web
counter
 

passion-of-the-christ.jpg

The Ultimate in Torture Porn

Real-Time Review of The Passion of the Christ / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | March 19, 2007 | Comments (168)


Introduction: In the nearly three years of Pajiba’s existence, we’ve managed to review almost every notable film (and most of the ones that weren’t) released during that time. But there is one movie that we never touched, which was by design. When The Passion of the Christ was released, Pajiba was in its infancy (we were still covering politics at the time), and I wasn’t keen on alienating half of our then 14 readers. There was no way, really, to review it without pissing someone off. But now that Mel Gibson is certifiably insane, the film is the 11th biggest domestic release of all time, and most of our readers are resigned to the fact that we’re going to offend someone with almost every review we write, I figured it’s about time we fill that gap in our archives. Be warned, though: As much as I respect people of faith (and I really do), I’m a non-practicing Unitarian Universalist, which is a kind of like dating in junior high: It’s an “everything but” religion. As in, we pretty much believe in “everything,” but our monotheistic virginity is still intact. That makes absolutely no sense, does it? Well, it’s the best explanation I can muster. At any rate, I’m not doing this with the intention of pissing anyone off, and if you expect to be offended, please don’t read the entire piece and then take issue with it in the end. Just click away, all right? Especially if you are one of my many Christian friends who will use this review as an excuse to disown me.

So, let’s get on with it, then.

00:00: The one thing I do know about The Passion of Christ, besides how it ends, is that it’s long. And in Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew. So, er … kick up your feet and grab a soda. I wouldn’t recommend popcorn, though; that’s blasphemous.

02:39: I’m also going to have to admit my complete ignorance of the Bible. The extent of my knowledge is memorizing all the chapters, for which I was awarded $5 in grade school. But, John, Peter, et al., are gathered around a tree right now and already referring to Jesus as “Lord.” I thought that didn’t come until after he returned from the dead. No? See? I am an idiot.

02:56: Jesus looks like he’s seen better days. He’s stumbling around like he just woke up after a raging kegger at the Sigma Nu house. Elsewhere, some men in Viking costumes just tossed some coins to another bearded guy in a cathedral of some sort.

05:15: Jesus is asking Dad to rise up and defend him. Save him from traps. If Jesus’ Dad were Dennis Quaid, they could talk to each other through time on shortwave radios. And, really, I can already tell you that this is what The Passion is missing.

06:36: Creepy pale guy is telling Jesus to give it up. No one wants their souls saved. Creepy pale guy has a worm in his nose. And then he lets loose a snake. Oh! Creepy pale guy is Satan, right? I’m lost without the horns.

08:46: Jesus stomps on Satan’s snake (no, that’s not a double entendre). It’s his way of saying, “Get bent, devil man.”

10:00: The Viking-looking fellas arrive with the guy who took the coins. They are looking for Jesus of Nazareth. Ah ha! The guy who accepted the coins is Judas, who just sold out Jesus for a few shekels. I bet that bites him in the ass.

11:24: OK, I had to look it up, but the Viking-looking fellas are actually Romans. And the Romans just cut Peter in the face. Jesus is like: “Leave my buddies alone, y’all. I’ll go peacefully.” They chain him up and whip him. I liked John Turturro’s version of The Jesus better.

15:00: The Romans are getting a big kick out of beating the crap out of Jesus. They dangle him off a brick wall and pull him back up by the chains. Uncool. Clearly, they have not been instructed as to how to manhandle the Son of God.

18:30: Some woman is begging the Roman authorities to release Jesus (I think this woman is Mary Magdalene). The Romans are doing that thing with their finger near their ear, which is the international sign for loco.

23:40: The high priest is patronizing Jesus: “Where is this Kingdom of yours?” Jesus won’t take the bait. The Romans think he’s a blasphemer. That he cures the sick with the help of devils. Lay off, folks: He just stomped on the devil’s snake.

25:50: Now, they are spitting at him. Aw, crap. Here we go. They’re mocking him as “The King of Jews.” It’s going to be two hours of torture, isn’t it? Damn it. If I wanted to see a torture flick, I’d watch Saw again.

27:49: Jesus admits he’s the Son of God. The crowd is restless. The high priest is, like, “Death to the Blasphemer.” It’s already getting difficult to write irreverently about this. I can feel the sting of my own eternal hellfire.

30:00: Peter denies any knowledge of Jesus. Ah ha: Jesus told him to deny exactly three times. I guess they’re divorced now.

32:00: Judas is back. He’s like, let him go, man. Take back the shekels. Please. The high priest tells him to scram.

33:41: Two kids are fucking with Judas. They are freaking his shit out. Judas has apparently had some moldy bread — he’s having some funky visions.

36:16: There are more kids now. A crowd of them. They won’t let up on Judas. Suddenly, the kids have vanished and Judas is left alone with a dead animal and a bunch of flies. So, he hangs himself. Judas: If you thought that was bad, check out Our Daily Bread.

38:21: Some woman named Claudia is advising some bald dude not to kill Jesus.

An aside: There are two types of people who grow up in the Bible belt. Those who are deeply religious and those who go out of their way not to learn anything about Christianity out of simple spite. I was the latter. Anything I might have picked up inadvertently, I’ve already repressed. So I had to run downstairs and ask Mrs. Pajiba-Hyphenate, who was a religion major, who the bald dude is. It’s Pontius Pilate. I’m a 32-year-old guy with eight years of higher education and this is the first I’ve ever heard of Pontius Pilate. You’ll have to excuse my ignorance, again. This is what happens when you’re raised by a gay man who actually believes in Ramtha. Ask me about Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment, and I’ll tell you anything you want to know. Mostly, though, I’ll tell you it’s bullshit.

40:00: Pontius Pilate is out in the fancy Roman courtyard asking why anyone would want to kill Jesus. The high priest is telling Pilate that it’s because Jesus believes he is the Son of David. “He claims he is the Messiah.” Wait? Who is David? I thought Jesus was the son of God. And that David was responsible for slaying Goliath. No?

42:16: Pontius Pilate takes Jesus aside for a heart-to-heart. He asks him what’s the deal, man? Pontius Pilate seems somewhat sympathetic. In fact, he goes out and tells the crowd that he has no cause to sentence him to death. The crowd is not pleased. They want blood. It is my understanding that the crowd is mostly comprised of Jews.

44:19: All right, some new guy with a bad beard is questioning Jesus now. Ah, it’s King Herod. Laughing at him a bit. “He’s not guilty of any crime, he’s just crazy.” Well, at least he has a decent beard.

47:32: Pontius Pilate is having second thoughts now, much to Claudia’s chagrin. Pontius Pilate fears that unless he condemns Jesus to death, there will be bloodshed. In the grand scheme of things, he’s kind of fucked both ways here.

50:00: Pontius Pilate gives the Romans a choice: He can either free Barabbas (an ugly murderer dude) or Jesus. The crowd says, “Free Barabbas.” Barabbas is like, awesome. He looks a bit like Andre the Giant, God rest his soul.

51:26: Pontius Pilate asks, “What shall I do with Jesus?” The crowd is like, “Kill him, please.” Pontius Pilate is like, “Damn. You people are cold.” He says he won’t kill him; he’ll just hurt him real bad. The idea I’m getting here is that the Romans — at least the higher-ups — aren’t terribly keen on killing Jesus, that it’s the Jews who are bloodthirsty. Right? This is where the anti-Semitic controversy lies, yeah?

54:04: The soldiers are whipping the hell out of Jesus. Satan is lurking among the Jews. Satan looks a lot like Kelli Williams (“The Practice.”) He’s not, but he is played by a woman, Rosalinda Celentano.

56:00: Jesus takes his whipping. Then he stands up and suggests, “Please sir, may I have another.” The Roman soldiers oblige. Damn!. This ain’t right. They are pulling the man’s skin off with the whip. This is a bit much, if you ask me.

61:00: After five more minutes of this, they untie Jesus. And then they whip him on the front side. C’mon, Jesus. Haven’t you ever heard of shock? Go into it, already. Please. This is killing me.

62:00: Satan is wandering around, watching, with a creepy-looking baby in his/her arms. The baby looks kind of like Mini-Me, if Mini-Me were the son of Satan.

63:00: A Roman official comes out to put a stop to the gratuitous whippings. There is blood everywhere. Unbelievable — thousands and thousands of church groups attended this film? Seriously? It just seems to me like Mel Gibson is incredibly fascinated with the gore. And he’s showing off under the guise of religion.

67:00: The Roman soldiers continue to have their way with Jesus. They’re just beating the hell out of the poor guy. Stop it.

68:41: Pontius Pilate shows the crowds of Jews his handiwork. Is this enough, he asks? Apparently not. They want him crucified. The High Priest tells him that if he doesn’t crucify him, Caesar will not be a happy man. Pontius is like, “You can do it if you have to. But keep me out of it.” He wants the clean hands, though I’d argue it’s a bit late for that.

73:16: Jesus is carrying that cross through the crowd; the hooligans are lovin’ it. If they’d had an Eighth Amendment back then, Gibson’s film would’ve been about three minutes long. This is just stupid. You’ve made your point, Mel. It’s kind of desensitizing at this point — a little bit goes a long way.

75:55: C’mon: Give the motherfucking whips a break, guys? The man has had enough. If you keep at it, there’s going to be nothing left to crucify.

79:19: Jesus’ Mom has a few words with him while he’s down on the ground. He says, “See, I make all things new.” Sorry, folks. I don’t get it. There’s nothing new here but the wounds in his skin.

82:00: The Romans ask some dude in the crowd to help Jesus carry the cross, because Jesus can’t do it anymore. The fella is not happy about it. But he obliges.

83:00: Jesus falls/is pushed down the stairs. Some woman offers him a blanket to wipe his face. A moist towelette would’ve been nice, lady.

85:00: The Romans continue to kick Jesus while he’s down. The guy who was carrying the cross runs out and says essentially, “Cut it out. You’re a bunch of dicks.” He helps Jesus back on his feet.

88:00: Whip. Fall. Trudge. Whip. Fall. Trudge. Gibson really wants us to know what it’s like to carry a giant wooden cross up a hill with a few hundred Jewish people whipping you. If that was his goal, he’s certainly succeeded here.

89:14: This is dumb. Just dumb. Why would watching this make someone a believer? Or even confirm one’s belief in Jesus? Either you are, or you aren’t. And watching Jesus get the tar beat out of him for two hours doesn’t seem like a difference-maker. There is a town back in Arkansas where they put on the most popular Passion Play in the country. I’m guessing there isn’t nearly this amount of blood involved, and yet they seem to be able to drive home the message just fine.

92:00: The guy who carried the cross has been released and told to skedaddle.

93:59: There’s not really a lot of plot here, is there? I guess you might call it a road trip movie. If so, he’s just reached Wally World. He’s about to get on the roller coaster. And they are strapping him in. With nails. *!#&. Damn. $#%. Quit it with the nails, already. Fuck! Quit it.

97:45: Now the other hand. Shit! They had to break his arm first. #%$# Another nail. And those aren’t nails, by the by. Those are freakin’ railroad spikes.

99:00: And now the feet. #&$#*. Stop it! You sick fucks.

All right. I’ve gotta take a break. Eject the contents of my stomach, and prepare myself for the final push.

100:00: Home stretch. But I’d just like to say, if I had children, I’d let them watch the entire works of Eli Roth, James Wan, Clive Barker, and Joe Ezsterhas before I let them watch The Passion of Christ. I can barely fathom what it must have looked like on the big screen. How Jerry Falwell could speak out against the freakin’ Teletubbies yet “pray that Mel Gibson’s movie will … appeal to millions of movie lovers” is beyond me. This is not a film for movie lovers. This is a fucking snuff film. No — I’ve seen an actual snuff film. This is worse. This is deeply unpleasant. I don’t think Gibson is winning over anyone, unless he believes that faith and blood are somehow proportionately linked.

101:00: They turn over the cross, take care of some last minute nailing (#%$@), and lift it up. Mary Magdalene and Mary are watching, grief-stricken. The music is unbearably ominous.

104:00: I haven’t seen a film that made me this physically ill since I Spit on Your Grave. I’m turning green. Yep. I’m going to hurl again.

106:00: What the fuck? There is another guy on a cross next to Jesus. He’s kind of crazy. Looks a bit like Vincent Gallo on a day when he decided to shower. A crow is on his cross, though. And … there you go. The crow is pecking at Vincent Gallo’s eyes. One of his eyeballs pop-splats. Thanks for that, Mel. You sick bastard.

107:15: So, Jesus just hangs by the nails for a few hours, huh? In the heat. And now the rain is impending. The crowd doesn’t seem pleased with the rain. The film is almost over, and where the hell is the part about Jesus’ teachings, his tolerance and forgiveness? His faith in humanity? There is nothing here but unrelenting savagery. Where is the fucking plot? The character development? I don’t’ see anything but the bloody remains of a Jim Caviezel character.

109:00: Mary takes advantage of the break in action to kiss the bloody feet of Jesus. A Roman, Cassius, lifts a sponge up to him to drink from. It’s the only relief from the torture I’ve seen in nearly 90 minutes.

111:00: Everyone disperses because of the rain. Jesus has a few words with his father. The rain comes. This rain is also accompanied by an earthquake of some sort.

