My thoughts on The Passion of the Christ:
I went into this movie without watching a single documentary/interview/whatever with the actors or anyone involved with it. I didn’t know who the actors were, but I obviously knew the plot. The only thing I've read is a couple of online articles pertaining to the movie, and one or two impressions.
For what it’s worth, what follows are my impressions.
The movie is worth watching. And, considering it’s subtitled, very easy to watch. In truth, you don’t really need the subtitles to get the full experience. After all, if you’re Christian (and even if you’re not) you probably know the story and how it ends.
It reminded me of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I think it was the mood more than anything, and the slow and somber music (must get that soundtrack) and probably had something to do with the subtitles as well.
I had heard some indications of excessive violence before I went to see it, but answer me this: In what way could it not be excessively violent? In my opinion, I believe the violence portrayed is, in fact, fairly true to life. And, in truth, most of the violence happens to one person. I did not get the impression that the camera lingered on the blood for shock value. I got the impression that the camera was telling it like it was, blood and all.
There were about fifty people in the theater, and silence after it ended. (Except for my dad who had to make a funny comment.) It’s one of those movies that make you think.
In my case, it made me want to read up on the history surrounding Christ’s crucifixion—Roman history, I suppose. I guess it never really occurred to me before that the Romans were very obviously not of the same religion. And, in fact, it made me realize that I don’t know much about ancient Roman religion at all. So I’m going to look for some books on the subject. It might be a long-term history reading project. Who knows? I wonder if there are books on the subject that aren’t Christian-oriented. Hmm.
I thought the portrayal of the Romans was very well done. I don’t really get into period authenticity, but it looked good to me. And the flashes back and forth between current time and past time were what brought the whole thing to a head for me—and I even got a little teary eyed when Mary saw Jesus fall and flashed back on him as a little boy, falling.
I think it made the mythical figure of Christ a bit more human to me. Which, I’m sure, was the point.
And you have to go see it, if only for the raindrop.
As a whole, I have only two quibbles. The first one concerns the Devil. While the man playing him (I don’t know who it was, but he was cast perfectly) was evil personified, I really didn’t ‘get’ the scene at the end where the Devil is crouching in the middle of whatever that was, screaming. Now, maybe I missed some symbolism there or something, but I thought that scene was a bit overdone.
My other quibble was the number of times Jesus fell in slow motion. That, too, seemed a bit overdramatic as well.
Other than that, a very good movie. Go see it, if you are so inclined.
I went into this movie without watching a single documentary/interview/whatever with the actors or anyone involved with it. I didn’t know who the actors were, but I obviously knew the plot. The only thing I've read is a couple of online articles pertaining to the movie, and one or two impressions.
For what it’s worth, what follows are my impressions.
The movie is worth watching. And, considering it’s subtitled, very easy to watch. In truth, you don’t really need the subtitles to get the full experience. After all, if you’re Christian (and even if you’re not) you probably know the story and how it ends.
It reminded me of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I think it was the mood more than anything, and the slow and somber music (must get that soundtrack) and probably had something to do with the subtitles as well.
I had heard some indications of excessive violence before I went to see it, but answer me this: In what way could it not be excessively violent? In my opinion, I believe the violence portrayed is, in fact, fairly true to life. And, in truth, most of the violence happens to one person. I did not get the impression that the camera lingered on the blood for shock value. I got the impression that the camera was telling it like it was, blood and all.
There were about fifty people in the theater, and silence after it ended. (Except for my dad who had to make a funny comment.) It’s one of those movies that make you think.
In my case, it made me want to read up on the history surrounding Christ’s crucifixion—Roman history, I suppose. I guess it never really occurred to me before that the Romans were very obviously not of the same religion. And, in fact, it made me realize that I don’t know much about ancient Roman religion at all. So I’m going to look for some books on the subject. It might be a long-term history reading project. Who knows? I wonder if there are books on the subject that aren’t Christian-oriented. Hmm.
I thought the portrayal of the Romans was very well done. I don’t really get into period authenticity, but it looked good to me. And the flashes back and forth between current time and past time were what brought the whole thing to a head for me—and I even got a little teary eyed when Mary saw Jesus fall and flashed back on him as a little boy, falling.
I think it made the mythical figure of Christ a bit more human to me. Which, I’m sure, was the point.
And you have to go see it, if only for the raindrop.
As a whole, I have only two quibbles. The first one concerns the Devil. While the man playing him (I don’t know who it was, but he was cast perfectly) was evil personified, I really didn’t ‘get’ the scene at the end where the Devil is crouching in the middle of whatever that was, screaming. Now, maybe I missed some symbolism there or something, but I thought that scene was a bit overdone.
My other quibble was the number of times Jesus fell in slow motion. That, too, seemed a bit overdramatic as well.
Other than that, a very good movie. Go see it, if you are so inclined.
Comments