The Passion Of Christ

[GDI]

When I was at a local scuba store, on Saturday afternoon, getting a refill after teaching my Saturday dive class, the topic of discussion there among the staff at the store was this movie. One of the store workers said, "Who would want to go see a movie called The Passion of Christ? Maybe I'm just not religious, but I can't see why a title like that would interest anyone."

I asked her, as I was watching the gauges while filling my tank, "Well, if the title was The Passion of Lucifer, would you go see it then?"

She replied, with a big smile, "Yah!"

Whatever floats your boat, I guess!

Interestingly enough, however, had she gone to see The Passion of The Christ, she would have gotton to see an entire subplot with Lucifer in it.

It is important to note that the word "Passion" here is not like a passion for chocolate meaning that you love it and desire it. The word "Passion in this case implies the "PAIN" that Christ felt in his love for us.

 

[wetnorm]

Have You seen the movie and what do you think of it?

No; my wife has nearly persuaded me/us not to go on the basis that He would prefer us to contemplate His love rather than His sufferring. One may try to do His will, but we usually
fall short... and I can't imagine what He would prefer us to do w/r to The Movie. Would he care, etc? I don't know. I only am trying to say that some of us do try to moderate what we see or allow ourselves to consider. While we do this in general, however when related to our relgious views, this underscores that what we believe is based on faith alone.

This is hard for me because I am intellectual about every-thing else. In God we trust, o/w show me the data!

What do I think....and to add something new to this thread, I'll try to consider the different media used to relate this history.

I instead saw this Sunday a performance of Marcel Dupre's The Stations of the Cross which is his improvised response on organ to a dramatic reading of modern poetry on the subject, while simple slides of compassion were shown. This was artistic....contemplative....inspirational....and low tech (not to belittle his extraorinary talent). This dates to 1931.

Perhaps the audience was inspired to contemplate the Passion story akin to how any on pilgrimages to the Garden of Gethsemane might do as they walk along the stations of antiquity. Or perhaps akin to what the audiences of those many annual processional stations experience seeing when this is paraded in many cultures around the globe. Many churches provide an oratory of the Passion as ours does, taken from scripture. Low tech formats, but I bet this/these has/have been done for 2 millenia.

We do need to communicate to the next generation what tranpsired, and to retain the sentiments associated with His sacrifice.

Honestly, for some (myself not excluded) the Bible alone is hard to understand, much less believe. In the analogy, it is real low tech.

I would say, Mr. Gibson has provided to the 21st century and beyond a version of (the last 12 hrs of) Calvary that will be the definitive, "Ken Burns" style documentary. Graphic multimedia, indeed. Will he do the prequels?

The Broadway musical Jesus Christ Superstar, and Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat for that matter, were also historical, aesthetically pleasing, and in the final analysis, spiritually uplifting and have survived at least a few generations. How long do you think Gibson's TP of C will remain in our collective memory? I bet it will be unforgetable to its audience. Will it have staying power? Will this replace or supplement the other perennial Passion rituals?

If it serves His will and helps any grow in their faith journey, then so be it.

 

[TostitoBandito]

I would say, Mr. Gibson has provided to the 21st century and beyond a version of (the last 12 hrs of) Calvary that will be the definitive, "Ken Burns" style documentary. Graphic multimedia, indeed. Will he do the prequels?

A documentary? Are you kidding? The only way you could make a documentary on this topic would be to use factual historic sources, not faith-based theological ones. Because Mel Gibson picks and chooses and uses some of both, there is no way you could call this a documentary. It is just an expression of Gibson's personal beliefs. It would be very difficult to make a true documentary about this event because so many of the ancient sources and factual accounts have been twisted, retranslated, and intertwined in various theological texts. Gibson was definitely going for the look and feel of a historic documentary, but there is no way you can call it that based on some of the content and the sources he used. It's a Hollywood historical drama with some basis in fact, and just as much in faith.

Oh, and for anyone that is going to attack me for saying that the Bible is not a good factual historic source, the official position of even the Roman Catholic Church is to not take everything in the Bible literally (people who do are called "fundamentalists" in case you didn't know). There are a lot of metaphors in the Bible. You should take it with a grain of salt. After all, the message is the most important part.

 

[simbrooks]

The mods will have to gag me again i feel

 

[The Chairman]

"Discretion is the better part of valor", said one fundamentalist to his brother.

 

[chickdiver]

Interesting points of view. Obviously this film is highly controversial..... Haven't seen it and don't intend to.

 

[GDI]

You are Gagged

The mods will have to gag me again i feel

I had to do it big guy

 

[IndigoBlue]

Interesting points of view. Obviously this film is highly controversial..... Haven't seen it and don't intend to.

There are parts of the film that are stunning with their portrayal of compassion.

For example, a small mob of the Sanhedrin. They are casting their stones to the earth, at Christ's feet, where he stands like a tall strong silent statue, then they walk away.

In the dust there is kneeling a beautiful woman. Her eye makeup is running due to her tears. Her beauty and makeup rival that of Cleopatra. It is, of course, Mary Magdalene.

In the rest of the movie, she does not wear any makeup. In the rest of the movie, she has taken up with Mother Mary and John the Beloved who have become a family of sorts.

 

[Snowbear]

Obviously this film is highly controversial.....

No kidding!

Haven't seen it and don't intend to.

Me neither, but then I haven't seen a first run movie in the theater since Backdraft came out...

 

[AmyJ]

Have You seen the movie and what do you think of it?

But that is not why I'm posting. I was just furious during the movie. Why is it that we can force parents to put their kids in seatbelts, enforce laws for child neglect, abuse... but movies??????

Movies rated R should not allow children. Period! Last night at Passion (not that it is only this movie, I see it all the time) there were at least 5-6 YOUNG (ages 3-7) kids sitting around us. It was all I could do not to grab them and walk out!!!! They were horrified!! We know this is not good for a young child's psych.

How difficult could it be to just say NO children allowed in here? I know they have the new NC17 rating... but really, how many movies get that and how many enforce it. I may be way off here, but I just think it is wrong to subject kids to things that are beyond them. And this is not the first time. I had an 8 year old (about) girl sitting next to me at Matrix 2 that cried and hid her eyes the whole time.

Can't we get a law about this?? If you can't afford a babysitter (which I totally understand), then you have to wait for it to come out on dvd or something.

What does anyone else think????