The Passsion of Christ, more harm then good

The first time I attended adoration, I did no research on it, I just went, not knowing what to expect. I ended up trying to relive his journey of pain and suffering, leading up to the cross, intuitively. Later on I found out that is what you are supposed to do, this is something the Liberal Catholics should keep in mind when they are turning their hearts and minds away from the suffering he endured, they should know this by default if they, themselves attended adoration.

Yes, he should have made it more realistic, doing a subject as this, anything less is doing it a dis-service. Christ is not up for debate or artistic license by anybody, he did what he did, the moment you take away from it and try to pass it off as an accurate representation of it, you take away from the very nature of the subject matter in the first place. We aren’t talking about some notable figure in history, we are talking about the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

[quote="prodigalson12, post:18, topic:181196"]
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.

[/quote]

Obviously all you want is more gore and gratuitous violence. Well, how Christian are you, wanting the most graphic representation of the suffering of another displayed to your liking. Well, if you want the message of the suffering of Christ made known to a wider audience, the first and most important thing to do is keep it "sensible'. Now, I suggest you look up the true meaning of that word before you begin your own film making career. The film got the message across without resorting to the sickening things you seem to suggest should be included. Anyway, you weren't there. None of us were, so even the level of physical disfiguration meted out to Christ is open to conjecture. Just as Gibson made a film to fit the realities of the world we live in, I'm sure the true torures of Christ were just enough to still make sure he could walk all the way to Calvary. You and you alone want more.

You even presume to suggest that I am squeamish. Oh, to have your insights into everything and everybody, God included.....

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.

You admit that "I in no way could expect to get a literal translation of what he suffered inside..." Well, on tht admission it is not valid for you to write that you'd have scenes of people committing sins. You have no idea, absolutely know idea at all of what went on inside the mind of Jesus. An attempt by you at conjecturing would be no more valid than what Mal Gibson portrayed. I submit that such conjecture would be rudely presumptuous, if not blasphemous, in that you deign to tell people what the mind of God contains.

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.

Wow, now even the Pope got it wrong!
"It's just beginning to touch upon it". How would you know?

I have been in debate with people that use that movie as their basis for their understanding of his suffering,

The immediate implication of what you wrote here is that people with whom you have had discussions have a shallow understanding of the whole affair. Well, if that is the case, then the film has touched them, given them insights into something they haven't thought about to any great depth. Good! Maybe they will even pick up a Bible and start reading. The film has had an impact and Gibson has done Christianity a great service.

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.

It was Mal Gibsons version. And a great one, which is why the Pope said what he said.

However, we all look forward o the day when your more gory version hits the theartres. With God's thoughts and feelings included.

Well, hear me out, it’s obvious, you don’t understand my perspective here. Being more true to reality, even if it means people have to turn their faces away from the movie, drives home the true, 100% reality of his suffering. Don’t you want to contemplate upon reality rather then something watered down, or out right made up?

The only thing we can think of, we can only grasp at straws, along portraying the mental anguish he faced. It’s not possible to accurately portray any deeply complex emotion merely through man made systems, so at best, you can at least begin to show a possible series of events, and lead it up to the viewers imagination to fill in more. This too serves the purpose of reminding us that his mental anguish is something all together he had to contend with along a far, far greater scale then any of us could imagine. It needs word play, all I’m saying, not just the visual along his physical suffering.

Along the latter, yes I agree, will take some artistic license, and not to stand alone, but to be outdone by someone else in the future like all good works. Does it not serve it’s intended purpose all the same as Mel’s version, and that much more? That’s the question here in those regards, but not the end of answering more of them then what he covered.

It’s no offense given here, nor is it for the sakes of spectacularizing it, context wise at all, so please, don’t misunderstand where I’m coming from here. It’s better in this case, for a positive ends, then it is for these rancid horror movies that come out so often, talk about gore, that’s gore for no reason what so ever, but for the sakes of gore itself, and absolutely should not be compared to what I’m saying here…

Love the movie, but I’ve lost a ton of respect for Mel Gibson.

Oh, don’t be too hard on him. I think there was more going on in the background than we ever knew. Stuff that was dragging him down. He needs your prayers, not your condecension.
Any man who can make films like The Passion of The Christ and Apocalypto gets my respect. The latter film was brilliant as well.

I only saw a few brief clips from the film, but that was enough for me to know I had better not view it in full. I’m totally squeamish when it comes to violence and gore.

I’ll be watching “Jesus Christ Superstar” again this Easter season. Laugh at me if you will, but it brings tears to my eyes without any gory nightmare-inducing stuff.

