Comments on: The Passion of the Christ http://www.jonathanlipps.com/blog/2004/02/the-passion-of-the-christ/ Creativity && Integration Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:38:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Eric Lowe http://www.jonathanlipps.com/blog/2004/02/the-passion-of-the-christ/#comment-39 Eric Lowe Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:24:31 +0000 http://67.19.176.42/blog/?p=237#comment-39 Yeah, right on. I just read this after seeing it myself. Also, in case you care, I think that's "ichor," not "ochre." Yeah, right on. I just read this after seeing it myself. Also, in case you care, I think that’s “ichor,” not “ochre.”

]]> By: Josh http://www.jonathanlipps.com/blog/2004/02/the-passion-of-the-christ/#comment-40 Josh Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:24:31 +0000 http://67.19.176.42/blog/?p=237#comment-40 Jonathan,<br /> While I hate to post so late, and to make my first post on your blog antagonistic, I feel compelled to ask if you saw the same "The Passion of the Christ" that I did. I found the movie to be lacking in several ways.<br /> You said that it was flawless technically (which I took to mean cinematically). I found the movie to be sub par. <br /> Cinematography: There were a handful of outstanding shots, but for the most part it was pretty non-descript.<br /> Period: Braveheart is pretty much renowned as the worst period piece ever, and The Passion does not fare much better. While hearing the different languages was enjoyable, it should be pointed out that the Romans would have spoken Greek, not Latin, and certainly not medieval Latin (as they did in the film). Jewish dress and the court system are a couple of the other missteps taken by Gibson.<br /> Plot/Screenplay: I completely understand why Gibson chose to focus on the passion, and why he chose to do that in the way he did. But the truth is that it made for a poor plot. This is easily missed (and rightly so) by those who enter the movie with an agenda and/or emotional attachment to the story. As a person who went in emotionally detached (for various reasons) I found the pacing to be sluggish, and the content to be minimal.<br /> In fact, I believe that the entire movie relied on tugging at emotions. I think that this is one of the reasons that it was promoted only to Evangelicals and conservative Catholics.<br /> From a spiritual standpoint, I am happy to hear that it is moving those who have posted here (and certainly others) to consider the depths of the love of Christ and the extent of his sacrifice. I would exhort us to remember, though, that the passion does not even brush the surface of the true suffering that occurred at Calvary. This is something that can never be displayed on film (or even understood in our minds). But we must guard our hearts and minds so that the accessibility of the passion does not begin to supercede the activity of the sacrifice. Jonathan,
While I hate to post so late, and to make my first post on your blog antagonistic, I feel compelled to ask if you saw the same “The Passion of the Christ” that I did. I found the movie to be lacking in several ways.
You said that it was flawless technically (which I took to mean cinematically). I found the movie to be sub par.
Cinematography: There were a handful of outstanding shots, but for the most part it was pretty non-descript.
Period: Braveheart is pretty much renowned as the worst period piece ever, and The Passion does not fare much better. While hearing the different languages was enjoyable, it should be pointed out that the Romans would have spoken Greek, not Latin, and certainly not medieval Latin (as they did in the film). Jewish dress and the court system are a couple of the other missteps taken by Gibson.
Plot/Screenplay: I completely understand why Gibson chose to focus on the passion, and why he chose to do that in the way he did. But the truth is that it made for a poor plot. This is easily missed (and rightly so) by those who enter the movie with an agenda and/or emotional attachment to the story. As a person who went in emotionally detached (for various reasons) I found the pacing to be sluggish, and the content to be minimal.
In fact, I believe that the entire movie relied on tugging at emotions. I think that this is one of the reasons that it was promoted only to Evangelicals and conservative Catholics.
From a spiritual standpoint, I am happy to hear that it is moving those who have posted here (and certainly others) to consider the depths of the love of Christ and the extent of his sacrifice. I would exhort us to remember, though, that the passion does not even brush the surface of the true suffering that occurred at Calvary. This is something that can never be displayed on film (or even understood in our minds). But we must guard our hearts and minds so that the accessibility of the passion does not begin to supercede the activity of the sacrifice.

]]> By: Josh Smart http://www.jonathanlipps.com/blog/2004/02/the-passion-of-the-christ/#comment-41 Josh Smart Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:24:31 +0000 http://67.19.176.42/blog/?p=237#comment-41 Jonathan, I'm a little surprised at your comment on the pacing, but "it takes different strokes to move the world," as 80's themes songs are wont to point out. In the end, perhaps my love of Kubrick has raised the bar a little high for cinematography and screenplay. As to period: I thoroughly enjoyed Braveheart as well, and I did not mean this as a criticism against entertainment value necessarily. However, when judging the overall quality of a film it's important to note the director's original intention and to attempt to determine how well he achieved his goals. Especially considering that one of the "selling points" of The Passion was period (including language), I think that the period criticism is valid on a cinematic level.<br /> (As a quick side note, I understood what you meant by "fictional realism," but I'm sure you can see what an oxymoron this is. Perhaps there is a better term for the idea.) Lastly, the final paragraph of my previous post: That particular paragraph was not intended to be a criticism of the film per se. It was meant mainly as an exhortation (I can see how this could be misread, however, considering that I set myself up as an antagonist). My purpose was to exhort the reader to remember that the physical suffering of the Christ, while great indeed, is nothing near the spiritual suffering that he endured by having the weight of the sin of mankind placed upon him, and by having the Father turn his back on him. This is the suffering that truly mattered ("the activity of the sacrafice"), but of course this is precisely the part of the story that is impossible to capture on film. This is why I said that the passion (i.e. the physical suffering of the Christ) is more accessible (than the activity). Again, I am glad to see that many people (including yourself, I believe) have not stopped mentally at the passion, but have gone on to consider the spiritual suffering as well. In this I am glad of the movie, and overall would rate my feelings about it on the positive side. Jonathan,

I’m a little surprised at your comment on the pacing, but “it takes different strokes to move the world,” as 80’s themes songs are wont to point out. In the end, perhaps my love of Kubrick has raised the bar a little high for cinematography and screenplay.

As to period: I thoroughly enjoyed Braveheart as well, and I did not mean this as a criticism against entertainment value necessarily. However, when judging the overall quality of a film it’s important to note the director’s original intention and to attempt to determine how well he achieved his goals. Especially considering that one of the “selling points” of The Passion was period (including language), I think that the period criticism is valid on a cinematic level.
(As a quick side note, I understood what you meant by “fictional realism,” but I’m sure you can see what an oxymoron this is. Perhaps there is a better term for the idea.)

Lastly, the final paragraph of my previous post: That particular paragraph was not intended to be a criticism of the film per se. It was meant mainly as an exhortation (I can see how this could be misread, however, considering that I set myself up as an antagonist). My purpose was to exhort the reader to remember that the physical suffering of the Christ, while great indeed, is nothing near the spiritual suffering that he endured by having the weight of the sin of mankind placed upon him, and by having the Father turn his back on him. This is the suffering that truly mattered (”the activity of the sacrafice”), but of course this is precisely the part of the story that is impossible to capture on film. This is why I said that the passion (i.e. the physical suffering of the Christ) is more accessible (than the activity). Again, I am glad to see that many people (including yourself, I believe) have not stopped mentally at the passion, but have gone on to consider the spiritual suffering as well. In this I am glad of the movie, and overall would rate my feelings about it on the positive side.

]]>