Pope Says Gibson's 'Passion' Realistic

[DuctapeFatwa]

Pope John Paul II has seen "The Passion," Mel Gibson's Biblical epic on the crucifixion of Christ, and said the film "shows how it was," a Church official said Thursday.

The official said the film's co-producer reported that the pope told his secretary the film was an accurate portrayal of Christ's death. "It shows how it was," the pontiff was quoted as saying.

The pope's apparent approval of "The Passion" follows similar praise from several top Vatican officials, who have rejected complaints by some Jewish leaders who say the film suggests Jews were responsible for Christ's death.

Gibson plans to open the film in the United States on Feb. 25 -- Ash Wednesday on the Roman Catholic calendar.

http://www.portervillerecorder.com/articles/2003/12/18/ap/Entertainment/d7vgvido0.txt

[PartyPooper]

1. I know he's old. But, was the pope there at the crucifixion of Christ?

He said, "the film shows how it was."

:eyes:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

2. Do you know anything that might contradict the official version?

[Ediacara]

4. I have read

That Roman's didn't execute people on crosses, but instead hung them by their hands from posts.

[ironkelt]

26. But

Romans generally allowed conquered territories to keep alot of their traditions, cruxafiction was a Jewish form of punishment, not to say that alot of other cultures didn't run with it also.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I know Wikipedia doesn't have to be right

but it says the Romans used crucifixion regularly. Certainly it's commonly said that Spartacus was crucified, before Jesus was born.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

[ironkelt]

30. not to say that alot of other cultures didn't run with it also.

[DoNotRefill]

34. They've found evidence of crucifixion....

in the area during the time period. The evidence consisted of a mummified human wrist with the iron spike used still embedded in it. It dates to the approximate time of Christ (within 100 years either way, IIRC).

[FlemingsGhost]

3. If it weren't for his fists full of money...

John Paul would give this film two thumbs up.

Prai$e Jesus.

[Gman]

9. Must you say something offensive?

Must you bash the Pope and Catholics? What do you accomplish by this other than to feel good?

[3rdParty]

5. 1st realistic movie about the passion of Christ

The movie simply follows the gospels. Unlike most movies based on history - this movie does not gloss over parts or make up stuff to make the story more interesting. The story speaks for itself. I am looking forward to hearing Christ speak using his actual words.

[Malva Zebrina]

6. nice of the Pope to comment

positively, but even a superficial perusal through the gospels would demonstrate numerous contradictions and confusions regarding the death of Yeshua. I hate to throw a monkey wrench into someone's beliefs, and I don't think you are wrong to have those beliefs, but the fact is that the story of the crucifiction is indeed full of contradictions and some of us have seen that side of it clearly.

For hundreds of years, even centuries, the church has taught that the Jews killed Jesus, This was a prevalent teaching in the church up until even the 1960's and is reponsible for much of the hatred aimed at the Jews, not only in Nazi Germany in our time, but in all the inquisitions that persecuted Jews over hundreds of years. I don't know how the movie presents it--but it is well to remember that it is a movie and not a scholarly dissertation or history or factual by any means.

[noonwitch]

7. You're right about the church's teachings in the past

The church does not currently teach that the jews killed Jesus.

Depicting some of the jewish leadership as plotting to get Pilate to kill Jesus is an accurated portrayal of the story in scripture. So is showing that most of Jesus' followers were jewish, as was Jesus. Some of the members of the council were followers of Jesus, such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimithea. There is an important distinction to be made between this and portraying collective guilt on all jews for the crucifiction of Jesus. If the movie is vague about this, it is not an accurate depiction of the scriptural story.

I really don't think Mel Gibson's intent in making this movie is profit (or he would have dropped the idea a year ago) or to portray all jews as responsible. I think, from the website and trailers I've seen, that the intent is to realistically present the drama and to show the suffering and the violence involved in this story that many of us think of in sanitized ways, because most images of Jesus are not of his death, but of his life or his resurrection. Except for the gory crucifixes, of course, but that's not a part of my protestant backround. The crucifixes are a fixed moment, not a moving story.

Obviously, I'm intrigued by the concept of this movie.

[priller]

8. Wrench caught...

Look, the gospel accounts are clear that the Jewish religious leaders conspired to have Jesus killed. They couldn't legally do it themselves, so they convinced Pilate that Jesus was a threat, so the Romans would execute him. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that's what they say. And I fail to see how there is anything inherently anti-Semitic in the gospel record. I mean, Jesus and his followers were also Jewish, the gospels were written by Jews (except for Luke).

[letthewindblow]

10. Moral of the story

is not that Jews/Romans/Jewish religious leaders... killed Jesus.
The moral of the story is that RELIGIOUS LEADERS killed him. They would kill him again.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

11. B.I.N.G.O.

and BINGO was his name-o

B

[cally]

12. Exactly

The point is not that Jewish religious leaders killed Jesus, but the powerful, rich, elites religious leaders consorted with the government to kill Jesus.

[Malva Zebrina]

17. and of those, does a , broad brush collectivism extend to them?

