Passion?
I'm going to see
The Passion of the Christ with a friend in Roppongi this afternoon, right
before we're slated to study for Friday's Japanese test. Not that I'm worried about getting studying done, as I can always do it later (and always study for tests on my own) but I am a bit apprehensive about and potential effect the movie has on me.
Am I just going to be seriously disturbed?
I didn't feel any hesitation about seeing it until last night when I realized my interest in the film is purely film-based and that I'm also curious what my friend's reaction will be. She's QUITE sensitive to violence and walked out of Kill Bill 20 minutes into the film (I don't blame her). She's also devoutly Christian and says that her grandmother, who likes "Disney Films only" sat through the Passion. I'm game to watch her face.
On the other hand, I have been feeling religiously sensitive lately and I'm worried that perhaps this film will guilt/shock me into feeling something I don't want to feel. Or maybe something that I *do* want to feel? Nevertheless, it's just a movie and I'm sure I'll have all my usual criticisms. (
What the heck was up with centurion number five?? Like a real centurion would do THAT?!?) At the very least, I give props to the "passion" of the real actor. I guess he got hypothermia while on the cross and a dislocated shoulder during the flaying... to top it all off, he was struck by lighting during the filming. Maybe God is trying to tell Mel he got it all wrong?
GOD: Don't go there buddy. Just... don't.
MEL: But, but, it's my PASSION!
Anyway, now I'M being blasphemous. Best to just go see the movie and then drink some coffee. Ta taa.
UPDATE: The jury is in.
Passion was a good movie, not nearly as disturbing as I thought it would be, which probably means I'm a bit desensitized to violence. I did cry, a lot, but not enough to warrant tissue and (o please don't strike me down!) I think
Peter Pan gets a higher rating on the tear-jerk-o-meter.
Filmographically speaking, I thought the film was excellent. Music and cinematography were well done and the hebrew/aramaic/latin dialogue was just *beautiful.* I had a few complaints with the androgynous demon (satan?) and the demon childre/babies but otherwise no major gripes with the way the story itself was presented. Err, except that I'm not sure King Herod was should have been a gay, circus ringleader... I bet the court WAS decadent but, erm, was it THAT decadent?
I was worried I would be pissed off at Gibson's directing if he miscast or stereotyped too many roles. Surprisingly, that didn't happen. I was
highly impressed with his rendition Pontius Pilate's human dillemma. In fact, I was glad to seem him treated as an emotional person, rather than as a roaring tyrant like in some movie versions. Major points there, Mel.
Because I recently read (devoured?)
The DaVinci Code, I've been thinking about goddess worship and the treatment of women in history and myth. So I was also quite pleased with how
Passion portrayed its female characters, particularly Mary Magdalen. The scenes with the women were, for me, the most amazing and touching scenes in the whole movie. Because the disciples were sadly underdeveloped (with a lack of time, one can only follow so many storylines, no?), the women were what best illustrated Jesus's ties to the human world and the emotional bonds that he shared with other people.
Unfortunately, after the movie was over, I realized that I wouldn't have a chance to discuss any of this with my friend, despite that she was also impressed by it. Nicole quickly made it obvious that aside from being a devoute Christian, she also took *everything* in the bible as literal fact by commenting on how Gibson had miscast Mary Magdalen in the "stoning" story.
I'm quite aware that Mary Magdalen isn't always called a prostitute in the bible and that what she "was" quite variably depends on the translation and interpretation of the text. I, however, think it a bit excessive for anyone to say that there can be no artistic lisence taken with any biblical story. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about BIBLICAL TEACHINGS or PHILOSOPHY here, because I don't even want to
touch that volatile subject. I mean simply that as a thousands-year-old text composed in several languages by several men over several generations, in my mind the "facts" of the occurrences and "characters" in the bible have no right to be called truth at all.
As a historical text the bible seems to serve best as a geneology. To say that so-and-so was DEFINITELY "this kind of person" because "this exact thing happened to them" is a little, uh, stupid, don't you think? Who knows if any of the stories are word-for-word true? As a historical mythology (again, philosophies aside), artistic liscense seems to be perfectly justified, even encourageable.
So, after my friend's comment about how everything was "nearly exact," as if the stories in the bible (teachings aside, damn it!) were perfect truth, I declined to talk about what I thought. I'd prefer to save my friendship, thanks.
Needless to say, the movie didn't coerce me into becoming Christian, any more than I already am. I believe in God and I believe in the life of Jesus Christ as a man... and even perhaps as the son of God. But without delving into personal beliefs too completely, I simply cannot accept that I need to accept Jesus Christ as an intermediary into a spiritual life with God. That seems an awful lot like idolatry to me, whether or not God and Jesus are, in the end, the same person. Nuff said on that subject, moving on...
What the movie DID do, however, was interest me a lot more in the Christian Mythology and the evolution of storytelling into religion. I would personally like to know a lot more about that time period and Jesus as a man, outside of the traditional Protestant teachings. (For those of you who don't know, I was raised Christian, attended Presbyterian church for 13 years, was "born again," baptized, and then left the chuch in an angry personal funk to come to terms with my seperate spirituality years later. I'm not Christian. Neither am I, exclusively, non-Christian.)
I've always thought that I would return to a religious teachings years later after a search for self. Having investigated Buddhism, Taoism and dabbled in very familiar pagan teachings, I can honestly say I will never be ALL of anything. But I do like the community of church and a congregation of shared beliefs, so I expect that after some more odd years of searching, I will probably return to the bible as a doctrine. But in no way do I expect to ever read it literally. That strikes me as the most dangerous and blasphemous thing an educated person could ever do.
Erm, yeah. Got a bit sidetracked there. Good movie, thought provoking. Nice costume work and bloody bits. The end.