The Passsion of Christ, more harm then good

Sure, it did very well in the box office, even sells quite well to this day, it has inspired many, yet at the same time, it was very dumbed down, it was not accurate in many ways, and if people were offended by imagery of that movie, doing it accurately, most of us would be tossing our cookies.

Key elements I noticed that clearly were not in line with scripture. When he was mocked by the soldiers, in the movie it protrayed him backed up into a small area and only a few of them mocking him, the reality is he was placed in the middle of an area, plain for all of the public to see him, and it was 600 soldiers, not just a few that were mocking him.

He was flogged extensively, these would have produced extensive gouges across his entire body, not just some surface marks on his back, they would have cut deep into his flesh, yet in the movie, we see it cut open, yet when he was being mocked and carrying the cross, those wounds were barely there. His face was not even recognizable in the real account, yet here it is in the movie with barely a blemish.

When he was nailed to the cross in the movie, they dislocated his shoulder to get his hand to reach the nail hole, yet when the cross was planted into the ground, it was right back to it’s original spot.

In the garden, in the real account, he sweat blood, yet in the movie, not a trace was found.

They mentioned how the star was struck with lightening twice through the shooting, yet was not harmed, people mistook it as God’s endorsment of the movie, personally, I think he was making a statement that he wanted it to be accurate, and to take what they are creating deadly serious, they obviously did not, having to reduce his suffering for public image sakes, to make the movie more acceptable to the average person which catered to the masses, making it more profitable.

Does anybody else here know where I’m coming from on this one, also, how many of you have encountered people that are using their faith, based upon the movie, as being an accurate source to draw upon?

as far as the appearance of the actor portraying Christ not being gruesome enough, you and I must have seen different movies.

What evidence do you have for some of the other specific statements, such as the number of soldiers present and so forth?

it was a movie, made when all is said and done, primarily for entertainment, as has been every other Hollywood movie on this theme from the first King of Kings in the days of silent pictures, and as a work of art, is basically a reflection of the personal interpretation of the artists involved, in this case the directors, writers and actors. It is not primarily a proclamation of scripture, but an extended meditation on the part of individuals about that scripture. Regard it in the same light as a written devotional article about the Passion, for instance, which will emphasize the particular facets that struck the writer, not a balanced interpretation or exegesis of scripture.

I know what you’re saying. I saw that myself. I think a concern of theirs may have been the rating the film may have been given. It would limit viewing to fewer people. The rating was already R, and you know how these hollywood rating people are…they generally hate anything like this…

Anyway, the next rank from R would be…

No One 17 and Under Admitted.An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean “obscene” or “pornographic” in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.

It would probably be rated NC-17 if it were more violent, although I agree with you. I would have liked that it were more truthful. In all honesty, nothing shall ever compare to Jesus’ actual passion and death.

The Passion of the Christ was a Hollywood M-O-V-I-E. It never made any claim to be historically accurate. Since we were not there, and the bible is quite vague on most of the details, Mr. Gibson was at liberty to interpert and be as artistically creative as he saw fit.

The problem is, most people that are not very influenced by a deep rooted understanding of their faith, look to this movie as being fact, and are basing what they have observed as the real deal, even the Pope endorsed it’s accuracy, which makes it even tougher of a challenge to get people to realize, it’s not what really happened, only a purlely creative, liberal interpretation. I would at least, with the dvd, show some kind of extended coverage, at least for a brief moment, show the gruesome truth in full graphic display as to what he more likely would look like.

We have so many brutal, graphic depictions within mainstream horror movies, why did they hold back on this one? Then again, I look to the common crucifix, and it too seems very tamed down with hardly a mark on his body. Now, if this symbol is supposed to remind us of his suffering, as obviously intended with at least showing the nails piercing his flesh, again, why the toning down yet again? Creative liberty? I think the movie took our lead, example wise and followed suit, if he really wanted it to be authentic, he would have taken it much further.

Are you sure you’re talking about the same film? Perhaps you saw the edited version that was shown to certain audiences. This is possibly one of the most graphic films that has ever been shown in theaters. Go here: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4660865907361855211
At about 56 minutes is where you probably did not see…

Gibson never claimed he was making a totally accurate depiction. If audiences are mistaken about this, that is their problem and not necessarily the film’s. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a completely-authentic version to hit theaters, considering some potential difficulties bringing things to the screen (like Christ dying naked, it’s doubtful he wore a loincloth).

That said Gibson’s Passion already puts a heavy emphasis on the physical suffering that exceeds what is seen in many/most adaptations. I’m not sure why you’re criticizing this film in particular for not going far enough, when compared to others it shows plenty.

You can't possibly be talking about the same Passion that I saw if you don't think it was graphic enough!

As for being accurate, I guess it's a matter of opinion. I thought the movie was actually quite accurate and well done. I did the Catholic Scripture Study International study of the Passion this summer with my bible study group. It was excellent and clearly showed the biblical basis for much of the film.

cssprogram.net/?page=the_program&subpage=studies#8

My personal opinion is that the film resulted in more good than harm.

