Teremei

Just curious, why was it the two criminals were not scourged before their crucafixions like Jesus was? They were obviously unscarred. And since some people have been saying the scourging was "common" before Crucifixion, I was just wondering.

Patman

Pilate had asked the soldiers to punish Jesus (like beat him up), but the soldiers went overboard with their scourging.

The Nature Boy

Chanster, great article and it is very insightful. But I call the Jews who were worried or saw Anti-Semtism in this particular pice paranoid, because I think they ARE paranoid. Unfounded and unjust fear or worry equates to the just that. I respect that Passion plays have carried their baggage, but we to put things in context. As far as I've heard, there's never been one attack on Jews in the U.S. after a passion play. While there are clearly some European issues that rise up, I'd hardly say blame the Passion even if something came about. There is a great rising tide of anti-Semetism in many parts of Europe these days, and I wouldn't pin the blame on this film if it manifests itself. Like I mentioned earlier, it's my contention that if all you take out of this experience is a hatred of Jews, you probably also took that into the theater with you. Any attack on Jews is a complete and utter perversion of what Christ preached, even down to his dying breath in this film, "Forgive them Lord..."

But your post is insightful and a good read.

Teremei

My question was why did the criminals look unscarred (I mean not even one whip lash on them), when some people here have been saying whippings were SO common proceeding crucifixion. In fact some people have said it might have been even worse than what we saw in the movie. Exposed intrails and so forth. Why were those 2 men spared of scourging before their crucifixions? I guess I need a history buff here.

natesfortune

Crucifixion was reserved for slaves and the worst criminals. It was the ultimate punishment. If you were a soldier of the Roman Empire, for instance, no matter what crime you committed you would not have been crucified. It was especially difficult for Jews since hanging on a cross was "separating them from God".

And as bad as crucifixion was, the scourging part, which was just about always carried out on those sentenced to death, was considered by many to be the worst part of it. Eyewitnesses of the time describe entrails coming out of those who had been scourged, and many that were scourged died, though the goal was to keep them "half-alive" for the rest. There were usually two "Lictons", as showed in the film, that gave out this torture in an alternating count. If the prisoner died, they would not be in trouble. Often, the prisoner would pass out. They would check their pulse and breath, and continue the beating if they were still alive until they got to the desired number of lashes. Incredibly brutal and horrific stuff.

As for the other two criminals - I suspect that is dramatic liscence for Gibson, to offer contrast to Jesus. They would have most likely been scourged just like anybody else. However, it is conceivable that they were so busy with Jesus and the political intrigue in the first half of the day, that the other two guys essentially got off easy by the clock running out before they could be dealt with - attention could have very well been focused all on Jesus, this self-professed Son of God and King of the Jews - obviously the main attraction of the day.

Another thing - when they put the robe on Jesus and taunted him as "King", the scabs that were forming over his wounds would have sealed the garment to his body - when they ripped it off, the pain would have been absolutely incredible - this is something not depicted in the film, as it would be hard to get across, I suspect.

Kal-El

I'm no history buff, but I'll take a shot at this. I guess the easy answer here is, Pilate didn't order it. And their "crimes" were probably not considered to be as severe as proclaiming yourself The Son of God. Regardless, in the Bible, we're not really given much information on them either. Just that they were criminals to be crucified with Jesus and as it showed in this movie(and in Jesus of Nazareth as well) Dimas asking Jesus to remember him when He entered into his kingdom, and Estas mocking Him.

natesfortune

But Kal, he makes a good point - it was standard practice then for anybody condemned to death to be scourged first.

It's not impossible that they wouldn't have been for various reasons, but it was standard practice, and most likely they were scourged just like Jesus.

However, seeing what a monumental day it was, and all the goings on, and the Centurians having such fun with the King of Kings, I can definitely buy that they may have overlooked these guys during all that.

Ranger

HAven't seen the movie yet but heard this funny joke on Leno.

"You know, me and kev went to see the Passion, weird thing happened, I went to the concession stand to get a small box of popcorn, and bought it back to the theater, amazing thing, that small box of popcorn fed the entire audience."

covenant

I don't believe it was standard practice.

There is much disagreement among authorities about the unusual scourging as a prelude to crucifixion. Most Roman writers from this period do not associate the two. Many scholars believe that Pilate originally ordered Jesus scourged as his full punishment and that the death sentence by crucifixion came only in response to the taunt by the mob that the Procurator was not properly defending Caesar against this pretender who allegedly claimed to be the King of the Jews.

Which jibes with the movie.

moocher

Good one!!

badger1997

No one, at least I think, ever tried to say it's not ok to make a film that will appeal to only a few people. I am only speaking for myself on this one, but I just think that Gibson did his film a disservice on this issue. He has stated that he not only wanted the film to be a moving experience for the believers, but also a way for religions to reach out to non-believers. Hell, Icon even put together a kit for churches to use the movie in that way. If he wants it both ways, he would have been better off putting more of the "why" (as it has been put in this thread earlier) in the movie than just concentrating so much on the "how."

