| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
|
I'm definitely going to see the movie. |
|
I always thought it was a great piece of drama....what could be so bad as to make Jesus himself think, "Please, I don't want to go through with this" and fall on the ground and weep? That just makes the reader stop and think about it for a while. And then you find out. |
|
anyway, end of rant about historical accuracy. Hooray for Master and Commander. |
Remember that Gibson still has his mass delivered in Latin also. So it probably made sense to him. I still want to see this movie, If only to reinforce my ideas about the true message of Christ. Forgiveness, love, understanding. Things that most "Christians" don't act very much like Jesus about now. Maybe if they see what they have been claiming to live about, a few will wake up. Save the christians from themselves. It looks like it's a really well made, even if parts of it are fairy tales. |
It's too rare when I can actually use my educational specialty on these boards! |
|
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096025/ |
Plus, if I go with my (non-religious) dad and (atheist) brother like they want, I'll be embarrassed if I cry, so I probably won't let myself get emotionally involved.....and if I don't have that, what's left? |
|
the christians were crying their eyes out, but some walked out saying "I now question the existence of God because of this movie" |
|
I found them quite interesting. But, the one, on either the history channel ot the learning channel, I found a bit disturbing. They painted christ as a sort of fundamentalist fanatic. Like the suicide bombers of today. |
this one dude said "No loving God would allow his son to go through such suffering" you know, dumbass "why do bad things happen to good people" shit. A better statement... the first line of Igby Goes Down i dont remember exactly how it goes but it was like "if Jesus is the son of God and is going to go to heaven anyway, why is being crucified such a huge fucking sacrifice?" |
It was an amazing, intense, horriffic movie. I actually haven't really had time to process how I feel about it or even to begin to critique it. I feel almost physically ill, as many of the audience did. However, a note: I really do not feel that the movie was anti-semetic in any way. If anything, you leave wanting to go bag some Romans. I agree with Gibson for arguing that these events occured 2000 years ago--I don't think anyone leaves holocause movies wanting to kill Germans, and likewise no one left this theatre wanting to kill Jews. It really irritates me that people seemed to feel that way. But this is one girl's opinion. Anyway. Go see it. It's violent, it's awful, it's intense, it's all that and a bag of chips. When I have had some time to digest it I will try and offer more thoughtful commentary. But my gut reaction: ohmigod. I think that everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, was crying by the end. My hardcore athiest friend said she was going home to "rethink her life." Who knows. |
|
|
"No loving God would allow his son to go through such suffering" That's completely missing the point. Wait, no, that *is* the point -- that a loving God took on human form and chose to suffer like that so that we wouldn't have to. He suffered both in his flesh and in his spirit to save us from that suffering after the day of judgment, and also to sanctify the suffering that we experience on earth. The fact that Jesus had to do it in no way makes it any less of a sacrifice. That's why there was the Agony in the Garden of Gethesemane -- Jesus knew exactly what he would have to do, and it terrified him. |
Hopefully she'll reform and become a devout agnostic. :) |
|
"No loving God would allow his son to go through such suffering" I can understand how the *graphic* representation of the film might affect someone more than just reading about it. But come on! Were they really under the impression before that dragging a cross for miles, wearing a crown of thorns on your head, and hanging by stakes driven into your hands and feet maybe wasn't that bad? I mean, I was made well aware of Jesus' suffering, both from going to CCD and hearing about it from this teacher we had who told us that the crown of thorns is misrepresented in all the paintings and that it was actually shaped like a helmet. Just seeing the almost-life-size emaciated, bloody Christ-on-the-Cross hanging every week at Church should have driven the point home. |
How did he/she know? |
I will never forget that. |
|
... |
Gibson goes on the O'Reilly Factor, and Bill says that he is being unfairly 'blacklisted' for daring have an opinion and it needs to stop.... hello? Dixie Chicks! Can I see some consistency? Show me some consistency, Billy. |
