A must-read review of "Passion". David Denby/New Yorker...

[chiburb]

Snip:

In “The Passion of the Christ,” Mel Gibson shows little interest in celebrating the electric charge of hope and redemption that Jesus Christ brought into the world. He largely ignores Jesus’ heart-stopping eloquence, his startling ethical radicalism and personal radiance—Christ as a “paragon of vitality and poetic assertion,” as John Updike described Jesus’ character in his essay “The Gospel According to Saint Matthew.” Cecil B. De Mille had his version of Jesus’ life, Pier Paolo Pasolini and Martin Scorsese had theirs, and Gibson, of course, is free to skip over the incomparable glories of Jesus’ temperament and to devote himself, as he does, to Jesus’ pain and martyrdom in the last twelve hours of his life. As a viewer, I am equally free to say that the movie Gibson has made from his personal obsessions is a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminating procession of treachery, beatings, blood, and agony—and to say so without indulging in “anti-Christian sentiment” (Gibson’s term for what his critics are spreading). For two hours, with only an occasional pause or gentle flashback, we watch, stupefied, as a handsome, strapping, at times half-naked young man (James Caviezel) is slowly tortured to death. Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagrely involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate.

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. I ignore Denby

and his completely irrelevant opinion.

[arewethereyet]

2. if he wanted to do "life of Christ" he would have

but he did Passion of Christ insted. its not like we're supposed to gloss over this. remember the Mass says that we're to recognize it in rememberance of Him.

Christianity is not all hearts and rainbows folks. There was a price paid to redeem us of our sins that we need not pay it ourselves.

[MrBenchley]

10. Remember too

that was the common treatment given petty thives and adulterers at that time....and that there were sick puppies who gloated over it then too.

[arewethereyet]

12. good point and don't forget this too

Hey, its Hollywood after all, gotta leave room for a sequel and a prequel.

If Gibson plays his cards right its a series as lucrative as James Bond ! There loads of material and if you take it 12 hours at a time... well there's just no end !

[MikeGalos]

13. Hmmm

There was a price paid to redeem us of our sins that we need not pay it ourselves.

A religion based on the concept of somebody else suffering so you don't have to take responsibilities for your own mistakes...

No wonder it resonates so well with George Bush.

[chiburb]

14. I was going to post the same thought...

But was feeling "Christian"...

:-)

[itcfish]

27. Bush is NO

Christian.

[seabeyond]

29. reminds me what i just told baptist teacher

about others deciding who are and who are not christians...........hm

[arewethereyet]

42. actually it started resonating long before Bush

but its not totally free, you do have to truely accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Thats not as easy as you think.

[chookie]

18. A few questions

AWTY and TerryG: the opinions you express here have been made by other DUers -- that it is wrong to gloss over the suffering of Jesus, and that Jesus's suffering is somehow exceptional in the history of mankind.

A few questions. First of all, does *anyone* gloss over or minimalize the sufferings of Jesus? I, for one, was raised (Catholic) to be quite familiar with the gory details, and the Catholic Church has stuff like the Stations of the Cross, which is an extended meditation on the Passion, and there have been Passion plays for many centuries, and even such humanistic treatments like PBS's series "The First Christians" had a section where the reality of the sufferings of crucifiction were discussed in detail. If anyone is missing out on the knowledge of the sufferings of Christ, well, I just don't know how they manage it. Would you please explain your belief that people don't seem to "get it" about how awful the crucifiction was?

It has been pointed out that The Passion is no more violent than a lot of other movies -- I find it interesting that Gibson's supposedly highly individualistic treatment of the Passion would be like so many other violent movies -- like Braveheart, for example, which shows the injury and death of many different people -- and yet "gloss over" the transcendent message of Jesus's challenging philosophy.

Second question: your position seems to be that the suffering of Christ is somehow exceptional, that no other human being has ever suffered so much. Crucifiction as a method of capital punishment was not uncommon 2000 years ago -- surely, many died in a fashion similar to Jesus. And is crucifiction much more terrible than being tortured to death by electric shocks to one's genitals As Iraqi sadists were wont to do, or the hospitality of the Hanoi Hilton that so many Americans suffered, or having a hot poker stuck up one's rectum, as was done to Edward II, etc etc etc? Brutality and torture are still very much a reality of life -- and yet the view of this movie seems to be that *only Jesus* REALLY suffered, even though countless souls have been tortured to death in unspeakable ways, even in our own days. If I knew that people would leave this movie and rededicate themselves to eradicating the injustices that allow for atrocities like this, I would feel better, but where it seems to get stuck, in my view, is in the exceptionality of the death of Jesus.

