do people honestly believe that the movie was snubbed because of the religious storyline, and not because the world at large doesn't believe it to be a "great" movie in any sense of the word? now, i haven't seen the movie, but i do not believe that it was shunned because it was the passion of Christ, people i talked to, Christians i spoke to, have just told me it wasn't anything great, as much as it was shocking...
[ January 27, 2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it. I don't think it came anywhere near deserving to be nominated for Best Picture. The only reason it got as much attention as it did (IMO) is due to content.
posted
And I should note that I was prepared to love it. I was excited when I first heard about the possibility of this movie and I waited with great anticipation. I had planned to take groups from church, and definitely the confirmation class.
Then I saw it. It was a let-down.
There was a major push to make this movie a bestseller in order to “send a message” to Hollywood. I lost track of the number of e-mails and letters I got urging me to see it over and over to drive ticket sales up.
The message here is not that explicitly Christian art won’t be recognized as great, it’s that art isn’t great just because it’s explicitly Christian. To quote Margie Brown, “Holy shoddy is still shoddy.”
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope, when I become a successful writer, I will care not a whit for awards. I hope that come gold, silver, or bronze that I continue to write things that are both pleasureable for me and for my audience.
I hope I never rely on nominations to tell me the value of a work.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. I’ve never heard anyone say they weren’t moved by the Passion. Oh well. Must be talking to the wrong groups again. Personally, I cried. To read the accounts in the Bible of what Jesus went through and then to see it in real life and know that he did this for a sinner like me was very over whelming. The only reason for it is love. It was his passion. Mel Gibson got this point across very well.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Scott, what will tell you the value of a work? (not that I think it is awards or anything)
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure some people refused to consider it because of the subject matter. I'm sure some people nominated it only because of its subject matter. And I'm sure some people voted for it on (or mostly on) their judgment of it as a film.
And I'm sure this happens with every single movie considered by the Academy.
posted
Actually, this is one of those movies we appreciated but we will not be adding it to our DVD collection. We do not wish to watch it again.
Other than being fairly overcome by the violence, there was only one point that really moved me. There could have been a lot more points like that.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who loves Jesus Might not be comfortable, but something to remember his sacrifice and what he went through.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, hopefully you are spending some time during every worship service doing exactly that. I don't believe you need a graphic visual depiction of it. In fact, I think such a thing removes you somewhat from the personal aspect His sacrifice and from the actual nature of the Atonement.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure I think about it. It’s not the same. Seeing something like that is about as close as you can get to being there. It let’s you get a better feel of how huge of a sacrifice and burden it was. I would have died at the first beating. Jesus climbed onto the cross to finish the job. I guess all I’m saying is that watching it gives a better appreciation.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the movie was excellent insofar as it is Mel Gibson's personal testimony, genuinely expressed in the best way he knows how. From what I got out of the whole experience, everyone involved was sincere in what they were trying to do, and for that I am glad.
Saying that, I don't think it was perfect. It had flaws. Not to say they weren't well-meaning flaws, but flaws nonetheless.
Also saying that, I don't want to see it from beginning to end ever again. And anyone who tries to tell me that I don't really love Jesus because I won't see it every easter deserves a kick in the crotch.
But not from me, as that would be unchristian. Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, the movie didn’t lead me to remember Jesus, or his sacrifice. I saw no connection between that actor on the screen and Jesus, other than that I knew I was supposed to make the connection.
Maybe if they’d started the story earlier, let me come to know the character before starting in with the violence I would have. Maybe if the movie hadn’t been so obsessed with the blood, even to the point of having Mary lovingly mop the floor instead of following her injured son, I would have. Maybe if there’d been any indication that this man was the vibrant, prophetic preacher/teacher/healer portrayed in the gospels, who came to proclaim good new to the poor, release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, liberty to the oppressed, and the coming of the kingdom of God, I would have cared.
As it is, I think people who love Jesus should read the story for themselves, rather than watching Mel Gibson’s particular interpretation of such a tiny fraction of it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I’ve never heard anyone say they weren’t moved by the Passion.
I wasn't. It was a snuff film starring Christ, for God's sake. The kind of people who find that sort of thing "moving" need healthy hobbies.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The story was about what Jesus went though in his last 12 hours before his sacrifice. Sure, I’d love to see the prequel. No I didn’t say if you didn’t watch you didn’t love Jesus. And of course people should read the Bible first and come to a knowledge of God’s love through there. All I am saying is that the movie can give a better appreciation of what God had to do to save us. And yes, Jesus death and resurrection on the cross is the most important thing we can learn about him and ultimately the only thing we need to learn from him. Not saying in the least that there isn’t a ton of other stuff to learn too. But if you miss this lesson, you’re burning for eternity. Just ask the thief on the cross. He only had time for this one lesson.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Ben and I have something in common. I have also not seen The Passion. My mom has it, but we always have our kids with us when we go visit her.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
No, Dag. That's exactly -- and perfectly -- what the movie is. That's all it is. Even disaster movies give us more time to get to know the characters.
