Desire Avenue

Just saw this for the first time last night when it was shown on UK tv as part of the Easter scheduling. I wasn't going to watch it actually because I think Mel Gibson is such an idiot, but decided to give it a look and then could not turn away. It was absolutely compelling - I'm a Catholic of course so the story of the Crucifixion is ingrained into me, with all the emotion it inevitably provokes.

I loved the way Jesus is depicted as very much a real man in this picture, this is something the Catholic faith focuses on in order to bring home to people how immense his suffering was and how great the sacrifice for our sins. I thought Gibson did a brilliant job of making the story and the characters 'real', but in the process I feel he went too far with a lot of the violence. I know this was a big criticism of the film at the time of release and I can totally understand why, now. There were moments when I felt very uncomfortable watching extreme violence presented in a voyeuristic, almost pornographic way. But then how else do you bring home to people the torture and horrific death inflicted on this man, which is after all the purpose of the film?

Difficult question, but I'm glad I watched it. I don't know if I'd be able to sit through it again, mind.

The problem of this movie is the way how it manipulates an history in a very wrong manner.
It was directed by a religious fanatic in a sick way to manipulate the audience
and focus the hate on the same group of people again.
Mel Gibson is so wrong and proves again religion is the best way to spread hate instead of peaceful messages.

You know it's amazing Alex, but I didn't see anything like that in it at all. I don't understand the 'anti-semitic' criticism levelled at the film. I don't doubt that Gibson IS anti-semitic in real life, we've seen that in his recent bad behaviour, and it's a facet of the Catholic sect his father is a part of so obviously he's been brought up with those attitudes. But I didn't feel that in the film at all - he tells the story, and the story is that Jesus was given up for torture and crucifixion by his fellow Jews. I don't see how it's possible to tell the story without that bit.

As for manipulating history, well it isn't history in the first place, is it? There's no proof that any of it actually happened, other than the Gospels, the earliest of which was written half a century after the events it claims to be reporting. All we know from other records is that there was a tradition of 'wandering prophets' in Jewish settlements of that time, and that the Romans did indeed crucify criminals and rebels.

I think what the story depicts is how human society can viciously turn on those who are different, who challenge the status quo, break the 'rules', try to bring a new way of thinking. And to say that Jews are somehow not as guilty of that as everyone else is just ridiculous. None of us are immune to that, regardless of faith/culture/status.

Let's not forget either that all the main characters in the story, the ones who are portrayed 'sympathetically' if you want to put it that way, including Jesus himself, were all Jewish.

About History, let's explain first that I'm one of those who think Jesus as described in the bible never existed so I have no religious belief behind my comments.
Anyway, the problem is at that time, romans were the invading people and they used to crucify on public places.
Jews were not the blood thirsty people here, but in a way victims of the romans.
I have no special sympathety for jews, but I admit it's a bit disturbing to always blame them for everything like: they killed the prohet, they are underspecies, they lead the financial world, ...
If we recount the number of deaths involved by religion, christians are number 1 here. But it's always easy to blame other people instead of facing our own behaviour.

alx5962 wrote:Anyway, the problem is at that time, romans were the invading people

Yeah,didn't they just. With all the recent fuss over Britains roll in the slavery issue, i think its about time we got an apology from the Italian government for the inconvenience caused by the roman invasion......... and some compensation wouldn't go amiss either.

alx5962 wrote: Anyway, the problem is at that time, romans were the invading people and they used to crucify on public places.
Jews were not the blood thirsty people here, but in a way victims of the romans.

I'd have to disagree with the Jews-as-nothing-but-victims perspective, Alex - historical evidence suggests that Jewish law at the time was both severe and ruthlessly imposed on the people, which is why wandering prophets were such an attraction in the first place. Religious oppression was not practiced by the Romans - they brought their own beliefs and festivals etc to the lands they conquered, but they did not impose them on the native populations.

Alex wrote:I have no special sympathety for jews, but I admit it's a bit disturbing to always blame them for everything like: they killed the prohet, they are underspecies, they lead the financial world, ...

But I don't think that's what the film is doing, quite honestly - it's depicting events as they've come down to us in the story of Jesus. It's not possible to tell that story without mentioning that Jesus was a Jew who was given up to the Romans for execution because he was a danger to the Jewish religious elite of his time.

Alex wrote:If we recount the number of deaths involved by religion, christians are number 1 here. But it's always easy to blame other people instead of facing our own behaviour.

Indeed, a fact conveniently ignored by the Christian fundies who are currently running America. Religious hypocrisy exists across the board.

