Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Has the "Passion" movie only gotten the RW in a dither? If you like

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:11 PM
Original message
Has the "Passion" movie only gotten the RW in a dither? If you like
Edited on Sat Mar-13-04 08:38 PM by KoKo01
your "Biblicals" with some "storyline?" Wouldn't you say this movie was a dud? Floggings, Beatings, and blood and gore, which are sort of OTT?

I broke down and saw it and have to say, this movie, for all it's hype here on DU and in the Media, had me longing for the old "Sword & Sandals Biblicals" where at least one could identify with the characters...whether is was Sophia, Jean Simmons, Charlton, (of tote guns for blood lust fame), Victor Mature, Peter Ustinov, Paul Newman, James Mason and even
Laurence Olivier, Kirk Douglas, Anthony Quinn, Richard Burton???

I like my Biblical with a storyline and some "counterpoint" with the protagonist.

Remember," Ben Hur, Spartacus, The Robe, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Barrabas, The Ten Commandments, Soddom and Ghommorah, Samson & Delilah, Cleopatra", and who knows what other Sword & Sandels moved some of us whether the storyline was true to "Biblical Theory/Research" or NOT.


I preferrred the S&S to this piece of "Gore and Flagellation" from Gibson. But I will admit that I'm an old fashioned romantic and like my "religion" with a whiff of "Down Home Plot" I can identify with. Outside of that, I will read books to give me the proper intellectual spin on my "romantic ideas" about what a Hollywood Movie should portray about the New and Old Testament readings. I can read many excellent articles from the "cutting edge" of religous thologians and academicians, if I choose to. All kinds of books are out there, both supporting and debunking the myths of the "Passion" and the "Old & New Testaments" based on the newest achaeological discoveries about how much of what we all think about "O&N" Testaments are really based on "hype of the moment."

So.......after all of this "HYPE" about Gibson's movie...gotta say..it's too gory and prosthelysizing to grab me to stay with it. It was like some gross horror flick. "Average American Fundie Christian" might really "get off" on this movie. BUT, I used to be the "average American." And......I liked my "S&S" at Christmas and Easter because it spoke to me of a great story. I wasn't looking for a "debunk" or an intellectual discussion about this. I just wanted to enjoy a "Morality Play," in the quiet of my own home and looking at it as a "Parable" or "Morality Play" taking it for what it was... Entertainment?

So....in the end, I'm a "Theological Wimp!" I prefer my "S&S" rentals from Blockbuster to Gibson's sadistic display of what he things "The Passion" was. I understand living in the "World of Bush" that people can go "OTT" but I think Gibson's view goes beyond the "storyline drama" that most Americans can deal with to have a sense of hope, vision, and a guide for their lives. Gibson offers up an "Annie Coulter" view of what might have been done to Jesus. I won't accept that. It may be true.....but I want a higher vision that Jesus wouldn't have been subjected to the "Coulters" of the world at his "end of life." But, if he was, it was because God said he would have to suffer the "Coulters" of a "thousand bleeding cuts & lashes" to tell us we must perservere and keep our faith because "evil would always be amonst us."

What a "flake" I must be that I cling to this "romantic oldie hollywood versions" and I understand that I must be a "Hollywood Christian" for even admitting to this. But "Gibson's Version" left me cold...:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. I saw it last night with a catholic friend.
It was gruesome, disgusting, and in no way made me feel Jesus' love on the screen. The relentless violence and gore just made me numb. Oh' yeah...both of us saw, with NO MISTAKING IT, that the jews were completely to blame in this film. This was a snuff film. I can't find any other way to put it. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I've gotta' say.. I was primed from here on DU to look for Jews being to
Edited on Sat Mar-13-04 08:31 PM by KoKo01
blame in that movie. All I saw was everyone being gross. I didn't get the "ethnic thing" and since my protestant religion NEVER blamed Jews for crucifying Jesus, I didn't see it in this movie. Everyone looked sort of "ethnically diverse" to me?

So, I can't say I got the "Jewish Connection" from this Gibson Rant. If Jesus was a Jew....then how could we blame his fellow Jews for not going along with the Jews who supported Jesus?

After all We here are all DU'ers....but we didn't all support the same candidate. So, should we be blamed if the Dem Candiate get's Crucified in 2004 Elections?

