« previous: Things to Hate | next: Tracking Updates »

The Passion of the Christ

I saw The Passion tonight. It was the first time I ever went to a movie by myself. I’ll probably never do it again, but for this movie, it wasn’t bad being alone, and I couldn’t wait any longer to see it. (And plus I couldn’t wait any longer to read other people’s blogs about it.) There were only about 15 people in the theatre, too; it was a Monday night show at 9:30 in a college town during spring break. I still have my whole ticket because there wasn’t anyone ripping them in half.

(Warning: spoilers follow. Not that you don’t know the story already. But if you haven’t seen it yet, you might not want to read this yet.)

Despite all the whining I’ve heard up till now, the movie wasn’t any more violent than lots of other R-rated movies. And that whole issue is irrelevant anyway because this is a true story; Jesus was violently beaten and violently killed, so a movie that faithfully depicts those events will be violent.

At times I got very angry. First of all, the people were so barbaric. And the soldiers constantly whipping Jesus as he carried the cross... how much of a moron do you have to be to not realize that if you want him to go forward, you can’t knock him down? I was also really mad while the soldiers almost scourged him to death, after they had been ordered not to kill him.

The only time I got really choked up was when Claudia brought the white towel/sheet to Mary. I’m not sure why then; maybe because they just got done showing so much of Jesus’ beating, and you could still hear it in the background, and just all the emotion between the women. Ironically, Claudia thought the situation was unjust while Mary understood that it needed to happen.

Some things made me really happy, too. It was awesome when after they nailed Jesus to the cross, they flipped it over, and the whole thing was levitating about a foot off the ground. I presume this is because of the prophecy which says that no bone in his body shall be broken; certainly flipping the cross over and dropping it face-down with Jesus on it would have broken ribs and probably legs. And I almost jumped up and cheered when the crow pecked out the eyes of the murderer who was laughing at Jesus on the cross. At the end, I thought it was really neat how the stone rolled itself away, and the camera panned past the vacant shroud, and you saw Jesus just crouched on the ground, waiting to walk out.

I thought that satan’s constant presence was interesting and well-done. I’m glad (s)he was portrayed as just plain evil and subtle, instead of being red with horns and a pitchfork. (Though it was kind of interesting how everyone in the movie was dressed in clothes from that time period, while satan wore what looked to be a modern black hoodie.) Apparently the role was played by a female, but I don’t think the face looked any more female than male, or vice-versa. And I’m glad I didn’t end up seeing the movie with Dimitry like I was supposed to, because satan’s face and eyes were very similar to his. I’m additionally glad it’s spring break and Dimitry won’t be back for a week.

My favorite character was Pilate. He was really tough and cool, and really skeptical. I didn’t like how they portrayed him as needing his wife’s permission/guidance before making any decisions, but whatever, in gay upside-down feminist American entertainment, that’s what you get.

The soldiers who were scourging Jesus were beating him so hard that they were out of breath. That is telling. Truly the only way Jesus was able to stay conscious through that was through God’s sustenance. The body signals the mind into unconsciousness in the face of that kind of pain, but Jesus had to feel the pain. And the way they yanked on his arms to dislocate his shoulders to crucify him... terrible.

One of the languages (probably Greek) was pretty similar to Spanish in a lot of words; I picked out cuando for "when" and verita- for "truth" a few times. Um... there were others but I forget now. Of course I understood Cephas for "Peter" and Yeshua for "Jesus."

One thing I was waiting for that didn’t happen was for one of the soldiers to say, "Truly this man was the son of God" after crucifying him.

All in all I think the movie was superb. It reminds me very much of this song by The Cross Movement. One of my friends had said it was overly Catholic, and that the story mostly just followed Mary around the whole time. I don’t see it that way at all. It followed Jesus, and showed a decent amount of Mary, which I’d say is appropriate.

