Don't take on subject matter that you cannot handle.
Considering that I have studied this issue for years, and at one point was a Roman Catholic in a pre-vocational program, I doubt there's anything you could throw my way that could fluster me.
David Denby of the New Yorker and A.O. Scott of the New York Times have the definitive reviews of the movie.
On a different note, I saw Hairspray tonight, and one of the actors slipped in a line about the movie: ("Did you see the new Jesus movie yet? I'll give away the ending: he dies") Afterwards, Harvey Fierstein said my girlfriend should be more aggressive in soliciting an autograph, but that's a different matter
Don't take on subject matter that you cannot handle.
Tell you what. You actually address the contradictions in the BIble POSTED IN THIS THREAD and I won't take the piss when you run away from the argument YOU STARTED.
Start with the chronologies of John and the synoptics.
Not one Fundamentalist Christian, in my experience, ever expressed any sympathy, or any desire to *truly* understand what the real problem was, and why Harris and Kleibold did what they did. They didn't mention anything about opening a meaningful dialogue or establishing some sense of mutual understanding. And you know what? I don't think they even bothered to care.
Would you?
Since I'm not entirely clear on what "Fundamentalist Christians" believe, I can't say if I'm one of them. I can tell you that initially I'd have been way too pissed off to care why they did it, but after I'd gotten over the shock and whatnot, yeah, I'd care why.
Considering that I have studied this issue for years, and at one point was a Roman Catholic in a pre-vocational program, I doubt there's anything you could throw my way that could fluster me.
Kirk
(this applys to the other Bible scholars who have been posting here as well)
Where do you people find the time for all these postings?
Let me be more plain. These "issues"---of which most have the same intellectual depth of "Cain where is your brother"---have been handled. If you knew your way around the exegetical landscape you would know what I am talking about. In a nutshell, you are putting the writers in boxes they didn't necessarily put themselves into. The NT is airtight, but then there is James....hmmmmm
But then that isn't what we are really talking about---is it?
Look, from a rhetorical standpoint, you guys are doing a great job of casting dispersions on the Gosples---you want God on your terms---it's completely understandable. But please don't pretend that these "issuses" have not been handled satisfactorily. And no I'm not going to get dragged into some pissing contest on this.
I love how "Christianity" gets lumped into one absolute of how the belief system operates as per a purely semantic, legalistic approach to English translations of book representing time periods in millenia past. Imagine the same tactic used for Islam or Judaism...
Might as well lock the thread if it's no longer about the movie...
Back to the topic:
This film was a run-of-the-mill attempt at showing a "true" representation of those hours of the life of Christ. I really didn't understand the reason for the dialog in the language of the times, as all that did was focus you more on the visuals. If that was the intent, to truly show the violence, then it did that. Would such a graphic display of violence move me more towards my belief or make me more faithful? No. Money spent on this film would have been better spent on charity, but I didn't have to pay...
Where do you people find the time for all these postings?
I do a lot of waiting at my job.
Quote:
The "issues"---of which most have the same intellectual depth of "Cain where is your brother"---have been handled.
Not to my satisfaction. I have yet to see anyone produce a credible harmonization of the Easter morning stories, to say nothing of the other blatant contradictions in the Gospels (how many cock crows, how many visits to Jerusalem, the names of the Twelve, etc). No credible modern Biblical scholar pretends that these issues don't exist, as you seem to be attempting.
Interesting sidenote, I read the Gospel of Mark last night. I wonder, if you'd care to enlighten us, what is the last verse of that Gospel? Because it actually has three recognized endings, two of which are mutually exclusive.
Quote:
If you knew your way around the exegetical landscape you would know what I am talking about.
Again with the jibes of "if you knew anything, you'd agree with me." I can turn that around on you. Let's pick a major piece of the "exegetical landscape," as you call it: the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Do they support your notion of a factually inerrant Bible? They do, after all, speak for half the world's Christians.
Quote:
In a nutshell, you are putting the writers in boxes they didn't necessarily put themselves into.
No, that's what the inerrantists do, by insisting that somehow the authors were infallible when writing these works, and incapable of error. That's an absurd supposition. There are historical errors, and factual contraditions in the New Testament, just as there are in the entire Bible.