Sorry, that's the way I see it. So what if Jesus was a Jew and "SOME" of his own people wanted him dead? That's LIFE FOLKS? What's the BIG DEAL? I just don't get it.....? :shrug: It wouldn't be the first time an "Ethnic betrayed their own Ethnicity" would it?

Are we clueless in thinking Catholics don't betray Catholics, Muslims don't betray Muslims, Hindi's don't betray Hindu's (might have that one backward) and Buddists don't betray fellow Budist's? On and On and On.

Of course we all betray each other.....if the price is right? What's new about that? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. Just out of curiousity, how do you think...
...people actually lived back in Christ's time? Do you think it was as romantic as the old movies you referred to so often in your post? Do you think most people just died peacefully with a smile on their face? Let me tell you something...from my historical and Biblical readings life was damned hard back in those days, and life expectancy was something of a joke.

And why is it that you won't accept what was actually done to Jesus in his final days? Isn't this described in great detail in the Bible itself? Haven't you done any reading about the punishmants handed out by the Romans to anyone that dared to cross their paths? Haven't you read anything about how the Disciples died?

<http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN500APOSTLES%20FATE.htm>

Have you read nothing about how the Romans persecuted the early Christians to the point of feeding them to the lions and other wild beasts?

<http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/Christianorigins/persecutions/>

You're welcome to whatever idealistic world in which you may live, but I find the idea of the early Christians surviving and flourishing in a world filled with hostility and painful death to be far more realistic and uplifting.

Nothing personal. JMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I think when people "look back" they try to find the "hook or the nub" of
Edited on Sat Mar-13-04 08:56 PM by KoKo01
a story about horrific times. And, I think it's left up to the "entertainers, morality players, or those who try to reach the masses by playing to the "heart" of the masses to get them involved with a new ideas: whether that idea be religious or political...it's up to the "storytellers, minstrals, or whatever to tell a story so that it appeals to the "averge Joe and Jane."

Bombarding people with too many "subtle facts whether based on the newest information or not, or the cutting edge of dbunking myths or not, doesn't always go off as well as presenting "well crafted fairy tails" which appeal to the CNN, FAUX, Washinton Times, or whatever the whore media is today.

If you craft your story well, like the RWingers that Women are Evil (they abort their babies, (they have promiscuous sex for which God will smite them), they indulge in "money making" (Martha) which goes against the laws of Men, they ask their men to use Viagra and tempt them with a Black Breast (Janet), or whatever these fundies think are "Eve Tempting Adam," and then they use a movie to try to turn Jesus's Crucifiction into some kind of gory, Jew baiting, ME Baiting or whatever baiting "passion play" which is so gross and OTT that it turns off huge numbers of "average Americans" then this is Bad, Evil, Disgustin or at the least of it......just more Coporate Greed flaming flames of passion for profit. And, if it's not true that it was about Jews killing Jesus.......because I didn't see that in the movie...then what's left of the hype for it?

That's what I'm saying, here. I'm not naive. I could hit your links and you would think you had done me a service by enlightening me. But, I spend more of my life in my Protestant Sunday School Classes, and in Theological Discussion than you could imagine. My post stands for what it is. It's my observation I through out on DU for discussion.

I tried to tell you what I saw about that movie.....and I only went to see it because of the DU and Media Hype. Otherwise I would have passed it by....... Thanks for your links...but I do read alot, still it's always good to check out new or other info...:-)'s
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. I agree M_L_D...
I think people who seen it and know by reading the bible and history, that life back them was no bed of roses. The Romans, who refined the art of torture and pain were the ones who crucified him, not the Jews, but the Jewish High Priests were the instigators and grand jury. I seen it (I'm Catholic), I did not see any anti-semitism in the film. He suffered and died for us. Thats the crux of the Christian faith. If you believe that, the film had an impact on you, but if you don't believe, then it was just another film with a lot of violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. Welcome to DU augie38!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. I still don't understand why people think the Bible is non-fiction.
I never got that part. If all those things supposedly happened in the book.. why haven't we seen any giant wheels turning in the sky? Or people turning to salt? Or a sea parting?

That's what frosts me about the mass hysteria over this movie. The accept this gore and violence as though it were a re-enactment on America's Most Wanted.

