The Passion

| |

Most of the movies I see are strictly entertainment. Occasionally, a movie comes along that is more, Schindler's List for instance. Often these kinds of movies are harder to watch, but they are worthwhile in the end. Often I don't care to see them again.

Mel Gibson's, The Passion mostly falls into this category for me. I think I am glad I saw it, but wouldn't choose to see it again.

What did I like?

  • Characters looked semitic, which is a nice change of pace.
  • No English accents.
  • As non-Catholic I haven't seen the suffering of Christ through Mary. This was a humanizing element to the story. (Although, Biff in the "The Lamb" gave a very better view in some ways.)
  • I never before considered how freeing Barrabas was Pilate offering a very political face saving option to allow everyone to forget the whole thing.

What didn't I like?

  • Jesus seemed the victim. He wasn't a full character, as you didn't have a sense of him apart from suffering.
  • While it mostly simply stuck to the story (a random harmonization of the four gospels) without a lot of ornamentation, which is a plus in my opinion, in some ways it was a song with one note, the suffering and victimhood of Jesus.
  • It didn't start and stop at the right places. I would have started at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (which did make a brief flashback appearance) and ended with Mary and Mary seeing the risen Christ. It seems like Mary and Mary are stuck in a bad place at the end and don't get the same relief the rest of the audience did.
  • It didn't always stick to the story. The crazy looking children harassing Judas was just weird, ditto the wierd baby, and the shadow spirit figure. The whole Mary wiping up blood scene falls into this category as well. Evidently it comes from the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich a nun who wrote in the 1800's.
  • I don't like to watch sadistic torture. I wish I lived in a world without this kind of behaviour, unfortunately we don't.
  • I wish all the characters, even the mob, would have had more depth. I mean why were the religious elite upset? There is context to the story, but not in this movie.
  • Although the flashbacks with Jesus and Mary were some of the most moving parts of the movie, in some ways I felt like I was being emotionally played.
  • It seemed strange that Mary was there in almost every scene, but not Jesus' other followers. I don't understand Mary's prominence in comparison to other characters. I didn't get the towel scene at all. (Come to find out later this was from some sort of vision recorded by a nun centuries ago.) Frankly Mary plays too much of a role.
  • I've always understood the powerful temple leaders were in a sort of unstated power sharing agreement with the Romans, both wanting to stay in power over the common person. That feel was missing altogether. Part of the gospel story is the powerful elite versus the crowd who were supporting Jesus.
  • There is background material that would indicate Jesus' appeal to the common man versus the way how the temple leaders treated the common man. That was all missing.
  • The movie can be interpreted as an essay on Sadism. I think that significantly misses the point.
  • I knew how it would end.

I predict more Mary sightings in the next year.

I still have conflicts about movies displaying this level of gore. I don't often see them. How is it right to pay to see someone suffer?

On the topic of anti-semitism in the film. Frankly, I don't even know if I should broach that in public, since it's such a hot topic. I think Gibson framed the film in ways that made the Roman's overly sympathetic and made the temple leaders and "the mob" in the courtyard the villains. Since there was so little back story, depth or context the movie tends to over simplify the basic story of the motivations of each of these actors. Therefore, an uncritical thinker could easily get the wrong story. The textual gospel account give a very different story in which the temple leaders seized Jesus at night to prevent a riot of the people. This means that you can't blame a people group as they were divided or fragmented.

I have never understood how Christians have used the passion narrative to bulk up anti-semitic views, although I know it has happened. Jesus was Jewish and his followers were Jewish. Christianity cannot be understood except through the lense of Judiasm. No need for hatred or persection of anyone.

I'll stop there, since that's probably controversial enough for my tastes.

I guess it's always tough to see a movie made about a familiar story. Peter Jackson would have done it better.

Ephemera

Powered by Movable Type 4.1

March 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by tim published on March 25, 2004 3:07 PM.

creepy but neat was the previous entry in this blog.

Digital Photo Workflow is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.