But those errors don't matter, because the Bible is not a history text, not a genealogy text. It is a theological text, and as a work of theology it is coherent and respectable.
But those who would make the Bible what it is not, who ascribe to it forms of inerrancy that the sacred authors themselves would no doubt rebuke, do violence to the text and cheapen its importance and value. Biblical fundamentalists are the most virulent of anti-Christians.
Quote:
The NT is airtight, but then there is James....hmmmmm
That statement in and of itself is contradictory. And in any case, there is nothing in James that cannot be harmonized with Christ, and through Christ with Paul. Theologically, the New Testament is sound. However, as a record of historical events it is not what we would consider a factual document.
But then that isn't what we are really talking about---is it?
Look, from a rhetorical standpoint, you guys are doing a great job of casting dispersions on the Gosples---you want God on your terms---it's completely understandable. But please don't pretend that these "issuses" have not been handled satisfactorily.
Quote:
And no I'm not going to get dragged into some pissing contest on this.
Too cowardly to defend your position? I wouldn't blame you. I wouldn't want to have to go up against the position of every learned Biblical scholar of the modern age, from the Jesus Seminar to the Pontifical Biblical Institute, either.
Fascinating article on Gibson's film in The Guardian today by Geza Vermes, emeritus professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford. Vermes has been researching the Gospels and Jesus for some years. He's what you call 'an authority'.
Writing his piece he addresses many of the contradictions between the story of the Passion as we have it and Jewish law of Roman-occupied Palestine. He also talks about the language in the film, its inaccuracies, and the film's alleged anti-semitism.
Check it out: Gibson said that the line about '"His blood be upon us and our children" was cut from the film. Turns out this isn't true: Vermes speaks Aramaic and notes that all Gibson's done is to cut the subtitle. Probably a good gamble that your average film critic doesn't speak Aramaic.
The four Gospels do not agree. The traditional picture of the Passion, which underlies the film, has resulted from a selective reading of them. In the first three Gospels, all the events happen on the feast of Passover, a most unlikely situation; in John (with greater probability) on the previous day. In John there is no trial at all, only an interrogation of Jesus by a former high priest, Annas, with no sentence pronounced. By contrast, Mark and Matthew speak of a night session of the Sanhedrin at which Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy by Caiaphas and condemned to death. But a court hearing in a capital case on a feast day is contrary to all known Jewish law. Mark and Matthew refer to a second meeting in the morning, which is the only one alluded to in Luke. In the morning Caiaphas and his court abruptly drop the religious charge and deliver Jesus to Pilate on a political indictment of rebellion. The Roman penalty for sedition was crucifixion, and Jesus, like thousands of Jews before and after him, died on the cross.
The Gospels postdate the events by 40-80 years. They were all compiled after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. By then the large majority of the readers envisaged by the evangelists were non-Jews. After their revolt against Rome (AD 66-73/4), antipathy towards the Jews grew in the Roman empire, and this affected the depiction of Jesus for new non-Jewish Christians. To admit to them that Rome was fully to blame for the death of the crucified Jewish Christ would have made the fresh converts politically suspect. Christians were an unpopular sect. Hence outside Palestine the Gentile-Christian spin doctors moved in and played down the Jewishness of Jesus and his original disciples. He and his apostles were no longer considered as Jews.
We find also an obvious effort to exonerate Pilate. The New Testament portrait of a vacillating governor of Judea is totally at odds with the historical truth. The real Pilate could not be bullied by the Jewish high priest. He was his boss and could sack him at will. All the reliable first-century sources depict Pilate as a tyrant who was guilty of numerous executions without trial and unlawful massacres. He was justly dismissed from office and banished by the emperor Tiberius.
As for the condemnation of Jesus for blasphemy, no Jewish law would qualify someone a blasphemer simply for calling himself the Messiah or the like. So the death sentence pronounced on Jesus by Caiaphas was an error in law. There are strong arguments in favour of the claim (against John's assertion of the contrary) that first-century Jewish courts could carry out capital sentences for religious crimes without Roman consent. Even Roman citizens risked instant execution if caught by Jews in the Temple.
