Also why was Satan depicted as feminine?

Ah yes, good questions. The "Paraclete" or "another advocate" is a key figure in the gospel of John, which heavily influence the script of that movie.

I thought the Satan was meant to be androgynous, but it's a wonderful point: Jesus is portrayed by an incredible hunk (and is therefore the male archetype) whereas Satan is either female, or androgynous, and therefore represents the non-male or incomplete male. Another reason to dislike the movie.

One of the big deals is the cliched and harmful depictions of the Jews, which, while they're in line with some of the voices in the New Testament, are entirely the choice of the filmmaker, especially since the NT as a whole is more ambiguous.

Another big deal is the sheer amount of gore and torture, which serves a certain theological point. Namely: he suffered like this because we are sinners (the main thematic thrust of the film, with which I disagree theologically and find despicable when argued this way). This theological/thematic thrust is the third big deal, I guess.

The big deal for me personally is that he neglected a lot of the best current work in linguistic word study and archaeology, for instance in the portrayal of Barabbas as a slavering, disgusting, irredeemable 'hoodlum' - whereas the best current scholarship says that Barabbas was a brigand, the leader of a group of 'freedom fighters' who fought against Roman Imperial rule. That's one example.

While beautifully shot and with an amazing original score, it just isn't that good a movie. And the racism, sexism, and bad theology makes it all that much worse.

Did you like it?

Mel Gibson's worst hangover?

i have no desire to see it, actually... personally, i don't focus on the torture and murder of christ, but on his ressurection and victory over death.

a friend of mine saw it, and came away with a concept that i have to agree with... jesus had it bad, definetly, but mary, his mother?? SHE had it the worst.

any mom can tell you that watching a child of their suffer is the most horrible thing that can possibly happen to a human being. any mother would rather trade places with their child rather than have to watch them endur any kind of suffering.

she came out of the movie with the understanding that mary, the mother of jesus, suffered the most of anyone in that situation. i don't think thats what mel gibson had in mind, though... i wonder what he'd have to say to that observation??

I had described "The Passion ..." to a friend as the worst movie ever.
There are many people on a daily basis who suffer more, both with beatings and with death. The 3-day death of Jesus wasn't that unique. Peter went one better by being crucified up side down.
Mel's non stop torture seemed designed to make us sorry for Jesus. But, do you really want to look up to someone that you feel sorry for? And I can't see how we are supposed to connect this torture event with the cleaning up of everyone's sins. I haven't noticed a great improvement in the world since then, has anyone else?
I prefer "feel good" movies.

I wathced what I could of it the other night. I found it disturbing and used the fast forward button as much as I could. What disturbing way to know Jesus. I can't imagine feeling more betrayed or alone never mind the physical pain.

I cried!!!!

It overwhelmed to think that Jesus went through the torture that he did so that our sins could be saved.

Yes it was Hollywood, but it moved me nonetheless!

I thought it was an interesting movie. Not one I would add to my DVD collection though. I wanted to see it for part of my research for my book I am writing.
Mel likes his torture scenes for sure. Despite his best efforts to be accurate, Mel left a lot out, especially the fact that the nail could not be in the palm of his hand because that wouldn't hold the body weight.
The violence was well done to get across the pain of both Jesus and his mother and brother who were helpless.
But I think the violence doesn't help Mels case as that torture was common in that period. If you were to be made an example of, then you were at the mercy of various war toys.

I did not feel sorry for Jesus I was just absolutely horrified that He had to go through that and CHOSE to when He could have called 10,000 angels to waste those idiots who were bullying Him. But it was real. Yes, people get beat up like that quite often but Jesus COULD have saved Himself that is what made it so sad.

Hey GospelCrazy, can you cite the specific texts that mention the other advocate? It owuld be much appreciated!

Beautiful cinematography. How it didn't win the oscar is still beyond me.

I've seen it once, though, and I have no real urge to watch it again. If I remember one thing from that film though, it was the absolutely breathtaking cinematography.

Sure! Here they are:

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always,
John 14:26 The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name "” he will teach you everything and remind you of all that [I] told you.
John 15:26 "When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
John 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

Has anyone seen Apocalypto yet? I have this theory of Mel as cinema auteur. Namely, that individualism is his theme and torture and execution are his leitmotif. But I don't know if Apocalypto supports that theme, and I really have no desire to pay money to see it just to explore a theory.

i heard there were no lightsabres anywhere in apocalypto, so i'm not going to see it...

HI GospelCrazy!
In the bible I'm using for research it uses the word Cumforter instead of Advocate. Is there really a difference?

Also, does the bible mention when and if the Advocate/holy ghost came?
THanks so much!

scifi_queen: "Mel left a lot out, especially the fact that the nail could not be in the palm of his hand because that wouldn't hold the body weight"

Yes, some actual experimentation with cadavers has shown that nails in the hands would rip through very quickly. However, Mel also depicted ropes holding the arms in place, along with the nailing of the palms. In that way, the nails would not have had to support the weight of the body and would have become just another act of cruelty. I think this would work, from a practical point of view. The Romans used a variety of techniques for fastening their victims to the crosses (sometimes out of sheer boredom).

