Just saw it and it was intense! I have always read the Passion in the Gospels and I guess my brain could picture it..I would always cry. So the beatings, although many and brutal didn't make me cry too much. I cried when I emotionally identified with Mary,Jesus' mother, and how that must have been terrible of her to lose her child (flesh of her flesh, heart of her heart)...I too cried with the flashback of running to her little son and soothing him when he falls and skins a knee.
There was much symbolism, and detailed storyline. It would be worth going again, but I think once is enough for me.
I too, suffered from WAYBRAIN, counting the fallings, the 3 denials of Peter, and finally relinquished my heart to Gods' wonderful Son. I would have liked to hear "for this purpose I was spared...vs....Father,Father, why hast tho forsaken me" (or is it read the previous as it was all in subtitles)
All in all, a great evangelistic tool. The world is full of fake violence, real violence, etc....nothing less than truth and shocking reality would catch and render people speechless and maybe, just maybe, get some to acknowledge the one, true, God. Mel started the film with Bible quotes and if you follow it all thru...and believe, I believe Roms 10:9-
10 is covered. Maybe, this is one of the last great calls for people to convert..who knows..not I. But I sure believe and Thank Him.
My favorite Mel Gibson moment was the woodshop scene.
I also liked the raven going after the other malefactor.
Great Mary -- good woman. good mother.
from an email today:
quote:It's absolutely amazing to me. I am awed, but I cannot find one Internet news service in any country or culture that is not carrying an article about this movie; most are openly discussing the reality of Jesus dying for mankind's sins. If you go to the internet search engine Google www.google.com and click on their news, you'll find close to 1800 news sites with articles about The Passion of the Christ. Even Al Jazeera, the powerful Arab Muslim news service that has been the outlet for messages from bin Ladin and Al Qaeda, is talking about The Passion of the Christ (See http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage, search for Gibson to find three articles).
I really look fwd to seeing it. Except that there is no theater in my isolated little Alaskan fishing town. It is playing in Juneau ninety miles south of here, and exWay friends of ours plan on going to it. They say that all of the tickets are sold out way in advance though.
I am particularly interested in having my sixteen year old son see it. He thinks that life is not fair and too hard sometimes, and since he was raised with lots of "Bible", I think that this may help him put things into perspective. I also think that it will do the same for me too. And my God! Even thinking about the scene described about Mary reaching down to help her son with a skinned knee clutches my heart and makes me all teary eyed!
I'd go see it myself, except that I never could watch gore flicks, regardless of the message/topic.
A couple of points I would like to make about this, even as one who hasn't/most likely won't go see the flick:
1) The arguments of the film being anti-semitic I feel, from what I've been hearing/reading so far, are groundless. That some people will use this to commit anti-semitic attacks might pose more of a possibility (being that there are *stoopid* people on this earth, and always will be), but still isn't a responsibility that can be laid directly at the feet of Gibson or the film, no matter how bloody or gory it is.
2) One thing that kinda bothers me about this flick is the goryness; ie., not particularly the goryness itself, but the emotionalism behind it. And that it seems to be, or more likely can be, used in a manipulative way as a guilt-trip in 'persuading' people of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Kinda like a highly emotional Billy Graham crusade meets Friday the 13th.
I mean, look at some of the posts here and how many folks who have seen the flick were moved, some beyond words. Ie., it isn't a film that can be easily talked about in a rational fashion. And if that is one of the purposes of the film, why is that? Why not talk about what Jesus Christ went through in rational and clear headed fashion? I do know that many evangelical preachers and ministers depend on the high emotion content and factor in keeping the effectiveness of their message going. Or maybe I should say the effectiveness of bringing people in to believing their message, hmmmm? -->
Remember the 'cult' arguments? The emotional 'love bombing'? The techniques of emotional appeal of persuasion that were mistakingly called 'mind control' tactics? What if PFAL was portrayed in this same emotionallly charged and visual fashion that 'Passion' is? I wonder how many folks would have been going nuts about 'mind control cult' back then? Frankly, (as many of you here know) I don't buy the 'mind control' argument in this flick or a lot of other situations; its a lot more complex of a topic than that. But I wonder what kind of persuasion this film is using to 'bring people to Christ', particularly since it does seem to do more or less an end run around rational and clear headed discussions of what He went through and accomplished, in favor of the 'shock and awe' approach.
