Thoughts on "The Passion" with spoilers

[sophiaserpentia]

A full moon over the Garden of Gethsemane...

That embarassingly inaccurate image is the first shot of "The Passion of the Christ." (Well, maybe there was a full moon over the Garden during the night of Jesus' arrest, but if so, then it didn't happen during Passover...) Edit: The embarassing error is mine; my memory failed me, and after double-checking I found that the first day of Passover occurs on a full moon. I could erase the error, but I will leave it for posterity.

In many ways this movie was not at all what I expected. In other ways, it was exactly what I expected.

For one thing, the movie was slightly more anti-Semitic than the gospels themselves. Most problematic for me in this regard were three scenes in particular: one showing Satan drifting in a floaty way among the high priests; another showing Satan floating in the same way among a crowd of screaming Jews; and a gratuitous scene showing Caiaphas gloating at Jesus and ridiculing him while he's on the cross.

Actually though I think the movie is distressingly homophobic. Firstly I found personally offensive the depiction of Satan as androgynous; Gibson could have chosen any number of ways to depict Satan, but he chose this one. Secondly, Herod was shown as a sterotypical 'flamer,' leering sexually at Jesus while mocking him. Herod was, you'll recall, enticed into executing John the Baptist at the suggestion of a girl, "Herodias's daughter," traditionally Salome. Herod might have been a libertine, but this depiction of him as a morally-corrupt gay man is also gratuitous.

Next, I was surprised to see that while the imagery was vivid, even lush, there was an otherwordly feel to most of it. Many scenes have a detached, slow-motion feel. Then there are the demons, whose appearance veers in a dreamlike way back-and-forth between human and inhuman. This detachment surprised me because of the number of comments I've seen from Christians insisting that the movie is a "real" depiction of what happened. It is vivid, yes, but highly stylized. This is important because I think the movie is a reflection of a dehumanized flesh-hating death-cult, rather than the product of a life-affirming belief. Edit to clarify: by which I don't mean Christianity itself, but the version of it which Gibson intends to portray.

Then there is the violence. The movie can be described as an orgy of bloodletting, and I would compare the scourging of Jesus to the kind of "buckets of blood" violence you'd see in a slasher movie, meaning that it is so overblown it is unbelievable. (Not LJ-cut because the violence is hardly a spoiler.)

There is an awkward mingling of the two passion narratives in the gospels, the synoptic version which shows Jesus as terrified and angst-ridden, and John's version which shows Jesus in command. The blending doesn't work and Jim Caviezel is asked to go from lamenting forlornly on the cross, "Why have you forsaken me?" to immediately and authoritatively proclaiming, "It is accomplished."

The net effect is that while Gibson tried to portray Jesus as a human who was tortured and murdered, he actually portrayed events in a very unreal, otherworldly way.

I was, however, moved by one aspect of the film, and that was the portrayal of Mary's agony over seeing her son arrested, tortured, and executed. One scene shows her running to comfort him as he falls while carrying the cross, overlapped with her memory of Jesus as a boy, falling and scraping his knee, and her rushing to comfort him with motherly love. The scenes where he is interacting with Mary are the only scenes in which Jim Caviezel's performance has any real life to it; the rest of the time he seems barely more than an animatronic prop, unsure I imagine of how "human" or how "divine" to allow his portrayal to be. Several of the scenes with Mary had me literally in tears.

Comments

[mlfoley.livejournal.com]

Most problematic for me in this regard were three scenes in particular: one showing Satan drifting in a floaty way among the high priests; another showing Satan floating in the same way among a crowd of screaming Jews; and a gratuitous scene showing Caiaphas gloating at Jesus and ridiculing him while he's on the cross.

I'm not so sure that I'd agree with your assessment of the first two scenes. If Satan was involved, then that, to me, would absolve the Jews in a sense. They were being deceived by the devil - maybe even possessed. They were not doing it out of their own free will.

The scene about Caiaphas makes sense to me according to the Gospels which say that people "wagged their tongues" at Jesus, mocked him etc.

Firstly I found personally offensive the depiction of Satan as androgynous; Gibson could have chosen any number of ways to depict Satan, but he chose this one.

In Catholic tradition, I believe, angels are frequently seen as being androgynous. The same would apply to fallen angels.