* Over all, I thought it was well-done. The acting was good, the sets and costumes were good. The Sanhedrin were portrayed in a bad light, but so were the Romans. A woman was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer as saying, "This movie isn't anti-semitic, it's anti-sin," and I agree with that. The people you saw made out to be ugly were people who did ugly things; the people who loved Jesus were shown in a good light. It was that simple. Ethnicity didn't come into it. * I think this is a great answer to all the people who don't believe in God because they can't accept that a loving God would allow us to suffer. NO ONE is spared from suffering, not even God incarnate, not even Mary, the perfect human. Suffering is a part of existence. And look how much God suffers! (Or, as it says in the Bible, "See if there is any suffering like mine.") Further, tradition holds that he suffered all pain, always, across time, during the last 24 hours of his life -- in other words, his divinity allowed him to suffer beyond the injuries to his body. This is how he was able to sanctify suffering, because he experienced it all. * I loved the portrayal of Satan. Seeing him/her hold the "baby" during the flagellation scene in a mockery of Mary and the baby Jesus was cool. So were the demon children who tormented Judas. * There were several moments that made me think if this were any other movie, I'd be rolling my eyes so hard right now, but since it's *true*.... like the scene juxtaposing Mary picking Jesus up as a little boy and after he had fallen on the way to Calvary. I cried there, and I was kind of excited to learn something new to think about while saying the rosary, but objectively speaking, that was maudlin. * I was kind of disappointed by the dialogue. I felt like the screenwriter (Gibson?) had picked and chosen little soundbites, and he had chosen the wrong ones, or chosen to omit certain, more powerful, lines. For example, I really wanted to hear the "Are you the king of the Jews?" / "You say that I am" exchange. Why was that omitted? It's in the gospel of John. And I thought the flashback scenes could have been more powerful, or give a better picture of Jesus' teachings, for those unfamiliar with him. Like the beatitudes or something. Instead, I thought the flashbacks were kind of weak. I did like seeing him with Mary, though. * My dad, who knows both Vulgar and Church Latin, said they did a good job with it and their accents were good. There was a neat little moment when Pilate spoke to Jesus in Aramaic and Jesus answered in Latin, suprising Pilate. (I'll overlook the historical inaccuracy of Latin in the first place.) * Monica Bellucci is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen. * Some HORRIBLE WOMAN talked ALL THROUGHOUT THE MOVIE. She sat way in the back, and you constantly heard this low murmur throughout the entire two hours. She was, however, silent during the few seconds before the Resurrection, as was everyone else in the theatre. I think it would have been neater if the camera had been trained on Jesus' face in a full shot, so you could see his eyes open head on. The shot you did see, however, is the "imago pietatis" and is the "shot" you see often in medieval religious art: Jesus sitting up in his tomb after he comes back to life. * This isn't really a comment on the movie, but in the movie and in the gospels, it's the women who are most affected by Jesus' suffering, and it's women who first see him after he's resurrected. And it's interesting that whenever I go to Adoration or to daily Mass, most of the people there are women. In fact, very often, it's all women. I wonder what the real reason for that is. |
You say you "learned" new things from the movie, but the example you give seems like an artistic license than something that is new. and of course, the "trueness" of the movie is not objective. It's the interpretation of one man of four oft-contradictory texts written many years after the original event with non-historiographic goals in mind. I'm guessing that Jesus' Jewishness was either played way down or omitted entirely. Anyway, I still don't know if I want to see this movie. From everything I've read, it's really missed the mark. One interesting thing is that I think people who don't want the movie to be anti-semitic are saying it's not. While others are pointing out things that can be construed as anti-semitic. Spider, were there any instances that you can think of where Jews were positively portrayed? I ask since I doubt I will be seeing this until it hits the $1 theater. I think I will probably see it just to judge for myself how Gibson did. |
There is likely no single or real reason, other than perhaps leftovers from antiquated ideals about womanhood and spirituality. Some historical ideals of womanhood have constructed them as a kind of moral *superior,* the spiritual caretakers of the family (not within the actual church)...of course this is after it was decided that women did have souls after all. This differs from religion to religion and demonination to denomination. Professors of mine say there is a similar dynamic in many black churches of more woman than men. Growing up I remember church being a "family" thing and that fathers were there with their families, husbands with wives, but more women went alone then men did. "Women suffer more than men? I don't know." Where does it say that? It may be less about who suffered the most and more about how men's and women's reaction to suffering is portrayed and how that might be different based on gender...I am not saying that is accurate or not, just that it might be portrayed differently. Plus, I think the image of Mary might serve as a point of contrast for women. That it was women who were there when he was resurrected is significant, but I don't think it is indicative of who was more affected by his suffering. I don't know as much as Spider does, but I always got the impression that men were deeply affected by Jesus's suffering. |
