christians. It does what it was intended to do.
In Jesu et Maria,
Lot of earlier talk was of lack of context with the context only provided by flashbacks. What's wrong with that?
I agree! Mel's a genius in this. This "shocking to the heart" is what is needed these days. The computer age has made people used to getting instant "fill in" knowledge on subjects with a click and only when they're first made to be interested in the subject. And ...using a fifth grade CCD class I know of as an example - after many years, they didn't know who the apostles were nor did they have a concept of what "apostle" meant. The title:" The Passion of the Christ" gives a great reference point for those moved in their hearts to find out more - easily - in about a gazillian books floating around just about everywhere called the Bible! I would even venture to say that many, kept from formal teaching of the scriptures, - those with less material goods but who have had to face the tragedies of life - will identify with such a Messiah instantly because, like those believers in Jesus' time, they'll just "know" Him already in their hearts.
"Here’s another one, what did the baby (midget) in Satan’s arms signify?"
In this imagery I felt Satan was flaunting the unfortunate truth of "Yes, you have your children, but I have mine too". And this taunting, as many mystics have mentioned, was that cup Jesus didn't wish to drink - that there would still be those who would not accept His sacrifice and be lost forever and seemingly make all the suffering be in vain.
Sorry, the last two comments were from me. Anonymous popped up!
chris and Luciana,
Thanks, both explanations seem right.
Can't wait to see it again.
JMJ
I saw it alone yesterday afternoon. I was somewhat afraid of what I'd see and very anxious to see it.
I intend to watch it every Lent. It evoked in me exactly what I needed during this time in our Church season. The emotions it evoked were a profound love of Jesus, a profound sorrow at His suffering (which I did not find excessive/over-the-top or gratuitous. It was exactly on screen what I've always imagined it was.) and a deep conviction to examine my life in Christ.
Reading blog comments and movie reviews prior to screening it were probably a waste of time, especially the reviews, because my reaction to His suffering was SO powerful, I can only "go" with that in terms of determining the worth of this movie to ME. The blog comments at Mark and Amy's websites were very helpful to me in seeing how deeply Catholic and Eucharistic this film is. I am very grateful to Mel Gibson for making this movie.
Warts and all.
I will be seeing it again with my 14 year old son and my husband. It is a very powerful meditative tool, imho. During many scenes-and to me from the scourging on, it was one, big horrific scene-I had my eyes squeezed shut, quietly crying into a handful of tissues, my entire body racked in muscular spasm. The only reason I was able to move after it was over was to collect my 6 year old from the theater PlayCenter and carry on with my afternoon carpool duties. If not for that, I would have preferred to lie prostrate on the icky theater floor, sobbing and praying until somebody drug me out and left me on the curb.
So yeah, I think it's a very effective movie for me. I'm very grateful he made it. It does for me what the Stations of the Cross do for meditating on The Passion, and I really am not concerned if it's great art or not.
I'm a simple, sinning, seeking Catholic and that movie does great things for me.
Sorry if this "review" lacks deep theological and intellectual debate. The Passion of the Christ is important because it brings the magnitude and deep emotion and love for Christ (that I usually keep buried in my daily routine)and my desire to re-commit to live more fully in Him to a plain, schlepping Catholic mother like me.
All Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ.
I liked that there was a little more focus on Judas than I had expected. Some people wonder if Judas was just God's pawn and was destined for his fate, but I always saw a parallel between him and Peter.
Both betrayed Jesus (Peter three times before the cock crows), yet Peter was able to transcend this and become the head of the new church. I think Judas had this opportunity, but his guilt -- and thinking that he was incapable of being forgiven -- led to his despair and suicide.
Also...does anyone know if Martin Scorcese made any comments on the film? I'm curious to hear what he thinks, particularly when we always are told that he was originally supposed to be a priest until he found a higher calling.
I totally agree, Rosemarie. Foreknowledge of the Gospels on some level is necessary for TPOTC to work. Gibson, as a filmmaker, assumes quite a lot of his viewer. (Not that I think that's a bad thing, necessarily.) And thanks for the verses to support the Blessed Virgin. I didn't have the time yesterday.
God bless!
Please do create a work from your heart, be it pencil, pen, paint or movie, a truly passionate work from your heart… then let us crap on it!
I don't buy into the "let's see you do better argument." Mel Gibson made a movie for all to see. I'm allowed to think it was crap. And I'm sure I'm not really hurting his feelings. If I am, then he shouldn't have let anyone watch it.
It is what it is, take from it what you wish, but let us not demean another for your own sake of a pious grandeur
Believe me, I have no pious grandeur. I jumped in on this thread in order to express a view of someone who saw it for its dual nature and disliked it because it failed at one of those. It was in response to a reader who implied that those who weren't wholly moved were misunderstanding it and not "deserting the message" or something like that. And I did not demean Gibson. I never said anything bad about him. I do, however, still maintain that his movie was crap. Now if I'm not allowed to say this because it was a "labor of love" then he shouldn't have put it in a public forum where it would be held up to not only religious standards, but cinematographic standards as well.
I saw The Passion of The Christ at a prescreening the day before it opened.
Everyone will bring their own life experiences to this movie, and thus come away from it in their own way as well.
I do not believe that it was made to "sell to the masses" as Michael commented. Gibson made it really and truly for himself and for Jesus. If he had been trying to "sell it to the masses", he could have made it completely different, he isn't stupid, he CHOSE not to for a reason.
I must say that for me this movie was cathartic. That probably seems like an odd word choice for what was incredibly painful to watch for most. I lost my first son at birth. I lost my father to an extremely rare form of cancer which left him to starve to death. Aaron and others probably can refute the charges as I can that "no human could possibly have endured that suffering". It is amazing what the body will take when the will is strong. Also, there comes a point in some cases where the body divorces itself of the pain, not completely, but enough to suffer it. I watched an entire team of oncology nurses and doctors, lifelong careers in this profession, express utter befuddlement as to why my father was still alive every day for 40 days with no food or water, racked with pain. Suffering tests your faith, if you are faith minded. I can not say how I have sobbed over Peter's denial of Jesus every time that I have read it since my father died. Why? Because I have experienced it. The fear of suffering, of death, when you have stared it in the face can be overwhelming.
I went to this movie overwhelmed with anxiety, not wanting to see the suffering. I told myself every day that my fear of anxiety and discomfort, of dredging up those feelings was nothing compared to the fear that Jesus had to face in the garden of Gethsemane. I expected to hide my face in my arm. What happened was completely different.
