About a month back I wrote an entry regarding the genius of Mel Gibson and defending his movie The Passion of the Christ. It has been brought to my attention that I hadn't actually seen the movie and so my exposé really wasn't that valid and that I wasn't briefed correctly on my history..well, okay fair enough. But judging by the time and date that comment was made, the author hadn't seen the movie either.
But guess what? Now, I have seen the movie (twice) and my opinion stands firmer and stronger than before.
So, now I have come to defend not only myself, but also this movie. I am informed and versed in more than just this movie, so it's time to start wielding words in my vocabular defense.
Before we begin, I would like to post a disclaimer: Throughout this essay, I will make reference to Christ sacrificing his life in order to save mankind, or us or any other such phrasing. I am a Catholic, if you haven't guessed, and this is my belief. If you do not believe in it, that is okay and I am fine with it. I have studied most religions in my Grade 11 religious history course, and am quite knowledgeable and tolerant to every faith. I do not hate any other faith, just b/c I love my own- I am a man who promotes respect towards all faiths and aspects of life. Please show the same respect. If you see a phrase about Christ's death saving mankind, and you do not believe in it, than that is fine by me- this essay is about defending the movie and not about whether Christ's death actually saved mankind. So please don't leave nasty comments about it. Thank you.
Alright, this essay is set up into three defenses. The first being my defense of the authenticity of the story, the second being that this movie is not meaningless violence, but something more. And the last and final argument is the opposition that this movie is anti-semtic and promotes hatred.
As in all films, especially ones about real life occurances or history, the plot is the key element that keeps the movie interesting and engaging. However, when making a historical movie, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the events you portray are truthful and not twisted in order to keep an audience entertained. Now, my critic and many others in the paper who condemn Mel Gibson, have said that the story of this movie is completely distorted to portray anti-semtic or violent messages. We will examine those accusations later, but let us look at the aunthenticity of the plot first. For the most part Mel Gibson's story is comprised of several sources, the main and majority of them coming from the Bible. Now, the Bible has been proven, especially the 4 Gospels, to be historically accurate for the most part. So, if one believes that Gibson has actually written his own story of the cruxifiction based on his imagination, they are sadly mistaken. His scrpt is almost 90% based on the actual texts in the Gospels, including dialogue.
But before we examine the plot's authenticty, let us examine briefly the historical merit of it's source-the Bible, specifically the New Testament's Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. While it is important to remember that the Gospels and the New Testament are not actually histories, but rather testaments of faith, it does not mean that they are simply fabrications or fables; they hold historical facts to attest to their credibility. Firstly, there are many more extant texts of the New Testament vs any other text in history. In comparison only a few hundred extant copies of Caesar's history of the Gaellic Wars are available. There is also the fact that the Gospels were written within a relatively short time of Christ's death. All four Gospels were found to have been written between 50AD - 90AD. That allows enough time between the event and the writings to talk to eye witnesses. What this also entails is that if the Gospels were untruthful in any way, many witnesses would have come forward to dispute such events, including Jewish Pharisees. No such denouncments have been recorded. Also, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were of Jewish decent, so it would make little sense for them to convey their origins as evil. There is even more internal evidence to be found within the Bible. For example, for the most part the Gospels are harmonious in their accounts of the events. It was not a collabaration, so naturally each author would have their take on the events that occured. However, while small variations exist in dates, numbers and translations, the Gospels still remain for the most part to have no major conflicts in accounts.
As for the events of Christ's actual death, there are many extraneous examples that prove it actually took place. For example, many would argue that once Christ died it was embelished that there was an eclipse and earthquake. yet, Julius Africanus once quoted a Roman historian named Thallus, in his chronography, who recorded the following events during the time of Christ:
"On the whole, there pressed a most fearful drakness, and the rocks were bent by an earthquake, and many
places in Judea and other districts were thrown down, and as appears without reason, an eclipse of the sun took
place"
These recordings are matched within the Gospels ccounts of the quakes and eclipse that occured when Christ died.
There is far more eveidence, specifically from extraneous sources, some of which will be discussed further in this essay in relevance to the issue they apply to, that prove the point as well. But, as I have established the credibility of Mel Gibson's prime source for his script, let us look now at how true he stayed to it.
For the most part, Gibson has stayed faithful (excuse any pun) to his base. Many of the lines and plot events were actually taken right from the Gospels, without alteration. For example 'two hack lines'(see comments on Let's talk about Mel entry) were uttered in the Garden of Gethsemane during the opening scene: "Father, if you will take this suffering away from me. Not my will, however,but Your will be done" . This was the exact lines the Lord uttered according to the Gospel of Luke (Luke 22:42), and very similar variations are accounted in the other Gospels.
Also, someone brought it to my attention that Jesus probably wasn't beaten within the temple where the High priests examined Him. At first I agreed, thinking that perhaps Mel Gibson had taken liberty in that fact. But I did my research on the Bible, and found the opposite true. Where the soldiers hit Jesus and asked Him what right he has to answer back the High priest, the following evidence proves true in the Bible:
But guess what? Now, I have seen the movie (twice) and my opinion stands firmer and stronger than before.
So, now I have come to defend not only myself, but also this movie. I am informed and versed in more than just this movie, so it's time to start wielding words in my vocabular defense.
Before we begin, I would like to post a disclaimer: Throughout this essay, I will make reference to Christ sacrificing his life in order to save mankind, or us or any other such phrasing. I am a Catholic, if you haven't guessed, and this is my belief. If you do not believe in it, that is okay and I am fine with it. I have studied most religions in my Grade 11 religious history course, and am quite knowledgeable and tolerant to every faith. I do not hate any other faith, just b/c I love my own- I am a man who promotes respect towards all faiths and aspects of life. Please show the same respect. If you see a phrase about Christ's death saving mankind, and you do not believe in it, than that is fine by me- this essay is about defending the movie and not about whether Christ's death actually saved mankind. So please don't leave nasty comments about it. Thank you.
Alright, this essay is set up into three defenses. The first being my defense of the authenticity of the story, the second being that this movie is not meaningless violence, but something more. And the last and final argument is the opposition that this movie is anti-semtic and promotes hatred.
As in all films, especially ones about real life occurances or history, the plot is the key element that keeps the movie interesting and engaging. However, when making a historical movie, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the events you portray are truthful and not twisted in order to keep an audience entertained. Now, my critic and many others in the paper who condemn Mel Gibson, have said that the story of this movie is completely distorted to portray anti-semtic or violent messages. We will examine those accusations later, but let us look at the aunthenticity of the plot first. For the most part Mel Gibson's story is comprised of several sources, the main and majority of them coming from the Bible. Now, the Bible has been proven, especially the 4 Gospels, to be historically accurate for the most part. So, if one believes that Gibson has actually written his own story of the cruxifiction based on his imagination, they are sadly mistaken. His scrpt is almost 90% based on the actual texts in the Gospels, including dialogue.