Trying to convince "non-believers" (the new term to alienate those who aren't into religious fanaticism) that we should accept this bloodbath of a film because it's "true", is just silly. And aren't those who are doing such atrocious things in the name of their religion, doing so because they beleive THEIR book is the truth, too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
33. To wit ...
From CCEL: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ...
http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/index.htm

The infamous Chapter 16: http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap16.htm#prob

-snip-

Probable account of the sufferings of the martyrs and confessors.
In this general view of the persecution which was first authorised by the edicts of Diocletian, I have purposely refrained from describing the particular sufferings and deaths of the Christian martyrs. It would have been an easy task, from the history of Eusebius, from the declamations of Lactantius, and from the most ancient acts, to collect a long series of horrid and disgusting pictures, and to fill many pages with racks and scourges, with iron hooks and red-hot beds, and with all the variety of tortures which fire and steel, savage beasts, and more savage executioners, could inflict on the human body. These melancholy scenes might be enlivened by a crowd of visions and miracles destined either to delay the death, to celebrate the triumph, or to discover the relics of those canonised saints who suffered for the name of Christ. But I cannot determine what I ought to transcribe, till I am satisfied how much I ought to believe. The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion.(178) Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries. Of some particular occasions, when the magistrates were exasperated by some personal motives of interest or resentment, when the zeal of the martyrs urged them to forget the rules of prudence, and perhaps of decency, to overturn the altars, to pour out imprecations against the emperors, or to strike the judge as he sat on his tribunal, it may be presumed that every mode of torture which cruelty could invent, or constancy could endure, was exhausted on those devoted victims.(179) Two circumstances, however, have been unwarily mentioned, which insinuate that the general treatment of the Christians who had been apprehended by the officers of justice was less intolerable than it is usually imagined to have been. 1/. The confessors who were condemned to work in the mines were permitted by the humanity or the negligence of their keepers to build chapels, and freely to profess their religion in the midst of those dreary habitations. (180) 2/. The bishops were obliged to check and to censure the forward zeal of the Christians, who voluntarily threw themselves into the hands of the magistrates. Some of these were persons oppressed by poverty and debts, who blindly sought to terminate a miserable existence by a glorious death. Others were allured by the hope that a short confinement would expiate the sins of a whole life; and others again were actuated by the less honourable motive of deriving a plentiful subsistence, and perhaps a considerable profit, from the alms which the charity of the faithful bestowed on the prisoners.(181) After the church had triumphed over all her enemies, the interest as well as vanity of the captives prompted them to magnify the merit of their respective suffering. A convenient distance of time or place gave an ample scope to the progress of fiction; and the frequent instances which might be alleged of holy martyrs whose wounds had been instantly healed, whose strength had been renewed, and whose lost members had miraculously been restored, were extremely convenient for the purpose of removing every difficulty, and of silencing every objection. The most extravagant legends, as they conduced to the honour of the church, were applauded by the credulous multitude, countenanced by the power of the clergy, and attested by the suspicious evidence of ecclesiastical history.

Number of martyrs.
The vague descriptions of exile and imprisonment, of pain and torture, are so easily exaggerated or softened by the pencil of an artful orator, that we are naturally induced to inquire into a fact of a more distinct and stubborn kind; the number of persons who suffered death in consequence of the edicts published by Diocletian, his associates, and his successors. The recent legendaries record whole armies and cities which were at once swept away by the undistinguishing rage of persecution. The more ancient writers content themselves with pouring out a liberal effusion of loose and tragical invectives, without condescending to ascertain the precise number of those persons who were permitted to seal with their blood their belief of the Gospel. From the history of Eusebius it may however be collected that only nine bishops were punished with death; and we are assured, by his particular enumeration of the martyrs of Palestine, that no more than ninety-two Christians were entitled to that honourable appellation.(182) As we are unacquainted with the degree of episcopal zeal and courage which prevailed at that time, it is not in our power to draw any useful inferences from the former of these facts: but the latter may serve to justify a very important and probable conclusion. According to the distribution of Roman provinces, Palestine may be considered as the sixteenth part of the Eastern empire: (183) and since there were some governors who, from a real or affected clemency, had preserved theirs hands unstained with the blood of the faithful,(184) it is reasonable to believe that the Country which had given birth to Christianity produced at least the sixteenth part of the martyrs who suffered death within the dominions of Galerius and Maximin; the whole might consequently amount to about fifteen hundred, a number which, if it is equally divided between the ten years of the persecution, will allow an annual consumption of one hundred and fifty martyrs. Allotting the same proportion to the provinces of Italy, Africa, and perhaps Spain, where, at the end of two or three years, the rigour of the penal laws was either suspended or abolished, the multitude of Christians in the Roman empire, on whom a capital punishment was inflicted by a judicial sentence, will be reduced to somewhat less than two thousand persons. Since it cannot be doubted that the Christians were more numerous, and their enemies more exasperated, in the time of Diocletian than they had ever been in any former persecution, this probable and moderate computation may teach us to estimate the number of primitive saints and martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the important purpose of introducing Christianity into the world.

