The Passion of the Christ

i just got back from seeing this- WOW!

You know I've grown up in the church my WHOLE ENTIRE LIFE I mean my earliest memory is being in the church and being a pastors daughter 11 out of the 15 years I've been alive has basically sort of made church my life (watching the movie in Hebrew and Latin and Aramic was cool because I realized I knew alot of the words). To go and watch a story I've been told and led to believe my whole entire life, on screen, was incredible.

While it was a great cinematic accomplishment, sometimes I did feel the gore over did it. But then there were those stunningly beautiful moments in the film. Like when the mother and the daughter walk in front of Jesus and the woman ASK'S "Please permit me Adoni" to wipe his bloodied face and quench his thirst.

I completely agree with you Silver that the flashback scenes were all so wonderully done I wish he had done more. They were like quick fresh sips of water in an undying thirst for more.

I don't know if anybody else noticed how well evil was portrayed in the film. To have Lucifer look like a woman but sound like a man and be a mother of a demon child was so horrific. But it had that 'Come hither' look that evil should have that tempting aura that makes evil appealing to some people. The way they put something that is usually so beautiful and appealing to most people and turned it into something so grotesque it drew the eye towards it.

I really can't think of anything good enough to say to finish this off, nothing that i feel would give it justice enough. So i'll just say it is accomplished.

__________________
I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
T.S Eliot, "Preludes"

Like all the films I wind up recommending to people, Slay, The Passion of the Christ has prompted an enormous amount of conflict in me. I don't know whether I'm supposed to be reacting to how close the film is to what Gibson meant for it to be, or simply to what it is.

I only ever write at length about films that draw some sort of theory from me. My "reviews" are really just rants in which I struggle with the development of my ideas about what cinema is or should be.

I mean, I could just have easily have written, "I liked The Passion of the Christ," but it wouldn't have been completely accurate. I did like The Passion of the Christ, but it had flaws that I felt had to be discussed, if only for my own peace of mind. Every review, as I've said, is a struggle.

I suggest that people try reading THIS ARTICLE, from METAPHILM.COM, which is about the many levels that can [and maybe should] exist within a film. You don't need to take it as Gospel, of course [I don't], but it's interesting in that it offers us another way to respond to the movies we watch. I liked The Passion of the Christ, but I feel there's more there to respond to than just my level of engagement with it.

Am I making any sense, Brian?

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

This is my first visit to this site. I stumbled upon it in looking for reactions to this film. Like the lengthy review by Silver Bullet, I too have sat here for a while and after draft and rewrite, find it hard to convey what I would about the film and feel like I did it justice. So, finally I guess you'll get whatever happens out of my fingers without polishing.



I wasn't ready. I wasn't ready for this movie. I spent 3 years in a college seminary on the road to becomming a Catholic priest. I've seen some pretty horrific things as far as what the average person sees. I spent about 2 months in classes dealing with only the subject matter that was covered in the movie. It's not that I wasn't ready to see what I saw, it was that it was real. Today brought a wave of reality to what I could probably recite from memory. It was far more real today than after many many years of imagining the stories. I'm not a practicing Catholic these days, about 20 years after leaving the seminary, so I didn't go into it in "god-mode". The value to Christians,and others, in my eyes, is that it was an opportunity to bear witness to the events that transpired. Sometimes you don't believe everything you hear, but when you see it with your own eyes, it happened, its reality. Mel doesn't spare any of the reality of the situation. It is a brutally violent movie, but there was nothing offensive about the brutality. It wasn't exaggeration. It wasn't a movie about teaching people a lesson. It wasn't a "fire and brimstone" sermon. I didn't leave with anyone else's opinion, religious or other, jammed down my throat. I left with my own reaction, my own questions, my own demons. That is what I think is the best description of what the aftermath of this film feels like. Maybe the difference is that in other films, they want you to be scared, we were scared....they want you to laugh, we laugh, they want you to cry, we cried. If Mel's intention was for everyone to be "affected" he succeeded. I know that this movie will hit everyone different. Because of the disparity of perspective in taking in the events, there is no choice. It dawned on me a few minutes ago while trying to explain what I'm feeling that the last time I felt like this was 9/11. Shocked, emotionally variable, and the feeling of "is this really happening?". Something bad happened, and we all just witnessed it. If you leave(left) the theatre without feeling like you just lived it (as a spectator), I'd be surprised, really surprised.

