I think Braveheart answers those questions...maybe Gibson wanted to take it to the next level with this one!

I was just comparing Braveheart to Passion with my fiance. LOL. Even in Braveheart, you get to know about the character, what he does, and what he stands for before you see him tortured to death. The movie would have been completely stupid if all you saw was an extended version of his death sequence, with just small, very miniscule flashbacks of his past. The same is true for any movie. Think about Braveheart, Gladiator, the Matrix, what have you. Now imagine if that movie just showed the part where the character died...and that was the entire plot of the movie (just showing a few short flashbacks of the story before the death)? How good of a movie would that be? Why do it to Christ?

Anybody who already knows anything at all about Christ is already familiar with the character of Christ though, what he did, what he stood for and still stands for, so a background isn't really needed. I think Mel Gibson took that into account before he made the movie!

I think Gibson's main point and the point of the movie is to just impress upon people just how brutal and violent Christ's crucifixion actually was/could've been. That's sorta how I look at it.

There have been several other films depicting the background of Christ, including the crucifixition, to some degree. None near as graphic and brutal though.

I worry about this as an evangelical tool. I think that there has already been too much in the way of private showing only to select Christian groups, comments that critics who dislike the film are dupes of Satan, and its attitude towards Jewish people. I know that he claims that there is nothing anti-semetic about it, but I did not like what he did with Pilate and the Jews. Pilate was historically a brutal ruler. He crucified thousands and did not need to be pushed by the Jews to do what he did. In fact, he had to order the crucifiction. I realize that the Jewish leaders pushed for Christ's death, too, but the way MG portays the Jewish people so often as learing blood thirsty savages (just look at how he shows them during the crowd scenes) contrasted with the way he portrays Pilate and his wife (I don't think Matthew depicts Pilate's wife as being friendly to Mary ) expains why some Jewish leaders are upset. I don't believe it is historically accurate nor is it completely Biblically accurate.

I predict that there will be a large number of Evangelicals who will become very vocal towards those who dislike the movie. We will hear more about the liberal elite and their "attitude" towards religion. I already sense a shift in evangelicals (sometimes you see it here on this board) to a kind of "in-your-face" Jesus saves, almost like someone on the WWF is delivering the lines. I think this movie, so filled with Gibson's trademark obsession with tortue and mutilation, and so lacking in Jesus' love and compassion, will exacerbate this situation.

So maybe this movie isn't a good evangelical tool for those with no solid prior knowledge of Christ, but it seems to be moving for many (not all, obviously) of those who do. Of course, I don't see how anyone doesn't have the basic knowledge of why Christ died--for the sins of all. I understand what B's saying. But, Gibson chose to focus only on the Passion (Greek - "suffering") of Christ. Apparently this works for some & not for others. I have yet to see the movie, but I'm sure it'll work for me. As a Christian, I know how easy it is to take for granted what happened on the Cross. I'm looking forward to a wake up call.

You know, we have seen some say that instead of feeling moved when leaving the movie, they feel almost sick from seeing a man tortured and killed. But, we see more than that. A favorite quote of mine (I'm not sure if this is word-for-word since I don't have the book with me) in a book by Joshua Harris reads as follows: The world takes us to a movie screen filled with images of passion & romance. And as we watch, the world says, “This is love.” But God—He takes us to the foot of a tree on which a naked & bloodied man hangs and says, “This is love.” Obviously, these are two totally different definitions of love. It's strange to think that after seeing a man tortured and killed, you have seen the greatest expression of love ever shown. "Greater love has no man than this: that he lay down his life for a friend" (John 15:13). What do I personally hope to get out of this movie? To be forced to consider even more deeply just how much I am loved by God. Sure, I wish all who see this movie could understand that. But, for those of us who do, perhaps many of us will experience a spiritual awakening. Therefore, this can be an indirect form of evangelism. It can wake us up & make us want to be better witnesses. And, whenever we think we're suffering, we will be better able to vision the cross in the backdrop behind our own suffering & realize that we have no reason to think we have it bad.

hereamph wrote: "Of course, I don't see how anyone doesn't have the basic knowledge of why Christ died--for the sins of all."

I know from experience that many people have absolutely no idea of what Christ did or why the bible says he did it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Gibson's movie will give these people even more reason to be smug in their ignorance of the bible and its stories.

And this is sad as I think everyone should have at least a passing knowledge of the bible and its main stories if only because these stories frequently get reused in popular culture and in serious movies and literature. You won't fully appreciate the latter if you aren't aware of the background from the bible.