Well, I find this movie simply disgusting. It's the emptiest movie I ever saw if I can say it. Any old Hollywood movie on the subject is more exciting and convincing to me, despite the lack of reality. I didn't want to see it but it was important for my partner too to form our own opinion about it, so we watched it together. He was disturbed as well.
I find very hard to understand how the antisemitic speech is not OVER OBVIOUS to Beth.
Gibson doesn't tell any story, not even the gospel version! I don't see the meaning of showing so much blood, is this a splatter or what? Who needs to see pieces of flesh being pulled off a body, what does it add to faith? And who said so many torturing instruments were used and all romans and people there were rude and vicious and cruel? COME ON!!!!
Just taking into consideration the old "blame the jews for killing Christ" argument is a vice in form. If you're willing to believe religion, jews have actually been the instrument of god: the death of Jesus was not a crime but something NECESSARY or the whole salvation plan would have gone down the drain. Why so many people are unable to see this? No death, no human sins erased, no goddification of the man Jesus. If you want to be more scientific about it, we have to consider that the problem with Jesus was not only religious between the jewish elite and Jesus' version (because what he was preaching was NOT new but based on an internal stream of the religion), it could have been a problem of stability of the relatively stable community within the roman empire. Let's not forget that Roman have been tolerant with jews, but to a certain extent, when they were fed up with them they "just" destroyed their temple. Furthermore, a bloke telling me he's the son of god and the king of a realm in another world, isn't exactly the most believable person, is he? Jesus must be believed, anyone else is disturbed...
There is nothing in the movie that makes you see and, more important, feel that Jesus was a Jew. I am still waiting for a movie that will show me that. The washing up and whitification of Jesus have gone on for so many centuries that even though the church have officially changed its doctrine, I doubt it has ever sunk down in the mind of any common people...

Yeah, I have to agree with that.

Mel Gibson practices an 'out dated' version of the catholic religion, that modern catholics don't follow. Somebody I once worked with, her sister got involved with this branch of the catholic church through her husband and she got so scared of it that her family had to put her into hiding to get away from it. She said it was more like a cult than a church. Interestingly her family were all devoted Roman Catholics and even they did not approve of what this branch was practising.

Mel Gibson simply used this film as a soundboard for his own, and his chruches, offensive beliefs. They have rejected all modern reforms of the Catholic Church.

It's funny how the subtitles were also 'selective' in this film.

Nearly all of the major problems on this planet are religion based, think of attrocites carried out in the last decade alone. For something that is supposed to bring us peace, it's brough most of us very little. There is a major difference between personal faith and fanaticism and as far as I am concerned The Passion Of The Christ is the latter. It doesn't tell the story, it rams it down your throat with a bucket of blood and a cross.

There is nothing to be gained from suffering and pain. Whatever happened to inner peace and unbiased respect for each other, we are taught at school that these are the fundamentals of religion, funny how as you get older you see less and less of it evident.

I'm agnostic in my beliefs. I believe in trying being a good person, trying to be happy, avoiding the icebergs when they get close and hoping that at the end of it all there is something else. Until then I am happy to continue my life quietly and contently, it could be a lot worse.

witchy wrote: I find very hard to understand how the antisemitic speech is not OVER OBVIOUS to Beth.

I really don't see it, Sara - I find it hard to understand how it's anti-semitic, except that a modern audience is perceiving it through a contemporary political frame. The elements of the story are what they are - how can you tell the story without telling the story?

witchy wrote:Gibson doesn't tell any story, not even the gospel version! I don't see the meaning of showing so much blood, is this a splatter or what? Who needs to see pieces of flesh being pulled off a body, what does it add to faith? And who said so many torturing instruments were used and all romans and people there were rude and vicious and cruel? COME ON!!!!

Um ... yes, I'm sure when Jesus was being scourged and crowned with thorns and made to carry his own cross he was surrounded by very loving Romans and Jews murmuring sweet nothings in his ear.

I'm curious as to why you think he isn't telling the story, Sara? It seems very like the story I was brought up with as a Catholic. It makes that story seem vividly real to me, more than any other religious film I've seen. One of the things I loved about it was that he doesn't even give you any context, there's no portentous 'this is the greatest story ever told' scene-setting; you're straight into the Garden of Gethsemane and this gentle man's nightmare. His all too human terror in the opening scene is heartbreaking - even when I was a child this is the part of the story that always affected me the most, thinking about him suffering that terrible fear and doubt in the garden. Maybe that's why the film got me right from the start, because it opens with that moment.