As far as the film goes as a creation, there isn't much I could say that Silver Bullet didn't. I did wan't to pay Kudos to the use of sound though. The slow-mo was used "enough", but sound was a powerful medium in this picture. You get hooked by the visuals, and even after a cutaway the sounds are still there to keep your emotion focused on what you just saw, drilling into you that its still happening even though other things are happening at the time. I do have to take the opposite opinion on Mel though. I have to put my check in the success column. While he could have taken on more chronological material and opened up the potential, I think he would have ended up with a LOTR....a good movie that didn't cover what could have been but not all his fault. He focused on a small amount of time, giving life and detail to it. As a piece of art, it should bring a reaction, be affecting, stimulating, and relay something beit emotion, an event, and in the artists perspective. It did just that.

I've never been to a movie where everyone solemnly departed the theatre, almost like a funeral atmosphere.....just "affected". It was also a very quiet ride home for my wife and I.

Thanks to Mel for making this film...it doesn't have to win anything, it doesn't even have to be nominated for anything. It has and is going to affect lives. Is there any greater reward than that?

Well after reading most of your reviews, i was eager to watch this movie. The movie hardley even got into all the gory bits and i couldnt take it anymore. I had to leave the movie. Raised as a christian, im used to seeing peaceful pictures of jesus. Religion to me was a comforter, i couldnt bare to see our saviour brutally punished. I know that pictures of cruxifictions are everywhere, but thats different, we are somewhat desensitized to those. I was really looking forward to watching this movie, but i couldnt. I guess ill just wait to see it the TV edit version.
Did anyone else react the way i did?

I think you have made perfect sense with both of your posts actually. I guess I should have been the one to be more clear. I don’t disagree about your feeling that something is missing within the movie, because there clearly is. But I’m not so sure that what you’re looking for has to be a necessary element in order for it to be masterful.

I’ve read other critiques of the film where a critic has given it marks for a lack of first and second acts, a lack of back-story on the leading up to the arrest of Jesus, or a more definitive classification of the characters. Was it really Gibson’s idea that the movie should have those elements, or was it only ever supposed to be a final act? I guess you could call Gibson presumptuous for his assumption that the audience would understand the why and just tell the story viscerally, but I don’t think that he should be panned for doing something differently from the traditional movie. I know that’s not what you’re doing, but it seems that it is nagging you still. I may be reading what you say incorrectly.

I also don’t think that The Passion of the Christ should be compared to The Last Temptation of Christ. While Gibson’s a snapshot of actual Biblical text (with minor liberties taken), Scorsese’s is from a novel that has no real bearing on the supposed truth, and encompassing a longer period of His life. I don’t see how people can warrant that the movie is at fault for not having more historic depth, when going into the theater, we all knew that it was just a representation of a twelve hour period.

There is a major difference between you and I and how we watch a film. I am a filmgoer, where you are a filmgoer and a film maker. Your eye is more attuned to see elements, or their lack of, that most people will leave the theater leaving unnoticed. I’m not sure if I should even try to argue (though, that’s really not what I’m trying to do) about the technicalities that you’ve brought up. As a filmmaker, you say that Gibson fell a bit short in what his attempt really was, as a pure moviegoer, I say his attempt reached perfection. I really don’t think either of us is wrong, because we are looking at it from completely different perspectives.

Am I making sense Matt?

I agree with both of you. Those flashback scenes were wonderful, putting into perspective the different character’s pain. They’re the cause of the many heartbreaks throughout the movie, aren’t they. They were also like a cool drink from a spring after the scorching heat from the desert which is the violence. A quick breather, as it were.

