Student seeks opinions on 'The Passion' - why so many negative responses?

[rikkidunbar]

There have been many negative responses to this film. As a film student, i am trying look at why these responses ocurred. In Britain the film passed through censorship with no cuts made, even though the level of violence was quite severe for lengthy periods of time. The obvious reason for this is of course that the film has religious significance and is thus exempt from normal film classification guidlines. However, those who were opposed to the film - Jewish spectators, for example, seemed less offended by the violence than by what they percieved to be anti-semitic implications.

Once upon a time in the UK - laws against blasphemy in films were strictly upheld - now it could be argued they are a thing of the past - nurturing freedom of speech. However, new laws have been implemented which grant powers to prosecute those who 'incite religious hatred' and there is a great potential for films (which aren't as high profile as 'The Passion') to be considered for censorship on similar grounds as the old blasphemy laws. The problem arises when films like this pose as religious doctrine to Christians, but can be argued to contain anti-semitic sentiment - who's freedom of speech is being impinged? Why is it, for example, that directors as educated and accomplished as Mel Gibson, rely on somewhat dated stereotypes to portray Jesus' final hours: the grotesquely unattractive roman guards; the hunched-over, scheming Jews; the relatively Aryan Jesus?

Why is it that Jesus is always Aryan in films when we know he was an Arab Jew? Is this what people find offensive about films like 'The Passion'?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I find the portrayal of Jesus and the violence He suffered incorrect. I think the film reduces His divinity in some ways as well. The underlying soteriology of this film is that Jesus had to die an infinitely horrible death for an infinitely evil mankind to statisfy an infinitely angry God. Orthodoxy just doesn't buy into that.

 

[heron]

Yes, I've heard similar comments from Christians on the despair (also said of JC Superstar) as well as the misunderstanding of anti-semitism. All the Christians were Jews.

When I saw Last Samurai, I was surprised it was rated R...compare the close-up graphic violence and emotional impact.

A few links that might be useful...

http://www.josiahnews.com/controversy/crucifixion.htm

http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Passion_Feb_2004.htm
Rabbi Daniel Lapin

http://www.perrystone.org/store/store.cfm?CFID=623954&CFTOKEN=45075375&fxn=detail&pid=VT077 (This one's a great video, I wish it were transcribed on the site.)

As for the sterotypes...I think that Roman guards started the stereotype. They had quite a reputation.

 

[L.A.W.]

The whole point of the film was to portray the passion of the Christ. Now what is the passion of the Christ? Well, the passion of the Christ is to spread the gospel and die on the cross at Calvary for the ransom of our sins that whoever may believe in Him may not perish, but have everlasting life.

The portrayal of Christ is inaccurate in the film however, and may I mention that in actual, the suffering was greater than was portrayed in the film, so keep that in mind. His real features by documented sources dating back to his time of living portrayed that He was tall, well built, He had long chest-nut colored hair that was swirling from the point of the ear down to his shoulders, His beard being the same color of His hair and is only about an inch thick which forked at the chin, he had dark piercing blue-grey eyes, He had his mothers face which was roundish, He had no wrinckles, and He had a reddish blush to his cheeks. Of course, being that He was born of a virgin and being Son of God would make Him appear differently than your average human. Much studying and contemplating need be done.

 

[heron]

All the Christians were Jews- sorry, that was placed in the wrong context. I mean that in the time of Jesus, the Christians were Jews.

 

[Ant21]

I find the portrayal of Jesus and the violence He suffered incorrect. I think the film reduces His divinity in some ways as well. The underlying soteriology of this film is that Jesus had to die an infinitely horrible death for an infinitely evil mankind to statisfy an infinitely angry God. Orthodoxy just doesn't buy into that.

"statisfy an infinitely angry God" has nothing to do with the film!