Conclusion.
We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth which obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdoms, it must still be acknowledged that the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels. During the ages of ignorance which followed the subversion of the Roman empire in the West, the bishops of the Imperial city extended their dominion over the laity as well as clergy of the Latin church. The fabric of superstition which they had erected, and which might long have defied the feeble efforts of reason, was at length assaulted by a crowd of daring fanatics, who, from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, assumed the popular character of reformers. The church of Rome defended by violence the empire which she had acquired by fraud; a system of peace and benevolence was soon disgraced by the proscriptions, wars, massacres, and the institution of the holy office. And as the reformers were animated by the love of civil as well as of religious freedom, the Catholic princes connected their own interest with that of the clergy, and enforced by fire and the sword the terrors of spiritual censures. In the Netherlands alone more than one hundred thousand of the subjects of Charles V. are said to have suffered by the hand of the executioner; and this extraordinary number is attested by Grotius,(185) a man of genius and learning, who preserved his moderation amidst the fury of contending sects, and who composed the annals of his own age and country at a time when the invention of printing had facilitated the means of intelligence and increased the danger of detection. If we are obliged to submit our belief to the authority of Grotius, it must be allowed that the number of Protestants who were executed in a single province and a single reign, far exceeded that of the primitive martyrs in the space of three centuries, and of the Roman empire. But if the improbability of the fact itself should prevail over the weight of evidence; if Grotius should be convicted of exaggerating the merit and sufferings of the reformers; (186) we shall be naturally led to inquire what confidence can be placed in the doubtful and imperfect monuments of ancient credulity; what degree of credit can be assigned to a courtly bishop and a passionate declaimer, who, under the protection of Constantine, enjoyed the exclusive privilege of recording the persecutions inflicted on the Christians by the vanquished rivals or disregarded predecessors of their gracious sovereign.



-snip-


I respect you as a sturdy eye for fallacy and falsehood ....

One should maintain that same level of healthy skepticism when confronted with such emotional appeals from a supposed 'injured party' ...

The truth most likely is: .. The Christians were no more put upon than any other non-pagan faction or sectary in Rome, and they repaid their detractors in spades ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. this is a passion play, not a morality play
and it achieves that goal very well.

This movie is not intended to be hollywood entertainment S&S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Did you see it? Did you think it was important? Did it touch you? How
did it make a difference in you life?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
27. yes yes and yes
how ?

being a Christian, the Passion is an extreemely important event as its the sacrifice Christ made for ME. Me personally. Its a sign of the pain it causes God when I sin and a reminder that I really need to BE a better person and not just SAY I want to be one.

For a non-Christian I would think that they would need to at least have a passing understanding of what the Passion is all about or it would be as pointless a flick as you think it is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chookie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Okay, I think you made me understand this now
Maybe those of us who have been looking for "meanings" in this film may have been looking in the wrong place. Some have criticized various aspects of it, others have attempted to understand it within the context of their own belief system (which can be born-again, "mainstream" Christianity", apostate Catholicism, atheism, whatever) -- to have tried to see where it fits into their own view. I have read thoughtful discussions but for and against the film here.

But you state very simply here that all this film intends to be is Gibson's attempt to produce a film which deals with the final agonies of Jesus i.e. "a Passion Play."

I think I understand your viewpoint. Having grown up Catholic, the ritual of The Stations of the Cross and meditations on the Passion were very important. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this film simply is a film of the Passion, meant only to be an artistic representation of what Catholics do inwardly. It's not meant to deal with the bigger picture of the meaning of the life of Christ, and His message. I believe what you are saying is that a lot of the discussion that has revolved around "messages" that the film is thought to convey are really not central to its absolute intent.

If I have understood you correctly -- you have done a better job explaining this film to me in a positive manner than *anyone* else I have read. The other guy who came close is Roger Ebert, whose review I found quite moving, when he invoked the words of the hymn I remember from those years of commemorating that tragic last week of Lent, the line, "Close to Jesus to the last."
You are the only person who has made me feel as though I might wish to see this film, and that I might find it profoundly moving.

