Connecting 'The Passion' to Entertainment

 

By Tony Robinson

 

This is the sixth article of a seven-part series concerning the new movie, The Passion of the Christ.  It amazes me how people who promote 'The Passion' feel that no one can justifiably criticize this movie.  They erroneously surmise that opponents of the movie have some hidden agenda.  Well, many opponents have reasoned explanations why they think this movie is an abomination.  What is really amazing though, is how believers have allowed their emotions to blind them to all the obvious leaven in this movie.  Many have made an unholy attachment to it.

 

And why are believers so attached to this movie?  Why do they think it sacrilegious for someone to not like 'The Passion?'  It's because of our [justifiable] emotional attachment to our Messiah.  Those of us who have tasted the goodness of salvation know that Messiah Yeshua paid a great price for us.  We know that His sufferings brought us eternal life.  Because of the greatness of His work, we are emotionally attached to Him.  And it should be that way.  We should be attached to Messiah in every way—including our emotions.  As we read the Word concerning His sacrificial offering, we should be moved within our heart of hearts because of His selfless act of love.  However, we must not lose sight of the fact that movies are designed to manipulate our emotions. Through usage of special effects, handsome actors (beautiful actresses), moving storylines and especially music, a good director is able to emotionally attach viewers to the vilest of sinners, someone whose behavior a viewer would never justify or tolerate.  Do you recall Fagin in Oliver! who taught little children how to become pick pockets, stealthily ripping-off innocent people?  Did you feel sorry for Fagin as he sang Reviewing the Situation (near the end of the movie) contemplating how he would survive without the steady income from his little pick-pocket disciples?  Would you want your child to grow up to be like Peter Pan, who never wanted to grow up, despised parental authority, was self-centered and arrogant, and whose only goal was to remain a child?  Would you choose Robin Hood to be your child's role model, who ostensibly stole from the rich to give to the poor?  Do you know what the Torah says about stealing?  Lastly, do you think the movie Striptease portrayed Demi Moore in a positive or negative light?  Was she or wasn't she the bad guy (gal)?  Or, were her actions justified, considering she was only trying to survive?  Bless her righteous soul, working so hard for her money.  I'm sure you get my point.  Almost anything that comes out of Hollywood glorifies and justifies sinful behavior.  Isn't Harry Potter the hero of his movies?  Shall we forget the fact that the Harry Potter movies are filled with magic and sorcery, which, by the way are still an abomination to the Holy One.  Do you think He doesn't care that we entertain ourselves with that which He considers an abomination?  Movies are able to persuade us to have compassion on those who in no way meet the standards of the Word.  Furthermore, attitudes, deeds and concepts that are contrary to His revealed will for our lives are glorified and even given a positive spin by the Hollywood elite.  This is all done to jerk our emotions down the wrong path.

 

Here is a quote from someone who e-mailed me after seeing 'The Passion':

 

This movie is a deeply emotional experience. By movie standards (apart from
the issues of theology), it is well written, well acted, and the camera
shots and angles are impressive. Those things work together to evoke deep
emotions within us (which is what movies are designed to do).

 

Therefore it doesn't surprise me that believers would be so emotionally attached to this movie.  If a movie can make us feel sorry for characters of ill repute, how much more can the proper choice of special effects and music emotionally attach us to a false Yeshua.  From all I've read, the scourging scenes look very real.  Yes, I do understand how a believer could see these images and then defend the movie, knowing that their Savior must have gone through something similar for them.  I do understand.  However, I think a major reason believers have supported this movie despite its many wrongs is because they are already emotionally attached to Yeshua and His atoning work.  Many believers liken any criticism of the film to criticizing the Word of Elohim (God) itself.  After all, they reason, the film is just a visual representation of the Gospels themselves.  What can be wrong with that?  This is not necessarily the case for those who do not know Him as Lord and Savior.