Surely, if you give it some thought, some amongst them do not collectively deserve to be labeled as the killers of Christianity's holy icon either. The fallacy is that we have names for people--and it is the case that these names do apply to all. We simply cannot go about qualifying everything we would like to say about the "Jews" killing Jesus. Personally, I think there were only Jews there amongst the Romans--and the majority of citizens were Jews. A few were followers of the Jew, Yeshua, and some were members of different sects, such as the Essenes--nevertheless they were all Jews.

If we really want to find out who they were and place the blame squarely on their shoulders, as some seem to recommend, we can, as has been done by some geneticists, trace back modern day Jews to the DNA of the priestly class of Jews who were in the position of power in that year or time. These classes are inherited things, as I understand it, and are still extant in some Jewish sects -and someone could have a lot of fun with that one also, eh? How long before someone says the brush is too broad?



I am going to take for granted from these responses here, that it is still in the theology that Jews killed Jesus, or Yeshua--except we should not blame Jews collectively--we should blame, collectively, the "rich" and the "powerful" Jews. Is that right?

I do not wish to debate whether one's faith is wrong or right. That is not a satisfying pursuit for me, especially amongst younger people who have, perhaps, not quite developed their powers of criticial thinking when it comes to their religion.

I do apologize to anyone here, if you take this as a criticism of your religion or your faith. It is not my intent to do that--it is the truth as I see it and a discussion that would depend a great deal upon the maturity of the participants in order to have a good discussion. I am as progressive thinking in my exploration of religion as I am in my politics.

I do enjoy reading, and discussing, many contemporary religious writers on this subject such as Crossan,(information at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060614803/002-4171879-8084034?v=glance#product-details) Robert Funk , Elaine Pagels and Karen Anderson--these are not "inspirational" writers, so I would not recommend reading them if anyone is seeking spiritual inspiration or prayer-like meditation. I would recommend reading them if one is curious about the roots of religion and/or exploring issues that are, indeed, in depth ,philosophical, analytical, and more factual than the bible.

[cally]

24. I agree with you

and maybe I did not make myself clear. I do not blame Jews, or even a few specific Jews. My point was that rulers, who happened to be Jewish, were threatened by Jesus. If we take the point to our time, then the rulers and religious leaders are often threatened by dissenters and new ideas. Sorry, I offended you.

[Malva Zebrina]

25. not offended at all Cally,

:hi: Maybe it reads that way because I am struggling to put forth my points without offending the faith of other people posting here.

[demdave]

14. The moral of the story is that Christ willingly died for our sins,

I guess a subplot could now be that some will quibble about irrelevent minutiae, is that too redundant, in order to obscure that fact. I believe it is only a method of expressing ones hatred and intolerance for other's religious beliefs without looking like it.


Merry Christmas and God bless us one and all.

[letthewindblow]

15. Yeah,

but who killed him? Hypocrites.

[colorado_ufo]

32. It was politics, politics, politics.

[fjc]

21. Actual words?

Does anybody actually know what they actually were?

[SpiralHawk]

13. The Da Vinci Code Vs. The Passion of Christ

The epic Culture War Battle lines up for 2004.

Gotta wonder if the Pope has read "The Da Vinci Code"? I doubt it.

[RetroLounge]

16. If it so damn realistic, is it a Documentary?

or just more fiction?

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. Everybody knows Jesus was a white man who spoke English

and shopped at Wal-Mart.

All this stuff about him being some kind of Middle Eastern radical is just a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.

[fjc]

22. That depends..

on whether you regard the gospel story on which this movie is based. What's interesting here, I think, is that Gibson et al all say that they do not intend any anti-Semitism. They're just presenting the story as it is in that one gospel story. But the anti-Semitism, to use the modern term, is already "in" the gospel story. How else can you account for the persistent anti-Semitism throughout the history of Christianity?

[loudnclear]

19. Last time I looked the Bible said the same thing...

I mean, who was that crowd anyway clamoring for Barabas?

[demdave]

20. I'll try again, NOBODY KILLED CHRIST!! He willingly died for our sins.

If you understand Christianity AT ALL you would understand this.

[DrWeird]

23. So what you're saying is- Jesus commited suicide for our sins.

I see.

[FlemingsGhost]

27. Actually, it was "assisted suicide."

Shhhh... don't tell Johnny Ashcroft.

[Malva Zebrina]

29. and that is funny--LOL

:toast:

[PartyPooper]

31. Yes it is!

:D

[LanternWaste]

39. I don'ty think it's applicable....

If you consider a soldier in WWII, telling his pals to get to safety while he mans the machine gun nest to save them regardless of his own safety a 'suicide', then I suppose you could consider Christ commited suicide.

To me, the word 'suicide' implies someone who's just had too much of a bad world and doesn't have the strength to continue. In that color of the word, I don't think it would be applicable.

[colorado_ufo]

33. Yes, He died willingly for our sins,

but He did not commit suicide. This gets deeply into the concepts of pre-destination, etc., of which none of us has full truth or knowledge.