I mean, when someone can't talk about the film that they just saw even while they are driving home well after they seen it? And the overwhelming emotions in seeing it? And what happens when someone rationally discusses this flick to where they don't believe/are still skeptical about it? How do people who have been to an emotionally religious event (and yes Virginia, this movie *is* a religious event) react to what they might view as a cavalier dismissal of what they have 'experienced' (and not 'watched')?
Ever since I have been taking a more rational- and free inquiry-based view towards religious things and topics, I have started wondering about questions like these in relation to 'The Passion', and want to know why these things are so.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
I won't go see it because it is too bloody. I can't handle that no matter what the subject of the film is.
I have heard that the resurrection isn't part of the story line at all. In one interview I heard, a Methodist minister said: "I'm a Methodist, we got Jesus off the cross!" He was a bit surprised that the resurrection wasn't in the film. He said the whole tenet of Christianity is that JC rose from the dead. Thousands were crucified by the Romans - remember "Sparticus"? But the fact that JC got up made him the Messiah - not the fact that he died.
I don't know - I tend to agree with him even though I'm not necessarily a heavy-duty Christian any more. If it's not in the film - it should have been - it makes more sense that way.
But I'm still not going to see it.
Hope R. color>size>face>
... there's a star on the far horizon, rising bright in an azure sky,
for the rest of the time that you're given, why walk when you can fly?
Well, as I understand it, and I haven't seen it yet, the resurrection is part of the film. Apparently they show the empty tomb at the end of the movie...Anybody who has seen it? What say you?
How vital is seeing the Resurrection to believe on the Christ?: The other malefactor believed in the resurrection with only The Passion of Christ as evidence -- only the messiah could go through the crucifixion.
I'm on the view of Paul, "Preach Christ and Him crucified" is good enough. I think the "protestant' side which skips over the Passion to the resurrection misses the full story line.
Mel Gibson's goal was to film the "last 12 hours of Jesus' life," and that he did -- That's The Passion of Christ.
There is the Resurrection. Brief but undeniable.
Questions and more questions: where did Jesus get his clothes? The grave clothes were neatly folded. . .but He appeared as the gardener to Mary. . . And he looked like just a guy to the two on the road to Emmaus . . .
Mel Gibson has him getting up naked. . .
Does he just think of the kind of clothes he wants to wear?
I am looking forward to the sequel -- the battle of armageddon -- that's one bloody sequence!
:)-->," God
[This message was edited by Kit Sober on February 29, 2004 at 14:34.]
It (the Resurrection) was indeed part of it, and without giving away the ending, I don't think that the "Methodist" guy saw the film if he said that...
quote: How vital is the Resurrection to believe on the CHrist?
And here I was thinking that it was believing that God raised him from the dead that was part of the requirement of accepting Jesus Christ. My bad.
Like Hope said, lots of people were crucified. ... What if that malefactor believed in Spartacus and him crucified? According to your logic, same thing. ... Right? ... Oh wait a minute. Didn't the malefactor believe that Jesus Christ was "coming again in His kingdom"? He couldn't believe that if he felt that Jesus was just 'going through the crucifixion'.
Wasway further illustrates my point by posting his/her reaction to seeing the flick.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Me and my three kids went to see it yesterday. They wanted to stop at Walmarts but I said you need to let this soak in during your half hour drive home from McAlester. We all talked about it and my daughters asked if I cried it took an hour to confess up and I told them it was what he did for us and to see our Lord done in that manner that hit me. I too sat their with my Way brain trying to rightly divide this and that and thought Mel is the only person out of his only finances to put together something we could really see the Isaiah prophecy of his beatings like no other has. I recommend it to see.
I've been a horror movie fan all my life. They've been making them funny for the last 20 yrs. In the old Frankenstein and Dracula movies the personal presence of the monster was so terrifying that the eventual victims just froze and the monster could just take its time and make the kill.