Herod might have been a libertine, but this depiction of him as a morally-corrupt gay man is also gratuitous.

Not not sure where people got this depiction of Herod from. I recall Jesus Christ Superstar had Herod as a ridicuously flaming gay man. On the other hand, many versions of Pilate - including JCS's - have Pilate as effeminate (of course, JCS's Pilate WAS gay irl...). I'm not sure why they'd depict Roman officials in such a way.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

If Satan was involved, then that, to me, would absolve the Jews in a sense.

Yes, you could see it that way. But to be honest it never occurred to me, which makes me wonder why show the image at all. It isn't scriptural. The only time in fact Satan was shown speaking or acting as "himself" in the gospels (and not by possessing Peter or Judas or someone else) was the temptation in the desert. The image of Satan floating among the high priests is haunting and lingers in the mind; and one notes that he did not go near the Roman guards but stayed amongst the Jews.


The scene about Caiaphas makes sense to me according to the Gospels which say that people "wagged their tongues" at Jesus, mocked him etc.

Perhaps. But public officials are rarely visibly involved with the execution of dissidents, in case the dissident becomes a martyr, as commonly happens. Caiaphas would have been ANYWHERE in Jerusalem but Golgotha that day.


In Catholic tradition, I believe, angels are frequently seen as being androgynous. The same would apply to fallen angels.

Maybe. In Jewish tradition they are "the sons of God" (b'ny Elohim) some of whom had children with the
"daughters of men" and I don't recall seeing a reference to female angels anywhere.


I'm not sure why they'd depict Roman officials in such a way.

Because, don't you know, the Romans exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and so were given over to unnatural passions?

[beitlamed.livejournal.com]

Yep, sexless/androgynous angels are a christian addition. They had a lot of debate, if i recall correct, as to the angels' gender in medieval scholastic thought.

i dare say that the "unnatural" romans appear in the talmud as well, though.

bl

[mlfoley.livejournal.com]

The image of Satan floating among the high priests is haunting and lingers in the mind; and one notes that he did not go near the Roman guards but stayed amongst the Jews.

To keep them stirred up. Again, Catholic tradition states that Satan was the one behind all of this. He thought that killing the Son of God would eliminate God's power - and he was quite wrong. So Mel was following that, because he is a Catholic. Expecting him to stick 100% to the Bible is basically expecting him to be a Jack Chick type fundie - Catholics rely on church tradition and teachings too.

Perhaps. But public officials are rarely visibly involved with the execution of dissidents, in case the dissident becomes a martyr, as commonly happens. Caiaphas would have been ANYWHERE in Jerusalem but Golgotha that day.

Why do you think that? He was one of the ones that wanted Jesus dead. Why wouldn't he be there to mock Jesus?

Maybe. In Jewish tradition they are "the sons of God" (b'ny Elohim) some of whom had children with the
"daughters of men" and I don't recall seeing a reference to female angels anywhere.

There's some question whether or not those are angels, however. I don't believe angels are called Sons of God elsewhere in the Bible.

[beowulf1723.livejournal.com]

"Firstly I found personally offensive the depiction of Satan as androgynous; Gibson could have chosen any number of ways to depict Satan, but he chose this one."

"In Catholic tradition, I believe, angels are frequently seen as being androgynous. The same would apply to fallen angels."

Gibson's treatment of Satan as an androgynous figure played by a woman could be taken as (1) homophobia -- or, rather -- as slap at "effeminate" men, gay or straight, as well as bisexuals, or (2) misogyny, of which there is certainly plenty in Christan history and tradition.

Regardless, the Greek of the New Testament is unmistakably clear: Satan is male. If Gibson was really going to follow his sources, Satan would have been played by a man, and possible portrayed as someone with an attitude problem.

[mlfoley.livejournal.com]

Regardless, the Greek of the New Testament is unmistakably clear: Satan is male. If Gibson was really going to follow his sources, Satan would have been played by a man, and possible portrayed as someone with an attitude problem.

I don't disagree there, but I do think that he probably followed Church tradition on this one.

