Mel's The Passion of Christ

[dochawk]

Just for example, there is a scene after Christ is first arrested when He is pushed (or falls, maybe) from a bridge. He falls about 15 feet and what stops Him is a rope tied around His neck; they then let Him hang and sway for a while before pulling Him back up by the rope. The fall alone would surely kill a human being—it would break the neck of anyone.

I’m not sure abut that, Father–hanging is not fatal from the neck breaking without a proper noose; improperly done, death is by strangulation.

The US Army actually has a manual based on weight, etc., for drop heights, to make sure that the neck breaks, but without decapitation.

If we accept that He was a carpenter and/or fisherman, then He would have been muscular and tough, and would have taken more to kill. He must have been abused more than normal to die in three hours or so on the cross (thus the breaking of the legs of the thieves to finish then off).

respectfully,

hawk

 

[Reuben_J]

I haven’t seen that film in years. I remember the scene where Mary watched Jesus fall holding the cross is very moving.

Yes, it is scene like that which can be very helpful in our meditation of the passion of the Lord. The Gospels narrative would not be telling all these but we can think about the passion of Mother Mary too as she watched her son being condemned, tortured and humiliated. We can imagine the anguished and the pain that she had to go through as a mother. The prophecy of Simeon that she would be pierce as if with a double edged sword. Perhaps, was that to be this moment?

There was another scene where she saw Jesus being flogged and after the soldiers took him away, she would bring a wet cloth and wiped her son’s blood from the floor. Just imagine how she must have felt while doing it.

It perhaps will make us appreciate anjd understand her role more as a mother of the Lord.

God bless.

 

[kptrs]

I do see what you mean.

But, couldn’t Jesus miraculously survive all of that the same way He miraculously walked on water/raised Lazarus from the dead/healed the sick/gave sight to the blind, if for whatever reason attaining salvation for mankind required Him to endure everything He endured up to the point where He finally died on the cross?

Just something to think about.

As another poster mentioned up thread, Mel Gibson admitted to exaggerating the violence in order to portray what Christ really went through. What I meant when I said the violence is accurate is that it’s not “cleaned up” as other films about the death of Christ are. So many movies and religious art show nothing more than a tiny trickle of blood coming out of His hands and feet where the nails are. Others show no blood at all. I think many religious pictures look “posed,” if you know what I mean. It just doesn’t give the whole picture. The fact of the matter is that a Roman scourging was absolutely barbaric. Crucifixion was designed and deliberately implemented in a way that ensured the victim would feel as much agony as possible. I commend Mel Gibson for making a film which portrays all of that and does not sugar coat it the way other films and works of art tend to do.

 

[kptrs]

Interesting. That makes a lot of sense.

 

[Mary888]

Yes but showing it in a graphic way seems like contemplating his sufferance. It is like the same old dilemma - Christ naked on the cross ( as people crucified were) for the sake of history or partly covered out of reverence because he is a Person of the Holy Trinity or fully covered like the early church depicted him.

 

[dochawk]

But, couldn’t Jesus miraculously survive all of that the same way He miraculously walked on water/raised Lazarus from the dead/healed the sick/gave sight to the blind,

Like if he could have, say, called for an entire legion of angels to take him down, but chose not to?



hawk

 

[tuscany]

Just looked at the scene of Jesus being knocked off the bridge, and It looks to me like He is hanging horizontally, not vertically, so the weight bearing chain would be around His waist. It could be that Jesus is chained around His neck and to His hands, and the chain around His waist was separate. But it is very hard to see anything with all the darkness and shadows! Here is the clip:

The movie WAS hard to watch, but it really brings home the fact that Jesus was human and loved each one of us SO much that it was worth all the pain to Him. No greater love …

 

[MonteRCMS]

I have read a lot about the Shroud of Turin [and also visited the traveling exhibit of the Shroud of Turin] and the wounds and blood stains link closely with the film.

 

[petra22]

But especially during lent, don’t we WANT to contemplate his suffering???

 

[Mary888]

During Lent we are encouraged not just to contemplate but attempt to join Him.
Also let’s not remember these are movies, fiction. Watching these movies is not what the Church has been teaching us as contemplation for 2,000. To equal seeing this or another Christian movie as contemplation would it not equal watching it with prayer? Which can’t be acceptable.
I do not mind of this or other controversial film about Jesus because they are only films they do not replace neither Scripture neither iconography. But I disagree that actors and makeup can actually render the suffering of Christ accurate enough to count as object of contemplation.
Plus we also contemplate the mystery of His sacrifice. We do not fully understand it and never will because we are not Jesus even if we were to be able to join him as the saints did. Graphic attention to his sufferance scratches (for me) the amplitude of his sacrifice.
I don’t want to criticize this film or to label it somehow. I am just saying its reflection into my soul - it wasn’t pious and it wasn’t good. If instead of this film would have been some prayer, or icon or passage from the Bible, or something a saint said, I would go back again and try to understand it. But not for a fiction film based on religion except as artistic act, trying to understand what the author meant to say from his respective point of view.

 

[kptrs]

Yes, that’s what I mean. You have stated it well.

 

[FrDavid96]

I do see what you mean.

But, couldn’t Jesus miraculously survive all of that the same way He miraculously walked on water/raised Lazarus from the dead/healed the sick/gave sight to the blind, if for whatever reason attaining salvation for mankind required Him to endure everything He endured up to the point where He finally died on the cross?

Just something to think about.

This is a “yes, but…” situation.

Yes, He performed miracles, but for the most part, on others, as opposed to Himself (Transfiguration would be an exception).

The whole point of the Passion (the real one) is that the real miracle is the Resurrection. For our salvation, He endured a human death–and the worst kind of its time. The problem (in the movie) is as I said earlier, in His passion, He appears to be some kind of super-human (as in the fictional, comic-book kind) rather than human. I’m not sure how I want to phrase this other than to return to that comparison I made earlier to the fictional character we see so often in the horror movies—the ‘bad guy monster’ who gets effectively killed multiple times but just keeps getting up again as if nothing happened. If He dies (or actually doesn’t die) so many times throughout the film, then when the resurrection on Sunday does happen, it looses its value. It’s just “resurrection number 8”

As another poster mentioned up thread, Mel Gibson admitted to exaggerating the violence in order to portray what Christ really went through. What I meant when I said the violence is accurate is that it’s not “cleaned up” as other films about the death of Christ are. So many movies and religious art show nothing more than a tiny trickle of blood coming out of His hands and feet where the nails are. Others show no blood at all. I think many religious pictures look “posed,” if you know what I mean. It just doesn’t give the whole picture. The fact of the matter is that a Roman scourging was absolutely barbaric. Crucifixion was designed and deliberately implemented in a way that ensured the victim would feel as much agony as possible. I commend Mel Gibson for making a film which portrays all of that and does not sugar coat it the way other films and works of art tend to do.

And that’s exactly the good part about this movie. It does try to be realistic as opposed to sanitizing the Passion. It’s not (by far not) the usual fluff.

All I’m saying here is that the film-makers went “just a bit too far” in that direction.