I couldn't tear my eyes from the screen. I sobbed through 2/3 of the movie. I questioned myself, and could hardly keep up with the intense pace because every moment was a spritual revalation, and as I was feeling that the next scene brought more anew. I have cried often after taking communion since my father died, but this Ash Wednesday, the morning after I attended this movie, I heard every word differently. I have spoken with many females in particular (which I am one) about this movie, which many are avoiding because of the "graphic" nature. A parishioner remarked to me before mass on Ash Wednesday morning that I looked tired, and I explained that I had seen the movie the night before and it was from crying that my eyes were still swollen. She asked me about it, telling me that she wanted to go but was scared. I told her of my own thought process and experience. She told me after mass that she had been praying and trying to get the courage to go, and that after talking with me, she was determined to do so. Then she said, "so know that G
Then she said, "so know that God worked through you today". One of the main tenets of the Catholic faith is the notion of "free will", but of course we are free to choose whether to live our faith or just live with it. Mr. Gibson stated at one point that he had to make this film, that he was just an instrument of the Holy Spirit. He should know that the Spirit is still moving...
Devil toting a grotesque child ~ Satan's mockery of the Madonna
Upright and cross-beam of Jesus' Cross are fastened with three bolts, arranged in a triangle ~ Trinity
During the flagellation, one of Jesus' ribs is exposed ~ New Adam.
Foreign languages ~ Liturgy ala Zerhusen
Table ~ Altar His life is preparation to be placed on the altar.
Satan ~ Snake
Screaming Satan ~ Thrill of victory becomes the agony of defeat
Mary wiping up the blood around the scourging post ~ Eucharistic symbolism: Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite by Msgr. Peter Elliot:
”Q. What is to be done when a chalice spills on the altar or elsewhere?
A. A purifier or larger towel should be carefully placed on the area affected so that the Sacred Species is gradually absorbed. This is then reverently taken away....”
Also, According to Jewish law, every drop of blood is sacred and must be given a proper burial. This is why in Israel today after an attack guys get out there and collect every piece of tissue and drop of blood.
Michael, it might interest you to know that my cousin, who is a Priest felt much as you do. He said that as a DVD, where you could pause it and write in a journal, as a meditative device, he thought that it could serve well, but that he felt totally disconnected during the movie, paritally because it distracted him to "read" a movie, and partially because he said that he has seen too many "the making of" movies and was thinking things like "I wonder whether that is clay, or a bodysuit, or ....?" when he was WANTING to be meditating on the Passion. (Yes, he is a Catholic priest and has been through personal hell in his life, he said that part of his problem was that he had always imagined it as being that harsh, so the violence didn't affect him as much, but again, he's been praying the Passion for years.)
Also, though he could see it from a son to mother's perspective, he will never feel it from a parent's perspective, and while I believe that Mary's place can still be felt and understood by those who aren't parents, it can not be understood in the same way as by those who are. The amount of faith that it would take to watch that happen to your own child, you can not know until you have one. What Mark Shea says at the end about praying on the possibility of enduring what you are asked to made me think of this as well. And being a parent, as Mark knows, it is easier to say I would willingly take my child's place for them than to imagine watching that. As supreme as the Lord's sacrifice is, so is Mary's thus making her such a central figure in the Church.
Like I said, everyone will bring their own "stuff" to it, so everyone will come out with a different experience. That's what makes this movie a great one to promote discourse on these subjects. After speaking with me, my cousin felt a little differently about the movie, because he had missed a lot of the subtle nuances that I thought I had picked up. For example, one thing that I said to him is did he notice that every one who comes in contact with Jesus in the movie gets his blood upon them, therefore reinforcing the implication that they were all, and we are all, responsible in his death. Even Mary is not spared, and when she kisses His feet and turns into the camera with his blood on her lips, the depth of that was staggering to me.
Rosemarie,
Just a response to your post yesterday, the best way to evangelize as taught throughout the ages is by example. Therefore by the firming up of believers, non-believers will be evangelized by their example. "..see how they love each other.."
In reference to the powerful Simon of Cyrene scenes in the story as Gibson filmed it, for all the discussion of sources, i haven't seen anyone reference Ray Boltz' "Watch The Lamb," a narrative song popular in evangelical circles, at least, which i felt was evoked in the moments when Simon looks at his son, at the Son, and back again, at first rebelling against helping and then becoming a willing sufferer alongside of Christ, with his little boy watching.
Did this hit anyone else the same way?
pax, jeff
Michael, While I certainly don't want to "crap" on any of your devotional or artistic efforts, it is still troubling to see you insist on being such a contrarian, on this particular blog's comment page. You wouldn't go into a rundown downtown church look at the gaudy statuary and say, "I understand these are devotional works but as art they're c***." (getting sick of that word), even if--no, especially if--faithful people were there insisting it was great art.
You may say, well this is being presented to us as film art--wide release, tv advertising, talk show appearance. Yes, but how would you have it presented? Straight to DVD and sold only out of Catholic religious items stores and the lobbies of churches? And why--to reach as small an audience as possible? To avoid the inconvenience of its having generated filthy lucre?
Here is a question that I have, that some of you may know the answer to. Did Satan know that Jesus was God? I have heard that according to Anne Emmerich he did not know for sure, but only suspected(I have not read that myself, but my mother-in-law reads Emmerich every year). In the movie he questions Jesus in the garden, saying "Who are you?", and his scream at the end of the movie could have been partly a realization that what he had feared was actually true, and it was too late for him to do anything about it.
Does anyone have any thoughts or insight into this?
I pondered Satan's baby, too, and then I thought I understood it: This is Satan displaying the Antichrist to Jesus, the baby he will establish to challenge Him in the final days. Think of Yeats: "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
Thanks, Mark, for that post. Wonderful, and helpful.
Saw it and just loved it . The catholic overtunes are clear am personally suprised no evangelcial protestants didn't oppose the influential role Mary had in the movie
I heard Peggy Noonan say on MSNBC that Mel was planning on making a movie about the reformation .
Anybody hear anything about this ?
Some comments on historical accuracy:
We know what "tools" the Romans used for scourging. They included pieces of bone, the better to tear flesh.
We know that many of the crucified would last for days before expiring. Jesus died after three hours. Severe blood loss prior to being crucified seems an obvious explanation.
We know that carnivorous birds and wild dogs roamed around the sites of crucifictions. So the bird wasn't a stretch.
We live in a clean society. We don't like to have to consider redemptive suffering. Thanks, Mel, for the reminder.
"We adore you, oh Christ, and we praise you, because by your Holy Cross you have redeemed the world."
(Hey Mark, can you tell what book I purchased recently? It is an awesome guide to the film. Thanks for helping to get it out there!)
A "Catholic" movie about the Reformation would probably burn any ecumenical bridges built by TPOC. But it would be good counter-propaganda to show that the Church was actually historically the friend of art/science/intellectual enquiry and the Reformation was an anti-intellectual rejection of that tradition.
