February 29, 2004
Violence and the Passion of the Christ
I thought this was such an exceptional post on the violence in The Passion of the Christ that I would make it a post on the site. It is written by Josh, whom we at DeoOmnisGloria.com know very well:
I completely agree with what the above comments have said and wish to defend another aspect of the Passion that is being criticized, namely, its violence. This evening I was watching a movie critic on Hannity and Colmes as he criticized violence in the Passion as being gruesome and extreme, yet when asked about his review of Kill Bill: Volume I, in which he praised the movie as a brilliant achievement, he made the excuse that Kill Bill’s violence is cartoony and, as such, is above criticism and not gruesome or extreme in anyway. What a hypocrite! Caught in the act and still won’t admit it. For those of you who haven’t seen Kill Bill here’s an excerpt from Yahoo’s Movie Mom Review:
“Parents should exercise the strongest caution before allowing their kids to see this film. They should know that the movie has the most intense, graphic, brutal, and destructive violence imaginable (at least until Tarantino thinks up something new). Body parts are sliced off and blood gushes and spurts like a geyser. Many characters are maimed and many more are killed. A mother is murdered in front of her young child. A man's head is sliced off and tossed around.”
I think everyone gets the picture. Now to make the point, which I was dying for the guy filling in for Hannity to make. There is a fundamental difference between the violence in The Passion and the violence in Kill Bill; namely, the violence in The Passion is purposeful violence (I’ll explain below), whereas the violence in Kill Bill is purposeless glorified violence. By purposeless glorified violence in Kill Bill, I mean that it makes violence look cool, stylish, and entertaining, as the heroine of the movie, out of revenge, brutally kills people without blinking an eye. Of course, this violence is so cool that the audience has to see it in slow motion, while listening to a kickass soundtrack. I think I make my point. Now to explain what I mean by purposeful violence in The Passion. The violence in The Passion not once glorifies itself, but, shown in such a gruesome and realistic (a very key word here) way, it attempts and succeeds to show the audience the consequence and result of sin in this world and the abundant and inexhaustible love of a God that is willing to sacrifice his only Son, Jesus Christ, for mankind’s redemption and salvation. Throughout and continually, the movie hauntingly whispers into the viewer’s ear: “see in My suffering your sin and see in My acceptance the sacrificial love and forgiveness I have toward you.” Summed up, the violence in The Passion will not only discourage violence, but will cultivate forgiveness and mercy in the hearts of its viewers (purposeful violence), whereas the violence in Kill Bill will, if anything, encourage violence with its eye for an eye philosophy (purposeless glorified violence). To wrap things up, I would like to make an interesting comparison. In Kill Bill, which is so brilliant, the heroine is shown returning violence for violence, having no mercy or forgiveness whatsoever for those who attack her, whereas in The Passion, Jesus is brutally tortured and afflicted on all sides, yet as they lift him on the cross he cries out “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I encourage everyone to go and see this profound and realistic movie. Don’t allow the hypocritical criticisms of its extreme and unnecessary violence to deter you, since the violence in The Passion “is as it was”-- purposeful violence.God bless,
Josh
Excellent insight into this issue - thanks, Josh.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(Please exuse my selling.) I think it is stupid that they rated it R
Posted by: Damien at March 8, 2004 11:55 PMI hered that jeusus told Mel gibsin to mack the movie
My gut reaction while seeing this movie was "despicable" "disgusting"
The violence was overworked and brutal to the point of instating
subconsciously a derisive pleasure for bloodletting. Children were crying and I was afraid that these Kids would be emotionally affected by all this brutal whipping.
This movie has little
to do with Christianity and more to do with capitalism. Mel Gibson's personal investment of 10 million has him laughing all the way to the bank.
If I were not a Christian this movie would not convert me. Why do we need to use violence and death in attempting to win people to christianity!?
Mbarrington Virginia
Meade,
Would you have rather that Mel Gibson lied? I don't understand your problem with the violence; this is how it occurred. The extreme violence should make you more sorrowful, more thankful, rather than create a "desire for bloodletting."
By the way, Gibson invested a lot more than $10 million and was told repeatedly that this would fail. He didn't do this for the money, rather he did it to spread the truth. Not everything in this world is about money.
God bless,
Jay
I have not seen the movie yet, but I have heard about it. Why are you guys complaining about the violence in the movie? Somebody else posted that money isn't everything. That is right!! Why do care how much money Gibson put into it. The movie shows us some of the things he went through. We are suposed to watch it and say, "oh my goodness, I didn't know he went through that for me. I should let him know how much I love him for doing that to me." He put the movie out there for the unsaved people to look at it the way I just said. C-ya,
Steven
I am so relieved that there are others out there with the same exact feelings towards the violence. Now, I can understand why you "violence protesters"(if I may be so bold) could feel so sour about it, but you really need to stop and think. This violence was not used senselessly, it was used for a purpose!! really...why do you think it hit so hard in the people's hearts who saw it? Dont you think that would leave more of an impression of the absolute concentrated love and sacrafice he gave to us? Its not about making money, The Jay Man was right, Mel Gibson invested money from his own pocket to produce this film, and besides...Do you think he would really need the money. I mean com'on! the guys been in so many movies its shocking. He is extremely wealthy and has no need to go through all the trouble to make more profit. Thanks
Posted by: Aaron at April 14, 2004 09:18 PMI agree and disagree with Josh's comments.