In the 1986 classic "Night of the Creeps" the people who had to deal with the 'creeps' were wise cracking the entire movie. It was a horror/comedy. Now more to the point of the thread.
In the old Jesus movies like "King of Kings" or "The greatest story ever told" and such, Jesus looks like he took 20 hits of acid and somehow mesmerized the disciples into following him. The crucifiction scenes show him on the cross with a scuff mark or two on his face and he really isn't convincingly suffering. Since "The last temptation of Christ" wanted to portray a more "realistic" Jesus, at least in the minds of the makers of the film, then what's wrong with Mel Gibson portraying a more realistic crucufiction?
Sure, he believes JC is God, and he emphasizes the crucifiction instead of the resurrection, and if JC our Passover has any truth to it, the suffering is probably still tame compared to what really happened, but as a hollywood film it's definitely a break through. Haven't seen it yet, but probably will.
Dear Garth, I should have said, "How vital is seeing the Resurrection to believe on the Christ?" (corrected)
I do agree that the malefactor did believe in the resurrection (implicit in his statement, "remember me when you come into your kingdom").
Also, you can believe in Spartacus or any one of a number of things, and time will tell what faith will open heaven's door. I have bet all my marbles on Jesus.
Wasway -- that was funny about the comma. I responded the waybrain demon and said to myself, "Well, maybe he's right. We'll see. God is the judge of this, too."
I wouldn't worry about giving away the ending. It's not like no one knows how this story ends. Here's some spoilers for you:
In the movie "Titanic," the ship sinks.
Evita dies at the beginning.
The kid's secret is: he sees dead people.
Malcolm X is assassinated.
Buddy Holly dies in a plane crash.
Ritchie Valens... see "Buddy Holly."
So, The Passion of Christ pays brief but stunning tribute to the resurrection.
quote:In one interview I heard, a Methodist minister said: "I'm a Methodist, we got Jesus off the cross!"
He clearly didn't see the movie.
I was awestruck by this movie. Didn't care where the comma was. I wasn't even bothered by the presence of St. Veronica (everyone notice the face on the towel?) Didn't care that there were three crosses instead of five. Didn't care that Jesus stumbled three times while carrying the cross before Simon got pulled in to help. Distractions, all of those, to the power of the message that Jesus suffered and died for us.
One thing I find interesting, however, is that (correct me if I'm mistaken) JCOP presents the suffering as taking place over a period of a day and a half, not just 12 hours. I'm kind of glad Mel Gibson believes it was just 12 hours: he might have made an even longer movie if he believed what TWI teaches.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 29, 2004 at 15:12.]
My daughter and some friends saw it a night ago. It made an impression on her. She said they all went out for coffee after and talked about it. They're late teens, 20 or so, that age. She described the theater audience.
She said the movie ends with a scene - Raf, I won't quite spoil it, but we DO know how the story ends.... She said that little piece, after the whole movie, just knocked the whole audience back, like WHOA. She was expecting something, something different, but when it got there, it was still moving, maybe more than a big drawn out scene.
She said her little group all had the same reaction. I guess Gibson crafted it in differently than might be expected. But she said "the ending" was almost ethereal by being so matter of fact and understated.
-I wanted to add, that ending may be the "genius" of Gibson's movie. Because the resurrection was an event, real people, real stuff and as real as his death. Where is he, where'd you put him??? Looking for him and bang. He's not there and it all starts to come back, joy out of grief, presence out of loss. A transcendent moment if ever there was one.
She's and her friends have seen some movies that are slasher types, like the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and it had a nasty effect on her. I actually had to show her on the internet that TCM didn't really happen, that it's a myth that's built up around the whole movie. Although The Passion had a powerful effect on her and her friends, she wasn't freaked out. Hers and the others reaction was much different. That really impressed me.
In line, in line, it's all in a line. My ducks are all in a row.
They do not change, they do not move. They have nowhere to go.
James Taylor
[This message was edited by socks on February 29, 2004 at 15:45.]