 

When I, an Orthodox Rabbi, see the Passion I see it in a different light than your average Christian. You see, the death and resurrection of Christ is not a part of my belief system, as such it is not an image etched within my psyche. I have no emotional attachment to the concepts that can be triggered by Mr. Gibson’s movie. This does not mean however that the movie will not solicit feelings from non-Christian viewers. While I recognize the movie is only fiction, even fictional accounts evoke within us deep emotion.[1]

 

As you can see, this Rabbi hit the nail on the head.  As I've said, many believers already have an "emotional attachment to the concepts" presented in 'The Passion' through an understanding of their salvation.  Gibson is simply using these attachments to his advantage.

 

"These things were designed, like most visual imagery, to play upon the emotions and stimulate a response; but the ability to evoke an emotional response via imagery or drama is not the same as successfully transmitting the Gospel (emphasis added)."[2]

 

When people are caught up in the emotional plot of The Passion, all the extra-biblical additions -- including each step along the Catholic "Stations of the Cross" -- become as real to the viewer's virtual experience as the factual (but less detailed and dramatic) message in the four gospels (emphasis mine).[3]

 

 

The Violence of the Passion

 

 

Many have said that Mel Gibson is a man of faith and that 'The Passion' was his attempt to show the world what Yeshua actually went through on our behalf.  Is Mel Gibson really a man of Biblical faith?  Why did he produce The Passion of the Christ?  Or, shall I ask, what was his agenda?  Let's see if we can answer those questions. 

 

In my previous articles entitled Connecting 'The Passion' to the Mass and Connecting the Passion and Idolatry, I used quotes from Mel Gibson detailing his Roman Catholic faith.  We learned the following:

 

·    He fervently believes in the heresy of Transubstantiation—the belief that the host and wine of the Eucharist (a portion of the Mass) literally become the body and blood of Yeshua whose sacrifice continues at each Mass.

·    He believes Miriam (Mary, the mother of Yeshua) was a "co-redemptrix" in our salvation.

·    His religion is one based on works.

·    He does not believe there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church!  That means you, whether Christian, Messianic or Protestant of whatever ilk, aren't even saved in his book.  Think about that.  He thinks those of us who really are saved, aren't.  Since his wife isn't Catholic he doesn't even believe she's saved, although, according to him, she has more good works than he does, which should qualify her for salvation.

 

Does this sound like someone who's been born again?  I don't think so.  Some have chastened me stating that I'm being judgmental or that I'm being hard on Mel.  No, I'm simply being the fruit inspector I'm called to be before I willy-nilly endorse anything and everything as of God (remember, you shall know them by their fruits)!  If you still think Gibson is saved, read this quote from a recent interview with him by Peter J. Boyer.  If you don't want to read the profanity, then please skip the following quote (though I did edit out the vowels).

 

Gibson is unconvinced by such scholarly interpretations. “They always d_ck around with it, you know?” he says. “Judas is always some kind of friend of some freedom fighter named Barabbas, you know what I mean? It's horsesh_t. It's revisionist bullsh_t. And that's what these academics are into. They gave me notes on a stolen script. I couldn't believe it. It was like they were more or less saying I have no right to interpret the Gospels myself, because I don't have a bunch of letters after my name. But they are for children, these Gospels. They're for children, they're for old people, they're for everybody in between. They're not necessarily for academics. Just get an academic on board if you want to pervert something!”[4]

 

Does that sound like a redeemed saint?  Would you talk that way?  I won't bore you or possibly offend you with more quotes demonstrating Mr. Gibson's colorful language.  I think you get the picture.  He simply has not yet repented, period!  Let's get serious and stop making excuses for his behavior.  I'm not engaging in character assassination, I'm just trying to show you the truth about this movie and its source.  Many are trying to tidy up Mel's image.  His image is what it is by his own hand.  In my fourth article entitled Revealing the Purpose of 'The Passion', I stated that Mel Gibson chose to capture the story of Messiah Yeshua's suffering in 'The Passion' for two reasons.  First, the suffering of Yeshua was the appropriate portion of the Gospels to convey the essential element of the Mass (Transubstantiation), the continual, repeated sacrificing of the Messiah.  The second reason he chose the sufferings of the Messiah is because they provided a platform for him to promote his passion—feeding the minds of people with violence, torture, blood and gore.