While I have found the discussions of all the differing viewpoints very interesting, and I have been one of the participants in some of these, in these I was always trying to put the film within a broader context and compare it to other works. Nothing wrong with that, I hope you will allow me. I also hope you will allow that I tend to view all popular art within the wider social climate of the time it was produced.

But your simple words made me understand how you and many others have perceived it as a devotional personal experience, and explained exactly why. If, as Freud has said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, maybe sometimes a film entitled "The Passion" is just a Passion Play.

BTW -- I am utterly sincere in writing this to you. As I have argued on the "contra" side previously, I hope you do not think I am somehow being sarcastic or disingenuous. I just wanted to remark that you did more to explain this film as a positive achievement in two sentences than dozens of others have done in thousands of words.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Passion vs. Morality......This would be a huge theological discussion, and
Edited on Sat Mar-13-04 11:34 PM by KoKo01
one where the focus would differ between Catholics and Protestants. I think Gibson's movie would go more with Catholism and RW Fundamentalist views of Jesus than my Episcopal/Protestant, views would.

I don't view "The Passion" (death throws) as the Message. I know that this is a theological difference, perhaps. And, didn't want to go there so much because while I've followed the "Stations of the Cross" and take it seriously, my theological background views "Stations" as a reliving of suffering which lead to great release and JOY of the Resurrection! So, Good Friday and Stations is to suffer but to look forward to the Joy of Release to Everlasting Life! Others may look on this as brooding and want to look on Jesus' death as a cause for vengeance. It just isn't part of any Protestant Mainstream faith I've been exposed to. And, I did grow up in the South, but have lived in the Northeast and attended Church there for many years. Maybe the extreme right looks for people to try and punish and perhaps some extreme Catholics do also, but I've known many Catholics and not found that to be true with the one's I've been friendly enough with to discuss Religion.

I think Gibson's movie focuses on Man's Brutality to His Fellow Man and put's Jesus's message in a more "human portrayal" than I was taught was the "Message."

Some feel that "Suffering with Jesus" is the way to truly experience your "Oneness" with God, the Father, the Son. And maybe the ultimate experience of feeling "The Trinity" would be the goal of this what seemed to me to be a sadistic and maybe not totally accurate historial depiction of Jesus' hours before being nailed to the cross. But, what I saw seemed to be more a Hollywood OTT depiction with horrendous beatings and blood loss than we know any human body could withstand. Since Jesus was said to be in Mortal Form here on earth, his body would have given out with the beatings portrayed in this movie before he even made it to be nailed to the cross for his final gasps of life.
:shrug:


I remember when sacrificing for Lent was more a common practice among Christians, it was a way of trying to share Jesus's suffering by sacrificing something that was important to us for that period that Jesus was in such peril knowing his time on Earth was coming to a close. Unfortunately, it seems, since, Lenten practices have seemed to be less in the mainstream since Vatican II, it may be that many need to feel this bonding with Jesus's suffering in a more personal way and so Gibson's movie probably speaks to many in ways that nothing else could in our very overhyped cluttered culture today. So, a "Passion Play" speaks more forcefully to some of us, and others prefer the Morality Plays which have messages which give us inspiration to go foward? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. I was brought up Episcopal too
The church did not gloss over the passion but the people sure did preferring to fast forward to the Ressurection. The Episcopal church is just not one to be very forceful in its teaching, other denominations are less hesitant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. thats great ! glad it helped
its like people think its "The Life of the Christ", thats a MUCH longer movie !

seriously its pretty much the film version of "the stations" and I never understood why people didn't sense that. most of the time I attributed it to their being non-Christians.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CerealMurderer Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. WTF does the RW have to do with anything?
Many of us on the left wing respect the passion and don't need any of the bigoted baggage that may come with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Ditto. Well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. As I tried to say in my verbose post. Much ado about a sadistic movie....
Edited on Sat Mar-13-04 09:24 PM by KoKo01
I think many "thinking folks" saw it for what it was. Much about Nothing.....Hype and Promo to put bucks in Gibson's pocket. Give my my S&S. :D

edited...one of these days I will learn to use "DU Preview" and edit before I post...ugh...brain and fingers don't work together all the time...:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. I know quite a few "thinking folks" who liked the movie when they saw it..
...and didn't find it sadistic in the least. I will admit that your post has been a much more clever attack on Gibson and his movie than most of the previous posts.