|
and of course, the "trueness" of the movie is not objective. It's the interpretation of one man of four oft-contradictory texts written many years after the original event with non-historiographic goals in mind." I know that, but I'm giving my take on the movie, and I believe the events depicted in the movie are true. And I said I learned something new to meditate on while saying the rosary -- I don't care if Mary herself actually had those very thoughts at that moment. Just like my seeing a parallel between Mary running to the child Jesus in the temple after she'd lost him and Mary running to Jesus in heaven after her body was assumed, that image is just something for me to focus on while saying prayers. I think the movie really hit the mark in a devotional sense, but as a film, I thought it was way too melodramatic and over the top. (Enough with the slow-mo! Enough with the singing choirs turned up to ten in nearly every scene!) So, while it's not an especially good movie as movies go (I'd give it a B), it's an excellent source of imagery for meditation. I thought Jim Caviezel's Jesus was the best Jesus I have ever seen on film -- I thought he nailed the profound stillness Jesus had to have had, particularly in the flashback scenes and when he's standing next to Pilate on the balcony. Jews positively portrayed: Members of the Sanhedrin left (or were escorted, can't remember) the trial at the beginning when they became disgusted with the proceedings; the apostles and Mary were obviously portrayed in a good light; Veronica helps Jesus after he falls; people in the crown (mostly women) react in horror when they see Jesus on the way to Calvary; Simon the Cyrenean helps Jesus carry the cross and is very moved by his experience.....that's all I can remember off the top of my head. But, like I said, the movie portrayed the Jewish politicians in a bad light, not the Jews as a whole, and it also portrayed the Roman soldiers as disgusting animals. In no way did it single out Jews as the bad guys. I would go so far as to say if someone comes out of the film thinking it was anti-semitic, they're either hypersensitive or anti-semitic themselves and looking for justification. But they'd find that anywhere, anyway. AND, this movie does nothing regarding the depicition of Jews and Romans that hasn't been done before. King Herod as effeminate? Herod in "Jesus Christ Superstar" was much more so. The Sanhedrin as bloodthirsty hypocrites? See Zefferelli's "Jesus of Nazareth." Women being more "into" Jesus than men: I didn't mean that women sufferend more, but that there were a larger number of devout women than devout men. I have no doubt that there are very devout men who are profoundly moved by Jesus's message and his suffering, but it seems to me that there are more women than men similarly affected. Maybe it's entirely a cultural thing. Maybe Catholic men are afraid of looking weak if they're too spiritual or something, so they stay out of church except on Sundays. But really, I have no idea -- it's just my impression based on my experience. Last night I went to adoration and (including me) there were 3 women there and 2 men. That's not a significant difference. But many times there will be, say, 12 women there and only one man. And adoration is simply praying before the exposed Eucharist in silence (you don't have to sing or anything :) ), so there's nothing to it that would "obviously" appeal to more women than men. I talked to my mother about this and she said it probably has to do with women's maternal instincts and wanting to care for someone who's wounded and in pain. Eh, maybe. Don't worry, Kazu, I don't believe for a moment that women are naturally morally superior to men or anything like that (which is one of the reason I love Margaret Atwood's "The Robber Bride" so much -- her message is that if women claim to be equal to men in all things, they also have to accept an equal capacity to do evil. I agree.). |
I think your mom has a point though, whether biological or social or a combination of both, many women tend toward caretaking roles, though that's not an absolute by any means. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking it's a good sign for him that's he not dead! Cavizel also suffered hypotherma, put his shoulder out and and suffered a 14 inch slash to his back during the flogging scene. |
|
|
I was raised knowing about Jesus and told that he was the only way for salvation from before I can remember. I have read all the gospels more than once. Now as an adult, I am a practicing Pagan, but hold a spot open for Christ as a wonderful mythos and a beautful if sometimes awful story about the price of redemption. The sound in our theater was lousy. But the picture was very clear. The movie doesn't waste any time dropping you in the story. Garden of Gesthamene, you are there. Satan, played by a woman, gave me the chills up and down my neck. Nice small tempatation scene here, did any one notice the maggot crawling out and in of her nose? When Petra hacks a Romans ear off, thus begins the single goriest movie I have ever seen. Ever. It was painful to my soul to watch. Really. Cavizel does an amazing job in this movie. There is some great cut away scenes where we see him and Mary and he's making a table, the first time