[DrBB]

35. "Realistic"? Pfffaggh. With the lead played by the traditional

...caucasian, ringletted movie-star-looking white guy, doing their best to make him look like he walked out of a cheesy Halmark Cards or Color-by-Numbers Jeeeezus picture? The received imago christi: watered down renaissance idealization, in place of the dark-skinned semitic person he would actually have been. How realistic.

Leastways that's what the stills have all looked like to me. Same old same old same old.

You know who DID get it right? The friggin Discovery channel, how's that Mr Billion-Dollar-Budget Gibson. They did a piece on what Jesus would have actually looked like, based on physical anthropology, and in a recent series looking at findings in biblical archeology, they stuck to their guns--the actors playing the parts actually looked like ordinary Middle-Easterners, not like caucasian fashion models somehow translated from the pages of an Abercrombie catalog to some scruffy village in Judea. A vastly more involving and moving approach in my opinion. Good for them.

If your faith is genuine, I'd like to ask Mr Gibson, then how come you have to FAKE it when it comes to what these people actually would have looked like? Instead of the easy-to-love, European-handsome Jeeeezus we've had for centuries? For years I've wished someone would do this; kind of a hobby-horse of mine, so forgive the rant. But I mean, it's now how many years since Gore Vidal pointed up the patent absurdity of these images in "Live from Golgotha" (his Jesus is a short, dark-skinned, fat little guy with an annoyingly squeaky voice)--and still the same old soulful iconic European Jeeezus from those horrible Christmas cards my grandma used to send me.

But hey, conservatism is all about confirming unexamined gut-feelings, prejudices, stereotypes, not challenging 'em.

Realistic my ass.

on edit--As in:

[oscar the cat]

36. historicity or theater

I understand that Gibson is trying to portray the events listed in the Gospel, but I don't think that the skin color of the actors is relevant for people who know about theater. It has been a long standing tradition, especially in european theater, that you cast based on talent alone, not on the race, color, or other innate traits of the actor in an attempt to suit the character. I saw a version of Hamlet once where Hamlet was played by an english actor of african descent. The character Hamlet, who was a Dane, was most likely not black. I've also seen Shylock played by an asian man. Nobody criticized the producer or the director for not casting according to race because everybody understands that talent supercedes race.

You can't criticize Gibson for casting based on talent over race. I think it is a moot point to point out to anyone these days that Jesus was not a white european with Fabio's hair wandering around in Jerusalem.

[DrBB]

37. You're joking, right?

I mean, I'm quite conversant with cross-cultural casting, but it seems to me you've got the thrust of that practice exactly wrong.

There is nothing NON-traditional about this casting decision; quite the opposite. Jesus is ALWAYS cast as a caucasian, despite the fact that the historical figure wasn't one. And "based on talent alone"? Give me a break. Look at the guy: talented he may be, but the casting director and Gibson were obviously looking for a certain physical look--a guy who exactly fit the physical type you see in greeting cards and saccharine religious tracts. I'm quite certain--as most proponents of non-traditional casting would point out--that there are plenty of great non-caucasian actors; the reason for going with someone like this is precisely the OPPOSITE of the kind of vision that allows a director to cast a black actor as Hamlet.

I see it as a missed opportunity, not part of some slavish need to always cast white actors for "white" parts, asians for asian ones and so on. In this case it would be exceptional, and I think it would lend a dimension of palpable historicity to the drama, an added layer of resonance and evidence of a willingness to take risks in the name of getting people to look in a different way at a very familiar story. That was what I understood Gibson to be claiming to do here, which was why I was so disappointed to see him casting the same old type as always for the lead role.

Quite the opposite of casting an Asian as Shylock or whatever.

Oh, and I would contest the assertion that cross-casting can be fairly characterized as a long-standing tradition: a) this isn't Europe, and b) this is a movie, not theater. I too have seen many such productions, particularly on college campuses (cross gender as well as cross-cultural) but I would hardly consider it mainstream even now, though the practice has been around for decades. And certainly not in big-budget Hollywood movies. But it's a side issue.

[Malva Zebrina]

38. You do not need to ask for forgiveness

it is, after all, only a movie. And I agree. No one knows, actually, how the man Jesus, if he indeed, did exist, looked. No one really know if Jesus did exist at all. ONe thing is for certain, Paul morphed the human being , Jesus, into a god and he used the propagandist technique of incorporating the existant pagan themes, into that of the Jesus--the god who was resurrected--who was sacrificed and whose body and blood is eaten every day,symbolicaly by man who believe in that god.

One shocking work of art, a panel of five photographs, by a woman, Renee Cox, called "Yo Mama's Last Supper" points this out, succinctily, imo.

All sorts of artistic imagination over the years, has depicted the Jesus as whatever the artist wished. Cox, here, depicts the saviour and the lord as a woman , a naked woman, which has great psychological import. Notice also that the apostles are black except for the Judas.

On edit:
The woman depicted as the lord and saviour in this photograph, is the artist herself.

[LanternWaste]

40. I suppose I'm not as tuned into this stuff as you guys are...

I suppose I'm not as tuned into this stuff as you guys are. In all honesty, I can't tell the difference between a man of Hebrew descent from a man of Italian descent from a man of Californian descent. I suupose my naivety has advantages after all...lol.