Gerard: Pilate's actor is Hristo Shopov.
Ramesh's article on "Passion" is in this month's National Review and is fantastic as well, though I doubt that most visitors here don't already know that. Thank you Mark and Ramesh for the enlightening writings.
OK, But Is Mel Gibson Catholic?
Actor’s Activism, Remarks Point to Rejection of Church, Author Says
DALLAS—Everybody likes Mel Gibson. He’s an award-winning actor, he’s box-office gold and he seems like a nice guy. But because of his fame and The Passion of the Christ, his blockbuster movie about Christ, a lot of his fans would like to be clear on where he stands with respect to the Catholic Church, a Dallas-based author says.
Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D., is an associate of the Canon Law Society of America and a best-selling writer whose book Rosary: Mysteries, Meditations, and the Telling of the Beads includes one of the most graphic accounts of the Crucifixion ever published. He’s seen Gibson’s film and recommends it highly. But Gibson’s campaign to build a church in Malibu, California, raises some serious issues about the actor’s relationship with the Catholic Church.
“You can’t just build your own church,” Johnson says. According to the Church’s Code of Canon Law, parishes are geographical entities, set up by bishops in conformance with the Church’s laws and subject to their authority, and Canon 1215 stipulates that “No church is to be built without the express and written consent of the diocesan Bishop.”
“There are no free-lance churches in the Catholic Church,” Johnson says. “You live in a parish, and you go to its church.” Every place in California is already part of a parish, which has its own church. Gibson’s parish, then, would be the aptly named Our Lady of Malibu on Winter Canyon Road, Johnson says, looking through a Los Angeles Catholic directory. But, according to The New York Times Magazine, the actor’s privately funded Church of the Holy Family in Malibu is not affiliated with any diocese. So, according to Church law, it’s schismatic, not a Catholic church at all.
The Code of Canon Law defines schism—separation from the Church—as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Gibson’s father, Houston, Texas resident Hutton Gibson, is an outspoken critic of the Catholic Church and a vocal adherent of the “sedevacantist” movement, so called from the Latin phrase meaning “empty seat”—their claim being that every pope since 1960 has been spurious.
In a somewhat ambiguous interview in Readers Digest, Gibson said that his father taught him about the Faith, and that he believes what his father has taught him. In other interviews, the actor has been quoted often as waxing nostalgic for the Mass said in Latin and the doctrines as they were for almost 2000 years. But, as Johnson explains in his booklet What About the Latin Mass?, the Latin Mass that traditionalists long for is nothing like 2000 years old—the early Mass was often in Greek, and Gibson probably remembers only the Latin Mass that wasn’t finalized until 1962. “So if he was born in 1956,” Johnson says, “his Latin Mass is really younger than he is himself.” That Latin version is s
THis is the BEST review of The Passion that I've read. Thanks. I'm posting it to my blog.
Kevin,
I went and looked up your press release (since it got cut off by Haloscan) and I must say that it is full of inaccuracies regarding the traditional Latin Mass.
First, it is true that the Roman Rite Mass isn't 2000 years old, but the essential parts of it, including the Roman Canon, were complete by the time of Pope St. Gregory in 600 A.D., and there were no changes in the ordinary between the St. Pius V and Bl. John XXIII. To say that Mel, born in 1956, is "older than the Latin Mass" is just ludicrous.
Second, Vatican II did not mandate simplifying and vernacularizing the Mass, it mandated limited reforms, but urged the retention of Latin and Gregorian chant as the normative liturgy.
Third, it is completely false to assert that the revised Mass in English is closer to the practice of early Christianity than the Latin Mass. The Mass of the early Church would have been in Greek and was simpler than the medieval liturgy, but there is clear continuity from the earliest forms of the Roman Mass to the Tridentine. The Novus Ordo was a radical experiment that totally changed major parts of the liturgy - something that had never been seen in the 1600+ year development of the Latin rite liturgy.
Finally, it is completely false that "with a little effort you an get a Latin Mass celebrated regularly at your proper parish." Most major dioceses allow only one or two such Masses in an entire city with hundreds of parishes, often at awkward times in hard to reach locations. Mel Gibson's diocese of Los Angeles is particularly badly served. The Fraternity of St. Peter have been rejected from going into many dioceses.
I agree that, sadly, Mr. Gibson appears to be affiliated with a schismatic group. However, thereis a reason that Gibson and others have felt the need to go outside of the Church's canonical structures to seek the traditional liturgy, and your glossing over of the differences between the traditional and revised liturgy, and your exaggeration of the availability of the Latin Mass in the contemporary Church, poorly serves an honest examination of the facts.
+J.M.J+
Yes, it appears that Mel Gibson may be affiliated with a schismatic group. OTOH, he does not appear to have completely severed ties with the Catholic Church. The Latin Masses on the set of the movie were reportedly celebrated by a priest in union with Rome, I've heard that Gibson has some kind of dealings with Opus Dei and other movements faithful to the Pope, and that he was even seen at a Pauline Mass shortly after 9/11.
Perhaps Mel moves back and forth freely between the Catholic Church and schismatic groups? Much the same way some uninformed lay Catholics may attend Mass and also go to an Evangelical Bible study or fellowship where they feel they're "getting fed" (ugh! what do they think the Eucharist is???). Perhaps Mel doesn't realize that he shouldn't be doing that. At any rate, he would benefit from our prayers.
Also, even if he is a schismatic, that doesn't mean he didn't make a fine movie which God may use to make His children hate sin and become more fervent.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
I don't got to a Methodist Bible study (Disciple) because I'm 'getting fed'. I go because it's interesting, my wife was going to it in any event (she's Methodist) and it gives me an opportunity to provide a different perspective than the Methodists usually get. And boy, do they get surprised sometimes. This did not stop the instructor from having me sub for her when she had a hip replacement (!).
I go to Mass every week.
What's the problem here?
+J.M.J+
Ed;
I don't know whether there is a problem with what you do. A problem occurs when a Catholic goes to an Evangelical Bible study because he is on his way out of the Church.
Perhaps an Evangelical friend has invited him to the study in the process of trying to convince him that the Catholic Church is false and pagan. The Catholic may be beginning to swallow that line, and continue attending the Bible study thinking that he can get something out of it which he should be getting from the Mass. But he continues attending Mass as well because he's not ready to make a clean break from the Church yet, even though his faith in the Church and the necessity of Mass is gradually diminishing.
If a Catholic merely attends Bible study as an ecumenical endeavor, where he is not pressured to leave the Church and is allowed to offer a Catholic perspective on Scripture, that may be a very different story!
