Reaction to 'Passion' wildly varied

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

If you've seen the movie, you're also invited to submit your thoughts online at www.seattletimes.com/passion.

Katy Callaghan Huston, Shoreline

Background: 55; Roman Catholic; artist

Overall impressions: The imagery is beautiful; the script adaptation very well done. I especially liked the use of Aramaic and Latin. I've studied the later, but have never heard the former spoken. While it was occasionally distracting--I was listening for certain phrases — as with all really well done subtitled movies, I very soon forgot that I was reading the words and just absorbed the meaning.

I was glad that Gibson chose to interject some of Christ's most important teachings--love one another; love your enemies; no greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his friends, etc. -- into his bloody and violent portrayal of the passion. On the other hand, I felt the major shortcoming of the movie was the all too brief portrayal of the resurrection. Without the resurrection, the passion has no meaning. A brief view of rocks, collapsing grave clothes and a glimpse of a bare naked Jesus was rather anticlimactic.

Also, I was disturbed by the violence in light of the fact that Christ's message is one of love and non-violence. The movie has perhaps strengthened my commitment to living and teaching that Christian message.

On anti-Semitism: I did not feel there was any untoward anti-Semiticism in this film. I was more appalled by the actions of the Romans than I was by the Jews. I grew up with the belief that we all were sinners responsible for the death of Jesus. And again, that Jesus' death and resurrection is the source of our life and our salvation.

On the movie's Oscar-worthiness: I would certainly give Maia Morgenstern Best Supporting Actress for her role as Mary. I realized on the way home that she spoke very little — which was as it should be if one is following the original texts. But her facial expressions and body language spoke volumes. I would also give an award to the composer. The music was understated, but when I was aware of it, its beauty was exceptional.

Michael Behar, Seattle
 

Overall impressions: One cannot escape the unbelievably graphic violence of this film. The repeated and near uninterrupted torture, beating and flailing of Jesus was painful to watch and almost numbing in its depiction. This aspect of the film is so all-encompassing that it is hard to leave with any other image in one's mind.

Audience response: The atmosphere in the theater and even in the line outside before the show was electric. I sat between a couple on my right who were immersed in Hindu spiritualism and a couple on my left who were of the Christian faith. The spiritualist couple squirmed uncomfortably throughout the early scenes of Jesus' suffering. They walked out of the theater about a quarter of the way through the film. The Christian woman on my left, clearly moved by what she was seeing, softly sobbed while tears ran down her face, never taking her eyes off of the screen.

On charges of anti-Semitism: The film spreads the culpability (for Jesus' crucifixion) quite evenly between some of the Jews and some of their Roman occupiers. Many Jews and Romans are portrayed in a positive light, including the Jewish heroes of the film, Jesus, Mary and the Apostles.

I did not find the film to be anti-Semitic. It makes clear that all that is happening is by Jesus' choice and by God's choice.

While I can't say that the film (affected) my faith personally as a Jew, it did strengthen my faith in a country such as ours where people can openly celebrate and artistically depict their core spiritual beliefs without fear of repercussion.

Rabbi Daniel Weiner, Bellevue

Background: 39; Jewish; senior rabbi, Temple De Hirsch Sinai.

Overall impressions: It was a well-crafted, powerful portrayal of the core of Christian faith. However, for Christians, there will be discussions concerning the extent and intensity of the violence and the focus on Jesus' torture and execution.

The gore and violence obscure Jesus' message of love, and the distorted view of Jews hearkens back to medieval Passion Plays.

	Rabbi Daniel Weiner

On the movie's portrayal of the Gospels: It was a highly selective and distorted view of the Gospels long criticized by major denominations, and discussed extensively in Vatican II's Nostra Aetate. Gibson also blended in non-Gospel material that many will not be able to distinguish from the Gospel text.

On anti-Semitism: I feel more strongly than I thought that the film will fuel anti-Semitic views in America, and anti-Semitic violence abroad.

Certainly, the film was crafted beautifully, acted well and shot well, but an aesthetic appreciation cannot mute or soften the way in which this film will negatively impact interfaith relations. It must be used as a tool to promote better understanding by Jews of Christianity, and by Christians of Jewish history and suffering deriving from biblical accounts.

Peter van Breda, Bellevue

Background: 53; Christian (International Church of the Foursquare Gospel); senior pastor, The Gathering Place.

Overall impressions: It was an excellent movie, and I would highly recommend it to everyone.

I felt it was an accurate portrayal of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. Obviously this is a movie and there was some poetic license — but of all the Passion movies I have seen, this was absolutely the best. For me personally, the imagery was extremely graphic and reinforced my faith. I am struck by the magnitude of the price Christ paid for the redemption of the world.

On anti-Semitism: From my perspective the issues of anti-Semitism were overblown. Certainly the Romans were also cast in a negative light. For me as a Christian, my sin placed Christ on the cross.

Perry Wales, Seattle

Background: 44; no religious affiliation; pre-press manager.

	Perry Wales

Overall impressions: For a person who has been raised with little religion, the film makes some huge assumptions that you know what's going on. There was no attempt to place anything in context or inform the viewer of the relationships between the characters. Lots of direction was put into making the crucifixion as graphic as possible, from spurting-blood visuals to excellent spurting audio. The costumes and sound effects were good ... but if you look at it just as a film with no religious context — it's a visually brutal but uninteresting film.

On anti-Semitism: In one month no one will remember this film.

One thing that didn't anger me but I found interesting — as a gay man I know of Mr. Gibson's less-than-enthusiastic views on homosexuality. I found it interesting that Satan was portrayed by a blond-haired, blue-eyed, handsome, slightly androgynous Aryan.

Steve Carstensen, Redmond

Background: 46; Methodist; dentist.

	Steve Carstensen

Overall impression: Mel Gibson has made a movie to illustrate, in the most graphic way, the events of Jesus' last day. The only message I could see was one of showing how much Jesus was willing to suffer to achieve his purpose on Earth. The graphic violence became overwhelming to the point of disbelief — no one could endure the physical damage and still do what Jesus did.

Audience response: Everyone was very quiet. I heard some sobbing, but I have been in many movies that brought far more tears. I assumed most people were fairly numbed by the violence. At the end, everyone filed out quietly.

On the movie's portrayal of the Gospels: It definitely took some dramatic license with the Passion story, such as adding the presence of a Satan character, but put in all the elements contained in the Gospels. Flashbacks were used to show Jesus reliving important events in his life.

The movie has not affected my faith, which is centered more on Christ's teachings about love than on the events of his death.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company