Mjeischen and babayaga: Those are a couple of great reviews! It was like that at the theater when I went as well. After the movie, no one rushed to the exits, people just sat in their seats for at least two minutes into the credits. When they did get up and start moving, slowly, there was no chatter. People were rather solemn, like they had just witnessed an execution of somebody close. It was certainly a one of a kind experience.

Actually, you're the first to say that at this forum. Like I said in my review, the fact that Christ did what he did with peace in his heart, and still offering solace and succor to people around him during this brutality, shows that this movie really is a message about love. Not being able to witness it has nothing to do with the message. It's too bad you couldn't take it.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Ok, Silver Bullet, I really liked your review, although I don't quite agree with it all, it's still a really really good one. But anyway, the Passion of Christ really moved me in a way not many movies do. I went to see it with Garrett, *yes the same Garrett on here* and we both agree it was a great film. I think the violence was really hard to watch, but I never turned my head, (which I'm proud to say that because everyone else but me, garrett and his dad were) I especially was disturbed when they whipped him with the metal things. The rods didn't bother me, but those wips *shudders*. I love otomotapea (sp?). I only have one complaint, although it was realistic, did they have to show Jesus fall down that many times? I mean WE GET IT ALREADY! But that doesn't bother me that much, just little annoyances like that get in the way. Caviezel's performance was excellent, well so was everyone else's. I didn't expect to see Satan that much in the movie though. But it was signifying that this point in history was VERY crucial, and the devil was behind all of it, so it makes sense.

And if I hear one more complaint about anti-semitism I'm gonna explode. What else do you expect them to portray in the movie?! That's what happened!!! I liked the part with the crow (those who have seen the movie know what I'm talking about) I laughed cuz that guy was retarded. I have been a baptised Chirstian for 4 years, go to the Church of Christ in St. Marys WVa. and I must say this movie has shed new light on my religious life thingamathing. I walked out of this movie feeling kind of bad about the things that I've done, and the whole walk back to the car, neither me garrett or his dad said a word. And I will point out that I cried during this movie *SPOILERS* it started right after they pulled his arm out of it's socket and ended when he finally died*SPOILERS OVER* and I haven't cried in a theatre since I saw the Green Mile I think it was.

So what I'm saying is that this movie was powerful enough to make me cry, feel bad about some things in my life, and render me speechless afterwards. I usually talk my mom's ear off after a movie. Mel Gibson, you did a good job. hehe, anyway, great film, greatest story ever told, and a definite buy for me on DVD. I can't wait to see it again on Sunday with my church group.

__________________
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
I'm afraid I must bid you adieu.
He woke up one night with a terrible fright
And found he was eating his shoe.

I don't plan on seeing it anytime soon. I don't think it'll be my type of movie.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

Excellent review! The crowds have taken over here in Canada and I can't seem to get in Urgh! I have to wait until everyone has seen this film. I intend to go when the kids are in school and all those going to work have gone. Mel Gibson is a genuis.

Hah.

Well, he has done better than any of us.

Bah. Can't you ever just let me be an *******?

HA! That deserves some positive rep points.

Actually, I'm just feeling defensive because I loved the film so much.

I know a lot of people are moved by Mel Gibson's films, but I guess he is just lost with me. I avidly dislike Braveheart, so I would guess that I will not particularily enjoy this one either. I just find his use of violence repetitive. I don't have any notions that he's anti-semitic or anything, I'm guessing that if I saw the film it'd feel more like a sadistic attempt at conversion. I really should stop expecting people to be moved by films that move me, but it's more fun to just be a stubborn prick about it.

Hey, to each his own, right? I found Citizen Kane boring as hell. I don't attribute that to a poor taste in movies, because I feel that I have pretty good taste, but we can't all agree on every film.

Oh yeah, I don't feel any more religiously inclined after seeing it than I did before.

Really? I thought it was one of the greatest films ever made. Well, I guess like you said, to each his own....

To be honest, I haven't seen it in over 15 years. My tastes have changed dramatically since then.

i just saw this film this morning and i would have to say that despite the violence and the gore, mel gibson has made an absolutely beautiful and breathtaking film..

i found the flashbacks touching and realistic..some scenes that a man would look back at knowing that his fate was to die...