Agreed. I know plenty of people who do not truly know or understand why Jesus did what he did. They can spit out what they have been told, but it is obvious that they have no real understanding of it. They can just recite John 3:16.

What I don't like is that the movie, if looked at as an evangelical tool, offers nothing as to why Jesus does what he does. I have always been against the many things called evangelical in the Christian society, but they are rather self-serving. The movie can move those who already have a knowledge of Christ, but what about those who don't truly understand why? For them, they see a very graphic interpretation of the lines they already know: Jesus came to Earth and died for the sins of all mankind. But what does that truly mean to one who does not believe? How is that an evangelical tool?

Christ "Passion" was not just being beaten and nailed down to a tree. I truly believe that, if he were here in the flesh...telling us the importance of what he has done, he would not depict what Mel Gibson put on the screen. As evidence of that, look at the Bible: where the story comes from. Nowhere in the bible does it solely go into graphic detail about the death of Christ moreso than the message and life of Christ. As I said before, I don't necessarily have a problem with the showing of how violent and horrible his death was...but to show it without really offering insight into Jesus the man and what he did that culminated to his death....that just leaves a very graphic movie about a man who was tortured and killed because he loved people. As I stated before, where Jesus in the movie? The most Jesus you get in the film is an actor who resembles what is generally considered the "Jesus look", and a bunch of other actors calling him Jesus. That's it.

Christ, during his time before his crucifiction, did not talk about the brutality and horror of what his death will be and how that is important. Rather, he brought to people his message of love...his passion. I think its sad that today what is considered good and "evangelical" today is a movie that's primary focus is to show the bloody details of the death of the Great Man. Sure people can always say "Well people already know about Jesus." LOL. I argue then, let's see a movie about JFK, Martin Luther King, and others that just graphically shows the deaths of these men. What about a Columbine movie or World Trade Center movie...that shows people graphically getting shot in the face, burned in a plane, or following a person out of a window and splattering on the ground? Forget about the reasons as to why, what happened, etc., just show the ending...the death. Is there a message in that?

In the end, I'm not saying that I disagree with showing the brutality of the death of Christ. I am saying, however, that the movie would have been good to show the man behind the death. It isn't the death of Christ that matters to me. It isn't the death of Christ that matters to God. It isn't the death of Christ that does anything for anyone. It's the "why" behind it that is sacred and meaningful. What moves me about Christ isn't that he was barbarically killed, but rather who he was and what he did that makes it so sad and yet inspiring that he died like he did. The movie offers nothing to that.

For me, the movie was more a testament of just how violent and bloodthirsty our world is...not a testament of the love and the "passion" of Christ.

Has anyone ever seen The Last Temptation of Christ from 1989? This movie caused an uproar in the religious community. Not the same as The Passion.....but an uproar none the less. In fact...it was condemned by the Vatican. So if you really want to be a rebel...see this flick.

Mel Gibson is going to be really loaded after this one. I think he's already lost it after that last interview.....but now he's going to have dimensia and be super sickening rich. Oh the gore...oh the controversy....oh...current issues....oh the media.

I don't know...maybe it's me...but I cringe more when I see our government do nothing about jobs getting exported to India on a daily basis for "economic" purposes. Now that's gore. Not a new interpretation to an old story.

Check out the movie if you'd like: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0095497/

Apparently this movie could hurt his impact / influence in Hollywood:

February 26, 2004
New Film May Harm Gibson's Career
By SHARON WAXMAN (NYTimes)

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 25 — Mel Gibson's provocative new film, "The Passion of the Christ," is making some of Hollywood's most prominent executives uncomfortable in ways that may damage Mr. Gibson's career.

Hollywood is a close-knit world, and friendships and social contact are critical in the making of deals and the casting of movies. Many of Hollywood's most prominent figures are also Jewish. So with a furor arising around the film, along with Mr. Gibson's reluctance to distance himself from his father, who calls the Holocaust mostly fiction, it is no surprise that Hollywood — Jewish and non-Jewish — has been talking about little else, at least when it's not talking about the Oscars.

Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, the principals of DreamWorks, have privately expressed anger over the film, said an executive close to the two men.

The chairmen of two other major studios said they would avoid working with Mr. Gibson because of "The Passion of the Christ" and the star's remarks surrounding its release.

Neither of the chairmen would speak for attribution, but as one explained: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do."

Apparently, a much better rounded movie than Mel's was The Gospel of John (2003) ... look it up at www.imdb.com ... Curiously, this movie was produced by a Jewish Canadian guy, Garth Drabinsky.