I did have some concerns about the presentation of the violence as I mentioned in my first post, about whether it was right to show it so graphically, but I didn't have any doubt about why it was done that way - the whole point of the film is to convey the enormity of this man's suffering and death, to bring it home to people in a very unflinching way. And he succeeds brilliantly in that, regardless of whether you think his method is right or wrong. What does it add to faith? Well, I'd guess a pretty visceral, personal connection with the central icon of that faith - this depiction brings Jesus right out of abstraction by focusing relentlessly on his humanity. For me this is the main element that makes the film so different from and so much more affecting than the other Jesus pictures, which have tended to present him as a rather cerebral, overtly supernatural being. Even in his torture and execution he's been presented as 'otherwordly'. In this film he is depicted as a man full stop, a terrified, self-doubting, and finally resigned human being submitting to his fate. I'm not surprised that huge numbers of people identified with that, personally.

witchy wrote: If you're willing to believe religion, jews have actually been the instrument of god: the death of Jesus was not a crime but something NECESSARY or the whole salvation plan would have gone down the drain.

Exactly - and this is what I was always taught as a child, so maybe that's why I don't perceive the anti-semitism that the rest of you can see. It was made very clear in my teaching that the Jews were God's chosen people and that in giving Jesus up they were fulfilling prophecy, allowing the redemption of mankind to occur. Similar thing with Judas - we were taught not to think of him as 'the villain of the piece', reminded that he was playing a role pre-destined for him. Maybe I was just lucky enough to be the recipient of a particularly evolved brand of Catholicism in this respect. But that doesn't mean the story should be presented with a veneer that isn't justified by internal context. Whether you take it as a piece of fictional narrative or as historical truth, the fact is that at the time the events were occurring, the Jewish religious elite and the ordinary Jews who supported their persecution of Jesus did not KNOW they were fulfilling prophecy. Their actions did not occur with that context inherent. They were simply turning viciously on a defenceless man who threatened their beliefs and traditions, as is human wont. To present it as anything else within the context of the story is just inaccurate. The larger context is provided by the only character in the story who DOES understand the spiritual necessity of what is happening, ie Jesus himself. His absolute forgiveness, his compassion for the burden he knows his tormentors will carry when he's gone, is completely natural within the context of the story, and sets the example we are clearly meant to follow.

witchy wrote:There is nothing in the movie that makes you see and, more important, feel that Jesus was a Jew. I am still waiting for a movie that will show me that.

For me this one really did, this is another way it sets itself apart from previous cinematic depictions of Jesus. He looks like the people he comes from in this film, and speaks like them. It's a part of what makes him feel so human, here.

I wasn't sure if I could watch this film again because of the violence, but it's on again tonight and I've decided to watch it again, with the comments here in mind.

d.a.walker wrote: Mel Gibson practices an 'out dated' version of the catholic religion, that modern catholics don't follow.

Mel Gibson simply used this film as a soundboard for his own, and his chruches, offensive beliefs. They have rejected all modern reforms of the Catholic Church.

Whilst I'd agree with the 'outdated' comment, I don't think it's true to say that the particular beliefs of this Catholic sect inform the film. I don't see that at all, to be honest. To me this is a fairly straightforward retelling of a section of the Jesus story, albeit a much more affecting and arresting one than previous efforts. Regardless of the specific brand of Catholicism one is reared with/follows as an informed adult, the heart of it is the story of this one man, his life and death as an example to humanity, and I feel this is absolutely the focus of the film. I don't get any sense at all of the director trying to peddle eccentric or dangerous cultish beliefs.

d.a. walker wrote: It doesn't tell the story, it rams it down your throat with a bucket of blood and a cross.

Well, the story actually involves buckets of blood and a cross, so I'm not sure what the problem is there.

d.a.walker wrote:There is nothing to be gained from suffering and pain.

Great men down through the ages would disagree with you, as would many a Joe Bloggs in the street.

Suffering and pain are inevitable in life, for everyone. Sometimes they crush and negate, but sometimes they enhance and affirm. I don't think it's possible to state categorically that there is nothing to be gained. But that's just my view, having been through quite a lot in my life.

d.a.walker wrote: I believe in trying being a good person, trying to be happy, avoiding the icebergs when they get close and hoping that at the end of it all there is something else. Until then I am happy to continue my life quietly and contently, it could be a lot worse.

I think a great many religious folk would echo those sentiments.

Pain brings suffering/suffering brings pain. I'm not saying we don't have to have it, I'm certainly not saying that nobody will ever live a life where they won't have pain and sufferng. However what we suffer for and feel pain for should not be through what we believe or from what other people believe. I certainly do not see the advantage of deliberately putting oneself through pain and suffering in order to 'gain' something. It's an abuse of human rights.

I have endured some hellish things in my lifetime and can quite easily say that given the choice I would not for one second choose to have gone through them or go through them ever again. To choose pain and suffering is wrong, to be forced into choosing pain and suffering is wrong. Of course this theory is based on the ideal picture of life, and nothing is ever ideal, but to hurt through choice seems to border on sadism. It's bad enough to feel somebody elses pain. If I could choose to never suffer or feel pain again I would. It's a vast subject with many many different viewpoints and scenarios, and I certainly don't dispute that it can be argued from a pro perspective.