I've commented on the movie elsewhere. In my opinion, great peace of moviemaking from a cinematic standpoint, excellent splatter-style horror film, horrendous as an affimation of faith, since I find the whole idea of this kind of gruesome blood sacrifice to be repugnant (but obviously others relish this and find it uplifting).

teatime, I am with you. I loved the movie. I cried too.

On a less emotional note, the movie pretty clearly states that it is a Passion story, not a biopic. The Passion story is very specific in its statement and in the way it proceeds. I compare the movie to great Catholic works of art from previous centuries. Protestants do not approach the Passion in the way that Catholics do, and I think we can learn something from them about the carnality of the crufixion, the pain and suffering. Catholics really understand the carnal. If Jesus did not suffer, then Jesus was not human, and the insistence that He was fully human and fully divine was very important to the early church (as it still should be). One of the main reasons that gnosticism was considered a heresy was that it treated Jesus mainly as a divine being, like a god from Mount Olympus. The Passion story refutes that understanding of Jesus.

I didn't see Satan as feminine but simply as rather creepy and shifty. Showing Satan as physically powerful doesn't work for me. Evil is usually insidious and subtle, often going unnoticed until it is too late. I thought the way Gibson presented evil was just perfect.

The Greek word is "paracletos", defined thus by Thayer:
1. one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant; an advocate
2. universally, one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor
3. in the widest sense, a helper, succorer, aider, assistant

The central Christian tradition around the Paraclete is that John is referring to the Holy Spirit that came to the disciples on the day of Pentecost (cf. John 14:26). However, when Muslims read these verses, they consider the Paraclete to be Mohammed.

By the way, in the first Epistle of John, we see the same word used to refer to Jesus:

1 John 2:1 My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.

I saw the movie, was very moved and bought the DVD.
We hate to think of anyone suffering like that, but he did and it is good to be reminded that our salvation was bought at such a terrible price.
I found it interesting that Mel showed the anguish of Mary and that she didn't even want to leave any of his blood on the ground but wanted to clean it up.
Much as any mother will do when she is in shock after something terrible has just happened to her family, she starts cleaning and comforting.
I believe he portrayed the Jews factually and it's sad that we try to water it down but it happened, they were whipped into a mob, which is why they chose Barabas to free instead of Jesus.
No clear thinking person would have done that.
I believe he did a great job.

BShater: We hate to think of anyone suffering like that, but he did and it is good to be reminded that our salvation was bought at such a terrible price.

The question of whether the cinematic gore is historical or not aside, there was nothing particularly special about the brutality of Jesus' crucifixion. If that's our measurement, then Spartacus and the 6600 who were crucified for their revolt and left hanging along the road for years must have been a heavenly choir. We keep looknig at Jesus' death as some specially concocted vendetta, when in fact it was just business as usual for the folks of the day.

BShater: I found it interesting that Mel showed the anguish of Mary and that she didn't even want to leave any of his blood on the ground but wanted to clean it up.

I don't know much about Jewish tradition, but as I understand it, it is that no bit of a person be left behind. An interview with an Israeli aide worker talked about the p;rocedure for colelcting the blood of bomb victims. I'm not trying to minimize the effect, just noting that, in that scenario there is again nothing particularly heart wrenching about it. It would have been the custom.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Thank you GR.
My take on the movie was that it did portray it as "business as usual".
I believe Mel researched it thoroughly, which made it so real, almost like a documentary.

He certainly did extensive research, but only some parts of the movie were based on that research. Which makes it a sort of docu-drama; a mixture of storytelling principles that becomes very tricky if you try to treat it as a "window to history" rather than an "epic narrative."

BSHater, I too see it as a documentary, but in a much different way. It is, first and foremost, the Passion story, a story which documents not history, but a particular aspect of Christian faith.

How is that for twisting words?

DG
Thank you for your point.
The early Christians sure did suffer.
We have been fortunate to grow up in a time and country where we won't be crucified for our faith.
We often forget however that there are Christians all over the world who still face persecution for their believe.

I was not impressed by the Passion, nor by the criticism so far. It was obviously very Roman Catholic in perspective. To say it was anti-Jewish is absurd as everybody in the picture was Jewish except the Romans guards, Pilate and his wife, and Satan.
There were anti-gay shots - the depiction of Herod as a bisexual hedonist, and the effeminate Satan.
The pain was overplayed. After a while, you stop feeling lashes etc. But then, I never could feel pain while being abused - only later.
There was not enough attention paid to the political situation surrounding Christ's death. Why did the same crowd who welcomed Christ to Jerusalem with cheers and adulation turn on him a few days later? The reasons I have seen so far are inadequate, but I have my theories - the Jerusalemites were looking for a military leader to oust the Romans.