The abandonment of the case for blasphemy and its replacement by a charge of rebellion is left unexplained in the Synoptic Gospels. But the reasoning that underlies the political accusation is easy to understand. It was the duty of the Jewish leadership, Caiaphas and his council, to maintain order in Judea. Caiaphas imagined that Jesus was a potential threat to peace. Jerusalem, filled with pilgrims at Passover, was a powderkeg. A few days earlier, Jesus had created a commotion in the merchants' quarter in the Temple, when he overturned the stalls of the moneychangers. He could do it again. Jesus had to be dealt with in the interest of the whole nation in order to forestall massive Roman retaliation. Caiaphas and his council had the power to punish him, but passed the buck. They therefore bear the blame for surrendering Jesus to the Romans, a fact attested by all four Gospels and confirmed by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus. The Roman writer Tacitus also asserts that Jesus was crucified by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Hence the responsibility for the crucifixion was Pilate's, and ultimately that of the Roman empire he represented.
I just saw the movie, I'm not very religious, but I enjoyed it, well...as much as you can enjoy watching such horrible things happen to a good person \
the movie was very well produced, I can't really nitpick or criticize it too much, as I don't really know the story that well.
The movie was *very* gory, and brutal to watch, it was one of the most powerful movies I've seen in a long time.
I walked out of the theatre perhaps 30 minutes ago, so my mind is still swimming a bit, trying to sift through all the imagery and the story Gibson has told. I may ramble a bit (or come back later with more) but bear with me....
A) Regarding the notion that this film is generally "anti-semitic" in its tone and/or the message it conveys, I disagree. Completely. This movie does not attempt to villify jews (as a group). Unless my definition of the word "anti-semitic" and the ADL's definition are wildly different, I don't even think you can logically make the argument. It just isn't there, and believe me, I looked everywhere for it. In the words, in the facial expressions, in the scenery.
The only scene where most every Jew was portrayed in a poor light was in Herod's home / palace. But I don't think anyone contests that Herod and his servants were "pure as the driven snow"... so even there the argument is kind of weak. How else should he be portrayed? And frankly, I asked myself that question a number of times in the movie and didn't come up with any conclusively better / more fair means than Gibson found for most characters.
At least not relative to how they are portrayed in the Bible, which is all Gibson has to go on essentially.
Even the high-priests were not shown as bloodthirsty, so much as overly proud and protective of their power and influence. They were not made out as people who enjoy Jesus' suffering, for the sake of seeing someone suffer. They had clear political motive in mind and as such weren't portrayed any different that lots of other corrupt politicians in movies. They put their own power ahead of "the little guy's" life. This is not a new theme, and certainly not new to this story.
It is the Roman soldiers who are made out (time and again) to be savages. And by most accounts I suspect they were just that. Pilate was shown as a conflicted but not very "humane" man when it comes down to making the decisions that count. He was not portrayed in a positive light IMO. Again, as it should be. The only Roman who WAS portrayed in a positive light, was Pilate's wife. That was clear to me at least.
As far as how the mob which followed Jesus was depicted, they were like any other angry mob in a movie: cruel, and more importantly, manipulated (here by the elder priests). Gibson very clearly shows the Jewish priests goading the crowd at different points into rallying against Jesus. [Even still, some of the Jews in the crowd were shown to be "unsure" or "conflicted" about what was happening. Gibson showed the human thought process when some people stray from the "group-think" mentality and wonder "is this a good idea?"]
[In short, I don't see how a] logical person will not draw the conclusion that "Oh the whole town full of Jews was out to get Jesus and see him killed." Again, just isn't there in this movie.
For the ADL or anyone else to imply that even a majority of the Jews in the movie are made out to be savage or bloodthirsty, is politics. Plain and simple. I have to stand by my original theory here: they simply don't like the story (any version of it), and they like it even less when told in a very graphic way.
They need to own up to what bothers them... namely that they do not believe this story has any historical basis in terms of "who was really to blame". And it very well MAY be inaccurate in certain respects, but we won't know until we all (ADL included) enter into a real discussion about it. Just calling something "anti-semitic" because there are Jews in the movie who are not portrayed in a positive light (but in exactly THE SAME LIGHT as you can hear in any Sunday service around Easter IMO), does nobody any good.