113:00: The Romans are about to take another whack at Jesus, but it seems he’s already dead. So, Cassius, just to make sure, guts him with his lance. Blood and water spill out. Cassius falls to his knees. You know what? If this film had any basis in reality, Jesus would’ve been dead an hour ago. Sure, he died for our sins — but he didn’t die 18 times over for our sins, which is what Gibson seems to be saying here.

115:00: People are losing their shit, left and right. The High Priest is upset; it’s in a language I don’t understand, but I think what he says is, “Whoopsie!”

115:23: And: Bam! Satan starts screeching from the depths of hell. He is not a happy camper.

116:00: Jesus is being let down by Mary, who holds her son and stares straight ahead. I know this image: Pieta. I don’t know crap about Christianity, but I studied the hell out of Renaissance art. Thank you, Mrs. Hollicer.

118:23: It’s a few days later; Jesus is cleaned up. He gets up and walks out naked. I recognize that image, too: Schwarzenegger in T2.

119:00: Roll credits. I can tell you now that I’m going to have recurring nightmares about this film. It’s the message film that keeps giving.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He lives with his wife in Ithaca, New York. You may email him, or leave a comment below.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Premonition | Pajiba Love 03/19/07









Comments

Whoa, this is weird--the Google ad that popped up at the end of this review said, "JESUS DIDN'T EXIST?" Didn't they see thi movie?

I completely agree with this:

"Unbelievable, thousands and thousands of church groups attended this film? Seriously? It just seems like, to me, that Mel Gibson is incredibly fascinated with the gore. And he's showing off under the guise of religion."

I'm a practicing Catholic (although, I don't really know what that means to anyone anymore, so let's just say I go to church pretty much every week, but I like sex with my boyfriend) and when this came out I couldn't get over the fact that people were organizing groups to see this movie. Maybe it's because I hear the story/see the story re-enacted (minus the gore) every year at church, but I just didn't think all of the gore did anything to make me a bigger believer/respect Jesus more/reaffirm my faith.

Also, the ending? Where they focus on the huge-ass nail hole in his hand from the side, which is right in front of his naked hip (and butt)? Just...gah. Weird.

Posted by: em at March 19, 2007 2:19 PM

I'm a Christian, and I slept through it when I saw it in the theatre. Of course, that was just that time in my life where I slept through every movie I saw in the theatre...

Hmm, just to let you know, Rairoad ties are the wooden beams underneath the rails, "railroad spikes" are the nails that are like ten inches long or whatever.

Author's Note: Noted and corrected. Thanks.

Posted by: Amanda Mae at March 19, 2007 2:32 PM

says essentially, "Cut it out. You're a bunch of dicks."


hahaha that was funny

Posted by: tffpp at March 19, 2007 2:35 PM

there were snippets in the film where Jesus teaches about loving one's enemies and not giving into hate and that hilarious scene where Jesus invents the dinner table, but overall yeah it had more blood than a trauma center.

I think South Park's episode about it was spot on, even in making Mel look 'daffy'..

Posted by: Andrew831 at March 19, 2007 2:36 PM

Aaaand that's the closest I'll ever come to seeing Passion of the Christ. If I had to choose, I'd definitely pick Farce of the Penguins over that.

Posted by: litelysalted at March 19, 2007 2:40 PM

I can't believe that my seventy-three year-old father saw this. I think the bloodiest movie he's ever seen aside from this was Fargo.

Posted by: Bullfrog at March 19, 2007 2:41 PM

Thanks for suffering through what I've been putting off. I think I'll pass.

Posted by: Brigs at March 19, 2007 2:54 PM

Well, if you really want to confirm your one-way ticket to hell...check out "The Passion Re-Cut" on Youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0C4ZDO5r58

Posted by: Mook at March 19, 2007 2:58 PM

went through your own little passion there, didn'tcha Dustin?

this movie, like the christ story, is bloodthirsty and savage. how are millions of people taking comfort in this? it pains me. you get what you put out, people. glorifying violence just gives us more.

anyhoo, tra-la-la.

Posted by: nexus 6 at March 19, 2007 3:02 PM

You know, I've been to catholic school. I went to sunday school for years, I've been baptised and confirmed (though I'm a lasped Catholic now) and I've NEVER understood people's fascination with the Passion. Yes, the man died horribly, but the message wasn't how he died, it was how he lived. He lived a life of tolerance, understanding, and love, and that's what we're supposed to remember.

Mel Gibson has done a disservice to that message with this movie. I've never seen it, and I never will.

Posted by: Genny at March 19, 2007 3:03 PM

Well done. Toughest assignment you've ever taken on, no doubt. One movie I never have seen and never intend to see. I just don't get the emphasis on the graphic content at all. Seems pretty stright-from-the-pages-of the Bible, though, other than the thief on the cross getting his eye eaten (maybe I missed this one in Sunday school, however).
Essetially, the gore is to heighten our sense of guilt that committing sins should cause in our hearts/consciences? (look what Jesus went through...for YOU). But again, sounds like this was NOT Gibson's main motive in portraying the violence to such a degree. Very unfortunate and hugely flawed, I would say.

Posted by: jason at March 19, 2007 3:08 PM

>>>93:59: There's not really a lot of plot here, is there? I guess you might call it a road trip movie.


Made me laugh out loud.

>>>106:00: What the fuck? There is another guy on a cross next to Jesus. He's kind of crazy. Looks a bit like Vincent Gallo on a day when he decides to shower.


Made me laugh out loud so hard that people two floors down felt my mirth.

Posted by: Catherine at March 19, 2007 3:10 PM

Ick.

I feel you on this one, Dustin. I was raised completely without belief in ANYTHING, by a Marxist Atheist father and a lapsed Protestant mother. Not counting weddings, I haven't been to church since my baptism. My wife? 12 years of Catholic school, and all the trimmings.

For very different reasons, neither of us has any inclination to see this. Thank you for validating those reasons.

Seriously - 10 minutes of whipping a man's flesh off the bone, but the MPAA will censor use of the word "cock"? What the hell?

Anyway, let's be honest. There's only been one good crucifixion scene in the history of cinema - yeah, that's right - Conan The Barbarian. When James Earl Jones says "Consecrate him... on the Tree... of WOE. CRUCIFY HIM." Gives me chills, man.

Posted by: TK at March 19, 2007 3:22 PM

I can barely fathom what it must have looked like on the big screen.

It's excruciating. I spent most of the movie in tears, and would've walked out if not for the fact that I had to write a paper on it for a class I was taking. Watching a nice guy get brutally tortured for two hours is not the path to religious enlightenment, and anyone who says otherwise is an utter dumbass.

This review was perfect, Dustin.

Posted by: Kathleen at March 19, 2007 3:30 PM

Hey Dustin, great RTR. By the by, I'm a practicing Unitarian Universalist for about 2 years now. So I'm pretty sure that according to most other "religions" I'll be in the lowest level of whatever passes for Hell.

I used to be a non practicing Catholic, so yeah I'm feeling much better now. I can have sex with my girlfriend and not sob uncontrollably afterwards.

I didn't see this film when it came out, probably due to the overwhelming barrage of "If you see one movie about the supposed crucifixion of a mythical figure make it 'The Passion of the Christ'" hype that was out there.

That and the fact that I was probably whacked out on Ecstacy for most of that year. Wooohoo!

But from what I've gathered from your review, and in the vain of my "review" of Daddy's Little Girls (damn you to whatever Hell you believe in Tyler Perry) I think I can guess how the pitch for this went:

Studio Exec: Mr. Gibson, weclome. Would you care for a drink? Cocaine? Perhaps a 16 year old Vietnamese prostitute?

Mel: Thanks, I am a bit parched (hiccup!) You're gonna make sure she, uh, "dissappears" afterwards, right? And when do I get my soul back?

Studio Exec: Of course Mr. Gibson, secrecy is of the utmost importance. How do you think Brett Ratner continues to get work?

Mel: Alriht then. Any of you blokes seen that flick "Hostel" (burp!)

Studio Exec: Yes Mr. Gibson, we have. Something about college back packers getting killed for sport by some secret society I believe.

Mel: Crikey! That's the one! Now picture this (burrrrp!)....what if they were hunting Jesus?!

Studio Exec: Great! Fantastic! We'll have our people at the Vatican start the PR, put this on on the fast track, people. That's a wonderful idea Mr. Gibson, hwo did you come up with it?

Mel: Well, one day it just hit me when I was watchin that Hostel flick: Wouldn't it be great if that were Jesus up there spewin blood from every whole in his body? But get this, he doesn't die until they nail him to a cross! It'll be like Hostel meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the Romans are Buffy! But there's no Spike, cuz he's just gay.

Studio Exec: You're truly a visionary Mr. Gibson. One thing though, my people have brought to my attention your, ah, affinity for alcohol. Let's try and keep that under control while we try to push this film down the throats of anyone with a rational thought in their head, mmmkay?

Mel: You got it mate: Fosters, it's Australian for "shut the fuck up you Jew bastard."

I could be wrong though.....

Shameless plug
http://manny-hispanicatthedisco.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Manny at March 19, 2007 3:42 PM

Just as trivia, the guy helping Jesus with the cross was Simon of Cyrene and one of the guys on the cross (the thief) is St. Dismus, the very first saint.

You know, in case you're ever on Jeopardy.

Posted by: Sally at March 19, 2007 3:42 PM

"I haven't seen a film that made me this physically ill since I Spit on Your Grave."

Well that confirms it, I will never see this movie.

Posted by: Julie at March 19, 2007 3:47 PM

I went and saw this because I had free tickets, and I just ended up being pissed off that I was missing part of the NCAA tournament. Such a waste of time. It was completly laughable. However people all around me were openly weeping, so I just assumed that my shriveled heart was missing something...glad to know I'm not the only one who thought this was a plotless exercise in Whip Handling 101.

Posted by: redkitten at March 19, 2007 3:50 PM

Keep in mind, folks, this little gem made something on the order of a quarter billion dollars in worldwide release.

Not bad, for a snuff film.

Posted by: Hope at March 19, 2007 3:55 PM

To this day, my mother cannot believe I will not see this film. She's seen it twice and thinks it's "beautiful". Did I mention we're Irish Catholic? Anyways, what I always heard was that Gibson got the realism down pat of how it would really have been. But having now sat through two seasons of Rome, it's patently clear that the Romans never ever tortured anyone without throwing a casual anal rape into the mix so I'd say Mr. Gibson missed the mark a bit.

Posted by: PaddyDog at March 19, 2007 4:02 PM

Plotless, shameless ... kind of like the fifth real-time review of the week.

Posted by: jsmith at March 19, 2007 4:06 PM

I don't think Mel had most of the Pajiba audience in mind when the film was made, but clearly its appeal was rather broad. Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation that no one here has yet identified.


Consider that, unlike "Saw" or its ilk, "Passion" did not portray violence merely for its own sake. Rather, like "Saving Private Ryan," the intense violence was necessary not only for historical accuracy, but also to better illustrate a tale of individual self-sacrifice for the benefit of humankind. To shy away from a historically accurate version of events (and the brutality of crucifixion, which typically took a long time to kill its victims) would be a disservice to the sacrifices made.


Taken in those terms, I would say the film is not at all gratuitous and indeed respectable for telling an original tale (never previously captured on film) in an original way.

Posted by: Chewie at March 19, 2007 4:10 PM

"This is what happens when you're raised by a gay man who actually believes in Ramtha. Ask me about Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, and I'll tell you anything you want to know"

Well that turned into a weird trip to Wikipedia.

Posted by: Brian at March 19, 2007 4:14 PM

"I've seen an actual snuff film"

Whaaaaat!?

When will you be reviewing that?

Posted by: Brian at March 19, 2007 4:19 PM

"There is a town back in Arkansas where they put on the most popular Passion Play in the country."

I'd like to know more about that. Is it writ new, or a real traditional one from the middle ages? (Anyone know?)

Author's Note: It's in Eureka Springs. Lots of Arkansans take an annual pilgrimage there. It's sort of the down-home variety of commercial exploitation -- I believe I remember lots of billboards and gift shops, etc.

Posted by: ranylt at March 19, 2007 4:22 PM

i cried. not because of the torture itself, but because i never thought about what his mother had to go through. that part when he falls, and she runs to him.. oh man.

anyways, your comment was probably in jest, but i'm a follower of Christ... and if you were my friend, i wouldn't disown you after this review.

Posted by: victoria at March 19, 2007 4:26 PM

Chewie - so... gratuitous violence and gore is ok if there it's historically accurate violence and gore? If it's got a message?

Well - who the hell gets to decide that stuff? How is that fair? Sorry, but I don't buy that. I'm not protesting that Passion got made - I'm protesting that it got made when other movies have a MUCH harder time with the MPAA for lesser incidences of gore and violence.

Saying it's ok because it's true doesn't wash with me. And regardless of whether or not the tale is true - showing a man getting his skin ripped off and then nailed to a piece of wood - is gratuitous no matter what the subject matter.

Posted by: TK at March 19, 2007 4:28 PM

Great review. I was raised in the church and grew up hearing about the crucifixion. I even had my "man, that must have sucked" moments when considering the extent of the violence against Jesus, but I had absolutely no desire to watch it unfold on a big screen in full color, and trading a big screen for a smaller one's not going to change my mind. I think you're absolutely right that there's no way it would change your mind about Jesus unless you're either doing it for the wrong reasons or you don't understand the full message. Some Christians think if people realize Christ's suffering was hardcore then they'll want to sign on. I have no idea how that kind of logic works in their own minds, much less in their group visits to cinemas.