[This message was edited by socks on February 29, 2004 at 15:46.]
Didn't care where the comma was. I wasn't even bothered by the presence of St. Veronica (everyone notice the face on the towel?) Didn't care that there were three crosses instead of five. Didn't care that Jesus stumbled three times while carrying the cross before Simon got pulled in to help. Distractions, all of those, to the power of the message that Jesus suffered and died for us.
You know thinking back I did have flashing memories of Catechism Classes, ie. The story of Veronica (I remembered the face on the cloth but couldn't remember her name,) and playing the stations of the cross in my head as the story progressed.
I wonder if anyone was humming the "Via De la Rosa" as they passed through town??
But for me the last 45 seconds had as much (if not more) of an impact on me as rest of the film. Gibson did an excellent job putting this film together.
First, I did not like having to read everything as they spoke in whatever. Secondly, I did not feel the power of Christ when I left.
I just watched him get beaten up for two hours and four minutes. Then, for about one and a half seconds you see Jesus get up from the dead.
If it were done in ENGLISH and they would have dedicated at least 15 minutes to Christ rising I would have liked it.
As it stands, I left feeling like I should have done something to help Jesus Christ. I should have left a powerful movie like that saying "Look at what he did for me." I left wanting to go defend him and if another person tried to whip him I wanted to go whip them. I did not see the power of Christ -- but it was a heck of a look at crucifing him.
Yes, I saw how he suffered. I saw it for over two hours. They should have dedicated more time to the risen Christ... My opinion
Sorry -- Mel. I would not see it again or tell anyone to see it.
(((Jesus))) I am so sorry what happened to you!
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on February 29, 2004 at 15:59.]
Well, I haven't seen it as of yet, as I said yesterday. But I do look fwd to it. Down in Juneau, the movie has been sold out, and friends of mine there have been unable to get tickets yet. They figure they will be able to get to see it sometime next week. There is no theater in this here "one moose" town (got no horses), so I may have to wait for the video.
I have, for a long time now, viewed almost all references to Jesus Christ in movies and such without judging them (the references) harshly according to details in the Scripture. There are many details which many of you refer to as "Waybrain" thinking, but to me, if they are things I learned in The Way, that are in fact biblically accurate, I just view them as "biblically accurate" and not as "Waybrain".
Now, if I scoffed at innaccuracies in portrayals of Christ or of Scripture, then that would in fact be "Waybrain thinking" to me. But thank God I am way past that old egotism which I fell into as a Wayfer.
So, regardless of what apparently is a "touch of Catholicism" in this film, I really don't care at all. Since this movie obviously portrays the sacrifice of our lord Jesus Christ and his resurrection, and has such an emotional impact on the viewers, I suspect that a whole bunch of people are going to get born again, as well as gain a bigger perspective on forgiveness, self forgiveness, compassion for others and all kinds of very good things.
Unfortunately, I will probably miss the "experience" of viewing this movie with a bunch of mostly strangers like has been mentioned here, as well as what I have read in the news and etc. One poster here said that it was amazing that "no one got up for popcorn", and that they were silent and etc.
A friend of ours whose unbelieving mother did see it in Juneau, said that her mother was overwhelmed to the point of sobbing and asked God for forgiveness, and asked Jesus into her heart. That woman also said that when the movie was over, there was a thunderous applause, and then, many stunned and teary eyed people in the lobby as people walked out. She said that there was almost a "commeraderie" amongst the viewers as they walked out, with some of them being "small town acquaintences" with this new experience together. That would be a cool thing to experience I think...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
15
12
20
Popular Days
Feb 29
31
Mar 3
21
Mar 1
17
Feb 26
13
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 9 posts
Dot Matrix 15 posts
Kit Sober 12 posts
J0nny Ling0 20 posts
Popular Days
Feb 29 2004
31 posts
Mar 3 2004
21 posts
Mar 1 2004
17 posts
Feb 26 2004
13 posts
waterbuffalo
Also, I thought the handling of Pontius Pilate and his wife was superb!