I have ever seen Jesus doing carpentry and being a fully human Jesus, but not a crackpot like Dafoes Jesus. I thought the flashback scenes were almost as powerful as the crucifiction scenes. The tortures are so awful and gory that Gibson had to cut away at some point or the audience wouldn't be able to take any more. Scary demon imagery also. There's an interesting scene where the newly captured Jesus is thrown over a low hanging bridge and into the face of a cowering Judas. I felt like it was another chance for Judas to say he was sorry, but he couldn't do it. The Judas suicide reminded me of a NIN video, watch it and you'll see what I mean. By the time of the beating, you'll be sucked into the story if you let yourself go along for the ride. Every lash, I winced and gasped. The Romans are pulling out chunks of flesh. I had to look away at one point as tears streamed down my face. It was one of the hardest things I've ever watched. The women who play the two Marys are wonderful. The scenes with Mary, mother of Jesus are the best in the movie. Nik (my wife) and I were both crying at the scene where she runs to pick Jesus up as a child and on the ground under the weight of the cross. I was thinking about the use of Latin in the movie. It could be because Gibson still recieves Mass in Latin and that's how he wanted to hear the words. The Aramic is wonderful. I think the hype about this movie be anti-semitic is just that. Hype. Bullshit. If anything, the movie could be construed as anti-Roman, anti-Italian. They were like animals, all cruel laughing and spitting. Pilates character and Claudia were well done in their short screen time. Pilate had NO choice to but crucify Christ as Chaphias was going to cause a giant riot during passover, causing Roman soldiers to die and Pilate to lose his own head to Rome. You can see chunks of Jesus sticking out under the skin. I have never seen anything that cruel in a movie before. Parts of him are hanging off. His eyes are smashed in. Blood, blood, blood. Simon of Cyrynes character was wonderful. I love the tearing of the curtin in the temple mount as Jesus is dying. The man who played James, the borhter of Jesus also did a great job. The only thing I didn't like was the pearl harbor shot of the tear from heaven. That was cheesy. I thought the score was amazing. I want to go buy the soundtrack. All in all, don't believe the hype. Just go see the movie for yourself. It'd be best if you cleared your mind of all the talk and just go in with an open slate, then I'd be interested in what you think. There were vultures handing out pamphlets when we were leaving. Some people just don't get it. I'm not sure I really want to see this movie again, but I think I will make myself, just because of the scope and effort put in. I thought it was amazing. |
|
I'm glad you liked it. |
before I go into it, a quote: "The Jews didn't kill Jesus. The Romans didn't kill Jesus. The POLICE killed Jesus." -St. Palmer Vreedeez Ok. This movie was bad beyond belief. The cinematography was HORRIBLE. Horrible horrible horrible. The utter lack of context in the film, the failure to identify characters, the SLOW MOTION. Ugh. Just bad all around. Please God, don't let Mel Gibson direct any more movies. I guess if all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. and Gibson's hammer is melodrama. I thought the sheer amount of gore and violence crossed the line into what basically counts as pornography, a pornography of brutality and suffering. Perhaps with a better context in the film, it might not have crossed that line, but as it stands, the movie just comes off as an exercise in pain. It got to a point where it was just ludicrous. The flashback technique was utterly inadequate to give you a sense of what motivated the character of Jesus. You got no motivation whatsoever for Judas (whom I've always felt got a bum rap). The Roman officials are basically absolved of any responsibility. No explanation for why Claudia is sympathetic. No context to the place and times. Basically, if you didn't know much about the story beyond the basics going in, you brought the same back out. Plus, what's the deal with the Dark Lord of the Sith? I thought that was quite distracting and really detracted from the film, as did the demon children. This whole thing was a mess. The reasons I went to see it were a). my dad's in town and he wanted to see it and b). I wanted to judge for myself after reading a couple of reviews that trashed the film and then reading the two positive reviews here. I have to say I'm with the critics on this one. As far as anti-semitism goes, well, it wasn't overt. but there was an element of that to the film, perhaps not a conciously thought out thing. What I am referring to is the portray of the Jewish population as a whole, which gives an image of a population that is crying out for blood. The individual Jews who are against it in the film are few and far between, and get far less attention than the Romans with similar attitudes who are shown struggling with their consciences. I have to say also that the whole sheer high-falutin' overdramatic tone every single thing was given was a mistake as well, after about ten minutes it just got BORING. then I kept getting reminded of "Life of Brian". I kept expecting to see scenes from that movie. Especially when the Jewish crowd calls out to release Barrabas - it was all I could to do to not cry out "Welease Bwian!!" And to top it all off, the preview in front of the film was for Garfield: the Movie. Freaking GARFIELD. Jesus. |