I have been re-watching "Braveheart" and find the end sequence very "Passion"-like, with its extended torture sequence, the bloodthirsty crowd -- it seems like Gibson has wanted to present the Passion of Christ for a long time. A theme that seems to pervade both Braveheart and the Passion is Gibson's belief that really Great Guys have the capacity to endure horrific suffering -- but they really don't go very far in trying to explain how this strength is motivated.

It strikes me as odd that Gibson focuses on the suffering of Christ, and does not deal with the transcendent message of his life and his challenging philosophy. It is my opinion that just about everybody "gets it" in terms of understanding how awful crucifiction is -- however, what they seem not to get so much is a deep personal understanding of walking in the footsteps of Christ in terms of living up to his philosophy.

(Aside: isn't it interesting that this film is being peddled by the Christian Far Right to wake us up to the actual sufferings of Jesus -- and yet, these same people were ridiculing John McCain as being "too crazy to be Presidient" as the result of his stay in the Hanoi Hilton?)

[BurtWorm]

20. "Only Jesus really suffered."

If there was no Jesus at all--no historical Jesus but a purely mythical one--then this idea that only Jesus *really* suffered is trhe ultimate blasphemy.

If Gibson honestly believes that only Jesus really suffered, then what are the people who have to sit through his movie doing?

[chiburb]

21. Now you've done it...

That kind of intelligent questioning will kill a thread faster than a mod's lock! Are you related to Iverglas?

Nice post, thanks.

[chookie]

23. Dissecting contradictions

I find it interesting that the people supporting this movie make the mutually exclusive claims that
1) Hey, this movie is no more violent that most other movies, even many marketed to children, so shut up
2) Jesus's suffering and death are exceptional.

What does acknowledging this contradiction tell us about the nature of the people who believe this is an important film?

[chiburb]

24. It tells us that...

1. Snuff films are acceptable because, hey, films are already violent.

2. But only if it's Jesus being snuffed.

[arewethereyet]

44. some movies are gratuitously violent

this one is not and for good reason.

[arewethereyet]

43. lets see

2nd q first as I'm thinking that way today: its significant to back up a step or two. Christ is God made man. Consider what that means. He gives up immortality, He accepts pain. No parlor tricks in dealing with this sort of thing. He also accepts doubt. He has to accept being the Messiah and all that it entails.

OK, thats the setup. Now carry it out one more step. He's doing this for each and every one of us. Personally and specifically and perfectly so that we all might have our way made to the Kingdom of Heaven. He loves us all that much.

1st q: many posts insist that by thinking about the Passion we're ignoring the importeant part of Christ's life, that being His teachings. He taught us to remember Him in a way that is specifically symbolic of His Passion. It has to be on an equal level with teaching and resurrection.

All martyr scenarios are reminisciant of the Passion. You'll note that Wallace's character was portrayed (rightly so) as a man of faith.

As you point out in your reference to the Stations of the Cross, its a very normal thing to take this portion of Christ's life as a thing that needs rememberance unto itself and this is the time of year for it. I see nothing odd about making a film covering this or a film covering only the resurrection.

I have no opinion regarding the McCain thing.

[Killarney]

3. Here's a good article, too...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/24/an_obscene_portrayal_of_christs_passion/
Boston Globe.

[chiburb]

7. Powerful writing...

Thanks for the link.

[chiburb]

4. Another snip:

What is most depressing about “The Passion” is the thought that people will take their children to see it. Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” not “Let the little children watch me suffer.” How will parents deal with the pain, terror, and anger that children will doubtless feel as they watch a man flayed and pierced until dead? The despair of the movie is hard to shrug off, and Gibson’s timing couldn’t be more unfortunate: another dose of death-haunted religious fanaticism is the last thing we need.

[MrBenchley]

5. Great line

and right on the money....

[terryg11]

11. Denby's a movie critic right?

is he blind to the faact that there is many things just as bad if nt worse marketed towards kids everyday? Look at some of the movies/shows/games aimed at youngsters, the mindless violence and bloodshed available to them in their daily lives and he's going to preach about a movie that depicts the suffering of a martyr?

martyr, saint, god whatever word you want to put in there


He just seems to have a real personal issue with the movie and is letting it wrte hs review for hm

[Elidor]

22. Kids see violence every day = let's show them some more?

Justifying something by pointing out that it's just as bad as other things is a pretty weak argument.