[imaginaryfish.livejournal.com]

Does Mary Magdalen make an appearance? If so, how is she portrayed? The film doesn't come out over here until the 26th, so for now I'm stuck with the melodramatic trailer I see every time I go to the cinema.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Mary Magdalene is shown a lot, but never speaks. The only way I was certain it was her was from a flashback depicting her as the accused adultress in John 8, a traditional belief rather than a scriptural one (the adultress is never named).

[sylverspring.livejournal.com]

I didn't make the same observations as you about the movie. I found the antisemitism was exaggerated by some. Frankly, I viewed it as an angry mob, under the influence of corrupt leaders (corrupt by our current social standards), which could happen in any culture, in any mob scene. People get stirred up when they are in a mob, to a pitch. When this happens, any mob turns to animal, beastly behavior. I don't think this is behavior exclusive to the jews. And I think that many of those who would choose to view it as such, are probably already deeply antisemitic, and thus are reading into it what they want to see.
I also didn't see it as homophobic. I didn't even perceive Herod's leers as being sexual, as much as they were just glorying in someone elses pain. As for the depiction of Satan as being androgynous, I think that came from the Bible saying that he was the most beautiful of angels, before his fall. I never really perceived Satan as "Masculine" OR "Feminine" to tell the truth..just as Evil. And angels, anyway, are supposed to be devoid of sexuality. They are depicted in Art as rather .. androgynous, for lack of a better term.
As for the violence, I didn't find it gratuitous. The scourging would have done, exactly what was depicted. IMO. I think the human consciousness wants to gloss over alot of the implied violence in the gospels, because it doesn't want to deal with it. I think that we have no reason to believe that those who tortured Jesus, would not have shown such animalistic behavior. The Romans were a warring people. They were used to torturing, and maiming. I don't think they would have been any more gentle with Jesus than the movie depicted. (By the way, another reason I don't think the movie was antisemetic, was because the Roman soldiers were depicted as every bit as blood thirsty as the mob).
There is one thing I agree with you on, though. Mary's torment was heartbreaking. I was incredibly touched by the portrayal of her in the movie. The scenes where I cried the hardest, were the scene where she runs to him when he falls, and the scene where she mops up his blood with the towel.

Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

I disagree with you in every single particular and agree STRONGLY with sophiaserpentia. Mel Gibson has a history--as a number of clerical reviewers (of both Protestant and Catholic varieties) have pointed out--of favouring ultra-violence. You may be interested in knowing that this flagellation scene--10 MINUTES LONG!--now rates as, perhaps, the longest and most gruesome beating scene in film history. This is a film that sensible adults--untouched by religious mania--could easily identify as dangeous to the emotional stability of the young and the impressionable. But, as we know from history, atrocities much worse than this film have been committed in the name of "Jesus."
Secondly, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG about the accuracy--Biblical OR historical--of Mel's version of Christ's crucifixion. In Sacred Scripture there are no priests leering at the foot of the cross, no little demons scampering after the suicidal Judas, no implication that Herod was some sort of sexual pervert (you colour it as you will: sado-masochist, or effeminate homosexual), just because he gave his daughter what his wife wanted, as a reward for dancing.
In terms of historical accuracy, he ignores the evidence of the Shroud of Turin--which is surprising for a "Traditionalist" (i.e. heretical) Catholic--and gives us nails in palms and a loincloth. He also confuses two different death penalties, because flagellation to the extent he has it in his version was MEANT TO KILL, and it usually DID. It is unbelievable that any human body could have lasted three to six hours on a cross, after being subjected to THAT. (But, of course, as one of my younger friends said, "This is Super-Jesus!")
Sorry, but the whole thing smacks of decadent American culture, and I'm absolutely certain that people all over the world, who come from healthier religious and cultural traditions will be able to label this garbage as precisely what it is: sado-masochistic pornography, filled with anti-Semitic visual references POSING as a religious effusion.

Re: Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.