Posted by Anthony on Mar 9, 2004 | 12 replies
Filed under: General

Comments:

01. Mar 11, 2004 at 10:44am by Patrick Copland:

I agree with you that it was not overly Catholic. I was Catholic. This was just an accurate depiction of Jesus suffering.

Near the end, I felt that the reaction and looks on the Romans faces kept saying what you were looking for ("Truly, this man was the son of God.").

I enjoyed reading you summary/review. I find often my thoughts drift back to what I saw in the movie. The most emotional part for me what when Mary paused and then ran to Jesus remembering when she would run to him as a little boy when he got hurt.

02. Mar 12, 2004 at 01:33pm by Kev:

I saw The Passion last night. I have to disagree with you slightly about the violence factor. While I believe it was accurately depicting the suffering that Jesus went through for us, it was very violent. It was almost unwatchable during the scourging, while the out-of-breath soldiers had Jesus’ blood spraying on them. That being said, I believe everyone should see the movie, at least once. I’m not sure if I ’liked’ the movie, but it was interesting and I believe it provides good insight to what it was actually like.

03. Mar 12, 2004 at 02:35pm by Anthony:

I agree that it was violent, but not any more violent than it had to be to truthfully depict the story. The point of the movie, the point of the gospels, the point of Jesus’ life, is that Jesus suffered and died to save us from sin. You can’t gloss over that in a movie about it, especially a movie that’s specifically about the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life.

It received an R rating appropriately. That being said, there are countless movies where dozens of people are shot or stabbed or beaten to death, and they also receive an R rating. I think those are arguably more violent. Perhaps not always as gory, but more violent.

04. Mar 13, 2004 at 03:17pm by always myself:

I still refuse to see the movie. God gave us the Bible everything he wanted us to know about the crucifixion. As for the violence and suffering, the hanging on the cross wasn’t half as painful as the pain Jesus went through while being seprated from his father while taking on our sins.

05. Mar 13, 2004 at 11:21pm by Anthony:

> I still refuse to see the movie.

Care to explain why? You’ve said this twice on my site now, with no explanation.

> God gave us the Bible everything he wanted
> us to know about the crucifixion.

And that is exactly the story that the movie is telling. Mel Gibson didn’t make up the plot himself.

> the hanging on the cross wasn’t half as painful
> as the pain Jesus went through while being
> seprated from his father

I’d be interested in hearing how you know that.

06. Mar 14, 2004 at 04:06pm by always myself:

The movie is a directly breaking the 2nd commandment. There is only enough information in the Bible for about 15 mins, not an hour. A great majority of the plot came from visions a nun had and wrte a book about. Supporting this movie supports porn stars. Mary along with some of the other actors are Italian porn stars. God cannot look upon sin. He is holy(seperated from sin). What could be more painful to the God the son than being seperated from God the father. In the old testament Jews transfered their sin onto goats.When Jesus was sacrified on the cross he took on the sins of the world in order to be an ultimate sacrifice. How do I know this? The Bible.

07. Mar 14, 2004 at 08:00pm by Tasha Moyer:

Penny, I can’t wait to hear what you have to say to that...

08. Mar 15, 2004 at 01:43am by Anthony:

: )

> The movie is a directly breaking the 2nd commandment.

No it isn’t.

Here’s the so-called "second commandment:"

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." (Exodus 20)

Your argument is that all photographs, videos, paintings, and sculptures violate this passage of scripture. (Unless you’re trying to say that only this particular movie does, in which case, you’re just completely insane, and there’s no point in further discussion.) To make that argument you must pull verse 4 totally out of context. Verse 5 defines the context of the command: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." The reason this commandment exists is because the people had been worshipping graven images. No one was bowing thyself down at the screen when I saw the movie.

> There is only enough information in the Bible for about
> 15 mins, not an hour.

I see. So the ~12 hours from when Jesus was in the garden until the next day when he was crucified only took 15 minutes.

> A great majority of the plot came from visions a nun
> had and wrte a book about.

