The Passion of The Christ

Just wondered what the general feeling is regarding Mel Gibson's adaptation of the the last 12 hours of Jesus ?

I'm not a religous person myself but the story has always been of an interest to me and the film itself does look quite stunning.

A neccessary film to make or just a pretentious 'passion' [ahem] project ?
Anybody planning to see it ?

 

There's no doubt that crucifixion as practised by the Romans was ghastly. It was reserved for the worst kinds of criminals and traitors, and it was meant to degrade and humiliate utterly, while torturing the poor soul to death in the most agonising way possible. Representations of the Crucifixion in churches are highly sanitised, because the real thing is X-certificate material. The victim also did not have a nice, neat loincloth to keep him modest - he was strung up naked, with iron spikes through the wrists - if nailing through the palms of the hands was used, the victim had to be secured by ropes as well.

In addition, the Roman method of flogging was far worse than the Jewish Mosaic law "40 lashes minus one". It was done with multi-tailed whips tipped with metal and bone shards, which ripped great holes in the flesh, leaving it hanging in bloody strips. If the flogger got too enthusiastic, the execution squad was out of a job that day.

So, according to the reports I've read, Gibson's film is accurate in all these details. But the question is, why make this film? Do we really need flogging and crucifixion in all its harrowing detail? Especially when there's no counterbalance (or not much) of the life and teaching of Jesus? It smacks of a film made for religious enthusiasts by a religious enthusiast (Gibson is apparently a member of a conservative Catholic splinter group that continues to use Latin in defiance of Vatican II). A sort of Stations of the Cross in gory Technicolour. I am a Christian believer, but I'm not sure that this film serves any useful purpose other than satisfy a gruesome form of narcissism. I'll be giving it a miss.

 

But for an alternative Christian view (and it would appear not Tridentite- or Anglo-Catholic either), tones, see here

 

Hi, Graham, of course this is the sort of position taken by many US Fundamentalist churches. Can't say I agree.

 

Jesus' life and teachings has already been done by Franco Zefferelli in his wonderful film, even if you are anti christianity, this is a superb bit of filmaking and quite accurate in its details.

However, I don't know much about Mel Giblets new film, it looks a good bit of filmaking, so I may see it and form an opinion after it. However gruesome violence for its own sake is bad taste, so I hope there is more to it than that.

At least it will correct the sanitised myth, the Roman punishment is accurately described, so I really wonder why the church does make it seem nice and pleasant, surely if people are to be made aware of how someone died for us, isn't it far more sobering for us to know about the real torture, rather than something innocuous?

 

Yes, and what is really interesting is that the current papa, the "hammer" of herecy and non-conformism (especially in Africa and South America), has not excommunicated these particular heretics already.
Papal infallability. Don't make me laugh.

From my perspective, it is a depressingly literal and superficial interpretation of Christ's teachings. Of course, El Papavitch just lurves it: "It is as it was" or some such similar nonsense.
BTW, Roman rule was generally slightly more tolerant and no more brutal than that of most of the regimes that followed. And it was Roman hedgemony that provided Christianity with its global platform. Without Constantine, neither you nor I would be Christian.

 

Undeniably true, Joel. The Romans were actually quite lenient towards the Jews (whom they really never understood); for example, Jews were exempt from the compulsory military service levied elsewhere in the Empire. In addition, Herod the Great (the one of the Bethlehem child massacre) ingratiated himself rather well with the Romans, so that, when the son proved to have all of Herod's brutality and none of his political finesse, they simply deposed him and split the territory into four "tetrarchies", three for Herod's other sons and one a Roman procuratorship, under one Pontius Pilatus.

The Roman lack of understanding contributed to the spread of Christianity, because they took it as just another variation of officially-tolerated Judaism. By the time they cottoned on to the fact that this was far more dangerous, it was too late.

However, it is also undeniably true that Roman treatment of criminals, and most of all traitors and rebels against Roman rule, was incredibly harsh. The followers of Spartacus ended their days crucified along the Appian way, and a rebellion in Galilee about the time that Jesus was a boy there was put down with appalling brutality. And of course, in the final rebellion, the Romans literally levelled Jerusalem.