And I just get really tired of all this dying for one's sins crap that people preach as something to attain to as if suffering is an artform.

Religion should be about faith, love, charity and hope. Not about suffering, pain, misogyny, degradation, cruelty, fanaticism, racism, homophobia, hatred, conversion or brainwashing. Yet people still commit such dreadful crimes in it's name.

I went to Portugal a few years ago and was hugely disturbed by the rich, gold drenched Catholic churches and the very poor little towns that surrounded them. All that wealth inside them, while people living outside suffered, starved and died. That is not right. Asking for money from people who could barely afford to feed themselves all in the name of religious guilt, a clear conscious and for some, martyrdom. Or how the Catholic church still protects it's paedophillic priests, rather than subject them to fair legal justice? But it's like anything that the Catholic church doesn't like about itself, it just hides it.

My partner works for the Catholic Church. Believe me I know too much about it for my own liking. The old school Catholic 'sect' is stamped across this film like a watermark in each cell. It's worth reading into the branch of the Catholic church Mel Gibson is a member of because it is truly very disturbing to have beliefs like that in this day and age let alone to then put it forth on celluloid in such a biased manner.

The other major problem with this film, which though is not a criticism in itself, is it is a story that has been told countless times, maybe too many times for it's own good. It is a pointless gratuitous exercise in gore and piousness. I'm not quite sure what Mel thought was to be gained from it all, other than making himself some religious dollar.

Interestingly the film is also littered with many many errors, maybe they could have put on the DVD an error commentary, it would certainly make it a more enjoyable experience. The IMDB has a nice little list of them.....

It's a also a little difficult to not take the Antisemitism arguments seriously considering the documented evidence that now supports Mel Gibson's views, interestingly at a time when his actions were very much far removed from his publically preached faith.

At the end of the day though, it comes down to the good old motto, never work with animals and children, and avoid talking about Politics and Religion, it just causes arguments.

d.a.walker wrote: However what we suffer for and feel pain for should not be through what we believe or from what other people believe.

I think it's fairly unavoidably the case though, for most, and I can think of lots of non-religious contexts where it occurs. Let's take a really common one, for instance when you believe a partner is faithful to you, and it turns out they're not. It shouldn't happen ... but it does, and it brings awful emotional pain with it. It's part of being human and trying to live in this human world. People believe all sorts of things and inevitably some of those beliefs are going to entail suffering on someone's part. That's just life.

d.a. walker wrote: I certainly do not see the advantage of deliberately putting oneself through pain and suffering in order to 'gain' something. It's an abuse of human rights.

To choose pain and suffering is wrong, to be forced into choosing pain and suffering is wrong. .... to hurt through choice seems to border on sadism.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here Daniel, could you clarify it a bit more, and how it relates to the conversation about the film?

d.a.walker wrote:And I just get really tired of all this dying for one's sins crap that people preach as something to attain to as if suffering is an artform.

Again I'm not sure what your context is here, but certainly I've never encountered any Christian teaching that says dying for your sins is something to attain to. Christ died for all our sins, is the central message. No-one else is required to.

d.a.walker wrote:Religion should be about faith, love, charity and hope.

And for a great many religious people, it is. You just don't hear about it in the media. You don't hear about the countless acts of kindess, courage and grace enacted by religous people on a daily basis all over the world. The bombers and the homophobes and the mysoginists get all the press.

Just speaking for myself, having grown up in a Catholic community, I can see both sides; I share your feelings about the ways in which the Catholic church has perpetuated and validated monstrous prejudice in the past, how its views on women for instance have impacted the lives of generations (it was as little as three hundred years ago that the Catholic church was officially still debating whether women had souls, given that they weren't 'real' human beings, but more on a level with the animals - the damage that perception has done to humanity on a psychological and cultural level is incalculable), or the way in which its views on homosexuality have helped to fuel an irrational and sometimes violent fear which has had serious repercussions for gay men and women. You can hold the Church/es accountable for a great deal of ill down the centuries. But I've also seen the way Christian tolerance and compassion have worked on an everyday level in the very tough, working class community I grew up in, for example. I have Christian aquaintances now that I admire hugely as people - their belief has made them open to the world and compassionate with it in a way that I feel I lost a long time ago, maybe around the same time I lost my religion.

d.a.walker wrote:I went to Portugal a few years ago and was hugely disturbed by the rich, gold drenched Catholic churches and the very poor little towns that surrounded them. All that wealth inside them, while people living outside suffered, starved and died. That is not right.

