|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Feb 12, 2004 12:25:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Feb 12, 2004 12:30:33 GMT -5
here are some comentaries from people that got to view the private screenings of the movie:
Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson
>
>
>
> The majority of the media are complaining about this movie. Entertainment
>Tonight did a WEEK LONG series about how "shocking" it is. Now Paul Harvey
>tells "The rest of the story" and David Limbaugh praises Gibson. Most
>people would wait and see a movie before giving the reviews that have been
>issued by the reporters trying to tell all of us what to believe.
>
>
>
> Paul Harvey's words:
>
> I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited
>to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also
>read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe
>much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply
>held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of
>anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.
>
>
>
> I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC
>and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically
>Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look
>beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly
>introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping
>opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender
>portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the
>arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the
>thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty
>tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I
>have ever experienced.
>
>
>
> In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph,
>"The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction
>within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my
>children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this
>"invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were
>shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry
>eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was
>now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully
>inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the
>kind that makes heaven touch earth.
>
>
>
> One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A
>brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the
>cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to
>him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt
>road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the
>fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at
>her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us
>through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are
>words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of
>Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds,
>that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His
>back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been
>borne voluntarily for love. At the end of the film, after we had all had a
>chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous
>praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the
>compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that
>seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released.
>"Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having
>now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a
>question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in
>front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I
>do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents
>that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize
>that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of
>anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I
>would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story
>in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.
>
>
>
> Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have
>another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film,
>in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as
>followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will
>deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its
>producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to
>the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all
>in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and
>Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the
>greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The
>greatest right is the right to hear the truth.
>
>
>
> We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to
>which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed
>a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of
>the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it
>and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the
>message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel
>Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion."
>
>
>
> It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything
>I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."
>You will be as well. Don't miss it!
|
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Feb 12, 2004 12:31:44 GMT -5
here's another commentary on the movie:
This is a commentary by DAVID LIMBAUGH about Mel Gibson's very
>controversial movie regarding Christ's crucifixion. It, too, is well worth
>reading. MEL GIBSON'S passion for "THE PASSION" How ironic that when a
>movie producer takes artistic license with historical events, he is
>lionized as artistic,(think about it, we have seen dozens of such films in
>the last few years alone, many winning awards) creative and brilliant, but
>when another takes special care to be true to the real-life story, he is
>vilified. Actor-producer Mel Gibson is discovering these truths the hard
>way as he is having difficulty finding a United States studio or
>distributor for his upcoming film, "The Passion," which depicts the last 12
>hours of the life of Jesus Christ.
>
>
>
> Gibson co-wrote the script and financed, directed and produced the movie.
>For the script, he and his co-author relied on the New Testament Gospels of
>Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as the diaries of St. Anne Catherine
>Emmerich (1774-1824) and Mary of Agreda's "The City of God." Wow, what do
>you know a big time Hollywood star that doesn't put Scientologist before
>Christian when speaking of his faith! Gibson doesn't want this to be like
>other sterilized religious epics. "I'm trying to access the story on a very
>personal level and trying to be very real about it." So committed to
>realistically portraying what many would consider the most important
>half-day in the history of the universe, Gibson even shot the film in the
>Aramaic language of the period. In response to objections that viewers will
>not be able to understand that language, Gibson said, "Hopefully, I'll be
>able to transcend the language barriers with my visual storytelling; if I
>fail, I fail, but at least it'll be a monumental failure."
>
> To further insure the accuracy of the work, Gibson has enlisted the
>counsel of pastors and theologians, (always a good sign - go to those who
>know the text best) and has received rave reviews. Don Hodel, president of
>Focus on the Family, said, "I was very impressed. The movie is historically
>and theologically accurate." Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in
>Colorado Springs, Colo., and president of the National Evangelical
>Association, glowed: "It conveys, more accurately than any other film, who
>Jesus was."
>
>
>
> During the filming, Gibson, a devout Catholic, attended Mass every morning
>because "we had to be squeaky clean just working on this." From Gibson's
>perspective, this movie is not about Mel Gibson. It's bigger than he is.