 

For those who still think Mel Gibson is a saint, please look at this incomplete listing of movies he has been in or directed/produced in some manner.

 

 

 

Here are some comments about a few Mel Gibson movies taken from the movie reviews of a Christian organization called Christian Answers.[6]

 

Payback—Payback has drug use, sexual innuendos and seduction, severe sadistic sexual relations between Val and Pearl (another prostitute), poor language and cursing, extreme violence with lots of deaths and explosions, and no redeeming qualities.

 

Ransom—While Ransom is free of any sex or nudity (except for one scene of a man's bare rear), it is replete with crude speech and obscenities, especially the "F" word, which is spewed at least 50 times.

 

The Patriot—For those not comfortable with brutal violence, stay away from this one (though it is not as graphic as the similar Braveheart, ironically also starring Mel Gibson as the underdog leader).

 

Braveheart—Though based on historical facts, Braveheart goes a little too far in demonstrating the violent nature of the men involved in the Scottish Highland/English battles of the middle ages. The movie opens with a young William Wallace witnessing the hanging of several Scottish noblemen and their young squires. (This is the least of the violence yet to come, so brace yourself.)…The historic significance of this movie is not lost, however, in all the gore and bloodshed. But, as with all too many releases of late, Hollywood feels the need to show us, in detail, the extreme suffering and dismemberment of men in battle.

 

Nothing, nothing is left to the imagination. We are shown deceit, back stabbing (figure of speech), and deception. Homosexuality is strongly implied. Nudity is briefly shown, as is adultery. The "F" word is used twice (however, the Scottish brogue is very thick and it is missed by most people.)…Most Christians (and many non-Christians) will see this epic film as distasteful because of the severe violence depicted, ...a shame considering that the history it is based on is fascinating (emphasis mine).

 

As you can see, I'd hardly classify Mel Gibson as a saint.  And by the way, I haven't read a word about him repenting over any of these movies.  Have you noticed the thematic connection between Mel Gibson and these movies?  Do you see the R rating for most of them?  Have you noticed how much they glorify violence, blood and gore?  In case you missed it, let me allow another writer to paint a more colorful picture of Mel Gibson and his real "Passion"—violence and bloodshed.

 

Ever since his star began to rise after the 1979 Australian thriller Mad Max, Mel Gibson hasn't seemed fully alive on screen unless he's being tortured and mutilated. In the Road Warrior and Lethal Weapon films, as well as such one-shots as Conspiracy Theory (1997) and The Patriot (2000), Gibson courted martyrdom, and he achieved it. He won an Oscar for his labors in Braveheart (1995), which ends with its hero managing to scream "FREEEEE-DOM!!" as he's drawn and quartered. Gibson snatched the pulp movie Payback (1999) away from its writer-director, Brian Helgeland, to make the torture of his character even more gruelingly explicit: He added shots of his toes being smashed by an iron hammer. Payback: That's what almost all of Gibson's movies are about (including his 1990 Hamlet.) Even if he begins as a man of peace, Mad Mel ends as a savage revenger.[7]

 

You see beloved, Mel Gibson thrives on movie violence.  Big-screen bloodletting is his "passion."  Why should I have to convince anyone of this?  Isn't it obvious?  Can you imagine how much time he must spend sitting around thinking of how to violently and gruesomely dismember and torture humans in such a manner that it will be explicitly vivid?  I can't even begin to imagine.  Now we can understand the real reason why Mel Gibson chose the Gospel account of the last twelve hours before Yeshua's execution as the venue for his latest movie.  The suffering of Messiah Yeshua was a perfect story for Mel Gibson to do what he does best— feed the minds of people with violence, torture, blood and gore.  And the shame of it is that he chose the suffering of Messiah Yeshua to promote his perverted "passion."  The further shame is that believers aren't spiritually discerning enough to see through this smoke screen.  He chose Messiah's sufferings because it gave him the opportunity to do what he's done in most of his movies!