While I suppose everyone could come up with something they think would have improved the film, I believe that on balance, the movie did more good than harm.

A lot of people thought the film was too violent, so to have made it more violent might have caused fewer people to see it.

I think the main good thing about this film was that it made people see how painful, how violent, how truly horrible the Crucifixion was; how much Jesus suffered for US. I believe that many Protestants gloss over the Crucifixion (many have a thing about crucifixes, even) so, considering that a lot of non-Catholics saw the film, it exposed a different part of the Christian story that maybe people hadn’t really appreciated before.

Another good thing is that people saw and heard the Word of God; His Word never returns to Him void.

(Maybe more harm connected with the film likely came from the publicity about Mel Gibson’s regrettable behavior afterwards)?

I have a feeling that he is talking about the passion of Christ that was revealed in private revelation through apparition of Our Lord, etc., to saints, which tell in a much more graphic way the extreme suffering of Jesus. Ex. St. Catherine Emmerich

I know people that whent back to church after seeing this movie so i think it did alot of good.:thumbsup:

I don’t know how many of you have it, but I have purchased the new version released this past Lent:

The Passion of The Christ[Widescreen Dubbed Subtitle AC3] - Blu-ray Disc

This set has all the “behind-the-scenes” documentaries that were missing from the first DVD release 4 years ago. The extras explain everything that was in the film, and some of the things that were left out for different reasons.

Aside from that, nothing like watching The Passion of the Christ in Hi-Def!!! :thumbsup:

I heard about a friend of mine who came back to the church after seeing this movie. Now how can that be a bad thing? Even if the movie is inaccurate, if it has this result, then it’s a positive force.

And how can we know how accurate it is anyway? Does that matter? Isn’t it more important that it gives a dramatization of Christ’s Passion and gives us an idea of how horrible it was? Of the movies about the Passion, it is the most graphic and bloody that I have seen. If we’re going for realism, then this movie seems to get it the most right.

Only very recently I had dinner with a couple with whom I have been friends for many years. Both are non-Catholic, but have always been interested in Catholicism because of their close association with my family. In fact, in the 1990s they took the bold step and sent their two daughters to a Catholic High School and were afterwards very glad they did. This couple saw The Passion of The Christ and were struck by the contrast between human compassion and the propensity for some people to do great evil, or harm. I recall them mentioning the scourging scene and they found it extremely moving, as it brought into stark relief what humans are capable of - compassion, sorrow and pure evil.

So, judging from my experience, this film has done a lot of good in bringing to many people just what is meant by the ‘suffering of Christ’. Let’s face it, in this day and age many do not read the Bible enough to gain a true understanding of its contents. This film helped tremendously. It was brilliantly done.

If a silly film little like Algore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ can be made compulsory viewing in schools, as was the case in the UK, then ‘The Passion of The Christ’ should be way up the list of compulsory viewing.

“The Passion of the Christ” is not and was not meant to be a documentary. It’s a piece of art made by a seeking heart. Are icons of Our Lady less beautiful because they are not photographs? Is the music of Beethoven or Mozart less beautiful because it’s not of the angels? Artistic expression is a beautiful form of worship that is too often misunderstood.

The problem is, too many people, the vast majority of which, think it is a documentary. There will eventually be a movie that closely matches what happened outwardly and “also” does some kind of justice of what was going on inwardly, which was far, far, I mean far, greater suffering then anything man can inflict upon any other man on earth ever.

[quote="prodigalson12, post:16, topic:181196"]
The problem is, too many people, the vast majority of which, think it is a documentary. There will eventually be a movie that closely matches what happened outwardly and "also" does some kind of justice of what was going on inwardly, which was far, far, I mean far, greater suffering then anything man can inflict upon any other man on earth ever.

[/quote]

I've never heard anyone, anywhere, at any time, suggest that the Passion of The Christ was a documentary! I never even saw a review that made that suggestion. If what you say was even remotely true, then just about any film ever made, on any subject, could be considered as a 'documentary'. Hey, I really love all the John Wayne docos!

Are you suggesting that the physical horrors inflicted on Jesus should have been more graphic? Oh, come on, just how gory does a film, any film for that matter, have to be to get the message across? The Passion was plenty gory enough. However, the point you are missing is that the film graphically, brilliantly, contrasted the behaviour and attitudes of different people. Go back and view the scourging scene. The whippers putting their absolute "all" into flogging Jesus.So much so that they were left panting and puffing. They swapped to horrible whips with hooks on the ends of the lashes and still Jesus didn't succumb. Recall how the 'boss' of the whippers was wondering just how far they could go before Jesus succumbed. At one point he made the whippers roll Jesus over so they could flog clean flesh!! Look and study the looks on the faces of the women observing. Their horror, pain, sadness and contrast that with the attitudes of the soldiers. And who was it that was silently gliding through the crowd, blandly watching the cruelty being inflicted on Jesus and whom Jesus met, eye to eye in the midst of the horror. Jesus saw a sandal on the foot of a soldier and his mind replayed a scene from another time.....the contrasts were mesmerising and beautifully done. Gibson excelled himself with his direction.