No it didn’t. But you haven’t seen the movie, so I can’t hold against you the fact that you apparently don’t know what the plot is about. However, I actually have seen the movie, so I can tell you that the plot came from the Bible. I’ve read the four gospels a few times, and the plot of the movie tells the same story.

> Supporting this movie supports porn stars. Mary along
> with some of the other actors are Italian porn stars.

Wow. I think that’s probably too bizarre for you to have fabricated, so what are your sources for that information?

>>> the hanging on the cross wasn’t half as painful
>>> as the pain Jesus went through while being
>>> seprated from his father
>>
>> I’d be interested in hearing how you know that.
>
> What could be more painful to the God the son than
> being seperated from God the father.

So, to recap this little quibble:

Tara: XYZ is true.
Anthony: How do you know?
Tara: How could XYZ not be true?

If you believe it is true, that’s fine; it’s a matter of opinion. But you haven’t actually presented any evidence to support your point of view.

09. Mar 15, 2004 at 07:02am by always myself:

Ok. The movie is very violent. You argue it isn’t any more violent than other movies. I do not watch these other movies either. (Leviticus 20:7) "Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God."
Creating an image of Christ is wrong. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." (Exodus 20)When an image of Christ is created, such as in the movie, all of the emotions[Luke23:28] in people are created in people because they hold this "Jesus," to be the actual Jesus.They will go home and pray and have this image of a man still in their minds.They will be worshipping the image of an actor. We cannot begin to capture the greatness of God. It is mockery.Yes and I also believe that all Images of Christ statues, pictures are all an abomination.
Many Christians believe this movie will bring people to Christ. Well, not according to [John 4:24] [Psalms 119:104][seeLeviticus 10:1]][Romans 10:17][I Cor. 1:21][1 John 5:11][2 Cor. 5:7][Cor. 2:1-5].

>>> the hanging on the cross wasn’t half as painful
>>> as the pain Jesus went through while being
>>> seprated from his father
"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin," Isaiah 53:10
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more, being reconciled,we shall be saved by his life., Rom. 5:9,10."

I’ll finish replying later, I have to go to school.

10. Mar 15, 2004 at 01:10pm by Anthony:

This discussion is becoming a big waste of time because of your continual failure to provide supporting evidence for your claims.

> Creating an image of Christ is wrong. "Thou shalt not make
> unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
> that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
> or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not
> bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." (Exodus 20)
> ...Yes and I also believe that all Images of Christ statues,
> pictures are all an abomination.

You’re incorrect again. That does not say "Creating an image of Christ is wrong." Is says that creating ANY image for the purpose of worshipping it is wrong. If you take the "any image" part out of context, as you have, then the result is that ANY "graven image" is forbidden, not just images of Jesus. So according to your incorrect out-of-context interpretation, every photo, movie, sculpture, etc is forbidden, regardless of what the subject of the image is. The Bible doesn’t say "of Jesus" here, as you pretend it does.

> They will go home and pray and have this image of a man still
> in their minds.They will be worshipping the image of an actor.

First of all, that is 100% conjecture; you have no idea what’s in people’s minds when they pray. But you’re wrong anyway, because having a memory of something in your mind isn’t the same as worshipping it, and you’ve failed to provide any explanation of how the two are the same. By that (anti-)logic, if I’m praying, and I happen to think of a tree, or the beach, or a loved one, then I’m worshipping that thing that I’ve thought of. That’s absurd.

> Many Christians believe this movie will bring people to Christ.
> Well, not according to [John 4:24] [Psalms 119:104][seeLeviticus
> 10:1]][Romans 10:17][I Cor. 1:21][1 John 5:11][2 Cor. 5:7][Cor. 2:1-5].

I just read all of those passages, and not a single one addresses the issue of whether this movie will "bring people to Christ." (Which is a straw-man argument anyway. I haven’t heard anyone claim that this movie will bring people to Christ. However it will certainly make people think and ask and talk about Christ, so indirectly, it almost certainly has brought people to him.) Now listen, because this is important: if you believe that those passages somehow deny that this movie will bring people to Christ, then explain why. You are wasting everyone’s time by making wild claims with no explanation whatsoever.