It also ignores a big chunk of the suffering. Yes, Christ had a body and its pain receptors were fully operational, but the psychological/spiritual pain was worse. According to theologians, he was forsaken by the other members of the Trinity and cut off from the fellowship of eternity, and he endured a stint in Hell before he rose again. If all you focus on are the blood drops, you miss a lot of the point. Some of you have said Mel's doing the gospel no favors. I agree.

Posted by: E.A.P at March 19, 2007 4:31 PM

Let's not review any more snuff, real or passionate. I'm 19 going on 20 and I only found out who Pontius Pilate was yesterday. When I picked up the Master and Margarita. I skipped out on Passion, and I'm ever so glad that I did - until now I thought it was a simple retelling of that endlessly retold story, plus a controversial death scene. I didn't know the death scene *was* the movie.
Chewie... regardless of what it was trying to tell, I'm sure it could have been done in a less splattacular way. I watched Lolita, and I have to say that Lyne and Kubrick handled that ick far more tastefully than Gibson handled this. An adaptation can be successful without being grotesque. I believe Gibson gets entirely unholy hard-ons from this sort of stuff. And that's weird.

Posted by: Lola at March 19, 2007 4:35 PM

Thank you so much for doing what I could not and will now never do. I am a practicing nondenominational interfaith minister, and I just can't see the point in anything so stunningly gory. Whatever message Mr. Gibson was trying to send to his audience could not have possibly been adequately conveyed through all of the flayed flesh and spilled blood.

I'm a longtime fan of Pajiba, and I have to say, if you actually vomited as a result of watching his film, I am truly sorry. The crazy bastard didn't deserve your bile.

Posted by: Brandy at March 19, 2007 4:37 PM

Thanks, Dustin. Looks like freaking Disneyland. Part of me recoils, but part of me has to admit that it's probably nothing more than the modern-day equivalent of its medieval ancestors, on a Yankee-size scale. The carnivalesque atmosphere is intact, anyway. Wacky!

Posted by: ranylt at March 19, 2007 4:37 PM

Historical evidence of the time period suggests that Jesus was scorged before being crucified, meaning they probably did whip him until his flesh was completely torn off. This gospel of Matthew even says as much. But Jesus was scorged and crucified for a reason, to pay the penaly of our sins, something that your review implies is left out of Mel's film. I've never seen this, and have no intention to, because always I suspected that it was a shallow interpretation of the crucifixion, and your review confirms that belief.

I'm not sure what's scarier, that you say you've seen an ACTUAL snuff film, presumably on purpose, or that The Passion revolted you more. This must be some crazy gruesomeness to beat out the filmed death of an actual human being. Shame on you Mel.

Posted by: CarpePancakes! at March 19, 2007 4:39 PM

While I can understand the violence of Saving Private Ryan (which came in spurts, by the way, and didn't overtake the plot of the film) helping to drive home historical accuracy and the understanding of what WWII was like, I don't quite grasp how "The Passion of The Christ" is historically accurate. Are there actually any historical accounts of what happened that day, or that any of this actually happened? The Bible is not a history book, and saying that a film about a story in it has to be ridiculously violent to preserve the historical accuracy of the story is just as ridiculous as the film. Please don't compare what my grandfather went through to something that in all likelihood never happened.

Great review Dustin, I'm sorry you had to go through that.

Posted by: Kolby at March 19, 2007 4:48 PM

I don't have a problem with portraying the events according to content from the Bible. If the Bible says that Jesus was whipped 39 times, for example, then whichever method he chooses to show the 39 lashes is fair game.

Where I have a problem, though, is where Mel changes the story. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read:

- There is no mention of the devil in the garden of Gethsemane.
- There is no mention of the devil during Jesus' 39 lashes.
- There is no mention of the devil screaming out with a Darth Vader "NYOOOOOOOO" after the crucifixion.
- There is no mention of little devil beasties tormenting Judas until he hangs himself.
- There is no mention of Pilate's wife Claudia at all.

I know that's just a few things one could point out, but is there I book I'm not familiar with that explains all of these additions to the movie? Is it all in that nun's (Emmerich?) book?

Posted by: brutus at March 19, 2007 4:54 PM

Halleluiah!

Posted by: Matt 2.0 at March 19, 2007 4:54 PM

What, Dustin, you didn't like the little bit of comic relief at the end? Where the rain starts as a single drop, as though God were crying? (But only like Johnny Depp cries in "Cry Baby," mind you!)

This is a sick and twisted film. I can't believe I sat through it not once, but twice (what can I say? I was teaching at a Catholic school at the time). I don't get how evangelicals and other Christians can sing the praises of this tripe (quite literally...I swear you can see the guy's large intestine hanging out at one point) yet condemn an insightful, intelligent and intellectually honest film like The Last Temptation of Christ because Jesus just happens to at one point imagine that it might be nice to get married and have children and, well, that it might feel good to make those children.

And we wonder why the world is in the state it's in?

Posted by: Armando at March 19, 2007 4:59 PM

brutus--

Maybe Mel foraged through the apocrypha? (the at-times more extreme books re. Jesus that didn't end up in the canon text of the NT). I haven't perused them for a while, though, so can't say definitively. All I remember is one of them portraying young Jesus as some sort of a proto-Bart Simpson...

(Who would win in a cage-match--Jesus or Darth Vader, BTW?)

Posted by: ranylt at March 19, 2007 5:03 PM

Well, you finally got me to comment.

I was raised as an evangelical, and now, even though I still believe the basics, I'm so not religious. I went to see this movie in the theater with my mother and my 90-year-old grandmother, who does not believe in going to the theater to see movies, but she wanted to go see it. I spent most of the time worrying that she was going to pass out at the horrendous gore-fest on the screen (she did fine). One of the things that had been pounded into my head for years and years was that Christ died a terribly brutal death, which I guess was supposed to fill me with good old-fashioned guilt.

While it's true that crucifixion was a long, torturous way to be put to death, it became clear to me not too far into the movie that Mel Gibson was getting off on the bloodshed, because he pushed it way further than necessary. I think it has to be possible to show that Jesus died a horrible death without making people's skin crawl as they watch. Though I guess that was Mel Gibson's point. Mmmm, bloodlust.

By the way, the bit with the snake at the beginning is the fulfillment of prophecy:

So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (Genesis 3:14-15)

Posted by: jamelah at March 19, 2007 5:11 PM

Apocrypha. I'll have to research that. Wikipedia mentions heavy usage of "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the meditations of the Augustinian nun Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich." Interesting, sure, but if you say you're going for NT accuracy, then stick to only the NT, you know?

Going to have to go with Jesus on the cage match. From what I saw in the first two episodes, Vader was a whiney bitch ;-)

Posted by: brutus at March 19, 2007 5:14 PM

Spot on review. At the time I saw it on DVD I was disappointed how much glee Gibson took in showing the violence with little or no context for any non Christians. As a recruitment tool it fails miserably since it's hard to figure out what is going on and why. It would have been much more effective to have had another movie (or 2) before this where Gibson showed what Christ did to get so many followers and why his death was tragic, yet beautiful and a gift to Man. A mega budget Life of Christ trilogy could have been stunning, instead we are left with the poster child for the (hopefully) now waning torture-porn movement.

I don't really consider myself religious, but I know the story/myth and it would be nice to have seen something on screen to make me feel something besides tedium/revulsion.

Posted by: Rob at March 19, 2007 5:22 PM

>>

TK- the tale might not be true (or at least ALL-true). I think it's telling that the earliest gospel, the gospel of Mark, tells this story in a single phrase: "they crucified him." Chewie has obviously not really studied the historical facts behind Roman crucifixion. Jesus would've never been made to carry a huge, fully assembled cross. He would've merely carried the cross beam (a "patibulum" to the Romans) strapped across his shoulders. It's true, Roman scourging was a brutal affair with a cat-o-nine tails with pieces of rock and bone weaved into each of the straps that would, indeed, rip a victim's skin to shreds. This served the purpose of making crucifixion victims more pliable, as they couldn't fight being led to their execution if they were in a state of shock from a brutal beating.

Then there's the historical reality of Pontius Pilate having a reputation as a particularly blood thirsty satrap (Anne Wroe does a wonderful job of sifting through what little is known about this very minor historical figure from the legends that grew around his part in this story in her book "Pontius Pilate"). It's rather unlikely that he would've given a would-be messiah from a Judean backwater much thought and he would've had no qualms at having him executed. The stories about the Jewish involvement in the plot are more likely the invention of the early Christian writers who, writing after the disastrous revolt of 66-70 CE which led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the disbandment of the Judean state, were eager to disassociate their young religion from its Jewish roots and ingratiate themselves to the Romans. It's really rather shameful, when you think about it.

That's enough pontificating from me for now.

Posted by: Armando at March 19, 2007 5:23 PM

I feel sick just reading the review. I like my gore in its proper place: The Departed. Won't be seeing this even for scholarly reasons. No thanks, Mel. Please, mate, seek therapy.

I taught Catholic school for two years (I am a practicing Buddhist raised by hippies), and there are some believers who can't get enough of the Passion. All the crucifixes in the church were extra gory. When the film came out, people were peeing on themselves to see it, even taking their young children. Their reasoning was similar to what a poster said above; that everyone needs to know THE EXACT EXTENT to which Jesus suffered. That's right, a good Catholic should see every skin-peeling, blood-spurting lash and be grateful that Jesus took one for the team.

I have to be honest, I never took Communion even though it was offered to me, so I'm predisposed against this sort of thing. The very idea of symbolic cannibalism freaks me the fuck out.

Oh, TK, thanks for the excellent shout-out to Conan the Barbarian. Loved that movie as a kid, and I still get a warm fuzzy when it comes on late night basic cable. When JEJ turns in to the snake: that's the SHIT!!!

Posted by: MaiGirl at March 19, 2007 5:27 PM

"I recognize that image, too: Schwarzenegger in T2"

I thought the exact same thing when I saw it in the theatre. I started laughing a little, which contrasted nicely with all the people around me who were crying. And if he were a terminator, that could explain the resurrection. Those things never seem to die.

Posted by: TRad at March 19, 2007 5:29 PM

MaiGirl: If you were a Buddhist when offered Communion, or even a non-believing Catholic, then there would be no big deal in taking it because it would just be a wafer. It's only the transubstantiated body of Christ if you believe it to be.

Posted by: PaddyDog at March 19, 2007 5:35 PM

Yes! Eureka Springs has made its claim to fame national....sort of.

Dude, one time...Jesus got stuck in a tree during ascension.

Posted by: Sarah at March 19, 2007 5:38 PM

I never had any desire whatsoever to see this movie.

But I do have to admit "Get Bent, Devil Man"? Holy shyte, that's funny.

Posted by: Nadha at March 19, 2007 6:34 PM

As a middle-aged, lapsed Catholic I was not so grossed out by the carnage as I expected. I suppose it was over the top, but no more so than most any gangster film by Marty Scorcese, another Catholic film maker. What is it with these guys and violence/blood? I liked the movie but I don't think Gibson's intent was to "recruit" non-believers, at all. He simply made the gory version of the Passion story that blamed it all on the Jews. Just like his dad taught him.

Posted by: James S at March 19, 2007 6:35 PM

Never seen it. Never will. Your review pretty much confirms the reasons I don't want to.

and Lola, props for mentioning Master and the Margarita. Still the best fiction with Jesus in it, including the Bible.

Posted by: Rob at March 19, 2007 7:01 PM

My friend and I had been debating seeing this movie for quite some time...she's Jewish and I'm just not religious so we thought we might need to sse it so we'd have an understanding of the passion. I'm sincerley glad we never found time to watch it. Thank you Dustin for sitting through such a revolting film and saving me from making that same mistake.

Posted by: Clarity at March 19, 2007 7:06 PM

Um, Paddydog, that simply isn't the case. From the Catechism: "By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood fo Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner" "True" and "real" here indicate objective reality, independent of the recipient's belief.

As for the film - several commentors have wondered why we didn't get more of the Life of Jesus and less of the Death of Jesus - the teaching, the healing, the love, the compassion. Fair question. But Paul - one of the real forces in the early spread of Christianity - preaches Christ, "and Him crucified." The promise of Christianity was the promise of a triumph over death, a triumph won only because Christ had paid the price humanity's sins. That was why people flocked to Christianity.

Put bluntly: God became man in Christ so that He could die. This was His great act of love - to die in the place of all humanity. To lay down his own life and pay the penalty due to another. And because he was God, He could then conquer death, and open the way to eternal life for those who would receive His spirit.

Hence the emphasis on the suffering and death of Jesus - that's where He accomplished His work - where he redeemed humanity through his own suffering. "By his stripes we were healed," etc. That, I suspect, is why the film resonated with so many souls - seeing Jesus suffer so horribly was, to them, a manifestation of sacrificial love.

I'm not ready to defend the film absolutely, but I think it worthwhile to try to understand where the other side is coming from, instead of dismissing them as bloodthirsty nutjobs.

Posted by: Lickona at March 19, 2007 7:08 PM

see sincerely (I can spell I swear)

Posted by: Clarity at March 19, 2007 7:12 PM

"I'm a 32-year-old guy with eight years of higher education and this is the first I've ever heard of Pontius Pilate."
What about his friend Biggus Dickus?

Posted by: Auz at March 19, 2007 7:13 PM

Endnote: The film does provide a line of context - quoting that bit about "By his stripes we were healed" in a bit of onscreen text at the film's outset.

