I thought this was a very thoughtful look at a movie which has a lot of people here worked up.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
wow. That was a very powerful review.
I'm not actually planning on watching this in a theater. I have problems with tolerating realistic violent films anyway. I'll probably rent it.
The one thing I clearly need to brush up on before watching the movie are the Stations of the Cross, now that I know it is based on that and not as much on the straight Biblical accounts.
AJ
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
quote: wow. That was a very powerful review.
What she said.
I am planning on seeing the movie on Wednesday(or soon after). I was a bit reluctant because of the violence, but I've decided to go anyway.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I'll third the WOW review of the review.
It makes me hesitant to see the movie. But I will anyway.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
That was a pretty good review.
Oh, okay....Wow!
I was planning to see the movie, but now I may not.
Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
Another amazing review by LDS filmmaker Keith Merrill.
For those that don't know him, he is an oscar winning director and has made a several movies for the LDS church.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My tickets are for Saturday.
I'm really not sure I'm ready to see it, I have a feeling it will be quite overwhelming emotionally. But my hubby really wants to go, and he already arranged the babysitter and everything so we could.
I had a very tough time with Private Ryan and actually walked out of the room (it was being played on my parent's tv) The violence disturbed me greatly. So I'm unsure how I'll react.
I'll let you know on Sunday or Monday, I guess.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Quite a different opinion, from a very religious group o' guys!
--Steve
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Steve:
These are the same ilk that think watching Harry Potter will make you a devil worshipper. I don't think their hysterical opinions quite compare to a thoughtful movie review written by a seasoned pro in the business.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
While I believe in an audience member needs to go into a movie with "suspension of disbelief" in mind, I think it is important for the director to work with me and create as little "disbelief" problems as possible. Speaking Latin instead of Greek won't really ruin much for me, since I don't speak either. However, for me the Crucifixion is a pretty important part of the movie. Nailing him through his hands is just ridiculous. And having him carry the entire cross is out there, too. Might as well have nailed his hands and then made him carry it. While he may have been "true" to the gospels, he should have done more research. He says that experts disagreed, so he just used "my own resources to weigh the different arguments and decide for myself." For me, he decided incorrectly, which ruins the film. Watching the commercials, it's been driving me crazy to see him nailing the hands. (Literally, it's him pounding in the nails.)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm sorry, but you're saying the movie is being ruined for you because he's nailed through the hands instead of through the wrists? Forgive me if I think you're reaching for reasons to hate it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Jack, Maybe I'm not understanding you here??
quote: 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (JOHN 24)
What part of the nails going through his hands is hard for you to believe?
Farmgirl
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
well, you are reading the english translations of those verses. If I remember correctly, and this is kind of hear-say, but I think that the greek words that were translated in to 'hands' literally means the hands and forearm.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Nails driven into the palms of the hands, I've read, won't support the weight of the body; they'll tear through. To crucify someone, and leave them up long enough for them to suffocate, it's necessary to drive the nails through the wrists.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I am really excited about the film, I think it oculd be either really great, or just terrible, thoughts?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I've long understood that the nails went through the wrists. I'm not sure that a few inches really makes a difference for whether this movie is worth seeing, though.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Note that in the film, the arms are also TIED up as well, in a way that would support the body. It can work.
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
I guess one of the reasons that it is kind of a deal, whether they went through the hands or wrists was because there was prophecy that no bones would be broken. It is possible for the nail to go through the hand without actually breaking the bone, though I would say, some relocating would happen. And I do believe that they also tied the arms up, as was mentioned.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, sure jeniwren, the location of the nails wouldn't really impact my experience of the film either.
Is there evidence that the Romans tied people onto crosses in additon to nailing them up? If so I haven't read anything about it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the case.
In any case, I'm probably not going to see the movie; I just don't feel like making myself watch something as violent as this movie will be. Anybody else making a similar choice?
