Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Matthew on April 19, 2019, 08:04:08 PM
-
Just watched the Passion of The Christ again today. Seems very appropriate for Good Friday. I know that meditation and books are superior, but sometimes there's a place for such a movie.
A very short review of the movie:
Pros:
1. Catholic Theology of the Mass in-your-face during the Crucifixion, as the movie shifts between the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. You can tell the movie had a Catholic behind it, and a Trad at that.
2. Original languages, including Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin. Did wonders for immersion and realism. Again, you can tell a Trad was at the wheel. I love it!
3. Realistic portrayal (casting) of Jesus and Mary -- no small feat. Jesus didn't have blue eyes.
4. Mary wasn't portrayed as a weak, hysterical woman during the Passion and Crucifixion -- another big win. Mary really was a strong woman. Not in the way feminists imagine women should be, but with a true strength rooted in God and His love.
Cons:
1. Mel tried too much to please the Jews. He should have included more darkness (akin to night, with people freaking out) after Christ's death, a bit more devastation from rocks rending asunder, and the veil of the temple was kind of barely there. They should have shown the huge 1-foot thick veil ripping in two more clearly.
2. The Jews never said "His blood be upon us and upon our children."
3. The whole she-devil thing with the creepy baby she was holding and all that -- wasn't really necessary. I gather it was supposed to be some kind of nemesis or "foil" for Our Lord and/or Blessed Mother. But still, it was kind of out of place. Certainly not Scriptural!
4. Judas' bowels didn't burst asunder and litter the Haceldama (field of blood). Other than that, the Judas ѕυιcιdє scene was realistic and well done. Again, the creepy kids (actually devils) driving him to despair -- kind of out of place.
-
I’m going to watch it once the sun sets here.
Good analysis. I have the Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich on CD. I need to listen to it but it’s quite long. Is it true Mel based some of the movie off of her accounts?
-
I agree with your likes/dislikes.
Gibson did keep the "His blood be upon us and our children" in the movie, but took out the subtitles. So only those who know Aramaic can understand what's said. He explains to Diane Sawyer, from this interview in 2004:
From 18:27 to 20:10:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rXrCkVREG8AJ/
Though he's in error. All Jews for all time are cursed. However if they sincerely convert they no longer have that curse, but then they cease to be Jєωιѕн (at least in a тαℓмυdic sense).
-
Just watched the Passion of The Christ again today. Seems very appropriate for Good Friday. I know that meditation and books are superior, but sometimes there's a place for such a movie.
A very short review of the movie:
Pros:
1. Catholic Theology of the Mass in-your-face during the Crucifixion, as the movie shifts between the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. You can tell the movie had a Catholic behind it, and a Trad at that.
2. Original languages, including Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin. Did wonders for immersion and realism. Again, you can tell a Trad was at the wheel. I love it!
3. Realistic portrayal (casting) of Jesus and Mary -- no small feat. Jesus didn't have blue eyes.
4. Mary wasn't portrayed as a weak, hysterical woman during the Passion and Crucifixion -- another big win. Mary really was a strong woman. Not in the way feminists imagine women should be, but with a true strength rooted in God and His love.
Cons:
1. Mel tried too much to please the Jews. He should have included more darkness (akin to night, with people freaking out) after Christ's death, a bit more devastation from rocks rending asunder, and the veil of the temple was kind of barely there. They should have shown the huge 1-foot thick veil ripping in two more clearly.
2. The Jews never said "His blood be upon us and upon our children."
3. The whole she-devil thing with the creepy baby she was holding and all that -- wasn't really necessary. I gather it was supposed to be some kind of nemesis or "foil" for Our Lord and/or Blessed Mother. But still, it was kind of out of place. Certainly not Scriptural!
4. Judas' bowels didn't burst asunder and litter the Haceldama (field of blood). Other than that, the Judas ѕυιcιdє scene was realistic and well done. Again, the creepy kids (actually devils) driving him to despair -- kind of out of place.
As time goes by I find more things I don't like about the movie:
1. Our Lord crushing the serpents head at the end of the Agony in the Garden scene.
(https://charlestonheel.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/serpent.jpg)
This is the visual promulgation of a classic Protestant Heresy.