In Jesu et Maria,
I have a certainty of hope that Gibson knows the difference between an illicit mass and an invalid mass. I fear for Mahoney before I fear for Gibson. I will try to pray for both, but I am poor at prayer.
Very interesting article on the movie by the other great Mark (Mark Steyn)Registration required.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/
Sat...p=1006953079865
Maybe there are questions about whether Gibson is or is not in proper communion or if he's in a schismatic group or not. There have been so many reports one way or another, depending on source and whose axe is being ground that right how I can't make a call.
But I know this for sure, if I had do choose between Gibson and Mahoney, I'd take Gibson any day.
A thread on FreeRepublic mentioned a rumor that Gibson explicitly denied membership in the SSPX -- indeed that he accepts this Pope's legitimacy -- and only disregards Vatican II (ie he believes that transubstantiation [sic?] only occurs in traditional Latin Mass)...
Scott asked whether Satan knew Jesus was God while He lived on earth.
According to Emmerich's visions, Satan did not know Jesus was God. Jesus revealed to her that, just as Satan cloaked his true nature to Eve when he deceived her in the beginning, so Jesus hid his true nature from Satan while on earth. It was not until the just souls were loosed from Limbo and the gates of Heaven were opened through Jesus' death that Satan realized He was the Messiah.
Pax.
My pastor brings up the question of Satan's knowledge (or lack th/of) of Jesus' divinity, usually in the context of discussion of the Christ's forty day fast and temptation. He answers that the question is open, but many believe that Satan would not have attempted the temptation had he known. My own feeling is that he may not have known, but so twisted was he by his turning from the Father his Creator, and so devoid was he of the Holy Spirit's gift of Wisdom, Satan's actions would have been just the same even had he known. Sin, after all, truly is slavery.
(Whoa! No dessert for 40 days! I know how hard that is!)
Thanks for sharing.... great article!!
Check out this article on the passion!
Thank you Mark for a fine and informative review. What I find so compelling and transformative about TPOTC is not the EMOTIONS it invoked in me, but rather the INTELLECTUAL affect that it has had. Since seeing it, I feel stimulated and challenged and I've gone back to my study Bible and Catholic sites for answers and more inspiration. This, I think, is the wonder of this film, the beauty of its synergization of disparate gospel and Catholic traditions into a (an almost) flawless narrative.
Regarding this comments board, I will admit to my realization that I am one of those "poorly catechized Catholics" that an early commenter mentioned. I'd like to remedy that. Feel free to email me with suggestions for lay Catholic readings that are helpful. Also, I would also say that I spend much time with my Evangelical and Protestant friends, finding a superior Bible study structure that my church doesn't provide. In fact, although we are involved in our church and especially with my sons' parochial school, I find my church to really be lacking in "extra-liturgical" opportunities for study and meditation. Does anyone else find this to be the case in their parish? I have used Mark's links to order The Passion Study Guide and I hope to take it to my priest and ask that we form such a group. I'm sort of doubtful, though, in that my priest expressed "grave concerns" about TPOTC prior to its release...
Mark, I will include you as you asked in my prayers. Thanks again.
Tom Sheridan,the editor and general manager of 'The New World',Cardinal George's archdiocean paper,claims Mel Gibson is not a Roman Catholic in his column of two weeks ago. Flat out,no ifs or buts.
Y'know, after I saw this movie (and before one of my friends started making the anti-semitic comments I report above) I saw one girl who had been in our group crying. That was one of the powerful things, to me. To see someone I know having been that affected by watching a depiction of Christ's suffering.
I kind of saw Satan as a sort of anti-Mary throughout the movie. It works, as a contrast. It is true that Mary is a woman while Satan is an angel, but their responses to God are pretty much directly opposed. Mary accepts God's will. Satan refuses to submit to God. Thus, I saw the baby/midget/whatever that person was he was carrying to be the anti-christ. It was, regardless, a hideous mockery of Madonna and Child images.
Now, this movie was most excellent. I think people should see it, I absolutely don't think its anti-semitic, and I think it's helped me to think more clearly on a lot of issues.
When I watched the Passion of the Christ I remembered the scene when Judas tries to give the silver back and he pulls or rubs at his mouth in disgust/despair, making it bleed. I wondered if he had done it with the bag's and why he was bleeding at the mouth when the children find him.
Now after reading the VERY good review by Dominic Bettinelli at his blog Bettnet--http://bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/
comments.php?id=P2733_0_1_0
I realized I had forgotten he had rubbed his mouth on the stone wall at th trial, too. He was trying to rub off the feeling of the kiss that he had betrayed Jesus with! Now, it's like a DUH moment w/ a WOW moment. Mel Gibson weaved in such great artistic imagery! I have to see the movie again and read through my Guide to the Passion book I just got to see what else I might have not caught.
I guess the DVd commentary will probably provide more detail on such imagery.
It's interesting that some within the Church are eager to interpret Canon 204 in a broad sense - everyone who is baptized is in some sense a member of the Church, but are unwilling to admit that someone like Mel might just be a part of the Church as well. As far as I can tell, he's not been formally excommunicated, schism is a pretty difficult thing for us mere laypersons to commit. He may be in error. He may hang around with the wrong crowd. His position vis-a-vis the Church may be ambiguous, but the Church is very forgiving and patient, and I would hesitate to call him schismatic or outside of the Church without hard, fast evidence. The situation with him building a church doesn't cut it. Yes, only a bishop can authorize the building of a church, but what about a chapel? a prayer room? a shrine? surely anyone who sets up a toolshed in the back yard and prays in it is not thereby a schismatic.
Susy,
You want some great Scripture study courses from a good, solid, orthodox (small 'o'), Roman Catholic source? Try Scott Hahn's Saint Paul Center for Biblical Theology (http://www.salvationhistory.com/). They have online studies that will give you precisely what you're looking for.
His latest monthly newsletter has some quotes from non-Catholics exclaiming how much richer and in-depth his studies are when compared to the ones they do at their various Protestant churches. Glowing endorsements from folks who are very experienced and typically good at Bible study.
Hope this helps.
+J.M.J+
>>>It's interesting that some within the Church are eager to interpret Canon 204 in a broad sense - everyone who is baptized is in some sense a member of the Church, but are unwilling to admit that someone like Mel might just be a part of the Church as well.
Good point.
>>>The situation with him building a church doesn't cut it. Yes, only a bishop can authorize the building of a church, but what about a chapel? a prayer room? a shrine? surely anyone who sets up a toolshed in the back yard and prays in it is not thereby a schismatic
One is allowed to build an oratory in ones house or on ones property, but it is not to be called a church or chapel, and the Blessed Sacrament cannot be kept there without the bishop's permission. I don't know what the exact situation is with Gibson's "chapel", though.