[sylverspring.livejournal.com]

Well...we each have our own observations, digby. But, let me clear up a few things I think may have been misinterpreted. The first thing I'd like to say is that I am not Christian. I have been pagan since 1995, but have recently begun a new religious "search". So my observations certainly do not come from religious brainwashing, or fervency. I do however have a background in Christianity, up until 95, I was a born again Christian, and was even studying to be a Youth Minister, which means I have a fairly decent background in the Bible. I've of course, added to this study, as a Pagan, by reading the lost gospels, dead sea scrolls, and any other peice of related material I could find. I didn't go to see "The Passion" because I was wanting to see a movie about torture, OR because I thought it would be enriching to my "faith", since currently, I have none. I went to see it, because I was interested in how the modern cinema would deal with such a controversial topic. Yes, of course, the Passion is NOT fit for children, or Youth. And those who bring their children to such a movie, are insane. With all the publicity about the movie, ALL over the globe, any one with one grain of common sense would realize that this movie is not made for those with fragile, growing minds. Allow me to clarify something else, when I meant "Historically" I do not mean the events as they actually happened. Unfortunately, that would be nearly impossible, as so little of Christs Story can be validated by other historical documents of the time period. When I say "Historical" I mean, historical in the way that the bible has been presented to the masses. My comments regarding the Romans, I stick bye.There is certainly enough ACTUAL historical documentation of their ruthlessness, and violence. To me, the movie was not made to be an evangelical tool. To me, the movie was made to shake the complacency out of those who have already decided to become Christian, and who take it casually. I did manage to find immense evidence of Christs' Humanity, compassion, and love, in "The Passion". While there have been other "Holy Men", "Wise Men" and "Hero's" who have been tortured in such a manner, Jesus is one of the few who an entire religion was formed upon. Thus, it would seem to me, that witnessing the torture he endured, would serve to shake a complacent christian out of their complacency. The Modern Christian religion is steeped in the ideals that to be Christian (Christ-like), one must realize his sacrifice.I think left to their own devices, many a Christian would allow the sacrifice to be some misty, cloudy, half buried story deep in the recesses of their consciousness. I think the graphic depiction of Jesus' suffering has stirred many a soul in their faith, making them evaluate how real they are being to their path. While I am NOT a Christian, I must see the value in this. Faith is not meant to make us complacent, or comfortable, or cozy. It is meant to challenge us. And I think "The Passion" managed to do this in a way that prior movies about the same topic, haven't.

Re: Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

So little of Christs Story can be validated by other historical documents of the time period. When I say "Historical" I mean, historical in the way that the bible has been presented to the masses

Actually, a very great deal of the "Jesus story" can now be "validated" with historical documents, with archaelogical findings, etc. For instance, we now know that the picture of Pilate given in the Gospel of St. John is wholly incommensurate with what is recorded by Roman historians about his governancy of Palestine, leading Biblical scholars--even some of the most orthodox--to conclude that the "Passion Narrative"--or parts of it were interpolated later. But, of course, Mel and people like Mel--whose faith is wholly imbued with heretical fundamentalism--will have no truck with "scholarship." This has been the tendency of Protestantism from its inception, starting with that egregious anti-Semite Luther, who said, of the Letter of St. James, "It is a text of straw, and I will have none of it!"


To me, the movie was made to shake the complacency out of those who have already decided to become Christian, and who take it casually.

I don't think that Zeferelli's version--or even The Last Temptation of Christ--inculcates spiritual "complacency." I KNOW that that mastepiece Jesus de Montreal is FAR more effective than Mel's bloodbath in encouraging the faithful to update their spirituality and USE it in THIS world--rather than pining for "pie-in-the-sky-after-death"--the fulcrum of the Prot Fundos' faith.


I think "The Passion" managed to do this in a way that prior movies about the same topic, haven't.

I doubt you've seen Pasolini's Gospel of Saint Matthew, which comes out of a religious culture far saner than that which prevails in Protestant America.

Ultimately, of course, there will be no agreement between myself and the supporters of this film. However, I DO think it's instructive to draw out the differences. I think it's particularly instructive to my fellow Catholics in America, about whom I feel it is very important that they NOT confuse what Mel is doing with the shreds of his Catholicism and real Christian orthodoxy, which MUST find this film to be a travesty, if it's to remain true to the temper and spirit of original Christianity, and not become bedeviled with American and Protestant perversions.

Re: Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.

[sylverspring.livejournal.com]

Digby, I was not raised a Catholic. However, my boyfriend is a Brazilian Catholic. And I must say, that his faith is incredibly harrowing. I'm at a loss as to what you mean by "Perversions". We went to see the movie together, and my boyfriend was also deeply touched. And he is quite quick to recount the tale of how Jesus died for our "sins" etc. So..I just really don't see what you mean by perversions. The same New Testament Gospels are seen in the Catholic Bible, as in the Protestant Bible (although I do undertand that the septuagant is not included in the Protestant Bible). And every time I go to a Catholic Church, I hear just as much "Paulism" as I'd like to call it, as Gospel. So..i'm lost on the "perversions" ideal..