Asked why he began studying Greek at age 94, Oliver Wendell Holmes replied,"Well, my good sir, it's now or never!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
2beenthere2
Just saw it and it was intense! I have always read the Passion in the Gospels and I guess my brain could picture it..I would always cry. So the beatings, although many and brutal didn't make me cry too much. I cried when I emotionally identified with Mary,Jesus' mother, and how that must have been terrible of her to lose her child (flesh of her flesh, heart of her heart)...I too cried with the flashback of running to her little son and soothing him when he falls and skins a knee.
There was much symbolism, and detailed storyline. It would be worth going again, but I think once is enough for me.
I too, suffered from WAYBRAIN, counting the fallings, the 3 denials of Peter, and finally relinquished my heart to Gods' wonderful Son. I would have liked to hear "for this purpose I was spared...vs....Father,Father, why hast tho forsaken me" (or is it read the previous as it was all in subtitles)
All in all, a great evangelistic tool. The world is full of fake violence, real violence, etc....nothing less than truth and shocking reality would catch and render people speechless and maybe, just maybe, get some to acknowledge the one, true, God. Mel started the film with Bible quotes and if you follow it all thru...and believe, I believe Roms 10:9-
10 is covered. Maybe, this is one of the last great calls for people to convert..who knows..not I. But I sure believe and Thank Him.
2Beenthere2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
My favorite Mel Gibson moment was the woodshop scene.
I also liked the raven going after the other malefactor.
Great Mary -- good woman. good mother.
from an email today:
hopefully,Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I really look fwd to seeing it. Except that there is no theater in my isolated little Alaskan fishing town. It is playing in Juneau ninety miles south of here, and exWay friends of ours plan on going to it. They say that all of the tickets are sold out way in advance though.
I am particularly interested in having my sixteen year old son see it. He thinks that life is not fair and too hard sometimes, and since he was raised with lots of "Bible", I think that this may help him put things into perspective. I also think that it will do the same for me too. And my God! Even thinking about the scene described about Mary reaching down to help her son with a skinned knee clutches my heart and makes me all teary eyed!
I may have to wait for the video though...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
god might really be a mommy also
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
Mel's Mary was a really good mom. For me it was an especially refreshing viewpoint. Honorable and honored, sensitive and dignified. I loved it.
:)-->," God
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I'd go see it myself, except that I never could watch gore flicks, regardless of the message/topic.
A couple of points I would like to make about this, even as one who hasn't/most likely won't go see the flick:
1) The arguments of the film being anti-semitic I feel, from what I've been hearing/reading so far, are groundless. That some people will use this to commit anti-semitic attacks might pose more of a possibility (being that there are *stoopid* people on this earth, and always will be), but still isn't a responsibility that can be laid directly at the feet of Gibson or the film, no matter how bloody or gory it is.
2) One thing that kinda bothers me about this flick is the goryness; ie., not particularly the goryness itself, but the emotionalism behind it. And that it seems to be, or more likely can be, used in a manipulative way as a guilt-trip in 'persuading' people of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Kinda like a highly emotional Billy Graham crusade meets Friday the 13th.
I mean, look at some of the posts here and how many folks who have seen the flick were moved, some beyond words. Ie., it isn't a film that can be easily talked about in a rational fashion. And if that is one of the purposes of the film, why is that? Why not talk about what Jesus Christ went through in rational and clear headed fashion? I do know that many evangelical preachers and ministers depend on the high emotion content and factor in keeping the effectiveness of their message going. Or maybe I should say the effectiveness of bringing people in to believing their message, hmmmm?
-->
Remember the 'cult' arguments? The emotional 'love bombing'? The techniques of emotional appeal of persuasion that were mistakingly called 'mind control' tactics? What if PFAL was portrayed in this same emotionallly charged and visual fashion that 'Passion' is? I wonder how many folks would have been going nuts about 'mind control cult' back then? Frankly, (as many of you here know) I don't buy the 'mind control' argument in this flick or a lot of other situations; its a lot more complex of a topic than that. But I wonder what kind of persuasion this film is using to 'bring people to Christ', particularly since it does seem to do more or less an end run around rational and clear headed discussions of what He went through and accomplished, in favor of the 'shock and awe' approach.