But before we examine the plot's authenticty, let us examine briefly the historical merit of it's source-the Bible, specifically the New Testament's Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. While it is important to remember that the Gospels and the New Testament are not actually histories, but rather testaments of faith, it does not mean that they are simply fabrications or fables; they hold historical facts to attest to their credibility. Firstly, there are many more extant texts of the New Testament vs any other text in history. In comparison only a few hundred extant copies of Caesar's history of the Gaellic Wars are available. There is also the fact that the Gospels were written within a relatively short time of Christ's death. All four Gospels were found to have been written between 50AD - 90AD. That allows enough time between the event and the writings to talk to eye witnesses. What this also entails is that if the Gospels were untruthful in any way, many witnesses would have come forward to dispute such events, including Jewish Pharisees. No such denouncments have been recorded. Also, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were of Jewish decent, so it would make little sense for them to convey their origins as evil. There is even more internal evidence to be found within the Bible. For example, for the most part the Gospels are harmonious in their accounts of the events. It was not a collabaration, so naturally each author would have their take on the events that occured. However, while small variations exist in dates, numbers and translations, the Gospels still remain for the most part to have no major conflicts in accounts.
As for the events of Christ's actual death, there are many extraneous examples that prove it actually took place. For example, many would argue that once Christ died it was embelished that there was an eclipse and earthquake. yet, Julius Africanus once quoted a Roman historian named Thallus, in his chronography, who recorded the following events during the time of Christ:
"On the whole, there pressed a most fearful drakness, and the rocks were bent by an earthquake, and many
places in Judea and other districts were thrown down, and as appears without reason, an eclipse of the sun took
place"
These recordings are matched within the Gospels ccounts of the quakes and eclipse that occured when Christ died.
There is far more eveidence, specifically from extraneous sources, some of which will be discussed further in this essay in relevance to the issue they apply to, that prove the point as well. But, as I have established the credibility of Mel Gibson's prime source for his script, let us look now at how true he stayed to it.
For the most part, Gibson has stayed faithful (excuse any pun) to his base. Many of the lines and plot events were actually taken right from the Gospels, without alteration. For example 'two hack lines'(see comments on Let's talk about Mel entry) were uttered in the Garden of Gethsemane during the opening scene: "Father, if you will take this suffering away from me. Not my will, however,but Your will be done" . This was the exact lines the Lord uttered according to the Gospel of Luke (Luke 22:42), and very similar variations are accounted in the other Gospels.
Also, someone brought it to my attention that Jesus probably wasn't beaten within the temple where the High priests examined Him. At first I agreed, thinking that perhaps Mel Gibson had taken liberty in that fact. But I did my research on the Bible, and found the opposite true. Where the soldiers hit Jesus and asked Him what right he has to answer back the High priest, the following evidence proves true in the Bible:
"When Jesus did this, one of the guards slapped Him and said 'How dare you talk like that to the High Priest!'
Jesus answered him:"If I have done anything wrong, tell everyone here what it was. But if I am right in
what I have said why do you hit me?"(John 18:22-23)
This, as well as the scene itself, is backed up by Matthew's account, and by the other two Gospels, as Jesus is beaten and mocked:
"Then they spat in his face and beat him; and those who beat him said, 'Prophesy for us, Messiah! Guess who hit
you!' " (Matthew 26:67)
And if one argues that the High Priest's shredding of his vestments was overdone melodrama, I contest:
" The High Priest tore his robes and said:'We don't need any more witnesses. You heard his blasphemy....' "
(Mark14:63-64)
Please do not think that the quotes that I have chosen prove the blame falls on the Jewish people or that the quotes show hate against the High Priests. They are merely used to prove the authenticity of the script and the fact that Gibson did not take liberties to convey an anti-semetic view. These are actual accounts, but I am getting ahead of my arguments.
Let us look at another argument my critic has drawn out. I am not all knowing in any way, but it is argued that I do not know who Pontius Pilate was. Well, neither do many historians. In fact both Pilate's past and future after the trial of Christ are clouded in mystery, but he existed and is historical fact. In 1961 at Caesarea Martrina, an archeologist found a slab with the following inscription:
JS TIBERIUM PONJTIUS PILATUS PRAFJECTUS JUDA[EA]E
meaning Tiberium Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea.
So, who was Pilate? What is known is that he was the Roman Procurator, or the supreme judicial power assigned to the region of Judea by the Roman Caesar. Now during the Roman occupation the right of capitol punishment was held only by the Roman procurator. In Judea, the Romans had found Herod an insufficient muse, and so had sent Pilate to take reign. This is why the High priest had to go to Pilate to cruxify Jesus. For you see, according to the Law of Moses (see Lev 24:16), any man accused of blasphemy is to be stoned. But, a charge of Jewish blasphemy would not interest the Roman courts, and therefore Pilate would have likely sent the case to the Jewish religious courts (which he may have done in sending Jesus to Herod). However, when the Romans took over Judea, the right of any form of capitol punishment lay solely in their hands via the procurator, as stated before, so the High Priests would not likely find the punishment they sought. Therefore, they had to change their accustation and accused Jesus of preaching against Roman taxes, making him seem like a threat to the Roman establishment, as a king would oppose a Caesar. Such testimony can be found in all 4 Gospels, specifically detailed in Matthew 23:2-3:
"they began to accuse him:'We caught this man misleading our people, telling them not to
pay taxes to the Emperor and claiming that he himself is the Messiah, a king"
And as far as it is told the accounts of the Gospels about the trial are very similar to those depicted in the Passion, which again have historical credibility. They are not distorted in anyway to lay blame. There are many non-christian texts that mention the trial in its records. For example, the most famous amoung them was Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, who, in his writing known as the Antiquittes (xvii), states:
"And there arose about this time Jesus, if indeed he can be called a man; He led away many Jews, and also
many Greeks...and Pilate had condemned Him to the cross, on his impeachment by the chief man amoung
us...."
The excerpt refers to the trial of Christ, speciifcally the fact that Pilate ordered Christ's death on the accusations of treason by the 'chief leader' or High Priest. Here is a classical extraneous text that accounts for the events mentioned in the Gospels. Again, as he was a Jewish figure, it is hard to believe that Flavius would paint his own culture as evil beings. Gibson has distorted no truth thus, in using the Gospels accounts of the trial of Christ before Pilate.
