wainot

The below is a slightly edited version of what I just posted on the message board:

I was reluctant to see The Passion..., and just saw it a couple nights ago on DVD. In some ways, I wanted to wait till some of the controversy died down beforehand, so I could watch it with more of an open mind. Anyway, the reviews of this movie on this website - both pro and con -are generally very well-expressed, so, I'd like to put my opinion out there as well. One more preface to my comments: I was raised (and continue to practice) within the Jewish faith. I only point this out to show that my own religious education (through my own confirmation at about age 15) did not teach us about Jesus, the Crucifixion, the Passion, etc...So, I am certainly nothing of a Christological scholar, from a historical or religious standpoint. Also, in many ways, I don't "get" one of the central themes of Christianity, that Jesus died for our sins. That does not mean that I don't respect that this is an extremely powerful concept. In fact, I have great respect for anything that moves people (in any religion or philosophy) to act more thoughtfully, more humanely, more lovingly, etc...Just as I condemn anything used by any faith or philosophy that is used to show superiority, or to divide us, etc...

Anyway, I am deeply troubled by Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, on a number of levels. To me, as a film, it was weak. Other than choreographing violence and hatred on a sickening level (perhaps, Gibson's intention), what else was recommendable about this movie? In fact, after the hundredth lash (usually delivered by a deliriously happy Roman "sickie"), etc., where was there any emotional connection?

Also, the flashback sequences, which could have been used to really tell Jesus' story, fell extremely flat for me. Were they effective for anybody else?

One of my main objections to this film is that we are shown next to nothing about the greatness, and ultimate goodness, of Jesus. Let alone his brilliance, his special gifts, his charisma, etc. I know that this was about the last hours of his life (and what he went through) but there was almost no connection to the man himself. Again, the flashbacks provided me with little or no depth and connection to the larger story.

Does this movie do any good service to anyone, except for, maybe, the Pontius Pilate fan club? Again, I am no scholar on this period of history, but I have read quite a few writings of many (from all faiths) who have leveled strong criticism against this version of the story. And, it just seems a little heavy-handed,, and fallacious, to present Pilate as a weak, though conscientious, statesman-like figure who was coerced into punishing (and then crucifying) Jesus by Caiphas and the angry Jewish mob.

One of the main questions about this movie is, "Is this film anti-semitic?" I am not going to read/quote all about Gibson's personal views, nor those of his father. His viewpoints do, however, come out in his film. To me, most aspects about the storytelling in this film were muddled, and it was somewhat unclear- at the beginning of the film- into whose hands Judas was delivering Jesus. (Of course, it was to Caiphas, the high priest, and his Council). From shortly after that point, however, it is clear that Caiphas and the Jewish mob are shown to be powerful, unreasonable, unethical, and desperate to be rid of Jesus. Motivations? Who knows.

It's just hard to believe that a group under the control of the Roman Empire would exert this much control. So, is this an anti-semitic portrayal? Of course, especially, if you consider that throughout the centuries, great violence to the Jewish community has often followed reenactments of the Passion. And, if Gibson were not making this point, why show the Jews in this horrible, two-dimensional light (and implying that they are responsible for all the violence that subsequently befalls Jesus), while showing Pilate as a thoughtful (but somewhat powerless) man. Even Herod was more of a curiosity, an ineffectual buffoon (as he may have been in reality - I don't know).

Another question: Why was the Resurrection given almost no screen time. Why couldn't Christ's suffering be put into a greater context?

Other questions: What positives did anyone get out of this story?

In what ways was this film indicative of the Passion Plays that are reenacted? Does it square with how this is taught in religious schools, or churches?

Again, the message, if there is one, that I take from this sickening and violent (and to many scholars, fanciful) film is one of hatred. And, that's a crying shame, to use a very old cliché, when you are making a movie about a man who represents goodness, greatness, love, and all good things.

I just saw this on dvd. This was a movie that I wanted to embrace, but just could not. To back up for a moment, I never saw the Spanish language film on which it was based, Abre Los Ojos. So, whether that film was far superior, about the same, or somehow not as good, is irrelevant - for this purpose.

The performances were fair to good - Cruise is a reliably good actor - this represents a solid performance. Cameron Diaz was pretty good, Jason Lee did fine, but Penelope Cruz's acting (now, at times she looked gorgeous, and watching her dance is a pleasure) left something to be desired. My guess (judging from this and Captain Correlli's Mandolin)is that she is much better, and much more natural in Spanish language films. But, even w/ a great performance by her, this film would not be very good.

I believe the set-up is ok, and some of the ideas expressed are pretty good, but the story is somehow a little bit self-important or trying too hard to say something or to provide twists. I don't believe this is Cameron Crowe's best work at all. I liked Almost Famous a lot, and actually think Jerry Maguire was one of the superb works of the 90's. Look at Crowe's writing, and the performances from everyone in the JM cast-- almost, a perfect mix of dramatic tension and comedy). And, I know that this is a different style film, but I felt that the music (he does have good taste in music) was a substitute for memorable dialogue or pacing -- it just felt like a bad montage of music videos. The movie repeats lines of dialogue as if they are the most clever things ever written, but they're just ok. And then, the movie has, in my opinion, the nerve to steal a scene and the wonderful score from To Kill A Mockingbird (off a flimsy pretext), when Vanilla Sky couldn't "carry Mockingbird's jock", so to speak...Anyway, this film just seemed too self-conscious and too derivative of other films to really go anywhere. Not a terrible flick, but for me about a 6.5 out of 10.