To each his own, I guess...those that prefer what actually happened historically as opposed to those that prefer to see history portrayed in cleaned-up, simplified doses of altered reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nankerphelge Donating Member (995 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #20
32. What does this mean?
Are you saying that this movie accurately portrays history from 2000 years ago?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Welcome to DU CerealMurderer!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nankerphelge Donating Member (995 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
11. Ech!
The best review I saw referred to it as "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre." That movie has nothing to do with Christianity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. I don't have to see Mels version
of the crucifixion.

Why?

Jesus dies everyday. He dies from cancer and heart disease. He dies rotting from torture and neglect in the worst jails on the planet just for speaking out. He dies from hunger and homelessness because no one gives a damn. He dies from drug addiction -- too many needles and crack pipes, not enough love. He dies from parental and spousal abuse, too much anger and not enough love. He dies from suicide bombers and machine guns into innocent crowds, too much hate and not enough love.

So yeah, I've seen Jesus die plenty of times. I've even participated in it because I have turned a blind eye, not helping when I could have. Am I ashamed? Absolutely. Am I human? Absolutely.

If you think that Mel's movie is "the real deal," I've got news for you. You're the one who's not living in the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I often wonder why we miss the "message" and focus so much on the
Edited on Sat Mar-13-04 10:11 PM by KoKo01
way the "messenger died." Although there's much about "betrayal of friends" and the "crassness of beaurocrats" in Jesus betrayal and crucifiction, and much we might learn from that, nevertheless....this was predicted, that he would come to earth and die for us..

The whole point of it to me (and admittedly it's my "protestant view" from protestant/Catholic tradition) still the "message" was that he "died for our sins and was resurrected." Died for our sins and said, you will be persecuted in life if you follow me, but YOU will have Everlasting Life, because "this world" is of man...but the other world is with me...

Simplistic....but then..that's what I got out of all those years in "Sunday School."

It's enough for me....with some other foundation to keep me going. It gives me strength that what's here, isn't all there is. :shrug: I think of that in my darkest days. A simple message that you will be "betrayed and think that all is lost," but "all is not here..." One always works for a higher good, I think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. That was beautifully worded!
I fully believe in your words. Good job KoKo01!O8)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. As an Ex-Protestant,
The movie didn't grab me as Mel Gibson intended. Partly, I think, since the Protestant church features an empty cross and emphasizes the resurrection.

In traditional Catholicism, the crucifiction and the entire passion are not only importantly theologically, but a major devotional focus. The sufferings of Jesus are supposed to be experienced intensely. They are supposed to be meditated on, and the believer comes closer to God and to salvation by identifying with those sufferings. Cf. St. Ignatius's "Spiritual Exercises."

This is what I think most non-Catholics miss about the way The Passion was filmed. It was intentionally violent, but not for sadistic purposes.

Many of the other things that struck me as strange also come specifically from traditional Catholicism: the emphasis on carrying the cross (the stations of the cross), the extrabiblical characters, the plot elements not found in the Bible, the depiction of the two Marys as nuns, etc.

I think what the film displayed is how far 21st-Century America is from traditional Catholicism, and that it's not even realized.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Now, I see Ribo, that you and I do have fundamental thological differences
Thank you for your post on this.

Since Protestants are diverse, I don't know what particular denomination
you were, but yes there are some who feature an empty cross. Although, you'd be surprised how many have gone back to roots and gotten closer to their Catholic beginnings about this lately.

Your, Catholic experience, though may be more intense than some "mainstream" Catholic Churches around the country though. I've been to some Catholic Churches which are very much into more vocal displays and more focused on suffering than others. It may be you have needed a more encompassing faith, but it doesn't mean that those who focus on the Resurrection are missing the discussion, either.

Thanks for pointing out the distinctions. I don't think any of us are wrong....but that we are all heading the same direction if we are Christians, it's just how we get there, that sometimes causes wars and bloodshed and other stuff, I'd just as soon wish we could get beyond. However that could be viewed as not being as "passionate" about one's faith as one ought to be, too...who knows?

Peace! thanks.
:-)'s
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. The way the "messenger died" is crucial to understanding why He died...
...in the first place, is it not? He was killed slowly in a place where all the people in the area, locals and Romans alike, could see how he died. That made it all the more amazing/miraculous when Christ arose three days later, IMHO.