I agree with his comments on The Passion of the Christ: the violence is necessary to show the suffering that Chirst went through (note that I am agnostic, but still believe the story to be true and very important that it is shown that way.)
I don't, however, agree with his condemnation of Kill Bill. Josh, you must remember that Kill Bill is Volume 1, and that the story is not complete until Volume 2. You must reserve judgement on the violence until you see the second one.
The reason I say this is, if you look at Tarantino's work, he uses violence in much the same way violence is used in The Passion: as a message for anti-violence. I know many will scoff at this, but you would also scoff if I said that the Passion was anti-violent had you not been told beforehand about Christ's sufferings and his message.
Think about his movie Reservoir Dogs. Ultra violent, with extreme, hard-core violence. However, consider that there were very few women in the film at all. And, not one of them ever spoke. Tarantino depicted a world in which women's voices are not heard, and it turned into a violent, bloody, heartless gorefest. Think about the torture scene -- it's an analogy for a violent rape. Notice what Mr. Blonde says after he detaches the cops ear.
As for Pulp Fiction, the two main characters (Jules and Butch) leave their homes at the "end." Jules to walk the earth, Butch because he lost his L.A. privileges. A "Valley of Darkness" is mentioned several times...and they are in Hollywood! The whole movie is a reference to how empty American culture is because of the influence of Hollywood and shallow Hollywood movies. Think about this line: "Just because you are a character, doesn't mean you have character."
Also, the movie ends with one kind of character (a hitman) that's usually portrayed as hip and cool in movies, telling another character (a thief) that's usually hip and cool in the movies "that ain't the truth. The truth is, you (the thief) are the weak, and I (the hitman) am the tyranny of evil men."
So, give Kill Bill II a chance.
Posted by: RP at April 16, 2004 12:06 AMSome freakin' Christians just take things too far. Just because violence doesn't involve Christ means that instantly it's wrong and should be condemned, your points on violence in movies parallel your even more ridiculous points on homosexuality, you don't try to understand either and instead take them both on face value. I don't of course mean ALL christians.
Tarantino's movies feature very frequent and explicit violence. Now think for a second, one the one hand, this is obviously true, but on the other hand, why would one man get such acclaim for his movies if they were simply violence with well-written dialogue? Tarantino's movies are different because they are very metaphorical, as RP has illustrated (very well, might I add) above, and that's why so many people see his movies as masterpieces.
And having not seen Passion of the Christ I can't comment on the violence, but it seems to me that if you're going to complain about the violence in the movie then you might as well not bother making a movie about Jesus' death. You cannot have a movie about the death of Jesus without the complete story being told in all its graphical nature. I'm agnostic and have no particular leanings towards the Christian religion, but it just seems ignorant to take violence away from a violent story like the death of Christ.
Posted by: Peter Ellis at April 26, 2004 12:15 AMRead this article.
Posted by: Angie Garza at June 30, 2004 03:09 PMJay,
You are a very sick individual. For you to say that the violence in Passion of the Christ was real and is "exactly how it occurred" is bull____.
You were not there. None of us were. What was depicted in the Movie during the scourging scene was the severing of every main artery in Jesus' body. The weapon used in the second half of the scourging scene was a killing weapon, not a beating weapon. He would have bled to death in the first 3 minutes of the scourge. He never would have stood up - more less carry a cross. In other words, the battle wounds he received during the first three minutes were fatal.
If you remember, the orders were to beat him, not to kill him. They did not want to kill him because they wanted him to carry the cross. Humans have five pints of blood, not 500 pints. A dead person cannot carry a cross.
It sounds like you want to promote shame so you can capitalize on booksales and donations to your church.
Vishtae!
Mike
Posted by: Mike at September 8, 2004 07:03 AMMike,
Do a little research in the history of beatings during the time of Christ. I think you will find Mel's portrayal very true to what experts believe happened.
Kristie,
Yes, beatings like that did occur, but they never got back up - too much blood loss and muscle tissue destroyed.
Posted by: Michael at September 9, 2004 06:29 PMAlso I might add, the shroud of turin showed that no sheep bones were used on the flagrum used on Jesus. This was often the case when the flogged individual had to carry the cross 680 yards. Only lead balls were used on Jesus and all others who would then be required to carry a cross.
If an individual was flogged to death, then sheep bones were used, which caused deeper lacerations.
Posted by: Michael at September 9, 2004 07:37 PMI am new to this web site, may be too late for this posting, but what the heck.
I WALKED out of the passion, it was "disturbing". I am a sensitive person, and viscerally, could not "handle" this movie... on a gut level. I would walk out of any movie that gory. I've still yet to see Saving Private Ryan. No matter how "accurate" or "historically relevant", it WAS GORY...and I would NOT allow my kids to see it. I am a psychotherapist, and I think that seeing that particular INTENSE GORE over and over, I mean it did not STOP...I had to leave, or vomit...
no judgments here, just personal experience.
thanks!
LET.