|
From the American Institute of Archaeology website: Two Archaeologists Comment on The Passion of the Christ DR. ANDREA BERLIN AND DR. JODI MAGNESS* Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ is hardly a historical documentary. As the director himself asserts, and reviewers, religious leaders, and audience members agree, the movie is designed to bring to vivid life the nature and magnitude of Jesus’ sacrifice – an issue of theology rather than history. We are not theologians, but rather archaeologists specializing in the material remains and history of Roman Palestine. As such, we can not speak to the movie’s moral message, or even to the aesthetic or cinematic vision of the director. Some viewers may wonder, however, about the historical accuracy with which events and their settings are depicted. For those who are curious about Gibson’s fidelity to ancient sources, we offer the following information. LANGUAGE How do we know what languages people actually spoke in Roman Judaea? We have a lot of written evidence from the region that is contemporary with the era of Jesus: papyri, inscriptions, grafitti, and historical texts. From hundreds of examples surviving from Roman Judaea, we can easily document which languages people understood and used both in official transactions and in their daily lives. The ancient evidence is very clear on this point: the everyday language spoken by the Jewish and Samaritan populations of Palestine in the time of Jesus was Aramaic, while the official language for administrative communication was Greek. Thus one of the film’s major historical inaccuracies is the use of Latin instead of Greek. In the context of the movie, it may seem logical to hear Roman soldiers and officials speak Latin. After all, by the time of Jesus, Latin had long been the living language of the population of Rome as well as of most of Italy. In Judaea, however, nobody grew up speaking or even learning Latin. While Roman soldiers and officials from Rome probably did speak Latin among themselves, they would have used Greek to communicate with members of the local ruling class, such as Herod’s family and the Jewish high priests. As a poor Jew, Jesus presumably did not know Greek at all, and he certainly would not have known Latin (in one scene in the movie, he speaks with Pontius Pilate in Latin!). COSTUMES For this film to be an accurate depiction of Christ’s crucifixion, it would have to be rated X (NC-17). This is because crucified victims were executed in the nude. In everyday life, men and women alike wore tunics – a type of simple, one-piece dress, belted at the waist, with a hole for the head and two holes for the arms. A mantle (a large rectangular cloak) was worn over the tunic, but on the shoulders, not over the head as shown in the movie. Jewish men had tassels (called tzitzit) attached to the corners of their mantles. Long (ankle-length) tunics were worn by men for ceremonial purposes (for example, by priests) as well as by women, and short (knee-length) tunics were worn by slaves, soldiers, and for purposes of work, where mobility was required. Nothing (no underwear) was worn under tunics, except by Essene men who wore a loin cloth. Jewish men did not have long hair, unless they were Nazirites (fulfilling a Nazirite vow). Jewish women in Roman Judea wore hairnets, examples of which have been discovered at sites such as Masada. In the film, Jesus’s mother Mary is played by a handsome actress who appears to be in her 40’s. Assuming that Mary gave birth to Jesus when she was very young (about 12-13 years of age), she indeed would have been in her 40’s when Jesus died. However, a 40-something year old woman in Roman Judaea, especially from a poor family, would have looked much older than a 40-something year old woman in contemporary Western society. Mary probably would have looked like a 60-something year old woman does today. TORTURE METHODS Written evidence from the time of Jesus reveals that torture was not only carried out but actually regulated under the Roman state. A stone inscription found in the modern Italian town of Pozzuoli (ancient Puteoli), dating to the first century C.E., details regulations for the hiring of people to torture or execute slaves, whether by court order or in response to an owner’s request: [Members of t]he workforce which shall be provided for ... inflicting punishment ... [are] to be over fifty years of age or under twenty, no[t] to have any sores, be oneeyed, maimed, lame, blind, or branded. The contractor is to have no fewer than thirtytwo operatives. If anyone wishes to have a slave – male or female – punished privately, he who wishes to have the punishment inflicted shall do so as follows. If he wants to put the slave on the cross or fork, the contractor must supply the posts, chains, ropes for floggers, and the floggers themselves. ... The magistrate shall give orders for such punishments as he exacts in his public capacity, and when orders are given (the contractor) is to be ready to exact the punishment. He is to set up crosses and supply without charge nails, pitch, wax, tapers, and anything else that is necessary for this in order to deal with the condemned man ...