So who is going to the "Mel Gibson Movie" - page 4

The Passion of Christ? The review of the St. Pete Times gives it an A minus, siting the acting was perfect and the cinemetography was perfect. His only compliant was that it was so horrible... Read More

  1. by   susi_q
    (For those of you that think you missed it ... it opens tomorrow, Ash Wednesday.)

    I'm going - in fact our youth group has rented the theatre for a showing next weekend. We're encouraging students to come with their families - but any that can't have their parents there, we are requiring signed permission slips. I'm excited to hear what kind of thoughts the kids have. Expecting it to provoke some really interesting conversations.
  2. by   adrienurse
    Hello? This is a movie about Jesus. Jesus was nailed to a cross. Are people really surprised that there is violence in this movie?
  3. by   Spidey's mom
    I'm having a hard time understanding why people are questioning those of us who have chosen not to see the movie. Just because there are other violent movies out there does not mean I have seen them. I have not seen any Freddie or Friday the 13th or Chainsaw Massacre movies. I do not go to violent movies. So just because there are violent movies "out there" does not an argument make. The only one that I did see was "Saving Private Ryan" and it was difficult to watch but my husband and I went with his parents and his Dad was in WWII and so had a personal reaction to the movie that we wanted to be there to support him.

    As someone has said, the reasons for seeing this movie or not seeing this movie are deeply personal and I haven't criticized those who are going and sure hope y'all don't criticize me for choosing not to go.

    I already have a heartfelt understanding of what Jesus did in those last 12 hours of his life and I choose not to watch.

    I mentioned "Schindler's List" and have probably told this story but it illustrates why I do not need to see "The Passion of the Christ". My pastor lived in Germany as a boy due to his father being in the military. When he was 11, his father took him on trips to concentration camps and holocaust museums. It made such an impression on him that he has a great love for the Jewish people. When Schindler's List came out, he chose not to watch the depths to which human beings can go as he already had a deep understanding of what happened and did not need to see the graphic details to gain further understanding.

    For myself, I have decided that this is not something I wish to do. It has nothing to do with whether I'm a hypocrite because there are other violent movies out there. It has to do with my own spirit. And it is personal. And not hypocritical.

    As I said, my son saw it and was very moved by it. And I think that is fine.

    To each their own and lets live in peace here.

    steph
  4. by   gwenith
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1052700.htm
    last update: wednesday, february 25, 2004. 10:00am (aedt)
    scholars find fault in gibson's 'passion'
    mel gibson's portrayal of the final 12 hours of jesus in his film the passion of the christ has been hailed as the gospel truth by some believers, but many scholars complain that it is riddled with historical errors.

    their complaints range from inaccuracies about hairstyles and clothes to a lack of gospel context in the film which has raised a furore among jewish groups who fear its graphic depiction of the crucifixion will fan anti-jewish violence.

    gibson, who has denied the film is anti-semitic, has said he consulted scholars, theologians, priests and spiritual writers before scripting the film with the aim of making jesus's agony during the crucifixion appear as realistic as possible.

    many christians see the film as bringing them closer to their religion.

    evangelical preacher billy graham called the film "a lifetime of sermons in one movie".

    gibson, a traditionalist catholic who funded the $25 million film himself, was so set on making it authentic that he had his characters speak latin and aramaic.

    experts say this was his first mistake as greek was the language spoken in jerusalem during jesus's time, along with aramaic and some hebrew spoken by jews.

    "jesus talking to (pontius) pilate and pilate to jesus in latin!" exclaimed john dominic crossan, a professor of religious studies at the chicago-based roman catholic de paul university.

    "i mean in your dreams. it would have been greek."

    latin was reserved for official decrees or used by the elite.

    most roman centurions in the holy land spoke greek rather than latin, according to historians and archaeologists.

    the mistakes, experts say, did not stop with the wrong language, which professor crossan, who speaks latin, said was so badly pronounced in the film that it was almost incomprehensible.

    "he has a long-haired jesus ... jesus didn't have long hair," said physical anthropologist joe zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in jerusalem.