It is a loving, beautiful, and excruciatingly detailed portrayal of the way one man is said to have been horribly killed. We get closeups of sweaty chests being ripped open to the bloody flesh beneath; we get agony in slo-mo. There's no discussion of the context of the death; there's no attempt to tell a broader story or make the violence any more relevant within the framework of a larger film. The violence is the film, in a very deliberately pornographic way. The entire movie is about how incredibly awful it is to be hurt.
posted
You’re forgiven. Glad you saw that I never said anywhere that if you didn’t watch you didn’t love. That would deserve a kick in the junk.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BS. Context is important in a situation like this. You're bright enough to realize this. "The entire film is about how incredibly awful it is to be hurt." Snuff films are about wanting to do the hurting, or enjoying the hurting.
The context for many believers watching it is not reveling in the pain and suffering, but in taking in a very important event in the life of their savior. The context doesn't have to be provided by the film, although I wish more had been.
I thought snuff films were supposed to have a sexual content to them? Maybe that is why people are upset with your characterization of the movie as a snuff film. It it implying that the people who watched it and were moved by it were moved in a sexual way.
posted
I would submit Jay as an example of someone for whom the violence was itself pornographic. Read what he wrote again.
Y'all know how disgusting I find martyr obsessions. Dude died. It probably hurt a whole heck of a lot -- more than most things, not as much as some things. Stop dwelling on it.
quote:Seeing something like that is about as close as you can get to being there.
And how was that an advantage? How many people were actually there, watched Jesus suffer, and got nothing good or spiritual out of it? Most of them. The very great majority of them. Even those who had followed Jesus all his life got only that their Rabbi was being cruelly put to death in the same way many people had experienced at the hands of the Romans.
Even His close disciples got nothing but sorrow through watching His torture and death.
You are limited in time. This movie was meant for people who already had knowledge of Christ. To show believers what exactly Jesus went though. Which is hard to argue against it showing that.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To show believers what exactly Jesus went though."
Why do you believe that is important, Jay? Would Christ's sacrifice have meant less if they'd beheaded him mercifully?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOTR wasn't really very "gory". We usually close our eyes during violent scenes, too, but didn't feel the need to during most of LOTR.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Right, Easter is when he rose again. But that was the end of the film. I really think a lot of people didn’t know what Jesus had to go through. You’ll be hard pressed to find an Easter play that doesn’t show the crusificition. Still. You are 100% right about everyone turning away though before his resurrection.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would submit Jay as an example of someone for whom the violence was itself pornographic. Read what he wrote again.
Y'all know how disgusting I find martyr obsessions. Dude died. It probably hurt a whole heck of a lot -- more than most things, not as much as some things. Stop dwelling on it.
Your blind spots and willful ignorance just amaze me sometimes. It's not about how you see the film - it wasn't aimed at you. Calling Jay's watching of the film pornographic is incredibly insulting to him and to the many people who do watch the film for the reasons he has espoused.
I'm not in favor of his blanket declarations of the necessity of the film to other believers, but his reasons for watching it and the reflections it produces in him are perfectly valid within the context of Christianity. A context you have shown not just an incapacity for understanding, but a desire to misunderstand.
posted
I was honestly amazed (and somewhat disappointed) when this movie came out that so many people, especially so many Catholics, seem to regard the crucifixion as the important thing about Jesus, rather than say his ministry and ressurection.
It does explain things though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tell me again, Dag, why it's necessary to see your Savior flayed alive in slow motion.
Explain to me how this is reinforcing your faith.
Convince me that it's bringing you closer to your all-knowing, all-powerful God of love, mercy, and beauty.
I'll warn you: it's going to be a hard sell because, yeah, I start with the default assumption that people who enjoy that sort of thing are suffering from a sort of mental illness.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why do you believe that is important, Jay? Would Christ's sacrifice have meant less if they'd beheaded him mercifully?
I think it’s important because it demonstrates God’s love for people. There will never be anyone who can possibly do more. Jesus gave it all. If they would have beheaded him it wouldn’t have fulfilled prophecy. So many prophecies were fulfilled at the cross.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was honestly amazed (and somewhat disappointed) when this movie came out that so many people, especially so many Catholics, seem to regard the crucifixion as the important thing about Jesus, rather than say his ministry and ressurection.
It does explain things though.
