|
As to Sullivan's description of the above-mentioned scene involving the
Blessed Mother, I wonder if he would describe as "absolutely disgusting" the
television news images we so frequently see of Orthodox Jews in Israel
reverently collecting the remains of their murdered loved ones from streets
and walls, after another homicide bombing. Though this scene is not taken
from the Gospels, there is a certain poignancy and profound meaning to it
for those who seek to identify with a mother who has suffered what Mary
endured. Perhaps a greater sensitivity to a different cultural-religious
value needs to be operative here as well if a fair judgment is going to be
rendered.
Yes, this movie contains very violent scenes, but the violence is
absolutely necessary if one is to more completely understand and appreciate
what Jesus endured for us and for our salvation. In one sense I agree with
Mathewes-Green. Gibson does "linger over" the scourging, carrying of the
cross and crucifixion of Jesus where the evangelists do not. Our agreement
ends there. For I believe there is a just cause for the difference in
treatment. Namely, the contemporaries of Jesus and the evangelists knew
firsthand what Roman scourging and crucifixion were. They did not have to be
told. I suspect many, if not most, had witnessed more than one in their own
lifetime, perhaps even known a victim of one. It is reasonable to assume
that for them, the mere mention of a word like "scourge" would have brought
to mind immediately the horrid images associated with such an act. Those are
pregnant words in the Gospels for their original hearers. What Gibson does
is bring a taste of this experience to the modern hearer/viewer of the
Passion narrative. If it happened this way, as Mathewes-Green acknowledges,
then we have been given a new and relevant insight into it.
It is no different from today when we in the affluent, relatively safe
west have images of the horrible effects of wars, famine, hunger and disease
brought into our homes via the mass media. It is not sufficient for us
merely to talk about hunger in the third world. We are shown the images.
Hunger for us usually means a little discomfort between meals. Hunger for
others means a life-threatening tragedy. The pictures make this real for us
and Gibson has made Jesus' sufferings real for us. Perhaps the "violence" of
the Romans reminded Cohen of Hitler or Mussolini's regimes-I can see
that-but I find it hard to believe that any human being can honestly be
bored by what I saw. Repulsed, offended, humbled, yes, but bored? It is
tantamount to being bored by recent images of the atrocities committed by
Saddam Hussein and his sons or by the heart wrenching images of atrocities
committed against Jews in Nazi Germany displayed at the Holocaust Museum.
The violence portrayed by Gibson is a vital part of the message of this film
about the Lord's Suffering Servant who:
…had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance
that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of
sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their
faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our
infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he
was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was
upon him, and by his stripes we are healed (Is 53:2b-5).
Article Pages
[ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 ]
|
|