2. I think he botched the opportunity to act-out St. John's dramatic account of the Apprehension of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane:
[3] Judas therefore having received a band of soldiers and servants from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. [4] Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said to them: Whom seek ye? [5] They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them.[6] As soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he; they went backward, and fell to the ground.
3. Don't like Maia Morgenstern in the role of Mother Mary:
(https://www.romania-insider.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_large_image/public/featured_images/maia-morgenstern-ok.png)
Her features are too harsh, especially her jawline.
In my corner to argue this, is St. Katherine Emmerich, who actually made a visual comparison of St. Mary Magdalene and Our Lady.
Bottom-line, Mother Mary was always beautiful.
4. Don't like the Last Supper scene.
Gibson clearly dodged the Last Supper account by St. Katherine Emmerich. It was a full-blown, formal ritual dinner.
Gibson in the Forward of his coffee table book, "The Passion", said the Greek word that defined the truth that guided his work is "aletheia" or unforgetting. I think he used far too much "artistic license" and purposely left-out of forgot a lot of important things.
-
I have probs w/ Mel's movie also. I also have probs w/ his father's attacks on Card Rampolla & Pope Pius XII. Seems they been reading too much mrs martinez :sleep:
-
I have probs w/ Mel's movie also. I also have probs w/ his father's attacks on Card Rampolla & Pope Pius XII. Seems they been reading too much mrs martinez :sleep:
I agree with you on Mel's movie! :jester:
-
I agree, too.
In addition to the comments about the Blessed Mother, I don't think she would have lost control and wept so vociferously like this woman. I think she would have been crying silent tears, showing strength and long-suffering in the carrying of her cross.
-
Again, the creepy kids (actually devils) driving him to despair -- kind of out of place.
Matthew, I agree with your first 3.5 dislikes, but I liked the imagery above. I imagine after Judas betrayed Our Lord, that he went stark, raving mad. So I thought the kid devils that spurned him on to despair were manifestations of his spiritual insanity. I also thought it showed the dichotomy between St Peter, who told Our Lady his sin of denial and was eventually healed, while Judas isolated himself after his sin of betrayal and despaired.
-
Matthew, I agree with your first 3.5 dislikes, but I liked the imagery above. I imagine after Judas betrayed Our Lord, that he went stark, raving mad. So I thought the kid devils that spurned him on to despair were manifestations of his spiritual insanity. I also thought it showed the dichotomy between St Peter, who told Our Lady his sin of denial and was eventually healed, while Judas isolated himself after his sin of betrayal and despaired.
Yeah, more devil kids :ready-to-eat:
Agree, these were a clever depictions of evil.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MFNsgKNVpac/T4M5EOrB-6I/AAAAAAAAEyM/4LLZ4qV6SN4/s400/600full-the-passion-of-the-christ-screenshot.jpg)
The mockery of Our Lady and the Christ child
(https://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc47.2005/melsPassion/passionImagesJC/devils/childdevil-1-better.jpg)
I think this boy now lives in my neighborhood?
-
For all its faults, it took a lot of fortitude to even attempt to make such a movie in Hollywood. How many people watch this movie on good Friday every year? Think of all those people who otherwise would never, ever, spend even one second thinking about His passion; not on one single drop of blood He spilled for us.
Give credit where credit is due.
-
I really like the movie even with a few shortcomings.
That being said, Mary at age 48 or 49 should have been a lot more beautiful
and Magdalene should have shown the ravages of sin instead of being more
attractive than Our Blessed Mother.
Mary should not have had worry lines on her forehead as I don't believe
she ever worried but accepted all humbly from God.
-
Agree. I don't care for the casting of Mary, and a couple of the Apostles. Nor do I like the creepy kids/baby.
Slightly over-emotionalized depictions of Our Lord and Our Lady.
But overall it's a good, edifying movie. No one this side of heaven is going to create the PERFECT movie. Better than a movie is to mediate on your own.
-
I really like the movie even with a few shortcomings.
That being said, Mary at age 48 or 49 should have been a lot more beautiful
and Magdalene should have shown the ravages of sin instead of being more
attractive than Our Blessed Mother.