Hey, as long as you're a fan of the movie, be sure and show your support for Mel by buying the commemmorative nails he's selling. I guess he couldn't find pieces of the True Cross(tm) to hawk.

[terryg11]

30. not necessarily a fan of the movie

just tired of all the negative publicity Mel's getting over making a movie that apparently means much to him. I'm just curious as to what's really driving this anti Mel/passions crusade.

as for justifying something by pointing out tht it's just as bad as other things, the point was that Denby made was arguing that parents shouldnt take their kids to see it because of the violence. Maybe I should have elaborated more on that. AT least they are taking their kds and will hve to answer questions about it later and the signifignce of the violence in this particular movie. They aren't dropping them off at the theater or plopping them down in front of the tube to keep them occupied. They want to share this moment (for better or worse) with their kids. They could be doing worse things but Denby has a real problem with it. He even made a big deal out of it on one of the morning shows too.

[chiburb]

32. This isn't like "other" violent movies...

Read Ebert:

Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html

[terryg11]

35. that's his interpretation

we could argue all day as to the most violent movie ever made. From what I understand Ebert was very moved by the film and that may be where his view came from. The violence in this movie will have a profound affect on some (most likely those who are very religious) since it's a visual retelling of what happened to Jesus, and then there will be others who will come out of there and say, wht the f**k is all the noise about? It's totally an individual thing

[terryg11]

6. a must read?

sure, Mel can be criticized for making a graphic movie and maybe he does focus on the gory aspects of a crucifixion too much for some people, but that's for them to decide.

For some people the curcifixion is a very powerful story and to present it as a sterile, painless event would be (in my opinion) wrong. Talk to someone such as a doctr as to what getting whipped with a cat of nine tails repeatedly will do to a body. Hw will putting a crown of thorns on someone's head and then make them wear it throughout the ordeal affect them? Hanging someone from a cross by nailing their hands and feet to the cross must not be that uncomfortable. Not to mention still alive when it happens. Why do we think the story is so powerful? because JEsus suffered and died for our sins. Jesus could hve been killed thousands of ways but the authors of the bble chose a particulary horrible one for a reason, to show how much he suffered for us.

I'm sure some will agree with this critics assesment of the movie and maybe I will too once I see it. Just hate it when critics take such exception to a movie makers vision. Reminds me of all those who crapped on Scorsese's last temptation of christ just because they couldn't get it through their heads that it was supposed to be a what if? type of movie and not taken as historical fact

[Streetdoc270]

16. Yes it is harsh

I attended a medical confrence once and one of the speakers was on the origional Turin project. He presented a forensic case study on what killed the man protrayed in the shroud, including a breakdown of the wounds and the effects on the body of Crucifiction. Very powerful and moving even from a non christian point of view.

[aquart]

8. He doesn't seem to have been converted.

But if you want to see real cruelty:

And by casting James Caviezel, an actor without charisma here, and then feasting on his physical destruction, he has turned Jesus back into a mere body.

"Without charisma"? He mentions one actor and THIS is what he says? Ouch.

[waterman]

9. It's a lengthy read, and his language is awfully deep, but he sure

brings up a few interesting points. It's almost as tortuous reading his review as he would have us believe the movie is. After reading this, now I REALLY don't want to see it.

[Palacsinta]

15. I imagine it covers the 14? stations of the cross?

I'm not Catholic but I used to "do" the stations with my best friend during Easter week years and years ago. Most of the stations represented physical agony, interspersed with acts of compassion (at least in my recollection.)

[MrPrax]

17. Good review..

thanks for the post...

Denby confirms what a I figure...the movie basically has no redeeming value and is simply a prostelyizing tool...

It sounds grim and sadisitic...

Let's face it, unless you believe in the Christ story--all this movie appears to be is some weird 'snuff porn'...

(and even if you are a believer and see the Passion as more than important than some medieval morality play, you are probably not going to like this)


I am interested in reading Denby new book actually...American Sucker...

[zls44]

19. Another Must Read

-snip-

"No child should see this movie.

Even adults are at risk.

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.

...

Because of all the media coverage of this movie and the way it was shown only to handpicked sympathizers until yesterday's screening for movie critics, many questions hang in the air: Is it historically accurate?

Of course not. As with any movie, even a documentary, this one reflects the views of its filmmakers, who are entitled and expected to use their art persuasively. Gibson has been up-front about his own religious agenda."

