posted
Hunh. I was moved by The Passion, more for its tender moments than the violence -- but those tender moments were moving because of the violence. I didn't feel dirty...I felt clean because of the last scene. But my feelings about the film don't derive from its quality, except the fact that it kept my attention and did not "throw me out" by poor production. I absolutely can't watch Bible stories at TV movie quality. I can't say I enjoyed the film. But I respect it for the feelings I had while watching. I also liked the choice of language and subtitling. Ultimately I cannot watch the movie with any dispassion or objectivity. So judging its quality as a movie is impossible, for me.
Whether it was Oscar material...I think it succeeded in being powerful. The depth of contention over it is proof of that, I think. Whether it is shallow or deep, pornographic or not, uplifting or depressing, it succeeded in arousing a response. What makes a movie Oscar Best Picture material? I detested American Beauty to the point that I shut it off before it was over. I hated Born on the Fourth of July as politically correct sap (though part of my issue with it was that it beat my favorite that year Henry V). I liked Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind, but while I do own a copy of one of them, I don't watch it as often as other movies on my shelf. So what makes a Best Picture?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
a camera and a script, and lights, and actors/actresses, and a director, and funding (no matter how limited it may be), and electricity...
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) The Passion was not "snubbed due to content", the Passion was honored with three awards, which is fairly significant considering the number of films which are entered each year. My personal favourite, I Heart Huckabees did not recieve any nominations.
2) I am not relgious or Christian.
I did not see The Passion. Hours of violence is not for me, not something that would make me feel good, or cleansed. Religion is not violence, it is miracles. Christ's story is not about his death, or how people of that age were executed by the Romans, but about the miracle of his saving the souls from hell and his rebirth.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hunh. I was moved by The Passion, more for its tender moments than the violence -- but those tender moments were moving because of the violence. I didn't feel dirty...I felt clean because of the last scene. But my feelings about the film don't derive from its quality, except the fact that it kept my attention and did not "throw me out" by poor production. I absolutely can't watch Bible stories at TV movie quality. I can't say I enjoyed the film. But I respect it for the feelings I had while watching. I also liked the choice of language and subtitling. Ultimately I cannot watch the movie with any dispassion or objectivity. So judging its quality as a movie is impossible, for me.
That sums up my feelings as well. As for TV movies depicting Bible stories, I do think there is one that succeeded - the TNT version of Joseph.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... I've heard a number of people say that they enjoyed those moments in the movie. For me though, the amount of suffering I'd have to endure to see those moments simply isn't worth it.
I don't understand the argument that seeing these things gives you a greater appreciation of Jesus' sacrifice. Does that mean that we now have a greater appreciation than everyone who has come before? Or is it a sign of the times we live where something like this can bring one closer to God?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not one that believes it (violent suffereing) has to be seen to be appreciated - I argued against a lot of folks who told me I needed to see Saving Private Ryan in order to appreciate what soldiers did in the War.
No I didn't. I can imagine the horror quite well without seeing visuals that haunted my sleep.
Like jeniwren said, and I echoed, it was not the violent portions of the movie that moved me the most, it was the tenderness between Jesus and Mary. The look on Peter's face when he realized he had denied him, just as Jesus said he would. John nodding his head when Jesus charged him with caring for his mother. And Mary visualizing her little boy falling down and running to comfort him.
That moved me, it gave me a glimpse of the humanity of Jesus, which was in a way more powerful than visualizing his suffering. I think the movie has worth, in that it can make you think twice about something you've read a hundred times.
However, it isn't something I plan to watch over and over. And as for academy awards, heck I don't attach to them enough importance to be offended that Passion wasn't nominated for something.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to cautiously agree with Tom, for the most part. I'm not certain I'd label the film porn, but a part of me asked when it came out why in the heck anyone would want to watch hours of violence - certainly not for the entertainment value, neh?
The question of the violence brings Martin Luther King to my mind. A good man, whose life ended terribly and prematurely. Now, not to compare MLK to Jesus - so don't go jumping on me - but if someone offered me a chance to watch a movie based on his death and *only* his death, and the film included up close and personal gruesome violence I'd be disgusted.