The rest is fairly straight forward as most of the bible shows. If "Orthodoxy just doesn't buy into that" then Orthodoxy just doesn't buy into biblical truths (but I suspect that this is just your opinion and not nessissarily orthodoxy's)

Isaiah 53

1Who believes what we've heard and seen? Who would have thought GOD's saving power would look like this? 2The servant grew up before God--a scrawny seedling, a scrubby plant in a parched field. There was nothing attractive about him, nothing to cause us to take a second look. 3He was looked down on and passed over, a man who suffered, who knew pain firsthand. One look at him and people turned away. We looked down on him, thought he was scum. 4But the fact is, it was our pains he carried-- our disfigurements, all the things wrong with us. We thought he brought it on himself, that God was punishing him for his own failures. 5But it was our sins that did that to him, that ripped and tore and crushed him--our sins! He took the punishment, and that made us whole. Through his bruises we get healed. 6We're all like sheep who've wandered off and gotten lost. We've all done our own thing, gone our own way. And GOD has piled all our sins, everything we've done wrong, on him, on him. 7He was beaten, he was tortured, but he didn't say a word. Like a lamb taken to be slaughtered and like a sheep being sheared, he took it all in silence. 8Justice miscarried, and he was led off-- and did anyone really know what was happening? He died without a thought for his own welfare, beaten bloody for the sins of my people. 9They buried him with the wicked, threw him in a grave with a rich man, Even though he'd never hurt a soul or said one word that wasn't true. 10Still, it's what GOD had in mind all along, to crush him with pain. The plan was that he give himself as an offering for sin so that he'd see life come from it--life, life, and more life. And GOD's plan will deeply prosper through him. 11Out of that terrible travail of soul, he'll see that it's worth it and be glad he did it. Through what he experienced, my righteous one, my servant, will make many "righteous ones," as he himself carries the burden of their sins. 12Therefore I'll reward him extravagantly-- the best of everything, the highest honors--Because he looked death in the face and didn't flinch, because he embraced the company of the lowest. He took on his own shoulders the sin of the many, he took up the cause of all the black sheep.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

"statisfy an infinitely angry God" has nothing to do with the film!

The rest is fairly straight forward as most of the bible shows. If "Orthodoxy just doesn't buy into that" then Orthodoxy just doesn't buy into biblical truths (but I suspect that this is just your opinion and not nessissarily orthodoxy's)

Isaiah 53

1Who believes what we've heard and seen? Who would have thought GOD's saving power would look like this? 2The servant grew up before God--a scrawny seedling, a scrubby plant in a parched field. There was nothing attractive about him, nothing to cause us to take a second look. 3He was looked down on and passed over, a man who suffered, who knew pain firsthand. One look at him and people turned away. We looked down on him, thought he was scum. 4But the fact is, it was our pains he carried-- our disfigurements, all the things wrong with us. We thought he brought it on himself, that God was punishing him for his own failures. 5But it was our sins that did that to him, that ripped and tore and crushed him--our sins! He took the punishment, and that made us whole. Through his bruises we get healed. 6We're all like sheep who've wandered off and gotten lost. We've all done our own thing, gone our own way. And GOD has piled all our sins, everything we've done wrong, on him, on him. 7He was beaten, he was tortured, but he didn't say a word. Like a lamb taken to be slaughtered and like a sheep being sheared, he took it all in silence. 8Justice miscarried, and he was led off-- and did anyone really know what was happening? He died without a thought for his own welfare, beaten bloody for the sins of my people. 9They buried him with the wicked, threw him in a grave with a rich man, Even though he'd never hurt a soul or said one word that wasn't true. 10Still, it's what GOD had in mind all along, to crush him with pain. The plan was that he give himself as an offering for sin so that he'd see life come from it--life, life, and more life. And GOD's plan will deeply prosper through him. 11Out of that terrible travail of soul, he'll see that it's worth it and be glad he did it. Through what he experienced, my righteous one, my servant, will make many "righteous ones," as he himself carries the burden of their sins. 12Therefore I'll reward him extravagantly-- the best of everything, the highest honors--Because he looked death in the face and didn't flinch, because he embraced the company of the lowest. He took on his own shoulders the sin of the many, he took up the cause of all the black sheep.

I diagree with that.

Perhaps you do not understand the Orthodox position.

Nothing I disagree with in Isaiah.

 

[heron]

Angry God...think about what happens when someone sins. A person murders, and another dies. A person steals, and another suffers loss. It is not about a superpower with selfish whims, but a Father with a strong sense of justice and compassion. His wrath relates to wrongs that were done from one to another, the innocent weakend and oppressed for no good reason.

