Jump to content

Did Anybody Here See "the Passion?"


habsfannova

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm really astonished that this movie made $117 Million in it's first five days, and $32M from Saturday alone. It ranks as the 7th biggest opening weekend ever and the 5th best 5-day opening ever. How does one explain it?

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

champssig2.png
Follow me on Twitter if you care: @Animal_Clans.

My opinion may or may not be the same as yours. The choice is up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it, and am not surprised it generated such numbers.

Not only has it created a lot of buzz in the media and as a result I'm sure many went out of curiosity, but the fact of the matter is that the movie is very well done, emotionally charged, and very unlike what is often found in theatres.

It's very intense and quite graphic, however it is not gratuitously violent or bloody... that's the best way I can describe that aspect of it.

Also, now that I've seen it, I can better respond with my perspective on the points Brian in Boston brought up...

I disagree that the gospels were written with a specific agenda that would necessitate putting a 'spin' on things. By "barely" 30 years after the death of Christ, Christians had already been heavily persecuted by Emperor Nero. (source: http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/life/life5c.html)

No, they wouldn't have wanted to unnecessarily arouse the ire of the Romans, but I doubt they would've had a high opinion their persecutors, enough to protect them. Interestingly, of the Gospels intended readerships (Matthew, which was probably written for Jews, Mark for Christians, and Luke for Theophilus, assumed to be a Roman official and possible early publisher), Matthew is the one that highlights the hand-washing.

It is quite possible that Pilate was a brutal governor and/or bloodthirsty tyrant. However reading all three gospel accounts of Jesus before Pilate (Matt. 27:11-26, Mark 15:1-15, Luke 22:66-23:25) generally depict Pilate as a man confused by the Jewish request to have a seemingly innocent man, and in every account, it's revealed that even after the throng has begun demanding Jesus' crucifixion, Pilate asks again "Why? What crime has he commited?" His wife urges her husband in Matthew 27:19 "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him", which may be why, after Jesus is handed over, she is portrayed as significantly disturbed and compassionate towards Christ's mother.

I know the Bible does not specifically state that Caiphas was the first one to shout "Crucify him!", nor does it state that it is a Jewish priest that mocks Jesus from the foot of the cross. (It does state in Matthew 27:20 that "the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to aks for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed".) However I do not find it unreasonable, within the realm of the artistic and narrative license required to produce a film, that a Jewish leader (and one of the chief priests, the big backers of the push to have Jesus executed) would be call for Jesus to be executed. I'd also expect the VIPs to have front row seats to the crucifixion, which is why I did not find it unusual that the man at the foot of the cross was a priest. Also, when the prisoner says "Listen, he prays for you.", I took it to mean as much that Jesus was praying for his persecutors, which would in turn include that priest.

Gibson depiction of the devil as an observer to the goings-on is not included in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, however I also did not find it unbelieveable or anti-Semitic. He does not exclusively accompany the Jews. If one considers the crucifixion to be an act of human evil, in the view of this movie, that would be strongly supported by the devil. If one considers that Satan to be the single driving force behind the unfolding events, one would only logically expect him to appear in the places where the events were unfolding. Satan's presence (for me at least) helped define the movie as good vs. evil, God vs. Satan, not the Jews and Romans crucifying Jesus.

Lastly, I do believe that Gibson made it quite obvious that there was a significant Jewish contingent not in favour of Jesus' execution. When Jesus is before the priests, more than one priest voices his outrage over the proceedings, and (quite significantly) one, in his ranting against the proceedings, asks why the rest of the high council wasn't there, why the proceedings were being held at night? This shows that there are more priests, not to mention Jews, that are not in favour. Many (assumably Jewish) people along the road cry and wail as Christ passes bearing the cross. I found this increased significantly the further out of the city centre, and the further away from the angry mob, the entourage got.

In the discussion I was I a part of with a group of kids I went to the movie with, the general consensus was that the anti-Semitism allegations had no basis having seen the movie. Nobody was upset about those allegations, people understand that the Jewish community values their reputation (as all such communities should), however we simply didn't see anything worth the film it's printed on that should give the Jewish community cause for concern.