I'll shut up now.

Posted by: Lickona at March 19, 2007 7:21 PM

Hey, I'm a non-practicing Unitarian Universalist too! But I stopped respecting people of faith when they showed how little they respected my atheism.

Posted by: Grumblecakes at March 19, 2007 7:52 PM

Dustin...I work in a church office and we were inundated with shit for this. Youth groups, old ladies groups, they all went to see this. I, unfortunately, went with my boyfriend. I am a devout non-believer (pun intended) and he considers himself a Deist. Anyhoo, he got very emotional and cried along with the rest of the gullible. I was disgusted and sleepy. Afterward, he said that it was one of the best movies he had ever seen, and he probably never wanted to see it again...as soon as it came out on DVD he bought it. This time of year I cringe, because I just KNOW he is gonna haul that puppy out and expect me to sit thru it again...WRONG!! If I want Easter religiousy movies, I'll just watch Godspell....at least I can sing along to that one.

And, Manny, I think I love you. Brandy, I wish I knew where your church was cuz you sound like the kind of minister I could relate to. To all of you spouting about the "historical accuracy" and such....I say, "300." Much better film and just about as historically accurate.

Posted by: dammitjanet at March 19, 2007 8:08 PM

i'm a christian, and seeing this movie was just traumatic. my mom went out to see it right after i got home because she had to see what had made me so hysterical (i pretty much crawled up into a ball in our kitchen).

i do think it was messed up though how so many people were shoving anything "passion" down people's throats after it came out. like, enough is enough. if your goal is to guilt-trip someone into believing, then you need to rethink your motives.

i saw it once, and never want to see it again.

Posted by: Steen at March 19, 2007 8:17 PM

Long time reader, first time poster. Well done. I saw this when it first came out, and man, was I nervous... Heard all the stories about people crying throughout the whole movie... My main thought throughout the whole farkin' thing was "Jeebus, just crucify him already".

Posted by: LadyJane at March 19, 2007 8:26 PM

30:00: Peter denies any knowledge of Jesus. Ah ha: Jesus told him to deny exactly three times. I guess they're divorced now.

HAH! That is the most brilliantly hilarious line ever. Damn. Thanks for making me giggle hysterically in the middle of the review of a pseudo-religious gorefest perpetrated by a member of my former religion.

You know, my own Catholic upbringing was not really that bad -- not as extreme as many were, and we certainly weren't on par with Gibsons pere et fils -- but I am SO glad to be an atheist now.

Posted by: Heqit at March 19, 2007 8:28 PM

I am a practicing Catholic and know that there are lots of sound religious/historical reasons that we believe it's important to behold and reflect on the suffering Christ - it's what Good Friday is all about.

With that said....

I do NOT want the anti-Semitic, 12-kid-having likes of Gibson in charge of disseminating that! He gives the rest of us a bad name.

Posted by: Samantha T at March 19, 2007 9:10 PM

I am proud to say that I will never ever see this filth. To think that the only way that some people can affirm their faith is to watch an innocent man get the holy shit beat out of him is just disturbing. Thank the possibly non-existent Lord that I am a Humanist. And even then I wonder about my choice in belief, because the people that I believe in are the same people that can't understand a One-way street sign...

Posted by: ScarletKnight at March 19, 2007 9:24 PM

Fun Story: Around the time this movie was out in theaters my dad wrote a letter to our local newspaper against some homophobic "God hates Fags" protesters that popped up in our town. A week or so later some lady showed up at our doorstep and said that after reading my dad's letter seeing the Passion made her think of him so she bought him a movie gift card so he could go see it. Yup.

Posted by: Joe at March 19, 2007 10:08 PM

Ah, yes, the unholy nightmare of having 12 kids. Actually, I think Gibson has six.

Posted by: lickona at March 19, 2007 10:18 PM


Thanks for taking the proverbial railroad spike in the brain for the rest of us. You had to have part of you die in order to save us from cinema Hell.

I praise the mighty Pajiba.

Seriously though, you've now guranteed that I will NEVER watch this film.

Posted by: kali at March 19, 2007 10:44 PM

Excellent, just excellent. And really, this movie had to be a Real-Time Review.

Since folks are telling, I guess the closest thing to a religion you can call me is an agnostic with Methodist leanings. I learned quite young that the manipulative fed upon the irrational and desperate within ANY religion, even those that don't consider themselves religions.

At my school, I took this awesome OT/NT linked course (being at a technically private school, I needed those hours) taught by this great teacher. He taught us a neat way to trip up a Bible-literalist: In the OT, the word "feet" actually translated into "genitals". So when someone "uncovered" their "feet", they were actually flashing their junk. Now, if you turn to the NT, you can find a story about Jesus getting his feet washed by a woman using her hair.

No real point with that, just wanted to make a quick laugh.

Anyway, a few points about the review, as well as the comments:

(1) First off, I love the Frequency joke. Took me a minute, since I never saw Frequency.

(2) What does "#%$@" mean? Since you already used "fuck" and "shit", what swear words could you possibly need to cover up?

(3) I disown you. Not because you hated the movie, but because you were such a pansy.

(4) I wonder what a "Passion"-type movie for other religious figures would be like.

- Passion of the Buddha - two hours of sleeping under a tree, I suppose.

- Passion of the Zeus - two hours of boning human chicks while avoiding the wife.

- Passion of the Hubbard - two hours of....wait. This one is just too easy.

(5) Wow, from Jesus to Vader to Thulsa Doom to Conan to Terminator to Jesus again. I love this place.

(6) And does anyone remember the MadTV sketch where the Terminator was sent back in time to save Jesus. Damn, that was funny. Even more so after reading this.

And that is all I have for now, for I am sleepy, and have many more links to click on until I retire.

Posted by: Vermillion at March 19, 2007 10:44 PM

Okay, a couple more things:

(7) Joe: did she want your dad to see it because she though Jesus died because he hated fags? Or because she wanted to threaten him as only a good Christian could?

(8) After reading a volume of my One True Book (Uncle John's Bathroom Reader), I found out about some jackass who thought up the genius idea to dress up as Satan when he went to see Passion (he was obviously not a fan of the director or the material). He, of course, got beat to hell by the loving Christians in the audience. And I laughed, and laughed and laughed....

Posted by: Vermillion at March 19, 2007 10:49 PM

My friends and I caught that T2 parallel right away (complete with the music!) so thanks for the vindication.

Posted by: Mike D at March 19, 2007 10:50 PM

You know the part of the "Passion" that I don't understand? (And I haven't seen it, so I'm speaking more of what I've read/heard.)


Why the hell are certain Christians so damn anti-Semetic? According to Lickona, and this is the way I understand it too:


"Put bluntly: God became man in Christ so that He could die. This was His great act of love - to die in the place of all humanity. To lay down his own life and pay the penalty due to another. And because he was God, He could then conquer death, and open the way to eternal life for those who would receive His spirit."


If so, then isn't NO ONE to blame for Jesus's death? He was SUPPOSED to die, no? So then why blame the Jews? Because we didn't agree that he was the messiah, since Hebrew messianistic prophecies stated that the messiah would bring about peace, which Jesus did not do? Technically, shouldn't that NOT matter, since if YOU believe he was the messiah and we're going to hell for not believing in him, it would all be okay because his death and cruxificion is the very thing that is providing you with eternal life?


Okay, I've been reduced to babbling. And too many questions. But the fact should still remain that no one group can be blamed for Jesus's death, since he had to die to make Christianity valid. Right?

Posted by: Ariel at March 19, 2007 10:54 PM

Rob said: >>

Rob,

Try Franco Zeferelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" mini-series. It's somewhat pious at times but beautifully done and relatively true to the time period. I am a big fan of Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ. It's based on the novel by Nicolas Katzantzakis, not the gospels, but it is a very eloquent and loving musing on the question of what Christ's inner life might have been like if he really was fully human AND fully divine.

Posted by: Armando at March 19, 2007 11:55 PM

okay, one more post from me:

I do recomend seeing Monty Python's Life of Bryan IMMEDIATELY after sitting through The Passion of the Christ. It is a cathartic experience, especially considering that it pokes fun at precisely the kind of Christians that flocked to this movie.


"Blessed are the cheesemakers!"
"It's a shoe, not a sandal."

"Bryan: You're all individuals. You don't need to follow anybody!"
"Mob: YES! YES! We're ALL individuals!"
"Lone guys: (raising hand) I'm not..."

Posted by: Armando at March 20, 2007 12:06 AM

this made me laugh my head off. thank you.

Posted by: hannah at March 20, 2007 12:12 AM

Not much of a review. You self-admittedly lack for background information. I would have liked to see you give this film fair criticism and praise with basis on less superficial factors. It is important to approach this film with at least some understanding of the underlying theological and historical context. The Messianic line of David, for example... you know as much as the average 12 yeard old Sunday-Schooler. I'm sorry, but this piece is a day late and a dollar short. Sorry.

Posted by: Nathan at March 20, 2007 12:13 AM

When the Catholic priests first came to North America and started preaching to the aboriginals, they thought that the black robes were a pretty twisted bunch having a tortured crucified man for a god.Couldn't have been much of a god for this to have happened to him.And the gore factor wasn't really working for them either.If someone came here from another planet and with no previous knowledge was taken into any catholic church and saw one of those great bloody crucifixes above the altar they would assume that Christians were insane.Rightly so.

Posted by: brite at March 20, 2007 12:18 AM

"For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

Brite,
Paul acknowledged this difficulty from the outset. And yet, somehow, Christianity spread around the world. A person might think the body on the cross insane, but if someone told them that this same Jesus said, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends," they might pause. This isn't supposed to be a theological forum, I know. But it's hard to be called insane. Easy on the vitriol, please.

Posted by: Lickona at March 20, 2007 12:46 AM

A: Everyone's a sinner. Bad bad people. You must be punished.

B: Ha ha.. you can't possibly punish us all!

A: But.. but.. SOMEONE must be punished.

B: Yeah, for the sake of balance... let's call it "justice" or "love" or something.

A: I know - we'll find someone INNOCENT!

B: Yay! If we punish someone innocent for all the sins, everything will be OK!

ALL: Yaaaay! Let's make this the basis for our lives and our view of the world! Justice! Love!

Mel Gibson: And I get to make a movie about a method of torture and execution, commonly used at a point in time, but which are now inherently popular and "deep". Yay for me too!

Posted by: MT at March 20, 2007 12:52 AM

Last one tonight, I swear...

Nathan, most of the people who flocked to see this movie ALSO knew as much as a 12-year-old Sunday schooler. Well, at least as much as I did at twelve, if I do say so myself.

Second, this movie was promoted as a movie for everyone to see. Including those with admittedly little real 'theological' (30 mins. on Sunday mornings does not a expert make) knowledge of the Christian faith.

Lastly, the "superficial factors" are the ones on display, with very little in the way of established context. It isn't the reviewer's fault if he can't get past the violence and gore when there is nothing beyond it for him to look for. Especially since he has such little knowledge of the basis of the film.

In other words: Not much of a comment. Sorry.

Posted by: Vermillion at March 20, 2007 12:56 AM

dude, you studied the hell out of renaissance art, but don't know anything about the bible? That's like someone saying they studied the hell out of pizza-making but don't know what cheese is.

Posted by: doubldedeuce at March 20, 2007 1:01 AM

Yeah, last one tonight. And last one from me, period. I gave up the Internet for Lent, took today off because of the Feast of St. Joseph, and wound up here.

Fun fact: Gibson's co-writer on the film was one Benedict Fitzgerald, son of one Sally Fitzgerald, lifelong friend of writer Flannery O'Connor, herself noted for a certain propensity toward the grotesque in her fiction. O'Connor once wrote that the novelist's vision "has to be transmitted, and that the limitations and blind spots of his audience will very definitely affect the way in which he is able to show what he sees. This is another thing which, in these times, increases the tendency towards the grotesque in fiction...

"The reader's need is to be lifted up. There is something in us...that demands the redemptive act, that demands that what falls at least has to be offered the chance to be restored. The reader of today looks for this motion, and rightly so, but what he has forgotten is the cost of it. His sense of evil is diluted or lacking altogether, and so he has forgotten the price of restoration."

Is it so far-fetched to suggest that something of this mindset was at work in Fitzgerald when he helped to write the script? That the makers knew that modern souls were so steeped in casual violence that something extraordinary would have to be put onscreen to retore some sense of the magnitude of the burden Christ assumed, the greatness of his sacrifice?

Does the scourging go on so long as to beggar belief? So does humanity's persistence in sin. I'm guessing that Gibson dwells so long on the scourging because he regards the lash wounds as visceral manifestations of our sins.

I'm not so much defending him here, as I am saying that, in putting "By his stripes we were healed" at the beginning of the film, he is giving a reason for what he does in making the movie. I think there are real criticisms to be made, and the approach is debatable. But I don't think the approach was born of simple, sadistic bloodlust.

Posted by: Lickona at March 20, 2007 1:31 AM

Magnitude of burden? Greatness of sacrifice?


Hello: This Jesus was hardly the only one subjected to scourging and crucifixion.


Like another poster said, this movie is all about the physical aspects of pain and suffering. This has been happenening to thousands and thousands of people. Human beings are treated that way today!

Imagine if in the future, someone made a movie showing in prolonged detail the torture, execution and murder going on now (including some mythological or religious name-dropping, or not).

It's torture porn.

