posted
Hi Anna. Sometimes being English just forces me to try and steer away from the more serious discussions. But yeah, I found the soundtrack quite impressive, i thought it complemented the movie well - maybe i'm just a sucker for classical and instrumental huh?
But coming to the movie, i've heard this discussion many, many times. I'm surprised that it still continues so far after the release of the film. In honesty i should just keep away from the religious points - mainly because i'm at work and don't have the time to sit and keep up with more knowledgeable folk this side of The River.
But, as a piece of film-making i found the graphic use of images "moving" - (that's right - moving!) Stripping away the religious context and looking at the film in a more biographical sense, how can you not be moved by the huge suffering of this man? Perhaps the film could have been toned down and focused more upon the events giving us less of an eyeful of the violence - i certainly wasn't "enthused" to see a semi-naked man being flayed. But, as i always say, if it sounds like it's going to offend - don't watch it.
The directing and production was certainly up to scratch, and although not a speaker of either language i was impressed with the acting talent that conveyed the emotion of the scipt to me despite my lack of verbal comprehension.
The potent imagery - notably involving the alluded parallel between Mary and Satan - as polar opposites - worked terrifically. Not to mention the constant light/dark contrasts and the obvious religious symbolisms.
I also read further up - sorry i forget who - made mention of Pilate's wife being a 'supporter' of Jesus. Well if i'm not mistaken, i would have to check however, this is mentioned in one of the Gospels. (One of the four, out of sixty, Gospels Constantine decided to allow that is )
Oh and lastly.
Tom.
You know Eraserhead had the saving grace of introducing the world to "In Heaven (Lady in the Radiator Song)" right? Posts: 200 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the soundtrack was great. The only thing I didn't like so much (which is on the list of problems I have with the movie) is the very last scene--the ressurection. Instead of music exhibiting the joy and triumph and glory of the ressurection (a la Handel's Messiah), it's forboding and ominous. As in, believe in me or else. I take umbrage with that view.
Other than that I thought it was excellent music that conveyed the emotions of the movie very well.
posted
It depends what you consider healthy, Ben. Do you believe a discussion of whether or not torture can be spiritually attractive to people based on their faith is one that's potentially worthwhile?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag and Tom, you're both very confidant, strong-willed men who are coming at this movie from *completely* different sides. Like you didn't know that, huh?
Dag, I can see where Tom is coming from on a lot of points. In some ways - and I think especially from the secular POV - the movie is "sick" and people who enjoy watching that amount of violence perhaps should be worried over.
But, please understand that to this secular-type person, a lot of the aspects of religion are just completely crazy. I'm not meaning this disrespectfully, ok? Take communion - "hey, let's drink some wine and pretend it's blood!" Now that's dumbed down a bit, but I think you get the general idea. For me communion rates right up there with talking in tongues - both are kinda weird. While I can rationally understand that baptism, communion, etc. are symbols, those symbols don't have any emotional context for me, though I understand that they do for others.
I think that the secular/religious opinions on this are so far apart that coming to some kind of agreement will be almost impossible. The film evokes a gut response from both groups - emotion from the religious, and disgust from the secular. That's generalizing, I know.
posted
"While I can rationally understand that baptism, communion, etc. are symbols, those symbols don't have any emotional context for me, though I understand that they do for others."
What're even more intriguing to me are those religions for which these aren't symbols, those which believe that literal and actual changes happen as a result of these rituals. Consider the eucharist, for example, which is said to change in no physical way but which is transformed in spiritual essence into the body of Christ -- without, again, changing in any way which it's possible to observe. It's this kind of thing that I find simultaneously fascinating and horrifying about faith.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Sick" refers to the person being described, and is not at all subjective. "Sickening," that is, something that makes another sick, is almost certainly subjective.
But Tom has made no bones about the fact that he considers this akin to sexual perversion. It's not that he finds the movie disgusting that's problematic, but that he finds anyone who can obtain positive benefits from it "sick" that is the problem.
So, yes, I stand by the Chick comparison. It seems more and more apt the more I think about it.
posted
In fairness to Mr. Chick, Dag, I believe there is a matter of relevance and degree here which you're discounting. If you're going to argue that our positions are equivalent, you may as well argue that anyone who finds, say, child pornography abhorrent is no better than Jack Chick, who after all disapproves of stuff and is therefore bad.