WINnipegSigBanner.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really astonished that this movie made $117 Million in it's first five days, and $32M from Saturday alone. It ranks as the 7th biggest opening weekend ever and the 5th best 5-day opening ever. How does one explain it?

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Millions of Christians, wanting to see this which sounds like a instant classic and a great film.

I don't go to movies, but I'm considering going to see it myself.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Jew, I am very glad that you find no cause for concern, SyPhi. However, you are one of billions of Christians in this world (I'm going to make that assumption from a few things that I have heard from you, among them refering to Jesus as 'Christ'), and there are quite a few Christians out there who are looking for a reason to fight. Heck, there are quite few Jews looking for a fight too, but we're going to close in on the point here. I encontered anti-semitism in fifth grade for the first time. A kid in my class who sat near me in science would make fun of yarmulkes and aspects of my belifs. It didn't matter that he was 10, or that he was of a minority group himself, it still hurt me. My science grades dropped, I couldn't concentrate, and I would often shoot back at him with one defense or another. And I would always get in trouble. My science teacher hated me because I talked in class, go figure. It took me until the end of the year to fix that problem, but it has affected me since.

So how's this for ya? Now we have this movie, it's just like any other passion play, nothing wrong wih that. But it gives the masses an idea of what Jesus went through before he died. So, who caused it? I admit some Jews did help. Some Jews wanted rid of this man Yoshua, who created a following, and so threatend the priests' power. But to the Romans he was just another guy, one out of the 300+ crucifixions a day I believe. So, here you are watching this movie, we're going to assume Christianity upon you, and you just watched you savior die. Are you mad whoever did this? I would be, frankly. So, who are you going to be mad at? A society that is long gone, or one that has a member sitting next to you? That's the worry for me. I don't want to come to school tomorrow and see a threat towards the Jews. Even if it doesn't happen, I can still be worried, can't I? I think I can. But tomorrow I'm just going to head to school, same as always, in a car. I'm going to be dropped off the same as always, at the first floor annex. I'm going to walk through our metal detectors, to my locker and then I'll find my friends (only one of whom is Jewish), and we'll talk. Some of us may have seen it, most of us won't. But I have every intention to. I think that it's important, why? Because I'll get to hear and see a story that I've never heard or seen before. But I refuse to give Mr. Gibson any of my money. So, if you happen to see me buying a ticket to see Miracle for the second time with my father, I'll be seeing you in the Passion.

Have a nice evening.

Abbey

Abbey.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who uses the crusifixion to hate jews is just making an excuse and they would hate jews for anything.

The fact is Jesus was born to die on that cross, and jews and romans were involved in the act it matters not Jesus himself said

"Forgive them for they do not know what they've done" or something like that.

Its ridicuous either way Anti-semtism may have reared its ugly head in the past, but I'd like to think we are beyond that now, after the horrors of Germany.

Any way in 2004 Christians and Jews should not be fighting over anything especially since their are elliments of another religon that wnats us both dead, so if anything we shoudl be coming together as brothers.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who uses the crusifixion to hate jews is just making an excuse and they would hate jews for anything.

...

Its ridicuous either way Anti-semtism may have reared its ugly head in the past, but I'd like to think we are beyond that now, after the horrors of Germany.

Any way in 2004 Christians and Jews should not be fighting over anything especially since their are elliments of another religon that wnats us both dead, so if anything we shoudl be coming together as brothers.

Completely agreed. We're all humans, really that's all that should matter. The sad thing is that the elements of the religion that wants us gone is one that is rooted in the Jewish faith as well. In this world we're all brothers and sisters, the killing is pointless. Defense isn't however.

Abbey

Abbey.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A movie isn't going to make you start hating a group. If that were true, lots of people would have joined the Klan after watching "Undercover Brother".

