Brutally Honest

The Passion of Christ - My Thoughts

I've been trying to organize my thoughts on this movie and write them down. I'm having great difficulty.

My wife and I, our youngest son and a friend of his went to the 11:00 AM show. Up early this morning, I actually had thoughts of not going. I was dreading going. It was... peculiar.

Trying to take my mind off of it before the show, I decided on a whim to attack the glut of gumballs that had accumulated over the last few months in the yard by running a mower with an attached bag over them. I was successful only in picking up gumballs. I kept thinking about what I'd heard from others about the movie.

Some wouldn't go because it was too violent. Some because conservative christians were championing the movie. I wondered how different I might be after seeing it. I even worried (and still do) that I might not be affected by it at all. Fleeting thoughts of simply not going and finishing the yard (I still had the entire backyard to do) entered but quickly exited my mind. I was being foolish about this. It's only a damned movie.

We arrived to a half-empty theatre with 15 minutes to spare. I assumed it wasn't a sellout because of the time.

I walked by the popcorn machine. No popcorn for me. My stomach was in knots. And I didn't want a coke knowing that I needed to sit through the entire flick and not be distracted by the urge to take a leak.

Soon enough the lights dimmed, the commercials and previews went by (rather quickly) and the movie begins.

Can you believe I was breathing hard? What foolishness.

It starts in the garden of Gethsemane under a blue moon on a foggy night. Jesus, praying, in anguish and fear. Soon enough, I hear my youngest son ask my wife if the entire movie was sub-titled. Oops, we'd forgot to tell him that part. I chuckled a bit.

From here the movie moves rather quickly.

Judas before the Jewish council. Judas being tossed a bag filled with silver coins.

Christ in the garden, in anguish. Sweating blood. Peter and the disciples being awakened by an agitated Christ, obviously upset, frightened, angry, even confused.

And there's an extra-biblical scene with an androgynous satanic figure (one we'll see more of throughout the movie), someone who reminds me now of the punk rocker Marilyn Manson.

Judas arrives in the garden, leading a gang of thugs with body armor, shields, chains, swords and lit torches to guide them to Jesus.

The kiss from Judas. A struggle. An ear is cut off. Jesus heals the injured man. It's done well. I'm impressed at this point with the realism. This is no low-budget Jesus flick. And the language, in Aramaic and Latin, adds to the authenticity. I thought I'd be distracted by the sub-titles. I'm not.

From here, the brutality begins. And it's violent. Very. I would not take children under the age of 13 to this movie unless they've displayed an unusual maturity. The R rating is justified.

The movie then takes us, slowly I think now but during the movie it seems to go by more quickly, through the process by which Christ is brought before the Jewish Council, before Pontius Pilate, to Herod, back to Pilate, and then the toughest part of the movie but that which I think every christian should sit through, begins in earnest.

Gibson intermingles flashback scenes at interesting moments that center on Christ's ministry, or his relationship with his mother, his childhood, the if-any-of-you-is-without-sin-then-cast-the-first-stone scene with Mary Magdalene as the woman caught in sin, Peter saying he'll never leave Christ's side.

The musical score is haunting, moving. The scenery incredible.

The flogging is painful to watch. I wished it to stop. I caught myself crying silently. It seemed to go on for too long.

Gibson's Catholicism becomes obvious as Christ is led to the crucifixion. It seems scripted to the 12 stations of the Cross. Again he uses flashbacks, powerfully. One scene of Mary running to assist the little boy Jesus who has fallen down. Much emotion is felt, tangibly. By now my nose is running and I try to sniff away the need for a tissue. I find myself leaning forward in my seat, my head in my hands. I'm breathing as if I've been on the stair-stepper for 20 minutes.

Then the cross. Again, very tough to watch. It's graphic. And so emotional. I can understand now how tough this had to be for Caviezel, the actor who plays the Christ. Not just physically, but emotionally. He does one hell of a job.

The movie ends with the Resurrection, done quickly but done well.

The credits roll and I sit in my seat. I'm not ready to take on the physical exertion necessary to get out of my seat. I'm spent. I feel as if I've been to the gym. Simply worn out.