While I'm certain Our Lady was beautiful, as regards to Magdalene I don't like this idea you're implying that ugliness is correlated with sinfulness. Being beautiful doesn't make you a good person, and being ugly doesn't make you evil.
-
I really like the movie even with a few shortcomings.
That being said, Mary at age 48 or 49 should have been a lot more beautiful
and Magdalene should have shown the ravages of sin instead of being more
attractive than Our Blessed Mother.
Mary should not have had worry lines on her forehead as I don't believe
she ever worried but accepted all humbly from God.
Mary Magdalene was beautiful as was the Blessed mother.
Mary Magdalene also converted, and became one of the first “nuns”. So why should she be portrayed as ugly....? Just a little confused on your logic to be honest.
I felt the woman who played Mary did a beautiful job despite her age. I hardly think Mary stood there watching that without a few public tears..... she cried as our Lady Of La Salette. Why wouldn’t she cry watching her beloved son be brutalized.....?
-
Yes, it's a wonderful movie to meditate on the Passion. Besides what others have said, it also beautifully depicts the five principal mysteries we meditate in the Sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary, that is, it begins with the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, proceeds through the Scourging, the Crowning, the Carrying of the Cross, the Crucifixion. It's far and away the best movie about the Passion ever made. It also beautifully depicts the sufferings and dolors of Our Lady in following Her Son and at the foot of the Cross. It's worth watching to remember all that Our Lord suffered and the great torments He endured and pain He bore to redeem our souls.
I hear the Passion of the Christ: Resurrection, the sequel, is scheduled for Easter 2020. That should be great.
-
Mary Magdalene was beautiful as was the Blessed mother.
Mary Magdalene also converted, and became one of the first “nuns”. So why should she be portrayed as ugly....? Just a little confused on your logic to be honest.
I felt the woman who played Mary did a beautiful job despite her age. I hardly think Mary stood there watching that without a few public tears..... she cried as our Lady Of La Salette. Why wouldn’t she cry watching her beloved son be brutalized.....?
She did cry, but in a controlled way -- not hysterically. Like a strong person might cry.
And that's how she cried in "The Passion" if I recall correctly.
She had something in common with Our Lord -- no Original Sin. So they both had perfect mastery and control over their lower natures, including the passions (sadness, anger, etc.)
I agree with others here -- she should have been more beautiful, as she had no Original Sin and would have aged much better (her current age should have been 48 or 49) In fact, she might have even looked 20's or 30's beautiful at 48. Being a stranger to Original Sin and actual sin will "do" that to you.
And having a perfect resignation to Divine Will and a complete love and trust in God should do wonders for your stress/cortisol levels.
Blessed Mother wasn't just A saint, she was THE saint!
On the other hand, Mary Magdalene wouldn't necessarily be ugly, despite her past life. It's true that after 10 years that "mileage" will show -- there are plenty of teens and twentysomething women who have been around the block WAY too many times (a.k.a. a "high body count"), but still look beautiful. It's the simple fact that not enough years have passed.
-
Mary Magdalene was beautiful as was the Blessed mother.
Mary Magdalene also converted, and became one of the first “nuns”. So why should she be portrayed as ugly....? Just a little confused on your logic to be honest.
I felt the woman who played Mary did a beautiful job despite her age. I hardly think Mary stood there watching that without a few public tears..... she cried as our Lady Of La Salette. Why wouldn’t she cry watching her beloved son be brutalized.....?
Were you responding to my post? I never mentioned "ugly" neither did I mention nor imply negatively
that Mother cried or that she cried at all.
As for Magdalene, yes she converted and the beauty of her soul restored, but I was talking about her
bodily appearance and sin often leaves it's marks on the body. This could have been shown in the movie. They are actresses and her conversion was a good opportunity to show her acting skills.
I believed Mother, totally pure should have been depicted that way as opposed to Magdalene who was neither born immaculate nor stayed that way. I just objected that the actress who portrayed Magdalene was lovelier than the actress who portrayed Mother. It was my opinion of the movie.
If you were confused by my logic I'm totally lost in your response.