Sorry for the long post, but some of you might enjoy this:

---

Gospel according to Garth

The film The Gospel of John offers a unique chance to understand Jesus's life , not just his violent final hours, says GARTH DRABINSKY

Globeandmail.com

By GARTH DRABINSKY
Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - Page A19

With the imminent opening of the film The Passion of The Christ, Jews and Christians are once again engaged in intensive debates and discussions about the Bible, the roots of anti-Semitism, and the role of Jesus in history. The popular culture dictates that this is a moment to attend to these debates. A variety of factors may be at play, including the religious orientation of the current White House. Certainly the press has fuelled the discussion. There is more coverage of religious subjects, and more correspondents with religion beats than ever before. Time and Newsweek magazines have for years had two religion covers each year. Most important, more people than ever are attending churches in the United States, a country founded on the basic precept of one nation under God.

As the producer of the film The Gospel of John, I am repeatedly being asked one question: Why did a Jewish producer make a film adaptation of this gospel of the New Testament? If, it is argued, the Gospels demonize the Jews as Christ-killers, what could possibly interest a Jewish producer in filming one of these Gospels?

As a faithful Jew, I am profoundly sensitive to the unfathomable suffering my people have endured over the centuries due to this canard. It is my belief that one way to heal deep-seated prejudices and conflicts is through enlightenment, communication and understanding. I would not have produced The Gospel of John unless I believed that it would contribute to such interfaith understanding.

Our film's eight-member advisory committee of leading scholars of theology and religion from throughout North America, including two Jewish members, shared this opinion, and, in fact, it was their unanimous recommendation that we produce The Gospel of John before any other book of the Bible, either Old or New Testament. (In the future, we plan to produce books on a word-for-word basis from the Old Testament as well.) Their recommendation preceded any knowledge of Mel Gibson's picture.

It is not unreasonable for Christians and non-Christians to engage in a dialogue regarding a greater understanding of the basic tenets of Christianity. Similarly, for years, Reform and Conservative Jews have welcomed a greater appreciation of the Jewish faith from the Christian world. How many non-Christians or even Christians fully understand or can distinguish the difference between the four Gospels? Or the way the character of Jesus is delineated so differently in each of the Gospels?

Our film provides an opportunity for an in-depth exploration. It has an easy-to-understand, relevant narrative with broad appeal. For us, it was a challenge to show a different portrait of Jesus, one that has almost never been seen by the film-going public. We knew, of course, that the Fourth Gospel contains anti-Jewish moments and various anti-Jewish depictions at the trial and Passion. Every Gospel has that. But a Jewish producer can perhaps bring a perspective and sensitivity and reverence to the depiction of the first century, different from the one that usually gets portrayed in sword-and-sandal epics.

Deeper interfaith understanding leads to less acrimony between religious groups. The endorsement of our film by the U.S. Anti-Defamation League confirms that. In today's tumultuous world, filled with religious tensions and strife, the ideas of John (who was a Jew) are profound, yet simple.

Ultimately, the point of the film can be expressed simply: Love one another. It may be more difficult for Jews to see that that is what most people take away from it. But after observing a great many people react to our work, I am convinced that is the dominant reaction among most people.

It was a coincidence that our film appeared shortly before The Passion of the Christ. Ultimately, I believe that its extreme violence may drive people away from The Passion of the Christ. You cannot put The Passion of the Christ in a child's Easter basket. We don't leave out the ministry and teaching of Jesus, which connects him to his Jewish environment, to concentrate just on the trial and Passion, which separates him from that environment. We rigorously connect Jesus's death to his message and life mission. Ours is not a Passion play based solely on the final 12 hours of Jesus's life.

In the end, it is Jewish-Christian dialogue, education and discussion that may help to reduce the historical hatreds. If blind hatred stems from ignorance, to the extent that our film promotes deeper interfaith understanding, it will have achieved one of its primary goals.

Garth H. Drabinsky is the producer of The Gospel of John, which premiered at the 2003 Toronto International Film Festival.

This is a valid point. But still....even if it's his last movie...I don't think he's going to be hurting for funds.

The box office explosion may only last a short time on revenue..then there's DVD sales....all of his other royalties...yada yada

This may have hurt him and his career...but for how long...especially in the US? What one big business sees as a failure...another sees as an opportunity. This will all blow over...just like The Last Temptation of Christ did. That film didn't hurt Martin Scorsese's career too much. That film didn't cause an uproar in the Jewish faith...but it sure caused an uproar in all Christian religions.