Or does someone have the "right" to say that child pornography is abhorrent, and the people who engage in it "sick?" If they do, but Jack Chick does not, there is clearly some delineating factor which distinguishes the two cases. What factor do you believe that is?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's this kind of thing which I find simultaneously fascinating and horrifying about faith."
*Big nod* Yes! That is the perfect way to describe it. Though I guess a religious person probably looks at the life of a secular person in much the same way.
posted
I think that several factors turn this film away from being "sick", and that because of Tom's lack of Christianity, some of those don't apply and therefore the film appears sick (correct me if I'm wrong).
1. This film, although gory and detailed, actually depicts something that, if you are a Christian, actually happened. It wasn't invented by Mel Gibson or the writers if the Bible. It's merely "truthful" if you will.
To Tom, a non-Christian, such detail seems invented specifically to make us cringe, not just vividly and truthfully represented.
2. The fact that Mel Gibson chose to show everything that is written about in excruciating detail is a choice perhaps not to stir emotions but to merely not cut bits out, something he may view as a failure of all the movies before his.
To someone of delicate sensibilities, such depiction of violence is over the top and misplaced, and to someone who is not a Christian, it seems like strange masochism (sp?) and what verges on "sickness" where as the filmmaker and religious viewer sees it only as the most truthful view of the death of their Lord.
However, If Mel Gibson portrayed the violence in slow motion (did he?) that would be in my mind, focusing solely on the violence, in which case I think that Mel Gibson is getting the wrong end of the Christianity stick- or at least an end I'd rather not have taken.
posted
Nope, Dag. I'm saying that people who enjoy it are sick.
In the same way that I feel confident saying that child pornography is bad, and people who enjoy it are sick. And that drugs are bad, and people who enjoy them are sick -- a position, mind you, that I know offends Danzig. And that sex with strangers is bad, and people who enjoy that are sick.
And watching someone being brutally mutilated in loving slow motion is bad, and people who enjoy that are sick.
------
Teshi, the issue of whether or not it actually happened is completely irrelevant to my disgust. Enough people genuinely were crucified in similar ways that it's not like this is the product of Gibson's sick imagination (although he did take a few cinematic liberties, but YMMV); I would be as disgusted if people were lining up around the block to see a movie about the crucifixion of Random Joe.
posted
“ Yes! That is the perfect way to describe it. Though I guess a religious person probably looks at the life of a secular person in much the same way.”
*nods* Yes. I am simultaneously fascinated and horrified by people who play who play golf on Sunday mornings.
posted
Tom keeps trolling for anger. Pretty sick. He seems to find his own little glee in it. Gee. Go figure. Guess he has to find his emotional response somewhere since he doesn’t seem to understand the passion behind the response. It’s impossible to understand without that personal relationship. Trying to say that we find pleasure in someone being beaten as we cry for them. It’s rather disturbing that Tom’s comparisons try to provoke negativism.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not want to see this movie. I don't like watching violence in movies because I feel it. I think that there are other messages Jesus had for the world besides his brutal death, such as compassion. But, for some reason, that aspect seems to be looked down upon these days.
*reminded of Braveheart* I did NOT enjoy that scene even though they didn't show anything in detail... I hate watching people get tortured or raped in movies so much.
posted
“The fact that Mel Gibson chose to show everything that is written about in excruciating detail . . .”
He actually added a lot of detail and some entire events. This movie is NOT a play-by-play of events recorded in the Bible. And yes, there was heavy over use of slow-motion.
posted
Now, Destineer, you know perfectly good and well that Tom has never "dug" a graphically violent scene in his life! Tsk, tsk.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You've never enjoyed/been moved by a scene of graphic violence in a film?"
Sure. As I've pointed out, not all movies with graphic violence in 'em are pornographic in their depiction of that violence. Saving Private Ryan, for example, or Schindler's List, both skirted that line to some degree; in fact, there were scenes in the latter that I found rather unnecessary, and consequently I don't particularly revere the film the way many other people do. And of course several horror films are deliberately and consciously pornographic in their use of gore, to the point where their excesses become self-parody -- but, then, the audience for those movies are aware of their pornographic desires, even if they'd never describe them in that way.
There are a few films, however, that wade in wretched excess for its own sake, while simultaneously denying that it exists. IMO, "The Passion of the Christ" is one of 'em.
quote: Teshi, the issue of whether or not it actually happened is completely irrelevant to my disgust.
But that's a little of the point. I think it's kind of sick, you think it's sick but neither of us reveres Christ as our God. The people who do, I think, see it slightly differently.