Completely agree, this is one of the issues that, for me, helped to dismantle the trust in the Catholic church that I'd been raised with. I did an awful lot of questioning when I got into my early teens and began to perceive and assess things for myself, with the result that I felt I could no longer subscribe to the established Church. That remains my view, and in recent years I've begun to understand, like many, how the entire Catholic church as we know it was founded on a highly selective and exclusionary interpretation of Christ's life and teachings. This is proving to be a fascinating and meaningful revelation for me, and very possibly a way for me to get back to Jesus without the services of an intermediary whose teachings I cannot accept in my heart.

d.a.walker wrote:The old school Catholic 'sect' is stamped across this film like a watermark in each cell. It's worth reading into the branch of the Catholic church Mel Gibson is a member of because it is truly very disturbing to have beliefs like that in this day and age let alone to then put it forth on celluloid in such a biased manner.

I agree with your sentiments regarding this particular sect Daniel, but I still don't see any evidence of it in this film. I think you're projecting issues from Gibson's life onto the film, which I can understand - I think a lot of people have done that with this film, from what I've been reading the past couple of days. But it's a very straightforward retelling of events from the Garden of Gethsemane to the Crucifixion, as far as I can see. It's the core of orthodox Catholic/Christian tradition, nothing eccentric.

d.a.walker wrote:It is a pointless gratuitous exercise in gore and piousness. I'm not quite sure what Mel thought was to be gained from it all, other than making himself some religious dollar.

Given that he sunk a huge chunk of his personal fortune into making it, with no guarantee of how it would be received - a film in Aramaic? - I would guess that making money was not his primary concern. For me it's clear that a great deal of love, energy and committment went into this project from all concerned, and the result is quite extraordinary; it's a picture intended to deepen and sharpen the understanding of Jesus' ordeal in order to reach people in a less abstract way than taught religion generally manages. In that I think it succeeds brilliantly.

d.a.walker wrote:It's a also a little difficult to not take the Antisemitism arguments seriously considering the documented evidence that now supports Mel Gibson's views, interestingly at a time when his actions were very much far removed from his publically preached faith.

This is what I mean by projecting issues on to the film that stem purely from Gibson's attitudes as a private individual - I don't think it's accurate at all. I watched this film in full knowledge of the director's unnattractive personal prejudices/behaviours, and I still didn't see any of it in the film. I think he did a pretty excellent job of toeing a fairly orthodox line. Sometimes it's possible for the artist to step out of the person.

blue wrote: I really don't see it, Sara - I find it hard to understand how it's anti-semitic, except that a modern audience is perceiving it through a contemporary political frame. The elements of the story are what they are - how can you tell the story without telling the story?

I'm back from work and beat, so I don't know how well can I answer all of this...The antisemitic layer is for me so evident and self-explanatory that I just can't put it to words. It's just there. The story is not only about the passion of christ nor about how evil can you portray the jewis priests. The choices he made are a big scream of partiality.

Um ... yes, I'm sure when Jesus was being scourged and crowned with thorns and made to carry his own cross he was surrounded by very loving Romans and Jews murmuring sweet nothings in his ear.

I don't believe for a second that the romans indulged in trying any possible whip on him, just for the sake of breaking him. There's a level of gore that is just NOT realistic. And I'm surprised to read that you actually think that all the people present were there full of hate and bloodthirsty...I find it more realistic to think that for the romans it was a routine they tried to execute as quickly as possible and some of the people were cheering, some were sad, some were indifferent, like in any other group of humans would happen...

I'm curious as to why you think he isn't telling the story, Sara? It seems very like the story I was brought up with as a Catholic.

Because it's just a part of the story and the way it's narrated in the movie it's more important that the elements he uses. A contest is important, especially in this particolar story. Without a beginning, an end means nothing, not to me at least. Where's all the rest of his life? Nothing is given to present this man as a whole persona and his 30 years before the passion are what make a man of him, not the last days. The fear you so much liked, is for me not enough to believe in the character Gibson wants to sell. I don't even find him really human, sorry! Besides, there are Italian actors in the cast which are for me very distracting from any credibility, for instance the devil in the garden, in the very same scene you like so much.
I can't believe for a second it can help faith in any way. To all the blood and torture in the film my reaction was " so what?". He suffered a lot, not the only one in that time, before and after. Then we should believe in all the other messiahs as well. Just because of his pain, he's not more believable to me, no matter how bloody you want to put it. It's actually disturbing to think to be a member of such a bloody based religion, especially if you think how much phisical mortification has been part of the church practises...Personally I had the impression the Christ in the movie wandered around as puppet. I prefer Jesus Christ Superstar then!