Even in my days of Christianity I never understood the fascination with Jesus's death. I understood why it was important, of course, but to me the life the man led was much more important.
posted
The importance of the death and ressurection of Jesus is closely tied to what you believed that death and ressurection accomplished.
My version of POTC (accomplished by covering my eyes at the violent parts) is very close to The Lamb of God. I loved them both.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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.
As to the question of why someone might feel it would be important to see it, I think the answer is incomplete without talking about the purposes his suffering is believed to have served. To echo Lady Jane, what may be faith-promoting to some people is remembering what this suffering did for them (I won't try to dive into that here), what very real purpose they believe it served in terms of their salvation, and that there was no other way that purpose could be accomplished and no other being in existence who could do those very things which were absolutely necessary to accomplish it. I haven't seen PotC, but what I've read here suggests that it doesn't really address the purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection (is that at least somewhat accurate?). So those people who see the events in the movie as necessary means to a very important end may be seeing something very different from those for whom the graphic suffering is of primary importance, or who see the 'brutality of the crucifixion' as the end in and of itself.
posted
I haven't seen the Passion of the Christ. If I do, it'll be on DVD so I can skip the parts that bother me. I'm quite interested in seeing the non-violent parts, not so interested in seeing the crucifixion itself. I know it's a painful way to die. I don't need to have nightmares about it to appreciate the sacrifice. In fact, I would really prefer not to have those images in my head every time I go to church.
I think, though, that most of those who were moved by the film did not enjoy the violence. In fact, I suspect that's part of the purpose of having such graphic scenes--it's *supposed* to be unpleasant. I'll agree that the movie fits the given dictionary definition of pornography, but I'm guessing the majority of those emotionally affected by it were horrified rather than titillated.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to understand why I haven't seen it. I think it was because several people said I was a bad person for choosing not to see it. I mean, that's just not the way to win friends and influence people. I heard it was pornographic from several people who didn't see it, who got that opinion from a friend of their teenaged children. So I'm not inclined to put a lot of stock into that evaluation.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but you don't believe in Jesus as your personal savior. I mean, if it was just James Cavaziel undergoing all that, that would be very distasteful.
I think really I have a distaste for Cavaziel from the Count of Monte Cristo. Oh, yeah, also the fact that Mel Gibson seemed merely Agnostic when he was running the junket for "Signs". Yeah, that's what it was.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, because when it's just a guy undergoing it the only purpose his suffering is fulfilling is the masochistic desires of the tortures, and when it is the Lamb of God all mankind is being sanctified through His sacrifice.
Actually I think that this is the exact reason why followers of Christ had such different reactions to ... umm ... non-followers. If you don't accept Christ as a God who died for your sins, then it's just a guy up there getting beaten for a couple of hours, if you do accept Him then to you it is (or can be) our Savior accepting your punishment for you, undoubtedly the most powerful act of Love in the history of the world. I recognize that I'm not the first person to say this, I just felt this was a good instance to re-enforce it.
quote:I think it was because several people said I was a bad person for choosing not to see it. I mean, that's just not the way to win friends and influence people.
Maybe it's because I was reading it in MT's imaginary voice, but this is the first time in recent memory that I actually laughed out loud at a post.
posted
I believe a couple people who do believe in Christ have voiced that they also find the film pornographic.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure who (if anyone) that was directed at Mack, if it was me I was just pointing out why I find it ... unsurprising that non-Christians don't see the film as anything more than a snuff film.
posted
Tom you’re being a partisan offensive hack. The only reason you’re using the term “pornographic” is because you know it is offensive to people who find meaning in the Passion of the Christ. This truly shows your colors and maturity level. For you to try to get under the skin of people in this way instead of having a civil discussion on a topic is the single most disgusting act of desperation on your part to try and stir your own sick little fantasy.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both Tom and Jay have engaged in telling others how they should react to this film, and implied those who don't react in that way have some kind of moral or mental failing.
posted
In a strange coincidence, a group of kids in the after school program at church today told me that they’d just seen this film. They range in age from 5-10. I’m very disappointed that parents would let children that age see it. Just because it’s a religious message doesn’t change the fact that it is an “R” rated film (and it deserved its rating).