However, I gather from one of your posts that it is filmed in slow motion in places. That, I believe is focusing on the wrong thing, deliberately playing it up. Mel Gibson may be a little strange for doing this.
Also, I'm not sure people 'enjoyed' it. I think they found it cathartic, to a degree.
posted
I’ve decided that Tom is more then just sick on here. Tom is pornographic. Tom’s posts are a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction in those who find meaning in the Passion of the Christ.
So.... According to Tom's own definition he is pornographic. Very interesting.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, I find it intriguing that you are so personally invested in my opinion of your taste in entertainment. Is there any particular reason why your self-image is so bound to what you believe is my opinion of you?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, seeking something out for catharsis is not much different from seeking it out for pleasure. Strong negative emotions can be just as alluring as strong positive ones. Nobody is saying you were happy to see Christ beaten, however, you did seek out the experience as strong emotional stimulus.
I really think the problem here is not that Tom finds the whole idea of Christianity repellant (though he very well may) but that the particular detail exclusively shown in this movie was an excruciating death with no context for it to have a wider meaning. If it hadn't been a guy cast to look like the stereotypical Jesus or the five second scene at the end, the film itself could have been any story of betrayal and torturous execution. Respect and appreciation for Christ's sacrifice does not mean dwelling on the torture he went through. If a friend gave his life for me and was tortured by the Russian Mafia, and they sent me a videotape of the procedure, I wouldn't want to watch his agony.
I really do think John McCain is a good example. Respect for his service and sacrifice does not equal a desire to see his suffering in a Vietnam prison represented in gory verisimilitude.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm mainly responding to Jay because at this point I find his personal distaste for me rather fascinating. He seems oddly attracted to me, to be honest, in the way that some people like to slow down for car wrecks. And I can't quite figure out why. Maybe, as demosthenes has pointed out, he seeks catharsis.
quote: Jay, I find it intriguing that you are so personally invested in my opinion of your taste in entertainment. Is there any particular reason why your self-image is so bound to what you believe is my opinion of you?
Interesting. Since you were those one who has been offensive on people’s tastes in entertainment. I could care less what your opinion is of me. I just find it intriguing that your own pornographic reference points right back at yourself. Be sure to add your pornographic tendencies to your resume.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is not the way in which Christ died that is important, it is the fact he died. He didn't face death because he knew it was going to be long, painful and gory, he faced it because he had to die. If it had been a blow to the head with an axe, a guillotine, the electric chair or a lethal injection it would have been the same.
I've heard this position from fellow Mormons often, and I have to disagree.
The drawn-out horribly painful method of death is important because it gave Christ lots of time to change his mind about going through with the Atonement, and strong incentives to do so.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are a few films, however, that wade in wretched excess for its own sake, while simultaneously denying that it exists. IMO, "The Passion of the Christ" is one of 'em.
Perhaps these are grounds on which someone could disagree with you without being "sick." I didn't think the violence in PotC was excessive, given the filmmakers' aims. (Not social aims, but what they were trying to do with the film.)
That aside...
I think you're setting a very bad tone in this thread. Reminds me of some of the vicious Ornery threads I've seen you involved in, which led me to abandon that forum pretty quickly.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been watching for a response to |desmosthenes|'s question back on page 3:
quote: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?
I repeat it not as a challenge but out of genuine interest. I have my own concerns about the depiction of violence and how it affects people -- certainly, there is evidence that it does lead to desensitization and "everything's a nail" thinking. However, I'm not sure that's a digression we want to go into. (But if someone does, it could be interesting.)
I remember, though, that some years back a young man on this forum posted that he found it useful to watch violence and imagine that his family was being threatened -- he seemed to enjoy the rush and believe that this kept him prepared to defend his family, if need be. (Does anyone else remember this thread? It's long gone, I'm afraid.) As I recall, there was some agreement with him expressed by others here.
I'm much more uneasy with portrayals or re-enactments of violence than sex, so I guess Puppy and I are pretty diametrically opposed. I can accept that, but I still wonder how those that differ from me in this point feel about the Phillipenes example cited by |desmosthenes| above. Is it also a good thing? Or is it different, and if so, how?
Thanks! I promise to listen, and I promise I'm not setting anyone up for attack.