 

Not so sure I'd agree with you on this extraordinarily interesting point
Constantine's reasons for promulgating Chrsitianity as the official religion of the Empire are less than clear (as is the date of his baptism ) as far as I can see. But Christianity was not the only religion in the starting block. There were various other mystery religions vying for the No 1 position: Mithraism, Cybele and Attis, Isis and Seraphis, Dionysus/Bacchus, Orphism etc.
The point(s) at which the Classical world evolved into the early Christian world, far from being a dark age, constitute, in fact, an era of great political, intellectual and even aesthetic sophistication (in every sense of the word).
Think I'll have to go back and do a little re-reading. More later...

 

I'm talking at the very beginning, Joel - Constantine came much later. It was really Nero who started to make the difference, when he chose Christianity as a convenient scapegoat for his celebrated arson, when the Senate didn't approve his proposed remodelling of Rome. This was the time of the interesting gardening illuminations... The other factor was the revolt of AD 66 (famously described by Josephus), which effectively ended the tolerant policy towards the Jews. Constantine's conversion seems to have been a mixture of genuine piety and political expediency.

 

Well yes, the persecution is really what defined early Christianity and, perversely, what helped it prosper. The Roman populace was extremely superstitious, and most Romans, who were after all pantheists, would recoil from the idea of insulting a powerful spirit / God.
You are not going to like this, but there is an awful lot of syncretic synergy between Dionysus (as practised in the late Roman world), the cult of Isis and the Cult of Christianity. Rome, whoever happened to be in power, was highly a syncretic environment.
Back to the books

 

Because the Romans were pantheists (and Rome was chock-full of little temples to all sorts of dieties 'way beyond the borrowed ones from the Greeks), the religion often wasn't really the problem, it was the fact that the Christians point-blank refused to have anything to do with Emperor worship. Now the Romans didn't really believe that the Emperor was a god, but they were prepared to go along with it for peace and quiet - I mean, they thought, we all know it's rubbish, so where's the harm? However, when this group adamantly refused, the Romans concluded that these must be traitors to the state.

Before I decide whether I like it, I must find out what syncretic energy is! So, where was that book?

 

hmmm. The spread of Christianity is surprisingly rapid after C2. and Christians are to be found in increasing numbers in all strata of Roman society. Good Christians were quite ready to accept Constantine as Emperor and first Bishop (except for the Aryan heretics, of course).

Joel
Currently enjoying the Bacchic and highly syncretic synergies of Merlot and Grenache noir

 

I must say, slightly off topic, and don't mean to open a can of worms, I used to be a raving evangelical, not now, grew away, and have buddhist leanings and intellectual objections,

(I mean if God bashes Judahs enemies babies against walls, even normal humans, never mind the best examples, woudln't dream of doing this...) and if the new testiment god is the OT one, then he is still the same tyrant, ....anyway, that is by the by and may open a can of worms, sorry...

when I was, back to my point, I always felt christianity was a little 'lean' ie. with it having its roots with Jews, there is a whole load of wonderful tradition and customs and culture, and though not necessary for 'salvation', it really added to the understanding of where one came from so to speak.

ie rather like knowing more about your familiy history enriches your present existence, no you don't need it, but its far more interesting.

 

I don't mean to interrupt the very interesting discussion. But let me get back to the original point, the movie.

I didn't see it yet. I mean to see it. When i first heard of it I was shocked - making money out of the eagerness to see a horrible death - people often died not from wounds but just by the progressive rigidity of the breast muscles which *slowly* inhibited breathing.

But, during the old days of Christian faith, one was told to meditate on the death of Christ. The aim of this was to fully grasp the huge amount of suffering Jesus went through only for the redeeming of our sins. The message is: he took our sins into his pain; that is why that pain was unbelievably horrible.

So, if the film exploits it from this angle, it is an equivalent to the Grünewald Isenheim altar piece. I will point to a link if I can find it.

If this was made clear in the film, or if the churches manage to convey that image, it is worth the effort (from a Christian's point of view).