>"I'm not a preacher, and I'm not a pastor," he said. "But I really feel my
>career was leading me to make this. The Holy Ghost was working through me
>on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the
>power to evangelize." Even before the release of the movie, scheduled for
>March 2004, Gibson is getting his wish. "Everyone who worked on this movie
>was changed. There were agnostics and Muslims on set converting to
>Christianity...[and] people being healed of diseases." Gibson wants people
>to understand through the movie, if they don't already, the incalculable
>influence Christ has had on the world. And he grasps that Christ is
>controversial precisely because of WHO HE IS - GOD incarnate. "And that's
>the point of my film really, to show all that turmoil around him
>politically and with religious leaders and the people, all because He is
>Who He is." It's a good sign when the "big man" in-charge remembers who is
>REALLY in charge.
>
>
>
> Gibson =s beginning to experience first hand just how controversial Christ
>is. Critics have not only speciously challenged the movie's authenticity,
>but have charged that it is disparaging to Jews, which Gibson vehemently
>denies. "This is not a Christian vs. Jewish thing. '[Jesus] came into the
>world, and it knew him not.' Looking at Christ's crucifixion, I look first
>at my own culpability in that." Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, who
>translated the script into Aramaic and Latin, said he saw no hint of
>anti-Semitism in the movie. Fulco added, "I would be aghast at any
>suggestion that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic."
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, certain groups and some in the mainstream press have been
>very critical of Gibson's "Passion." The New York Post's Andrea Peyser
>chided him: "There is still time, Mel, to tell the truth." Boston Globe
>columnist James Carroll denounced Gibson's literal reading of the biblical
>accounts. "Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of
>Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the
>virus of Jew hatred," wrote Carroll. A group of Jewish and Christian
>academics has issued an 18-page report slamming all aspects of the film,
>including its undue emphasis on Christ's passion rather than "a broader
>vision." The report disapproves of the movie's treatment of Christ's
>passion as historical fact.
>
>
>
> The moral is that if you want the popular culture to laud your work on
>Christ, make sure it either depicts Him as a homosexual or as an everyday
>sinner with no particular redeeming value (literally). In our
>anti-Christian culture, the blasphemous "The Last Temptation of Christ" is
>celebrated and "The Passion" is condemned. But if this movie continues to
>affect people the way it is now, no amount of cultural opposition will
>suppress its force and its positive impact on lives everywhere. Mel Gibson
>is a model of faith and courage.
>
|
|
|
|
Post by 1dell on Feb 12, 2004 16:47:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Feb 12, 2004 17:36:54 GMT -5
Mel Gibson isn't playing Christ. he produced the movie.. its this other american actor named James Caviezel.. he's been in some other movies I have seen "angel eyes" (with J Lo), "count of monte cristo", "pay it forward", "frequency", & "thin red line".. he is an awesome actor.. the movie comes out on february 25 (ash wednesday--what a coincidence).. there are a lot of churches playing the movie, but it is coming out in the regular movie theaters too.. i agree about the whole white guy playing jesus- you know- lack of authenticity.. but i dont think it will take away too much from the movie.. i think it will be good just the same.. even for those who dont believe in jesus and what happened to him.. we go to movies all the time when we KNOW it's fiction.. this shouldnt be any different.. be warned- it's in subtitles because the languages spoken in the movie are aramaic and latin.. do you believe they almost didnt put subtitles in the movie!! I was wondering the other day what the actors must have went thru to learn their lines.. those are two DEAD languages. Wow, when does this movie come out? I am definitely going to go see it. I don't know about Gibson play Christ. I dont like that too much, I would MUCH rather have Oded Fehr playing Jesus:     He would have been the best Jesus EVER!!! Even though he is whitish I wouldn't have mind so much because he is actually Israeli and he has an accent and middle eastern mannerisms |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Feb 12, 2004 18:28:31 GMT -5
from whats been written and the scenes its playing up to all the hype. Seems well worth it. But I am curious, what happened to Simon the cyrene ? Aint he the afrikan who carried the cross for Jesus  |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Feb 12, 2004 20:40:54 GMT -5
I must say im not up on all the particulars.. but as all books that are turned into movies- certain things are lost because of the compressed time. HOWEVER.. it does seem like something as the person that carried the cross for Jesus would be an important thing to have in the movie.. so what you are saying (and i am embarrassed to ask) is that someone actually carried the cross FOR Jesus?? the whole time?? part of the time?? what? from whats been written and the scenes its playing up to all the hype. Seems well worth it. But I am curious, what happened to Simon the cyrene ? Aint he the afrikan who carried the cross for Jesus |