He he.. Rep points for you...

I found it boring as hell when I saw it the first time. When I saw it as a film student several years later I felt it was a masterpiece. I don't think that being someone that studied film had that much to do with it, but after having learned more about film and seen more film in general as well as having matured since I saw it the first time probably had a lot to do with it. The narrative structure and the overall direction and acting still feels fresh which is more than you can say about most other films from that era. But it's is not the best film ever made... That would have been an insult towards the cinematic evolution that is an ever ongoing process. But a milestone? Definately! See it again, Slay!



Still haven't seen The Passion of the Christ (how could I when it premieres April 2 in Sweden?) but one thing that irritates me a bit is that some people seems to think that just because something looks realistic on screen, that means it is exactly how it happened. Some people treat this film like the discovery of the long lost footage of the actual event. It's in fact one man's depiction of a story (yes, a story) written by everything but objecive men a very very long time ago. It's a film based on a book based on propaganda based on a true story (probably or maybe). Mark, this is not a criticism of the film, which I haven't even seen yet, but just me pondering on some of the things I read about it.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

That isn't entirely true. It's more than just one mans account, the Romans were indeed great recorders of history. There are texts depicting what happened to Jesus, not only proving that he did exist, but also that he was scourged and crucified. Of course there isn't any documentation that Jesus was flogged 79 times by overzealous Roman guards who laughed and laughed, some liberties had to be taken due to lack of documentation, but overall, according to Roman records, scourging, in general, did happen much the way the movie represented it.

I'm not trying to split hairs here. More than any other movie in recent history, The Passion of the Christ has led to much intelligent debate, as well as ignorant bleating. I can't help myself but to feel defensive when people pan this movie for things that are (scripturally) factual. For example; in another movie forum that I sometimes frequent, there was a poster that was panning the movie for showing Pilate as sympathetic towards Jesus. That irritates me to no end because that is, not only in the Book of John, but in Roman records, the way Pilate was. He allowed the crucifixion for fear of death. Claudia, his wife, believed Jesus to be the Son of God, and begged Pilate to spare him. How else was it supposed to be depicted? Was Gibson supposed to show him as being more vilified to make some of the masses happy? I just don’t get some of these ridiculous arguments that complain about supposed facts being shown for what they are.

Jewish Priests called for Jesus’ death. That’s fact. Pilate was sympathetic. That’s fact. Jesus was scourged for hours. That’s fact. Jesus was giving the ultimate message of love by dying without anger, but with forgiveness. That’s fact.

Well, at least they’re all fact if you believe in the scriptures and Roman records. If not, then go see The Matrix, it’s messiah wears a cool leather trench coat and kicks some major ass.

Well, I saw this movie yesterday. I won't guy indepth, as I would just be repeating most people here, but I'll run over what I liked and disliked.

Liked:
-I liked Pilates portayal, how the movie goer is supposed to be sympathetic to him. This is allways how I personally had pictured him based on what I have read in the bible, and I'm glad he wasn't villified.

-Initially skeptical of shooting Passion in Armenian/Latin(or whatever), I thought it really worked well with the movie. Reading some of the subtitles, I couldn't imagine them being said in English.

-The violence. I attended a lecture last summer that detailed the physical treatement Jesus endured during his last 24 hours, so I knew what to expect, and I'm glad Gibson decided to keep all of it in.

Dislikes:
-The catholic influences in it. Since I'm more of a Non-denominational christian(I attend a Congregationilist church), I found these bothersome. One major one was how important Simon was made to be. Now, I haven't checked Mathew or Mark, but simon isn't even mentioned in John, and is only mentioned in one line in Luke.

-Satan being added. I felt it was unneccesary. I don't recall him being mentioned biblicaly during this time. To the best of my knowledge, after the Temptations of Jesus, he had no direct contact with him

-(very minor) Right before the very last scene, there is a long fade that annoyed me because I thought the movie was over. But like I said, that really didn't matter, just a personal peeve.

Basically, to me, this movie was a sledge hammer; nothing subtle about it.

__________________
Scondren, often wrong, never in doubt.