In the beginning of this thread, I commented on the publicity regarding his regrettable behavior after the film came out, and, yes, he needs prayers, and probably as soon as the film came out, he needed prayers. I bet that film made the evil one furious! And he went after Mel with a determined vengeance.

If it made the evil one furious it is because it made so obvious his insidiousness when it comes to influencing human behaviour. Brilliant film.

*I read this whole thread...and I thought it was very well done...

Frankly, faith has nothing to do with seeing something. (the blind man that Jesus healed...he couldn't see Jesus, yet he believed) Remember what Jesus told Thomas, who doubted...until he touched the holes in his hands...that he needed to see that to believe? I don't need to see more gore to know that Jesus suffered a most violent and horrifying death and did so, so we could all have the hope of eternal life. The human mind can't even comprehend it, which is why perhaps, it couldn't be acted out. I think that watching this movie will help people to better understand the magnitude of pain Jesus suffered for us all...but no mere producer/director/screen writer could capture it in its entirety...no way. I don't think that we should expect that, either. The fact that we thought the scourging scene was as horrific as many of have thought...and to know that He was marred beyond THAT? I don't know if you can visually show that on screen...leave something to one's imagination.

Just my thoughts about it. *

I completely agree!
TPoTC was definitely one of the most graphic films I’ve seen, and probably one of most graphic films shown in theatres. And IMO, it’s one of the few times where the gore actually helps the movie get its point across (i.e. the horror of Christ’s death) instead of bogging it down with special effects (as with most horror flicks today).

[quote="whatevergirl, post:30, topic:181196"]
*I read this whole thread...and I thought it was very well done...

Frankly, faith has nothing to do with seeing something. (the blind man that Jesus healed...he couldn't see Jesus, yet he believed) Remember what Jesus told Thomas, who doubted...until he touched the holes in his hands...that he needed to see that to believe? I don't need to see more gore to know that Jesus suffered a most violent and horrifying death and did so, so we could all have the hope of eternal life. The human mind can't even comprehend it, which is why perhaps, it couldn't be acted out. I think that watching this movie will help people to better understand the magnitude of pain Jesus suffered for us all...but no mere producer/director/screen writer could capture it in its entirety...no way. I don't think that we should expect that, either. The fact that we thought the scourging scene was as horrific as many of have thought...and to know that He was marred beyond THAT? I don't know if you can visually show that on screen...leave something to one's imagination.

Just my thoughts about it. *

[/quote]

I came across a post on CAF by Father Vincent Serpa on this very subject. I'm sure he wont mind me using what I think is a beautiful and insightful peice of writing. I for one thought Gibson'r film was incredibly thought provoking as he used imagery to capture the moments of the different players in the torment of Christ. However, to try and capture on film the mental and emotional pain of Christ during his trial would not only be near impossible, but it would be, in my opinion, presumptuous. So, now read Fr. Serpa's article on what Christ went through -

The agony in the garden was really the agony in His mind. He suffered the passion in His mind before He suffered it in His body—to the point of actually affecting the latter by sweating blood. But from then on, it was His bodily suffering that affected His mental suffering.

At the base of all His suffering was the one thing that human beings dread the most: rejection. He was betrayed by Judas, denied by Peter and abandoned by all the rest of His Apostles; those He had hand picked as His closest intimates. He was most rejected by those who put Him to death. They not only wanted Him dead, they wanted Him to suffer. They not only considered Him to be worth nothing, they considered Him to be worth minus nothing! This significance was not lost on Him. He felt fully the rejection as each physical agony reminded Him.

So we thank Him for joining us on our human journey and actually choosing to experience what we fear the most.

We thank Him for enduring the arrest and the cruelty of the guards and the Sanhedrin. We thank Him for enduring the cruelty of Pilate who allowed Him to be executed rather than risk his own political ruin—and for the cruelty of Herod who wanted to be entertained by having Him work a miracle. We thank Him for all the time He spent satisfying their preoccupation with themselves, just delaying His ultimate death. We thank Him for the anxiety of that night in a cell.

The next morning He was brutally scourged with such intensity and violence that He became as an aged man in a matter of minutes. His multiple wounds bloodied His entire body. The loss of so much blood not only severely weakened Him; it also caused a severe, throbbing headache that remained with Him for the duration.

We thank Him for this and for the mockery He received when they put a purple cloth on His shoulders and pushed a crown of thorns down into His head which intensified His headache. They blindfolded Him and slapped Him, insisting that He ‘prophesy’ who had hit Him. They spat on Him and beat Him. But it was they who were blind. He knew who they were. This is what we do when we sin. We blot him out of our consciousness as if He can’t see us. But it is we who choose to not see.