    "jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair."

    "the jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something roman or greek," said new york university's lawrence schiffman.

    along with extensive writings from the period, experts also point to a frieze on rome's arch of titus, erected after jerusalem was captured in ad 70 to celebrate the victory, which shows jewish men with short hair taken into captivity.

    erroneous depictions of jesus in western art have often misled film makers in their portrayal of jesus, experts said.

    for some scholars the errors go beyond language or hairstyles.

    they say the heart of the problem is the film's script which interweaves the literal interpretation of four sometimes contradictory gospel accounts of jesus' last 12 hours with the visions of a controversial 19th century nun.

    "this is my version of what happened, according to the gospels and what i wanted to show," gibson told the us television network abc this month.

    but professor crossan complained that the lack of historical context was the movie's "basic flaw".

    the film begins not when jesus enters jerusalem to the exuberant welcome of thousands of jews but rather at night in a garden on the eve of the crucifixion when he is arrested by the romans after being betrayed by judas.

    "why did they need a traitor? why did they need the night? why didn't they grab him in the daytime?" professor crossan asked.

    "because they did not want a riot," he said, explaining that jesus was immensely popular among his fellow jews, which is why the high priests and romans felt threatened by him.

    those details, professor crossan said, were absent in the film.

    "the lack of context is the most devastating thing for anyone who says it (the film) is faithful to the gospels because the gospels have the context," he told reuters.

    one of the most controversial aspects of the film is its portrayal of pilate reluctantly sentencing jesus to crucifixion under pressure from a bullying mob and conniving jewish priests.

    scholars acknowledge the scene is faithful to the gospels, but some experts say a historical perspective is imperative.

    "it is important to see the historical context. not only for the sake of being true to history but for the sake of being true to the gospel passages themselves," said father michael mcgarry, rector of the tantur ecumenical institute in jerusalem.

    the gospels, he said, were written many years after the crucifixion at a time when the early christians felt it would be politically wise to "soften pontius pilate as a way of placating" the romans who ruled over them.

    "pontius pilate was a very cruel and brutal man. and he wouldn't care two winks about executing another jew. he had killed so many before him," said father mcgarry, who said he had not seen the film and was commenting only on the history of the time.

    --reuters

    pehaps the greatest outcome for the movie will simply be the rekindling of debate and discussion.
    Last edit by gwenith on Feb 24, '04
  5. by   sbic56
    I might see it at some point; it will be hard to avoid it! Mel always overdramatizes his characters, not that that is a bad thing. Look at Braveheart, the Patriot, Ransom, all the Lethal Weapon movies, even. He shows his actors exactly how to act, through his directing, too. His stuff is action packed and wholly and awesomely dramatic, so I expect no less of this movie. I do find it interesting that he has now become the wealthiest evangelist ever!
  6. by   palesarah
    Just saw it- a friend's church rented out the theater for 2 showings tonight (Tuesday) night, and he got us tickets to the second showing.

    EXCELLENT film, I would totally recommend it. As mentioned, it was very graphic and a lot of people in the theater did seem to have a hard time watching the most violent scenes. Our friend's pastor made a comment prior to the showing along the lines that anyone who came out of the film not moved by what we were about to see must have a heart of stone.

    We both came out of the film wondering if he had people like us (I a recovering Catholic & a DH a non-believer) in mind. Not that we weren't moved by the film- we were. But we both found certain interactions in the film more moving than the shockingly graphic interpretations of Jesus' suffering. I certainly don't feel like I have a heart of stone! I think I just watched the film from a different point of view than the church group I was with.

    Anyway, I had been waiting to see this film for a long time- DH & I had been following news of it's production online and were excited to find out it would be playing nearby (it was originally going to have a very limited initial release). I was not disappointed at all. This film gave me a lot to think about.
  7. by   kitty29
    Stevielynn - People who feel strongly are, I think,are only trying to understand why people would prefer not to see the movie (among Christains).....I don't think they any more but an understanding is desirered...not any slams.

