The Passion Of The Christ

As an atheist, I didn't expect to be interested enough to see this film in the theater, but the general uproar and criticism piqued my interest so I saw it tonight to find out what so many are getting so worked up about.

It's a very powerful film. The criticisms I've seen of it are ridiculous. Andrew Sulllivan and Christopher Hitchens have characterized it as sado-masochistic pornography and, quite frankly, they're full of shit. I'm far more appalled by such excesses in criticism than by any in the film.

I was afraid the film would would engage the emotions, but not the mind. That wasn't the case. I wept during one scene and the film had fairly earned my sympathy. However, on the whole, the film provoked more sober thought than emotion.

Gibson has really introduced nothing new here. He has attempted instead to revive a very powerful tradition upon which the book had been closed. Or so nearly everyone thought. He is reminding two billion christians that they're mailing it in, that they are evading the central mystery of their faith.

I reject that central mystery, but Gibson is true to it and I don't know how one can see the film and not be impressed with him.

Greg Easterbrook is another of the critics who has gone completely off his nut:

"Mel Gibson appears not to like the joyful, hopeful, universalist message of Christianity. Fundamentalism of all faiths and denominations tends to be angry at the world, and Gibson's is at bottom an angry telling of the Jesus story--an argument that Christ's followers should be full of fury about their enemies and their mistreatment. Perhaps Gibson, a wealthy celebrity, sits around telling himself that he is being mistreated by enemies. Or perhaps Gibson simply longed to earn millions by being the first filmmaker to manage the race-to-the-bottom feat of presenting a gratuitous, exploitive version of the crucifixion. Take your pick of these unattractive alternatives, then stick to Franco Zeffirelli. "

Eastebrook obviously brought a ridiculous amount of baggage with him into the theater because there is no anger to speak of in the film and no sense that the director is angry.

Easterbrook's review is embarrassing throughout:

" The Christ story is among the most compelling ever told, yet directors can't resist adding invented characters who are unnecessary. For his part Gibson gives us Claudia, the imagined wife of Pilate."

Actually Pilate's wife is in Matthew 27:19:

When he [Pilate] was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. "

Um, that's what she does in The Passion folks. And Gibson apparently got her name right even though she is not named in Matthew.

So who's imagining and inventing?

Andrew Sulllivan and Christopher Hitchens have characterized it as sado-masochistic pornography and, quite frankly, they're full of shit.

<p>Funny, but so did this guy...who, judging by the Usenet group it's posted to, seems to know what he's talking about.

<p>I won't see it, but largely because I don't have the stomach for that sort of gore.

Can you give me a short critic of the film passion of christ.
If you where give me will a pleasant thank you with you.