(The Roman World: A Sourcebook, David Cherry, editor, Blackwell Publishers 2001, pp. 26-27; text translation from J. F. Gardiner and T. Wiedemann, The Roman Household: A Sourcebook, London 1991, pp. 24-26). The description in this inscription is similar to another given by the ancient Roman historian Suetonius. In his biography of Nero, Suetonius described the Roman Senate’s decree of death for the emperor more maiorum (i.e., in the traditional manner), that is by “having his head put in a wooden fork and being beaten to death by rods” (Nero 49.2; Suetonius goes on to say that Nero was so frightened by this sentence that he committed suicide before it could be imposed.). It should be noted that at this time such regulations were the responsibility of civil jurisdictions. An empire-wide standard did not exist. We do not know what regulations, if any, existed in Roman Judaea. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who sentenced Jesus, would have had some latitude in devising and carrying out the punishment he decreed. While “flogging” and “beating” are attested in ancient sources, however, there are neither descriptions, pictorial representations, nor physical evidence for the brutal implement that is used at length and to such horrific effect in The Passion’s “scourging” scenes. Scourging as a practice is attested but the only weapon ever cited is a reed (Mark 15:19; Matt. 27:30). The Gospels are in fact quite terse in their rendition: “... after having Jesus scourged, he [Pilate] delivered Him over to be crucified” (Mark 15:15; cf. Matt. 27:26). Had Jesus been tortured in an exceptional manner (that is, had he been treated more harshly and differently than other crucifixion victims), this would presumably have been mentioned in the Gospels. The armed Jewish guards shown in the movie accompanying the high priests, who arrest and abuse Jesus, are pure fantasy (as are their costumes). The Romans would never have allowed the Jews to have their own army. Instead, the Gospels describe Jesus as being arrested by a “crowd of men with swords and clubs” (Mark 14: 43; Matt. 26:47, refers to a “great crowd”). CRUCIFIXION Crucifixion was a standard method of execution in the ancient world (see the text above under “Torture Methods,” which refers to putting a slave “on the cross”). It was generally used against slaves, traitors, and members of the lower classes who were convicted of political crimes. The most dramatic example from Roman history may be the mass crucifixion of 6,000 gladiators and slaves at the end of the revolt of Spartacus (73-71 B.C.E.). The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus records two episodes of mass crucifixion from Israel. In 88 B.C.E. the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus ordered 800 enemy captives crucified, while in the year 4 B.C.E., Quintilius Varus, the Roman officer in charge of the province of Syria, ordered the crucifixion of 2,000 Jews who had rebelled against Roman rule upon the death of King Herod. Later, during the Jewish revolt and war against the Romans from 66-70 C.E., the Roman commanders Vespasian and his son Titus both ordered crucifixion executions as public warnings and deterrents. (Josephus recounts these episodes in two of his historical works, both written in the later first century C.E. when he was living in Rome. They are the Jewish Antiquities and the Jewish War: Ant. 13.380; War 1.97; 2.75; 3.321; 5.289; 5.450-51). There is physical evidence attesting to the practice of crucifixion in first century Judaea. In 1968, an ossuary (bone box) of the first century C.E. excavated from a large rock-cut burial cave at the site of Giv’at ha-Mivtar, in northeast Jerusalem, was found to contain the bones of a young man who had been crucified. The evidence consisted of a right heel bone pierced by a nail 4 1/2 inches long. The end of the nail was bent, or hooked, apparently because it had been driven against a knot in the upright beam of the cross; and this prevented its removal afterwards (Vassilios Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs at and near Giv’at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970), pp. 18-32; J. Zias and E. Sekeles, “The Crucified Man from Giv’at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal,” Israel Exploration Journal 35 (1985), pp. 22-27). There are two inaccuracies in the depiction of Jesus’s crucifixion in this film. First, those sentenced to crucifixion apparently carried only the crossbeam, not the entire cross, to the site of the crucifixion. Second, many victims were tied by ropes to the cross, not nailed. In cases where victims were nailed, the nails were placed through the wrists, not the palms of the hands. Not every ancient society employed crucifixion as the standard method of execution, however. Were Jesus to have been tried and condemned by a Jewish court for violating Jewish law, he would have been executed by stoning, burning, decapitation, or strangulation, depending on the charge. In Roman Judaea, only the Romans (and specifically, the Roman provincial governor) had the authority to impose the penalty of crucifixion. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Even if The Passion adhered in every detail to the specific narratives of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) or the Gospel of John, it would be neither accurate nor fair to take these texts as “scripts” for the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. That is because these texts were not written down at the time, nor were they written by actual witnesses of these events. Instead they were composed two generations later and hundreds of miles away: between 70 and 90 C.E., and outside of the area of the Levant. Because the Gospel authors were writing for an audience who did not live at the time or in the place of the events they were narrating, they worked to put the events of Jesus’ trial and death within the larger historical context of his life and mission. In his own narrative choices, however, Mel Gibson has chosen to ignore what the Gospel writers strove to supply. By focusing on the last 12 hours of Jesus’s life, Gibson has ripped this event from its historical context and rendered it unintelligible, with no apparent reason for the crucifixion of Jesus aside from blaming evil Jews and Romans. Perhaps this is deliberate and intended to serve a theological purpose. But historically it means that viewers are left without any understanding of the complex events that led up to these last 12 hours. In the first century C.E., the population of Roman Judaea and its adjacent areas of Idumaea, Samaria, and Galilee was comprised of numerous groups, factions, and sects, di- Two Archaeologists Comment on The Passion of the Christ vided variously along ethnic, class, and religious lines. These areas were not an ancient version of the modern American “melting pot,” however, but instead a tinderbox of instability. There were tensions between the Jews and the Roman occupying forces, and between the Jews and non-Jewish (Gentile) inhabitants of the country. Galileans and Judaeans fought with Samaritans, and Samaritans attacked Galilean pilgrims. Jews were divided along religious and class lines into groups such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. These Jewish groups – including Jesus and his followers – argued about religious laws and rituals, as well as about adopting Greek and Roman cultural traditions. Many Jews organized political or economic movements against their Roman rulers. Meanwhile those rulers made sure that an outsized military presence loomed over all Jewish festival gatherings. Thus it is as historically inaccurate to present the Jews as a single, monolithic group as it would be to present modern American Protestants as such. For both the Roman officials and the politically accommodating Jewish high priests, any person who threatened the precarious balance presented a social and political problem. During the Passover festival, which was a period of huge crowding in the city, the Roman governor and army were especially nervous about civil disturbances. With his outburst in the Temple and an enormous crowd coalescing around him, Jesus would naturally have been seen by both Roman officials and Jewish high priests as a dangerous and even destabilizing individual. As a poor Jewish peasant from Galilee speaking out in opposition to the wealthy high priests of the Jerusalem Temple, Jesus would have had allies and supporters among the large numbers of the politically powerless, but not among the small group of the well-connected political elite. This background is essential to understanding why Jesus was condemned and crucified so quickly: in order to minimize the civic disruption that a prolonged and public trial might engender. The fact that Jesus died by a method of execution that only a Roman official could impose also reveals which authority figure – the Jewish high priest or the Roman governor – was in reality the more threatened by his actions. As director of The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson was compelled to make narrative choices: when and where to start the story, what to emphasize, how to draw out each person’s essential characteristics. The end result is a movie that conveys a tremendous amount of pain and suffering, but also one that is, in many major and minor respects, unmoored from documented realities. Gibson strives to convey a theological message by recreating a convincing ancient context. The message that people take away from the movie should not, however, be mistaken for verifiable historical fact. NOTES * Dr. Andrea Berlin, Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota, is an Academic Trustee of the Archaeological Institute of America; Dr. Jodi Magness, Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is a former Academic Trustee. |
It's a story told over and over and over and over. A very old myth surronding the death and re-birth of a god-man. I wonder if Gibson would have been able to duck the contoversy had he ducked the "historical" approach and gone fully into the mythos instead. Poor MG could have really used some lessons from Joe Campbell and Bill Moyers. |
I don't see how this story could have been told without ANY historical context and thus probably would have pissed people off regardless. *poor* mg my ass. heh. he's doing just fine. but he didn't get any of my money. though...my decision to see it really didn't have anything to do with that. I just didn't want to. |
|
|
The Passion banned in France as 'fascist' |
|
|
boring. over-rated. dull. well, the gore makeup was amazing, anyway. and also, who brings a 3 year old to this movie, at 11pm? WHO. DOES. THAT. Oh she's crying? I wonder why. fuck.... |
|
And why is Herod always a big fat slightly gay party animal? |
the S L O O O O O W M O T I O N for no real reason, as substitute for real drama, every 10 minutes. And there is this one single moment of comic relief that is so painfull and poorly timed, my movie-watching companion commented "And the next day, Jesus invented cars!" But anyway.... i tend to judge jesus movies by the way they portray Judas. Judas is probably the toughest character to get down because he's just a tool in god's little plan to kill his own son, he is getting totally fucked over on this one, and he probably knows it. I think jesus and judas are the only ones who really know what's going on. They're the only ones who really suffer. So i like it when Judas is given his own Garden-esque time, to kinda give god some words for doing this to him. But this time, he doesn't get any. And while i found the demon kids an interesting twist, i think it took the movie in a bad direction. Satan was creepy and wicked and all, but it's not part of this story. This is all god's thing. Unless Mel just wanted satan and the kiddies around as symbols, symbols of Jesus' own doubt in the garden and Judas' nagging guilt. Which is fine, but i think it takes away from the real story, because the "beauty" i guess of the jesus story is that he's just a simple guy feeling real human pain, just as any of us could. Wood, blood, torture and death. But sticking the CGI demons in there drags us into the world of unicorns and faries. I mean, pick a side, Mel. It's pure human suffering or it's CGI bullshit. Another annyoing part is when they arrest him (in sloooooooomoooooooo) and Peter cuts off a soldiers ear, and Jesus reaches down and heals it back on, and the soldier is all "changed" and humbled. COME ON. That's not in there AT ALL, that sort of propaganda tripe is, well, tripey. And the way it's shot....golden backlighting.... pretentious. Like on Touched By An Angel. I didn't find it to be terribly gorey. Note: I also didn't find Kill Bill to be very gorey either. I think all that has to do with context. |
|
That South Park was brilliant. |
I wonder if they'll ever show that episode in Germany? They are very very paraniod about any reference to Hitler, so I'm betting they won't allow this one. |
---------------- 51 Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"..... 56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled. -------------------- "10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus. 11 Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?" 12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him." --------------------------- |
______________________________ Luke 22:50 And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. Luke 22:51 But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him. _______________________________ No mention of the slave's conversion; however, if some guy reattached your severed ear with just his touch, what would you do? |
|
|
|
|
they're long and i'm out of practice. |
|
Wait - didn't he also say he was here to bring us a sword? so what we supposed to do with it? just put it in the umbrella stand? "Hey, bud, here's a sword, but don't draw it or it will kill ya." "Um...Thanks, Jesus. I'll just put it over here then. Want a Nehi?" "Depends, Orange or Grape?" |
________________ Matthew 10:34-38 Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. ______________________________________ |
|
|
|
So basically Hayley knows that this is the day Jesus rose from the grave and Micki knows this is when the easter bunny comes to bring candy. The joy of having children. |
|
. He lays them himself. |
|
Next year we will have to have Spunky dress up in a bunny suit and sing Rico Suave songs and pretent to lay eggs for the kids (see if they will eat the candy in them then hehehehe). |
You might want to take the opportunity to remind them that Easter is a fertility holiday and that the bunny/eggs are symbols of fertility. The old English word "Eastre" refers ultimately to Ishtar, a mesopotamian fertility goddess. Christians realized the time of the resurrection was convieniently concurrent with the old fertility holidays practiced by pagans and turned the holiday into a celebration of the resurrection of Christ. Handy how they were able to segue, eh? I'm also sure people did all kinds of naughty things with those eggs. Easter. Prime time for humping. |
im glad the holiday is gone. hardboiled eggs smell like ass. i dont know how anyone can eat that shit. |
The sulfur heated hot springs up near Mammoth smells overpoweringly like hard boiled eggs. The smell almost knocks you on your ass. But I still miss eggs. |
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040414/tv_nm/television_passion_dc_6 |
Gibson pretentious mofo with god-complex. I will sell jesus like Mickey Mouse! |
|
Does anyone remember, I think it was TNT or one of those stations had, a month of oscar movies and to advertise they showed a class of second graders performing *Ben Hur*? Anyone? That commercial always cracked me up. |
|
There seem to be little reason for any child to watch this; it would give them nightmares as I am pretty certain the emaciated life-sized bleeding Jesus on the cross statue did for many a wee Catholic growing up. |
|