I look forward to reading all of your reactions to the movie though.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I will probably hide my eyes and close my ears in certain parts, in order to be able to handle the violence (that's what I do for scary movies -- I don't care if it makes me look like a child). But I will sit through it.
Farmgirl
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I had at one point considered taking the church youth group (after seeing it myself first). Now I think I probably won't. At least, I'm not going to suggest or mention the possibility to any of them until after I've seen it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah. THe violence makes me uneasy. I mean, I usually enjoy make-believe suffering, which lots of movies and TV shows have, because people sitting around drinking tea and talking about how wonderful everything is is not usually great drama.
But... realism and knowing it probably happened very close to that way, and to more people than just, er, god. *shudder* The end of Braveheart nearly did me in, and that wasn't even really 'shown'. I don't know.
It makes me wonder if some religious nitkwit will take their children to se it.
edit:see below
[ February 25, 2004, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yes, Noemon. I got off at the same stop.
quote:I guess one of the reasons that it is kind of a deal, whether they went through the hands or wrists was because there was prophecy that no bones would be broken. It is possible for the nail to go through the hand without actually breaking the bone, though I would say, some relocating would happen. And I do believe that they also tied the arms up, as was mentioned.
cyruseh, it might be possible to nail through the forearms and similarly shift bone without breaking it. There are two bones in the forearm, and there is a decent-sized gap between them near the wrist. Might be possible? I'm not really too keen on dwelling on it, though. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the Merril review is interesting in light of him having produced "The Testaments" which I thought was too violent for kids.
I can see how if you believe in the resurrection, this film doesn't hate anyone. But if you don't believe in the resurrection, it would probably seem very offensive to be implicated in such violence.
I'm surprised Merrill didn't say more about whether the film address the Atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane. Anyone familiar with the stages of the cross able to help out there?
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
Oh yeah, Claudia, I actually dont really care where the nails went through. It could have easily been either one, the forearm or the hand. There is evidence that points both ways, and it was possible both ways, without breaking bone. So either way. I've heard the argument that through the hand would not be able to suppor the weight of the body, but there is the possibility that they used ropes as well.
The main thing is that no bones would be broken. I'll have to look up the certain prophecy but I know that it is in there. Here is a little something of interest. Usually, the 'criminal' was not beat as badly as Jesus was, they were whipped and then hung on the cross, and left for days. If they were in a hurry to get the death over with, they would then break the legs, this would hinder the 'criminals' ability to lift up, and therefore they could not breath. They would then die of afixiation (not sure about that spelling). What was significant in Jesus' death, was that they had to hurry up and get him off of the cross, because the high sabbath was about to begin, and the Jews did not want him on the cross during the passover. When it came time to break his legs, the soldiers could clearly see that he was already dead and therefore did not need to break his legs (fulfilling the prophecy that no bones be broken). But just to be sure, the one soldier took his spear and shoved it up his side and in to his heart (fulfilling another prophecy).
If you think about it, there are so many prophecys concerning his death on the cross alone, its astounding! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah. Almost unbelievable, really.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Umm- Olivet, I think it's ironic for you to complain about the violence and then use an asterisk that could only be replaced by one vowel in your last sentence. :gags:
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I still can't for give him for giving the first two LOTR films three stars, while giving both Harry Potters four. I didn't even bother to read the ROTK review.
[ February 25, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
Well, the prophecies were there, in the old testament, well before Jesus was born. So in order for him to fulfill these prophecies, without it being truly divine, they would have had to been made up by his diciples. And knowing that all his apostles died martyr's death except for one, why would they die for a story they made up?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
cyruseh -- I can point to lots of people dying for things they made up; numerous racists, for instance, and cult members (I am NOT saying christianity is or was a cult).
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.
Moooo.
I just can't believe that there won't be hysterical weeping in the theater through a lot of the film. This is one film that I either won't see within light years of opening day, or will just see on vcr.
