Passionate About Passion By Jesse Smith http://slicer69.tripod.com/ Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion of Christ has just hit the theatres running. It was quickly met by Christians, Jews and general, enthusiastic movie goers. To be completely honest, I'm not in a very good position to review the movie. While I've read reviews, seen trailers and talked to those in the know, I haven't, in fact, seen the movie myself. Nor do I intend to. For one reason. I can't imagine why a person would want to see this movie. The Passion of Christ is a twenty-five million dollar attempt to show the suffering Jesus went through form the time of his arrest to his death on the cross. Oops, I'm sorry. Did I just ruin the ending for you? Yeah, okay, the poor guy dies. But you knew that, right? But, hey, don't worry, Mr. Gibson has left enough of the Bible alone to allow for a sequel. Since, as you practising Christians know, Jesus comes back three days later. Why am I against the idea of viewing this movie? Well, to be honest, I don't want to sit still for two hours, watching some poor guy get the sh- ... stuffings beat, whipped and stoned (rocks stoned, not the other kind of stoned) out of him. I am familiar with that part of Bible and can visualize it well enough in my head, thank you, without seeing it in painful, bloody slow motion. Also, while this is being portrayed as an "art" film and not a historical film, I'd still like to see better work done to keep it true, as it were, to history's tale. But this is a artistic movie about a fictional happening and- What? Yes, I said fictional. I'm not debating the idea that Jesus lived, or was killed by the Romans. I believe that to be historically sound. However, the method the Romans used to execute this crazy, religious fanatic is, I feel, up for debate. In pre King James Versions of the Bible, Jesus was not nailed to a cross. This is one of those little trivia bits that many Christians aren't aware of. One of many, I find that the general Christian masses miss. Pre King James copies of the holy text say that Jesus was placed on a stake. A stake, as Webster's dictionary points out, is a "A piece of wood, usually long and slender, pointed at one end so as to be easily driven into the ground as a support or stay." No where in there does it mention cross, or cross-piece. Why would the ever efficient Romans bother with a cross piece anyway? Waste of wood, as one my my dear, logical friends has pointed out. However, I'm nit picking about the film here, obviously. As I said, it's drama, not fact the movie is after. The fact that it's based on a book that has been changed, bastardized and loosely translated leaves some room for interpretation. For those of you upset about my views on Jesus, "crazy, religious fanatic", I'd like to point out a few things. First, Jesus was a religious radical. Why else would people base a new religion on him? Second, this dude wandered out into the desert by himself and starved himself for weeks on end. Sounds a little unhinged to me. Third, he thought he could summon angels to his aid, should he choose. Forth, he argued (well) with religious scholars, ticked off the local authorities with his ideas and attacked people in the local temple. Fifth, he completely brain-washed thousands of people, for better or worse, in a cult-like fashion. Now, the guy had a great message to spread. Love, peace and forgiveness. All great stuff. But, that doesn't take away from the point that he was a little loony. Think about it. If someone started walking around your town saying he was the son of God, with a message for the people and picked fights with the established clergy, would you take him seriously? Perhaps if we were all as radical the world would be a better place. Or perhaps our descendants would be making movies about how we were brutally tortured and executed. But I digress. Back to the film in question. It seems to skip over all the love, peace and touchy feely stuff. This is a brutal, hard look at the pain, suffering and humiliation that Jesus was put through. Then they stick him on a cross and he dies. This sounds suspiciously like Mel Gibson has a thing for S&M. Actually, this sounds suspiciously like a snuff flick, hidden behind religious faith, as my father pointed out. Note that was "father" with a small "f", not a capital "F". While people, myself included, may shy away from the blood and violence, I have to say that the film might have a certain credibility there. Jesus supposedly died in terrible pain at the hand of his captors. The movie doesn't turn a blind eye from that and I have to credit them for it. Again, as my father was quick to point out, there was no Geneva Convention back then. The Romans wanted to make a very pointed example of Jesus. That they did. His legacy of pain and suffering has long out lasted their empire. Amen.