As for someone making a film that "...*does some kind of justice of what was going on inwardly...", *are you suggesting that someone should deign to understand what the Son of God was felling internally? Are you suggesting that someone should be so presumptuous as to attempt to demonstrate what internal dialogue Jesus was undertaking? That, I suggest would totally and forever 'color' how people understand the whole concept of the sacrifice of Jesus. There would be a presumption that what was in the film was actually how Jesus thought and felt. That's impossible for anyone to know. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to blasphemy.

[quote="John21652, post:17, topic:181196"]
I've never heard anyone, anywhere, at any time, suggest that the Passion of The Christ was a documentary! I never even saw a review that made that suggestion. If what you say was even remotely true, then just about any film ever made, on any subject, could be considered as a 'documentary'. Hey, I really love all the John Wayne docos!

Are you suggesting that the physical horrors inflicted on Jesus should have been more graphic? Oh, come on, just how gory does a film, any film for that matter, have to be to get the message across? The Passion was plenty gory enough. However, the point you are missing is that the film graphically, brilliantly, contrasted the behaviour and attitudes of different people. Go back and view the scourging scene. The whippers putting their absolute "all" into flogging Jesus.So much so that they were left panting and puffing. They swapped to horrible whips with hooks on the ends of the lashes and still Jesus didn't succumb. Recall how the 'boss' of the whippers was wondering just how far they could go before Jesus succumbed. At one point he made the whippers roll Jesus over so they could flog clean flesh!! Look and study the looks on the faces of the women observing. Their horror, pain, sadness and contrast that with the attitudes of the soldiers. And who was it that was silently gliding through the crowd, blandly watching the cruelty being inflicted on Jesus and whom Jesus met, eye to eye in the midst of the horror. Jesus saw a sandal on the foot of a soldier and his mind replayed a scene from another time.....the contrasts were mesmerising and beautifully done. Gibson excelled himself with his direction.

As for someone making a film that "...*does some kind of justice of what was going on inwardly...", *are you suggesting that someone should deign to understand what the Son of God was felling internally? Are you suggesting that someone should be so presumptuous as to attempt to demonstrate what internal dialogue Jesus was undertaking? That, I suggest would totally and forever 'color' how people understand the whole concept of the sacrifice of Jesus. There would be a presumption that what was in the film was actually how Jesus thought and felt. That's impossible for anyone to know. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to blasphemy.

[/quote]

Along the graphic display, they should hold back "zero" punches on that one, if you are going to represent his suffering, do not candy coat it just so you are PC enough within the currently accepted media. We have plenty of resources on hand to show more clearly the extent of the brutality he endured, and I don't honestly care what rating the film got, anything short is diminishing his suffering. So, yeah, if you are too squeemish to watch it, in it's full ubsurdities of what human beings did to our Lord, then you clearly do not have the full grasp or what he suffered in the here and now and do not want to face it yourself, which is a pity.

I in no way could expect to get a literal translation of what he suffered inside, but at least give it a shot at least. Using my own imagination, and how I'd format that element, I'd have a series of very quick shots in a vast series, flashing all at once, the sins and people committing them, coming across, and in each one, he's paying the price for each of them, individually, he suffers for each one of them individually, and this will take a great deal of resources to assemble, but at least it's beginning to touch upon what was happening. As it stands now, we only see some of the exterior elements, watered down, with barely anything shown along the inner elements.

With people thinking it's a documentary, the Pope made a statement along it, which can and does get misconstrued, he stated that it is, as it was. You form a natural conclusion that it is, in a literal sense, as it was, when clearly it's not, it's just beginning to touch upon it. I have been in debate with people that use that movie as their basis for their understanding of his suffering, when that movie should absolutely not be. It's hollywoods version of it, with all of it's subtle nuances of cinematicly accepted practices, more for the masses, less for the real story and the facts of what happened. There are countless errors with it, many were because of budget concerns, others were to keep the film within a short enough length to make practical within the theaters.

I'm a little confused about what you're suggesting. Are you saying that Gibson should not have made *Passion of the Christ *because there are people who would misconstrue it, or that he should have tried harder to make it more realistic? As for people thinking it's a documentary...how is this Mel Gibson's responsibility? If you have a specific vision then, by all means, please share it. This film, though, was a gift from Mel, Jim Caviziel (spelling?) and all the other artists and technicians who worked on it and as such fulfills THEIR vision.

Liberal Catholics were revolted by “the Passion…” because–Im think–many of them think of Jesus not as savior but as teacher. To see a man rippled to pieces and hung on a cross to die was something they do not wish to reflect upon. I am put to mind their odd reaction to
beheadings of men by Muslim terrorists. Face to face with evil, they seems to treat it as bad taste even to talk about such things.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.