Rergarding the gore, I don't believe that the depictions of the thrashings and beatings that Jesus took were inaccurate, but I think Gibson went to the well too often. So the problem is not accuracy but frequency IMO. And it's not even that the Romans couldn't have lashed him that many times, so much as, for the cinema he crossed the line into "overdone" territory. Just visually too much. Again though it must be said it is the Roman's who dish out 98% of the cruelty in this movie, and often the soldiers are portrayed as "doing it when the General isn't looking".
[DO NOT TAKE KIDS TO SEE THIS MOVIE. There were a couple of 7 or 8 year olds in there and despite me being a Christian at a movie all about Christ, I wanted to slap their parents silly. Inappropriate for anyone under the age of 11 or 12 IMO.]
C) Regarding the character development and timeline... I think the ending where Jesus is resurrected is necessarily short. No one (not even the Bible) really has an account for this so if Gibson were to have drawn it out, he would've been making it up as he went... I suspect he knew this and so opted to keep it simple.
I do wish certain characters' names and roles had been a little more clear. [The acting on the whole was very good and the movie was frankly well-directed in this regard. Gibson deserves some credit. He poured himself into this movie and it shows. Anyone who gives it less than three stars (just on cinematography and acting alone) is being a media puppet. 3 or 4 out of 5 is fair. It's not a great movie, but as a movie, it is very good in many respects.]
[Finally, this work] could have easily been 3 hours, but I think Gibson decided not to wuss out on the [gore] and so figured most people couldn't stomach more than two. Good decision IMO, but I you can argue it either way.
D) Regarding the Satan character. HE IS CLEARLY THERE. I thought this might be someone's misinterpretation or active imagination coming to the fore, but there is a Satan character that pops up in roughly four or five instances throughout the film. The only place I thought it appropriate and not a case of Gibson taking too much creative leeway, was the very first instance, when Jesus was essentially alone in the "wild" with his thoughts before being captured.
The other instances... particularly the one where he has that midget thing attached to him reminded me more of "The Cell" than a story about Christ. It was basically the only "Hollywood" part of the film and I wished Gibson had left it out. I got the feeling he was trying to gross me out rather than explain something. Seeing a few of these scenes made me question Gibson's mental stability a bit, but only because they kind of hint at a twisted imagination.
E) The Merovingian's Wife (Matrix) plays Mary Magdalene (I believe), for those of you looking for a purely superficial reason to see the movie. She is so beautiful... and in this movie does a good job of acting IMO.
That's all for now. Back to trivial matters like letting the neighbor's dog out.
[first round of comments added as clarification / additional thoughts]
A) Regarding the notion that this film is generally "anti-semitic" in its tone and/or the message it conveys, I disagree. Completely. This movie does not attempt to villify jews (as a group). Unless my definition of the word "anti-semitic" and the ADL's definition are wildly different, I don't even think you can logically make the argument. It just isn't there, and believe me, I looked everywhere for it. In the words, in the facial expressions, in the scenery.
I disagree. The hordes of leering, spitting Jews, the utter vileness of the priests, the demand of the crowd to kill Christ, it all blames the Jews for Christ's death ?_which is in and of itself anti-Semitic.
Quote:
Rergarding the gore, I don't believe that the depictions of the thrashings and beatings that Jesus took were inaccurate, but I think Gibson went to the well too often.
The violence of the scourging, the ripping away of so much of his flesh, it was absurd. No one would have survived that, would have been able to make it to the afternooon. He was dripping blood like sweat the entire way. It was sick, and unnecessary. Other films have as effectively depicted the pain and suffering of Christ without this pornographic glorification of violence.
And pointless, theologically, for in terms of salvation, Christ's whipping and other abuses prior to the crucifixion have nothing to do with the salvific nature of his act.
Gibson seems to get turned on at the thought of prolonged torture scenes, and the entirety of the Passion was one long masturbatory fantasy for him.
Quote:
C) Regarding the character development and timeline... I think the ending where Jesus is resurrected is necessarily short. No one (not even the Bible) really has an account for this so if Gibson were to have drawn it out, he would've been making it up as he went... I suspect he knew this and so opted to keep it simple.
As opposed to so much of the other dialogue and action and motivations for Mary, Jesus, the Romans, Pilate, etc, that he made up on a whim?
Quote:
Anyone who gives it less than three stars (just on cinematography and acting alone) is being a media puppet. 3 or 4 out of 5 is fair. It's not a great movie, but as a movie, it is very good in many respects.