|
|
|
Post by 1dell on Feb 13, 2004 1:44:52 GMT -5
Thats exactly like, Shimon carried the cross for him. After the romans saw that he could no longer carry it, they forced Shimon to carry it the rest of the way for him. Mat 27:31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify [him]. Mat 27:32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross. Mat 27:33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, I must say im not up on all the particulars.. but as all books that are turned into movies- certain things are lost because of the compressed time. HOWEVER.. it does seem like something as the person that carried the cross for Jesus would be an important thing to have in the movie.. so what you are saying (and i am embarrassed to ask) is that someone actually carried the cross FOR Jesus?? the whole time?? part of the time?? what? |
|
|
|
Post by Zandor on Feb 13, 2004 5:18:11 GMT -5
yes, his son simon bar jesus was the scapegoat  from whats been written and the scenes its playing up to all the hype. Seems well worth it. But I am curious, what happened to Simon the cyrene ? Aint he the afrikan who carried the cross for Jesus |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Feb 13, 2004 10:46:31 GMT -5
scapegoat for what? yes, his son simon bar jesus was the scapegoat |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Feb 13, 2004 13:01:30 GMT -5
an afrikan in a scene dominanted by greeks/hellenists and jews. I must say im not up on all the particulars.. but as all books that are turned into movies- certain things are lost because of the compressed time. HOWEVER.. it does seem like something as the person that carried the cross for Jesus would be an important thing to have in the movie.. so what you are saying (and i am embarrassed to ask) is that someone actually carried the cross FOR Jesus?? the whole time?? part of the time?? what? |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Feb 13, 2004 13:09:29 GMT -5
courtney the entire life of Christ is based on the law. And if we are to assume the jews followed the law and jesus himself was a jew then there must have been a scapegoat. The jewish law of sacrifice requires this. two sa'iyrs [goats] to cast lot upon. The lot that fell upon the scape goat falls upon Azazel. And alot of people make this mistake.... they think Azazel is sacrificed/crucified. The scapegoat is not the one slaughtered. If you look at the word scapegoat you can see its also ESCAPEGOAT. Azazel the scapegoat was to flee into the wilderness. He was spared. The other goat upon whose head lot of Yahovah falls upon, he would be SACRIFICED. ref., LEV 16 chp. |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Feb 13, 2004 15:14:10 GMT -5
so let me see if i got this right.. this african man that carried the cross for Jesus was supposed to be the one that got away?? You know I dont think I remember ever being told about this man Azazel, but I am definately going to look up that passage. Thanks so much for your insight. courtney the entire life of Christ is based on the law. And if we are to assume the jews followed the law and jesus himself was a jew then there must have been a scapegoat. The jewish law of sacrifice requires this. two sa'iyrs [goats] to cast lot upon. The lot that fell upon the scape goat falls upon Azazel. And alot of people make this mistake.... they think Azazel is sacrificed/crucified. The scapegoat is not the one slaughtered. If you look at the word scapegoat you can see its also ESCAPEGOAT. Azazel the scapegoat was to flee into the wilderness. He was spared. The other goat upon whose head lot of Yahovah falls upon, he would be SACRIFICED. ref., LEV 16 chp. |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Feb 13, 2004 15:29:53 GMT -5
I talked to a friend of mine about this.. and this is what he said.. that the jewish law about the scapegoat could also be explained this way.. that when sacrificing animals- lets say we have two sheep.. they would kill one.. put the blood of the dead sheep on the live one and set the live one free.. but some believe that this is represented as Christ being crucified and then when he resurrected that represents the live animal being set free.. what are your thoughts of that idea?? I see both your point and my friend's idea, but i am curious what you think about that. courtney the entire life of Christ is based on the law. And if we are to assume the jews followed the law and jesus himself was a jew then there must have been a scapegoat. The jewish law of sacrifice requires this. two sa'iyrs [goats] to cast lot upon. The lot that fell upon the scape goat falls upon Azazel. And alot of people make this mistake.... they think Azazel is sacrificed/crucified. The scapegoat is not the one slaughtered. If you look at the word scapegoat you can see its also ESCAPEGOAT. Azazel the scapegoat was to flee into the wilderness. He was spared. The other goat upon whose head lot of Yahovah falls upon, he would be SACRIFICED. ref., LEV 16 chp. |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Feb 13, 2004 15:38:22 GMT -5
another arguement against Simon being the scapegoat is that this law we are talking about was for atoning for sin and the jews were crucifying Jesus for breaking the law- they weren't having him atone for anything.. also.. another thing is that at this time they did not "sacrifice" people.. this was only for animals.. I am not saying i know any of this for sure.. this is just info that was presented to me and i would love a 2nd opinion.
|
|