Now, I've said I thought the movie was good. Not great in my opinion, but a good movie. But I feel it could have been more and Gibson could have gone a little more in that direction. I know the movie had to be violent. I have no problem with that. But in more than two hours of agonizing, heart-wrenching violence, it would have been nice to have a little more of that "why" in there. I realize there was some of it there already, but would it have really detracted from the movie to add more of it in there and remove a segment of whipping and beating here and there? I don't think the movie would have suffered for the addition.

I also, and maybe this is just the cynic in me, can't help but wonder if this movie isn't given more breaks by some viewers because of its subject matter. There seem to be a lot of people willing to forgive things about this film and shrug off problems with it that they would make bigger deals of in films that dealt with less weighty topics. Maybe I am wrong on that view, but I just think that even if the topic of the film is the last 12-hours of Jesus' life, it should still be held to the same standards as say "Seabiscuit" or "Lord of the Rings" or any other film.

That being said, I enjoyed the film. I just see more potential in there, and in fact I had hoped for a little better before going into the film. I'm not even religious but I felt the story and all the other elements were in place to make a film that would cross religious barriers and manage to move people no matter what they believed and in the end stand the test of time. I just feel this movie fell short on such great promise. But maybe I was holding it up too high.

Supermallet

I just got back from seeing it, and I agree with badger. The film was good, but as a non-believer, I didn't feel much of a connection. In fact, I almost wished it was a story of someone else's crucfixion, so I wouldn't have the religious issues in it, as well.

Now, I know people will say "But you're completely missing the point!" No, I'm not. I know what Gibson intended for the movie. And if I were a Christian, strong in my faith, it probably would have been quite moving. As it is, I found it visually stimulating but not much more.

I've read the New Testament many times, so I knew the details of Jesus' life pretty well, and I still felt disconnected from him as a character. I do think that this is a valid criticism. Even if Mel didn't feel it was needed, and a lot of the Christian world agrees with him, in the end, I think this will end up being only for Christians, because it doesn't give us much about Jesus as a person or even as a messiah. It really gives us Jesus as a punching bag.

One other thing I don't understand is the adoration for the score. It's serviceable, but its best parts were clearly derivative of Peter Gabriel's score for Last Temptation of Christ. And no, I didn't go in expecting to compare the two films. I have, however, heard Gabriel's score countless times for over a decade, so I know it pretty much by heart, and I could hear several times where this score lifted things (of course, they were tweaked a little, but it was still fairly plain to me).

Now, did anyone else feel the ending made it seem like Jesus was going to go out and kick some ass? He had such a look of determination on his face, the score was going into "victory" mode, and that last image made me feel like he was going to personally deliver his tormentors unto the lord. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

And, finally, the supposed anti-semitism. I didn't see it. When the Jewish priests are questioning Jesus, several object to the way it's being handled. So not even the priesthood are seen as unified in regards to Jesus. Clearly the actions taken were the actions of individuals and couldn't represent the entire Jewish community.

Edited to add: Satan was awesome! I could have watched a whole movie about Satan, the way Gibson depicted him/her/it. In fact, I was disappointed at how little Satan there was overall.

bareva

my two cents...so far what I've heard from difference media outlets, friends and people on the street is that this movie is graphically violence and inhumane treatment of jesus in his final hours. In today's society violence is everywhere and anywhere...even in movies...if a movie doesn't have violence in it...we tend not to like it or give it a decent rating. So, why criticize this one now...I just dont get it. Some people say.."here, we go again, another movie about jesus"..personally, and I havent seen the movie, yet...but I personally believe that this movie is trying shows us how cruel, hateful and inhumane we are to one to another..... That we can kill our lord jesus christ out of hate..and we cannot find peace in this world. Or is it because we tend not agree with someone when a movie is made about jesus and portraits the reality of his death and make us seens as "bad people" Like my grandfather used to say.."the truth hurts". after all is just a movie.

Supermallet

I spent 10 minutes going back through this thread looking for this sentence. Now I ask you this (and I would request you don't go looking these things up in order to show me up if you didn't know them before I asked):

Can you give me the details of Mohammed's life and a basic rundown of the Koran?

Can you name me the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, and also a brief summary of the Eightfold Path?

Give me three Confucian sayings from the Analects.

Could you give me a hymn or two from the Rigveda?

Who was Ruth? To what religion did she belong, and what did she do that's so important?

The reason I ask you these is because I have a feeling that for someone who declares that people should "get out of their caves" and learn about Christ, most Christians probably don't know tons about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Judaism. Since Christianity was an outgrowth of Judaism, it is more common for Christians in general to know a little bit about the Old Testament, however, many I have met don't know much about it at all.

And yet, these things should not stop people from watching movies about other religions. I should be able to watch a film about Islam and have some kind of general understanding about why the people in the film are doing what they're doing. To be honest, I knew more about the Jewish leaders and Pilate than I did any Christian in Passion of the Christ. This is why the charges of lack of character development are important.