In Jesu et Maria,
I got lucky and was able to go yesterday during the day. All the shows for this weekend are sold out. The audience was filled with students from the local university. Before the movie, they were all talking and laughing together. When it began, they fell silent, then as the movie progressed all you could hear were muffled sobs. (Many of them were mine). After it was over, everyone stood up and left in total and utter silence.
I got in my car and turned off the radio. All that went through my head were the words of Isaiah 53. He was pierced for our sins, bruised for our iniquity. By his stripes we were healed.
I was filled with a sense of wonder at the awesome love of Jesus Christ and how he did this for me, as unworthy as I am.
BTW, the head of the religion department at the local university isn't going. He says the movie is anti-Semitic. Has he seen it? No.
Then how does he know? He just does.
His loss.
To pass through suffering,
Under the fiery lash of hate,
Is love's abiding test.
This late comment will probably go unread, but here it is:
I saw The Passion this week and I'm really divided in my own heart about the film. Speaking strictly for myself, I think the obscene level of gore was simply a distraction. The scourging at the pillar was so over the top that parts of it are burned in my mind--at the expense of other, more spiritually lucrative scenes (of which there are many). I happen to fall on the side of those who say that in fact NO man would survive such a scourging. Ever. The flails being used were not instruments of torture so much as execution. A man can die of blood loss from a single gash a quarter-inch wide and three inches long. To be covered in them from head to foot--well, lets just say people die from far, far less physical trauma every single day.
Again, I think the scene ought to have been reduced by about half; what would have been really lost by this? I also worry that some viewers will confuse the sheer trauma of witnessing such brutality with a mystical experience. Great theolgical and personal maturity are indespensible for a proper appreciating of Gibson's work, and Americans generally possess neither of these in abundance.
Anti-semitism? I don't know. Some have made genuinely persuasive cases against Gibson, and against this film in particular, and I must say that whether it was because I was searching for it or because Gibson was negligent, I had concerns of my own during about the first half. I am absolutely no fan of Andrew Sullivan's--he's about as Catholic as Noam Chomsky is patriotic--but I shared his revulsion with the scene of leering, diabolical Jewish children transmogrifying into demons. It might not have been intentionally anti-Semitic, but it at the very least extremely careless, given the history of such imagery--a history Gibson no doubt knows well. My mind was put a little at ease by the moving portrayal of a slandered Simon of Cyrene (the worst slander of all, to have one's identity spit out like an epithet) manfully linking arms with Jesus and dragging his burden forward. It struck me as a heart-breakingly generous extension of interfaith friendship, and I'm a little shocked so few people has remarked upon it. Again, a fact probably explicable by the sheer gratuity of the violence, which overshadows what moments of genuine subtlety the movie otherwise achieves.
Another thing to keep in mind is that people are accustomed to watching movies for pleasure. Anyone who watches this film for pleasure won't be babysitting for me. So in a certain sense I can sympathize with reviewers who gave it 1 star, or people who condemn it for fetishizing violence. Viewing The Passion as a piece of Catholic iconography rather than as an attempt at entertainment requires the good faith only a Christian will be willing to extend to poor Mel Gibson.
While it may seem like I'm panning The Passion, I'm not. It was of limited spiritual value to me personally,
Oops, exceeded my limit. Oh, well. I went on to praise its merits, but others have done a better job at that.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with studying the Bible with an evangelical. It can get a bit frustrating at times, but it is enlightening. It was, in fact, my frienship with a Baptist coworker who lead me to Marks for help. If it weren't for my Baptist friend (who prefers to describe himself as a Christian who goes to a Baptist church), I would not be up to my knees in scripture right now.
If you are looking for Catholic Bible Study, go to Catholicexchange.com. There, you will find studies authored by our very own Mark Shea. Other enlightenment may be found in the Sheavings on Mark's Web page and in his books.
And, no, Mark's not paying me, nor have I ever met him. I'm just showing my appreciation for his help.
+J.M.J+
>>>but I shared his revulsion with the scene of leering, diabolical Jewish children transmogrifying into demons.
I didn't particularly care for that scene, and I don't know exactly what Gibson intended by it, but I interpreted it as symbolic of Judas' sin and guilt distorting his view of reality. Even little children appeared evil to him. For all I know, Gibson might have intended them to be real demons pretending to be children, but I interpreted it differently for some reason.
That was one of my least favorite scenes as well, along with the falling off the bridge scene and the crow plucking out Gesmas' eye.
Someone earlier said "So the bird wasn't a stretch", and that's true. But I still didn't like what happened to Gesmas, not because I thought it unlikely but because his suffering did not have meaning the way Christ's did. The violence against Our Lord was different, meditating on the Passion accustoms one to that. But what happened to Gesmas just seemed like an unnecessary, gratuitous addition to an already intensely violent movie.
Then again, I could be missing a lesson there about how sin blinds us. St Alphonsus de Ligouri once wrote: "When a raven finds a dead body it's first act is to pluck out the eyes; and the first injury that impurity inflicts on the soul is to take away the light of the things of God".
In Jesu et Maria,
AnnF:
The check's in the mail.
By the way, if anyone is still curious about the "demon baby" scene, Mel Gibson gives his answer in this article:
http://www.christianitytoday.com...01-
passion.html
Someone on another website made the point that for years to come, when people think of Jesus, they will see Caviezel's portrayal of him. Even more than that, when I think of Mary, I will see Maia Morgenstern, and her penetrating eyes and her careworn but determined face. Mel has given the world a strong, tender, and Jewish portrait of the Mother of God, and for this memorable image I thank him. What Morgenstern achieves with only expressions and gestures makes her performance one of the finest from an actress that I have seen in some years.
+J.M.J+
I haven't commented much on Maia Morgenstern's Mary. She was excellent, but one image in particular struck me.
During the Crucifixion, Mary was kneeling on the ground digging her hands into the dirt and rocks. Then, as the Cross was raised she rose to her feet, her clenched fists still holding some dirt and pebbles.
As the camera focused on her hands she slowly opened them, letting the contents fall to the ground. The camera then panned upward, and her pose at that moment was reminiscent of traditional images of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal; the falling dirt somewhat resembled the rays of light coming out of her open hands.
Anyone else notice that?
In Jesu et Maria,
I agree with Rosemarie about the scene with the children. At first they come by just to get their ball, and they aren't demonic at all. Then when Judas starts to think about what he's done he sees everyone and everything as evil (which they are compared to the great good of Jesus). The children are just normal children, but through Judas's eyes they're evil and acusing. He starts yelling at them, so they chase after him to find out what's going on.
As the camera focused on her hands she slowly opened them, letting the contents fall to the ground. The camera then panned upward, and her pose at that moment was reminiscent of traditional images of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal; the falling dirt somewhat resembled the rays of light coming out of her open hands.
