We saw the Vienna Choir Boys last week, but we’re not gonna blog about it.Posted by Rick on February 26th, 2004
Okay, I had a post about all the things I didn’t like about The Passion. I changed my mind, and I’ll talk about what I liked.
The personality of Jesus: He was pretty fun. He wasn’t a wuss, but he wasn’t impersonal.
Umm…this is kinda boring. Anyway, I thought the movie was okay. I mean, it was pretty good, ya know, for a movie. I just don’t know why people think this is the definitive film.
The blood and gore wasn’t as graphic as Ebert made it sound, but I was personally pretty grossed out. Gibson got his point across. I don’t think it’s nearly as graphic as I’ve always imagined the crucifixion to be, but I don’t usually dwell on the physical beating of Christ for 45 minutes straight. I was kinda glad when they put the cross in the ground so that I wouldn’t have to see any more blood, but then the soldier cut open his side and danced a jig in it…or something like that. I thought the blood and gore was over the top, but I think that’s kinda the point.
Um, this post is shorter than the last one. I’m tired.
February 26th, 2004 at 8:38 am
I thought Mel Gibson’s shouting out of every detail was amazing! First, the crushing of the serpent’s head that made everyone jump…then I got CHILLS as the bag of thirty silver pieces cartwheeled in the air in slow motion when Caiaphas tossed it to Judas, then they spilled, so you had to watch Judas slowly pick up each coin he received for committing the most egregious sin in history…AAGHH!!
February 26th, 2004 at 7:41 pm
I don’t know. When he was “dancing the jig”, I was watching making mental parallels to baptism. He then dropped to his knees, next to the beloved disciple and mother.
Then again, I don’t know.
February 26th, 2004 at 8:14 pm
Don’t get me wrong. There’s great theology all throughout the movie, but it’s just a movie. And I guess I was expecting something totally different. As a movie, it’s pretty good. On a theological level, it’s pretty good. As a story, I’m not so sure.
February 27th, 2004 at 7:26 pm
Is it the cool Reformed thing to not like the movie or pick on it? I just don’t get it. No offense to you Rick, I personally loved it and yet I see all this ‘no big deal’ thing from people and am amazed at it.
February 27th, 2004 at 11:18 pm
Actually, I’m the only person that I know that said anything negative about it…oh, and I’m Lutheran, Joel. Goodness.
And like I said (or maybe I didn’t), it’s fine for a movie. It’s just a movie though. It’s not like this huge paradigm shifting thing that most people have made it out to be.
February 28th, 2004 at 9:07 am
Rick,
I agree with Joel. What’s the deal? It is a huge shifting thing. It amazes me how reformed people seemingly miss HUGE HUGE opportunities to witness; usually due to their own pride. This is THE film on the crucifixtion, and is one of THE first big opportunities to have a massive witnessing campaign in the 21st century.
By the way, you contradicted yourself: 1) “I don’t think it’s nearly as graphic as I’ve always imagined the crucifixtion to be”, and then you said 2) “I thought the blood and gore was over the top…”
So, what’s the deal?
Andrew
February 28th, 2004 at 9:47 am
I think from the comments of Mesh, Jeff M. and others its like they almost deliberately want to find something to disagee with, that’s all. Like if everyone else is on the bandwagon, we can’t be.
So your theology is Lutheran or you are simply going to a Lutheran church?
February 28th, 2004 at 12:04 pm
Andrew, I think they didn’t need to show the gore. It left nothing to the imagination.
Also, Jesus probably wasn’t whipped nearly that much. Jesus took on mortal flesh. The true suffering was in bearing the weight of the world’s sin, not in a whipping. As someone pointed out yesterday, there’s just no way he could carry that cross after that physical beating and still be a mortal man. The suffering is in taking on and conquering death.
So I spoke incorrectly. Christ’s overall suffering couldn’t have been shown to the height it truly was, but the movie was plenty “graphic,” even over-graphic. Does that make sense?
Joel, I don’t even know who Mesh is, and I haven’t read Jeff M.’s comments. I don’t know or care what’s popular in the Reformed view. The Passion, at many points just doesn’t agree with the Scriptural accounts.
Peter confessing his sin to Mary? Peter’s denial scene. Read the Scriptural account. Compare it to the movie. It’s way off.
I mean, honestly, it’s a fine movie. It has some strong and emotional moments. It just has problems. It’s not definitive, and it misses the point of the gospel narrative.
The Resurrection is an unexplained footnote, as is the descension into Hell.
Uhm, I’ll be willing to talk about the movie more once Rachel has seen it. I don’t want to give away much more though since she won’t be seeing it til Monday.
My theology is somewhere between Lutheran and Presbyterian. I was just joking around though.
February 29th, 2004 at 10:43 am
I grew up hearing my father’s accounts of the passion narratives. He’s done years of research, under scores of scholars and professors, on what would’ve taken place during the Crucifixion. As of right now I’m taking the Passion Narratives class at Graham again to refresh my memory. Though I loved much of what I saw on screen, I thought the scourging still only scratched the surface. Truthfully most prisoners meant for crucifixion never made it past the scourging. They often died before ever finishing.
The Jewish scourging would’ve been 39 stripes, of course, because for some reason the 40th often kills the one undergoing it. Romans however, were not bound in their law to stop at 39, but Jesus was not killed by the scourging, so they most likely stopped before that number. My point is that during the film, Christ’s skin, though mangled, was still on His body. The fact is, by the time the scourging stopped, Christ may not have even had skin left on His back at all. Oftentimes entrails came out during Roman scourgings. This is why it would’ve hurt so much when the soldiers stripped the robe off His back(the blood and bare tissue would’ve dried and latched onto the material, and would’ve been torn anew with the stripping away). So, honestly, though Gibson went as far as he thought our audience could handle it, he probably realistically didn’t go far enough. It made the point though, pretty effectively.
I agree that the Resurrection was a footnote, but this film was meant as education on who Christ was and by what price we were bought. Sure it’s not meant to be the Gospel, but rather a historical narrative on a narrow theme, and you’d agree I’m sure. Pastor Meyers is right, I think, it was an artistic confession of faith, and a confession is never exhaustive, it is a summary of the Gospel, a cliff note.
As far as the places(ie Peter’s denial) that didn’t match with Scripture, you’re right. Some things were overlooked(ie the soldiers falling backward at confession of Christ’s identity in the Garden), but taken as a whole I think it succeeded in its mission: showing the love of a God who’d take on that much physical abuse PLUS all our sins…..just because He is merciful. So, we agree overall. I give credit where it’s due, and think Gibson has done a great service to the Church, if we won’t be lazy. My main purpose in writing this post was only to show that as rough as Gibson made it, it could’ve accurately been even rougher.
P.S.-When they pierced His side, they probably hit the Cardiac sac, which, if improper fluids gathered in it too quickly, can hold over a liter of blood, purulence, and effusion fluid(serum leaking out of blood vessels). So, it’s possible that could’ve happened.
Hope you’re doing well, man. Ttys.
February 29th, 2004 at 12:51 pm
Btw, I have to say it….Happy Birthday Rick and Rachel!
February 29th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
Well, they hit him way too many times. I have no doubt that the damage would have been that much, but had Jesus lost that much blood, it would have been pretty hard to carry that cross. And in the Gibson film, he walks for miles. It just doesn’t make sense. But yeah, it’s an artistic representation, so it works.
On the Resurrection, that’s true; it’s not exhaustive. And again, the pain was in the taking on of sins. That’s what’s important. And even if the Resurrection is a footnote, that’s just a sad one. They could have done something a little more, or a little different. It didn’t sit right with me.
And yeah, it could have been rougher.