Why do you feel it necessary to ignore or gloss over the times in which Christ lived, as well as the persecution suffered by the early Christians? Isn't the earliest known history of Christianity a story of faith, persecution, and survival?

IMHO, we learn absolutely nothing from history by attempting to gloss over and/or simplify it. What if we chose to gloss over or simplify what happened to the Jews in the WWII German concentration/death camps? Wouldn't the impact of what happened during those terrible years be lessened by failing to tell that story in all of its most terrible details?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaJudy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
29. Very well put
I'm a practicing Pagan, but even I respect Jesus' message.

It's how he lived that was unique, not how he died. I appreciate Jesus, but some of his friends scare me to death...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigo32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #12
34. I'd just like to say
Amen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. I just got back from seeing it......
It was everything I thought it was going to be. No surprises here. All it is is Mel Gibson's art of making a story of Jesus' death according to what he believes. Nothing less, nothing more.

The blood and gore didn't affect me one bit. Maybe I've been desensitized from working in a hog slaughter house for 6 years, the media, and being a nurse for 10 years.:shrug: I see horrors of real life everyday at work. I am fully aware of the pain and suffering all people go through in this life.

What I didn't like about the movie is that it didn't show how Jesus came from the dead and what He said to the disciples before he ascended to heaven! The only parts I liked were during the flashbacks showing Jesus' life and words which included His commandment to love one another; those who kill by the sword die by the sword; and I am the way the truth and the light, noone comes to the Father but by Me; when He spoke on the cross to the thief; when He saved Mary Magdalene; where He said they will kill you like they will me; and the scenes between Him and His mother Mary. Whoever played Satan did a good job, too. I still don't understand who the baby was that Satan was carrying, though--the false Messiah????:shrug:

I really don't think I needed to see the movie. I feel it's already a realization that came to me long ago and I think about it everyday of my life--really. So it was no big revelation to me to see the movie.

As far as the Jew thing goes--I've always known from reading the Bible that it was the Jewish pharisees/priests that were the accusers but that has never made me feel anti-semitic. Everybody makes choices individually. They did what they believed to be true. They honestly didn't believe he was the Messiah. It was just part of the story to me. It was written that this was the way Jesus would die. He had to sacrifice Himself in perfection in order to save us all from this world of imperfection and eternal death. I don't see how this was an anti-semitic portrayal. If anybody would see this as anti-semitic then it's because they feel they are being threatened by the story that they don't believe is the truth. Like others have said, Jesus, Mary, Mary, Jesus' brother and his disciples were all Jewish so I can't see how it would be anti-semitic. It's a Jewish story concerning Jewish history.

In a nutshell, the movie wasn't any lifechanging event because my life was already been changed a long time ago. It was okay but I wouldn't put it in my top 10 movie list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. It's interesting the posts, here. I wonder if we don't go in with our own
agendas and come out verifying or trashing the results? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magnolia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
16. Actually....
...all movies are art...regardless of whether they are based on true life or pure fantasy. I'm not sure where "Passion" falls but as art I thought it was excellent. I especially liked that they weren't speaking English. To complain that there wasn't enough of a story is like saying to DaVinci "The 'Mona Lisa' needs more of a background...who the hell can tell where she is!" Get it?...it's the artist's descretion how much he wants revealed...so too with a movie.

As for the old time Biblical movies...I thought they were horrible! I mean...Charleston Heston as Moses...pure crap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. You know what I thought was entirely ironic?
A whole row of Hispanics were there to see the movie and they were all speaking Spanish. Have no idea if they knew English but, hey, it didn't really matter because we were ALL reading the subtitles!!!! lol:7

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
31. Just got in from seeing "The Passion of Christ".
And I want to say that will the first and only time I want to see that movie. And I don't want it in my video collection. That movie was too graphic. It did get me to to thinking how Jesus suffered and died for our sins but I don't think anyone wants to see anyone suffer...not like that. This is the first time I wanted a character in a movie to hurry up and die (so that he won't have to suffer anymore). And how could his mother stand there and watch all that? Or anyone? But no, some had to join in the beating as he carried his cross. Mel Gibson wanted to show on film how he thought Jesus' crucifiction and his suffering. Well he did a good job of it...Thankfully, the movie ended as it showed Jesus rising from the dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC