1 The Passion just came out in the theatres here (The Netherlands). I'm a bit scared to go because of the blood that's supposed to be in the movie. Maybe your positive post on this movie will change my mind on going.

2 It's a worthwhile movie. Not easy to watch, but not as hard as I'd feared, either. The husband tells me I had a harder time with The Pianist.

3 Allow me to voice my take on this movie as a hardcore agnostic. And yes, I did see it in its entirety (and wrote on it in my university newspaper's opinion column). I saw very little anti-Semitism, which is significant because I was looking hard for it. I noticed that one spoken line was not subtitled; I found out later that it was the line about Jews paying for this for generations to come. The Passion is the most violent movie I've ever seen, and I'm counting every Ah-nuld flick, every B-horror slasher and all of the Lethal Weapon films (among many, many others). "The Passion of the Christ" is literally preaching to the choir in the worst way. Where are Jesus' life lessons? Not there. Where is the background on the characters? Not there? What is there? Blood, blood, blood. Made by hardcore fundies, for hardcore fundies. This film is hardly the best way to turn people onto Jesus' philosophy, but I doubt anyone cares about that. It just disturbed me, and I have no problem with the Bible.

4 I saw very little anti-Semitism, which is significant because I was looking hard for it. I noticed that one spoken line was not subtitled; I found out later that it was the line about Jews paying for this for generations to come. My husband was, likewise, looking hard for any anti-Jewish subtext, and had a hard time finding any. I think it's significant that Gibson's hands nailed Jesus to the cross. He was making a point--to himself more than to any viewer. The Passion is the most violent movie I've ever seen, and I'm counting every Ah-nuld flick, every B-horror slasher and all of the Lethal Weapon films (among many, many others). What about something that contains real violence, as opposed to cartoon violence? How about Salo, or Ted Bundy, or Monster? "The Passion of the Christ" is literally preaching to the choir in the worst way. Or the best, depending on your POV. Where are Jesus' life lessons? Not there. Where is the background on the characters? Not there? What is there? Blood, blood, blood. There have been many lives of Christ. This was not one of them, and not meant to be. If you want background on the "characters" (!), you'll have to go elsewhere. Made by hardcore fundies, for hardcore fundies. Um. Did you read my post? Have you read any of the literature on The Passion? Do you know Mel Gibson is Roman Catholic? Or do you not even know the difference between Catholics and Fundamentalists? Have you heard of the Reformation? Ugh: I have to go. This film is hardly the best way to turn people onto Jesus' philosophy, but I doubt anyone cares about that. It just disturbed me, and I have no problem with the Bible. It was meant to be disturbing, so it appears that it accomplished its mission.

5 I think I have a bit of an insight into why people are so surprised going into The Passion of the Christ. Spiritually, it's very much in the tradition of Los Hermanos Penitentes. As graphic and unpleasant as the violence on the screen was, it's nothing compared to seeing it (as I have) in real life, on a real person, and knowing that it's not makeup. There's nothing wrong with making a movie in the Penitentes tradition, but for someone coming in expecting Life Of Christ 101, that particular focus (which, let's be honest, is not mainstream even in Roman Catholicism) can be very surprising. As an auto da fe, The Passion is probably unmatched in movie history, but I can see being a bit shocked if you were expecting a documentary. Two other reasons for the reaction that I can see... 1. Let's just point out the elephant in the living room: Hutton Gibson. Now, I know that Mel is not Hutton, and (to the best of my knowledge), Mel has never espoused any of Gibson Sr.'s more, ahem, exotic beliefs. (To the best of my knowledge, Mel has never said, "Well, you know my father is a complete wing-nut," either.) Is it unfair to judge Mel's movie by his father's beliefs? Absolutely. Is it understandable that people would look at The Passion a bit differently knowing who Mel's father is? You bet. 2. The Passion was, clearly, intended as a tool for proselytizing; I think it's a bit rich to say that it was only intended for viewing by those who are already completely bought into the faith. Proselytization always sits a bit uncomfortably with religious pluralism. There will always be a bit of tension there: On the one hand, freedom of religion implies freedom to proselytize; on the other, proselytization, by its nature, implies a comparison and a promotion of one religion over another... which makes religious pluralism uncomfortable. I'm not saying that The Passion is a bad or evil movie because of that, but any time there is a Campus Crusade with that much oomph behind it, people who are not of the faith being promoted will start shifting in their seats. Lastly, I didn't catch the untranslated line (which, apparently, directly ascribes blood guilt to the Jews for the death of Jesus). That's not precisely damning, but I don't believe anything just slipped into that movie without Gibson knowing about it. That's not a line from the Gospels (that I can find), and the "historical accuracy" argument simply doesn't fly in this case. So, why is it there?

6 I'm going to hope that the acts of penitence you've seen were a good deal milder than those in this movie. Is it unfair to judge Mel's movie by his father's beliefs? Absolutely. Is it understandable that people would look at The Passion a bit differently knowing who Mel's father is? You bet. But the fact that something is "understandable" does not make it right. Mel Gibson has a sense of propriety I do not share: I would just say "dad's crazy." But he does genuinely seem to feel it would be disrespectful--probably even sinful--to say that. And honoring one's father and mother is one of the ten commandments. Mel appears to feel that his hands are tied, here. I'm just saying . . . The Passion was, clearly, intended as a tool for proselytizing; I think it's a bit rich to say that it was only intended for viewing by those who are already completely bought into the faith. . . . I'm not saying that The Passion is a bad or evil movie because of that, but any time there is a Campus Crusade with that much oomph behind it, people who are not of the faith being promoted will start shifting in their seats. Sorry. I don't see it. I agree with Ian the agnostic: this is not the movie to take a potential convert to. I don't see it as the happy face of Christianity at all. My impression is that people are uncomfortable with the violence and suffering, not with some sense that they are being asked to give their lives over to Christ. I think it's worth noting that most of the Christian bloggers who've reviewed the movie have said things like "it deepened my faith," rather than "this will minister to the unbeliever." As far as the reference to blood guilt is concerned: 1) FWIW, there were plenty of lines that weren't subtitled--as I recall, some were in Latin as well as Aramaic. 2) I think you want Matthew 27:25: "And the whole people said in reply, 'His blood be upon us and upon our children.'" This line has been misinterpreted for centuries, often with tragic results. Here's more.

7 Attila, the Matthew line you cite is exactly the line for which I was looking. And yes, I am aware of the HUGE differences between fundies and Catholics; however, aspects of the evangelical sects are not exclusive to that faith; hardcore Catholics are the same way. I am Deep Southerner, so I see plenty of both on a regular basis.