People are supposed to be humble before so much love towards us. That is a truly moving notion.

Before the lot of you start to bash me, I'm a strict materialist. But I am receptive to the beauty of the Passion.

The Isenheim Grünewald to be seen here

See also this detail; it captures the general mood of the painting:

 

Alle Kulture nach Auschwitz... ist Müll

Just stirring with that one.
As it happens I'm reading an interesting (if idiosyncratic) book on the concept of pain in Western art by Nigel Spivey, which opens with this phrase.

 

"Alle Kulture nach Auschwitz... ist Müll"

Hi Joel

Are you referring to my post?

I didn't say they were going that way - and why is it garbage? In the sense that Spengler is garbage? Yes, I could agree with that. Or else I'm missing your point. Perhaps I'm tired? :SLEEP:

Or probably I'm just being self-centered and you are not referring to my post. Care to enlighten a dulling mind?

 

Your post made me think of Adorno's phrase - which I only know because it kicks off Nigel Spivey's story of the portrayal (and understanding) of pain in Western Art which itself begins at the gates of Auschwitz and works backwards.
Nothing untoward intended. Just hoping to spark some interesting discussion in another direction.
It's not only a question of the artist's intentions, but of our reponse to the art.

 

RdS, I haven't seen the film either, but I don't like graphic violence for the sake of graphic violence, as so often occurs these days (when will they really start killing people on screen and showing the dismembered, still twitching bits?) - of course the Romans did just that in the arenas, so we still have a little way to go! It seems to me that, by concentrating on the Passion, Mel Gibson reduces it to that, because there is little other background. Of course it can be seen as a pictorial, graphic rendering of the St. Matthew Passion, but in those days, most people went to church and could place the events in context. These days, most people don't go to church, see religion as a quaint irrelevance and have no idea why Jesus died the way he did, so all they see is gory gory hallelujah.

The most effective film I've ever seen on the events was one I saw on television and have never seen again - it may have been made specially for television. This managed to present the political problems of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish supreme ruling council), how they were trying to keep the lid on Jewish passions, with the increasing expectation of the arrival of the Messiah to kick out the Romans (even the disciples continued to expect this after the resurrection!). Then, at Passover, with the city bursting at the seams with people, this Galilean upstart arrives in a deliberately Messianic fashion. The Sanhedrin realised the danger that this represented to the nation and to their position as rulers. He had to go. The question was; how? He had lots of followers still and they didn't want his blood on their hands. Moreover, they had no authority to carry out a death sentence. But the Romans had no interest in a charge of blasphemy, which meant nothing to them. So the charge had to be something that would stick with the Romans - such as treason, always a touchy subject with them. And so the plot unfolds...

In this film, the message of Jesus's suffering is put across with minimal gore - the Crucifixion scene is a Roman soldier shot from below, taking a swing with the hammer for the first blow at a nail - cut to Jesus who howls in agony - and that's it.

 

Hi, Tones:

I also hate visual violence and therefore agree with you. But you know the background, so you don't need to be reminded of the cruelty. Others might need it.

By chance yesterday, as I was retiring, I switched by TV set on - and they were broadcasting a feature about the making of the movie. While I was listening to what Gibson was saying I couldn't but feel he was being silly. But the excerpts shown were incredibly beautiful. It seems he inspired himself on Caravaggio and Filipo Lippi. Also, Aramaic is a very powerful sounding language.

I think I will go and watch the film. The last time I went out to see a film was about 20 years ago (!), and I don't think my wife will be coming with me - the Passion always upsets her. But if I can find the time I'll go and report.

 

I saw the film a few days ago. It's totally pointless; it's relatively accurate in it's depiction of the torturing and brutality of crucifiction, but to what end? I failed to comprehend. 2 hours of flogging, and being strung up, with occasional entrances by a 'devil' figure.

The media hype over the violence are way off base. Is it horrible? Yep. Does it match the kind of violence in many other movies? Not even close. As to the controversy surrounding the Jews role -- gimme a break. Where the controversy. Media hype to sell the movie.

Absolutely pointless, and a waste of $$

~ ~ Dave