Re: Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

I am referring, of course, to the "up-dated," post-Vatican Council II Catholicism, to which I and many other European Catholics subscribe, and with which Mel, huge numbers of "charismatics" in American, and many, many "Hispanics" (like, perhaps, your boyfriend) are uncomfortable because it's pluralist, non-exclusionary (Vatican II rejected "supersessionism" of the Old Covenant by the New, for instance, and THAT'S what's really gotten Mel's goat, in this film)--it's not liberal & anti-fundo enough, but it's getting there.

Re: Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen it, but the description sounds a lot like the ones in Crusader comics, which show a barely clothed Jesus with practically no skin left on his body.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I found the antisemitism was exaggerated by some. Frankly, I viewed it as an angry mob, under the influence of corrupt leaders (corrupt by our current social standards), which could happen in any culture, in any mob scene.

And perhaps that's what it was. I'll leave aside the debates over the accuracy of gospel passion accounts, except to note that they are judged by many scholars as falling somewhere between "largely bastardized," to "completely fictional," to "fictional and polemically anti-Semitic."

Assuming the passion narratives are historically accurate, the image of Satan seeming to float in the midst of the high priests, and later in the midst of the screaming crowds, is haunting and evocative. The image leaves a simple unconscious impression: Satan is standing here in the midst of the Jews.

So, I would ask, why was Satan not shown in the cell when the Roman brutes were mocking Jesus? Why was he not present at the scourging? I can think of no answer. Furthermore, the Romans, vicious brutes that they are in the film, are given more opportunity to be thoughtful and reflect on what they have done. By the end every one of them realizes that they have done something very, very wrong.


I also didn't see it as homophobic.

Think of it this way. Gibson took poetic license with the way he depicted both Satan and Herod. His depiction veers close to being un-scriptural and, I do not think accidently, occurs at the expense of people who are GLBT. If anything, more people will leave the theater with anger towards gays and androgynes than they will with anger at the Jews. It is more homophobic than it is anti-Semitic.


As for the violence, I didn't find it gratuitous.

Much of it is understated, and some of it can only be heard in the background while the camera focuses on other people. But a beating like the one Jesus is shown receiving would have killed him. I know Gibson wanted to show that Jesus made a conscious act of will out of enduring the flagellation, carrying the cross up to Golgotha, and then crawling onto the cross himself -- to show in bold, in italics, in all caps, underlined, that Jesus willingly endured torture and execution he could have stopped at any time. As digbydolben said, it was like he was "Super-Jesus."

[nathandarkfall.livejournal.com]

Assuming the passion narratives are historically accurate, the image of Satan seeming to float in the midst of the high priests, and later in the midst of the screaming crowds, is haunting and evocative. The image leaves a simple unconscious impression: Satan is standing here in the midst of the Jews.

Perhaps the point of this is to show that Jews, like anyone else, can be influenced by Satan. I don't think Satan's presence there was to indicate that Jews are evil. The fact, however, was that evil was present there, among the mob and among the Roman soldiers. Satan was there to encourage the evil acts taking place. Remember that "satan" is a Jewish title meaning "the adversary." Satan deceives and it seems that those Jews were deceived and they were just vicitms of Satan's influence, just like anyone else can be.

So, I would ask, why was Satan not shown in the cell when the Roman brutes were mocking Jesus? Why was he not present at the scourging? I can think of no answer.

Satan had already influenced the Roman soldiers. And Satan WAS present at the scourging. He just watched from the sidelines. Remember the demon baby in his arms? That scene was meant to show how Satan's evil was influencing the Roman guards who were scourging Jesus.

Think of it this way. Gibson took poetic license with the way he depicted both Satan and Herod. His depiction veers close to being un-scriptural and, I do not think accidently, occurs at the expense of people who are GLBT. If anything, more people will leave the theater with anger towards gays and androgynes than they will with anger at the Jews. It is more homophobic than it is anti-Semitic.

