Replies

The point here is this film will use modern film technique to make this film very bloody and realisticly so. Quentin Tarantino techniques to send it over the top. Clearly stamping it as a Hollywood production

This will accentuate emotions a lot more than the same film done 40 years ago without modern cinematic technology. Crudely put: Floggings, closeups of the nailing to the cross, scourging, crucifixion and other sufferings of Jesus can be and will be much more evocative than in older such films, than in passion plays done on stage in Europe.

The point here is this film will use modern film technique to make this film very bloody and realisticly so..

You mean exactly like Spielberg did with "Saving Private Ryan"?

Quentin Tarantino techniques to send it over the top.

Pretty disingenous to use Tarantino as a comparative, when Spielberg's "SPR" draws a much more honest parallel. Both Spielberg and Gibson deal with historical situations and don't hesitate using painfully realistic violence to bring the gory truth to light...Tarantino OTOH, makes no qualms about producing anything more than "pulp" films.

I'll add the caveat that I have not seen The Passion but intend to do so.

I have mixed feelings--very mixed feelings about this film from what I have read on multiple sources from a myriad of POVs. What bothers me greatly is the license taken regarding the Praetorium scene. The only "Jews" by any stretch of the historical imagination that I could ever conceive of showing up would be paganized supporters of the Herods, and even that is probably unlikely given the intense nationalism and protectiveness of their cultural and religious identity like the Jews of that period (yeah, can anyone think of a group of that time with the propensity to revolt against conquerors from Syrians to Romans?). To be in that forum as a Jew would be considered a treasonist act against Self, neighbor and God.

The New Testament is clear that the execution of Jesus was a Roman decision, prompted by a collaborationist faction of the priesthood. What anti-Semites never consider in their ravings regarding the execution of Jesus is that question was settled most brutally by the Romans themselves by the destruction of the priesthood after the Revolt. "The Jews" did not kill Jesus, a couple of corrupted toadies backing the Roman government at best "advised" Pilate. They put him on trial, then handed him over to the Romans. Pilate based his decision on his own questioning of Jesus. The execution was for treason, not because Jesus ticked off the Jewish priesthood.

In the descriptions of the scourgings, who held the whip hand? Who placed the crown of thorns? Who chose nails instead of rope? Who beat Jesus on the streets to Golgotha? All the while verbally humilating Him?

Also, that city was quite "multi-cultural". The mobs represented a mixture of the ethnic and religious types that inhabited the area.

Finally, it is true a couple of Romans found it within themselves to be kind. It does not surprise me because His execution was brutal and unusual even by Roman standards.

Again, that was Pilate's decision. All his. A Roman.

The reaction to the film I hope is taken in its proper context, and that the debate remains real and sane. I certainly hope this doesn't turn into another baby on the doorstep.

Those who know that painful aspect of Jewish history understand that reference. It damn well better not happen, again.

Don't be so quick to say that this is a "Tarantino version" or that older films that dealt with this subject could not also be graphic.

See the IMDB listing of The Lash of The Penitentes (1937)

This film was butchered and no full version has appeared (altough the film has been available on video for over 20 years). It deals with a group of Spanish Catholics who are into flagation and crucifixtion in their religious order. Part documentary, part fiction.

Also remember the violence that the main character endures in Braveheart.