Not only that, but to say "Why would a non-Christian be interested in this film" is silly. First of all, the film is directed by Mel Gibson, who is famous even to non-Christians. His name alone will draw people in. Secondly, people might want to see how it is as a work of art, instead of a religious experience. That is perfectly valid. I'm an atheist and I went to see it. Just because someone believes one thing doesn't mean they can't enjoy a film from someone with a differing faith.

And someone can know who Jesus is and STILL be confused about what was going on. I bring specific attention to

Not everyone is going to know that particular part of the Jesus story. It will confuse some people.

I think that if the film were about anything other than Jesus, and it contained as little context as this one does, people would rip it a new one. Sorry to harp on the subject but I feel it's been getting a free ride. If a film were released about Mohammed or Confucius or any important historical figure with as little context as this one has, people would say that it didn't make sense or they couldn't connect to the characters or other things. But because this is Jesus, it's fine to tell only the third act of the story.

pharmjod

I realize that this post was way back... but I just had to comment. I was in York, England on opening day when this movie came out and went to see it in a theater full of English Men and Women. They were actually cheering at the same scenes that my friend and I were (the ones that involved the British losing) so I can assure you it wasn't banned in England. That said, I will have to wait until next week to see the Passion, but I am definately looking forward to being able to judge for myself!

badger1997

My two cents...You've got to be joking right? The part about "if a movie doesn't have violence in it we tend to not like it or give it a decent rating?" I don't buy that at all and it really seems a lame way to argue the violence issue.

Secondly, maybe you should actually go see it before deciding what the movie is trying to show us or argue about whether the level of violence is appropriate or not. Kinda hard to take an opinion like this seriously when you aren't going off of actually seeing the film for yourself.

Michael Corvin

Gotta agree with Mel on the Tonight Show last night. Why is it considered too much violence? Kill Bill, anyone? Hello?

Why is Kill Bill praised for its gore yet when Gibson gives us an accurate depiction of a crucifixion it is taboo? People just aren't ready to see what exactly happened to Jesus. They prefer the "he suffered, died and was buried" traditional, watered down version. They don't want to hear how he suffered. But give me Uma with a sword, that is cool!



People, critics especially, are hypocrites. Plain and simple.

badger1997

You know, the Kill Bill analogy just isn't working for me. I saw both films and like Ebert's view, i simply feel that The Passion of the Christ is much more violent. I really think the violence issue is way too discussed because the movie is a good movie even with the violence. In the end I really don't have much of a problem with the violence, except when I hear about religious people bringing young children to showings. A church in our area rented out the theater to have their actual service this weekend in the theater and then watch the movie. Considering there are many families with young children in the congregation, it makes me really uneasy that they would do this, but not much I can do about it.

And if you don't think the violence in Kill Bill was a big issue for the public in general, then I think you maybe have been around the Internet geeks for too long. The violence in that movie was discussed a lot and a lot of people (outside die-hard movie fans and especially cult movie fans) wrung their hands about it. Passion of the Christ is getting more play simply because the movie itself is getting a lot more attention, rightly or wrongly.

Groucho

The other difference is that I don't recall churches encouraging parents to take their children to Kill Bill.

wlmowery

I think you would be hard pressed to find churches encouraging exposing children to this film. As a leader of a congregation that has bought out several showings of the film for our church and the community (free tickets do go so fast...), I can say without any doubt that providing skilled and age-appropriate child-care was definitely in our plans. I would hazard a guess that even the church mentioned above which is viewing the film as part of its service will provide child-care during the screening.

Not to say there aren't some people who will take kids to this film. But, there's always some nuts out there....

natesfortune

Kill Bill was my favorite film of 2003. I saw it multiple times. That being said, I don't think it's hypocritical for a person who didn't like the violence in that film to flock to "The Passion".

Context is very important. There's a big difference between a film that shows a reality - "VIOLENCE IS HORRIBLE." And one that twist reality completely around - "VIOLENCE IS COOL AND FUN." One is showing a reflection of the real world - violence is always horrible and always has devastating consequences - and the other is showing a falsity for entertainment purposes - violence is fun entertainment and there's no real consequence felt.

So I understand how somebody could see a difference there and not be hypocritical in the slightest.

Still, that must be limited to them simply talking about a film, such as Kill Bill, in an unfavorable light and not seeing it themselves. If they then try to make it where I can't see it, or other's can't, because they don't like it - I can never think of a case where that would be appropriate.

whynotsmile

did anyone else thing Jesus's eyes were off? I think they were colorized by computer. they looked fake and odd

Michael Corvin

They were colored brown with CGI after filming.

Don't they have colored contacts for this kind of thing? Wouldn't it be cheaper?

movielib

Maybe Jim Caviezel couldn't tolerate them. Also it may have been made more difficult by the makeup and physical rigors.

Kal-El

Or maybe they intended it that way so that our eyes would be drawn to look Jesus in the eye as he was looking at all of us.