>>>> the hanging on the cross wasn’t half as painful
>>>> as the pain Jesus went through while being
>>>> seprated from his father
>"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to
> grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,"
> Isaiah 53:10
> "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall
> be saved from the wrath through him. For if, when we were
> enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son,
> much more, being reconciled,we shall be saved by his life.,
> Rom. 5:9,10."

Neither of those verses even mentions the pain of crucifixion or the pain of separation from God the father, let alone compares the two. The first verse mentions that it pleased God the father to bruise Jesus, but it says nothing about how Jesus felt about it.

11. Mar 15, 2004 at 09:15pm by always myself:

From the time previews came out for this movie, I’ve known it was wrong. I knew it broke God’s commands and was blasphemous. Without copying the entire bible, and without writing a book, I would like to explain myself. I’ve done much searching on this subject and have finally found an article that explains everything I hold against this movie. http://www.letgodbetrue.com/TodaysWorld/passion.htm I feel very strongly about this issue, although I’m sorry if I am wasting your time.

12. Mar 15, 2004 at 10:19pm by Anthony:

I suspected as much. It would have saved a lot of time and effort if you’d have been forthright from the beginning and said "I’m getting all my propaganda from this website."

It’s a shame the author of that site is such a sensationalist, because he actually has some reasonable content on there. But it’s buried beneath all the whining and and frantic arm-waving and ending! every! other! sentence! with! an! exclamation! point!

It’s true that the Catholic church is entirely anti-Christian and not the slightest bit biblical in their teachings. It’s true that Mel Gibson is a Catholic (sort of). But that doesn’t mean every single thing he produces is evil, nor does it mean that God can’t use him for great things. (Half of the bible was written by murderers.)

Mel Gibson has said that it’s possible for people who aren’t even Christian to enter heaven. That’s certainly not Catholic doctrine. As much as that wacky webpage wants to make Mel out to be a hardcore Catholic, that’s just not accurate.

The author is resorting to ad homiem instead of critiquing the movie itself, because there’s little if anything about the movie to critique. He tries to claim it’s a "Catholic" movie because it "emphasizes Jesus on a crucifix." Maybe he hasn’t seen the movie either, but I have, and it doesn’t do that. Jesus is only on the crucifix during the crucifixion. That part of the movie isn’t "emphasized" (whatever that could possibly mean... screen twice as bright? twice as loud?) any more than the rest of it. He tries to claim that Mary shouldn’t be a central figure in the movie. First of all, Jesus was clearly the central figure in the movie, and second of all, after Jesus, who other than Mary should be prominent?

And the most central problem with his whole pseudo-analysis is that he incorrectly interprets the second commandment. He’s pretending that God gave the commandment just for fun, instead of admitting that the commandment was given to prevent people from worshipping graven images. And as I already pointed out, he not only misinterprets it, he then only half-applies his misinterpretation, by saying that it’s only "religious images" which are forbidden. You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe all of what God said (no graven images for the purpose of worship), or you take the first part out of context (no graven images of anything period). But what this guy is doing is taking the first part out of context and then adding his own bit which says "no religious graven images."

Top it off with wild assertions like this:

In spite of the claims and projections being made by many, not a single name will be written in the book of life because of this movie.

...and this guy has done an amazing job of losing all credibility with any rational person. How could he possibly know that no one on the whole planet will watch this movie, think about it, and then go to a local church to ask about Jesus, and get saved? He can’t possibly know that, unless he is God. And in fact, with this movie breaking viewership records left and right, the odds are astronomically against his ridiculous assertion. It’s virtually certain that at least one person will get saved as an indirect result of this movie and/or the hype surrounding it.

Reply to this message here:

[ Home – Create Post – Archives – Login – CMS by Encodable ]