I mean, when someone can't talk about the film that they just saw even while they are driving home well after they seen it? And the overwhelming emotions in seeing it? And what happens when someone rationally discusses this flick to where they don't believe/are still skeptical about it? How do people who have been to an emotionally religious event (and yes Virginia, this movie *is* a religious event) react to what they might view as a cavalier dismissal of what they have 'experienced' (and not 'watched')?
Ever since I have been taking a more rational- and free inquiry-based view towards religious things and topics, I have started wondering about questions like these in relation to 'The Passion', and want to know why these things are so.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Juan Cruz
Garth,
I was accompany you for paragraphs 1-6.
Your rationalism had made desire to say to you, "Oh Garth, just go see it, you big kitty cat."
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
wasway
copied my post from over at the movie thread
--------------------------------------------
The strangest trip to the theater I ever had.
The Manager of the theater came into the room and passed out boxes of tissues before the movie started....
No one... I mean No one... left to get popcorn.
2 hours and not one cell phone call or pager was heard.
Not a soul spoke on the way out. No ONE!! I still havent spoken.
The most intense 2 hours I have ever spent, and I have had some pretty intense 2-hour-periods in my day.
no previews not a sound fron the kids in the back rows no mumbling nothing
amazing!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
I won't go see it because it is too bloody. I can't handle that no matter what the subject of the film is.
I have heard that the resurrection isn't part of the story line at all. In one interview I heard, a Methodist minister said: "I'm a Methodist, we got Jesus off the cross!" He was a bit surprised that the resurrection wasn't in the film. He said the whole tenet of Christianity is that JC rose from the dead. Thousands were crucified by the Romans - remember "Sparticus"? But the fact that JC got up made him the Messiah - not the fact that he died.
I don't know - I tend to agree with him even though I'm not necessarily a heavy-duty Christian any more. If it's not in the film - it should have been - it makes more sense that way.
But I'm still not going to see it.
Hope R. color>size>face>
... there's a star on the far horizon, rising bright in an azure sky,
for the rest of the time that you're given, why walk when you can fly?
Mary Chapin Carpentersize>color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Well, as I understand it, and I haven't seen it yet, the resurrection is part of the film. Apparently they show the empty tomb at the end of the movie...Anybody who has seen it? What say you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
How vital is seeing the Resurrection to believe on the Christ?: The other malefactor believed in the resurrection with only The Passion of Christ as evidence -- only the messiah could go through the crucifixion.
I'm on the view of Paul, "Preach Christ and Him crucified" is good enough. I think the "protestant' side which skips over the Passion to the resurrection misses the full story line.
Mel Gibson's goal was to film the "last 12 hours of Jesus' life," and that he did -- That's The Passion of Christ.
There is the Resurrection. Brief but undeniable.
Questions and more questions: where did Jesus get his clothes? The grave clothes were neatly folded. . .but He appeared as the gardener to Mary. . . And he looked like just a guy to the two on the road to Emmaus . . .
Mel Gibson has him getting up naked. . .
Does he just think of the kind of clothes he wants to wear?
I am looking forward to the sequel -- the battle of armageddon -- that's one bloody sequence!
[This message was edited by Kit Sober on February 29, 2004 at 14:34.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
wasway
It (the Resurrection) was indeed part of it, and without giving away the ending, I don't think that the "Methodist" guy saw the film if he said that...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Kit,
And here I was thinking that it was believing that God raised him from the dead that was part of the requirement of accepting Jesus Christ. My bad.
Like Hope said, lots of people were crucified. ... What if that malefactor believed in Spartacus and him crucified? According to your logic, same thing. ... Right? ... Oh wait a minute. Didn't the malefactor believe that Jesus Christ was "coming again in His kingdom"? He couldn't believe that if he felt that Jesus was just 'going through the crucifixion'.