 

A devout Catholic—albeit one who believes that Vatican II, which formally absolved the Jews of responsibility for the death of Jesus, is illegitimate—Gibson has said that what moves him most about the Christ story is that Jesus was whipped, scourged, mocked, spat on, had spikes driven through his hands and feet, and was left to die on the cross—and that he didn't think of payback; he thought of forgiveness. But by wallowing in his torture and death for two hours, the director of The Passion of the Christ (Newmarket) suggests that he's thinking of anything but…The lashes of the soldiers (dispatched by the Jewish priesthood) begin about 15 minutes into the film; by the time Jesus is dragged into the presence of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate (the Bulgarian actor Hristo Naumov Shopov), his face has already been smashed to a pulp…You're thinking there must be something to The Passion of the Christ besides watching a man tortured to death, right? Actually, no: This is a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it's an act of faith…Gibson uses every weapon in his cinematic arsenal to drive home the agony of those last dozen hours. While his mother and Mary Magdalene watch, Jesus is lashed until his entire body is covered in bloody crisscrossing canals. When he rises, amazing the Roman soldiers with his stamina, they go for the scourges, which rip and puncture his flesh in slow motion—all while the Romans and the Jews cackle wildly. Carrying his cross, he falls again and again in slow motion on his swollen, battered body while the soundtrack reverberates with heavy, Dolby-ized thuds. It is almost a relief when the spikes are driven into his hands and feet—at least it means that his pain is almost over…What does this protracted exercise in sadomasochism have to do with Christian faith? I'm asking; I don't know. Gibson's revenge movies end with payback—or, in Braveheart, the promise of payback to come. When Jesus is resurrected, his expression is hard, and, as he moves toward the entrance to his tomb, the camera lingers on a round hole in his hand that goes all the way through. Gibson's Jesus reminded me of the Terminator—he could be the Christianator—heading out into the world to spread the bloody news. Next stop: the Crusades (emphasis mine).[8]

 

When Gibson directed the Oscar-winning 1995 film “Braveheart,” about the folkloric Scots hero William Wallace, he reshot only one scene -- and that was in order to more graphically depict the image of enemy horses impaling themselves upon sharpened wooden stakes. Violence is Gibson's natural film language, and his Jesus is unsparingly pummelled, flayed, kicked, and otherwise smitten from first to last. After his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane by Jewish temple guards, Jesus is dragged in shackles to the high priests. By the time he arrives, he has been beaten, knocked down, and thrown off a bridge. His right eye is swollen shut. “I didn't want to see Jesus looking really pretty,” Gibson said. “I wanted to mess up one of his eyes, destroy it [This is pure, 100% Mel Gibson.  This is his passion!] (emphasis and bracket mine)."[9]

 

I received this e-mail from my grammar school friend who is a lawyer.  He also is not a born-again believer:

 

I haven't seen the movie and won't see it—too violent for me. Roger Ebert, who has been a movie critic here for 30 years, says it's the most violent movie he's ever seen, and that the last 45 minutes are pretty much nonstop gore. Why would I want to watch that?  I thought you might be interested in something that caught my eye on local television--Mike Pfleger [the Catholic priest where my friend and I went to grammar school] had a private screening of the movie at St. Sabina [the grammar school we attended] for about 500 parishoners--including children. He recommended the movie for all audiences, even children, and was accompanied in his news interview by a sixteen-year-old. They both referred to the presence of children as young as eight at the screening as a good thing. All I could do was shake my head.

 

Supposing Janet Jackson wanted to star as Herodias's daughter in a movie entitled, The Passion of John the Baptist.  Furthermore, suppose the movie remained steadfast to the Gospel accounts with absolutely no additions or deletions.  However, suppose two hours of the movie were devoted to the dance of Herodias's daughter!  Suppose Janet danced and undulated across the screen for two hours, ending her dance by doing her now infamous Superbowl halftime shuffle.  Wouldn't we think something was up even though the movie remained true to the Gospel accounts?  So why don't red lights go off when Mel Gibson gives us two hours of torture, blood and gore?