Yes, Rosemarie, that image also stayed with me. The thought entered my mind as well that at that moment in time for Mary, humanly speaking, her desires to come to Jesus' aid could have felt to her like holding nothing but earthly limitations while He was fulfilling the Father's will and she was joined to that will as well. Yet ...as we know from the messages re: the final dogma, the prayer for this dogma states "May the Lady of All Nations, who once was Mary, be our Advocate." The meaning of once was Mary is that is how she was known while on earth ...and yet with all of her "promotions" after her Assumption, she has been given so much more by way of graces pouring forth from her hands. Mary, then and now! One connecting to the other.
Also, to add another little tail feather to the discussion, does anyone know anything about Mel's relationship with his mother? We hear mostly about the great influence of the strong father, but I wonder if the mother had some steady, but more of a quiet background influence. Was her own personality kept back by the father's strong opinions and ways? That could also say a lot about Mel's manner.
I also had the same interpretation of the children and Judas as those nearby above.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I loved the kids/demons scene. So unexpected and creepy. I saw them as another trick of Satan's - they appear good, but are really not, which is typical of evil. Aren't there demons that do Satan's evil work? Well, there you are. And I don't know for sure, but wasn't the actor who played the kid demon the same one that was the Satan baby? It looked like the same face to me, and would make sense.
Regardless of Mel's canonical status or personal beliefs vis a vis the postconciliar Church, does anyone else find this really interesting: One of the Council's key points was the need for the evangelization of culture by the use of modern media - a thing which we "Novus Ordo Catholics" or whatever term you like, have by and large been unsuccessful at, but that took a traditionalist with an unapologetically Catholic perspective to achieve. A little Divine irony?
I hope that perhaps through Mel's "traditionalist" use of media, everybody else will start presenting the undiluted faith without fear that "modern man might not like it," and that perhaps Mel will be able to reconcile with the Church someday.
With the exception of the "crow on the cross" scene (which I found somewhat gratuitous), and the over-the-top Judas death discouse (which I found distracting), this is a perfect piece of Catholic religious art, if not the ultimate tool for conversion (though I may be wrong on this, and would love to be). Then again, I don't recall Gibson claiming he intended it as a means of preaching to the unconverted, so it doesnt fail in this respect at all.
Only the non-religious can - and do - call this a work without spiritual meaning. If Mad Mel's religious "baggage" is relevant to the discussion, then so must the same for each of the film's detractors. Gibson's film separates sheep from goats - those who "get it", and those who don't. The same Christ who came that we "might have life" also came with a sword, and made it clear in no uncertain terms that He was the ONLY way to the Father. He was and is, as CS Lewis said, either "liar, lunatic or Lord"; that line he drew in the sand demands that you decide which one.
Mock this near-perfect Christian work of art, created by a far-from perfect fringe Catholic (which, for me, makes the art the more perfect) if you must, but in doing so you only confirm that you don't "get it." And complaints that the art fails because it doesnt show enough of Christ's life before, or of his Resurrection after, could be said for any painting in the Louvre; they are about as legitimate as criticizing the Venus de Milo because her arms are missing.
Dan G,I think you're overstating it a bit with the separating sheep from goats thing there. I mean I hope I'm wrong: I hope, instead of Christ asking me what I did for the least of his brothers, He asks me if I liked Mel's movie, when I die. But while I did think it a powerful and prayerful work, I'd be willing to grant salvation (as far as it's up to me) to others who hate, even ridicule the film.
And what's up with that milo thing, anyway? I mean, she's got no arms! Terrible, what they're calling "art" nowadays!
I agree with Dan G about those who either "get it" or don't. This movie spoke to me like nothing I've ever seen. I believe alot but not all, of the people who don't like the movie, don't really "believe" the gospels or christianity to be true, that's why they don't "get it".
To clarify - when i say "those who get it" and "those who don't", I refer to Christ's message and purpose, not necessarily the film itself...I mean, its great art, but its not authoritative itself!
However, I have reflected on that scene alot since seeing the film. Its not one that gets alot of press, but for me it was one of the most significant in the film (and, along with so many of the flashback sequences, renders the "all blood, no substance" complaint all the more moot). In reading the Gospel accounts I don't see where it says he drew a line per se, just that he drew some sort of message. The image of him slamming his finger in the dust and drawing that line, between their way and his Way - a reminder that he was there to "make all things new" .
An interesting analysis from the Ottawa Citizen's David Warren:
==================
IT'S JUST A MOVIE
-----------------
There was more to say about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, and I've now had a chance to digest the movie. I don't write as a reviewer, for what interests me is not the movie itself but its apparent size as a political, social, and religious phenomenon. The thing has outsold Lord of the Rings in its opening days -- by coincidence another cinematic spectacular built on Catholic Christian premises, though rather more subtly.
For many, many people, the movie has been a traumatic encounter with the reality of Christ's Crucifixion. It was intended to provide that, and I don't think Mr. Gibson's motives were cynical. He believes in what he has presented, and if he happened to employ some commercial savvy in peddling it, the more power to him.
To my mind, the movie merits two viewings, if only to give the viewer a chance to overcome in the second, the full power of the violence in the first. The scourging scene, for instance, goes on and on: at first view it seems unendurably horrible; at second, merely overdone. The comparison many critics have made to a medieval passion play is misleading: no such play could ever have been like this. Mr. Gibson's movie more resembles a grisly, north German, late medieval altarpiece. It is a visual work, in panels.
While it may be sold as an exact, Catholic, reproduction of the Passion from the Gospels, it can't be because there are subtle differences of emphasis, and of remembered detail, between the four Gospels. To which Mr. Gibson adds innumerable, small extra-Biblical features, only several of which were drawn from the visions of later Catholic mystics. In 20 years, this Passion according to Gibson will seem like a period piece from our decade. It will probably continue to have a vogue, however, as a very memorable period piece.
The flashbacks are lame, and the figure of Jesus in them is presented in happyface. The mob scenes are cliched. The lighting is often lurid. The opening Gethsemane scene is too obviously sound-staged. The reconstruction of ancient Jerusalem is full of exaggeration: it was a city on a hill, not on a mountain. The figure of Satan is tacky: making him androgynous or transsexual was a clever idea, but could have been so much better done.
There are several bad, overstated performances, though creditable interpretations of Mother Mary, Pontius Pilate, and perhaps Simon of Cyrene.
Even when well done, such pregnant lines as Pilate's "Quid est veritas?" are reduced to post-modern irony. ("What is truth? Tell me about it! I'll tell you what MY truth is.")