    Gwenith - I agree with the events surround the death of Christ was political in nature. We all try to figure our what happened, why it happened....ect.....in the end if these evens were to have happened anywhere (Asia) Jesus would have died and the exactness or search for answers in our humaness....what to focus on is that Christ did do this for us....the rest will be known to us in time.

    The debate over all of this is great and opens doors.
  8. by   redwinggirlie
    toooooooooooooo graphic.... I'll pass
  9. by   redwinggirlie
    And no, I know about Christ and the violent end of his life.... I can read about this in the Bible. Paying to see graphic violence is just not my thing... I get enough of that at work....
  10. by   barefootlady
    Plan to see it. Where? When? Do not want to concentrate on anything but movie, so probably at home. Hubby is interested also, but is very put off by some remarks on TV. He says he will wait until later too.
  11. by   H ynnoD
    I'm going to try and go Saturday.Violent movies don't bother me.It might help me have a better idea of What Jesus went through.Right at the moment I can only imagine....
  12. by   jnette
    Quote from stevielynn
    I'm having a hard time understanding why people are questioning those of us who have chosen not to see the movie. Just because there are other violent movies out there does not mean I have seen them. I have not seen any Freddie or Friday the 13th or Chainsaw Massacre movies. I do not go to violent movies. So just because there are violent movies "out there" does not an argument make. The only one that I did see was "Saving Private Ryan" and it was difficult to watch but my husband and I went with his parents and his Dad was in WWII and so had a personal reaction to the movie that we wanted to be there to support him.

    As someone has said, the reasons for seeing this movie or not seeing this movie are deeply personal and I haven't criticized those who are going and sure hope y'all don't criticize me for choosing not to go.

    I already have a heartfelt understanding of what Jesus did in those last 12 hours of his life and I choose not to watch.

    I mentioned "Schindler's List" and have probably told this story but it illustrates why I do not need to see "The Passion of the Christ". My pastor lived in Germany as a boy due to his father being in the military. When he was 11, his father took him on trips to concentration camps and holocaust museums. It made such an impression on him that he has a great love for the Jewish people. When Schindler's List came out, he chose not to watch the depths to which human beings can go as he already had a deep understanding of what happened and did not need to see the graphic details to gain further understanding.

    For myself, I have decided that this is not something I wish to do. It has nothing to do with whether I'm a hypocrite because there are other violent movies out there. It has to do with my own spirit. And it is personal. And not hypocritical.

    As I said, my son saw it and was very moved by it. And I think that is fine.

    To each their own and lets live in peace here.

    steph
    Gosh Steph ...

    I think I have been misunderstood here... in no way, shape, or form was I attempting to "slam" ANYBODY for their choices.. to see or not to see. I certainly accept and understand your argument. Nor did I say that you or others who choose not to see this have seen "Freddie", etc... quite to the contrary.. I said, in that post that I was NOT implying that you had.

    No, I was merely confused that SOME ppl (not necessarily here on this BB) were screaming violence, when many of these same folks had no problem with so much other violence portrayed elsewhere.

    Guess I was just trying to explain why it was important to ME to take this in... that while I'm not one to go watch "uneccessary violence, be it fiction or otherwise,.. this IS important to ME to see it; be moved by it. It moves my spirit deeply, same as Schindlers.... and anything that touches and moves my spirit so profoundly is something that has a positive effect on me, regardless of how horrid a scene.

    That's all I was saying here.. was really speaking more for myself. I certainly was not wanting to offend you.. or ANYONE... nor did I mean to. I apologize if it was taken the wrong way. As you say.. PEACE, my friends. :kiss
  13. by   Tweety
    Quote from adrienurse
    Hello? This is a movie about Jesus. Jesus was nailed to a cross. Are people really surprised that there is violence in this movie?

    No, but I think based on past Passion movies, the intensity and graphicness of it is what's shocked. It's very realistic supposedly.

    They showed scenes of people walking out of the movie on the news, many were in tears. This to me is what good movies are about, moving people, making them think.

    People should however take it in the context that it's one persons version of what happened. Not a documentary of the truth of that day.

close