 

The Entertainment Connection

 

Many believers have stated that there's nothing wrong with watching an R-rated movie.  As I've written before, movies are usually rated R because of extreme violence, explicit sex or vile language.  I had one person write me the following:

 

Is there a mitzvah (commandment) about not reading or watching something violent? What about the public executions in the Torah? I really think "don't see this movie because of a manmade rule against seeing a movie rated R" does not fly for me.

This may seem like a good argument on the surface; however, it's not.  The issue is not whether or not we can read or watch something violent as the author suggests.  Can we read the Bible, which is full of violence?  Of course.  But bear in mind why this information was recorded.  The violence of the Scriptures (as well as all its other stories) was recorded primarily for our admonition (I Corinthians 10:1-11).  Furthermore, II Timothy 3:16 states that all Scripture is Elohim-breathed and profitable for training in righteousness.  Are Hollywood movies made to train us in righteousness?  Hollywood movies ooze with man's wisdom and folly.  According to James 3:16, this wisdom is earthly, sensual and devilish.

 

The horrendous stories of blood and gore in the Scriptures teach us that the wages of sin is death!  Many of the most violent stories of the Bible are the result of disobedience followed by Divine chastisement through the hand of human agents.  The violent stories of the Scriptures were written to warn us about the consequences of sin.  The issue is, "Do we have the freedom in Messiah to be entertained by explicit sex, violence and vile language!  You see beloved, this movie is all about entertainment.  No matter how many believers will deny this, this movie was made by an entertainer through the Entertainment Industry to entertain millions who spend billions every day to be entertained in theatres or at home.  The bottom line?  It's your usual Hollywood production full of special effects to entertain you.  When you take away the Gospel story-line, this movie is nothing more than Hollywood Trash—with a capital T!  Now tell me you can't find a Scripture against entertaining yourself with violence, sex and vile language?  Let's face the facts folks, people go to movies to be entertained.  Even though believers may insist that this movie is a ministry tool, the fact remains that it was produced to sell and bring in huge revenues.  Wrongly motivated to "know what Yeshua went through for us," we have gone to gawk at a big screen depiction of Messiah Yeshua's suffering that's filled with error, fables, disgusting Hollywood embellishments and demonic revelations.  We're not talking about The Jesus Film friends!  Even secular unsaved people know this.  I asked my two close unsaved work colleagues if they were going to see 'The Passion.'  Both of them said no.  When I asked them why not, they both agreed that they go to movies to be entertained and they knew this movie wouldn't be entertaining.  Can you blame them.  Movies are part of an industry called The Entertainment Industry.  It's an industry folks, where the bottom line is cash, cash, cash. 

 

Movies are entertainment.  Audiences are supposed to be entertained by them.  Note what Ray Richmond said he heard from a young couple who were in line with him waiting to view 'The Passion':

 

Said one twenty something woman in line: “It was either '50 First Dates’ or 'The Passion of the Christ,’ and 'Christ’ has all the buzz.”[10]

 

These people simply wanted to be entertained and now they can be entertained at the expense of the Son of God who really died on their behalf.  Gibson, a true entertainer, knows how to get his message across:

 

"He [Gibson] added that 'the film is very violent, and if you don't like it, don't go, you know? That's it. If you want to leave halfway through, go ahead. You know, there's nothing that says you have to stay there. I wanted it to be shocking. And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge. And it does that. I think it pushes one over the edge...'"[11]

 

But there is nothing in my existence - nothing I could have read, seen, heard, thought or known - that could have prepared me for what I saw on screen last night.  This is not a movie that anyone will "like". I don't think it's a movie anyone will "love". It certainly doesn't "entertain". There isn't even the sense that one has just watched a movie. What it is…an experience - on a level of primary emotion that is scarcely comprehensible. Every shred of human preconception or predisposition is utterly stripped away. No one will eat popcorn during this film. Some may not eat for days after they've seen it. Quite honestly, I wanted to vomit. It hits that hard.[12]

This movie has all of the earmarks of Hollywood.  Please note the following disgusting embellishments many excuse as artistic license.  During the opening scenes, hasatan appeared with a maggot moving about in his/her nose.  At another point in the movie, little Jewish children morph into demons and chase Judas.  One of the thieves on the cross had his eye picked out by a bird.  What do these scenes sound like?   They sound like things we'd expect from any typical horror show.  What do you think Christians would have said had the makers of The Jesus Film added any of those three scenes?  Their cry would have gone up to heaven.  But Mel gets free reign to add that garbage and believers justify it as "artistic license".  Have we not been delivered from such through Yeshua?  This is pure Hollywood shock (as Mel said he wanted to do) at the expense of the Son of Elohim (God).  So why did Mel Gibson add these warped embellishments?  Because, he wants to entertain you and keep you coming back for more!  Many reviewers make the obvious connection between 'The Passion' and entertainment.

 

Who would ever have thought that two hours of ceaseless, excruciating torture would come to represent such a potent slice of mass entertainment? The film is monumentally disturbing — not for its depiction of Christ dying for our sins but for its unbearably gruesome, gratuitously savage illustration of the final 12 hours of Christ’s life.  What it is is the most gut-piercing depiction ever of a man being beaten to death in all of its blood-spurting, flesh-pulverizing glory. The film is an orgy of gore, displayed for the seeming sake of gore. Take away the spiritual veneer and, in its way, the film is downright pornographic (emphasis mine).[13]

 

Isn't it ironic that believers have embraced what they have eschewed in the past—movie violence?  Do you know how many Christian family advocacy groups and ministries have spoken about the evils of movie and TV violence?  The same voices are now stating that the violence of 'The Passion' is justified. 

 

Christians have railed against Hollywood's depiction of mindless violence, death, blood, guts, and gore. Yet, too many Christians are more than willing to subject themselves to just such a Hollywood depiction, not stopping to think that the Holy Spirit -- working 2,000 years ago in the minds of the Four Evangelists -- chose not to spell out in gruesome detail the violence, blood, guts and gore in the Gospel account of Jesus' trial, scourging and crucifixion. Why would we allow Hollywood to depict something God chose not to depict!

 

It can be downright confusing trying to understand believers and their assessment of this movie.  Note what one Christian movie reviewer had to say about the scenes added to the historical account of Braveheart as well as its graphic nature:

 

Though based on historical facts, Braveheart goes a little too far in demonstrating the violent nature of the men involved in the Scottish Highland/English battles of the middle ages… But, as with all too many releases of late, Hollywood feels the need to show us, in detail, the extreme suffering and dismemberment of men in battle… Nothing, nothing is left to the imagination…Most Christians (and many non-Christians) will see this epic film as distasteful because of the severe violence depicted, ...a shame considering that the history it is based on is fascinating (emphasis mine).[14]

 

Later in the article, a different reviewer made this statement concerning Braveheart:

 

BRAVEHEART is a great film! It would have been better if more of the facts had been left in, and the fiction left out.[15]

 

Remember, earlier we saw that a movie reviewer at Christian Answers rated Braveheart as very offensive, mainly because of the extreme violence.  However, when reviewing The Passion of the Christ, a different reviewer, Brett Willis, had this to say concerning the violence and the non-historical additions to the Gospels:

 

Ordinarily, even in a worthwhile film like “Saving Private Ryan,” where a constant drum of violence is somewhat inherent to the plot, the violence itself is a minus. But this isn’t ordinarily…If any event deserves the full Hollywood treatment, this one does. Therefore, I do not consider the graphic nature of this presentation to be a negative.