Gibson has taken the events of the trial straight from the Gospels, not straying from their records. For example, in the movie Pilates wife plays a pivotal role in his defense of the Lord. Acknowledge Matthew 27;19-20, if you will.
"While Pilate was sitting in the judgement hall, his wife sent this message:'Have nothing to do with this innocent
man, b/c in a dream last night I suffered much on his account' "
His wife's role was extended in the movie, but within bounds. She was not at all embelished to the point that she convinced Pilate to save Christ. This furtherence of role has it's justifications, that I think many feminists will hopefully like. While the Bible can be said to be sometimes a bit harsh on female role players, excluding Mary the Virgin Mother, many of the female roles in Mel Gibson's film have been made a bit richer to show the strength of females during this time or ordeal. Gibson, simply took an artistic right that any and many filmmakers do, in accentuating roles to create sympathy. Peter Jackson is a class example, as he lustered up many of the roles in the Lord Of the Rings, specifically the roles of female characters like Arowen or Eowen, making them stronger and more adept to handle ordeals; yet still stays true to the books. But back to the trial and Pilate.
In the movie Pilate was noted to be in some state of awe by Jesus' answers, specifically the one in which Christ answers that He has come to Earth to do one thing, and that is speak the truth. John 18:36, accounts Pilates response in the form of a question "What is truth?", at which point he returned to the crowd to decree he saw nothing criminal in Jesus. As stated before, pressure of treason was applied by the Pharisees, and afraid of rebellion Pilate conceded to their wishes. This existence of both Pilate and the trail have been shown as historical fact, through extra-biblical evidence.
Historically, the Gospels seem to have merit. They were written within a century of Christ's death allowing for eyewitness accounts or the protestation of the events, which never occured. They also depict figures, who have been proven as fact by historians from both our era and the era following Christ's death. So, as historical accurate documents, Mel Gisbon cannot be said to have used an inaccurate source. He has remained very true to it's texts, and any small wandering in script and characters has justification based on artistic liberty that all film makers are entitled to. However, many argue that Gibson's portrayal of the violence of the cruxifiction is artistic liberty taken beyond extremes. Once again, I refute such charges on the basis of historical truth and in contention of it's message being cathardic.
Let us just focus now on one major aspect of the movie that has brought about such controversey. That is the violence of the cruxifiction. Some say it never happened or is an embelishment, and that Gibson took special liberties here. The first point in refuting this would be to acknowledge what Christians have come to know as the scourging of the pillar, a bloody event to say the least. Mel Gibson was likely to have taken that out from the Gospel according to John, as the other three Gospels combine the Lord's cruxifiction with the scourging. In the Gospel accroding to John, Pilate decided that in order to subdue a rebellion, and at the same time appease his wife's request not to condemn Jesus to death, he would have Christ scourged or whipped:
"Then Pilate took Jesus and had him whipped. The soldiers made a crown of thorny branches and
put it on his head....Pilate went back out once more and said to the crowd,"...I will bring Him out
so you can see that I cannot find any reason to condemn him...."(John19:4-5)
As for the bloody depiction of the scourging, well it is a real depiction of what such an event was like. Mel Gibson not only researched biblical texts and christian documents, but also researched actual historical texts to find out what scourging was and what a cruxification ususally entailed. In fact, Romans were often brutal in their punishments, and as the case was, scourgings and cruxifictions were reserved for slaves, criminals and non-ctizens of the Roman empire. Thus, brutality to these unfortunate people was ever present through sadism, hatred and racism.
Many have refuted the movies depiction of the cruxifiction as embelished, especially in the portrayal of Christ being nailed to the cross. Skeptics will argue that most cruxifictions that took place did not involve nailings, but rather ropes were used to secure the convicted upon their crosses. This argument seemingly gave skeptics the edge they needed, until the body of Yohanans Ben Hagalogal, a Jewish man who was cruxified during the Jewish uprising in 70 A.D., was found. His remains suggested he had been nailed to his cross, with spikes driven into his feet and hands. His legs were also broken at the shins, an infamous event that is also listed amoung the Gospels.
Now, there is small argument as to whether Christ was nailed by his hands or by his wrists to the cross. Many Churches depict either one. However, Gibson chose the hands being nailed for perhaps no other reason than it was easier to depict using special effects. You see a fake hand was used, while real fingers stuck out the end of the silcone double. At the angle it was shot, it seems like an actual hand. A fake wrist would have been more difficult to create and executing a shot like that would have been awkward. But either way, there is eveidence that Christ himself was nailed to the cross, as well as evidence that he was not the only one to suffer the spikes. Thus, it is said that Gibson was staying true to both the Gospels and historical accounts.
While the movie's portrayal of a cruxifiction is accurate, many film reviews have denounced the explicitness of the violence in this movie, saying it is grotesque and overdone. Well, as I have stated before Mel Gibson tried his best to make this film as realistic as possible. It is not overdone, as the suffering Christ endured in the film is what the real Jesus Christ, Son of God, went through to save our souls. If it were not so violent, then perhaps we would underappreciate His sacrifice or lessen our compassion. And here's the thing: the movie is called The Passion of the Christ. The key thing to keep in mind is the word "Passion". In latin it means suffering, and not ferver or love. Thus, the movie makes claim to what it is about, before it even begins. While the life our Christ was important to Christians, the core of our faith lies in His suffering, death and resurrection. We believe Christ died and rose again so as to redeem us from sin, original sin and otherwise.
And another fact, most TV shows and movies are perhaps less explicit in violence but are far more damaging in their portrayal of it. What am I talking about? Well, within the Passion the violence is brutal, much to the point that you squirm and shift in your seat. All the better. That is real violence. Mel Gibson shows what Christ actually experienced for maknind; the pain, the torture, the gore and the agony of being cruxified. We squirm because it is real and we understand and feel some measure of that pain. We our selves experience the effects of violent acts through this movie. However, with TV and other movies the producers and makers numb down the effects of violence for our enjoyment. I mean, people get shot and walk off, people get punched and get up without blood or injury. In real life these effects never occur. People are shot and die, people get punched and bleed. Also, in a movie people are killed without second thoughts. In real life, the death of a human being at the hands of another is far more damaging pyschologically to the victim's family and the offender than as depicted on the screens we watch everyday. Look at the soldiers who came back from the Vietnam war; many were so damaged they took to drugs to relieve the pain of their acts. Let's face it, violence on the screen is glorified and watered down for our minds. You see, think of your mind as a sponge. Real violence is scary and in a way concentrated and potent. If absorbed, the mind goes into overload, as both senses and emotions become turgid with the effects of violence. In Hollywood, violence is watered down, the effects numbed for our pleasure. If the effects are hidden, we feel no overload of emotions or senses. We feel no impact. We witness the tragic death of people, and we come out of a theatre feeling no sympathy. In the end, we enjoy the experience as we are not traumatized by it and come back wanting more. That is how violence is glorified. Movies like Kill Bill, are a classic example. You come out feeling like getting some revenge on your own enemies. You feel adreneline pumped and ready to kick ass. The movie shows no real effects of violence. Ya, blood poors like Niagra Falls, limbs are severed like chopped carrots, but you never once feel anything for the victims, and see no trauma experienced by the attacker, the Bride. Killing in this way is hailed to be the solution to a problem, that will have little impact on you or your 'victims'. This movie is needlessly violent, but critics loved it's gorey scenes, praising its hostile aggression and dangerous choreography. Well, I got news for you: violence cannot be stylized. It can be numbed, but not stylized. And the end of it all, someone died and died painfully. Whether you choose to show that pain is the key element in realism vs sensationalization.
