That Mel Gibson film...

[owl]

The Passion of Christ seems to be turning into the latest tempest shaking the old flist, following hard on the heels of homosexual marriage and...what was before before that?

I haven't seen this film, and I don't know whether I will see it or not, but I just want to comment on a few of the opinions I've seen floating around.

I'm not sure, first of, that any human actor can portray Jesus, who while being human, was god, and perfectly good. Isn't it like making an image? And I know it's not in the context of worship, but...when I think 'Frodo', my visual nowadays is of Elijah Wood. Bother me and my wretched visual memory!

The violence would not be my issue with it. Roman crucifixion was the most barabarous and horrible method of execution the human mind had devised at that time. Added to that, the being utterly rejected by God, having been holy and in perfect communion with Him up till then--while being God, and don't ask me to explain that one. (Heck, I believe counter-intuitive things every day of the week for my bread and butter (try quantum physics for size, ugh). I would expect God to be counter-intuitive too.)

That was hell. Literally.

Speaking of which, why oh why is Satan female? If Gibson is supposedly creating a true-to-the-source account, then why has he introduced this unwarrented interpretation? I don't know if that's the Anti-Woman Version, he's got, but Satan is male in my Bible.

I don't know whether Gibson agress with his father's opinion on the Holocust, but I wish he would state that he doesn't. It turned me literally sick when I read that quotation from his father (the one about all the Polish Jews going to the Bronx, rather than Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz).

I hope this film isn't going to stir up anti-Semitism, which unfortunately there is still far too much of around; I feel like apologising for the persecution of Jews done in the name of my God and my religion. Those who shouted the name of Christ and did the deeds of Satan, I want no part of you.

Yes, the Jews killed Jesus, but so did the Chinese and the British and the native Australians and the Southern Baptists and the Free Church. So did I. That visual I've heard tell of, where the hand driving in the nail is Gibson's hand, is chilling to me.

My hands, bitten nails, carbon black and solder burns on the fingertips, knotwork ring on my third finger, 'NUCLUER ASSIGN.' scrawled across the back of the left one (I never said I could spell)--my hands did that as surely as they connected up the wires to the mass spectrometer this afternoon.

Well, if the point of that film was to make me think, and/or send me to my knees, it has worked.

Comments

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

Roman crucifixion was the most barabarous and horrible method of execution the human mind had devised at that time

Probably not, unfortunately. I was always taught that the point about crucifixion was that it was the basic method of execution; after all, on the evidence of the Gospels it was what the Romans used as the punishment for shoplifting. Persian impalement, or putting people in cold furnaces which were then stoked slowly (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) were each of them *probably* nastier (though one has to say that one is, here, talking about gradations of inconceivable agony). And I believe the Chinese may at that date have already come up with the tightly bound bamboo strip one described in Flashman and The Dragon which I don't propose to go into here.

I don't know if that's the Anti-Woman Version, he's got, but Satan is male in my Bible.

Since I argue strenously against those Christians who regard it as blasphemous to suggest that God might have any feminine characteristics (ie, the people who characterise translations of the Bible which refer to "parent" as opposed to "father" as "political correctness run mad") I think it would be hypocritcal of me to say that "Satan is male". However, given that many people claim that male is also the neutral gender where one does not wish to be specific, I find it an interesting choice...

I hope this film isn't going to stir up anti-Semitism

Of course it is. As (see my earlier post) Gallipoli stirred up Australian/English feeling, Braveheart stirred up Scottish/English feeling and The Bounty stirred up class prejudice. Something about the stories which Gibson seems bound to tell as an actor or director resonate with that need to be telling the story of a defiant, opposed, perceived minority against a smug, intolerant, perceived majority.

How far that seems consistent with someone who is the son of someone who believes that the Jews of the 1930s turned into the inhabitants of the Bronx rather than first the degraded inhabitants of Auschewitz-Birkenau and its ilk, and then to white ash on the winds of Europe is for each individual to determine. But for my part he seems to have a sort of hatred built into his talent, which informs everything he does. Has he ever made a film which celebrates love, or charity?

[owl]

Shadrach, Mesach and Abegnego were the hot furnace version, according to Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar must have been impatient that day. Excruciating but short.

Impalement, yes, would be out in front with crucifiction as the nastiest possible. You might die faster with it, though. I imagine hitting a major blood vessel with the large pointy would be the merciful way to go...urgh.

Shall I revise that to stir up much anti-Semitism, then. Oh, Lord, protect your relatives from the bigotry and hatred of those who claim to follow You...

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

Well, speaking as a doubting agnostic, I might put forward this analogy:

Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a monster, a dictator and a tyrant.

Liberating Iraq (which I was cautiously in favour of though I would have much preferred an UN resolution and not to be lied to by a head of state for whom I had voted) was always going to lead to innocent Iraqi civilians being killed.

Furthermore, it was always going to lead to innocent Muslims from Burnley to Sydney being targetted by evil bigots who identified the belief with the behaviour of a small number of proponents of that belief [note; I do not say "Alleged Proponents". Only they can say what they believe].

You are a Christian. For me, as an agnostic, it seems to me you are placed by Mr Gibson rather like a second generation rather secular Muslim in Burnley was placed by Mr Hussein.

