egafd.com

STORY
The last 12 hours of Christ's life.

PROS
- extremely moving in parts
- visceral violence that brings home the suffering Christ endured
- good use of music
- excellent directorial fluorishes
- wonderful photography

CONS
- occasionally flat in parts

VERDICT
This is arguably the definitive cinematic version of the cruxifixion of Christ to date shot with obvious religious conviction by Mel Gibson. In parts this is profoundly moving especially Christs mortal fear of what he is to endure and his mother's helplessness as she watches her son suffer excrutiating and humiliating pain. And yes the violence is bloody and visceral and relentless but this is not violence for violence sake or for entertainment. And don't worry about the dialogue either because although it's in Greek and Aramaic it is kept to a minimum.

The debate as to whether it is anti semitic or not is what the controversy is all about and I would argue that it isn't. Each group that are percieved as the 'villains' ie the Romans & the Pharisees are each given characters who speak out against what is happening. Indeed it is the head Pharisee, Caiaphus, who is portrayed as the chief instigator and leader in the destiny of Christ and it is he who possibly realises the terrible thing he has done by the end. And for the Roman Commander who hands Christ over to the rabble there is a soldier who is wary of his orders and a general who orders the guards to stop scourging Christ, for the abusive, spitting rabble there is the single compassionate man who helps Christ, for the Pharisees scared of losing their religious power over the people there is a Pharisee who speaks out against their actions.

For both devout Christians and non believers alike this is compulsive viewing.

this sounds like a remake of king of kings this was the 1 where robert ryan played john the baptist.

This sounds an interesting film. There is little doubt that although the story of the crucifixtion is substantially accurate historically, an anti Jewish spin was put on it by the gospel writers. It was certainly a Roman excecution not a Jewish one. Of the people involved records, other than in the bible, mainly exist only for Pontius Pilate. These reveal that he was a strong, resolute and brutal man. He certainly was not the weak vacillating one portrayed in the gospels. It is unlikely that he would have allowed the Jews to railroad him into ordering a crucifixtion he did not approve of. Does this matter now? Yes it does. There is little doubt that by implying that the Jews not the Romans were the killers of Christ, the gospel writers have been responsible for many of the pogroms through out history. It was not the thinking behind Heydrich's order for the final solution, but it does explain why so many in the occupied lands so enthusiatically helped the SS with its implementation. I shall be interested how the film portrays Pilate.

He's portrayed as someone who doesn't really want to make the decision himself and hands that choice to the crowd who choose Barrabas (portrayed as an utter gibbering imbecile). There is a scene which touches on the politics of his decision which seems to be damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Bear in mind that the early Christians were trying to get a foothold in Rome, that there was a major schism in the early church (what should have been the main group, led by Jesus's brother James was effectively sidelined), and that they had to show their target audience in the best light, and it's no surprise that the Jews rather than the Romans became the bad guys in the gospels. Much of what went into the Bible was decided at a conference around 125 BC.*

And on that marketing strategy lies the basis of 2000 years of anti-Jewish bigotry. Massacres, pogroms, and ultimately attempted genocide sanctioned because of bad feeling between the Christians and those who held to the Judaic faith.

* No doubt someone will add the details or correct me. I could look up the details, but it just depresses me.

Apologies for the brain fart. How could it be 125 BC? 125 AD.


Write out 100 times: I must not post when just awake . . . .

call me thick if you want but what is a 'pogrom'?

It's mentioned twice in this thread which is double the amount of times I've heard it before

It's what east European and Russian states used to carry out every so often to reduce the number of Jews in their cities (well, in the ghettoes). The fact it was so common in that part of the world is one reason why the holocaust was able to happen. To many of the good people of Krakow, Auschwitz must have just seemed a variation on business as usual.

The conference you are referring to is, I believe, the Council of Nicaea. Summoned by Constantine in 325A.D. It supports the doctrine that Christ and God are of the same substance. It also removed certain sections of the bible. This was justified as some parts were either forgeries or too over the top. The Council also devised the formula for setting the date of Easter. This survives to the present day. It is also worth pointing out that anyone who disagreed with the Council's doctrine was usually tortured to death. So much for the civilising effects of Christianity.

Only 200 years out. Cheers, David---couldn't remember the name Nicaea!