A country where Eminem builds his success on shock and Janet Jackson is crucified for it. Huh Ha! No pun intended. It's getting very comedic lately in the US....especially with all this censorship crap. I think Powells son and the FCC need to relax before we have media witch hunts and he becomes golden boy Cohen the second.

Thanks for the follow up. Now that interests me much more than The Passion. I must check that out.

But would you expect any less from a die hard Kids in the Hall fan?

Hey B i no you haven't posted in a while but please your figners need more rest,especially since your wrote the arsenal,i feel dorry for the ppor liltle things....joking aside and on to the movie

i just read that theres a big jewish protest going on over the film,maybe this movie has offended christians

Representatives of the Jewish faith were invited to see the film a month before its nationwide release.

The film, which depicts the last 12 hours in the life of Christ, has been accused in America of anti-Semitism. It shows the Jewish high priests demanding Christ's crucifixion, then looking on as he is tortured and put to an agonising death.

Neville Nagler, director general of the Jewish Board of Deputies, said: "It would have been better if this film had never been made.

"The glorification of violence and bloodshed and the reinforcement of medieval stereotyping of the Jewish people are extremely dangerous."

Lord Janner, vice-president of the World Jewish Congress, said that the film could damage relations with the Jewish community.

He said: "I hated it. I think it extraordinary that anyone would voluntarily go to see this film."

Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet said: "This film should not be shown. I hope they ban it, or at the very least edit out some of the scenes, but I am sure they won't.

"It will certainly generate racial hatred. No Christian will walk out of this film without bad feeling towards Jews. It is saying, 'the Jews were behind this'."
A number of Catholic priests were also among the audience at the Odeon West End in London's Leicester Square, and their take on the film was different.

Father Mark Hackeson, from Poringland, near Norwich, said: "I thought it was an excellent and very moving film. I do not believe it is anti-Semitic - Jesus himself was Jewish.

"The important thing is that the message behind the violence is one of love and forgiveness, not of condemnation."


Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger on Thursday urged the pope to reiterate in public that Jews are not to blame for the death of Jesus, saying he fears Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" could revive such beliefs.




Metzger said he is sending a letter to Pope John Paul II with the request. Metzger said he wants the pope to reiterate a key church decision from the 1960s that reversed the centuries-old doctrine that Jews were behind the crucifixion.

"The Vatican and the Pope must explain today ... that the Jewish nation, the Jewish people didn't kill Jesus," Metzger told The Associated Press in an interview.

Gibson's film, a bloody depiction of Christ's final 12 hours and his death, opened in American movie theaters on Wednesday. Jewish leaders have criticized the movie, saying it will fuel anti-Semitism through an unfair portrayal of Jews as being the main force behind Jesus' death.

Gibson, who directed, funded and co-scripted the film, has denied those charges.

Earlier this month, the Anti-Defamation League also asked the Vatican to restate its view on the crucifixion, but a Vatican official at the time said no such statement was planned.

In a landmark 1965 document called "Nostra Aetate," Latin for "In Our Time," the Vatican deplored anti-Semitism in every form and repudiated the "deicide" charge that blamed Jews as a people for Christ's death. The idea of Jewish guilt had fueled anti-Semitism for centuries.

The document was issued during the Second Vatican Council and has been credited with helping improve relations between Christians and Jews.
Gibson is a member of a movement known as traditionalist Catholicism, which rejects the modernizing reforms made at the council, a series of meetings held from 1962-65 that dramatically changed the Catholic Church.

An Israeli lawmaker on Wednesday called for Gibson's movie to be banned from Israeli cinemas. But it's unlikely the Israeli film board, which has rarely banned movies in the past, would bar "The Passion."

Media reports over the past months said the pope approved of the film after a screening in his apartment in early December and said, "It is as it was." But John Paul's secretary later denied he ever endorsed the film.

Rabbi Metzger, who first met the pope at the Vatican in January, said he fears the movie could be a setback for efforts to build stronger ties between the two faiths.

"All of us, we are the sons of the same God, the sons of the same father, Abraham," Metzger said.


I personally cannot walk around the streets at sometimes because im a "f***ing jew" since this films release 8 boys from our school have been taken to hospital for injuries because of hate. now many people are taking this as an excuse for beating up jews etc...