-
Were you responding to my post? I never mentioned "ugly" neither did I mention nor imply negatively
that Mother cried or that she cried at all.
As for Magdalene, yes she converted and the beauty of her soul restored, but I was talking about her
bodily appearance and sin often leaves it's marks on the body. This could have been shown in the movie. They are actresses and her conversion was a good opportunity to show her acting skills.
I believed Mother, totally pure should have been depicted that way as opposed to Magdalene who was neither born immaculate nor stayed that way. I just objected that the actress who portrayed Magdalene was lovelier than the actress who portrayed Mother. It was my opinion of the movie.
If you were confused by my logic I'm totally lost in your response.
They actually tried to make Monica Belucci far more homlier in the movie but with mixed success it seems.
-
Yes, it's a wonderful movie to meditate on the Passion. Besides what others have said, it also beautifully depicts the five principal mysteries we meditate in the Sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary, that is, it begins with the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, proceeds through the Scourging, the Crowning, the Carrying of the Cross, the Crucifixion. It's far and away the best movie about the Passion ever made. It also beautifully depicts the sufferings and dolors of Our Lady in following Her Son and at the foot of the Cross. It's worth watching to remember all that Our Lord suffered and the great torments He endured and pain He bore to redeem our souls.
I hear the Passion of the Christ: Resurrection, the sequel, is scheduled for Easter 2020. That should be great.
(1) Yes, the connections with Mary throughout this movie are so palpable.
(2) Where did you hear of/see this date? I specifically looked on the internet last night after watching The Passion of Christ with my husband, and I could not find any definite date about the sequel. Maybe I didn't look hard enough.
-
I hear the Passion of the Christ: Resurrection, the sequel, is scheduled for Easter 2020. That should be great.
Honestly, i have my doubts.
While filming the Passion, he was married, living a Catholic life as much as he could, being married to a protestant.
Since then he has gone through how many mistresses and had how many bastard children? (They are mistresses since he is legitimately married Catholic.)
I feel for him. The Hollywood culture is a nightmare. He needs to get out to save his soul.
-
I forgot to mention --
Another "Pro":
Our Blessed Mother was present during Our Lord's sufferings in her true role as co-Redemptrix. She was on one of the front burners, as it were, not the back burner or stuffed into a back cabinet. This very Catholic view of the Passion of Our Lord should give Prottys something to think about!
-
One of my favorite parts of the movie was when St. Peter knelt in front of Our Lady and called her Mother ... grieving over having betrayed the Lord. That probably stuck in the craws of millions of the Prots watching. It clearly demonstrates how Our Lady might intercede with her Son on behalf of sinners.
-
The Passion of the Christ
I strictly use it so that the children have a visual image of the Sorrowful Mysteries. The movie does a great job of showing the severe beating and disrespect that was given to Our Lord. The Agony in the Garden is the exception, nothing there to see. I fast forward to devil parts, and shorten the scourging. There is much to meditate on.
-
I strictly use it so that the children have a visual image of the Sorrowful Mysteries. The movie does a great job of showing the severe beating and disrespect that was given to Our Lord. The Agony in the Garden is the exception, nothing there to see.
I agree. The Agony in the Garden was not particularly well done.
-
I really enjoyed when Our Lord started conversing with Pilate in Latin (to Pilate's surprise) ... showing His knowledge as God, despite obviously never having formally studied the language.
-
Honestly, i have my doubts.
While filming the Passion, he was married, living a Catholic life as much as he could, being married to a protestant.
Since then he has gone through how many mistresses and had how many bastard children? (They are mistresses since he is legitimately married Catholic.)
I feel for him. The Hollywood culture is a nightmare. He needs to get out to save his soul.
What you observed is that Gibson doesn't "add-up" as a Catholic, does he?
Consider this perspective:
The media PR we were fed, is that he's a trad Catholic.
(Pssst... and by the way, trads are bad people... drunken adulterers who father bastards).
Another sign is the content of Gibson's film portfolio, which is off-the wall.
So, at best Gibson is a very down & out trad.
At worst... he's an imposter, working covertly for Hollywood jewery.