The Passion: Some first thoughts
I just now returned from seeing The Passion of The Christ. It's a little late and I'm pretty tired, so this will only be some first thoughts. I generally take a while to think through stuff anyway, so I'll probably be writing more tomorrow.
I went into a movie having read at least a dozen or two reviews, most of which, including those by people I respect, criticized it for either being excessively violent (Andrew Sullivan: "The whole movie is some kind of sick combination of the theology of Opus Dei and the film-making of Quentin Tarantino"), lacking in context, or encouraging anti-Semitism. The result was that I went into the film hoping it would be good, but fully prepared for it not to be.
Still, with all that I had read and heard, I don't think I was fully prepared for it. I expected to be at least somewhat moved emotionally, and that definitely occurred at many times. I expected to be shocked by some of the gore and violence; that also happened, although I don't think it was as bloody and violent as some made it out to be.
I did not expect to be brutally forced to face how I view Jesus. It is easy and safe to think of Jesus as a nice, gentle, and quiet teacher, issuing cute little sayings about love and tolerance. It is easy to think of him as a wise teacher, who possessed a better-than-most understanding of human nature.
It is not easy, however, to consider him as a living sacrifice - the Son of God made incarnate for the purpose of suffering a brutal, violent, horrific, and obscene death out of love for me. That was something that The Passion did that I was not fully expecting. It is still ultimately only a movie, but inasmuch as it succeeded in doing that, it was a truly excellent movie.
The one line in the movie that struck me the most came when Simon of Cyrene was pressured to help Jesus carry his cross. Simon's response was something like "let it be clear: I am an innocent man carrying the cross of a condemned criminal." The irony was obvious: Jesus, the innocent man was carrying the cross for me, the condemned.
Perhaps that means I am a brutally uncultured backwoods hick, so ignorant of modern filmmaking that I'm mistaking "seeing a blameless prophet pummeled, flayed, punctured, gouged, torn, nailed and speared with something spiritually potent and divine", as the Baltimore Sun put it. So be it; tonight I don't feel particularly pressured to be some great cultural elite that can toss about witty repartee's and impress everyone with how intellectual I am.
There's much more that I may get to in the next couple of days, such as the place of the Passion in Christianity historically and theologically, and the current furor over it. For now, I would like to make clear that I don't think the movie is anti-Semitic. Yes, Caiaphas doesn't come off particularly well, but (a) the Romans come off far worse and (b) there are many, many cases in the movie of Jews showing pity on and helping Jesus.
Ultimately, though, I don't think the movie is anti-Semitic because of two reasons. First, about half-way through I had virtually forgotten the ethnicities of all involved - it simply wasn't important and, judging by the sobs heard throughout the theater, I don't think it was for others there, either. And, second, I found myself drawn to and identifying with characters such as Peter, overcome by shame at denying Jesus three times, and Simon, thrust into something he did not want to be in and then forced to face something too great for him, and the thief on the cross, awaiting a painful death and despairing of any hope save the promise of Jesus. The thought of indignant self-righteousness towards some particular ethnic group simply did not fit.
Such are my thoughts immediately after seeing the movie. And now: bedtime.
February 26, 2004 11:38 PMI think it is more Roman Catholic Idolatry. Ya know, the second commandment that they removed? Not to mentioned how they twisted the 4th and somehow made the Sabbath Sunday. I think the Word should shape your view of Christ, not a picture on a screen. It's like the bloody crucifixes in their Churches. All idols the second commandment strictly forbids and gives the reason for it. But, these are the false prophets(apostle Mel?) the Bible warns against.
Pondered by Shane at February 27, 2004 02:24 PMI apologize for the belated response.
The Passion definitely had Roman Catholic influences to it. I think they were rather slight and inconsequential, though. Mary was definitely present, but she was not presented as a co-mediatrix, for example.
And while, obviously "images" were used, the 2nd commandment is given explicitly in the context of worship, so I think there is some latitude for both artistic and didactic purposes. If people were treating the viewing of the movie as a worship service, I would be quite concerned. I, however, did not find myself meditating on the image of Christ, but on the work of Christ, which seemed to be the intention of the film.
As for the 4th commandment, while I would disagree with you on the change being a Romanist distortion, there was no reference to that at all in the movie.
Lastly, while I agree that the Word should shape your image of Christ, I think there is a great deal of room for other people helping me to see aspects of the Word I haven't. That is why I don't read just the Bible.
Pondered by maphet at February 28, 2004 09:16 PMI am curious as to other viewers of "The Passion" thoughts on the final scene in a rapidly upward receding shot the devil is in distress or happy. It is hard to read and was the subject that all present (four of us) were at odds over.Pondered by Todd in Tn.
Pondered by trhaight at February 29, 2004 03:36 PM