That’s a lot of possessives.
I’ve been keeping an eye on this film because of it’s controversy and my growing interest in religion(s). The always-informative Mirabilis links to a fascinating (if poorly formatted) interview with a Dominican priest who recently viewed the film at the Vatican. Here’s an excerpt from his comments:
Anyone seeing this film — believer and unbeliever alike — will be forced to confront the central mystery of Christ’s passion, indeed of Christianity itself: If this is the remedy, what must the harm have been? The Curé of Ars says somewhere that no one could have an idea or explain what Our Lord has suffered for us; to grasp this, we would have to know all the harm sin has caused him, and we won’t know this until the hour of our death. In a way that only great art can do, Mel Gibson’s film helps us grasp something almost beyond our comprehension. At the outset, in the Garden of Gethsemane, the devil tempts Christ with the unavoidable question: How can anyone bear the sins of the whole world? It’s too much. Christ nearly shrinks at the prospect, but then convincingly proceeds to do just that — to take on, according to his Father’s will, the sins of the whole world. It’s astonishing really.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
For more about the film, read the article “Mad Mel” by Paula Fredriksen at The New Repbulic online. http://www.tnr.com. Just do a search for “Mel Gibson” and it should be the first listing to come up. After clicking on the link, scroll way down the page to find the article in the Books & Arts section.
Thanks for that. Wow, the New Republic should really do a better job of protecting their content. You’re supposed to require a log-in to access the article, but I just did a Google search and found it here:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=80VDpXe%2BtUVYgZguKgNQvB%3D%3D
The ‘veracity’ of this film is, predictably, hotly contested. While the interviewee from the Vatican says:
“Within the limits possible in an imaginative reconstruction of the passion of Christ, Gibson’s film is entirely faithful to the New Testament.”
While in the NR article, the author (a professor at Boston University) says:
“That script–and, on the evidence, the film–presents neither a true rendition of the Gospel stories nor a historically accurate account of what could have happened in Jerusalem, on Passover, when Pilate was prefect and Caiaphas was high priest.”
ok.. a group of 230 people were recently shown the film (mildly unfinished) by mel and much of the feedback i’ve been hearing is that..
-the film while being accused of being antisemetic is not. what one has to remember is that almost everyone in the movie is jewish.. from the accuseers to the followers.. most everyone.
-the jewish priests are not ‘preists’ but politicians trying to hold on to power.
-most of all though the one overal feeling i am hearing is that the movie is sad. so so very sad. and brutal. gritty and biting.
-the sufferning is overwhelming and that the censors may try to ruin it.
-it’s a work of art
-mel is a god
I’m a bit scared of the movie, having seen depictions of crucifixion before, and finding that it nearly tears me to the core each time. It’s the same reason I only got halfway through the Pianist, and why I have yet to watch Schindler’s List. Because whether one believes the story of Christ is true or not, crucifixions definitely happened, and it’s disturbing to think that humans could devise such a torture.
I saw the movie at a christian culture conference, one of the first to ever have seen it. It was the best depiction I’ve ever seen. I admire Mel for being so bold and introducing this to the world. I admire him so much. The movie was excellent, and the reaction at the end of the film was nothing less than miraculous. I was in tears the whole way through. I’ve been a christian for 8 years, and that night I watched it was the most chilling night, I felt Christ’s love fall over me as the movie continued. Thank you and God Bless you Mel!