:P

Seriously though, argueing about this movie is like saying a WWII movie is going to make people hate the Japanese. Trying to censor history out of fear of how it will affect the present is the beginning of a long trip down a dangerous path.

facebook.png twitter.pngblogger.pngflickr-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SyPhi...

YOU may disagree with the fact that the Gospels were written with a specific agenda in mind. However, countless biblical scholars and historians - experts on the subject - would question your interpretation. They would tell you that "spin" in the Gospels was necessitated by the fact that the early Christians were feeling immense pressure from the traditional Judaic heirarchy on one side, while fearing persecution from the Romans on the other.

As for the rather benign Gospel treatment of Pontius Pilate as a way of avoiding the Roman Empire's wrath, I never meant to imply that this was an indication of the Christians having a "high opinion" of "their persecutors, enough to protect them". Quite the opposite, in fact. The early Christians so feared the officials of the Roman Empire, and were so well aware of the power Roman officials could wield against the early church, that they felt it was best not to antagonize the Roman government. So, you could say that the Christians had such a LOW opinion of their Roman persecutors, that they sought to protect THEMSELVES from any Roman backlash over the content of the Gospels by employing the aforementioned "spin".

Further, Pontius Pilate's brutality and bloodthirsty treatment of the Jews isn't of the "quite possible" variety. Historical research has documented this aspect of Pilate's regime in Judea. He was a rabid anti-semite, who routinely employed crucifixion as a means of instilling fear - and what he considered "order" - amongst the Jews... a people he despised. Using the Gospels to prove your theory that Pilate and his wife were "confused" and "compassionate" in the face of the charges brought against Jesus by Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin is a textbook example of faulty "circular logic". Rather, if - as biblical scholars and historians contend - the Gospels contain some measure of "spin", then we can't count on them as accurate portrayals of Pilate's behavior.

As for "artistic and narrative license" allowing Gibson to attribute cries of "Crucify him!" to Caiaphas, or depicting the mocking figure at the foot of the cross as a Jewish high priest, you'll get no argument from me... Mr. Gibson certainly has the RIGHT to do so. I simply question why he chose to exercise such license and stray from strict conformity with the Gospels in scenes such as those just mentioned - scenes which specifically paint JEWISH figures in a negative light - while hewing so closely to the Gospels' rather benign portrayal of the ROMAN governor of Judea? I mean, why wouldn't he utilize such artistic license across the board? As I pointed out, if one were to contend that Gibson DID employ such artistic license in portraying Pontius Pilate, it's obvious that Gibson chose to paint the Roman governor as being even MORE compassionate and conflicted than the Gospels make him out to be. Why?

We will have to agree to disagree on Gibson's use of his "devil" figure within the film. While I didn't actually sit and measure with a stopwatch how much time the figure spent with Jews as compared to the Romans, it certainly struck me that the figure was depicted more often "in the company" of Caiaphas and those high priests aligned against Jesus.

As I said before, Mel Gibson has the RIGHT to make the artistic choices he wished to make, while producing the motion picture he wishes to produce. However, I also believe that he has a RESPONSIBILITY to address the concerns of the Jewish community in a straightforward and compassionate manner. Instead, he has chosen to position himself as a martyr who has been victimized as a result of his beliefs. I find it far TOO convenient that the controversy surrounding Mr. Gibson's cinematic/directorial "martyrdom" has undoubtedly boosted the BOTTOM LINE for his film. Methinks the director doth protest too much... but, then again, it seems to be helping out at the box office, doesn't it?

winters in buffalo...

This isn't a question of "censoring history". As I outlined above, biblical scholars and historians will tell you that the Gospels are, at best, SUBJECTIVE accounts of what MAY have happened. If this were an accurate "historical" account, Pontius Pilate would have been portrayed as the bloodthirsty despot he was, Christ wouldn't have carried the entire cross through the streets of Jerusalem (just the crossbar), Jesus wouldn't have been nailed through the palms (rather, through the wrists), etc.

Brian in Boston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A movie isn't going to make you start hating a group. If that were true, lots of people would have joined the Klan after watching "Undercover Brother".

