Ridiculous Hollywood nonsense. In short, one of the many ways Christians preach plays on guilt. Just imagine how much Jesus suffered to atone for your sins. Therefore, you must feel responsible for this and immediately become a good Christian who never forgets what Jesus did for you. Gibson simply filmed an adaptation of the sermon, with which he himself clearly agrees.
The level of violence in the film is ridiculous and deserves to be bullied by South Park, which in this case is not even an exaggeration. Gibson first filmed Jesus being scolded from one side. Then another. We think this is the end. But no, the hardness is just beginning - again the angles. Then slowo. Then behind the scenes. Then in a different position. Mr. Director knows a lot about perversions! In the 1930s, it was Catholics who established a rule in Hollywood that there should be as little violence in movies as possible and only if it receives just retribution. And the crucifix in those days in Hollywood movies was shown carefully. Now Catholics are praising Gibson. Comfortably changed shoes.
In "Passion" after the scene of hand washing, the narrative almost disappears, and the movie turns into some kind of indistinct buffoon with cutting scenes. I don't know how many times Gibson dropped Jesus, but it's a lot. It's absurd. The scene in which the cross with the nailed Jesus is dropped is generally taken from a comedy like The Life of Brian. How could you take that cranberry off?
Gibson got hurt for two hours showing Jesus being tortured, instead of showing the teachings of the founder of Christianity. But critics make the same mistake as Gibson. They create the Jesus they like best. He taught goodness and love and was crucified. But the story of Jesus’ passions is an important part of the gospel, and it is wrong to downplay it. On the other hand, Gibson creates his own Jesus who came to endure pain to atone for his sins. He, for his part, also cuts off the gospels, downplaying their other aspects. “Go learn what it means to want mercy, not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13) is what Gibson misses. But the problems of Gibson's film adaptation go deeper. In the Gospels, the history of the passions is a contrast to the story of the resurrection. These parts lose their meaning in isolation from each other. Gibson doesn't understand that. Yes, he has the resurrected Jesus, but the accent completely distorts the perception.
Gibson explained that I only filmed what is in the Gospels. How can I distort anything? Such disgusting hypocrisy deserves only contempt. He could do just as he did in almost everything. I have counted about 45 deviations from the gospels or total absurdities. Gibson removed from the gospel a naked lad fleeing from the guards (Mark 14:51-52). Here Catholic decency did not tolerate. Looking at naked asses is sinful. Watching 20 minutes of torture is heartbreaking. Thank you, but this religion is not attractive. There is no devil in the gospels who walks around Jesus with a freak in his arms. Anyone want to add drama to the gospels? Gibson wanted Jesus to suffer so much that he was beaten after being arrested on his way out of the garden. There is no such thing in the gospels - again a sadistic cutaway.
As for the history of the film without tears can not be seen. Rome and Judea are patriarchal societies. Soldiers listen to women, women forget something at the council of elders, Pilate's wife meddles in state affairs. Unthinkable. Jews and women roam the Roman barracks. Oh, Mary knew Pilate's wife! The high priest goes to the Gentiles and stands with them in a crowd. He was forbidden because of ritual desecration. He cannot enter the temple and serve. By the way, since the feast was, the high priest could not be on duty at the cross, he has a service on the busiest day of the year (it is also not in the Gospels).
Simply put, the film was made by people who believed they were the salt of the earth and had to open their eyes. But in reality, they are completely flawed in the subject. And fanatics.