It's a B-, but it started out as an A, which is sad.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
Nonsense. (But then God did ask Cain where his brother was...darn...there goes my theology)
Don't take on subject matter that you cannot handle.
If you're going to reply to what Kirkland said, at least try to respond to his comments.
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...stencies.shtml
And why do you think that the Bible is something Kirkland can't handle?
Originally posted by dmz
Don't take on subject matter that you cannot handle.
Considering that I have studied this issue for years, and at one point was a Roman Catholic in a pre-vocational program, I doubt there's anything you could throw my way that could fluster me.
Kirk
On a different note, I saw Hairspray tonight, and one of the actors slipped in a line about the movie: ("Did you see the new Jesus movie yet? I'll give away the ending: he dies") Afterwards, Harvey Fierstein said my girlfriend should be more aggressive in soliciting an autograph, but that's a different matter
Originally posted by dmz
Don't take on subject matter that you cannot handle.
Tell you what. You actually address the contradictions in the BIble POSTED IN THIS THREAD and I won't take the piss when you run away from the argument YOU STARTED.
Start with the chronologies of John and the synoptics.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Originally posted by Kirkland
Do you know them in Aramaic?
Kirk
I don't know them at all. What's the dress code like there anyway? Is it casual like Olive Garden?
Originally posted by rampancy
Not one Fundamentalist Christian, in my experience, ever expressed any sympathy, or any desire to *truly* understand what the real problem was, and why Harris and Kleibold did what they did. They didn't mention anything about opening a meaningful dialogue or establishing some sense of mutual understanding. And you know what? I don't think they even bothered to care.
Would you?
Since I'm not entirely clear on what "Fundamentalist Christians" believe, I can't say if I'm one of them. I can tell you that initially I'd have been way too pissed off to care why they did it, but after I'd gotten over the shock and whatnot, yeah, I'd care why.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Considering that I have studied this issue for years, and at one point was a Roman Catholic in a pre-vocational program, I doubt there's anything you could throw my way that could fluster me.
Kirk
(this applys to the other Bible scholars who have been posting here as well)
Where do you people find the time for all these postings?
Let me be more plain. These "issues"---of which most have the same intellectual depth of "Cain where is your brother"---have been handled. If you knew your way around the exegetical landscape you would know what I am talking about. In a nutshell, you are putting the writers in boxes they didn't necessarily put themselves into. The NT is airtight, but then there is James....hmmmmm
But then that isn't what we are really talking about---is it?
Look, from a rhetorical standpoint, you guys are doing a great job of casting dispersions on the Gosples---you want God on your terms---it's completely understandable. But please don't pretend that these "issuses" have not been handled satisfactorily. And no I'm not going to get dragged into some pissing contest on this.
I'll leave you with a couple of quotes:
"It's hard for you to kick against the pricks"
"All things betrayest thee which betrayest Me"
Originally posted by dmz
But please don't pretend that these "issuses" have not been handled satisfactorily.
Certainly not by you.
Might as well lock the thread if it's no longer about the movie...
Back to the topic:
This film was a run-of-the-mill attempt at showing a "true" representation of those hours of the life of Christ. I really didn't understand the reason for the dialog in the language of the times, as all that did was focus you more on the visuals. If that was the intent, to truly show the violence, then it did that. Would such a graphic display of violence move me more towards my belief or make me more faithful? No. Money spent on this film would have been better spent on charity, but I didn't have to pay...
Originally posted by segovius
well, we don't have to imagine do we - happens all the time.....
I tend to agree. Ignorance can be a universal truth.
Like the way opinions were formed about this movie over a year before it hit the theaters.
Originally posted by dmz
Where do you people find the time for all these postings?
I do a lot of waiting at my job.
The "issues"---of which most have the same intellectual depth of "Cain where is your brother"---have been handled.
Not to my satisfaction. I have yet to see anyone produce a credible harmonization of the Easter morning stories, to say nothing of the other blatant contradictions in the Gospels (how many cock crows, how many visits to Jerusalem, the names of the Twelve, etc). No credible modern Biblical scholar pretends that these issues don't exist, as you seem to be attempting.
Interesting sidenote, I read the Gospel of Mark last night. I wonder, if you'd care to enlighten us, what is the last verse of that Gospel? Because it actually has three recognized endings, two of which are mutually exclusive.
