actualy hadn't heard of the "jewish soldiers" bit.
now don't get me wrong, i wasn't defending this film, i really don't want to run out and see this right away, rather like yourself i could easily wait until i see it on the big tv at home. frankly, the violence of this picture seems to border on fetish, and that's not my bag, baby.
what i was talking about in my response was that there was no innocent party in the story of jesus' betrayal. chaiphus and the sanhedron(sp?) are certainly shown to be threataned by the rising popularity of jesus and his teachings, and were instumental in putting jesus on pilot's map. does that mean "the jews killed jesus"? hell, no. it just means that often times people in positions of power are loathe to give it up.
i find the polarizing aspects of this film to be facinating, moreso than the film itself, actually. i've always enjoyed gibson and his movies for the most part, but this whole debacle has made him seem a little kookish to me, and having people like robert schuller suck up to him on tv has put him in the wrong ultraconservitive camp for me.
ron, i've got to agree with you that this is a man's artisic vision of a story, like any other, and should be interpreted that way. what is interesting to me is how it brings the most Passionate(sorry), and in many ways, worst in both the christan and jewish groups."foul deeds will rise" indeed...
well, laurie went to see this on friday, i decided that i was not in the mood for that much emotional experience on a beautiful sunny afternoon, and stayed home. a little later, i received a call from laurie, who had to actually leave early as the violence was so graphic, that she literally threw up. i have never known laurie to get sick from a film, so this one must be particularly gory. i think i'll be missing this one altogether. besides, i know how the "story" ends.
Commenting by HaloScan