I went to see it last night, on opening night, and darn,... i must say, it is extremely extremely graphic and violent... but sadly the movie is also very precise and historically correct. Those who say that the movie contained too much unneccesary violence are only believing what they want to believe. They want a sugar coated version of the gospel and Jesus's suffering. They're missing the point. If you look at what Jesus actually went through to the full extent, then you'll be grateful for what he had done for us, at least i was. You'll be thankful that it was him, the son of God, who went through this for us, and not us going through this like we deserve. The truth, of Jesus's Suffering and death, is not to be sugar coated or to be somewhat diluted, if this is the case, then why don't we just cross out every line in the Bible that says we'll go to edited..? Adding to all of this, is that it doesn't really matter what physical pain Jesus went through, in fact, crucifixation is probably not even the worst way to die. I believe the chinese are pretty effective at making people suffer. It really doesn't matter. but what Gibson focused on, was the passion of God himself. Think, the son of God, God himself. would come to the earth humbly. Died an extremely humiliating death. Even more is that, the physical torture was not important, but the fact that he was carrying every single person living, dead and to be living's sins. The mental torture and preparation is edited enough. I believe that if even a fraction of what Jesus went through at that point was to be on a human person, then that poor indivisual'd probably drop dead the moment that it occured. On top of all that, he's God, he's sinless, and he created us. this is an extremely important point. God who made us, loved us, and who always looked down the road waiting for us to come back to him, would come down and die for each one of us so that one day we coudl be with him. This is love, and this is passion. This is what Mel Gibson focused on. In the feburary edition of the Christian Herald Gibson says that this film was made because when he went through a very hard time in his life, it was the passion of God which got him through. Now i could go on for hours here about the merits of God and why he came to die for us, but that's not the point.

Now the matter of who this film is for is another thing. I once heard a story of a mother who saved her infant daughter out a a burning house, and as a result, her hands became badly burnt. As her daughter grew up, she always felt ashamed of her mother's hands, and always insisted that she wear gloves. That was until one day when the daughter finally asked her mother why her hands were like that and her mother told her. At which time the girl started crying and apologizing saying: "these are the msot beautiful hands in the world, don't put them away please, ever." The cross and the deaht of Jesus is similiar. To those who don't understand, the cross will always be a symbol of human idiocy and hatred. But to thsoe who do, it is forever a symbol of love, compassion, and God's desire to be wiht us. The film, imho, was targeted at thsoe who understood the suffering and passion and the reasons behind Jesus's death. By hsi death we are set free. Look at the old testiment, where it is almost impossible to have a personal relationship with God, however, Jesus changed all that, because of him, we are all a temple of God and we can all come to him without washing ourselfs and attachign a string and a bell to our feet. This is the meaning behind the movie. It's not a evangelical movie, its not even a good movie, unless you know the meanign behind it. B_Magic makes a very good point in sayign that God probably doesn't want to have Jesus's death focused on so much. But that doesn't exclude the fact that God doesn't want it to be known, to be studied and to be understood. When god raised the official's little girl back to life, he didn't want it to be widely known either, but it was in the bible. Throughout the history in the Bible, no miracle, not matter how great, how spectacular, or how amazing, have had a lasting effect on the people. Take Elijah and the prophets of Baal, for example, the miracle (fire from heaven) was spetacular, and yet, did it have an effect on the people? NO!!! It has always been the words, the sermons and the messages that have had an effect on people generations after generations. And there is no greater message but the love of God, so much so that he'd die for us. Jesus wanted to love us, and the only way was the cross. It was his passion and love, and the thought of each one of us, you and me, that kept him going throughout his rather 'humiliating' life on earth. This is what the movie's focused on, it's deep, and you have ot look to find it, not jsut watch the movie about a man getting tortured and killed. Because its not jsut another guy, its God. Thats why the movie's called 'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST' and not 'THE TORTURE AND DEATH OF SOME GUY'

Hope i made sense, i'm a protestant christian, so the huge role of mary in the movie did seem a little wierd to me... but thats just me...

Billy Graham really liked the passion, to quote:
"I have often wondered what it must have been like to be a bystander during those last hours before Jesus' death," Graham said in a statement released from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. "After watching 'The Passion of the Christ,' I feel as if I have actually been there. I was moved to tears. I doubt if there has ever been a more graphic and moving presentation of Jesus' death and resurrection – which Christians believe are the most important events in human history.
"The film is faithful to the Bible's teaching that we are all responsible for Jesus' death, because we have all sinned," Graham continued. "It is our sins that caused His death, not any particular group. No one who views this film's compelling imagery will ever be the same."

Cheers