Posted by: MT at March 20, 2007 1:55 AM

So you get controversy from Da Vinci AND from Passion. Are you just not allowed to utter anything about the Bible EVER, or be mombbed? Come on people, calm down. Just because they used some names from your silly book, doesn't give you the right to freak out.

Posted by: Graceful Dave at March 20, 2007 1:57 AM

"So, Jesus just hangs by the nails for a few hours, huh? In the heat. And now the rain is impending. The crowd doesn't seem pleased with the rain. The film is almost over, and where the hell is the part about Jesus' teachings, his tolerance and forgiveness? His faith in humanity? There is nothing here but unrelenting savagery. Where is the fucking plot? The character development?"

This, more than anything else, is what disgusted me with Passion.

This is what made me think, "Mel Gibson is a sick fuck who has no idea about Jesus."

I was raised Anglican, so I understand Christianity (like Tony understands Freud in season 1 Sopranos...). If this is what Mel thinks Jesus' sacrfice was suppsoed to be about, I'm more of a Christian than Mel Gibson--and I'm agnostic.

Devoid of context, it looks like people are weeping with joy and/or cheering (yes, there was cheering in some theaters) at the ritual torture and murder of a man with some inexplicable supernatural elements thrown in.

It would've been like if the Lord of the Rings movies were compressed into a single segment about Frodo and Sam's journey in Return of the King (the movie version, not the book), primarily Frodo's torment as he slips further into the Ring's grip, and as it becomes heavier... Yes, it's primarily what the story is about, but it's not a story in and of itself.

Posted by: Shadowen at March 20, 2007 2:26 AM

thank you for explaining about the Eucharist Lickona =)

and also - What on earth is wrong with having 12 kids? I have 10 siblings and they're all fairly well adjusted, nice people.

I have never seen this movie, and will not see it, because sitting watching a gore-fest is just icky.
And also Mel Gibson is totally insane.
And I don't see how it could be taken as anti-semitism, the point of the crucifiction is that EVERYONE killed Jesus, not just the people who were there at the time (who, yeah, most of them were Jews. So was Jesus, so what?) and you'd think good ol' Mel would have pointed that out when people accused him of Jew hatin', but maybe he wasn't very well educated in his faith?

Also, why are all these non-Catholics teaching in Catholic schools? That's kinda creepy! I don't mean any offense, but.. it is a school run by a church, you would kind of expect the teachers to .. well, belong to that church, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: Colleen at March 20, 2007 2:41 AM

"Easy on the vitriol, please."

Are you fucking kidding?

Why is it that God can't take a joke? And he needs people to CONSTANTLY reaffirm their faith in Him. What an insecure fuck.

Posted by: Bucko at March 20, 2007 2:59 AM

Bucko up there shut the fuck up and get a fucking life if you have no faith. It's ppl like you I pity, sure dont be in any religion but dont disrespect it moron.

Get thinking.

Posted by: Jean at March 20, 2007 6:11 AM

I snuck into a theater to see this, refusing to pay for what appeared to be (and most certainly was) a mud-slinging, blood-soaked spectacle of a snuff flick, but too goddamn curious not to see it. Foolish, foolish girl. The experience was memorable, especially since I found myself the only non-practicing Unitarian Universalist cinephile in a theater full of die-hard Catholics and an entire Evangelical church. Seeing dripping chunks of Jesus' flesh whip across the suddenly oppressively large screen while dozens of people around me sob openly in a dark theater (some of whom brought their fucking CHILDREN)... now that's a memory that's hard to shake.

Posted by: sheshakes at March 20, 2007 7:04 AM

A lot of people seem to think that the nastiness of J's death was particularly important... this has been all very confusing to me, until a Christian friend of mine explained to me, that the goriness of the flick served a purpose of making me see, how much J suffered... just for ME.
Well, I guess he must have been very nice to suffer all that torture just for a gal who doesn't even believe he was a son of God...
See? I'm feeling guilty already and I didn't even watch it...
But seriously, whats with the human nature? Do you need to see a guy die horribly to act in a moral way? Kant would be proud...

Posted by: Dorothy at March 20, 2007 8:19 AM

I wonder if any of the larger religions would stoop to this kind of glorification of violence when considering their own deity?

I have seen someone die on film. More accurately - be killed, and in the name of faith.

Kneeling, hands tied behind his back, blindfolded as his murderer (you cannot define his actions as execution) reaches around and plunges a knife into his throat, hacking, sawing... as the victim gurgles and splutters, writhing in agony - the blood choking up through his throat, then back into his lungs... before his head is summarily hacked clumsily off at the neck.

Sickened yet? I was - still am, and unable to remove those images from my mind.

My point? How is anyones faith restored, reinforced or gained by this film? How did this movie serve any purpose except to revolt, for the sake of revulsion.

Whether or not Jesus lived is not the issue. How he died is also not the issue. The fact his death is glorified in this trite and egotistical fashion is.

I know where I'd put the railroad spike. Mel, Mel... over here dude...

Posted by: WandringSoul at March 20, 2007 8:37 AM

I was baptized Catholic and went to eight years of conservative Mennonite Bible education of various types, only to wind up a happy agnostic, and thus I have the following statesments:

I will never, ever see this movie.

It would have been nice, although it probably wouldn't have made any difference to the overall result, if the reviewer had had the necessary background information.

If Mel Gibson were going for strict biblical accuracy, he would have
a)picked one gospel--they have a tendency to contradict each other
b)devoted time in his movie to each event in direct proportion with the amount of narrative given to each in said Gospel, which would have given MUCH MORE TIME TO DIALOGUE, ESPECIALLY THE WORDS OF JESUS
c)filmed the whole Bible in exactly the same manner, because devoid of context it's only an interpretation
d)not given subtitles, because again, it's an interpretation, and the Catholic church (until Vatican II, which, as we know, is not Mr. Gibson's favorite period of ecclesiastical history, so let's forget it) did not feel that any language other than Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin was appropriate for the word of God

but we already knew that those who took this movie as a piece of religious truth are blind to its obvious partisanship, and nothing that I can write (especially here) is changing any minds. So just venting, really.

Posted by: Gina at March 20, 2007 8:43 AM

The title of the Apocalypto review has stuck with me, and I feel it is entirely appropriate here:

Mel Gibson is batshit crazy.

Simple as. I have nothing against the existance of torture porn, live and let die screaming in agony I say, but I do have an objection to making said torture porn and dressing it up as a religious experience. What the fuck man? I know people who condemned Reservoir Dogs as being "sick and twisted" who treated Passion of the Christ as a life lesson that should be shown to the masses. (Ugh, as much as I hate Tarantino's direction at least that movie had some semblance of plot and some decent dialogue for the violence to work in.) But seriously: if mad Mel wants to go off and make violent and blood thristy "epics", more power to him I just wish he wouldn't try and play them off as educational. Maybe he needs to justify his lust for carnage to himself - we'll never know. Seriously though Mel: embrace the crazy, it's better for everyone.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at March 20, 2007 8:50 AM

Ariel, re: your confusion as to the blaming of the Jews and the fact that Christ's crucifixion was inevitable.

The Jews were a conquered people living within the Roman state at the time of Jesus' life and death. They had their own government and their own rights, but still had to appeal to the Roman government for the ultimate say on things like who they could condemn to death. They did this with Jesus because they thought he was a blasphemer. A lot of groups of people throughout history, nations that are perfectly respectable, have had crummy leaders that make bad decisions. The Jewish leaders made the decision and persuaded their people that it was the best course of action. It's simply what happened. It's not a statement of hatred or racism, and though there are some ignorant idiots who think of Jews as "Christ-killers," the scriptures never once encourage this view. In fact, Christ's sacrifice was due in part to ensure that everyone could be saved, and not just the Jews.

Posted by: hb at March 20, 2007 9:37 AM

Saw this in the cinema just to see what all the fuss was about (it opened later in Europe, so we got the outcry well in advance). Was disgusted by the portrayed sadism and perceived (by me personally) antisemitism, but even more so by the thought that my ticket money would further Gibson's clout and career.
Also the popcorn, in retrospect, was not a good idea.

Posted by: cinekat at March 20, 2007 9:38 AM

My thoughts on why the movie is so gory is answered in the title, its called the Passion of the christ. That and the fact Gibson went on the record in pluging this movie saying that it would revolve around the last days of christ. I for one dind´t expect to see Christs origin storie. How he was droped in a vat of toxic waste and developed superpowers (with great power comes a gory death indeed)

p.s. The kids tormenting Judas wrent suppose to be real, They were the manifastation of his guilt.

Posted by: 13thDuke at March 20, 2007 9:45 AM

According to the bible, that sponge was dipped in vinegar, not water, for further torture, so Mel didn't really give us a break at all.

I was raised staunchly Christian, and since leaving my parents' house I've struggled with my religion/spirituality. I went to see this movie, and wept like a bitch.

It didn't do shit for my unresolved religious issues, except push me even further away from wanting to explore them. Thanks, Mel.

Posted by: lauren at March 20, 2007 9:56 AM

"In the OT, the word "feet" actually translated into "genitals""
Vermillion - which word are you referring to? Is it a Hebrew word or Latin? The NT was written in Hebrew?

Mook - loved the Benny Hill movie. Thanks for that.

"I know people who condemned Reservoir Dogs as being "sick and twisted" who treated Passion of the Christ as a life lesson that should be shown to the masses"
Alex - And Tarrantino, if I remember correctly, had the decency to move the camera away for ear-removal scene

I need to say, I found this movie hilariously over the top. I would have been offended by the portrayal of the priests with whom Pontius Pilate was discussing who to free if they didn't seem so ridiculous and fake looking (almost like they were in on some joke I was unaware of). The torture seemed so over-the-top I couldn't take it seriously or disturbing. I think rocco is the word I'm looking for, but I'm not sure I'm using it right.

Due to my very limited knowledge of Christianity (to join in sharing our faith, I'm Jewish) I can't comment on the accuracy not sure if that is the right word but whatever) of this film. As a religious person, I didn't find this to be a particularly religious film, very little teaching of faith or doctrine. Just seemed like some gonzo, violent, foregin language film. I guess I could have just Netflixed Oldboy but I don't think my father wanted to see that.

Posted by: Brian at March 20, 2007 10:06 AM

"Bucko up there shut the fuck up and get a fucking life if you have no faith. It's ppl like you I pity, sure dont be in any religion but dont disrespect it moron.

Get thinking."

What I said was aimed at the guy who asked for less vitriol. This is Pajiba. Less Vitriol is not an option.

I'll further say that what I said about God and His Flock having no sense of humor is simply proven by what you write in response to what I said.

Also, thank you very much for your pity, but I'm just fine without gullibility faith.

Posted by: Bucko at March 20, 2007 10:20 AM

so the "" tag doesn't work here... just imagine that the word gullibility is struck through! See? I have a heart, and I make corrections.

Posted by: Buck at March 20, 2007 10:21 AM

It's a del tag. >(

Posted by: bucko at March 20, 2007 10:22 AM

You are indeed correct Brian, however he didn't do the decent thing and spare us Tim Roth so we can't give him too much credit.

A couple of notes on previous comments:

1) As far as faith sharing goes: "Hi I'm Alex and I'm a die hard agnostic." My desire to study ethics meant I had to sit through Bible study for half of course, which I found thoroughly enjoyable. Though I'm not sure they appreciated my study being literary rather than literal (on a side note do you have any idea how hard it is to learn the basics of situational ethics when surrounded by fundamentalists? I'll give you a hint the answer is "very") so I'm actually surprisingly well informed on the events covered in the film. Yet another reason I chose not to watch it.

2) To the charming individual who originally posted "Bucko up there shut the fuck up and get a fucking life if you have no faith. It's ppl like you I pity, sure dont be in any religion but dont disrespect it moron"

I find your disrespect of my choice not to believe in something amusing yet hypocritical. I would call for your head on a platter were it not an overused cliche. Also: are three little letters really that stressful to type? Especially as you take the time and effort to punctuate.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at March 20, 2007 10:34 AM

...for the most part.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at March 20, 2007 10:37 AM

Nathan writes,

Not much of a review. You self-admittedly lack for background information. I would have liked to see you give this film fair criticism and praise with basis on less superficial factors. It is important to approach this film with at least some understanding of the underlying theological and historical context. The Messianic line of David, for example... you know as much as the average 12 yeard old Sunday-Schooler. I'm sorry, but this piece is a day late and a dollar short. Sorry.


Nathan,

But see, that's one of the problems with "The Passion of the Christ." It requires that the viewers already know the story of Jesus before they view the film. It therefore doesn't really work as a film. If I hadn't known who Judas was, or who Peter was, or Mary Magdalene or even Jesus himself, I'd probably find myself as lost as Dustin did. I remember thinking this when I saw this film in the theater. How, then, is it unfair for a FILM critic to review this FILM as a FILM?

Posted by: Armando at March 20, 2007 11:02 AM

Ariel - Re: "If so, then isn't NO ONE to blame for Jesus's death? He was SUPPOSED to die, no? So then why blame the Jews?"

You're somewhat correct, but you have it backward a little. According to Christian theology, not no one, but everyone is to blame for Jesus's death. Jesus died for our sins and every single person who ever lived is a sinner, so every single person who ever lived caused the death of Jesus by sinning. The Jews are no more to blame than anyone else. I suppose some people look at it as: "The Jews killed Christ" because it's easier than admitting to themselves that they killed Christ with their sins.