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
Yeah, I know that that argument is not a great one, it just lends a little more credibility to the story, I suppose. The fact that these stories were written down, within the same generation of them happening, with that many people who would have been able to discredit the story. Meaning, I believe it was Paul, who wrote to one of the churches, telling them to ask the people who were there. That there were people still living, who saw Jesus die, and saw him afterward, in the flesh, alive and well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, I don't think your examples are valid. A racist dying for his racism is dying for something he believes in. What do you mean he "made it up?"
Cult members, as opposed to cult leaders, likely did not "make it up."
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body.
I have tickets for tonight. What am I doing??
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd say a cult leader is quite often a cult member -- they regularly believe the things they say.
Are you perhaps familiar with Scientology? The cult leader (who made it all up) came to believe it himself, and ended up dying in part due to lack of proper medical attention because according to his beliefs it wasn't necessary.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As for racists, they quite often make up conspiracy theories about what people of other races are trying to do to them, with the collusion of various government groups -- and some of them kill people because of it, and get killed by the police while in pursuit, or kill themselves, or get executed (and presumable in the first two ways mainly still believing their fantasies, and definitely often still believing their fantasies in the third).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fair enough - I interpreted "made up" in a slightly different way.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: had at one point considered taking the church youth group (after seeing it myself first). Now I think I probably won't. At least, I'm not going to suggest or mention the possibility to any of them until after I've seen it.
Good idea, Dana. I only plan to take my oldest (18) son with me when I see it. Then I will determine if I think my other two kids can handle it (they are more emotinally sensitive).
I heard some preacher on a TV news interview today say their church was taking all their kids, "because the kids need to see this to draw them to Christ." Somehow the idea of scaring the bejeebes out of them isn't my idea of bringing them to Christ. I do feel it is important they understand the sacrifice, but I certainly think it should be previewed and deemed appropriate for certain ages first.
I still haven't purchased tickets yet or decided which day I want to go. It is like I need to get myself emotionally ready for this. (and take lots of kleenex.)
Farmgirl
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Pooka, it's a new word that I just picked up from a friend, and I rather think it fits. But I think it's ironic that you equate violence and foul language.
*snicker*
Truth is I have never said f*ckwit out loud, and don't really plan to. But ... it seemed to fit. I really do expect that some misguided person will take their six year old to see this because it's a religious movie.
Actually, I was feeling bad about that epithet, and came back into this thread to change it, lest I offend someone like dkw who has only ever been kind to me, or you, pooka, who I have no reason to dislike.
It came from remembering my own days of faith, and how that faith was coupled with abuse. Using a bad word was my subconscious way of asserting that the people who made my adolescence a living hell don't still have power over me. I hate that my religious feeling was used against me when I was younger and least able to defend myself, and that my need to separate myself from their power also serves to separate me from the faith that used to be so important to me.
So, I am sorry about the word. I'll edit it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But I think it's ironic that you equate violence and foul language.
I do too, though. Someone swearing at me hurts as much as being hit. It feels like a physical blow. It provokes actions like one. I feel the same way as pooka.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Being attacked personally, even if you don't swear, hurts too.
God, why do I come here? I don't like hating people, and right now I hurt badly enough to hate more than a few of you who I thought of as friends.
Just because you don't cuss, it doesn't mean you you don't hurt me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
(((((Olivet)))))
Olivet, I know your heart. You haven't hurt me, and I hope you know that I would never want to hurt you. I wasn't hurt by the above post, but I didn't want pook to feel alone in that.
This is such a polarizing issue. I come here to discuss because I love and trust Hatrackers enough to know that hardly anyone is interested in hurting anyone.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
((olivet))
I sure hope I haven't offended you. And if I have, I apologize for doing so. Please don't leave.
Farmgirl
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Are you KIDDING me?
Other posters use worse, unedited language. Then olivia uses strong, edited language to make an objection to what she finds horrific--and suddenly she is under attack.
There's one thing about pointing out, "Hey, with that asterisk, it's still pretty much an f-bomb. Sorta bugs me."