He stood at the praetorium in utter disgrace according to the attitude of the crowd—while in reality, He stood in utter glory: almighty God, being present to every person who has ever suffered rejection, joining them in their moment of pain. It was there that He was sentenced to death by crucifixion. As a further humiliation, He was forced to carry His instrument of execution. He revealed to St. Bernard that carrying the cross was His most painful agony. He was so weak, He could hardly walk. So the weight of the cross on His shoulder was unbearable. It most likely dislocated His shoulder. It is not surprising that He fell down on the stone streets that were filthy with animal dung—with the cross on top of Him. And He got up each time.

It was only with the help of Simon of Cyrene that He made it to the top of Calvary. There they drove the nails into the carpal tunnels of His hands, causing pain throughout His upper body. The nail in His feet registered great pain through all the sensitive nerves there. When the cross was righted, His up-stretched arms squeezed His lungs and He began to pant for lack of oxygen. So He had to push down on His crucified feet to push His body up in order to fill His lungs with air. This took great effort because He was so weak. Yet He managed to maintain such effort for three hours of agony which increased gradually as He became weaker moment by moment.

By the end of the third hour, His agony was at its peak and His self-gift was exquisite. He had come to the point where His strength simply gave out and He suffocated. In this eternal moment as He died, He gave us His life. Transcending time, this moment of divine love is present to us in the tabernacles of the world.

Thank you, Lord. We adore you O Christ and we praise you. By your holy cross, you have redeemed the world!

The gratuitous and excess graphic violence of the movie far overshadowed any message the movie might have offered me. I didn't care for the movie at all.

[quote="Christopher68, post:33, topic:181196"]
The gratuitous and excess graphic violence of the movie far overshadowed any message the movie might have offered me. I didn't care for the movie at all.

[/quote]

I would have to agree with that sentiment. Just because the characters were religious in nature did not change the fact that it wasn't much outside of what is now being called by some movie critics "torture porn." The sad part was I observed a large number of younger movie goers attending the movie just to (as I heard numerous times) "see if its as gross as they say." And the conversations afterward generally centered around that issue instead of any religious message. I felt in many ways it was a missed opportunity.

Please. This criticism was made at The Passion’s release as well. Yet, how often had the culture been polluted with “torture porn” minus this criticism? Now all of a sudden these folks were concerned about blood and gore?:rolleyes:

Sadly, I think you’re right about the reason why a lot of younger movie goers went to the movie. My neighbor’s teenage daughter made a similar comment about wanting to see the violence in the movie.

Mel Gibson is usually a talented filmmaker. Instead of making a movie about the death of Jesus, I wish he would have made a movie about the life of Jesus.

I wish the movie had more dialogue…and flashing back. But, for what the purpose was, I think Mel Gibson did a great job.

Maybe (I think I might have read somewhere that Gibson said this) he felt that there were enough movies about the life of Jesus, but that none had emphasized the agony of the Passion. Nowadays, especially, it seems that this is glossed over. Maybe he wanted to really make people think about how MUCH it cost Jesus.

I also liked how the role of the evil one was highlighted. That is another thing-- some people nowadays don’t want to believe in the evil one, or sin, or hell.

It just occurred to me that although I didn’t see this movie and rush out to become Catholic, I did see it when I was Protestant. Maybe it was a part of my journey Home, and maybe it was part of others’ as well.

It would certainly be interesting to see how he would have filmed a LIFE of Jesus.
The main ones that are on TV every year (the one with Robert Powell in it) are, I think, made through a Protestant lens.

There may have been a lot of movies made about the life of Jesus in years past, but there haven’t been any major movies made about the life of Jesus for many years (even decades?). A new and epic movie about the life of Jesus, especially considering today’s filmmaking technology, would be quite interesting. When you consider that Gibson is one of the better directors of ‘epic’ type movies, I feel that this was a missed opportunity on his part. The scenes in the movie that actually resonated with me were the very brief flashback scenes of Jesus interacting with the apostles, and also with Mary. As mentioned previously, the rest of the movie was just too violent for me.

[quote="Christopher68, post:33, topic:181196"]
The gratuitous and excess graphic violence of the movie far overshadowed any message the movie might have offered me. I didn't care for the movie at all.

[/quote]

I have to agree with this as well. I didn't care for the movie. I get much more out of praying the Stations of the Cross.

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.