Tomorrow, I'll attempt to tell more about my reactions since, to what I've seen, to what others are saying, to why I think this movie should be seen by every believer, and to how I think some are definitely slandering Gibson, and slandering the movie.

Thanks for stopping by.

Jim Caviezel Interview

Rush has a transcript of his interview with the actor who plays Jesus in Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ.

A teaser:

CAVIEZEL: Yes. Rush, during the (shooting) we'd start makeup for the crucifixion scenes at two in the morning, and I'd go till ten, and about two hours of maintenance on it during the day, in freezing temperatures, and then they took two hours to take it off at night. And then at the same time I separated my shoulder. so I was dealing with hypothermia, and I got very sick up there.

RUSH: You were struck by lightning as well, weren't you?

CAVIEZEL: Yes. I got struck by lightning, and (laughter) about three seconds before it hit I knew it was going to happen. It was like you were in the eye of a storm or something, like in a hurricane.

RUSH: Did you wonder (laughter) what was going on when these things were happening?

CAVIEZEL: Yeah, I looked up in the sky and said, "You didn't like that take, eh?"

And this in closing:

RUSH: All of this talk, "The Passion of the Christ." What is "the passion" of the Christ as this movie intends it to be versus what it isn't? What do people have right about this in what they're saying and what's wrong?

CAVIEZEL: Rush, what it means to me is I kept coming into my mind: "What was it about that man nailed to that cross at that moment? What happened there 2,000 years ago that continues to ripple through history with such power?" Some people called it the death of God but this is what our film, the Passion of Christ, explores. It's a film for all people for all time. I have never been part of a film like this nor have I ever seen one that has made such a lasting impact on people. It's a phenomenon, I don't under(stand) it. You've just got to experience it. But there's something in it that resonates about truth and that is really the center core of this film: truth.

Tomorrow I see the movie. It's really odd how I feel about it. I know I want to see it. And yet I know I don't want to see it.

I also know how I hope that it will re-kindle my love and devotion to my Savior. And what He's done for us all.

"You know what amazes me"

I will at times get very interesting e-mails from some of you out there.

Take this one titled "You know what amazes me" from Jon Isaacs:

As you put it on your website....

"I experienced a serious spiritual renewal in a charismatic Episcopal church" Glad that did as much for you as it did for most other "christians" in this country. Quotes were used completely on purpose.

What amazes me is how many christians are complete liars who completely ignore every last thing that Jesus taught, most notably:

compassion, tolerance, and most of all......HONESTY! Oh, and how about devotion and loyalty?

Nice job of continuing to run a doctored photo of John Kerry and Jane Fonda. Kerry is one of the most honerable men to ever have an opportunity to lead this nation. That photo by itself, based on modern christain beliefs, gurantees that you are going to burn in hell. You'll join George W and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove...the grosest liars to ever run the U.S. Government. George Orwell wrote a book about the current administration called 1984.

Are you aware that the highest divorce rates, by far, are among christians?

Either you don't know that, or don't care.

Well Jon... where should I begin?

First let me thank you for taking the time to read my 'about me' page, I'm honored.

Now allow me to respond to some of your baseless accusations assertions.

A liar, as I understand the term, is one who willfully tells a falsehood, knowing that the claim is simply not true.

It's true that I ran the photo of John Kerry and Jane Fonda on the web-site as both the subject of a post and as an entry in my Pictures Worth A 1000 Words photo album. What you're failing to acknowledge is that in both places, I clearly refer to the photo as being doctored.

In essence, I'm doing my small part in promulgating the truth. Which makes your implication that I'm not being honest a false one. Which in my book, makes you the liar.

:)

And yes, I'm aware that Christians have a high divorce rate. I'm also aware that the vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. So as Rev. Sensing put it in his post on this topic:

The divorce rate for Christians is about the same as for the general population - but with more than 80 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Christians (ABC News poll, 2-16-04), maybe people who identify themselves as Christian pretty much are the general population.