Mel Gibson's the Passion of the Christ, unlike Kill Bill, does not show needless violence, nor does it hide it. The point is to show you what Christ suffered for mankind. However, Mel does not only show us the suffering; in the violence and brutality of the scourging and cruxifiction, you actually feel the pain, or some small measure of it. With every drop spilled you realize how precious His blood was to the world, and that it was spilled to save us. You become human, because your senses are filled and your emotions brimming as you are shown the actual effects of brutality and violence. It is not watered down, or numbed. You finally understand what it is like to suffer. Tell me, what was the point of watching all the bloodshed and severed limbs in Kill Bill? What message is there behind it? When I came out of Kill Bill, I felt pumped full of adreneline. So did many audiences. But in real life, the effects and use of violence are draining to the mind and body. When I saw the Passion, I came out feeling renewed in my faith, but my emotions were spent and my body weak from watching Christ's torture and death for humanity. As Jay leno said when interviewing Gibson on the Tonight Show: "In most movies I see, I feel like I am punching the guy, the bad guys. I come out ready to fight. But with your movie, Mel, it was like I was being hit myself". And no one could have summed up the point of the movie's depiction better. The point of the violence being real is to hit you over and over again, to make you feel what Christ suffered. And even if you don't believe in Him, you still feel for Him, b/c He was a man, and took that brutailty not with the strength of a god, but the strength of a man. And we are humans, as He was. If you were throttled by what happened to Christ, whether you believe in Him or not, you gained some humanity. If you went in and said: "Alright, my Gosh, I get the point already", then the media has taken you and your senses have been entirely numbed if you cannot feel for what this man went through. Perhaps the reason most critics felt dumbfounded by the movies real portrayal of violence is because they have been so numbed by the sugar coated version of violent acts for so long that when viewing the truth and brutality of violence, their senses were blown open for the first time in a long time. Then again, maybe those critics who were bored with all of it, had already been dulled by the effects of watching watered down violence over the many years. It is okay to enjoy action packed films with violence, afterall I am a huge fan of the Lethal Weapon series. The key is to remember that actual violence is not what you see on the big screen- it is far more horrific. And that when judging movies with violent content you should probably be less hypocritical and judge everything by one standard. You cannot justify the praise of a violent movie like Kill Bill,whose potrayal of violence is false and message volitile, and then cry 'grotesque' at a film like the Passion whose depiction of violence is realistic and whose message is compassion and tolerance.
The point of all this, is that Mel has shown a realistic portrayal of what Christ suffered, and while "grotesque', it is what a real man endured. The depiction of the bloody cruxifiction was not numbed or portrayed for our enjoyment, as in most other movies. It is shown in its wholeness, in truth, to make us squirm in our seats and feel uncomfortable, to feel compassion towards this one man upon the screen, whether you choose to believe in Him is your choice. Thus, we reach are most human emotion of sympathy for what we witness this one man bear on His own back (literally and figuratively). We become human again in our compassion and so is tolerance reached. If the movie's presentation of the actual cruxifiction were not shown in full effect, than it would be impossible to make the audience reach such depths of emotion, and so the result of tolerance would be lost.
The last and final argument of many critics is that Mel Gibson has made a movie purely promoting anti-semitism. However, there is solid evidence to be found within this movie to suggest otherwise. Anytime a movie is made about Jesus or the cruxifiction, controversy usually ensues, specifically accustaion of anti-semitism. Naturally, this is always to occur, as the Jewish faith does not believe in Jesus' claim as the Messiah. This is okay, as each religion has it's different beliefs. But we must be careful in our charges, especially that of anti-semitism, as it is a despicable diesease that can cause a lot of trouble as we have tragically witnessed throughout history. We must analyze carefully whether such a charge actually applies to a movie that will reach huge audiences and masses(not as in ceremonies , as in people) around the world. I disagree with the charge, personally, and after analyzing the film so do many Christian and Jewish leaders. There are many factors in this movie to suggest that this movie promotes tolerance rather than hate. Let us examine a few of them. Firstly, while the Jewish High Priests are presented as the antagonists, Gibson actually added something that the Bible does not make mention of. In the movie there were several High Priests who in fact made an attempt to denounce Caiphus's trial at the synagogue, even leaving when he refuted their wishes to release Christ. Also, while many believe that the blame falls on the Jewish faith b/c they forced Pilate's hand, it is important to remember that Christ's death was prophesized and everything that happened, God meant to happen. Throughout the Gospel it is said: 'And this was done so that the phrophesy might be fulfilled'. Thus, if it were meant to happen it was meant to happen; you cannot pin blame in an inevitable event. Thirdly, there were a number of Jewish characters that Mel chose to accentuate. While the mob seemed a dominant factor in Christ's trial before Pilate, Gibson initiates his message of humanity through several key players in the story, and even goes as far as to accentuate their roles beyond that of their position in the Gospels. Many of these roles were that of Jewish figures. For example, examine the role of Simon, the man who helped bear the cross after Jesus had fallen. In the Gospels he is simply a man who lifts and helps carry the cross a certain distance. However, in the movie his role becomes much more. Simon not only carries the cross, but defends Christ when he has fallen and the crowd and Romans were kicking him. There is also one moving shot where as the two lift the heavy cruxifix, they cross arms, a gesture of brotherly love. There is also the role of Veronica, who wipes Christ's face, and the women wailing for someone to help Jesus. These roles were given more time in the movie than perhaps in the entire Gospels, and in doing so, they were made more loving and relatable. If Mel Gibson were truly anti-semetic, than perhaps he would have portrayed these Jewish figures as crude and just present.