 

Not surprisingly, certain scenes in the film (such as Mary cradling Jesus’ body as it’s taken down from the Cross) have a distinctly Roman Catholic flavor. But not so distinctive that they’re an impediment to anyone else’s faith. I commend Gibson for giving the film a broad general appeal among Bible believers of all stripes.[16]

 

So what are we to make of this double standard?  It was wrong for Mel Gibson to use extreme violence during filming of Braveheart.  It was also wrong for him to diverge from the true historical account of William Wallace's story.  But when we consider 'The Passion,' gratuitous violence is fine, even needed!  And departures from the Gospel accounts are a plus to appeal to more people.  In case you haven't noticed, this is called using different weights and measures.  You might also call it hypocritical.  Everything that was unjustified for Braveheart is justified, excused and deemed necessary for 'The Passion.'

 

In actuality, the violence of Braveheart and 'The Passion' are both an abomination because they both use violence as a form of entertainment, period.  Violence for the sake of entertainment is the key to understanding why the violence of 'The Passion' is wrong and not justified under any pretext.  Many believers are willing to excuse the violence of 'The Passion' because 1) it was taken from the Bible and 2) it was a true historical fact.  Okay, let's follow this reasoning.  Do we really want to go here?  Okay, have you read Judges 19-21 lately?  I have an idea for Mel's next movie since he likes blood, violence and gore.  All believers who justify the violence of 'The Passion' will like this one.  Mel can tell the story of the Levite who spent the night in Gibeah, a town of Benjamites.  On the evening of his stay, the Benjamites came to the house he was lodging in and demanded that he be turned over to them so they could sodomize him.  The owner of the house (in a scene reminiscent of the story of Lot's stay in Sodom and Gomorrah) asked the Benjamites not to do such a thing and offered his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine.  When they refused, the Levite threw his concubine out to the men who violated her all night.  In the morning, she returned to the house, collapsed and died on the threshold of the house.  The Levite took her body, dismembered it and sent the pieces to the twelve tribes of Israel.  The story goes on to recount the civil war that ensued and the near decimation of the tribe of Benjamin.  How about that?  It's true and it's in the Bible; therefore it's kosher right?  Do you see the folly in everyone's reasoning who have used similar arguments to excuse the violence of 'The Passion?'  Could you imagine Mel doing this movie?  I sure could.  It's right up his alley so to speak—dismemberment, bloodshed, gore and war.  Do you know how vile such a movie would be?  I'm sure you know it would be wrong.  You see beloved, it's okay to read such stories in Scripture because of the Scriptural reason why they were recorded.  But it is another issue all together to make it into a movie so that people can be entertained by the bloodletting.   I wonder if Mel is already planning such movies?  Will we need to go view them before we can determine whether or not we can make a judgment about them as well?

 

Movie Theatres and the Roman Coliseum

 

And what are we to think of movie violence?  What is its spiritual significance?  In order to determine the spiritual significance of movie violence, we must see its connection to other forms of visual media.  Simply stated, movie violence is a darker shade of TV violence.  Television violence is a darker shade of day-time talk shows, reality-TV and cop-shows.  In day-time talk shows, people are pitted against each other before a live television audience as they verbally assault each other in a doomed effort to iron out their differences over the airwaves.  Often, these verbal confrontations lead to physical violence.  And what's the draw for the average viewer?  They're entertained by real life confrontations and violence in the comfort of their living room.  In reality-TV programs, people are pitted against each other in a cut-throat scenario involving real life situations.  And what's the draw for the average viewer?  They're entertained by real life confrontations in the comfort of their living room.  In television cop shows, a police camera catches the action as real policemen chase and physically subdue real criminals.  And what's the draw for the average viewer?  They're entertained by real life confrontations and violence in the comfort of their living room.  Have you noticed the connection between these forms of entertainment and real life violence/confrontation?  And how are day-time talk shows, reality-TV and cop-shows connected to violent movies?  In violent movies, people are entertained by phony confrontations and violence in such a manner that they seem like real life confrontations and violence, all from the comfort of a theatre seat.