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to figure out what party, exactly, has sick fantasies about engaging people in conversation about Passion plays. I don't actually recall it on either national platform.
And before you go calling me sick, Jay, keep in mind you had an "intimate personal experience" while watching your personal savior being whipped so hard that gobbets of flesh spewed from his wounds. In slow motion. For three hours. Nothing personal, kiddo, but I'd say all my hangups -- even the ones involving Jello and cheerleaders -- pale in comparison.
posted
I agree with that, dkw. I might let teenagers see it, but not 10 year olds, and certainly not 5.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know Tom, I’m really starting to loath you more then I should. You’re rude. Inconsiderate. And a pompous ***. I’ll still be praying for you though.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, I've pointed this out before: the death of Christ, as a sacrifice, is meaningless. Unless you don't believe in an omnipotent God, Christ's death is in the first place completely arbitrary; he doesn't have to die in order for God to forgive our sins. But even if you don't -- if you are, say, Mormon -- then the death is purely a transitory moment of pain across an eternity of Heavenly bliss and transcendence. It's not a sacrifice at all, unless by his sacrifice Jesus actually denies himself a spot in Heaven.
(Note: there are some doctrines -- fringe and otherwise -- in some faiths which specifically address these points. Many believe, for example, that the nature of Jesus' "sacrifice" was primarily spiritual, and that the physical torment was essentially unimportant. Clearly, however, Mel Gibson disagrees.)
-----
BTW, Jay, I think your last post is an excellent example of how incredibly vile "I'm praying for you" can be. It's a shame, because I'm normally glad to accept all the prayers I can get -- but, frankly, I don't want any prayers you might offer on my behalf in the spirit you're clearly offering them, and neither do I believe does your God. Prayers which intend nothing more than to change my heart and mind to more closely match your own desires are not honest prayers; they're weapons. And announcing your intention to pray for someone, at least in situations like this one, reflects badly on people of genuine faith.
posted
Dag, would you say it's fair to describe Saving Private Ryan as pornographic? (As a side note, I've watched SPR but not PoTC.) If so, why isn't the much more up-close-and-personal violence in PoTC pornographic?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom- I think OSC was saying that the physical suffering was a reflection of the mental suffering, and that's what made it compelling for him. I think that church is somewhat unique in its teaching on the spiritual sufferings being greater than the physical sufferings.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods to Trisha* It's not that unique; as I understand it, a number of religions address that possibility -- although it's clear, too, that it's mostly possibility, speculation about tribulations never clearly identified.
And that's fine.
But PotC is not a film about physical torture standing in as a metaphor for spiritual sacrifice and/or transcendence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think (to attempt to drag this thread kicking and screaming back to the original topic), that the same attitude that would let young kids watch this movie in spite of the R rating is what makes some people so determined that it should get a “Best Picture” award in spite of the fact that it wasn’t particularly good storytelling.
As an extended meditation on the suffering of Christ, in the tradition of Julian of Norwich and some of the other mystics, I think it was fairly successful. But it was (heavily) marketed to churches as an outreach tool and promoted as a mass-market movie. And as either of those, I don’t think it was very impressive.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, would you say it's fair to describe Saving Private Ryan as pornographic? (As a side note, I've watched SPR but not PoTC.) If so, why isn't the much more up-close-and-personal violence in PoTC pornographic?
quote:Hobbes, I've pointed this out before: the death of Christ, as a sacrifice, is meaningless. Unless you don't believe in an omnipotent God, Christ's death is in the first place completely arbitrary; he doesn't have to die in order for God to forgive our sins.
I can't answer for people of other faiths, but to me, well, let's just say that God has all the power in the universe, and yet there are laws that He can't break, like the law of justice, which is why Christ's sacrifice is neccesary. I suppose that amount of power could be defined as omnipotent, or not, whichever you want.
quote:But even if you don't -- if you are, say, Mormon -- then the death is purely a transitory moment of pain across an eternity of Heavenly bliss and transcendence. It's not a sacrifice at all, unless by his sacrifice Jesus actually denies himself a spot in Heaven.