So Jon, it would seem that your beef with "Christians" is rather widespread. You seem to have a problem with more than 3/4 of the population.

I'd suggest, unless you want to drive yourself batty, that you pick on a smaller fragment of the general population.

Perhaps you could pick on those people who send flaming e-mails chock full of false accusations, shrill assertions, mis-spelled words, and less than cogent points to bloggers who have the means to carry on a dialogue openly and publicly on their sites...

Ya think?

The Passion Processed

Stumbled across this review while making my blogosphere rounds (thanks Mike).

Here's a teaser but be sure to read the entire thing:

It’s been almost 48hrs now since I have seen it, and I think I am finally ready to share my thoughts. I had to wait until now to give my impressions because my first one was not good. I did not like it. I couldn’t take it. It was hard to watch. I sat there through the brutality thinking, “enough already...we get the point.” Once I got to this stage I found it distracting. I wanted to leave. It seemed to me that they were emphasizing Jesus as a victim when I knew him to be the victor.

While sitting through 2 hrs of pure torture, I kept asking myself, “was it this gruesome and gory or is this Hollywood’s embellishments?” Are they over doing this? C’mon, there is no way he would be able to stand up right now, let alone support the weight of that cross. They had him hold it for a while before Simon came along. I wanted to scream, “He would be dead by now.” “Why am I sitting through this?”

Those were my initial thoughts. Since it was bugging me, I did the most logical thing I could think of...I checked my Bible. I am still mulling this over, but here are a few things that struck me...

Leslie goes on to reference how Gibson's movie made her go back and check the Scriptures and lo and behold, she found that what she initially thought was over the top, was remarkably Scriptural. (Don't miss what she has to say and read the whole thing).

This makes me wonder...

So much of the negative criticism of this movie, at least from my less than lofty perch, is coming from the left.

I can't help but think, as I've since found out GetReligion's Terry Mattingly and Doug LeBlanc have here and here, that the divide that separates the country politically, is the same divide that separates the country as to how they see this movie. In fact, I think it represents the theological divide within Christianity as well.

Left and right, liberal and conservative, progressive and traditional, that which some attempt to minimize or deny, seems to be more and more apparent these days. And the Gibson movie seems to be a prominent indicator of that divide. I find that fascinating.

I plan on seeing the movie this weekend, perhaps tonight. I find myself in this unusual middle-ground of wanting to see the movie while not wanting to see the movie.

But see it I will.

I'll write about it (as countless hundreds and thousands of others are) after I see it... and process it myself.

UPDATE: My favorite blog-puppy has posted thoughts on how he is processing the movie. Check it out here.

MORE: Seems that Andrew Sullivan is sharing my perspective albeit from the other side of the spectrum. Check his post out here. Of course, I ask the same question from the right... are they any leftists out there who are positively critiquing the film?

Kerry ranked "Most Liberal"

Drudge has one of his trademark teaser posts up:

NUMBER ONE: KERRY RANKED 'MOST LIBERAL' IN SENATE ROLL CALL VOTES, TOPS KENNEDY, CLINTON

NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.

The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

NATIONAL JOURNAL's scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.

"To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops," NATIONAL JOURNAL reports.

Developing...

I'm thinking there's much we'll all learn about the Senator from Massachusetts in the coming weeks and months.

Did Bush Blow It?

The folks over at JustOneMinute think he did, as outlined in this post, although they're pretty kind about it.

Bush blew it on the gay marriage question. OK, we will give the President credit for picking a horse and riding it, while Sen. Kerry, his presumed opponent, hides in the barn with his handlers.

Read the entire thing.

I did however like the story linked to in the JustOneMinute post:

What we have in President George W. Bush is a man who takes stands. He does not waffle, he does not try to be all things to all people, and he does not try to be on three sides of a two-sided issue. He is a grown-up with strong beliefs and the backbone to say what he believes and to act based on those beliefs. He is exactly the right man in the right place at the right time.

The most obvious evidence for all this is the president's steadfast conduct of the war, and I see no need to recite all of the particulars at the moment. Suffice it to say that against petulent, often childishly shrill domestic opposition, President Bush has conducted our necessary war with vision, honor and skill, and because of that we are winning.