I don't get this at all. I never got that impression. My thought and I'm sure the thought of most Christians who see the movie is that Satan is depected as androgynous because he is commonly seen as also being the fallen angel, Lucifer. I know someone else mentioned it, but I'll reiterite this. Lucifer was the most-love and most beautiful of the angels before his fall. If we are to see Satan in this movie as that same being, then he should have been depicted as beautiful and androgynous, because that is the common Christian perception of angels. I have not heard of a single case of anyone becoming MORE homophobic than they already are because of this movie. That idea is just absurd.

I also do not see the film as anti-Semetic. The fact is that the corrupt political heirarchy of the Jewish church at the time decided that Jesus was dangerous and wanted him out of the way. So they incited the people to move against him. If a bunch of highly respected public officials paint someone out to be a criminal, then you can bet that a good majority of the populous will believe it. That's using the ignorant masses for personal gain. It is something that happens, and it's evil (which makes sense why Satan was present so much in the movie). This movie doesn't make me hate all Jews. It makes me feel sorry for the ones who were led on by the corrupt officials and it makes me think a lot less of ANY religious heirarchy. I disliked Caiaphus becauseof how he acted. But one man does not speak for all Jews in the past, present, or future.

Satan

[threeandnine.livejournal.com]

Greetings. I have added the wise Mme. Serpentia to my friends list on boniface's recommendation, and she does not disappoint.

I agree with your view about Satan in the movie. I saw his presence as taunting and mocking Jesus, saying, "All you are doing is for naught, because I have already won." As if he was going to change Jesus' mind at the last minute.

The Satan character, visually, was disturbingly beautiful. But I never associated him with being homosexual.

I saw an interesting interview with Alfred Hitchcock recently where he talked about a killer who blamed his third murder on his viewing of 'Psycho.' Hitchcock said, "And what did he watch before he committed his second murder? What did he do before the first one, drink a glass of milk?"

Re: Satan

[nathandarkfall.livejournal.com]

Exactly. This movie is not going to make anyone hate Jews or hate homosexuals. If people hate Jews or homosexuals, then they already had some predispostion or reason for it. I think any notion that this film is intentionally or non-intentionally anti-Semetic or anti-gay is rediculous.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the point of this is to show that Jews, like anyone else, can be influenced by Satan.

I'm a bit wary though of the subliminal long-term effects of the images I described. They do linger in the mind, which means that they can have subconscious effects that you are not even aware of.


And Satan WAS present at the scourging.

Yes, you're correct, he was present at the scourging, among the watching crowd (I don't recall whether or not the crowd consisted of Romans, Jews, or both.)


I don't get this at all. I never got that impression.

Again I'm nervous about the long-term, subliminal effects of the imagery. I might be over-sensitive about portrayal of GLBTs in the media and the effects thereof, I will admit that.

TBH, I actually hope I'm wrong.

However, I am a naturally androgynous person, and I feel personally put-out that Gibson went out of his way -- using a female actor with a dubbed male voice -- to use the image of an androgynous person as the embodiment of evil, deceit, and unnatural being. I suspect, actually, that he was influenced by Marilyn Manson.

Oversensitivity

[nathandarkfall.livejournal.com]

However, I am a naturally androgynous person, and I feel personally put-out that Gibson went out of his way -- using a female actor with a dubbed male voice -- to use the image of an androgynous person as the embodiment of evil, deceit, and unnatural being. I suspect, actually, that he was influenced by Marilyn Manson.

I think you are oversensitive on this issue. Why can't you accept the possibility that Satan was depicted as androgenous because that's the common Christian perception of angels? Lucifer is a fallen angel, thus he would be depicted as androgenous. Why the male voice? Because Satan is often thought of as a "he" as are most angels.

I don't believe that the imagery in any way was meant to be homophobic.

Maybe there's something to your "subiliminal" theory, but Mel Gibson is nor more guilty of using subliminal messages in the way your describe than Judas Priest or Ozzie Ozborne were of putting subliminal messages in their music.