In terms of Christ's violent scourging and death, it seems to me that the roman soldiers came of worse in terms of sadistic intent than did the Jewish people. They were shown to have enjoyed scourging slaves, and took special delight in crowning Jesus with thorns after they heard the claim that He was a king. In the scene where they are whipping Jesus, the Roman soldiers were laughing sadisticly, and even after being told to leave Him alive, scourged Him to the brink of death. It was they and not the Jewish priests who made the journey to mount Calvary more difficult for Christ in the movie. If anything, the key Jewish roles that Gibson has accentuated show the compassion of a people and its faith. Afterall, these kindly figures were Jewish, as Christians were not in existence until after Christ's death.
My last point in all of this is that had Gibson been truly anti-semetic, then why cast a beautiful Jewish woman, Maia Morgenstern, in the role of Mary, a pivotal character in the film? He not only cast Maia, but took her advice on many aspects while filming. He hired many Jewish teachers to translate scripts and help the actors learn Hebrew. Are these the actions of an anti-semetic person? No! So such charges cannot be applied to such a man.
While anti-semitism is a crippling diease in the progress of mankind and tolerance in the world, it's poison cannot be felt in this movie. The movie's message is not one of hate, but rather one of love and tolerance. You are not supposed to come out full of hate, you are to come out repenting your sins and if you happened to feel anger, than it should be towards yourself, for Christ died to save us from our sins and from Hell. If you came out in hatred, then you already had animousity embedded within your heart and have distorted the meaning within your own mind, missing the message of tolerance and love in your own ignorance. If you are from a different faith than that of the one depcited in this film, than the message this movie conveys to you should be tolerance. You don't have to believe in Christ. You simply have to come out understanding what your Christian counterpart has come to believe and why we believe in it so strongly. The movie in no way says: You have to believe this! You simply have to learn and understand about another faith. Open minds, on both sides, are the key to tolerance and understanding in our days of hatred.
The Passion of the Christ is a moving and epic film about the suffering Jesus Christ endured for mankind. Many critics, both professional and non, have come forward to denounce the movie on several accustaions, ranging from inaccuracy and distortion of history to display anti-semitism to the argument that the film's portrayal of Christ's suffering was over-violent and grotesque. However, such accusations do not hold up against the truth in this matter. Gibson has used an historically accurate source in the Gospels. They have been backed up both internal and external sources, which include archeological finds and documentation similarities in accounts. As for the charge of Gibson's supposed anti-semetic views displayed through out this film, the argument has fallen through as Gibson has proved himself respectful of all religions, and the movie itself emphasizes several Jewish characters who displayed more kindness towards Christ than perhaps any of us would today. And so with that denunciation shot down, critics turned to the movie's violent depiction of Christ's last hours on earth. They said it was grotesque and unneccesary, yet hypocritically have fallen slaves to Kill Bill's gore, drueling over it's bloody violence! And yet, while both films depict violence, The Passion of the Christ has an actual message behind it: tolerance and understanding. Compassion was felt by millions of people, and many were shown why it is Christians believe in this man so much, and even if they themselves do not believe in Him, they came out with better understanding and humanity, as we all did, b/c they felt sympathy, the most human emotion. As it is seen, the Passion has stood it's ground in the Hollywood community. While critics everywhere decree Mel Gibson's failure as a filmmaker, millions are packing the theatres to see the film. Why is that? How can such a hopeless and crappy film be grossing $315 million+, and more importantly be touching audiences everywhere, no matter their creed or nationaility. Because the message is pure and good. It promotes tolerance of both the Christian faith and the other religions in the world. And yet in our modern society we are decreeing it a blasphemy on the idea of freedom of thought and expression. In a world so filled with material thoughts and values, in a world in need of healing after 9/11, in a world where a country wages war on a tyrant and yet kills innocent children in the process and still justifies the means by the ends, in a world where all good has been swallowed by darkness, one man brings us a good wholesome message, about understanding, tolerance, and forgiving thy enimies and loving your brethren, no matter what his creed, and we have condemned him and his message straight to hell. Only in a world this sick, and poisoned, only in a world of material aspirations can we ignore such a message! Mel Gisbon, I however, will salute your efforts to bring such a message to our crippled and twisted world. This movie should be seen by all, no matter what their creed. You don't have to believe in Christ, but go see the film in order to hear the message of tolerance and compassion. Let us unite as human beings, simply!
Alright, I am done. Remeber the disclaimer. I am not a racist in anyway, and in no way am promting such behaviour in this defense. I am tolerant to all faith and promote respect. I am just defending this film and not contesting wheteher Christ's death actually saved the world. If you don't believe in Christ or God even, then I am fine with that. You are entitled to believe in whatever and whom ever you want. That is the beauty of democracy. So again, don't leave nasty accusations or denouncements of my faith or beliefs. Show me the same respect, i show people of all creeds. Thank you. Hope you enjoyed!
This has been a Mel Gibson Jr. essay.
- MEL GIBSON JR.
A few sources referenced from:
www.livius.org
www.sacklunch.net
www.probe.org
www.apologetics.com
The Bible
World Book: edition 2000;
Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2004
Questia
Jesus answered him:"If I have done anything wrong, tell everyone here what it was. But if I am right in
what I have said why do you hit me?"(John 18:22-23)
This, as well as the scene itself, is backed up by Matthew's account, and by the other two Gospels, as Jesus is beaten and mocked:
"Then they spat in his face and beat him; and those who beat him said, 'Prophesy for us, Messiah! Guess who hit
you!' " (Matthew 26:67)
And if one argues that the High Priest's shredding of his vestments was overdone melodrama, I contest:
" The High Priest tore his robes and said:'We don't need any more witnesses. You heard his blasphemy....' "
(Mark14:63-64)
Please do not think that the quotes that I have chosen prove the blame falls on the Jewish people or that the quotes show hate against the High Priests. They are merely used to prove the authenticity of the script and the fact that Gibson did not take liberties to convey an anti-semetic view. These are actual accounts, but I am getting ahead of my arguments.
Let us look at another argument my critic has drawn out. I am not all knowing in any way, but it is argued that I do not know who Pontius Pilate was. Well, neither do many historians. In fact both Pilate's past and future after the trial of Christ are clouded in mystery, but he existed and is historical fact. In 1961 at Caesarea Martrina, an archeologist found a slab with the following inscription:
JS TIBERIUM PONJTIUS PILATUS PRAFJECTUS JUDA[EA]E
meaning Tiberium Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea.
