Jon treated James and I to The Passion of the Christ last night. He said that the fellow at the church he was at said something along the lines of 'if you can get a non-christian to see this movie, then we'll pay for their ticket'. Jon took that to heart, and while he isn't applying to get his money back, he displayed the same generosity towards James and I.

Looking at it from the perspective of a simple movie-goer, I'd say it wasn't bad. There were a lot of things that were fairly well done, though there were a lot of things that I wouldn't say were done very well. For example the man representing Satan would float sometimes, and walk others. Or I thought it was absurd the way Jesus would go on about loving your enemies, and then a man who trash talks him suddenly gets his face mangled by a crow - it was portrayed as divine vengeance, and I was just forced to shake my head. The same with the temple of the Jewish high priests getting destroyed and the high priest that condemned Jesus burning himself in the fire. I can see Gibson wanted to have some sort or revenge, or something to please his audience, but I just found it contradictory in its portrayal. But that's just me.

James brought up something interesting about representation. Pilate was shown to be worried about condemning Jesus to death, saying that if he did, then there would be rebellion and bloodshed, but if he didn't, then there would also be rebellion and bloodshed. This implies that there are two groups of people, and they are numerous and passionate enough to fight for this. But in all the scenes in the courtyard, only the side that wanted Jesus crucified was represented. No one called out against it, only 3 or 4 people stood there without agreeing, but the rest were cheering and calling for blood. Now, if Pilate is worried about rebellion and bloodshed, shouldn't that other side of the populace have been represented?

Another thing was the way the Jewish leaders had power over the Romans, for example they pressured Pilate to kill Jesus, and they were shown to have all kinds of influence among these people, and then the soldiers are told to do as they say in the crusifixtion. Then, later the Roman soldiers are shown to pull a man out of the crowd, call him a filthy Jew (anti-semitism, it seemed like the Jewish man was a minority in that moment), and force him to carry the cross with Jesus. It was strange. Are they just angry they had to do as the Jewish leaders bid?

The language transition was good, there was some good imagery. I mean, whatever your religious beliefs, you have to feel at least a little empathy for the torture the fellow is dealt. The dialogue was slim, but designed to be effective I suppose.

Otherwise, it wasn't a spiritual experience for me, and I didn't 'hear any voices in my head' or 'feel the holy ghost inside me', as Jon inquired.

Either way, it wasn't a total loss. As a movie I'd say it was par. As a religious experience, then I'd just say to leave that for the believers. I have a whole set of arguments and questions regarding the purpose of this movie, but I'll just leave them for another time because we have to leave soon.

There's a soccer game on tonight between Scotland and Denmark, we may end up spending the evening in a pub watching that. I'm probably cheering for Scotland just because I want to see the entire pub erupt in joyous song whenever the Scots score. First though I intend on making a nice, large supper. I'm bloody hungry for a big meal - with meat and vegetables, something healthy.

Peace out.