Gee, people discussing a particular aspect of their faith at a time when a movie about that aspect came out. Big surprise. Discussion about the film the Passion will, shockingly, be mostly about the Passion.
I'd be surprised if you were capable of accurately assessing what Christians in general or Catholics in particular regard as important about Jesus.
quote:Tell me again, Dag, why it's necessary to see your Savior flayed alive in slow motion.
Explain to me how this is reinforcing your faith.
Convince me that it's bringing you closer to your all-knowing, all-powerful God of love, mercy, and beauty.
I'll warn you: it's going to be a hard sell because, yeah, I start with the default assumption that people who enjoy that sort of thing are suffering from a sort of mental illness.
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to get you to show a modicum of respect and the tiniest bit of understanding that WITHIN THE CONTEXT of Christianity, your "default" assumption is worth exactly nothing.
posted
"I think it’s important because it demonstrates God’s love for people. There will never be anyone who can possibly do more."
See, I don't buy that. Christ suffered, but the physical suffering he endured, no matter how gory you present it on film, simply wasn't the worst pain ever endured by a human being. There are more terrible ways to die.
Now, you can make the argument that he also endured a form of spiritual suffering -- that he was made to endure the emotional brunt of the sins of humankind while on the cross. And that's fine, although not particularly cinematic.
But to say that it's important for us to know the brutality of crucifixion at a visceral level because it's important that he was whipped a certain specific number of times is just, IMO, a pornographic obsession with violence. It's like counting virgins in the Islamic version of Heaven; it misses the forest for the trees, and seeks to justify the glorification of brutality by applying it to a higher purpose.
--------
"I'm trying to get you to show a modicum of respect and the tiniest bit of understanding that WITHIN THE CONTEXT of Christianity, your 'default' assumption is worth exactly nothing."
Dag, if someone came to the board who claimed that his faith made it necessary for him to eat the flesh of living children, and that within the context of his faith this was a beautiful thing, and that he and his wife had raised a number of children in the faith who were perfectly willing to offer up the occasional bite, should I shrug and say, "Oh, gee, I guess within the context of your faith, my default assumption that eating children is a bad thing is meaningless?"
posted
Oh, good grief. Anyone who thinks the Passion is an all encompassing view of Christianity is missing the forests for the trees. Anyone who decides to watch it as an additional way of contemplating their faith is simply concentrating on a particular aspect of their faith at a particular point in time.
posted
Dag, Is that you're stock answer when people point out things that you don't want to believe about groups that you belong to? That we don't understand? Dude, you've proven with the Galileo thing and the Crusades or the Death Penalty or the "The Catholic Church never believed that unbaptised babies were going to hell" thing that you aren't all that accurate when it comes to stuff like this.
I do actually know what I'm talking about, at least as well as you. I'm willing to bet my knowlege of Catholicism is at leat as good as yours, considering all the times you've been wrong and it's been me that's told you so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jay as an example of someone for whom the violence was itself pornographic
Thanks for comparing my most personal intimate historical event in history to one of the most disgusting thing this sinful twisted world has to offer. Maybe I should quit posting on this thread. Tom you are obviously biased against me from the political topics.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: simply wasn't the worst pain ever endured by a human being. There are more terrible ways to die.
I pray you never have to find out. As the movie talked about, it was all the sin of all the world of all time. It is finished.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Thanks for comparing my most personal intimate historical event in history to the most disgusting thing this sinful twisted world has to offer."
Hm. So pornography is the single most disgusting thing on Earth, even compared to, say, war, rape, and mutilation? And you consider the mutilation and murder of your savior to be the most personal and intimate event in the history of the world?
Jay, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't see why I shouldn't disagree with it loudly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, Is that you're stock answer when people point out things that you don't want to believe about groups that you belong to? That we don't understand?
No, just to you, because 99.9% of the time it's true.
quote:Dude, you've proven with the Galileo thing and the Crusades or the Death Penalty or the "The Catholic Church never believed that unbaptised babies were going to hell" thing that you aren't all that accurate when it comes to stuff like this.
OK, Mr. Scientific Method can tell what people really believe, where is your study that Catholics believe the crucifixion is the most important event in Christ's life? Does it have a proper sampling?
"The Catholic Church never believed that unbaptised babies were going to hell" is absolutely true. Some Catholics believe this; it was never taught as official doctrine of the Church.
quote:I do actually know what I'm talking about, at least as well as you. I'm willing to bet my knowlege of Catholicism is at leat as good as yours, considering all the times you've been wrong and it's been me that's told you so.
What color is the sky in your world? Is it a nice shade of pink with green stripes, perchance? You've told me I've been wrong about Catholic theology, but NEVER ONCE have you backed it up with anything except your assertions.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