As for the Messiah bringing peace, Christians believe that Jesus is returning, and with his return he will bring peace. (Not to turn this into a debate over whether Jesus was the Messiah! I'm sure Jews have many very valid reasons for not believing he was).

Posted by: roses at March 20, 2007 11:10 AM


>>

Well, things like the "blood libel" (from the gospel of Matthew: his blood be on our heads and on our children), which Gibson merely removed the subtitles for but kept in the film, the portrayal of Jews as Bosch-esque charicatures (except for the ones who are "proto-Christians" like Mary, Peter, John et al) and, the most obvious one, the earthquake at the end of the movie which tears the altar in the Holy of Holies in half, can be taken as rather strong anti-semitic elements. The earthquake scene is particularly damning, IMO.

As to everyone else who was there being Jewish, let's keep in mind that crucifixion was a ROMAN punishment for seditious crimes against ROME. Had Jesus truly been guilty of blasphemy under Jewish law, the Sanhedrin would've been within their rights (regardless of the gospels' claims that Jews, under the Roman occupation, were not allowed to put anyone to death. A statement that is contradicted in the Acts of the Apostles when the Sanhedrin has Stephen, a follower of Jesus, stoned to death for blasphemy) to stone Jesus to death. His crucifixion indicates that he was apparently guilty of a crime against the Roman occupiers, not against the Jewish state.

>>

Equal opportunity employment? Catholic schools are not madrasas where only religion, and a single religious point of view at that, are taught. The Catholic school I taught at even taught evolution in science class--GASP! (One of my colleagues put it very cheekily: "We're Catholics, not Baptists.")

Posted by: Armando at March 20, 2007 11:16 AM

Brian, I must admit, I am blanking on the actual word, but I do remember my teacher saying that the OT was primarily written in Hebrew, and the NT primarily written in Latin, which led to the hopefully unintentional translation bumps. My Hebrew (that same teacher felt it necessary to give us a crash course in the language) is quite limited, so any corrections would be nice. I want to say that the discussion mostly dealt with the book of Esther, but I don't want it to be a definite answer until I can track down mt old notes.

He used it as an example of how NOT to read the Bible, which is as a literal translation of one entire book, instead of many separate books whose relevance was voted on by commitee.

Posted by: Vermillion at March 20, 2007 11:23 AM

Hey Vermillion

I heard that there is a new Frank Miller project in the works titled "The Jesus Effect". It's a somewhat historical account of the day Jesus rose from the dead. Apparently, soon after JC was resurrected he put on some white face paint, black mascara, lipstick, black spandex and with the help of a black bird took his revenge on those who crucified him.

From what I hear, this tale has more facts to support it then any other myth in the Bible.

Who's got two opposable thumbs and a problem with organized religion?
This guy!!

Posted by: Manny at March 20, 2007 11:52 AM

My husband did me the very great favour of seeing this "film" so I wouldn't have to. Now I have to tell him he didn't have to, after all -- Dustin suffered for both our sakes.

I'm so sorry you had to go through that. I say that in all seriousness; I would never wish the viewing of that piece of shit on anyone. I knew it was a piece of shit without seeing it, and I NEVER say that. In fact, I usually disdain anyone who ever disparages a film or book or television program or piece of music without experiencing it firsthand -- but there is ALWAYS an exception to every rule, and this is that exception for me.

So I guess I have learned something here today: from now on, I will have to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who eschews an artistic experience on the basis of an intuition that they will loathe it; because God knows, if there is a God, that I knew full well I would loathe Mel Gibson's paean to torture as much as I loathe the idea of torture itself.

Afterthought: It surprises me not a whit that the Bible thumping members of the Christofascist Neocon Zombie Brigade adored this piece of shit. They are, after all, that 29% who still believe that Bush speaks for GOD Himself and that the torture being perpetrated in our names upon our non-Christian putative "terrorist" enemies is the RIGHT thing to do. THEY LOVE TORTURE. And as for Jesus? They love Jesus -- just not his teachings. Fuck "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek" and "feed the poor" and "whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren you do unto Me" -- that's just inconvenient blather. Stick to the Old Testament for your guide to living.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at March 20, 2007 12:20 PM

Great review... And the comments have been really interesting and enlightening to read...


I'm an atheist, and can't really stomach believing in such a faith as Christianity (as someone said, the story when taken in one go, rather than having it indoctrinated from a young age, is fairly ridiculous)...


What i don't understand... People have said that the aim of "passion" was to reitterate that HE died for US. And that the reason that all the gore was shown, was to show how much of a sacrifice this was. But surely, EVERYONE at this time, living in the state of Rome who was crucified, suffered this? So, I don't really think that it's valid to argue that the violence shown is good. In my opinion, it would show more 'caring' to show the teachings and morals behind his death. His death in itself means nothing.

Posted by: Nina at March 20, 2007 12:34 PM

"The High Priest is telling Pilate that it's because Jesus believes he is the Son of David. "He claims he is the Messiah." Wait? Who is David? I thought Jesus was the son of God. And that David was responsible for slaying Goliath. No?"

Trivia for you: David slew Goliath, yes. The son of David refers to the Hebrew phrase "Mashiach Ben David" which means the Messiah, Son of David. Not that the messiah is literally David's son, but that he will come from David's line.

Posted by: Natalie at March 20, 2007 12:40 PM

As a fellow non-practicing UU, I'm glad to see someone else has as much trouble explaining it as I do.

Posted by: Ellen at March 20, 2007 2:18 PM

nice allusion to Mortal Kombat, Dustin.... and by the way, after the earthquake, does the centurion say anything like, "truly, this man was the son of God", im guessing the film is based on Matthew's gospel since there's an earthquake, but you never mentioned the centurion. that screenshot is FUCKED! by the way

Posted by: brandt at March 20, 2007 2:32 PM

I think someone forgot to tell Mel that if there are four different versions of a story, and all four versions include the main character being whipped, and one wishes to film the definitive version of the tail, one should add the amount of whip strokes from each version and then divide by 4 to determine the average amount of whip strokes.



Perhaps Mel forgot to carry the 2. Or he made a wrong turn in Albuquerque. Or something...

Posted by: JH Maximumm at March 20, 2007 2:56 PM

You didn't see a snuff film, liar. (Faces of Death and Salo don't count)I love torture porn and hate jesus, so I thought this movie was great!

Posted by: mutterhals at March 20, 2007 3:20 PM

Daffy & Bugs have now made an appearance. Thank you JH

Posted by: Brian at March 20, 2007 3:25 PM

I'm a practicing Catholic (teach Sunday school and everything, yo) and this movie didn't really affect me in any way. I'm quite secure in my faith so this movie didn't really do anything for me but provide a very gory re-telling of Jesus' death. What really got me though was the scene of Mary holding his body - that must be the most horrible thing for a parent to do, not only watch their child tortured but take down their bloody body from their instrument of death. That is one thing that is generally not included in the Passion Plays I've seen. As far as the calls for historical accuracy of the actual events of His scourging and crucifixion, it's admittedly been some time since I read each of the Gospel accounts in succession buuuttt......I believe that the scourging and crucifixion are based partly on events chronicled by the Gospel writers and partly on historical accounts of how the Romans crucified and punished criminals.

Another random note, Jesus was crucified beside St. Ditmus because the Romans treated him like he was just an average criminal. Hence the death by crucifixion, which was the most popular way to execute someone at the time.

Okay, one more comment. I was disappointed that the movie didn't focus more on the redemption aspect of Jesus' death. Yes his actual death is one of the most important things in the Christian faith, but our redemption through it is just as important. Mel should have left out a good bit of the torture and focused more on redemption.

Posted by: stardust savant at March 20, 2007 3:31 PM

St. Ditmus? One thing that I don't get about Catholic faith (and I was raised a Catholic. At one point I even wanted to be a priest!) is where they get details like the name of the "good" thief, which is never mentioned in any gospel (and, in fact, he is only a "good thief" in Luke's gospel).

Crucifixion was not "the most popular way to execute someone at the time." It was the punishment the Roman state reserved for crimes against the state and ONLY against slaves and non-citizens (Roman citizens were either beheaded or were encouraged to commit suicide, which was seen as honorable).

The passion narratives in the gospels are modeled/structured after Psalm 22. Their historicity is therefore suspect as the accounts are meant as a commentary ("midrash") on the psalm attempting to understand a way in which Jesus could be seen to be the messiah even after facing such an end.

More than likely Jesus was merely one among a number of criminals led to his execution on that specific day, left to hang on his cross and buried in a shallow grave, where his body was likely eaten by scavenging dogs (the idea of resurrection may very well have entailed a SPIRITUAL rising of the dead's soul to God, rather than a physical resucitation of the man). OR he could have been rescued by his followers (this was not unknown in the case of crucifixion and the fact that Matthew's gospel has an account of Roman soldiers being bribed to say that Jesus' disciples stole the body at night suggests that there was at least a strong tradition suggesting this was the case that needed to be refuted by the gospel's author).

Posted by: Armando at March 20, 2007 3:47 PM

I'll say it less harshly than Nathan, but Dustin, I had no choice but to think less of your review because of your astounding lack of context. Thirty-two and graduate school and had never heard of Pontius Pilate??? That says something very sad about supposedly educated people in this country and our institutions of learning. A rudimentary knowledge of the Old and New Testaments--as literature--is essential to any educated person in the West, if only for all the references that are found everywhere. Same for Greek & Roman mythology, etc. (Let me add, though, that I despised the very thought of this film when it came out and will never, ever see it for many of the reasons mentioned by you and the posters here.)

Posted by: Lilly at March 20, 2007 4:57 PM

Vermillion, The NT was written in Greek.

Posted by: Lilly at March 20, 2007 5:04 PM

Well, Armando, I guess I am little fuzzy on history - it's been some time since my classical studies in high school. So I stand corrected on that and add that Jesus was considered to have committed crimes against the state. They thought he was proclaiming himself to be King of the Jews as in having an earthly kingdom and didn't understand that he was speaking of the Kingdom of Heaven.

As for what happened after his death, I believe that I stated that I am Catholic, therefore indicating that I know what I believe to have happened after his death. You obviously have your beliefs as to what happened, but you need not insult my intelligence or the intelligence of other Christians by stating your beliefs as incontrovertible fact.

Posted by: stardust savant at March 20, 2007 5:19 PM

"Thirty-two and graduate school and had never heard of Pontius Pilate???"

I'm more amazed by thirty-two and has never seen the kick-ass film version of "Jesus Christ Superstar." Pilate's one of the best characters in the opera.

Now THAT'S a crucifixion scene.

Posted by: Samantha T at March 20, 2007 5:55 PM

I'm with you, Samantha T. Superstar is fantastic, with great screaming 70s rock songs and clever lyrics from beginning to end. See Superstar for an angst-ridden rock-star Jesus. See Godspell for a warm-hearted hippy Jesus. (By the way, I am not religious AT ALL and these are two of my favorite plays/films ever. And they work for religious folks too, at least the ones I know. If you want a Christ story, see these, not Mel's sicko gorefest.)

Posted by: Lilly at March 20, 2007 6:14 PM

Oh, and someone above (sorry, I can't find it) had mentioned Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" mini-series and I agree -- a little preachy, but quite lovely. With a stunningly luminous Olivia Hussey.

I still haven't read or seen The Last Temptation of Christ, but have been meaning to for years.

Posted by: Lilly at March 20, 2007 6:22 PM

What the fuck? You didn't really, actually need to throw up, right? I mean, I laughed through the whole movie in the theaters (which was a surreal experience as the woman next to me cried for the whole movie). It's a splatter film about Jesus. I mean, just the sounds effects make you laugh out loud.

You people are just crazy.

Posted by: Hakobus at March 20, 2007 8:10 PM

Well, Armando, I guess I am little fuzzy on history - it's been some time since my classical studies in high school. So I stand corrected on that and add that Jesus was considered to have committed crimes against the state. They thought he was proclaiming himself to be King of the Jews as in having an earthly kingdom and didn't understand that he was speaking of the Kingdom of Heaven.

As for what happened after his death, I believe that I stated that I am Catholic, therefore indicating that I know what I believe to have happened after his death. You obviously have your beliefs as to what happened, but you need not insult my intelligence or the intelligence of other Christians by stating your beliefs as incontrovertible fact.
>>>


Stardust, I'm sorry if you take my statements as insulting. They are not meant to be. However, it cuts both ways: don't insult MY intelligence by stating that stuff that's meant to be symbollic or mythological is to be taken literally. The fact of the matter is that something happened to Jesus' disciples for them to risk death rather than compromise their beliefs. The fact also remains that people don't rise from the dead. Resurrection is a matter of faith. I, as a former Catholic AND Evangelical fundamentalist who is now something of an agnostic leaning towards belief (talk about confusing spiritual backgrounds, right?), just can't accept it without any scepticism.

As to what Jesus did to merit his Roman punishment: well claiming to be a king would be a good first step at getting you killed. Trying to cause a riot at the center of Jewish religious culture, the temple of Solomon, would probably seal your fate (some scholars believe that the story of Jesus overturning the money changers' tables in the temple is a rather sanitized version of what may have been a more radical historical event, with Jesus perhaps going as far as taking over the temple complex with a small contingent of his followers for several days before either escaping and getting captured at Gethsemane, or getting captured outright right then and there. Of course, there's no historical proof to back any of that, but it's an interesting idea).

