I think most every critique I've heard pro and con about THE PASSION so far has been colored by ideological glasses. The Jewish contingent hated it because they perceived it as portraying the Jews in a bad light. I understand that, but I can find lots of titles that portray different groups not to their liking. My criticism -- the real objection to how the Jews were portrayed -- was that they were nothing but caricatures, the result of a terrible script and worse directing.
This is the worst failing that can be leveled at any screenplay and any director, and it impugns the integrity of the film more than political overtones. This is the same criticism leveled at the portrayal of the Roman soldiers -- they are nothing caricatures. Can it be that not a single Roman had ANY trace of compassion or humanity? How stereotyped is that? And how totally unbelievable. If anything, the Italians should be even more insulted than the Jews about the portrayal of their country men.
But then comes the gratuitous, unrelenting violence....it is abhorrent. I got it Mr. Gibson -- Christ was scourged. I got it in the first 3 min of the scourging; I got it after the next 15 minutes. To prolong those torture scenes was about the most viscous, unnecessary violence I have ever seen on a movie screen. I would have thought there would have been an outcry from every corner of the political and religious spectrum about that -- from the Jews, from the Christians and the especially from the Churches since all that violence was nothing more than using the suffering of Christ, whether you think he is the Lord or just a poor guy caught up in the politics of the day, he was a human being and to trade on that suffering to make a movie sensational, debases all of us. But I guess gratuitous violence is tolerable, even perfectly acceptable if it is enlisted to prove some religious ideology.
The film teaches us nothing. Not about the man, not about his divinity, not about the underlying historical context in which he was sacrificed -- absolutely nothing. I think it is a loathsome film and I am ashamed that so-called religious people overlooked all that is wrong with it and praised it just because, whether consciously or unconsciously, they could use it as a kind of weapon against another religious group. It is despicable mix feeding on violence and religious sensibilities to make a buck....it is so crass that even Hollywood, much to its credit, turned it down. But I guess where there is a buck to be made, SOMEONE will grab it to make more, no matter how sleazy the project. The fact that it was made independently of Hollywood doesn't absolve it of its glaring, disgusting faults.
This is the worst failing that can be leveled at any screenplay and any director, and it impugns the integrity of the film more than political overtones. This is the same criticism leveled at the portrayal of the Roman soldiers -- they are nothing caricatures. Can it be that not a single Roman had ANY trace of compassion or humanity? How stereotyped is that? And how totally unbelievable. If anything, the Italians should be even more insulted than the Jews about the portrayal of their country men.
But then comes the gratuitous, unrelenting violence....it is abhorrent. I got it Mr. Gibson -- Christ was scourged. I got it in the first 3 min of the scourging; I got it after the next 15 minutes. To prolong those torture scenes was about the most viscous, unnecessary violence I have ever seen on a movie screen. I would have thought there would have been an outcry from every corner of the political and religious spectrum about that -- from the Jews, from the Christians and the especially from the Churches since all that violence was nothing more than using the suffering of Christ, whether you think he is the Lord or just a poor guy caught up in the politics of the day, he was a human being and to trade on that suffering to make a movie sensational, debases all of us. But I guess gratuitous violence is tolerable, even perfectly acceptable if it is enlisted to prove some religious ideology.
The film teaches us nothing. Not about the man, not about his divinity, not about the underlying historical context in which he was sacrificed -- absolutely nothing. I think it is a loathsome film and I am ashamed that so-called religious people overlooked all that is wrong with it and praised it just because, whether consciously or unconsciously, they could use it as a kind of weapon against another religious group. It is despicable mix feeding on violence and religious sensibilities to make a buck....it is so crass that even Hollywood, much to its credit, turned it down. But I guess where there is a buck to be made, SOMEONE will grab it to make more, no matter how sleazy the project. The fact that it was made independently of Hollywood doesn't absolve it of its glaring, disgusting faults.