I do like Hitchens:

I just got back from seeing the film, and while I thought the whipping scene was waaaay overdone (there's no way a human body could have lived through that and then dragged a cross for a mile or so), I must say I didn't notice any anti-Semitism. Oh sure, the Pharisess were made to look bad, but I think in general it was shown that Jesus and His followers were Jews too, therefore it was one group of Jews against another. Of course the sadistic Roman guards came off even worse than the Pharisees.

Also, I agree that the sadistic demon children being out of place. However, someone from my church group thought the midget being held by Satan may have represented a way of tormenting not Jesus, but Mary. By showing Mary that Satan had a child while she was losing hers, my friend thought that Gibson was trying to show that the Catholic icon was also being tested. My pastor, on the other hand, thought the midget represented humanity having been warped by Satan.

Although I thought much of the violence was overdone (the crow, the spurting sword wound, and the cat-o'-nine'tails) in the sense that it was not directly from the Bible, my biggest problem with the film was that it focused so much on the torture of Christ and not enough about the teachings of the Son of Man. Obviously, though, the torture was Gibson's point. This film certainly cannot be used as an evangelical tool, as it gives no reason why someone who doesn't already follow/believe in Jesus should start to.

Unlikely? Sure. Impossible? Heck, no. You'd apparently be even more amazed than I have been at what the human body can survive. Human beings have survived more trauma than that and still accomplished amazing feats of endurance and strength. I wouldn't recommend trying it at home though, as you're right, you'd almost definitely die.

Ed

By your standard, it's impossible to be anti-semitic in blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus. Jesus is a Jew (albeit, the least Jewish looking Jew) and the hero of the story, end of problem. The anti-semitic gloss is that Pilate is made to be a man who is touched by Jesus' message, but his hands are tied. The guards are just brutes, beating anything that's put in front of them. The Pharisees are conniving and political and controlling the situation. There's nothing of traditional anti-semitic stereotyping in there, nosiree.



Because if you don't, your eyes will be plucked out by a crow or you'll be tortured by demonic midgets until you die early or earthquakes will destroy your church and/or house or all of the above.

Is this the article that explains how the film is directly responsible for a woman's death? I'm looking forward to reading that one.

Shoe,

I just read it, and if he makes that accusation, I missed it. He makes a LOT of accusations in the piece, but I don't think he makes that one.

Matthew

I saw it, and while it isn't in the top ten of greatest films on things Biblical, I think the various critics who try to make of it "Martin Riggs on the Cross" are full of horse-hockey.

A quick bit of background to frame my own views (hey, if it's OK for Medved...): I was probably somewhat religious up until the age of 10-11. I don't think I was ever a proselytizer, but I can imagine that I probably internalized some Christian attitudes and became something of a 'holy joe.' But I always had a fascination with mythic stories, and when I finally began to get the sense that Biblical stories were not the first to elaborate many of the key "myths" of the Bible-- particularly the scapegoat myth which the Crucifixion plays out-- that was the beginning of my slide into blasphemous paganism.

So there's a lot I don't like about Christianity, any more than some others here (like Jenny and Reece). In particular I think the Big C. performed an amazing act of doublethink in that they say Christ in dying absolves the sins of the world, and yet, for the rest of the world's existence, his act of alleged absolution will be the sword of Damocles that generations of parents will hang over their kids' heads to prevent their further sinning (Jesus weeps when you do that, you know).

And yet, even if I don't like the ends to which this variation on the scapegoat myth is used to serve, the idea of god becoming man and suffering as mortals do is immensely appealing, far beyond the specific Christian interpretation. Balder, Attis, Adonis, Heracles-- they are all as different from each other as from Christ, but the thing they have in common is that their divine suffering makes them one with humanity.

With this in mind I think the script of POTC is guiltless of things like sadism or Hitchens' accusation of eroticized violence. The whole point of wallowing in the violence is to make the viewer want to reject the things of this imperfect world in favor of the perfect, originary world of 'the Father.' Things like showing the devil as an androgynous woman, the parodic demon-child he/she carries, the demon-infested children who beseige Judas-- all are effective metaphors for the corruption of the world (in later theology, the devil's domain). I don't subscribe to the philosophy myself but I credit the writers for elucidating a facet of Christian belief that often gets lost in the shuffle.

Someone thought Caziviel too European-looking: I think the whole cast was too light-skinned (although one local reviewer claimed he did think the Jews were all dark and hook-nosed-- lively imagination he had). Zeffirelli's JESUS OF NAZARETH is about the only presentation where I actually believed I was witnessing something in the Near East culture. (Another throwback: most of the mourners for Jesus affect the British stiff-upper-lip of KING OF KINGS, instead of howling and rending their garments as would seem to be more the cultural norm, IMO. Zefferelli handled that better too.)

Do the Jewish high priests take the responsibility onto their own people? Maybe, but it's rendered moot when you recall that the assembly they call is made up almost entirely of their own yes-men. It's clearly seen that the high priests draft a lot of their own acolytes to gather in the Roman courtyard, so I'd say anything that that particular crowd says can be taken with a large grain of salt.

I can't love the film, since it represents a philosophy I don't love. But I respect certain things about it-- and no, didn't think it particularly funny.

It's kind of funny though, that before this film came out a lot of morality groups, tried to get many films banned because of contorversial scenes (Base Moi, Y Tu Mama(sic), Irreversible). Then when a film about Jesus, which by all accounts is very violent, these same groups try to get the ratings lowered.

I enjoyed this movie immensely. It was graphic, but not too graphic in my opinion. I didn't find it distasteful at all, in fact I found it fitting. I also thought it was interesting how they depicted Lucifer and Judas's guilt. This movie hit home on so many points. Yeah, it's probably going to be held up against King Of Kings in comparison, but I think this movie hit at the right time. Now.
I WAS waiting for them to show the Veil of Veronica, the image i mean, but I can still take resolve that they showed the initial act.

Oh boy. Remember how I said that I think this film will do well at the box office?

The estimates for the film since its Wednesday opening:

OVER $117 MILLION!!!

And that's on an estimated $45 million budget, including ad costs. We'll have to wait a week to see how much it drops off, but even if it drops 100% it'll still be a solid hit... it may prove to be massive.

But I read that it'll have to top $400 million to take down "The Ten Commandments" as the biggest Bible film ever...