Passion of the Christ // 666

[House of Mustard]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/01/offbeat.passion.ap/index.html

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

What has amazed me about this film are the number of Mormons wondering if they should go see it, and what the Church's stance is. It's rated "R," so whatever the depiction and interpretation, the Brethren have already counselled against seeing it long before it was even in the concept phases: They have counselled not to see any "R" movie.

Naturally, that doesn't stop many of us, as we go see movies like The Matrix anyway, but it never ceases to surprise me that Latter-day Saints have completely forgotten this counsel when wondering how our church reacts to it.

[42]

Actually, the brethren removed the "Don't See R-rated Films" from the Just for Youth pamplets. Mostly this was because the rating system doesn't exist outside of the US. It was also to place more individual responsibility on the members in choosing what media they see. And so people don't make the stupid excuse, "well, it's not R-rated so it must be okay."

However, most of the members I have talked to say that it sounds like the film easily surpasses their tolerance for violance, and thus don't plan to see it.

Though I have heard some people talk about purchasing a movie ticket and not seeing the film, just to support the making of a pro-Christian film.

[House of Mustard]

Yeah, I was interested in this the other day and looked up on lds.org.  There were at least thirteen different references from general conference saying to not go see R-Rated movies  (admittedly, none of them were extremely recent--although I don't think that they have 'expired.')

Surprisingly, despite all of those references, there was an article on Deseret Book's website rationalizing going to see the movie.  It quoted Robert Millet, a BYU professor (and we all know that BYU professors are going to lead us down the straight and narrow path).

[42]

Oh, yes, we must believe everything that comes out of the mouth of a BYU professor.  

Actually, watching the news reminds me how much I hate biblical historians and theologians. They just so often have a self-proclaimed prophet heir about them. Though I saw one on Fox news that was pretty cool.

What I'm most excited about is the academy awards next year. The script for "The Passion of Christ" is accredited to God. So I think it would be really cool, if not somewhat humerous, if the film won award for best screenplay. "And the academy award for best screenplay goes to God. God could not make it to the ceremony today because he heard what Jennifer Lopez was wearing. We thus accept the award on His behalf."

[House of Mustard]

Hey wow.  Ebert called this movie the most violent he has EVER seen (and that's saying quite a bit).  He actually said that it would have been NC-17 if it hadn't been about Christ.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

heh, nice 42.

Meridian Magazine also justified it.

My real reason for nto going to see it? Well, I already have a testimony. I figure I've already seen and heard things from people that deepen my appreciation for His sacrifice and put into to better context than Mel Gibson ever could.

[42]

I can't stand the mock crucifiction they perform in some latin countries. My tolerance for violence isn't very high.

One Utah film critic the film containing images that will scar any adult for life or at least be burned into your head for at least a week.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Which I DON'T need.  My husband's tolerance for that sort of thing is much much higher than mine, and he really wants to go see it.  I'm trying to think of a way to tell him I don't want to see it with him that won't cause a temper tantrum.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

that's something I have to deal with every other weekend. My wife has a very low tolerance for violence and creepiness. She won't watch the Kevin Costner "Robin Hood" not for the acting, but because of the attempted rape scene. Anyway, just explain your low tolerance, he'll have to accept it eventually if you stay consistent.

[EUOL]

I do have to say, I admire Gibson's...well, passion for making this movie, even if I never intend to see it.  I see this movie as kind of like Shindler's List.  Yes, I know some very horrible things happened in history.  I don't think seeing them in their utter graphicness is going to make me any more appreciative of what Christ went through.

[Eagle Prince]

I saw this movie opening day if anyone is interested.

[House of Mustard]

And what did you think?

[Eagle Prince]

I liked it, but it was also very difficult to watch.  It wasn't as bloody as most pepole claim, a typical slasher flick has as much or more blood.  So it wasn't that it had a lot of blood, it was that the blood happened to be from Christ.  I am quite certain that even people who are not bothered in the slightest at the sight of blood could get upset seeing it, especially if they have a love for Christ.  I think this is also in part because they did such a good job at making you feel like you were actually there watching it (with exceptional notice to Jim Caviezel who protrayed Jesus, I think he did a wonderful job).  Also, if you want to see it but know it will be really emotional for you, I might recommend waiting to watch it at home on video because that could make it easier.  I started crying several times and I'm not prone to do that sort of thing.

I hadn't read any reviews of this movie before I saw it, but afterwords I wanted to see what other people had though.  So then I started checking out the reviews and such.  One thing I noticed in quite a number of them was how such and such person or event was protrayed differently.  I sort of made mental note of these, not purposely but they just sort of stuck in my mind I guess.  Then I felt like rereading Matthew, Mark, Luke, John on Sunday (yesterday) and noticed a lot of those things that some reviewers had said were different actually weren't.  For example, one review commented on Pilate's wife caring about Jesus was taking liberties with the story, but then while reading Matthew I noticed that actually mentions that she did.  There were others along the same lines, like how the high priest reacted, how Pilate was protrayed, etc... even the earthquake at the end which it does mention in the Bible several times.  At any rate, I would question a reviewer who mentions liberties or changes made to the story as it seemed many of them were comparing it to other movies about Jesus they had seen rather than how it is told in the king james bible; I think they did an exellect job in making it just as you would read in the Bible.  There were many details I didn't notice until rereading Matthew-John, which I found really interesting.  Now I want to see it again, to really pick up on all of them.

[Brenna]

Fuzzy--one way you could get out of seeing it is to let J.T. go with Chris.

Chris really wants to see the movie too, but I don't really want to.  That way they can both be happy, and we wouldn't have to go with them.