The thing about Jesus is that outside of the Bible he's not mentioned all that much, so it's impossible to reconstruct anything of real historical value with any degree of certainty. The Jesus we know is, essentially, a literary character. Many wonderful things are credited to him, though, and I've come to believe that it's his teachings that are really important, not his death. In fact, I would venture that this talk of him as being God incarnate and such would be anathema to the real Jesus were he ever to hear it, seeing as he was a devout Jew and all.

Posted by: Armando at March 20, 2007 8:26 PM

coming in a bit late here i think, but just wanted to add a little note. i think the difference between Jesus's execution and Stephen's was basically that Jesus was a very popular figure and the Pharisees didn't dare to take hold of Him and probably could've only successfully gotten rid of Him with the help and sanction of the Romans, because of the mass amount of followers He had. whereas Stephen was nowhere near as public a figure and they could easily have stoned him for blasphemy but still kept the situation under control.

and i also suspect that Jesus rubbed the religious leaders the wrong way a lot worse, and human vindictiveness typically wants our perceived threats and hated enemies to suffer. they wanted to get rid of Him with the help of Rome to make sure they could keep the crowds under control, and the crucifixion was probably fitting in their eyes because of the great blasphemy they believed Jesus had committed when He claimed to be the Son of God, whereas Stephen was only a follower of this great blasphemer. that's just looking at it from a material point of view.

spiritually speaking, yes crucifixion was a widely used form of punishment but Jesus's death was significant not primarily because of how much He suffered, but because of who He was. the method of sacrifice was determined by the time period He was in, and how much He suffered naturally followed the purpose of His sacrifice, which was the atonement for the wrongdoing of humankind. so it wasn't about, "His death didn't mean anything because lots of people died that way, and lots more people have died worse ways," but because He was different from all those people who were also crucified, and from anyone else in history, for that matter. He wasn't just another human being, He was a lot more than that and He voluntarily gave His life up for our healing and redemption.

i don't on principle agree with the guilt-tripping, Bible-pounding approach to telling people about the gospel and that's where i think Mel's movie made the worst trip-up. for those who already profess their faith i suppose now and then it's important to meditate on Christ's sacrifice to remind ourselves of how much He loved us and went through for us, but i don't think even then it's necessary to sit through the entire film with your eyes wide open. i refused to watch the film for a long time because i told myself and my friends who tried to invite me that i didn't need to see in graphic detail how Jesus suffered, i had an idea and that was enough for me. and when i finally did get pulled into sitting through it, there were times i just turned away and didn't look, and of course i wept, but i didn't cry 'cause of some religious guilt-ridden epiphany, i cried at the suffering we're capable of putting each other through as human beings, and i cried most of all for Mary, the mother. that scene when she ran to Him broke my heart, and also that line Dustin mentioned, "see mother, i make all things new." that was the most significant line in the whole film for me because it just spoke of plain courage. fyi Dustin, that was something He said someplace else in the NT, not when He was on His way to die, but it basically meant that He was in the process of redeeming humankind, without which the possibility for a new beginning wouldn't have been realised, there'd just have been a continuity of the human state without a hope for change. the newness He spoke of was spiritual and internal first, then a physical, observable one that comes as a result of the former. and the very idea that He went through with it always choosing to be obedient to the necessities of the sacrifice just awes me dumb.

anyhow, the little note's turned into a rant. so i'll just clamber off now. :p

Posted by: muzzle activist at March 20, 2007 9:12 PM

Thanks for the correction, Lilly.

Posted by: Vermillion at March 20, 2007 9:40 PM

Just one more comment from me - isn't it funny how a discussion about religion can remain more civil than one about a dumb action flick (see: 300 comment thread)? Pajibans never cease to make me think.

Posted by: stardust savant at March 20, 2007 10:32 PM

And as I have just seen, more civil than a discussion about a campy horror flick.

Posted by: stardust savant at March 20, 2007 10:36 PM

I know I'm not one of the avid posters on this site, but I am an agnostic (heathen? lol) who is probably going to hell with you. I'm also an ordained minister who is boycotting Easter. ANYWAYS. I loved your review of this movie, and also, your complete lack of knowledge of the Bible. lol. GREAT JOB. =D

Posted by: Kim at March 20, 2007 10:41 PM

viking looking dudes are jews actually not romans, try harder.

Posted by: watanabex at March 20, 2007 10:46 PM


nice review. i think i gleaned more historical knowldege from your posting than i did from upteen years of sunday school. kudos.

and nice "frequency" reference. all hail to dennis quaid in another time/dimension.

Posted by: idiot dentist at March 20, 2007 11:22 PM

I am (1)a Christian; (2) never going to see this film; (3)never going to see another Mel Gibson movie ever; and (4)horrified, like you, that so many people found it "beautiful." W.T.F?**

Your review was fascinating because you had no background on the details, people, etc. It's really one of the best reviews of the film I've read.

**I do not think it is a coincidence that the Christian Right has simultaneously embraced this film and a pre-emptive, criminal war.

Posted by: Louise at March 21, 2007 3:08 AM

I actually saw this when it was in cinemas. I'm Pagan, but I knew the basics of the Bible, and quite frankly, Jesus's message fits into Paganism rather well.

Anyways, this was very likely one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen. Its only redeeming quality is that it's very realistic in its portrayal of Roman torture techniques, but still. I like to consider myself pretty hard-ass when it comes to violence in films, but this was just a film that didn't have to be made. I cried, and I wasn't even pregnant then.
There are about 5 minutes in the entire film that center on what Jesus taught, the rest is gore and bloodshed. Yeah, yeah, I know. He had to suffer to be enlightened or whatever, but it's just unnecessary. Take it down a peg or twenty, and it'll still be one gory, disgusting movie.

I couldn't, nay, wouldn't believe my eyes when I read that people took their 6-year-olds to see this.

Posted by: Gersemi at March 21, 2007 9:50 AM

Mook,
That link just made my week,
Clang!

Posted by: Paul Curtin at March 21, 2007 9:56 AM

Time to put this blog to bed. After reviewing several intelligent, enlightening and downright hilarious posts (Thanks Vermillion, Lilly, etc), I can no longer keep my tongue still (that's what SHE said!..lol!.....sorry).

I submit the following to Pajiba and it's illustrious commentors as THE BEST JC MOVIE EVER MADE:

Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter

http://www.badmovies.org/movies/jesusvamp/

Posted by: Manny at March 21, 2007 12:35 PM

OGM Manny. I actually know some of the people involved in that one.

Posted by: ranylt at March 21, 2007 1:36 PM

Former Xtian, now a Buddhist, had no desire to see this movie because the violence fixation says more about Gibson than it does about faith. And the review confirms my hunches about it being tortune porn. No thanks.

And oh-- "Passion of the Buddha - two hours of sleeping under a tree, I suppose."

Actually, it was 49 days. We take our beauty rest/enlightenment meditation seriously, man!

Posted by: El Barto at March 21, 2007 1:38 PM

"OGM Manny. I actually know some of the people involved in that one."

Posted by: ranylt at March 21, 2007 1:36 PM

If I prayed ranylt, your soul would be on the list. Who did/do you know?

Posted by: Manny at March 21, 2007 2:56 PM

Well, I have an elbow-brushing acquaintance with the director, Lee Demarbre--he's the friend of a few of my friends, and kind of large on the film scene in my city. Also, a pal of mine is in a later fight scene as a near-extra--it's been years since I've seen JCVK and memory is admittedly fuzzy, but I believe she's sporting pink hair (?). The film was obviously intentionally made to be "bad" and concocted by a circle of true film geeks who know more about filmmaking and cinema than maybe JCVK lets on--pink-hair girl is a filmmaker in her own right (award-winning short films that have been noticed in the US and Europe) and Demarbre for years managed our city's main repertoire/foreign/indie playhouse.

I'm just wondering where you're located, Manny--has JCVK made waves far afield? And have you seen the Harry Knuckles movies? This stuff can't be easy to find beyond my neighbourhood.

It's true--JCVK would be a great antidote to Mel's Passion, if Life of Brian doesn't do the trick...

Posted by: ranylt at March 21, 2007 3:15 PM

Ohhh, Ranylt. Bless the endless stream of useless pop culture that is my psyche. I came across it on Badmovies. You'll find the link on my blog
http://manny-hispanicatthedisco.blogspot.com/

However, I must warn you: the colossal damage that you're mind and eyeholes are likely to endure at the hands of some of these gems is priceless.

Other than that, enjoy!

Posted by: Manny at March 21, 2007 4:21 PM

HWAET! HO! The Abominable Dr. Phibes and Vampyres on Bad Movies??!! I am cradling them in my arms right now, consoling them.

Despite these egregious additions, I am so sending that link to my "bad movie" friend Paul, who will be the first to tell you that these are, to the last, each one cinematic works of art--nay, national treasures of their respective homelands.

Thanks, Manny!

Posted by: ranylt at March 21, 2007 4:30 PM

So, I just read through almost every post up there (I skimmed a little), and I'm wondering why I'm the only one who seems to have come up with this particular reaction:

For some reason, I don't find it at all surprising that the devil in a Mel Gibson film is played by a woman.

Sugartits, anyone?

Posted by: Cheryl at March 21, 2007 5:54 PM

Cheryl, you are my new hero(ine).

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at March 21, 2007 6:28 PM

The sheer bloodbath spectacle of the movie bothered me, as I expected it would, but also left me with a sense of bafflement. I was raised Protestant (Church of Christ), and although we have our share of fire and brimstone, we were also taught that Jesus was generally a pretty cool dude. "Love thy neighbor," after all.

As others have already pointed out, this movie assumed that the viewer already knew Jesus's story and why it was important that he died. So it made the assumption that the viewer was faithful, or at least knowledgeable. And then it rewarded this faith with exquisitely gory detail that almost implied that Jesus must have truly done something awful; no movie villain ever died so nastily or at such length.

Put another way, people who weren't familiar with the story of the Passion would have hardly been brought around to Christianity by this movie, for there was no leading up to the death scene, no reasons given why this was the monumental tragedy it was. For those who knew why it was tragic, they only got to see a nice guy get tortured for two hours, as someone else already said. Either way, I don't think it was a good advertisement for Christianity.

Posted by: Noelegy at March 21, 2007 6:39 PM

My biggest problem with the movie and with mainstream Christianity is the focus on how Jesus died. Yes, it's a signinficant act and he died for our sins, but isn't it more appropriate for us to celebrate his life? He said and did so many things, and focusing just upon his horribly bloody end trivilizes his life. He's nothing more than a corpse, and those who put on Passion plays are just killing him again and again. If Christianity was the religion I want it to be, celebrating the individual savior and living a pure life, then I would be all for it. But as it seems to me that the focus is on how he was (a) the son of god and (b) horribly killed. I blame Paul for that, he was a conniving bastard and a sower of discord if there ever was one.

Posted by: eb at March 21, 2007 6:51 PM

You know what's a good advertisement for Christianity?

Hot Crossed Nuns: Volume 5.
A factual account of one Nuns quest for spritual (and physical) satisfaction.

I'll be casting this weekend. Please submit all bodies of work. Only deaf, mute, smokin hot chicks need apply.

Posted by: Manny at March 21, 2007 6:57 PM

Cheryl, the entire Bible is filled with misogyny. Sugartits Gibson is only playing off the material he had. Although, I myself, have no problem with a female devil. As long as she is hot and wears a blue dress occasionaly.

Posted by: ScarletKnight at March 21, 2007 7:02 PM

God bless you, Manny! Hot Crossed Nuns. Volume V, no less! I've gotta go check it out now!

Eb, I'm with you on your beef with the focus on death and suffering. I was just at a local Borders and noticed that John Dominic Crossan has a new book called God and Empire. In that book, as in many of his books of late, he does what the Bible stopped doing for me a while ago: he makes Jesus and his radical notions of how the world SHOULD work really jump off the page with vibrancy and relevance. It also makes me a little sad, because there's little chance of a "peace through justice" movement of non-violent resistance to overtake the "peace through victory" violence that is common to civilization and which eventually engulfed Christianity itself.

Posted by: Armando at March 21, 2007 7:54 PM

I actually liked that Dustin's review is from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with Christianity. I was raised Christian so it's often hard to distance myself from what I know & see things from this perspective.
I got a few good things from this movie & they were all in the few non-violent moments. The rest of the time I hid behind my hands & winced. I have now repressed those grusome memories - so, Mel, that did a lot of good, huh? (And while I can see why some went out to see it, I will never understand why anyone bought the DVD!)
I'm glad that people get some good from the teachings of Jesus, but I've always thought that you have to do a lot of editing to separate this from his main message.
Someone *way* up there mentioned how Jesus didn't bring peace. This was precisely what caused anger & betrayal by many followers who had cheered for him a week earlier: a misunderstanding of the peace Jesus was referring to. He didn't come to become a literal king right then & there. Likewise, this movie ignores much of the spiritual over the immediate physical aspect.
Lastly, I'm sorry to all the agnostics & atheists who have been shown a gross lack of respect by people of faith. Please don't turn around and take it out on all of us! There's some of us who are democratic & considerate of others' beliefs and willing to question intelligently & without pride - and it hurts a lot to be clumped in with a cruel stereotype!

Posted by: mfg at March 21, 2007 8:26 PM

ranylt--JCVK has at least made it to Charlottesville, VA. It's shown at least once a year in my dorm to great fanfare.

Also, this review made my day.

Posted by: charlottelightanddark at March 21, 2007 9:57 PM

charlotte - who knew??!!