Rather than pass judgement and equate swearing with disproportionate violence and GAGGING.
Are you f*cking kidding me?
There. Pigpile on me. Olivia might bow out, but I won't.
She doesn't need to be alone, either.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
(((Olivia)))
I think that's the first time I've used the huggy thing, and wow, I mean it.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
(don't go olivet, because I say so, and so you must stay)
I have to dip my toe in this subject just to relate a little story about me. Because I *luuuurv* me. When I was little I was extraordinarily empathetic. My mom sent me to a religious preschool (Protestant, but not sure which sect, but it doesn't really matter) and they told us the story of the crucifixion. Apparently, it was told very graphically and specifically and scared the whoozits out of me. (edit: it scared me because someone died and suffered and I was heartbroken about all of the meanness and etc. My mom says that I said I could imagine fully the nails and lance and thorn crown, but I think the years have filled out her story a little bit. I don't remember that sort of thing) Years later, when we moved back to the mainland (from Hawaii), we went to go visit mom's aunt, who was Catholic. Yes. She had a large crucifix on her entryway wall and I refused to go into the house, bursting into tears and generally throwing a three-year old tantrum (even though I was nine at the time). After a couple of (confused) minutes, my mom realized what I was freaking out about, and gentle Aunt Jo removed the crucifix during our stay. I continue to be squicked by images of the crucifixion, but not to the same degree (thank goodness, since I have several Catholic friends and I enjoy going to their houses without embarassing tantrum-y moments hehe). Still, I know for sure I will not be watching this movie in the theater, neither will I be watching it at home. I wish I could watch it so I could form an opinion on it, though, because it seems to be a very important piece.
(edited also to add: Pigpile on mack! Whee! And also: I agree with mack. In far more gentle language. But that's just me.)
[ February 25, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: jexx ]
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Mack and Olivet:
--I--
And I mean that in a good way.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
No, you mean: --*--
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Olivet)))
(((Olivet)))
Anyway, I don't understand why you say that Christianity wasn't a cult. From the historical records that I've seen, a very small number of people were part of Christian sect at first.
(((Olivet)))
(((Olivet)))
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
mack... I do?
**runs off to the copyright office**
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
quote: Woman Collapses During Showing of "The Passion Of The Christ" Wichita KAKE News
A woman collapsed in an East Wichita theatre this morning, during a showing of "The Passion Of The Christ". Peggy Law apparently suffered a heart attack. She was pronounced dead a short time later at a Wichita medical center.
Peggy Law, also known to some by her married name Peggy Scott is a respected figure in the local broadcasting community. The tragedy has hit some here at KAKE especially hard. She was a former employee.
People viewing the movie at the Warren Theatre East say Law collapsed during the portion of the movie where the crucifixion of Christ was shown.
A few off-duty doctors and nurses who were in the audience tried to revive her. But when she was taken away in the ambulance, authorities say Law still had no pulse.
The movie has been criticized for it's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death. Religious leaders around the country and here in Wichita say people need to be prepared for the graphic brutality.
Whether Law's death and the timing in the film are related, we will never know, but religious and medical officials stress this film is not for the faint-hearted.
Olivet- It's probably hard not to let the general divisiveness going on elsewhere leak into our other interactions, though I haven't done that on purpose. I don't know if kat's experience is similar to mine at all, I hope not. But I was verbally abused continually using that word and a bunch of others for most of my childhood. Usually I object to it just based on community standard. But I thought I'd explain this to you because of the meaning it has for you. And in this particular case, using it in a sentence with the word "child" in a discussion about Jesus, gave me a particular bout of post traumatic stress. But I know you didn't mean to.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I can't think of any reason to want to see this movie. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It seems like he put his heartand soul into it from what I saw of the short little trailer... But I'll pass. I can't stand much violence in films being empathetic.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Here's my review. It is really intense, and I can't say I "enjoyed" it, but it was very moving.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)