If you knew your way around the exegetical landscape you would know what I am talking about.
Again with the jibes of "if you knew anything, you'd agree with me." I can turn that around on you. Let's pick a major piece of the "exegetical landscape," as you call it: the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Do they support your notion of a factually inerrant Bible? They do, after all, speak for half the world's Christians.
In a nutshell, you are putting the writers in boxes they didn't necessarily put themselves into.
No, that's what the inerrantists do, by insisting that somehow the authors were infallible when writing these works, and incapable of error. That's an absurd supposition. There are historical errors, and factual contraditions in the New Testament, just as there are in the entire Bible.
But those errors don't matter, because the Bible is not a history text, not a genealogy text. It is a theological text, and as a work of theology it is coherent and respectable.
But those who would make the Bible what it is not, who ascribe to it forms of inerrancy that the sacred authors themselves would no doubt rebuke, do violence to the text and cheapen its importance and value. Biblical fundamentalists are the most virulent of anti-Christians.
The NT is airtight, but then there is James....hmmmmm
That statement in and of itself is contradictory. And in any case, there is nothing in James that cannot be harmonized with Christ, and through Christ with Paul. Theologically, the New Testament is sound. However, as a record of historical events it is not what we would consider a factual document.
But then that isn't what we are really talking about---is it?
Look, from a rhetorical standpoint, you guys are doing a great job of casting dispersions on the Gosples---you want God on your terms---it's completely understandable. But please don't pretend that these "issuses" have not been handled satisfactorily.
And no I'm not going to get dragged into some pissing contest on this.
Too cowardly to defend your position? I wouldn't blame you. I wouldn't want to have to go up against the position of every learned Biblical scholar of the modern age, from the Jesus Seminar to the Pontifical Biblical Institute, either.
Kirk
Jesus Chainsaw Massacre
Jesusploitation
.....
Ahem.
Fascinating article on Gibson's film in The Guardian today by Geza Vermes, emeritus professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford. Vermes has been researching the Gospels and Jesus for some years. He's what you call 'an authority'.
Writing his piece he addresses many of the contradictions between the story of the Passion as we have it and Jewish law of Roman-occupied Palestine. He also talks about the language in the film, its inaccuracies, and the film's alleged anti-semitism.
Check it out: Gibson said that the line about '"His blood be upon us and our children" was cut from the film. Turns out this isn't true: Vermes speaks Aramaic and notes that all Gibson's done is to cut the subtitle. Probably a good gamble that your average film critic doesn't speak Aramaic.
The line is still in the film.
I'm going to find the link and post extracts.
The four Gospels do not agree. The traditional picture of the Passion, which underlies the film, has resulted from a selective reading of them. In the first three Gospels, all the events happen on the feast of Passover, a most unlikely situation; in John (with greater probability) on the previous day. In John there is no trial at all, only an interrogation of Jesus by a former high priest, Annas, with no sentence pronounced. By contrast, Mark and Matthew speak of a night session of the Sanhedrin at which Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy by Caiaphas and condemned to death. But a court hearing in a capital case on a feast day is contrary to all known Jewish law. Mark and Matthew refer to a second meeting in the morning, which is the only one alluded to in Luke. In the morning Caiaphas and his court abruptly drop the religious charge and deliver Jesus to Pilate on a political indictment of rebellion. The Roman penalty for sedition was crucifixion, and Jesus, like thousands of Jews before and after him, died on the cross.
The Gospels postdate the events by 40-80 years. They were all compiled after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. By then the large majority of the readers envisaged by the evangelists were non-Jews. After their revolt against Rome (AD 66-73/4), antipathy towards the Jews grew in the Roman empire, and this affected the depiction of Jesus for new non-Jewish Christians. To admit to them that Rome was fully to blame for the death of the crucified Jewish Christ would have made the fresh converts politically suspect. Christians were an unpopular sect. Hence outside Palestine the Gentile-Christian spin doctors moved in and played down the Jewishness of Jesus and his original disciples. He and his apostles were no longer considered as Jews.