Catholicism outside Italy (apart radical people everywhere) is always a diluted version, sometime for the better. I'm happy to see they taught you the right things, but that's not what really goes down in the very populat religion. We still call people Juda to mean they are traitors, betrayers and I think there still is a festivities somewhere in the south related to the belief that Jews would kidnap and kill babies and fry consacrated ostias. I've been only to catholic schools all my life, I can assure you of what's really spread in terms of concepts and doctrine.
At the end it's the popular what really makes a religion.

They were simply turning viciously on a defenceless man who threatened their beliefs and traditions, as is human wont. To present it as anything else within the context of the story is just inaccurate. The larger context is provided by the only character in the story who DOES understand the spiritual necessity of what is happening, ie Jesus himself. His absolute forgiveness, his compassion for the burden he knows his tormentors will carry when he's gone, is completely natural within the context of the story, and sets the example we are clearly meant to follow.

You keep saying how vicious they have been against Jesus, but how can you tell they have been vicious? You get this from the movie or you always thought they had been vicious? When I was a child I mainly thought the priests were blind-deaf and afraid to lose power, I think different now. The larger contest is not the spiritual awareness of what's goin on, it's the real moment in time Jesus was living in. We can't forget that, because the state of Israel and the Roman occupation are the few real things in this tale. You don't need to be vicious nor ruthless to want to get rid of a threat for your state. As I said, I believe the problem for the Jewish priests was really more one of state administration than a solely religious one. I think they were entitled to such an action on this plane. The judgement that they were wrong is a moral one, not an historically and politically based one. And it is this judgement about how fiercely they turned him in and got him crossed that has been detrimental to a whole group of men for centuries. The church can persecute and kill, burn and torture any dissident, but the Jews are VICIOUS for fearing about their safety with Jesus? Sorry, it can't work one way only.
Besides, could Jesus really not be forgiving and all that? Don't think it would have fit his father's plans. It's still amazing he had the strength to forget his killers, yet he wouldn't be the son of god if he hadn't...

For me this one really did, this is another way it sets itself apart from previous cinematic depictions of Jesus. He looks like the people he comes from in this film, and speaks like them. It's a part of what makes him feel so human, here.

He looks and talks like the people he comes from, that's it? That's enough for you to percieve him as a Jew? Sorry, it's not. I need to see him pray, I wanna see his home relationships, nothing is shown about how Mary made a Jew of him with everyday's details, so important to form the identity of a Jew, there's a black curtian drawn on everything that belongs to a real man everyday's life...there's nothing about his conscience of being a jew, and a jew under occupation on top of that...I don't know, maybe I don't remember all the bits of the movie...

Puff, I need a little nap or I won't make it to the evening. I will read all the rest later. Thank you all for an interesting discussion!

witchy wrote:
I don't believe for a second that the romans indulged in trying any possible whip on him, just for the sake of breaking him. There's a level of gore that is just NOT realistic. And I'm surprised to read that you actually think that all the people present were there full of hate and bloodthirsty...I find it more realistic to think that for the romans it was a routine they tried to execute as quickly as possible and some of the people were cheering, some were sad, some were indifferent, like in any other group of humans would happen...

The cruelty involved in the Romans' treatment of prisoners is well documented, and the crucifixion rituals were particularly grisly. I suspect that people who chose to be around that didn't do so from some humanitarian wish to comfort the tortured, though perhaps an occasional one could feel sympathy for them - I'm sure most, though, were pretty desensitised to the suffering of those they were taught to regard as sub-human (a prevalent Roman attitude to criminals), and as history has shown us time and again, when one group regards another as sub-human, that is when the mob mentality takes over and unleashes cruelty on a level we find hard to look at. I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to make about the circumstances of torture and execution in the ancient world, or in any time, frankly. And isn't the mocking that Jesus was subjected to by his tormentors mentioned in one of the gospels? Certainly I was taught that it was part of his ordeal.

witchy wrote:Because it's just a part of the story and the way it's narrated in the movie it's more important that the elements he uses. A contest is important, especially in this particolar story. Without a beginning, an end means nothing, not to me at least. Where's all the rest of his life? Nothing is given to present this man as a whole persona and his 30 years before the passion are what make a man of him, not the last days. The fear you so much liked, is for me not enough to believe in the character Gibson wants to sell. I don't even find him really human, sorry!

But that's the stated aim of the film - to give an account of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. That's why it's called 'The Passion'. That's what The Passion is! Your criticisms don't apply, surely? If the stated aim of the film was to tell Jesus' life story, then you could accuse it of failing to do so if all it did was focus on the last hours of it. But it does exactly what it sets out to do. The preceding events are so well-known that the context is assumed, which is for me one of the things that makes the film so effective. By 'beginning' its telling at such a novel point, it shakes you out of the cosy abstraction you've lived with and forces you to confront the humanity of this character. I think it's supremely well done, a clever and hugely effective choice.

witchy wrote:Besides, there are Italian actors in the cast which are for me very distracting from any credibility, for instance the devil in the garden, in the very same scene you like so much.