So, who was Pilate? What is known is that he was the Roman Procurator, or the supreme judicial power assigned to the region of Judea by the Roman Caesar. Now during the Roman occupation the right of capitol punishment was held only by the Roman procurator. In Judea, the Romans had found Herod an insufficient muse, and so had sent Pilate to take reign. This is why the High priest had to go to Pilate to cruxify Jesus. For you see, according to the Law of Moses (see Lev 24:16), any man accused of blasphemy is to be stoned. But, a charge of Jewish blasphemy would not interest the Roman courts, and therefore Pilate would have likely sent the case to the Jewish religious courts (which he may have done in sending Jesus to Herod). However, when the Romans took over Judea, the right of any form of capitol punishment lay solely in their hands via the procurator, as stated before, so the High Priests would not likely find the punishment they sought. Therefore, they had to change their accustation and accused Jesus of preaching against Roman taxes, making him seem like a threat to the Roman establishment, as a king would oppose a Caesar. Such testimony can be found in all 4 Gospels, specifically detailed in Matthew 23:2-3:
"they began to accuse him:'We caught this man misleading our people, telling them not to
pay taxes to the Emperor and claiming that he himself is the Messiah, a king"
And as far as it is told the accounts of the Gospels about the trial are very similar to those depicted in the Passion, which again have historical credibility. They are not distorted in anyway to lay blame. There are many non-christian texts that mention the trial in its records. For example, the most famous amoung them was Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, who, in his writing known as the Antiquittes (xvii), states:
"And there arose about this time Jesus, if indeed he can be called a man; He led away many Jews, and also
many Greeks...and Pilate had condemned Him to the cross, on his impeachment by the chief man amoung
us...."
The excerpt refers to the trial of Christ, speciifcally the fact that Pilate ordered Christ's death on the accusations of treason by the 'chief leader' or High Priest. Here is a classical extraneous text that accounts for the events mentioned in the Gospels. Again, as he was a Jewish figure, it is hard to believe that Flavius would paint his own culture as evil beings. Gibson has distorted no truth thus, in using the Gospels accounts of the trial of Christ before Pilate.
Gibson has taken the events of the trial straight from the Gospels, not straying from their records. For example, in the movie Pilates wife plays a pivotal role in his defense of the Lord. Acknowledge Matthew 27;19-20, if you will.
"While Pilate was sitting in the judgement hall, his wife sent this message:'Have nothing to do with this innocent
man, b/c in a dream last night I suffered much on his account' "
His wife's role was extended in the movie, but within bounds. She was not at all embelished to the point that she convinced Pilate to save Christ. This furtherence of role has it's justifications, that I think many feminists will hopefully like. While the Bible can be said to be sometimes a bit harsh on female role players, excluding Mary the Virgin Mother, many of the female roles in Mel Gibson's film have been made a bit richer to show the strength of females during this time or ordeal. Gibson, simply took an artistic right that any and many filmmakers do, in accentuating roles to create sympathy. Peter Jackson is a class example, as he lustered up many of the roles in the Lord Of the Rings, specifically the roles of female characters like Arowen or Eowen, making them stronger and more adept to handle ordeals; yet still stays true to the books. But back to the trial and Pilate.
In the movie Pilate was noted to be in some state of awe by Jesus' answers, specifically the one in which Christ answers that He has come to Earth to do one thing, and that is speak the truth. John 18:36, accounts Pilates response in the form of a question "What is truth?", at which point he returned to the crowd to decree he saw nothing criminal in Jesus. As stated before, pressure of treason was applied by the Pharisees, and afraid of rebellion Pilate conceded to their wishes. This existence of both Pilate and the trail have been shown as historical fact, through extra-biblical evidence.
Historically, the Gospels seem to have merit. They were written within a century of Christ's death allowing for eyewitness accounts or the protestation of the events, which never occured. They also depict figures, who have been proven as fact by historians from both our era and the era following Christ's death. So, as historical accurate documents, Mel Gisbon cannot be said to have used an inaccurate source. He has remained very true to it's texts, and any small wandering in script and characters has justification based on artistic liberty that all film makers are entitled to. However, many argue that Gibson's portrayal of the violence of the cruxifiction is artistic liberty taken beyond extremes. Once again, I refute such charges on the basis of historical truth and in contention of it's message being cathardic.
Let us just focus now on one major aspect of the movie that has brought about such controversey. That is the violence of the cruxifiction. Some say it never happened or is an embelishment, and that Gibson took special liberties here. The first point in refuting this would be to acknowledge what Christians have come to know as the scourging of the pillar, a bloody event to say the least. Mel Gibson was likely to have taken that out from the Gospel according to John, as the other three Gospels combine the Lord's cruxifiction with the scourging. In the Gospel accroding to John, Pilate decided that in order to subdue a rebellion, and at the same time appease his wife's request not to condemn Jesus to death, he would have Christ scourged or whipped:
"Then Pilate took Jesus and had him whipped. The soldiers made a crown of thorny branches and
put it on his head....Pilate went back out once more and said to the crowd,"...I will bring Him out
so you can see that I cannot find any reason to condemn him...."(John19:4-5)
As for the bloody depiction of the scourging, well it is a real depiction of what such an event was like. Mel Gibson not only researched biblical texts and christian documents, but also researched actual historical texts to find out what scourging was and what a cruxification ususally entailed. In fact, Romans were often brutal in their punishments, and as the case was, scourgings and cruxifictions were reserved for slaves, criminals and non-ctizens of the Roman empire. Thus, brutality to these unfortunate people was ever present through sadism, hatred and racism.
Many have refuted the movies depiction of the cruxifiction as embelished, especially in the portrayal of Christ being nailed to the cross. Skeptics will argue that most cruxifictions that took place did not involve nailings, but rather ropes were used to secure the convicted upon their crosses. This argument seemingly gave skeptics the edge they needed, until the body of Yohanans Ben Hagalogal, a Jewish man who was cruxified during the Jewish uprising in 70 A.D., was found. His remains suggested he had been nailed to his cross, with spikes driven into his feet and hands. His legs were also broken at the shins, an infamous event that is also listed amoung the Gospels.
Now, there is small argument as to whether Christ was nailed by his hands or by his wrists to the cross. Many Churches depict either one. However, Gibson chose the hands being nailed for perhaps no other reason than it was easier to depict using special effects. You see a fake hand was used, while real fingers stuck out the end of the silcone double. At the angle it was shot, it seems like an actual hand. A fake wrist would have been more difficult to create and executing a shot like that would have been awkward. But either way, there is eveidence that Christ himself was nailed to the cross, as well as evidence that he was not the only one to suffer the spikes. Thus, it is said that Gibson was staying true to both the Gospels and historical accounts.