And yet a movie can have all these flaws, and triumph. Mr. Gibson has done this by absolutely refusing to patronize his audience. This is the besetting sin in almost every recent attempt to "make scripture relevant." Each looks down a long nose; each says, "Here is a form o
part 2 of David Warren:
And yet a movie can have all these flaws, and triumph. Mr. Gibson has done this by absolutely refusing to patronize his audience. This is the besetting sin in almost every recent attempt to "make scripture relevant." Each looks down a long nose; each says, "Here is a form of Christianity specially adapted for simpletons like you." Mr. Gibson despises the elite that does this, and his movie shows contempt for their strictures.
It is just a movie, however, and Christians who find that their spiritual lives are thrown into turmoil by it, must ask themselves how deeply they believed.
The movie is worth having, not as a means to salvation, but as an affront to the contemporary depiction of Jesus as a gliberal "nice guy." It nails the meat back on the empty cross. Mr. Gibson has hurled a much-needed slab of bloodied flesh in the face of "Christianity Lite."
And this is in turn a contribution to the "ecumenical dialogue." For it is a Catholic reply to the polite, progressive, Protestant request for a bloodless Christ. It is a reminder that, in true Christian religion, there is an order of logic -- and before we can be resurrected, we will first have to die. The Crucifixion is the message of Christ on our side of the grave, and especially in Lent, it behooves us to contemplate that message carefully.
In this sense, the movie is indeed a voice crying in the wilderness. But it is a voice commanding action. The salvation of our souls does not depend, and could not possibly depend, upon watching the right movies. It demands instead that we put Christ's own exemplary sacrifice before us, and live that sacrifice in our own lives. For every human being has been assigned his own cross to carry, and each provided with the means to lift it, by the saving grace.
+J.M.J+
Well, I disagree with some of his criticisms of the movie (though he's entitled to his opinion). But I like the last part of the article.
>>>The movie is worth having, not as a means to salvation, but as an affront to the contemporary depiction of Jesus as a gliberal "nice guy." It nails the meat back on the empty cross. Mr. Gibson has hurled a much-needed slab of bloodied flesh in the face of "Christianity Lite."
Definitely!
And its popularity among both Catholics and Evangelicals really says something.
In Jesu et Maria,
I just wanted to be 172.
+J.M.J+
Speaking of the film's popularity, I just checked out BoxOfficeMojo.com, and TPOTC is #1 again for this weekend, even beating out new films like Starsky and Hutch:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/wee...&wknd=10&
p=.htm
I must see this film again! I never thought I'd say that about a violent R-rated film, since I generally dislike violent, gory movies, but this is totally different.
In Jesu et Maria,
In his absence I'm beginning to feel like a crow feeding on Mark's carcass, but after mentioning above the connection I felt in the film to "Mary, Co-redemptrix" I received an e-mail with the following:
"Now, the cause for Our Lady's role of coredemption has received a boost from the most unexpected of sources, a Hollywood blockbuster. (Ha ha, some people might say that in itself is an argument against it!) So, no doubt it will stimulate further debate on this vexed question. Read on." AJR
Gibson’s Passion and Mary “Co-redemptrix”
In a recent interview with Mel Gibson, Christianity Today referred to Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic who “likes the Tridentine Latin Mass and calls Mary Co-redemptrix.” There’s another well-known Catholic who also calls the Mother of Jesus the Co-redemptrix: His name is Pope John Paul II. He has done so on six occasions during his post Vatican II pontificate.
What does the Co-redemptrix title mean? From the Catholic perspective, it refers to Mary’s unique human participation with Jesus (and entirely subordinate to her divine son) in the historic work of saving humanity from sin. Jesus is the only Redeemer, in the sense that he alone as the one divine mediator between God and man could redeem or “buy back” the human family from the bonds of Satan and sin. But God willed that the Mother of Jesus participate in this redemptive process like no other creature.
In light of her Immaculate Conception in which she was conceived without original sin through the foreseen merits of her Son, Mary is the sinless virgin Mother in total “enmity” or opposition with Satan, who becomes the ideal human partner with Jesus in the salvation of the human race. Early Christian writers called her the “New Eve,” who together with Jesus, the “New Adam,” accomplished the work of salvation for all the fallen children of the original Adam and Eve.
Mel Gibson has given the world its most powerful cinematic portrayal of the Mother of Jesus precisely as the Co-redemptrix in his blockbuster film, The Passion of the Christ.
From early in the film it is clear that Mary alone has a special participation in Jesus’ saving mission. As the soldiers of the Sanhedrin bring Jesus in to stand trial before Caiaphas, Jesus looks at Mary from across the courtyard and Mary says softly, “It has begun, Lord . . . so be it.” The Mother knows that the mission of human redemption has begun. She offers her sorrowful “so be it” to this mission to accompany her joyful “so be it” at the announcement of the angel Gabriel which first brought the Redeemer into the world.
Throughout the film, it is only Jesus and Mary who see their mutual adversary Satan, in his androgenized form. During the way of the cross, Mary slides her way through the crowd to accompany her tortured son carrying his cross when she spots Satan as he parallels her movements on the other side of the crowd. She recognizes her antagonist, looks at him
cont'd:
She recognizes her antagonist, looks at him for a moment, and then refixes her gaze on her suffering son.
Earlier, Satan appears during the scourging of Jesus carrying a demonic child, which conveys the Old Testament Genesis prophecy of the battle between the “woman” and her “seed” (Jesus Christ), and the serpent (Satan) and his “seed” or offspring of evil. After the scourging, Mary is inspired to soak up the blood of the Savior, splattered throughout the area of the pillar, with linens. She alone knows that each drop of this divine blood is supernaturally redemptive.
Many times during the savage process of the passion (for example, at the scourging, during the way of the cross, at Calvary), it is the glance of his Mother that gives Jesus the human support that strengthens him to proceed to the next stage of suffering. After one fall on the Via Dolorosa, Mary crawls next to her mutilated son and re-assures him: “I’m here.” Jesus regains some focus and replies to her concerning the mission: “See Mother, I make all things new.”
It is not Jesus alone, but all the disciples (Peter, John, the Magdalene), who call Mary, “Mother.” On Calvary, Mary receives from Jesus her designation as universal Mother.
As Jesus, who is affixed to the cross, is being raised up from the ground, Mary, whose hands clutched the rocky ground as her sons’ hands were nailed to the cross, rises from her kneeling position in proportion to her son’s being raised on the cross. She then stands upright as her son is now upright on the gibbet.
After some time, Mary approaches the cross with John, the beloved disciple. She kisses Jesus’ bloodied foot, and pleads for permission to die with him at this climactic moment of redemption: “Flesh of my flesh, Heart of my heart, my Son. Let me die with you!” Jesus responds to his mother and to John: “Woman, behold your son. Son, behold your mother.” As the fruit of her sufferings with Jesus, Mary becomes the spiritual mother of all beloved disciples, and of all humanity redeemed at Calvary.