 

You see beloved, there is a part of our psyche that it curious about violence.  This is not new.  As Solomon stated, there is no new thing under the sun.  It all boils down to this.  Day-time talk shows, reality-TV, cop-shows and violent movies are designed to fulfil the morbid curiosity of their viewers for confrontation and violence.  In particular, bloody, violent movies satiate the appetites of those who for various reasons feel they need a satisfying visual intake of blood, gore and violence.  Where have we seen this before?  The Roman coliseums of course. 

 

Alexander the Great had 2,000 survivors from the siege of Tyre crucified on the shores of the Mediterranean (Curtius Rufus, Hist. Alex. 4.4.17) while in the times of Caligula (37-41 CE). Jews were tortured and crucified in the amphitheater to entertain the inhabitants of Alexandria…During the first revolt of the Jews against the Romans in 66-73 CE. Josephus mentions that in the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE) “the soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in different postures (JW 5.11 and 451).[17]

 

In fact, it's easy for me to see the thematic connection between the bloody coliseums of Rome and the bloody movies of our day and age.  The only difference is this.  Today's bloody movies are the more civilized manner for people to enjoy the bloodletting that Romans partook of in real life.

 

I realize it wouldn't be fair to impute the gross desires of those who filled the Roman coliseums to every modern-day moviegoer—although the connection is clear and strong.  Some have simply fallen prey to the spirit of this age which seems to compel us to go to a movie so we can "see what such-and-such a gross thing really was like."

 

For others, The Patriot is well worth your time. As in Saving Private Ryan, Americans are again given a realistic view of war. [18]

 

I won't go into the reasons why such "wisdom" is earthly, other than the fact that it is simply just another form of Greeks seeking knowledge/wisdom (I Corinthians 1:22).  However, I will comment on the fact that we have become desensitized to such garbage parading as entertainment.  Movies rated PG-13 nowadays wouldn't have been shown back in the 1950's.  Most people have been caught in the downward spiral of trashy movie standards, which have plummeted to lower and lower levels.  Simply put, we have allowed Hollywood to dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable to view.  This is exactly the opposite of Romans 12:1-2, where we are commanded to be renewed in our minds so that we can know the Father's will in these matters.  The following quote is a perfect example of allowing Hollywood to determine what is right or wrong:

 

However, classic-style Passion films probably wouldn’t have the same effect on today’s audiences that they did on those of 50 years ago, because techniques of extreme graphic violence have been used in films of all types, from war movies with a message of self-sacrifice to ridiculous horror and horror-comedy flicks. Movie-going audiences are desensitized, are bored by the old-style “less is more” approach, and demand “realism.”  So, an actor/director from Hollywood’s “A-list,” who happens to believe that the message of Jesus is true, has chosen to spend somewhere between 25 and 35 million dollars of his own money to make an R-rated Passion film befitting the trend of the times.

 

Do you see the author's "wisdom?"  Extreme graphic violence is much more "advanced" nowadays because of Hollywood's "ridiculous horror and horror-comedy flicks," and movie-goers have been desensitized by it; therefore, let's be just as graphic and explicit (and ridiculous I might add) as all other trashy films so we can be in tune with the times.

 

In the final analysis, The Passion of the Christ has captured all of what Hollywood has become, a modern-day Roman coliseum where people can spend money to have their curiosities satisfied, being entertained by real life-like violence, torture, blood and gore.  This has been done at the expense of the greatest act of love ever demonstrated to mankind.

 

The first two articles of this seven-part series laid a foundation for discussion.  Articles three, four, five and six reviewed the evils associated with The Passion of the Christ.  The last article will take us on a prophetic journey back in time as well as a prophetic journey into the future.  There is a Messianic figure in the Tanakh (Old Testament) closely associated with the phenomenon of this movie.  Furthermore, Yeshua gave a specific end-time prophecy closely associated with this movie.  I will discuss both as they relate to The Passion of the Christ.