Wasway further illustrates my point by posting his/her reaction to seeing the flick.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fellowshipper
Me and my three kids went to see it yesterday. They wanted to stop at Walmarts but I said you need to let this soak in during your half hour drive home from McAlester. We all talked about it and my daughters asked if I cried it took an hour to confess up and I told them it was what he did for us and to see our Lord done in that manner that hit me. I too sat their with my Way brain trying to rightly divide this and that and thought Mel is the only person out of his only finances to put together something we could really see the Isaiah prophecy of his beatings like no other has. I recommend it to see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I've been a horror movie fan all my life. They've been making them funny for the last 20 yrs. In the old Frankenstein and Dracula movies the personal presence of the monster was so terrifying that the eventual victims just froze and the monster could just take its time and make the kill.
In the 1986 classic "Night of the Creeps" the people who had to deal with the 'creeps' were wise cracking the entire movie. It was a horror/comedy. Now more to the point of the thread.
In the old Jesus movies like "King of Kings" or "The greatest story ever told" and such, Jesus looks like he took 20 hits of acid and somehow mesmerized the disciples into following him. The crucifiction scenes show him on the cross with a scuff mark or two on his face and he really isn't convincingly suffering. Since "The last temptation of Christ" wanted to portray a more "realistic" Jesus, at least in the minds of the makers of the film, then what's wrong with Mel Gibson portraying a more realistic crucufiction?
Sure, he believes JC is God, and he emphasizes the crucifiction instead of the resurrection, and if JC our Passover has any truth to it, the suffering is probably still tame compared to what really happened, but as a hollywood film it's definitely a break through. Haven't seen it yet, but probably will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wasway
speaking of "waybrain."
When the subtitle said "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise"
I thought to my self..."self , that comma is in the wrong place."
JEEZ what did they do to us?????
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
Dear Garth, I should have said, "How vital is seeing the Resurrection to believe on the Christ?" (corrected)
I do agree that the malefactor did believe in the resurrection (implicit in his statement, "remember me when you come into your kingdom").
Also, you can believe in Spartacus or any one of a number of things, and time will tell what faith will open heaven's door. I have bet all my marbles on Jesus.
Wasway -- that was funny about the comma. I responded the waybrain demon and said to myself, "Well, maybe he's right. We'll see. God is the judge of this, too."
:)-->," God
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
wasway,
I wouldn't worry about giving away the ending. It's not like no one knows how this story ends. Here's some spoilers for you:
In the movie "Titanic," the ship sinks.
Evita dies at the beginning.
The kid's secret is: he sees dead people.
Malcolm X is assassinated.
Buddy Holly dies in a plane crash.
Ritchie Valens... see "Buddy Holly."
So, The Passion of Christ pays brief but stunning tribute to the resurrection.
He clearly didn't see the movie.
I was awestruck by this movie. Didn't care where the comma was. I wasn't even bothered by the presence of St. Veronica (everyone notice the face on the towel?) Didn't care that there were three crosses instead of five. Didn't care that Jesus stumbled three times while carrying the cross before Simon got pulled in to help. Distractions, all of those, to the power of the message that Jesus suffered and died for us.
One thing I find interesting, however, is that (correct me if I'm mistaken) JCOP presents the suffering as taking place over a period of a day and a half, not just 12 hours. I'm kind of glad Mel Gibson believes it was just 12 hours: he might have made an even longer movie if he believed what TWI teaches.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 29, 2004 at 15:12.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
My daughter and some friends saw it a night ago. It made an impression on her. She said they all went out for coffee after and talked about it. They're late teens, 20 or so, that age. She described the theater audience.
She said the movie ends with a scene - Raf, I won't quite spoil it, but we DO know how the story ends.... She said that little piece, after the whole movie, just knocked the whole audience back, like WHOA. She was expecting something, something different, but when it got there, it was still moving, maybe more than a big drawn out scene.
She said her little group all had the same reaction. I guess Gibson crafted it in differently than might be expected. But she said "the ending" was almost ethereal by being so matter of fact and understated.