In The Passion of the Christ, Gibson has accomplished a Marian feat no pastor or theologian could achieve in the same way. He has given the world through its most popular visual medium a portrayal of a real human mother, whose heart is inseparably united to her son’s heart. This mother’s heart is pierced to its very depths as she spiritually shares in the brutal immolation of her innocent son. Hers is an immaculate heart which silently endures and offers this suffering with her son for the same heavenly purpose: to buy back the human race from sin.
Mary Co-redemptrix has been given her first international film debut in a supporting role, and it’s a hit.
Dr. Mark Miravalle
Professor of Theology and Mariology
Franciscan University of Steubenville
I've yet to see the movie. I'm particularly
interested in is the way in which Mary is
depicted, her reactions to her son's
suffering.
Mark,
What a terrific reflection on the film and its effects. Thank you.
Mel Gibson on his parents, Parade Magazine, July 28, 2002:
My mom was a really good mom, always accessible, very softhearted, emotional and poetic. She just did what she had to do, which was take care of a bunch of people. She was selfless. My dad was a blue-collar guy who fought with the U.S. Army in World War II at Guadalcanal. He's 84 now, very intelligent, knowledgeable in Latin and Greek and canon law. Both my parents always had tremendous faith in God, even when times got rough and we were on welfare. They didn't give a hoot for money. My dad would say, "It's a sin to worry. It's a lack of trust in God." I grew up like that. I didn't give a damn about money.
As a cradle Catholic, I had really high hopes for The Passion. I've been a fan of Mel Gibson the man, if not all of his movies, for years, for the same reasons many of you are...
I have to say I was deeply disappointed in The Passion. Mel lost me in the first five minutes with so much imagery, dialog, and plotlines that can be found nowhere in the Bible. That whole weird Satan-in-the-background thing was distracting. What was the deal with the freaky looking baby he was carrying at one point? Before the movie was over, my wife and I had taken to referring to those two characters as Marilyn Manson and Mini-Me. Total distractions.
The continuous parade of interpeted or imagined (totally fictional is more like it) Biblical History provided for even more distraction from the central message of the real Passion.
As to the violence; it seems to be considered some sort of sacrilege or heresy to question the level of violence in this film.
Well, I do question it. The violence was so over-the-top as to become a caricature.
OK, the first five minutes of the scourging was moving, in an awful kind of way. Exactly what Gibson was going for. I get that. But, I know a little bit about physiology.
One thing I know is that muscles that have been cut to ribbons, and all the way to the bone, are not usable anymore. They won't respond to any stimulus from the brain because they can't. There's nothing there to respond. I mean, c'mon, do any of us really believe that Wile E. Coyote could just walk away after the bomb goes off in his face if he weren't a cartoon character?
Biblically, historically, and traditionally, all evidence points to Jesus having received 39 lashes. Look it up. Not 3900 or whatever it was they did in the movie. It was so overdone as to become boring. How sad; the suffering that Jesus willingly took upon himself rendered boring on the big screen.
If Jesus was indeed fully human, then he was completely subject to the limitations of the human body. That means shredded muscles don't lift up crosses. If he wasn't subject to human limitations, then why bother with the whole Sacrifice? Why bother suffering and dying if it's just an act?
From someone who has tasted this Koolaid and found it distasteful, the abject worship (And I used the word I meant to use here--worship) of this movie appears to have crossed the line into heresy. First Commandment stuff.
Look, if you like this movie and it does something for you spiritually, then good for you. I don't have any problem with that. But don't try to bully me into thinking somehow if I don't love this movie, my faith is somehow suspect.
IT'S JUST A MOVIE!!!!!
We'll be watching Jesus of Nazareth again this Easter. Not spending any money going back to see that movie again.
+J.M.J+
Quixote:
You're right. It is ultimately just a movie. If you don't like it that doesn't make you a bad Christian. I don't think anyone here is trying to "bully" anyone, just expressing their opinions. You're entitled to your opinion as well.
One quibble: the 39 lashes was a Jewish practice; they limited the number of lashes to below 40 in order to show mercy. Jesus was not scourged by Jews, though, but by Roman soldiers who did not necessarily limit themselves to just 39 lashes.
As for the devil and the baby, Gibson himself says it is intended to make a statement about evil; that evil attempts to look beautiful but cannot. There is always something "off" about its attempts to appear beautiful.
That was his personal vision for the film. If that doesn't appeal to you, that's fine.
In Jesu et Maria,
Hi old friend.
Aaron Butler's comments above are apropos, because he, like many in this country, and I would contend evangelicals in particular, just don't get it.
And this, of course, involves a proper understanding of the atonement, and how Our Lord's sacrifice could be an efficacious sacrifice in and of itself. When I was an aspiring Baptist seminary student I was often troubled because the necessity of Our Lord's sacrifice and the prohibition against human sacrifice appeared to be contradictory. I always had difficulty understanding that apart from the Cross' necessity as an expression of the sheer force of the will of God until I became a Catholic.
Our Lord's sacrifice is atoning or efficacious because of WHO HE IS. It's not the fact that Our Lord suffers immense physical suffering as it is HE WHO IS THE ONE SUFFERING. And he suffered in this way to demonstrate the depth of love, his intense resolve to die in a public and humiliating manner to do just as he says: "to draw all men unto myself."
To answer Mr. Butler's objections, it may be likely that there are individuals he knows who have suffered more than our Lord did during his passion and sacrifice. There may even have existed some unfortunate Jew in antiquity, crucified by the Romans, who suffered much more than Our Lord. It is possible, and very much beside the point. Our Lord's sacrifice is efficacious because He is the source of all life that exists. The passion and sacrifice he endured was his choice to end his ministry, after having instituted the "New Covenant" the night before with his principle disciples, and thereby to associate himself with the Jewish theological concepts of the passover, and the passover lamb which he embodied in his being. As the Jews were "passed over" by the wrath of God and released from their slavery, so are we who receive Christ's Blood, and are released from the more endemic slavery to sin and disobedience.
The very purpose of the theological concept of "sacrifice" itself in ancient religions, including the Hebrew religion, was to "draw near" to the source of life. In the New Covenant instituted by Our Lord, the source of Life draws near to us and makes Life available in the Bread and Wine which he made, by his fiat, his own life essence which symbolizes his death in the separation of Body from Blood. And that is why Our Lord is quoted in John's gospel: "Unless you eat my flesh you have no life in you."
Kenneth Smith
Monroe, Louisiana
19 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