:P

Seriously though, argueing about this movie is like saying a WWII movie is going to make people hate the Japanese. Trying to censor history out of fear of how it will affect the present is the beginning of a long trip down a dangerous path.

True, but when I see a movie about Pearl Harbor, there is an undeniable feeling of hatred towards those who caused it. However, I would NEVER EVER go after a Japanese person because I understand that it's not their fault that their past leaders had issues (and good war tacics too). The problem is that there is still predjeduce in this world, hence my example (and I have plenty more). Along with this predjeduce there comes a blindness to what is real. What is real is that the Jews didn't do it, I can tell you that with confidence. What I can also tell you with confidence is that I don't believe in cencoring history either. But only if it's history, not if it's something that someone made without getting their facts straight. But, of course, Mel's father doesn't believe that the Holocaust happened, so who knows what's going on there?

Abbey

Abbey.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, of course, Mel's father doesn't believe that the Holocaust happened, so who knows what's going on there?

But isn't blaming children for the sins of their fathers an integral part of what we're trying to eliminate, and a big issue in this discussion?

An engaging discussion to be sure...

People may disagree with Tank's comment regarding Jesus' purpose on Earth, however this is an integral part of Christian theology, so ideally anti-Semitism as a result of Christians blaming Jews or Romans for the death of their Saviour isn't an issue, at least for the Christians I know.

WINnipegSigBanner.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, now that the final numbers are in, this movie has set a new record for five day opening weekend with $125 Million, just edging The Return of the King for the crown.

Unbelievable.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

champssig2.png
Follow me on Twitter if you care: @Animal_Clans.

My opinion may or may not be the same as yours. The choice is up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't blaming children for the sins of their fathers an integral part of what we're trying to eliminate, and a big issue in this discussion?

An engaging discussion to be sure...

People may disagree with Tank's comment regarding Jesus' purpose on Earth, however this is an integral part of Christian theology, so ideally anti-Semitism as a result of Christians blaming Jews or Romans for the death of their Saviour isn't an issue, at least for the Christians I know.

Before I start, for the record, Romans aren't Semites, for another record, Arabs are.

True, we are trying to rid the world of this, but it's out there. It's the reason why Ford works it's butt off to be nice to the Jews. I find it kind of stupid, I'm not blaming them, but it is out there. Of course, you never saw me blame Gibson for his father's sins (for lack of a better word), I was simply pointing it out. The fact that his father would continue to say these things when his son was in such a tight spot, now that's what interested me. What interests me more is what evedence he has that most of it didn't happen, but that's off topic I believe.

I do disagree with Tank's comment but that simply because it's against what I believe. I'm still waiting for my messiah and if it never comes, then it never comes. But I'm still in on the waiting thing. By the way, can you imagine the overpopulation after the messiah comes, yikes! That was a little humor to lighten the mood, bad humor, but humor none the less.

*heh heh* :blink: Ok, onward...

Ideally your right good sir, in reality, you're almost wrong too. People will find any way to pick away at other faiths or cultures, that's just a fact. Now, those who you know are keeping their minds in the present, which is good, blaming someone for something 2000 years ago is just crazy. The problem is, there are those crazies out there who are willing to believe whatever their pastor, etc. has told them to believe. Not saying that all churches are like this, they most certainly aren't, but there are a few around my city, and if the children of today are taught ignorance and to "follow the leader" a problem is created. that's where we get involved in passing things from one generation to the next. This sort of ties into the Gibsons.

I would continue, but I'd like to hear what you think and I'd also enjoy a little sleep before my french test in the morning (you know the on that I forgot to study for, oops). Good night.

Abbey

Abbey.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People may disagree with Tank's comment regarding Jesus' purpose on Earth, however this is an integral part of Christian theology, so ideally anti-Semitism as a result of Christians blaming Jews or Romans for the death of their Saviour isn't an issue, at least for the Christians I know.

That is exactly what I meant with my comments.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.