Thank you! Please remember the interview I had a few weeks back. My church family. A good friend of mine is sick. And my half marathon next week. I greatly appreciate it. That might be a good idea for a weekly thread. Prayer requests.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is not the way in which Christ died that is important, it is the fact he died. He didn't face death because he knew it was going to be long, painful and gory, he faced it because he had to die. If it had been a blow to the head with an axe, a guillotine, the electric chair or a lethal injection it would have been the same. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've heard this position from fellow Mormons often, and I have to disagree.
The drawn-out horribly painful method of death is important because it gave Christ lots of time to change his mind about going through with the Atonement, and strong incentives to do so.
The reason Mormons tend to hold this view is because the atonement happened quite a bit earlier than the scourging and crucifixion, in Gethsemene. And as horrible as his death was, it was nothing compared to taking on the sins, sorrows, and pains of the entire world in Gethsemene.
I guess because of that belief I have, I could distance myself at some level from the gory violence of the movie.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I responded to that post. But I'm not going to click on the link. It sounds rather sad.
Still, people with martyr complexes have the same end in mind. They think suffering makes them more Christlike. Suffering has meaning, but it is not to make us Christlike. Christ suffered to take away our suffering, so when we wallow in suffering we reject his offering.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm so sorry, mothertree! I didn't realize you were responding to |demosthenes|. I understand your post much better, now.
I'm reposting it below just for continuity:
quote: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.
quote: The drawn-out horribly painful method of death is important because it gave Christ lots of time to change his mind about going through with the Atonement, and strong incentives to do so.
I agree with sm. Gethsemane was the place of the real torment. Up until then, he could walk away. As soon as the Romans caught him, whatever death he faced was inevitable. He couldn't change his mind- he wouldn't have, it wasn't a test, the choice to allow himself to be caught was the test.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason Mormons tend to hold this view is because the atonement happened quite a bit earlier than the scourging and crucifixion, in Gethsemene
As I understand it, our Church teaches that the Atonement began with Christ taking upon himself the sins of the world at Gethsemane (this is in contrast to some other Christian theologies) but was completed with Christ's death on the cross. Some Mormons regard the two events as completely separate, but this is not correct doctrine, and I don't know where it came from.
All emphases below are mine:
quote:And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King.
"The Purifying Power of Gethsemane" Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Ensign, May 1985
quote:The Atoning Sacrifice Jesus’s atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary. In Gethsemane He submitted to the will of the Father and began to take upon Himself the sins of all people. He has revealed some of what He experienced as He paid the price for our sins:
“I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
“But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
“Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
“Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men” (D&C 19:16–19; see also Luke 22:44; Mosiah 3:7).
The Savior continued to suffer for our sins when He allowed Himself to be crucified—“lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world” (1 Nephi 11:33).
On the cross, He allowed Himself to die. His body was then laid in a tomb until He was resurrected and became “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20). Through His death and Resurrection, He overcame physical death for us all. He later said:
“I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
“And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
“And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
“And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world” (3 Nephi 27:13–16).
from True to the Faith entry on Atonement
[ January 28, 2005, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gethsemane was the place of the real torment. Up until then, he could walk away. As soon as the Romans caught him, whatever death he faced was inevitable. He couldn't change his mind- he wouldn't have, it wasn't a test, the choice to allow himself to be caught was the test.
I disagree with this statement.
The truest suffering was on the cross not in Gethsemane.
Jesus had to bear the price for sin, he had to be the sacrifice. While he bore the burden of sin, he had to suffer it alone because God can have no part of sin. So, God turned away from him, while he suffered the sins of all. That is what was meant when the skies darkened and he cried out "My God why have you forsaken me?" on the cross.
Gethsemane was full of agony for Christ, as he looked ahead to his death, but it was nothing compared to the agony of being separated from his father - something he only experienced on the cross.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have tried to find that quote before, Yozhik. Thanks.
I think the confusion may arise from the doctrine of physical and spiritual death. It is sometimes assumed that spiritual death is atoned in the Garden, and physical death on the Cross. But as you say, the "atonement" or assuming the guilt of our sins and infirmities occured both places. I think the basis for many saying the suffering was worse in the garden may be due to him "sweating as it were drops of blood". And in the Garden he asked the Father to remove the cup from him.
In Jesus the Christ Talmage pretty much agrees with Belle's assessment. Interestingly, there seems to have been four phases of the Atonement. Three at Gethsemane, with him returning to awaken the Apostles in between, and during the third sweating blood. Then the fourth is while he hung on the cross and cried "why has thou forsaken me".
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Hi Anna.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Maybe, as demosthenes has pointed out, he seeks catharsis.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