-snip-

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/167329p-146309c.html

[MrPrax]

26. Well this is not as good

Not as good as the Denby review...

Too many people/reviewers have said that it is not anti-semitic and comparing it to Nazi films is a bit much...

If there is a debate over the racism then it can't be as obvious as say 'The Eternal Jew'?...

[leftchick]

25. LOL... "Mel Gibson has lost it"!

I agree, he is a nutcase.....

<. Then comes the Crucifixion itself, dramatized with a curious fixation on the technical details—an arm pulled out of its socket, huge nails hammered into hands, with Caviezel jumping after each whack. At that point, I said to myself, “Mel Gibson has lost it,” and I was reminded of what other writers have pointed out—that Gibson, as an actor, has been beaten, mashed, and disembowelled in many of his movies. His obsession with pain, disguised by religious feelings, has now reached a frightening apotheosis.>

[chiburb]

28. A little kick for the afternoon...n/t

.

[leftchick]

33. "The inspiration and love of Christ overpowered by the gore "

Anothe great review to read. That title alone puts it in a nutshell for me....

The inspiration and love of Christ overpowered by the gore


http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-1/1077606827125322.xml

<Snip>
From the beginning, Mel Gibson has always maintained he was basing "The Passion of the Christ" on the Gospels. It's in the Bible, he would repeat when criticized.

He did not point out, however, that a filmmaker can always quote scripture to his own purpose.

His new film -- which opens tomorrow -- does tell the story of Jesus' trial and execution in specific and literally nauseating detail. Yet where is the Jesus of the Gospels who made wine for a wedding feast? Who told beautifully wrought parables? Who fed multitudes with a few baskets of food, and counseled charity to the poor?


Not here.

Instead, Gibson's movie shows us only the suffering Jesus -- and practically revels in violence and vengeance. The scourging takes up twice as much screen time as the Last Supper and the Sermon on the Mount combined. It's like "Braveheart," only with William Wallace resurrected. Then Jesus strides from his tomb at the end, it's to the martial beat of drums.

[NashVegas]

31. Ebert Wrote a Positive Review - And Yet

Also noted it was the most violent movie he's ever seen.

[chiburb]

34. Yep. He said:

Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html

[Mari333]

36. When I taught Bible school at the Catholic church I used to go to

and I taught pre schoolers, I got into all kinds of trouble for using the pre school as a stepping off point to teach children that they were born divine, and were loved by God and everyone and I never ever mentioned original sin, etc
well a woman came into my class, near Easter, holding a Crown of Thorns in her hand ( a real one she made), and demanded that I put it on the childrens heads to let them feel how horrible it was that Jesus had to suffer for their sins..
I kicked her ass out of the class!
another reason I got the hell out of that church a while back.
That was 25 years ago..seems like the same thing is going on.

[seabeyond]

37. kindergarten

they give bible verses for the children to memorize and the first one handed out to both children, 5 years old is we are all sinners. ah, so i read this and look at my beautiful full of lite innocent child and say, what, what sin have you committed, where, you tell me where in that little bee u tee full body there is even a smidgen of sin...........cannot be

[Mari333]

39. Yes all babies are born divine and beautiful

and its child abuse imo to tell them otherwise.

[chiburb]

38. Someday you should start a thread...

Inviting all of us lapsed Catholics to share our horror stories. I suspect we're the most vehement in resisting having religion shoved down our throats, especially for political purposes...

[terryg11]

40. interesting

you feel it's being shoved down your throats when all you have to do is change the channel, turn off the radio or tv, don't go see the movie if you don't want to see it or hear about it. No one is mandating tht you go see it, sure some preachers and ministers are telling their flocks to go see it but no one is being forced to.

[chiburb]

41. Excuse me?

I don't recall saying anything about Gibson/Passion fans shoving anything down our throats. I was responding to a story about little kids having sin shoved down THEIR throats, and invited the poster to start a thread about the horrors so many of us experienced.

I was not addressing you or the movie.

[chiburb]

46. Last kick for tonight, good night... n/t

.

[LoneStarLiberal]

45. Mel Gibson Didn't Alter The Message; He's Just Propogating It

For two hours, with only an occasional pause or gentle flashback, we watch, stupefied, as a handsome, strapping, at times half-naked young man (James Caviezel) is slowly tortured to death. Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagrely involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate.

Hate to tell David Denby this, but for most of our Christian fundamentalists in America today, the message of Christ has always been and will always be one of hate.