I don't think that's true at all. I mean if that's true then it is compeltely impossible to sacrifice at all bcause we have so much other time where we're not sacrifice. You're saying that Christ, who in the religion you mentioned, suffered every sin and trial of every person born on this Earth out of Love for us didn't actually sacrifice because after a while it will have been a long time ago? I think that's like saying it doesn't count as a sacrifice to give more than you can really afford to charity because you'll still have food on the table at the end of the week.
quote:But PotC is not a film about physical torture standing in as a metaphor for spiritual sacrifice and/or transcendence.
Not unless you make it about that.
Did you feel Schindler's list was pornographic? I mean, it did have a sex scene in it to show... I'm not sure what. But mostly there was depictions of incredible degradation and suffering. I may be off base in thinking that suffering was any more meaningful to you than what people are trying to say The Passion meant to them.
Jay, I believe you mean well but there have been several threads devoted to the discussion of telling someone you are going to pray for them. It's best to just do it privately.
posted
Those of you who enjoyed (if that is the right word) the film, what is your opinion on the men in the Phillipines who, in order to "get closer to God," torture themselves each year by re-enacting the crucifixion on Good Friday?
posted
Jay, I would pause for a moment and consider whether a prayer offered not out of love for your fellow man and hope for his well-being, but rather a mean-spirited desire to change and rebuke him, to shame him into recognizing your own "charitable" impulses, is an appropriate offering to your God. I am not a particularly spiritual man, but even I recognize that this sort of sentiment is poisonous to the soul.
I do not presume to know the mind of God. But consider whether your God would prefer that you spend your time praying to spite the people you loathe, or praying for the strength to overcome your loathing.
posted
I have to admit I often think of the passage in The Brother's Karamozov where that girl who likes to slam her finger in the door says she'd like to watch a child be crucified while she eats pineapple jam.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think (to attempt to drag this thread kicking and screaming back to the original topic), that the same attitude that would let young kids watch this movie in spite of the R rating is what makes some people so determined that it should get a “Best Picture” award in spite of the fact that it wasn’t particularly good storytelling.
To be fair, Oscar has a long, proud history of rewarding movies for content over good story-telling. I still think my analysis on the first page is the right one.
posted
dkw, I can't see it as an outreach tool at all and that was not how our pastor said it was promoted to him. He said that when he saw the pre-screening, it was out of respect, asking for feedback.
And while I would show it to my nearly 12 year old son if he wanted to see it, I would discuss *everything* that was going to happen. Knowing that helped me a great deal and I'm *very* glad I didn't go to it without that knowledge. No way would I take a 5 year old. And I'd only take a child after I'd seen it, no matter what the R movie.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Tom, continue on your pompous ways. What I pray and how is personal and between me and God. Read my words again carefully. I put it very plainly. For you to assume what is said is rather self-important of you and assumes you know my mind. I think if you would just take some time to consider what you say before you type your arrogance might not show so much.
posted
Dag, I agree with your analysis on the front page. Which is why I think the people in the link in the initial post, who think the movie was "snubbed" becasue Hollywood is anti-Christian are way off base.
jeni, I have no idea how the movie was introduced to the people who were invited to the pre-screenings. But I filled my office trashcan more than once with direct-mail offers for "Passion of the Christ" door hangers, invitation postcards, and outdoor banners. Plus offers for marketing plans to "grow YOUR church with The Passion. "Heavily promoted" was an understatement.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, Tom, continue on your pompous ways. What I pray and how is personal and between me and God
Then why did you make a post about it?
Jay, really, please tone down you're rhetoric, you're antagonizing Tom for not appreciating the sacrifice of someone who we both worship because He died for all sinners, Loved everyone, not just us.
posted
Jay, "loath" is not a verb. You cannot "loath" someone. You can, however, "loathe" them. But, ironically, the verb does not mean the same thing as the adjective.
From the same site: loathe to dislike, be hateful, from lAth : to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance : DETEST synonym see HATE
Are you suggesting that your God is intolerant and hateful, per the definition of the word? Somehow, I doubt it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