[owl]

Mel's not quite as bad as Saddam, but yes, that's the idea, unfortunately.

[cynthia-black.livejournal.com]

" but Satan is male in my Bible"

I don't think of Satan as having a gender - he/she is a spirit and has never had a body, so cannot really be either male or female. I take the use of 'he' as convenience, rather than saying 'it'.

Reading the other comments above, I would say from my understanding of the Bible God has both male and female characteristics, but as God became incarnate as a man in Jesus, I will quite happily use 'he'.

[connielane.livejournal.com]

Having seen the film and having met Mel Gibson this past December, I think perhaps I can shed light on a few things.

Speaking of which, why oh why is Satan female?
Gibson doesn't intend for Satan to be one gender or another. And I'm not entirely sure it's specifically Satan - perhaps the more broad embodiment of evil itself. He specifically chose an actor that looked androgynous. And, while the print we saw was unfinished and didn't have all the FX, he told us that he intended for the character to be outwardly attractive (as evil generally is), but that there would be something not quite right about it (he specifically talked about an effect that had yet to be added where a worm crawls out of the actor's nose, implying rottenness and spoil). One of the main functions of that character is to show the corruption and ruin of something pure and good, and this is illustrated a few times with this androgynous character throughout the movie.

I hope this film isn't going to stir up anti-Semitism, which unfortunately there is still far too much of around;
I think that the people who are accusing the film of being anti-Semitic have not seen the film at all - perhaps just certain portions taken out of context. It is not the Jews as a race that are blamed - Jesus was obviously a Jew, Mary is a Jew, the disciples are Jews, Simon of Cyrene was a Jew, and many Jews protested Jesus's crucifixion (this is addressed quite clearly in the film, I think). Rather, it is the religious leaders who were threatened by what Jesus taught. And I think the film is far more critical of the Romans - who are quite simply animals in this film - than of even the Jewish leadership.

I think a lot of Christians have set up false hopes for this picture. It may very well disappoint some of them who are expecting something quite different. It isn't about our faith; it's about one man's love for mankind. If it does anything for believers, it will be to forge anew their love for Christ and serve as an indelible reminder of His sacrifice.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the movie yet but I plan to at some point. I've always liked Mel as both an actor and as a director. "Braveheart" is one of my all-time favorites.

In America this film has turned into the latest turf in the ongoing culture war. In my opinion, one side started stirring the pot with accusations of anti-Semitism (even though they hadn't seen the film) and the other side, feeling their faith is under attack, circled their wagons around Mel and this film. Now, discussion is shifting toward the level of violence. On the one hand, based on what I've heard, this movie is most definitely not for children. On the other hand, it's a little hypocritical to berate the film for its violence but praise the likes of "Kill Bill." I don't know, I'll judge for myself.

As for Mel's dad, he's a nut. However, I think it's a bit unfair to hold that against Mel; I don't hold all of my parents or grandparents' views. By that logic, we have every reason to believe (to use a SW analogy) Luke is every bit of a raging Sith Lord as Darth Vader and we know that's not the case ;).

[connielane.livejournal.com]

It's most definitely not for children. I saw it in a room full of people who love horror and blood and guts (and for whom Kill Bill is a favorite). We actually saw the film at the end of a 24-hour film marathon, and many of the other movies were exceedingly violent. But even this audience was squeamish. Though I think it makes a difference when you truly care about the person against whom the violence is committed. It is, for example, far more graphic and painful to watch than Braveheart. But I don't think it crosses the line of decency (though it dances on that line pretty hard).

The scourging, the carrying of the cross, and the actual crucifixion easily take up over half of the movie's running time and each of these segments last between 20 and 30 minutes. I think perhaps its not so much the level of violence, but that it goes on and on without letting up. In Kill Bill, for example, you could see someone's head knocked off, followed by copious amounts of blood. But after a moment the camera moves and gives you something else to look at. POTC is different in that Gibson is not letting you go anywhere. The violence is right there and the viewer is forced to deal with it, dwell on it, and think about what it means.

[ivylore.livejournal.com]

I hope they never make the fourth book of Maccabees into a film.

Side note: When I went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls last month, I saw the heel of Yehohanan. He is the only crucified individual (skeleton) whose remains have ever been found. But Yikes! The heel bone still has the nail in it.

Like you, I also wish Gibson would speak out and separate himself from his father's statements. He has outwardly proclaimed at least once that he will always honour his father (in public, perhaps he meant), but when his father dishonours so many others - by saying nothing he complicitly is supporting him, and that far worse in my book.

I won't see this movie (until it shows up free on TV at least.) First - I have no wish to endure the violence. I couldn't bear to see Saving Private Ryan either. Operation shows on the other hand, don't bother me at all. But there's something about simulated violence that I can't stand.

Secondly, with my background in Redaction criticism, I will FREAK out when I start seeing the textual inaccuracies that I keep reading about. I'd just better avoid it... Can there be such thing as a textual purist? Let's just say, I have a feeling I'll loathe this movie the way a die-hard LOTR purist hated the films.

Why I AM genuinely looking forward to this movie coming out on cable: The use of Aramaic.

(Bah Gibson you eeeedeeeot! You should have used Greek, not Latin for the rest.)