(Page 3 of 7)
I often look forward to James Bowman's movie reviews. For one, I often agree with his movie opinions but I will have to depart from Bowman on his review of The Passion of the Christ.
What concerns me is Bowman's apparent dismissive review about the reality of the depiction of the crucifixion in Gibson's movie. Bowman say it was not until the 13th century that Christ's suffering became a theme of artists. Bowman goes on to note that he is critical of the new age sound track and the use of modern movie special effects. Let me address the easy part first, if Bowman is saying the movie's depiction was "not as it was" based upon the movie's sound track and special effects, then I agree. There was no sound track or special effects , though there was plenty of supernatural effects, during the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord. And movie craft is fair game, even in a religious movie.
But, what I am uncomfortable with is Bowman's apparent comment related to the crucifixion as being inaccurate because the suffering was not emphasized until the 13th century. The way I read Bowman, he is stating that the crucifixion of Christ was not the horrible-bloody experience shown in the movie. If that is Bowman's take, he is grossly mistaken. First, the focus of artists is not the basis for sound historical perspective for the first century. The depiction of graphic suffering was not a staple of artistic expression.
p>Second, what is important to understanding the events of 33 AD is to understand the art of Roman crucifixion and flogging. Both of these practices are accurately portrayed by Gibson. There was nothing pretty or clinical about death in the Roman empire. After all, each death was intended to be a sign or omen to others about their possible fate if they stray beyond Roman writ. In that regard, Gibson's movie "is as it was." br> -- Steve Shaver /p> p> SEEING IS BELIEVING br> Re: Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s No Appetite for Blood and Gore : /p> p>Please let Mr. Tyrrell know that from the gore arises an overwhelming message of forgiveness and love. It is essential to this movie, not just simply gratifying as Hollywood normally employs it. If you are a follower of Christ, you should not miss seeing the Passion and with it your chance to look full in the face of what He chose to do for us. br> --
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.