We find also an obvious effort to exonerate Pilate. The New Testament portrait of a vacillating governor of Judea is totally at odds with the historical truth. The real Pilate could not be bullied by the Jewish high priest. He was his boss and could sack him at will. All the reliable first-century sources depict Pilate as a tyrant who was guilty of numerous executions without trial and unlawful massacres. He was justly dismissed from office and banished by the emperor Tiberius.
As for the condemnation of Jesus for blasphemy, no Jewish law would qualify someone a blasphemer simply for calling himself the Messiah or the like. So the death sentence pronounced on Jesus by Caiaphas was an error in law. There are strong arguments in favour of the claim (against John's assertion of the contrary) that first-century Jewish courts could carry out capital sentences for religious crimes without Roman consent. Even Roman citizens risked instant execution if caught by Jews in the Temple.
The abandonment of the case for blasphemy and its replacement by a charge of rebellion is left unexplained in the Synoptic Gospels. But the reasoning that underlies the political accusation is easy to understand. It was the duty of the Jewish leadership, Caiaphas and his council, to maintain order in Judea. Caiaphas imagined that Jesus was a potential threat to peace. Jerusalem, filled with pilgrims at Passover, was a powderkeg. A few days earlier, Jesus had created a commotion in the merchants' quarter in the Temple, when he overturned the stalls of the moneychangers. He could do it again. Jesus had to be dealt with in the interest of the whole nation in order to forestall massive Roman retaliation. Caiaphas and his council had the power to punish him, but passed the buck. They therefore bear the blame for surrendering Jesus to the Romans, a fact attested by all four Gospels and confirmed by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus. The Roman writer Tacitus also asserts that Jesus was crucified by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Hence the responsibility for the crucifixion was Pilate's, and ultimately that of the Roman empire he represented.
I am a link.
the movie was very well produced, I can't really nitpick or criticize it too much, as I don't really know the story that well.
The movie was *very* gory, and brutal to watch, it was one of the most powerful movies I've seen in a long time.
A) Regarding the notion that this film is generally "anti-semitic" in its tone and/or the message it conveys, I disagree. Completely. This movie does not attempt to villify jews (as a group). Unless my definition of the word "anti-semitic" and the ADL's definition are wildly different, I don't even think you can logically make the argument. It just isn't there, and believe me, I looked everywhere for it. In the words, in the facial expressions, in the scenery.
The only scene where most every Jew was portrayed in a poor light was in Herod's home / palace. But I don't think anyone contests that Herod and his servants were "pure as the driven snow"... so even there the argument is kind of weak. How else should he be portrayed? And frankly, I asked myself that question a number of times in the movie and didn't come up with any conclusively better / more fair means than Gibson found for most characters.
At least not relative to how they are portrayed in the Bible, which is all Gibson has to go on essentially.
Even the high-priests were not shown as bloodthirsty, so much as overly proud and protective of their power and influence. They were not made out as people who enjoy Jesus' suffering, for the sake of seeing someone suffer. They had clear political motive in mind and as such weren't portrayed any different that lots of other corrupt politicians in movies. They put their own power ahead of "the little guy's" life. This is not a new theme, and certainly not new to this story.
It is the Roman soldiers who are made out (time and again) to be savages. And by most accounts I suspect they were just that. Pilate was shown as a conflicted but not very "humane" man when it comes down to making the decisions that count. He was not portrayed in a positive light IMO. Again, as it should be. The only Roman who WAS portrayed in a positive light, was Pilate's wife. That was clear to me at least.
As far as how the mob which followed Jesus was depicted, they were like any other angry mob in a movie: cruel, and more importantly, manipulated (here by the elder priests). Gibson very clearly shows the Jewish priests goading the crowd at different points into rallying against Jesus. [Even still, some of the Jews in the crowd were shown to be "unsure" or "conflicted" about what was happening. Gibson showed the human thought process when some people stray from the "group-think" mentality and wonder "is this a good idea?"]
[In short, I don't see how a] logical person will not draw the conclusion that "Oh the whole town full of Jews was out to get Jesus and see him killed." Again, just isn't there in this movie.
For the ADL or anyone else to imply that even a majority of the Jews in the movie are made out to be savage or bloodthirsty, is politics. Plain and simple. I have to stand by my original theory here: they simply don't like the story (any version of it), and they like it even less when told in a very graphic way.