Posted by: ranylt at March 22, 2007 7:50 AM

As someone who was raised in a very conservative Protestant church, your experience of watching this just further drives home to me how weird and disturbing the traditional, ancient Christian faith I was raised in is. The reason why I'm no longer a Christian and a lot of my friends and former classmates are is that I read the Bible through multiple times and studied the shit out of Christianity, while they just passively endured religion classes with the same kind of sleepy, half-assed, good-natured incomprehension they brought to the rest of their studies. It doesn't surprise me that people like my former classmates love this awful movie, while simultaneously insisting that Christianity is all about love and peace and goodness.

Two more comments. The popularity of this movie among Christians and the extent to which they have embraced it has more to say about the barbaric state Christians have sunk into since WWII than anything else. Mainstream Christianity had been headed towards a kind of decent, common-sense, brotherly direction from the Enlightenment up till WWI. After WWII came a reactionary resurgence of that good old tyme religion of yore, which really got underway by the 70's with the rise of fundamentalism in a big way.

In the decades since then, much of Christianity has turned into this angry cult of regressive conservatives who have infused their version of Christianity with "manly" brutality, political incorrectness, militarism, and all things that go against anything refined and "soft" which they equate with "liberalism." How much of these people's views are actually Christianity, and how much they are part of their conservative backlash is hard to sort out.

And comment the second, I agree with Nietzsche's observation that although human beings believe that they are more compassionate and less cruel than their ancestors, it ain't so. Nietzsche pointed out how torture and the spectacle of suffering thrilled and delighted our ancestors. You're right, this is a sick snuff film that "the pious" can go to and get a thrill from - both the sadists and the masochists. Maybe more of the latter, since traditional Christianity is so much a method of self-torture through guilt over sin which is what supposedly caused Jesus to have to suffer what he did. Which the faithful are treated to in dripping detail in this film thanks to Mel.

God, I'm glad I'm not a Christian anymore...

Posted by: dw at March 22, 2007 2:16 PM

Oh, I definitely know the Bible's filled with misogyny - I went to a private school for 8 years that included a daily chapel service and a required theology course. I just find it interesting and not at all ironic that Mel Gibson is one of the only (if not the only - hard to say, though) filmmaker to portray the devil as a woman.

Would that make him a feminist? (In the same vein as the Elisha Cuthbert movie billboards...)

Posted by: Cheryl at March 22, 2007 5:06 PM

Pontius Pilate? Isn't he the dude in the Jackass movies? What's HE doing in this?

That scene where they drink the horse semen is priceless. Do they do that in The Passion? I would so totally go see it if they do.

They should have wee man running along side Jesus wearing a diaper, have him jump on Jesus' back and then pour alcohol on him.....that would be funny.

Is Johnny Knoxvill in it too?

Posted by: Manny at March 22, 2007 6:37 PM

Practicing catholic. Never seen it, have no intention to but want to echo a few things:

(1) cheryl, thank you for pointing out that the devil was played by a woman. Oh mel....you're just too predictable.
(2) if you have about 8 hours of spare time and want a jesus movie, go watch "jesus of nazarath". the crucifixion seen is a leeetle gory but primarily pyschologically difficult to watch. why do we always kill the peacemakers in society?
(3) REAL christians celebrate and appreciate those of Jewish faith as common believers in the same god. I have jews in my family and we joke that the only difference between us is a few prayers and nicer dishes to eat off of at weddings.
(4) St. Paul went and got us all effed up on how we deal with jesus and his teachings. If you listen to any evangelical talking their smack, they aren't quoting jesus, they are quoting st. paul (who in case you didn't know is NOT the son of god)
(5) but for the resurrection there would be no christianity. it's much more impt than the passion. I think mel missed that day in sunday school.

I could care less what anyone else believes and never in a million years will I shove my faith down someone else's throat. I personally use my faith as a means to be coming a better version of myself. I think that is what any and every faith should accomplish. But seirously, movies like this crap only turn non-religious folks off to reliegion. Which I think is quite sad.

Posted by: lawyerjenn at March 22, 2007 11:49 PM

And Christians wonder why they creep people out.

Another reason: one day, your Christian friend will look at you in a way that says he is thinking about your going to Hell. It will be a smug look.

Re. the Pash: when it came out, I was surprised so many people were shocked it was so violent and such a brutal oversimplification of Christian doctrine. It's a Mel Gibson film; what more do you need to know?

Posted by: Janis at March 23, 2007 2:12 AM

Accuracy is one thing but the review makes a good point about shock etc. There is no way that a person can be beaten that badly and still survive.

Posted by: Songkhla at March 23, 2007 3:10 PM

Not that this has anything to do with The Passion of the Christ...but I would LOVE to read a real time review of Campfire Stories. It's from 2001 and it has the girl from the Sopranos in it and it may be one of the worst movies ever made. It's Mystery Science Theater 3000-esque. Here is a direct quote: "Y'see, just when you think you got life by the balls, you try to kill an Indian... an' he steals the life right outta you."

Posted by: me at March 23, 2007 5:41 PM

I was actually pretty disappointed with this review. I was looking forward to seeing Dustin's take on the Passion, but this was surprisingly bland considering how much material there was to work with. Ironically, just like "Passion", this review read like there was an agenda, namely to mock people of Christian faith, who are,granted,a pretty wide and easy target. Probably had my hopes pinned too high on this review, but the barbs (sorry for the pun) felt pretty cheap and easy. And I was really surprised at the complete lack of knowledge over the story. Religious or not, I'd thought you were more well-read, Dustin. Keeping my fingers crossed for the next review.

Posted by: comicwriter at March 23, 2007 6:28 PM

I'm a bit late to comment, but whatever. I am a believer of Christ. I try to have a christ like additude and fail every day. I don't look like most the people in the christian church, matter of fact I probably look more like I fit in at your Unitarian Universalist church Dustin. My mom attends at one that's how I know. So don't try and peg me as one of the right wing, Bush electorate, bible belt, mini van driving, self righteous zombies. See, right there I'm not living up to what I strive. Maybe I am a little self righteuos, just in a different direction. Whatever. Back to The Passion. I felt deeply moved by this movie. It did go overboard in much of the violence but I had never put Jesus into a human light before I saw this. Seeing Jesus tortured made me recognize what He went through for me and everyone else. (sorry if that wording offends anyone but that is what I believe) At any time he could have removed himself from that experience. I had always emotionally distanced myself from the idea that Jesus was present for so much pain and humiliation. After this movie I didn't. The story of Jesus was certainly about how he lived but if you neglect what he endured so we could live, you discount it. Also the story of Jesus' death shouldn't be viewed as a demonization of Jews. (granted Mel Gibson doesn't have the best record.) It didn't make me think people of Jewish faith were evil. Jesus was a Jew. Thats right... Jewish, raised in the Jewish faith, born of Jewish parents. God's revered children of Israel. It seems awfully stupid to hate Jews as a Christian. Honestly to hate anyone is against Christ's teachings, did people miss that? Even on the cross he asked his Father for forgiveness for his murderers, torturers, and mockers.

Posted by: ms holt at March 23, 2007 6:41 PM

lawyerjenn, beautifully put -- thank you for that post. (And the bit about St. Paul the Misogynist...evangelicals do love to quote him don't they?)

Ms Hoit, it's interesting that you found a connection to Jesus' humanity through the Mel film. I always found it (as I mention above) in Superstar and Godspell. Well, in Superstar it's partly because he's so frustrated with his doofy apostles, but it's also the mental anguish in the Gethsemane song. Seriously, rent the film just for that scene if you've never seen it.

And in Godspell, it's because he's so warm and sweet and sad.

Posted by: Lilly at March 23, 2007 9:15 PM

sorry, that should have read "ms holt" -- it's the end of a long day and my eyes are tired

Posted by: Lilly at March 23, 2007 9:17 PM

Thanks for the recommendations Lilly. I'll check them out.

Posted by: ms holt at March 24, 2007 10:55 AM

To those who responded to my anti-Semitism post, including hb & roses:


Yup, aware that Jesus was Jewish. Last Supper? Our Passover seder. He celebrated all of our holidays. I've actually been in some very interesting conversation with those who call themselves Christians (and proclaim I'm going to Hell - wait, isn't G-d the only one who can make that decision?) in which I asked why they didn't also practice the Jewish faith to "truly follow Jesus."


But anyway... my point was not literally to ask why people blame the Jews. I know the whole idea that Jesus died for everyone's sins. I know the whole concept of the Second Coming and how that will return peace (roses - the Jewish concept of a messiah is that he will bring peace the first time he returns, which is in general the reasoning for Judaism's "rejection" of Jesus as a messiah).


No, my question was merely a hypothetical to throw out to the universe. Yes, the Jewish leaders were involved in his condemnation. Yes, there is the idea that he died "for all our sins" including those of the Jews. But why, if the REAL message should be love and forgiveness and godliness, then have Catholics and Christians (NOT all - but certainly some in an organized manner) murdered, punished, forced into exile, and otherwise discriminated against a group of people who contributed to over 3/4 of their Bible? I don't get it. I also don't get the use of the Bible to justify slavery or the destruction of native faiths all over the world, but that's another discussion, I suppose.

Posted by: Ariel at March 24, 2007 8:24 PM

I will never EVER see this film and I respect your decision not to see it until now. As always, it's been interesting to hear people's thoughts in Pajibaland, so I'm grateful for the worthy discussion. But I'll still never see this film and I'm just completely disgusted and saddened even thinking about it. Mel Gibson is a sick freak.

Posted by: Adrianne at March 24, 2007 9:09 PM

You've never seen a real snuff film.
Trust me.

Posted by: imcold at March 25, 2007 5:41 PM

Ariel,

The main reason for Christian anti-semitism throughout history stems, in my view, from when the gospels were written. The earliest, Mark, dates from the mid-60's C.E. at the earliest. The latest, John, was written around 90-110 C.E. This places them within the generation affected by and immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army under General Titus during the Jewish revolt of 66-70. Christians, who began as an outgrowth of Judaism (so much so that the Bible still retains discussion as to whether or not gentile converts should be made to embrace Judaism and Jewish customs-as James and Peter, at least at first, held-or not-as Paul held), seeing that Romans would not be as tolerant of Judaism and Jews after the civil war as they'd once been, began to attempt to ingratiate themselves to them by showing that Christianity was an obedient religion and that it had nothing against Rome, even though its "founder" (I place this in quotes because I really doubt Jesus intended to found a new religion at all) was executed as a seditionist against the Roman state. Hence, Pontius Pilate is exhonerated for Jesus' death in the gospels by the insistence, however unhistorical (and contradicted by the story of Stephen's martyrdom in the book of Acts), that the Jewish authorities were not allowed to put anyone to death and had to bully one of the bloodthirtiest governors in the early imperial period to have him killed. In a way, then, Titus is indirectly responsible for centuries of Jewish progroms and persecution which are only now beginning to abate, and even that somewhat reluctantly.

Posted by: Armando at March 25, 2007 5:52 PM

I know it's late to be saying anything when so much has already been said, but...

1. Thank you Cheryl, for pointing out that the devil was played by a woman! One reason I wouldn't see this movie

2. The "Passion" refers to the actual crucifixion in the Catholic Church, not the literal passion (emotion) of Christ

3. How is forcing anyone to watch Jesus Christ be crucified on film going to convince him/her to become a Christian???

I'm a practicing Christian (Protestant) and was horrified by the idea of the movie. I honestly think such a brutal take on Christ is more sacrilegious (spelling?) than any spoof could be. Which is why I refused to see it.

Posted by: bonnie at March 25, 2007 11:45 PM

Just for the record, Gibson chose to focus entirely on the Passion because this act is absolutely central to the Christian religion - much more so than Jesus' social teachings or miracles.

The act of Jesus suffering and dying on the cross affected the Redemption of humankind. The wood of the cross was the altar and Christ, a perfect sinless offering, was the sacrificial victim.

This perfect sacrificial offering put right what went wrong at the beginning of creation when our forefather, Adam, offended God such that humankind's relationship to God was ruptured and the world spiralled into disarray.

Posted by: Anthony Westrop at April 9, 2007 9:39 AM

"Gibson chose to focus entirely on the Passion because this act is absolutely central to the Christian religion - much more so than Jesus' social teachings or miracles."

Maybe if the social teachings were more the point of the religion, it wouldn't have done so much social damage. The "point" of a religion and the benefits of it are not always the same aspects.

(Baptist preacher's granddaughter. Never seen it, never will.)

Posted by: Vi at April 10, 2007 4:05 AM

I really just don't understand the need for Jesus and the crucifiction in the first place. The all-powerful God decides he was wrong in the past (isn't he supposed to be infallible anyway?) and needs to start letting more people into heaven (must have been getting lonely), and yet he can't just do it? He has to send someone to earth to die for it? How does that make any sense at all? If it's the fact that he needs to sacrifice something in order to make up for wronging the people for so long, isn't that just saying that he cares less about everyone else than Jesus/himself? Their sacrifices didn't matter?

The ultimate messages of Christianity are beautiful, and if people actually listened to them, might actually provide a good basis for how to live your life. But all these "historical" details seem so very clearly to be appealing to our baser human instincts, with the "Passion of the Christ" being the best illustration of that. Oooh, blood and gore and sacrifice. Without the scandal, most people just can't care about the message. Good way to attract a lot of followers, I suppose.

Posted by: Jenna at April 10, 2007 2:27 PM