Satisfying an angry God...if you believe that Jesus was God, then the satisfaction was that He gave himself.

 

[Alive again]

I think as a film most of us can appreciate it. we will all view it from our personal faith and find "faults". for us as humans it is hard to view a picture of what Christ chose to suffer to offer us slavation. It is a difficult thing for anyone to look straight in the eye and realize - That's what I deserve and worse - He took that one for ME!!!

It was a very emotional film on many fronts thus the variety of reactions. Strong emoptions equal strong reactions, both positive and neagative. The Bible teaches us that the Gospel will be an offense to some, so it should not surprise us that there was different reactions to the film.

Mosst of us watch a film without the film student's eye and for different reasons thena film student might. Hope this helps. Personally i enjoyed the film for wjat it was aND PRAISE THE FILM MAKERS AND ACTORS FOR THEIR EFFORTS. Do I agree with all of the scenes and "theology" No, but that does not prevent me from watching and being enriched by it.

 

[Sketcher]

One of the reasons Gibson selected Jim Cavaziel was that he looked a lot more "Jewish" than previous actors. He did not look at all like an Aryan.

Also, the purpose of this film was NOT to promote hatred towards Jews. They demanded that He be crucified, it is part of the story that needs to be portrayed. I was a lot angrier at the Roman guards than the Pharisees when I watched the film.

 

[Salubri]

I dunno...even as a Non-Christian I enjoyed PAssion of the Christ for what it was, a film. Great directing, acting and Cinematograpghy. (Though I must say at time, Satan and the Marys stole the show.)

I was also suprised to find that it was actually Not Preachy. Another thing I give it props for.


PS

JC Superstar ROCKS! ^.^

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I liked the Film, I too am an amatuer film maker.

I thought it was well done... with a few exceptions. Good thief on the wrong side for one... One nail through the feet when there should be two....

These are but details that any film maker could get wrong.

The overall importance of the film was to get people to rediscover what they have been taking for granted. That Christ displayed the ultimate humility for our salvation.

Trampeling down death by death.

..........................................................................

Now, as for the Orthodox position on WHY Christ died and what purpose it served is not contained within this film.

The Angry God theology is incorrect but very well understood. I would invite you to get to understand why Christ came..... it was not to payoff an Angry God who is acting like a Judge. It was to save us from the disease of sin. To heal us, and joining himself to mankind through death was the only way to defeat death and sin... by taking it upon himself.
On the Incarnation

by St. Athanasius

http://www.ccel.org/a/athanasius/incarnation/0content.html

Death, the wages of Sin, and the original fall of man are an illness, that we have brought upon ourselves.

It is not a condemnation nor a "price to pay" for having sinned.

Christ God is the physician and comes to heal everyone. No exceptions.

We are called upon to be perfect as Christ is perfect. We are to be healed. This is the reason Christ came into the world.

To sin is to miss the target of perfection ( as if aiming with an arrow). Therefore anything short of perfection is sin.

We are to turn away from our sins as best we can identify them. Christ Jesus forgives all, whether we sin by knowledge or in ignorance, by action or inaction.

There is no ransom, there is no price to pay... there is only illness and healing.

The Angry God theory such as can be found in Jonathan Edwards famous sermon.....Sinners in the hands of an Angry God ( http://www.jonathanedwards.com/serm...ngs/sinners.htm ) has it's beginnings with St. Augustine.


To be fair to St. Augustine, he recanted many thing before his death.


From: Mary: The Untrodden Portal of God, Chapter VII "Two Salvations"

In the centuries following Augustine, the West came to see the work of salvation exclusively as the propitiation of a vengeful, anthropomorphic God, a view reminiscent of the pagan religions. Augustine said, “God threatened Adam with this punishment of death if he should sin.” Bound by the necessities of divine justice, God cannot act otherwise but to demand blood and revenge as payment for man’s offenses against the divine law. The divine need for revenge and retribution against man is the essential cause of death. Nevertheless, the death of the whole human race was insufficient. It was necessary that someone be born whose blood was sufficient for the payment. This necessity was the primary cause of the Incarnation: Christ was born because He alone was able to make the necessary infinite satisfaction that would change God’s disposition toward man and allow Him to grant legal pardon or absolution of sins. The West’s doctrine of atonement was a resounding declaration of necessity in God. Necessity in God, of course, was already totally inherent in the doctrine of the eternal ideas or universals in the divine essence. Necessity replaced God’s freedom and unselfish love in His relations with His children and dictated the Incarnation.
On the one hand, the fathers defined divine justice as the Incarnate Word’s destruction of the devil and death, the oppressors of mankind. On the other hand, Augustine saw the devil and death as the partners and punitive instruments of God, and salvation as the rescue of man from the clutches of God. For the West, therefore, all evils in the world spring from the punitive divine will. In contrast to this, St. Gregory the Theologian expresses the consensus of the fathers:

“It was not by the Father that we were being oppressed. On what principle did the blood of His Only-begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him, but on account of the economy [ the Incarnation], and because mankind must be sanctified by the humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son?

More can be found here.... http://home.comcast.net/~psudduth/StAugustine.htm

Katherine2001 also posted this in another thread:

Another good general overview of the Orthodox view of Redemption can be found in Fr. Hopko's "The Orthodox Faith" series. His section on Redemption can be found at:

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/...Redemption.html

Pay close attention to the whole section, but particularly his quote from St. Gregory the Theologian (there are only 3 saints with "Theologian" in their titles--the Apostle John [St. John the Theologian], St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. Symeon the New Theologian) about who the price was paid to. It was definitely not God.

Christ is Risen!


Forgive me....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The whole point of the film was to portray the passion of the Christ. Now what is the passion of the Christ? Well, the passion of the Christ is to spread the gospel and die on the cross at Calvary for the ransom of our sins that whoever may believe in Him may not perish, but have everlasting life.

The portrayal of Christ is inaccurate in the film however, and may I mention that in actual, the suffering was greater than was portrayed in the film, so keep that in mind. His real features by documented sources dating back to his time of living portrayed that He was tall, well built, He had long chest-nut colored hair that was swirling from the point of the ear down to his shoulders, His beard being the same color of His hair and is only about an inch thick which forked at the chin, he had dark piercing blue-grey eyes, He had his mothers face which was roundish, He had no wrinckles, and He had a reddish blush to his cheeks. Of course, being that He was born of a virgin and being Son of God would make Him appear differently than your average human. Much studying and contemplating need be done.

Where are these "documented sources dating back to his time of living"?

The Orthodox Church knows what he looked like and some of your descriptions are correct and some are not....

he had dark piercing blue-grey eyes, He had his mothers face which was roundish, He had no wrinckles, and He had a reddish blush to his cheeks.

Did you know that Christ had a nickname? The Pale Nazarene.... even at that he was still pretty dark...

I don't think I've ever seen an Icon with Christ having anything but brown eyes.
http://images.google.com/images?q=icon+christ&hl=en

Christ is Risen!

Forgive me...

 

[MinDach]

Arab Jew

Jesus was a Jew, not a Arab. His Blood line is all written out in the bible for all to see.
The first Christians were all Jews, Hilter used the reason to Kill the Jews, because he felt the Jew Killed Christ, but the truth is all mankind put Christ on the cross, Jesus came to this earth for this reason ( TO DIE ON THE CROSS ) for all mankinds SINS. For if he had Never came and died, we would not have life forever.

AS for 'incite religious hatred' God does not like to share his place with other Gods that mankind has made. For there is No other God, then Jesus Christ, you will find people will have many Gods, and no one complains until they starting talking about Jesus Christ, because he is the DOOR and the only way to heaven, there are not many ways to heaven only one way.

 

[StAnselm]

His real features by documented sources dating back to his time of living portrayed that He was tall, well built, He had long chest-nut colored hair that was swirling from the point of the ear down to his shoulders

I really can't tell if you're joking or not.

The Angry God theory... has its beginnings with St. Augustine.

And I believe that theology has progressed since Athanasius. But let's remember what forum we're in, people: this sort of discussion belongs in General Theology.

Ok, Back to the OP.

Among some sections of the Church, just depicting Jesus is very controversial.

Regarding the alleged anti-semitism. I was very interested to observe that the Jews did say, "His blood be on us and on our children," but that line was left untranslated in the subtitles.