That's hardly a legitimate reason to lambast the film and its makers, though, is it? Not their fault you can't take the devil seriously because he's an Italian actor.

witchy wrote:I can't believe for a second it can help faith in any way.

Which is not to say that it doesn't for some people, of course.

witchy wrote:Catholicism outside Italy (apart radical people everywhere) is always a diluted version, sometime for the better. I'm happy to see they taught you the right things, but that's not what really goes down in the very populat religion. We still call people Juda to mean they are traitors, betrayers and I think there still is a festivities somewhere in the south related to the belief that Jews would kidnap and kill babies and fry consacrated ostias. I've been only to catholic schools all my life, I can assure you of what's really spread in terms of concepts and doctrine.

Within Italian culture, as you say. You seem to be characterising Italian Catholicism as 'real' and the Catholicism of the rest of the world as 'diluted', which is quite a striking comment in the context of the discussion of prejudice. I don't believe the Catholicism I was brought up with was an inferior kind because it was taught outside Italy - all roads lead to Rome, as they say. If hatred of the Jews is taught in some Catholic cultures I'd guess it's more to do with historical attitudes in those particular countries, than the religion itself.

witchy wrote:You keep saying how vicious they have been against Jesus, but how can you tell they have been vicious? You get this from the movie or you always thought they had been vicious?

I was taught that Jesus was subjected to verbal mocking and humiliation during his ordeal, that this was part of his ordeal. But even setting aside the teaching, as a rational adult I would assume that people involved in torture and execution are not going to be fluffy bunny rabbits full of gentle words and kind gestures. I'm sorry Sara, I don't mean to come across as rude which I probably am, you know I have the greatest respect for you but I just cannot see why this is such an issue for you? I mean it's not even as if the film presents the purely one-sided view of the Romans and Jews that you seem to think it does; some are portrayed as good, some as bad, some as indifferent, just as you say you assume they would be. I'm beginning to wonder if we've been watching the same film.

witchy wrote:The larger context is not the spiritual awareness of what's goin on, it's the real moment in time Jesus was living in. We can't forget that, because the state of Israel and the Roman occupation are the few real things in this tale.

I think we're looking at this film from completely different angles. I'm treating it as the telling of a part of a well-known story and musing on how successfully it has fulfilled its self-stated remit. I don't feel any need to project wider issues on to it. I don't have any personal axes to grind, even though I very much disagree with a lot of the stances of the Catholic church etc. To me that is not what this film is about. It's a deeply personal expression of connection with the humanity of Christ, and as such it is an amazing piece of work.

witchy wrote:The judgement that they were wrong is a moral one, not an historically and politically based one.

We know from early Christian writings though that there was dissent about the treatment of Jesus from the word go. I don't think it was accepted with equanimity by those who believed in him, was it? Especially when the persecution he'd suffered was then directed at his followers.

witchy wrote:The church can persecute and kill, burn and torture any dissident, but the Jews are VICIOUS for fearing about their safety with Jesus? Sorry, it can't work one way only.

But no-one's saying it only works one way, certainly not in this discussion.

Of course the church is equally guilty of vicious treatment of dissenters, that tends to be the case with human beings, which is the point I made in one of my earlier posts. But this film isn't dealing with the Church. The 'church' didn't even exist during the time period the film is focused on. The church is something that didn't happen 'officially' until what, some three hundred years after his death? The film is dealing with very specific events in a very specific time frame. Projecting all this other stuff on to it is missing the point, I think.

witchy wrote:Besides, could Jesus really not be forgiving and all that? Don't think it would have fit his father's plans. It's still amazing he had the strength to forget his killers, yet he wouldn't be the son of god if he hadn't...

This is characteristic of the usual presentation of Jesus as an otherwordly, cerebral, above-it-all figure, but the gospels themselves tell us he suffered agonies of doubt and fear about his destiny. He was a man, a real human being, subject to the same terrors we all feel at the prospect of death, particulary a painful death. Even in his last moments on the cross, his doubt rings out - 'Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?' I think this in itself indicates that his compassion and forgiveness, his acceptance of his fate, were things he arrived at despite his ordeal. This is why his example is so potent and so affecting for a lot of people, even those who wouldn't describe themselves as religious. If it were a case of 'oh well, he knew he was the son of God, he knew he was going to be with God after his earthly death' etc etc, I don't think it would still be affecting so many people so powerfully 2000 years later. It's his humanity that arrests and inspires people, not his divine nature, and for me that's why the film is so successful - it conveys his humanity with such devastating conviction.

witchy wrote:He looks and talks like the people he comes from, that's it? That's enough for you to percieve him as a Jew? Sorry, it's not.