While the movie's portrayal of a cruxifiction is accurate, many film reviews have denounced the explicitness of the violence in this movie, saying it is grotesque and overdone. Well, as I have stated before Mel Gibson tried his best to make this film as realistic as possible. It is not overdone, as the suffering Christ endured in the film is what the real Jesus Christ, Son of God, went through to save our souls. If it were not so violent, then perhaps we would underappreciate His sacrifice or lessen our compassion. And here's the thing: the movie is called The Passion of the Christ. The key thing to keep in mind is the word "Passion". In latin it means suffering, and not ferver or love. Thus, the movie makes claim to what it is about, before it even begins. While the life our Christ was important to Christians, the core of our faith lies in His suffering, death and resurrection. We believe Christ died and rose again so as to redeem us from sin, original sin and otherwise.
And another fact, most TV shows and movies are perhaps less explicit in violence but are far more damaging in their portrayal of it. What am I talking about? Well, within the Passion the violence is brutal, much to the point that you squirm and shift in your seat. All the better. That is real violence. Mel Gibson shows what Christ actually experienced for maknind; the pain, the torture, the gore and the agony of being cruxified. We squirm because it is real and we understand and feel some measure of that pain. We our selves experience the effects of violent acts through this movie. However, with TV and other movies the producers and makers numb down the effects of violence for our enjoyment. I mean, people get shot and walk off, people get punched and get up without blood or injury. In real life these effects never occur. People are shot and die, people get punched and bleed. Also, in a movie people are killed without second thoughts. In real life, the death of a human being at the hands of another is far more damaging pyschologically to the victim's family and the offender than as depicted on the screens we watch everyday. Look at the soldiers who came back from the Vietnam war; many were so damaged they took to drugs to relieve the pain of their acts. Let's face it, violence on the screen is glorified and watered down for our minds. You see, think of your mind as a sponge. Real violence is scary and in a way concentrated and potent. If absorbed, the mind goes into overload, as both senses and emotions become turgid with the effects of violence. In Hollywood, violence is watered down, the effects numbed for our pleasure. If the effects are hidden, we feel no overload of emotions or senses. We feel no impact. We witness the tragic death of people, and we come out of a theatre feeling no sympathy. In the end, we enjoy the experience as we are not traumatized by it and come back wanting more. That is how violence is glorified. Movies like Kill Bill, are a classic example. You come out feeling like getting some revenge on your own enemies. You feel adreneline pumped and ready to kick ass. The movie shows no real effects of violence. Ya, blood poors like Niagra Falls, limbs are severed like chopped carrots, but you never once feel anything for the victims, and see no trauma experienced by the attacker, the Bride. Killing in this way is hailed to be the solution to a problem, that will have little impact on you or your 'victims'. This movie is needlessly violent, but critics loved it's gorey scenes, praising its hostile aggression and dangerous choreography. Well, I got news for you: violence cannot be stylized. It can be numbed, but not stylized. And the end of it all, someone died and died painfully. Whether you choose to show that pain is the key element in realism vs sensationalization.
Mel Gibson's the Passion of the Christ, unlike Kill Bill, does not show needless violence, nor does it hide it. The point is to show you what Christ suffered for mankind. However, Mel does not only show us the suffering; in the violence and brutality of the scourging and cruxifiction, you actually feel the pain, or some small measure of it. With every drop spilled you realize how precious His blood was to the world, and that it was spilled to save us. You become human, because your senses are filled and your emotions brimming as you are shown the actual effects of brutality and violence. It is not watered down, or numbed. You finally understand what it is like to suffer. Tell me, what was the point of watching all the bloodshed and severed limbs in Kill Bill? What message is there behind it? When I came out of Kill Bill, I felt pumped full of adreneline. So did many audiences. But in real life, the effects and use of violence are draining to the mind and body. When I saw the Passion, I came out feeling renewed in my faith, but my emotions were spent and my body weak from watching Christ's torture and death for humanity. As Jay leno said when interviewing Gibson on the Tonight Show: "In most movies I see, I feel like I am punching the guy, the bad guys. I come out ready to fight. But with your movie, Mel, it was like I was being hit myself". And no one could have summed up the point of the movie's depiction better. The point of the violence being real is to hit you over and over again, to make you feel what Christ suffered. And even if you don't believe in Him, you still feel for Him, b/c He was a man, and took that brutailty not with the strength of a god, but the strength of a man. And we are humans, as He was. If you were throttled by what happened to Christ, whether you believe in Him or not, you gained some humanity. If you went in and said: "Alright, my Gosh, I get the point already", then the media has taken you and your senses have been entirely numbed if you cannot feel for what this man went through. Perhaps the reason most critics felt dumbfounded by the movies real portrayal of violence is because they have been so numbed by the sugar coated version of violent acts for so long that when viewing the truth and brutality of violence, their senses were blown open for the first time in a long time. Then again, maybe those critics who were bored with all of it, had already been dulled by the effects of watching watered down violence over the many years. It is okay to enjoy action packed films with violence, afterall I am a huge fan of the Lethal Weapon series. The key is to remember that actual violence is not what you see on the big screen- it is far more horrific. And that when judging movies with violent content you should probably be less hypocritical and judge everything by one standard. You cannot justify the praise of a violent movie like Kill Bill,whose potrayal of violence is false and message volitile, and then cry 'grotesque' at a film like the Passion whose depiction of violence is realistic and whose message is compassion and tolerance.
The point of all this, is that Mel has shown a realistic portrayal of what Christ suffered, and while "grotesque', it is what a real man endured. The depiction of the bloody cruxifiction was not numbed or portrayed for our enjoyment, as in most other movies. It is shown in its wholeness, in truth, to make us squirm in our seats and feel uncomfortable, to feel compassion towards this one man upon the screen, whether you choose to believe in Him is your choice. Thus, we reach are most human emotion of sympathy for what we witness this one man bear on His own back (literally and figuratively). We become human again in our compassion and so is tolerance reached. If the movie's presentation of the actual cruxifiction were not shown in full effect, than it would be impossible to make the audience reach such depths of emotion, and so the result of tolerance would be lost.