Two announcements from today underscore the fact that we have an adult in charge of the country. First, he has come out backing a federal marriage amendment that if passed will keep activist judges and rogue public officials from overriding the clear and expressed will of the people in keeping the sanctity of marriage defined as between one man and one woman. President Bush has not tried to have this issue both ways, because as an adult he recognizes that you cannot have it both ways sometimes. You can't just close your eyes and hope the thorny issues magically go away. Difficult choices must be made for the greater good, in this case preserving the definition of marriage as it has stood in Western thought and culture for millenia. President Bush has taken his stand. Many such as myself will support him, while others will no doubt oppose him--but at least we all know where he stands and why he stands there.

Couldn't agree more. Bush is un-afraid to take a position, come hell or high water. He should definitely be given credit for something Senator Kerry seems to be lacking.

Personal conviction.

JunkYardBlog has much more (the second announcement specifically) so be sure to go over and check them out.

Clap on, Clap off

This Reuters piece left me chuckling:

Half of all young Americans will get a sexually transmitted disease by the age of 25, perhaps because they are ignorant about protection or embarrassed to ask for it, according to several reports.

Or... because they're having sex with skanky people...

"For the 27 million young Americans under the age of 25 who have had sex, the stakes are simply too high to talk only about abstinence," James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, said in a statement.

"Given the prevalence of STDs, young people need all the facts -- including medically accurate information on condoms."

Maybe what young people need to do is be more selective about who they have sex with... ya think? Perhaps choosing to have sex with people they hope to spend their lives with would help... ya think?

"It is not surprising that teens and young adults contract a disproportionate number of infections," said Guttmacher's Sharon Camp. "Most young people are sexually active, and many are ill equipped to prevent STDs or seek testing and treatment."

They're not ill-equipped however to act like monkeys and rabbits apparently...

"Abstinence is, of course, the only 100 percent effective prevention strategy," Shawn Carney, a 17-year-old member of the UNC youth panel, said in a statement.

"But with 70 percent of young people having sex by the age of 18, we need to hear about more than abstinence. We need to know how to prevent STDs when we do have sex later in life."

Hey... I have an idea...

Alcohol abuse is rampant amongst the same age group... with perhaps 70 percent or better of young people out there who are drinking alcohol... I've got advice that ought to help since we know that kids are going to drink no matter what we tell them...

Government sponsored and sanctioned bars that kids can come to and indulge...with no outdated and/or archaic discussions about waiting till they're older to drink but helpful brochures, maybe even music videos, promoting drunkenness and debauchery...

Ya think?

"When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A."

The Village Voice can hardly be called a right wing rag. Browsing through her web-site, one can quickly come to no other conclusion. Yet this piece by Sydney H. Schanberg might make you wonder:

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.

The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago— shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report—when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.

How much play will this get I wonder?

Read the whole thing.

"Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment"

Unless you're in a deep coma, by now you've heard the news.

Jumping into a volatile election-year debate on same-sex weddings, President Bush on Tuesday backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - a move he said was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said in urging Congress to approve such an amendment. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Bush, who has cast himself as a "compassionate conservative," left the door open for civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriages.

I'm torn on this one.

On the one hand, I can understand the need for Bush to step in and support the law. What is happening in San Francisco is disconcerting, and not simply because of the "Yuck Factor".

John Kerry, reacting to the Bush announcement, had this to say:

"While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I oppose this election-year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor."

Ummm... Senator Kerry... California passed Proposition 22 in 2000, and the folks in San Francisco are thumbing their nose at that law.

And that would be the only reason at this point that I can understand Bush's move.

I'd much rather he stick to being the war President quite frankly and not the Marrriage Amendment President.

"Bush Accuses Kerry of Waffling on Issues"

Finally!

Bush gets in the fight:

"The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions," Bush said. "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." His supportive audience erupted in laughter and applause.

And I'm sure many of those in that supportive audience were thinking it's about damned time...