It is, for me, within the context of visual presentations of the story, yes.

witchy wrote:I need to see him pray, I wanna see his home relationships, nothing is shown about how Mary made a Jew of him with everyday's details, so important to form the identity of a Jew, there's a black curtian drawn on everything that belongs to a real man everyday's life...there's nothing about his conscience of being a jew, and a jew under occupation on top of that...

But none of that is there in the original story, Sara. The 'black curtain' over the everday details of Jesus' life as a Jew is drawn by the gospel writers, not by Mel Gibson. His film is a straightforward retelling of part of a story that's come down to us from the early Christian scribes. That is all. It doesn't say it's anything else, so to judge it as anything else seems superfluous to me.

witchy wrote:Puff, I need a little nap or I won't make it to the evening. I will read all the rest later. Thank you all for an interesting discussion!

I'm amazed you have the energy to write so well with a toddler running round and another one on the way. It is good to have some decent discussion for a change, though, I'm enjoying it. Not often we get such involved responses these days.

This is gonna take too much energy, so I'll try to be as short as possible. Iker is in bed and I'd like to eat something more, me hungry!

I don't deny the cruelty of punishments back then, my objection is over the fact that to me, in the movie, it really looked like they were a bunch of bullies willing to try anything just to hurt that specific man. This is what I can't really buy, not the fact that they did whipped him. I also think that we can't apply our sensibility to men of another era, it's a fact they weren't touched by the same things we are now. Mocking seems also pretty realistic in these situations, guess part of "the job", I just don't think they went over the top in this case alone. I think they had to be efficient more than anything else. But then...

Yes, he's talking about the end, but for me the way it's narrated it's a chicken without a head. It's so disconnected to anything that could make me believe in the character, that it's a flat specatcle. You keep saying how conving it is, I was trying to explain why it's not adding anything to the human Jesus to my eyes. I don't need to be shaken, I never had any cosy abstraction.

Excuse me, but the choice of believable actors is a basic requirement for a good movie. If I can't believe in so many characters of this movie, it is the director's or casting agent's fault! I can't see this as a minus point just because you don't see it too?

Wait a sec. I am not talking of any superiority of the Italian Catholicism. The point is, if we're talking of catholic church, it is one, apostolic, evangelic and ROMAN. It's not my opinion, I don't even believe, but it's this or the highway. You can be as free thinking about this as you want, but that's not how the church works. I am actually happy to see that somehow there still manage to be variants, but anything popping out too strongly, will be silenced. Jews-hatred is NOT specific to Italy, it's been intrinsical to catholic religion. Go read the doctrine for centuries I'd say.

Nobody is fluffy nor soft. Vicious sounds to me as willing to be mean and cruel and I just assume that if certainly there were, couldn't be a mass. It's just the word.

Again, it doesn't really seem so succesful to me in telling what it's supposed to be re-telling us when there's no context. You think it's of no matter, I think it is to be remotely convincing to me. If the point is Jesus' suffering, it can't be out of any context.

The judgement I refer to is more of a modern one, one that also shows in the movie, nothing to do with early christians. Still referring to the lack of context when we try to opinionate about the characters of this tale. Nobody said anything about the one-way in this discussion and there is no church in the time in the movie, but I don't feel for a second Gibson is rendering a neutral portrait of the situation. I just made an example about what's missing in relating to the Jewish priests in this movie, why words such as vicious or ruthlessly seem not applicable to me. Gospels are partial, Gibson is no less. That's all. I'm not projecting anything.

Yes he was afraid and he doubted, but he accepted his fate. The way I see it, it was all decided by his dad anyway, even the moment of weakness. I don't believe for a second he would have risked salvation!! He struggled about it as any other man, yes, but not for a second it could have ended any other way, ordeal or not. I don't mean to say there was no ordeal, the point was already made anyway. Jesus was fully man and fully god and faith is such a personal leap that I wouldn't bet on what is that inspires people. I was never inspired anyway, less and less by this movie.

It is, for me, within the context of visual presentations of the story, yes.

Well, isn't this pretty superficial? Especially when advocating so passionately about how realistic Jesus come out of the movie...all the things I listed are missing from the gospels, true, but what have Gibson done to make him more believable than in the gospels then? Give you buckets of blood beats in your eyes any shread of a more real Jesus? Bit puzzled...I am just explaing yet more things that work for me against credibility.

Well well, Iker was at the nursery today, he was back there yesterday already. He looks awful, but no fever and full of energies, so he can go. The other one is being gentle with me so far...but I should have eaten hours ago!!!!

Kissy kissy