[sylverspring.livejournal.com]

Digby..sorry, I had to add something. I am quite aware that the Bible, as it stands, and as it is preached in almost every church in the world, both Catholic, and Protestant alike, is an incomplete work. I'm well aware of the gospels left out, and the gnostic gospels. Unfortunately, the religion that Christianity was at its conception, was put into the hands of Imperfect humans, greedy humans, and powerhungry humans to "Sort Out" at the Council of Nicea, Council of laodicea..etc. So what we have is a "Rendered" version of the true Gospel of Christ. The thing is, the Catholic AND protestant religions, as they stand today, are BASED Upon the rendered version. There are few, in any denomination, who see the differences between what they read and hear from the pulpit, and what Jesus himself taught. The thing is, by the same coin, if you are to follow jesus teachings by the letter..Jesus taught that law, doctrine, and all else was secondary to loving God. Catholics, Protestants, there are those who "Love God" in each of these religions. I'm just confused as to where you're coming from, since I don't know you. I don't see Catholicism as being very different throughout the world, from what it is here.

Your egregious errors

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

Then I think you've never been "out in the world," as I have been, for a good part of my life. Roman Catholicism is a FAR different religion in the 3rd World from what it is here--far more concerned with establishing the "City of God," and its social and economic justice in the world than is ANY OTHER Christian denomination. This is so marked, so plain to anybody who knows anything about the Church OUTSIDE of America that when we hear that the Pope has condemned something like Bush's immoral, unjust "preventive war" in Iraq, we're NOT surprised, as the whole rest of America, including Catholic America, is. I'm telling you right now--and you can take it to the bank--that the Roman Catholic Church will become, inevitably, as this century wears on, the LEADING OPPONENT OF NOT ONLY AMERICAN GEO-POLITICAL INTERESTS--because they are MARRIED to an unjust, radical capitalist "world order"--but also to the pagan, nihilist culture (Protestant Christianity "gone"--inevitably--"bad")of America. It's not just Islam that America is going to have Church-State conflicts with. And, at the heart of it, contributing most to this ideological conflict, is one that really does start out being "soteriological"--over whether works avail as much as faith, because if it's only faith, there is NOTHING but an "other-worldly" project for Christians. You are SO mistaken in seeing orthodox Christianity through the lense of the radical "Paulinism" that passes for it, here in this culturally decadent backwater of "Christendom."

Re: Your egregious errors

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

the Roman Catholic Church will become, inevitably, as this century wears on, the LEADING OPPONENT OF NOT ONLY AMERICAN GEO-POLITICAL INTERESTS--because they are MARRIED to an unjust, radical capitalist "world order"--but also to the pagan, nihilist culture (Protestant Christianity "gone"--inevitably--"bad")of America.

Wow. This is something I really have to think about. But I suspect that as African and Latin American nations are allowed to have more of a voice in the Vatican, that your prediction will hold true. Many are already saying that the next pope will have to be from the southern hemisphere. Even if I disagree with the conservative theology coming from that portion of the globe, I welcome the geopolitical changes that will come when that happens.

Another point of view

[beowulf1723.livejournal.com]

Let me throw something out here just to stir the waters a bit.

I went to a play last night that was presented in a manner like those espoused by Bertolt Brecht. Brecht wanted to keep the audience from identifying with the characters in the play and so devised various techniques to to this, such as using placards held by people in the play.

All of these things that people are objecting to in Gibson's film -- the grim flogging scene, the sexually ambiguous Satan, Herod's lasciviousness, etc., may (inadvertently?) function like this. In the end, viewers won't identify with anyone, even Jesus, because the way the story is presented keeps the viewer from identifying with the characters.

I certainly don't think that this was Gibson's intention, but it may be the ultimate effect that the film has on a lot of viewers. The exception will be Lefebreites like Gibson and the Fundies, who have such a load of guilt that this is the only way they can imagine the events having taken place ... assuming that they took place at all as recorded in the Gospels, of course.

HMMMMM

[kittenkissies.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the "Mommy" scenes were meant to serve otherworldly purposes, also. Kind "Woman's Day" meets "JasonX"...

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Mel Gibson on his depiction of Satan:
That's what I tried to do with the Devil in the film. The actor's face is symmetric, beautiful in a certain sense, but not completely. For example, we shaved her eyebrows. Then we shot her almost in slow motion so you don't see her blink—that's not normal. We dubbed in a man's voice in Gethsemane even though the actor is a woman...That's what evil is about, taking something that's good and twisting it a little bit.
We report, you decide. :P