-I wanted to add, that ending may be the "genius" of Gibson's movie. Because the resurrection was an event, real people, real stuff and as real as his death. Where is he, where'd you put him??? Looking for him and bang. He's not there and it all starts to come back, joy out of grief, presence out of loss. A transcendent moment if ever there was one.
She's and her friends have seen some movies that are slasher types, like the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and it had a nasty effect on her. I actually had to show her on the internet that TCM didn't really happen, that it's a myth that's built up around the whole movie. Although The Passion had a powerful effect on her and her friends, she wasn't freaked out. Hers and the others reaction was much different. That really impressed me.
In line, in line, it's all in a line. My ducks are all in a row.
They do not change, they do not move. They have nowhere to go.
James Taylor
[This message was edited by socks on February 29, 2004 at 15:45.]
[This message was edited by socks on February 29, 2004 at 15:46.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
wasway
You know thinking back I did have flashing memories of Catechism Classes, ie. The story of Veronica (I remembered the face on the cloth but couldn't remember her name,) and playing the stations of the cross in my head as the story progressed.
I wonder if anyone was humming the "Via De la Rosa" as they passed through town??
But for me the last 45 seconds had as much (if not more) of an impact on me as rest of the film. Gibson did an excellent job putting this film together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
I just saw it and was VERY disappointed.
First, I did not like having to read everything as they spoke in whatever. Secondly, I did not feel the power of Christ when I left.
I just watched him get beaten up for two hours and four minutes. Then, for about one and a half seconds you see Jesus get up from the dead.
If it were done in ENGLISH and they would have dedicated at least 15 minutes to Christ rising I would have liked it.
As it stands, I left feeling like I should have done something to help Jesus Christ. I should have left a powerful movie like that saying "Look at what he did for me." I left wanting to go defend him and if another person tried to whip him I wanted to go whip them. I did not see the power of Christ -- but it was a heck of a look at crucifing him.
Yes, I saw how he suffered. I saw it for over two hours. They should have dedicated more time to the risen Christ... My opinion
Sorry -- Mel. I would not see it again or tell anyone to see it.
(((Jesus))) I am so sorry what happened to you!
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on February 29, 2004 at 15:59.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Well, I haven't seen it as of yet, as I said yesterday. But I do look fwd to it. Down in Juneau, the movie has been sold out, and friends of mine there have been unable to get tickets yet. They figure they will be able to get to see it sometime next week. There is no theater in this here "one moose" town (got no horses), so I may have to wait for the video.
I have, for a long time now, viewed almost all references to Jesus Christ in movies and such without judging them (the references) harshly according to details in the Scripture. There are many details which many of you refer to as "Waybrain" thinking, but to me, if they are things I learned in The Way, that are in fact biblically accurate, I just view them as "biblically accurate" and not as "Waybrain".
Now, if I scoffed at innaccuracies in portrayals of Christ or of Scripture, then that would in fact be "Waybrain thinking" to me. But thank God I am way past that old egotism which I fell into as a Wayfer.
So, regardless of what apparently is a "touch of Catholicism" in this film, I really don't care at all. Since this movie obviously portrays the sacrifice of our lord Jesus Christ and his resurrection, and has such an emotional impact on the viewers, I suspect that a whole bunch of people are going to get born again, as well as gain a bigger perspective on forgiveness, self forgiveness, compassion for others and all kinds of very good things.
Unfortunately, I will probably miss the "experience" of viewing this movie with a bunch of mostly strangers like has been mentioned here, as well as what I have read in the news and etc. One poster here said that it was amazing that "no one got up for popcorn", and that they were silent and etc.
A friend of ours whose unbelieving mother did see it in Juneau, said that her mother was overwhelmed to the point of sobbing and asked God for forgiveness, and asked Jesus into her heart. That woman also said that when the movie was over, there was a thunderous applause, and then, many stunned and teary eyed people in the lobby as people walked out. She said that there was almost a "commeraderie" amongst the viewers as they walked out, with some of them being "small town acquaintences" with this new experience together. That would be a cool thing to experience I think...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
oh really? Its not done in english? I hate those kind of movies that you have to read. I guess I won't be seeing it then.
If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.
virginia woolfe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.