They need to own up to what bothers them... namely that they do not believe this story has any historical basis in terms of "who was really to blame". And it very well MAY be inaccurate in certain respects, but we won't know until we all (ADL included) enter into a real discussion about it. Just calling something "anti-semitic" because there are Jews in the movie who are not portrayed in a positive light (but in exactly THE SAME LIGHT as you can hear in any Sunday service around Easter IMO), does nobody any good.
[DO NOT TAKE KIDS TO SEE THIS MOVIE. There were a couple of 7 or 8 year olds in there and despite me being a Christian at a movie all about Christ, I wanted to slap their parents silly. Inappropriate for anyone under the age of 11 or 12 IMO.]
C) Regarding the character development and timeline... I think the ending where Jesus is resurrected is necessarily short. No one (not even the Bible) really has an account for this so if Gibson were to have drawn it out, he would've been making it up as he went... I suspect he knew this and so opted to keep it simple.
I do wish certain characters' names and roles had been a little more clear. [The acting on the whole was very good and the movie was frankly well-directed in this regard. Gibson deserves some credit. He poured himself into this movie and it shows. Anyone who gives it less than three stars (just on cinematography and acting alone) is being a media puppet. 3 or 4 out of 5 is fair. It's not a great movie, but as a movie, it is very good in many respects.]
[Finally, this work] could have easily been 3 hours, but I think Gibson decided not to wuss out on the [gore] and so figured most people couldn't stomach more than two. Good decision IMO, but I you can argue it either way.
D) Regarding the Satan character. HE IS CLEARLY THERE. I thought this might be someone's misinterpretation or active imagination coming to the fore, but there is a Satan character that pops up in roughly four or five instances throughout the film. The only place I thought it appropriate and not a case of Gibson taking too much creative leeway, was the very first instance, when Jesus was essentially alone in the "wild" with his thoughts before being captured.
The other instances... particularly the one where he has that midget thing attached to him reminded me more of "The Cell" than a story about Christ. It was basically the only "Hollywood" part of the film and I wished Gibson had left it out. I got the feeling he was trying to gross me out rather than explain something. Seeing a few of these scenes made me question Gibson's mental stability a bit, but only because they kind of hint at a twisted imagination.
E) The Merovingian's Wife (Matrix) plays Mary Magdalene (I believe), for those of you looking for a purely superficial reason to see the movie. She is so beautiful... and in this movie does a good job of acting IMO.
That's all for now. Back to trivial matters like letting the neighbor's dog out.
[first round of comments added as clarification / additional thoughts]
Originally posted by Moogs
A) Regarding the notion that this film is generally "anti-semitic" in its tone and/or the message it conveys, I disagree. Completely. This movie does not attempt to villify jews (as a group). Unless my definition of the word "anti-semitic" and the ADL's definition are wildly different, I don't even think you can logically make the argument. It just isn't there, and believe me, I looked everywhere for it. In the words, in the facial expressions, in the scenery.
I disagree. The hordes of leering, spitting Jews, the utter vileness of the priests, the demand of the crowd to kill Christ, it all blames the Jews for Christ's death ?_which is in and of itself anti-Semitic.
The violence of the scourging, the ripping away of so much of his flesh, it was absurd. No one would have survived that, would have been able to make it to the afternooon. He was dripping blood like sweat the entire way. It was sick, and unnecessary. Other films have as effectively depicted the pain and suffering of Christ without this pornographic glorification of violence.
And pointless, theologically, for in terms of salvation, Christ's whipping and other abuses prior to the crucifixion have nothing to do with the salvific nature of his act.
Gibson seems to get turned on at the thought of prolonged torture scenes, and the entirety of the Passion was one long masturbatory fantasy for him.
C) Regarding the character development and timeline... I think the ending where Jesus is resurrected is necessarily short. No one (not even the Bible) really has an account for this so if Gibson were to have drawn it out, he would've been making it up as he went... I suspect he knew this and so opted to keep it simple.
As opposed to so much of the other dialogue and action and motivations for Mary, Jesus, the Romans, Pilate, etc, that he made up on a whim?
Anyone who gives it less than three stars (just on cinematography and acting alone) is being a media puppet. 3 or 4 out of 5 is fair. It's not a great movie, but as a movie, it is very good in many respects.
It's a B-, but it started out as an A, which is sad.
Kirk