The last and final argument of many critics is that Mel Gibson has made a movie purely promoting anti-semitism. However, there is solid evidence to be found within this movie to suggest otherwise. Anytime a movie is made about Jesus or the cruxifiction, controversy usually ensues, specifically accustaion of anti-semitism. Naturally, this is always to occur, as the Jewish faith does not believe in Jesus' claim as the Messiah. This is okay, as each religion has it's different beliefs. But we must be careful in our charges, especially that of anti-semitism, as it is a despicable diesease that can cause a lot of trouble as we have tragically witnessed throughout history. We must analyze carefully whether such a charge actually applies to a movie that will reach huge audiences and masses(not as in ceremonies , as in people) around the world. I disagree with the charge, personally, and after analyzing the film so do many Christian and Jewish leaders. There are many factors in this movie to suggest that this movie promotes tolerance rather than hate. Let us examine a few of them. Firstly, while the Jewish High Priests are presented as the antagonists, Gibson actually added something that the Bible does not make mention of. In the movie there were several High Priests who in fact made an attempt to denounce Caiphus's trial at the synagogue, even leaving when he refuted their wishes to release Christ. Also, while many believe that the blame falls on the Jewish faith b/c they forced Pilate's hand, it is important to remember that Christ's death was prophesized and everything that happened, God meant to happen. Throughout the Gospel it is said: 'And this was done so that the phrophesy might be fulfilled'. Thus, if it were meant to happen it was meant to happen; you cannot pin blame in an inevitable event. Thirdly, there were a number of Jewish characters that Mel chose to accentuate. While the mob seemed a dominant factor in Christ's trial before Pilate, Gibson initiates his message of humanity through several key players in the story, and even goes as far as to accentuate their roles beyond that of their position in the Gospels. Many of these roles were that of Jewish figures. For example, examine the role of Simon, the man who helped bear the cross after Jesus had fallen. In the Gospels he is simply a man who lifts and helps carry the cross a certain distance. However, in the movie his role becomes much more. Simon not only carries the cross, but defends Christ when he has fallen and the crowd and Romans were kicking him. There is also one moving shot where as the two lift the heavy cruxifix, they cross arms, a gesture of brotherly love. There is also the role of Veronica, who wipes Christ's face, and the women wailing for someone to help Jesus. These roles were given more time in the movie than perhaps in the entire Gospels, and in doing so, they were made more loving and relatable. If Mel Gibson were truly anti-semetic, than perhaps he would have portrayed these Jewish figures as crude and just present.
In terms of Christ's violent scourging and death, it seems to me that the roman soldiers came of worse in terms of sadistic intent than did the Jewish people. They were shown to have enjoyed scourging slaves, and took special delight in crowning Jesus with thorns after they heard the claim that He was a king. In the scene where they are whipping Jesus, the Roman soldiers were laughing sadisticly, and even after being told to leave Him alive, scourged Him to the brink of death. It was they and not the Jewish priests who made the journey to mount Calvary more difficult for Christ in the movie. If anything, the key Jewish roles that Gibson has accentuated show the compassion of a people and its faith. Afterall, these kindly figures were Jewish, as Christians were not in existence until after Christ's death.
My last point in all of this is that had Gibson been truly anti-semetic, then why cast a beautiful Jewish woman, Maia Morgenstern, in the role of Mary, a pivotal character in the film? He not only cast Maia, but took her advice on many aspects while filming. He hired many Jewish teachers to translate scripts and help the actors learn Hebrew. Are these the actions of an anti-semetic person? No! So such charges cannot be applied to such a man.
While anti-semitism is a crippling diease in the progress of mankind and tolerance in the world, it's poison cannot be felt in this movie. The movie's message is not one of hate, but rather one of love and tolerance. You are not supposed to come out full of hate, you are to come out repenting your sins and if you happened to feel anger, than it should be towards yourself, for Christ died to save us from our sins and from Hell. If you came out in hatred, then you already had animousity embedded within your heart and have distorted the meaning within your own mind, missing the message of tolerance and love in your own ignorance. If you are from a different faith than that of the one depcited in this film, than the message this movie conveys to you should be tolerance. You don't have to believe in Christ. You simply have to come out understanding what your Christian counterpart has come to believe and why we believe in it so strongly. The movie in no way says: You have to believe this! You simply have to learn and understand about another faith. Open minds, on both sides, are the key to tolerance and understanding in our days of hatred.
The Passion of the Christ is a moving and epic film about the suffering Jesus Christ endured for mankind. Many critics, both professional and non, have come forward to denounce the movie on several accustaions, ranging from inaccuracy and distortion of history to display anti-semitism to the argument that the film's portrayal of Christ's suffering was over-violent and grotesque. However, such accusations do not hold up against the truth in this matter. Gibson has used an historically accurate source in the Gospels. They have been backed up both internal and external sources, which include archeological finds and documentation similarities in accounts. As for the charge of Gibson's supposed anti-semetic views displayed through out this film, the argument has fallen through as Gibson has proved himself respectful of all religions, and the movie itself emphasizes several Jewish characters who displayed more kindness towards Christ than perhaps any of us would today. And so with that denunciation shot down, critics turned to the movie's violent depiction of Christ's last hours on earth. They said it was grotesque and unneccesary, yet hypocritically have fallen slaves to Kill Bill's gore, drueling over it's bloody violence! And yet, while both films depict violence, The Passion of the Christ has an actual message behind it: tolerance and understanding. Compassion was felt by millions of people, and many were shown why it is Christians believe in this man so much, and even if they themselves do not believe in Him, they came out with better understanding and humanity, as we all did, b/c they felt sympathy, the most human emotion. As it is seen, the Passion has stood it's ground in the Hollywood community. While critics everywhere decree Mel Gibson's failure as a filmmaker, millions are packing the theatres to see the film. Why is that? How can such a hopeless and crappy film be grossing $315 million+, and more importantly be touching audiences everywhere, no matter their creed or nationaility. Because the message is pure and good. It promotes tolerance of both the Christian faith and the other religions in the world. And yet in our modern society we are decreeing it a blasphemy on the idea of freedom of thought and expression. In a world so filled with material thoughts and values, in a world in need of healing after 9/11, in a world where a country wages war on a tyrant and yet kills innocent children in the process and still justifies the means by the ends, in a world where all good has been swallowed by darkness, one man brings us a good wholesome message, about understanding, tolerance, and forgiving thy enimies and loving your brethren, no matter what his creed, and we have condemned him and his message straight to hell. Only in a world this sick, and poisoned, only in a world of material aspirations can we ignore such a message! Mel Gisbon, I however, will salute your efforts to bring such a message to our crippled and twisted world. This movie should be seen by all, no matter what their creed. You don't have to believe in Christ, but go see the film in order to hear the message of tolerance and compassion. Let us unite as human beings, simply!
Alright, I am done. Remeber the disclaimer. I am not a racist in anyway, and in no way am promting such behaviour in this defense. I am tolerant to all faith and promote respect. I am just defending this film and not contesting wheteher Christ's death actually saved the world. If you don't believe in Christ or God even, then I am fine with that. You are entitled to believe in whatever and whom ever you want. That is the beauty of democracy. So again, don't leave nasty accusations or denouncements of my faith or beliefs. Show me the same respect, i show people of all creeds. Thank you. Hope you enjoyed!
This has been a Mel Gibson Jr. essay.
- MEL GIBSON JR.
A few sources referenced from:
www.livius.org
www.sacklunch.net
www.probe.org
www.apologetics.com
The Bible
World Book: edition 2000;
Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2004
Questia