This has nothing whatever to do with poetry criticism. Sue.
bw
SallyE
on 7/3/04 5:24 pm, Sue Scalf at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I saw the film Friday night, and I pretty much agree with my friend Mitch
> Peterson.
> This is what he has to say:
>
> Last evening I went to my local theater, paid my money, found my seat and
> watched Mr. Mel Gibsonıs controversial film, The Passion.
>
> I am not a film critic. I cannot disassemble a movie, dissect it and tell
> you, as some commentators in the profession can and do as loudly as possible,
> whether or not it is a good piece of work based on itıs components or
> individual
> merits. I am not a popular columnist who would give you a thumbs up or thumbs
> down as to whether a film was worth the cost of the ticket and the
>
> over-priced popcorn, soda and Goobers. (Do they still sell those?) I judge my
> films by whether I am entertained. Generally speaking fear does not entertain
> me so, I do not attend horror films. Rape, incest, sodomy and murder are not
> high on my list of diversionary pursuits so, I shun most current movies
> shabbily disguised as suspense/drama. Mostly, I find laughter entertaining but
> sadly, Hollywoodıs recent efforts there are at the least puerile and immature
> and
> at best only mildly amusing. Consequently, I donıt find myself in my local
> theater very often and for those few times that I do attend, I seldom come
> away
> pleased, happy or entertained. But for this picture, I broke all my rules of
> entertainment and I went to watch The Passion, a film that I knew would not
> please me, would not make me happy or entertain me. And I was right. Simply
> put,
> Mr. Gibsonıs movie is a bloody, graphic and fearful cinematic experience sure
> to
> make even the most jaded cringe but the story is a great one!
>
> Actually, Mr. Gibsonıs movie is, in my humble opinion, well and richly filmed
> and poignantly presented. It is a bit ham-handed and characteristically
> predictable at times, especially in his portrayal of the Roman soldiers and
> the
> Hebrew Priests but Jesus Christ is revealed as a real live living, breathing
> and
> loving man and human being. But I digress and more importantly, I am sounding
> like a reviewer which, I have already said I am not so, why am I writing about
> this movie? Because as I watched it I finally came to understand something
> very important about the crucifixion.
>
> It is obvious from the way Mr. Gibson presented his film that he has done his
> homework and knows something of the scriptures and the story of Christ. We
> see how both the Hebrews and the Romans were responsible for the persecution
> and
> murder of Jesus and there has been some controversy over whether this will
> create a greater or renewed hatred of the Jews but I submit that, after all
> that
> has been said and written in some two thousand years about Christ and his
> death, if you are still looking to point fingers or assign blame, then you
> have
> missed the point entirely and you may stop reading right here. We see Jesus
> the
> boy, the young carpenter; the loving son, the handsome young man. We see
> Jesus the Good Shepherd, the Rabbi and patient teacher; the silent and
> suffering
> lamb, the accused and bloodied Savior. We see, as I have never seen before,
> Christ as he may have truly lived and existed. We witness in explicit detail
> something close to what Jesus might have endured during his trial
> and subsequent crucifixion. And you might think that this is the important
> understanding I came to and you would be close but not quite right.
>
> We see Satan in close attendance during this ordeal. This is something I had
> never considered before but it makes perfect sense. I always thought of Satan,
> in reference to Christ, in terms of the forty days and nights of the
> temptation and in the fact that Christ, in spite of his humanity, lived a
> perfect and
> sinless life. However, this movie brought me to realize that Lucifer must
> certainly have been close at hand during those dark hours. This after all was
> his
> big chance. Christ, the Son Man, the Lamb of God, the Messiah was about to be
> murdered and so, for all time would end Satanıs struggle with God in seeming
> victory. Yes, I think Satan was gleefully close during those awful moments. We
> finally see the risen Christ, the hollow burial shroud and empty tomb and we
> realize that Christ did indeed arise from the dead. And that is a revelation,
> a
> jubilation but it is not what I came to finally understand.
>
> I have studied some of the blood sacrifice of atonement the Hebrews offered
> once a year at Yom Kippur. It is a stunning ceremony and one fraught with
> uncertainty and mortal danger. Very briefly stated, a young bullock, a male
> calf
> would be selected and culled from the herd. He was to be perfect and without
> blemish. This animal, innocent, bewildered, dumb and confused was bound and
> delivered to the Priests at the temple. After the animal was ceremoniously
> killed
> and his blood collected, the High Priest took it and prepared to enter into
> the
> very presence of God in the Holy of Holies in the interior of the Temple.
> This only after several days of prayer, fasting and ritual washing to ensure
> his
> cleanliness. Even still, the Priest wore small bells on the hem of his robes
> and a tether around his ankle for, if he were not clean, worthy and blameless,
> he would certainly be struck dead when standing in the presence of God. If the
> bells were not heard tinkling as the Priest moved about the
> altar, he was to be dragged out by the tether since no one could enter the
> Holy of Holies to retrieve him.
>
> The Priest took the blood, a Hyssop branch, a thurible with burning coals and
> finely ground incense. As he entered the Holy of Holies, the very presence of
> God, he was to put the powdered incense on the glowing embers. In doing, he
> was shrouded in a cloud of sweet smoke, shrouded from the unrelenting glory of
> God and more importantly, God was shrouded from him, from us, from sin. The
> Priest then approached the altar and with the Hyssop branch, sprinkled the
> blood
> out for approval. If the sacrifice was accepted, then the sins of Israel were
> not forgiven but ignored, set aside for another year. But like a debt, they
> continued to accrue and hang in the balance year after year. Christıs arrest,
> trial and murder was to be a direct metaphor of the Hebrew yearly blood
> sacrifice of atonement. Christ was delivered to the Priests, innocent, without
> blemish, bound, bewildered and dumb. He was killed and his blood was shed.
> When
> Christ cried, "It is Finished!" it was he himself, acting on our
> behalf, presenting his own blood not in the Holy of Holies but to God his
> Father in person and so obliterating the accrued debt of sin for all time. It
> is
> this sequence and the events just prior that interest me the most.
>
> That Jesus rose from the dead is always presented as the great miracle; that
> he was made to suffer and was crucified for our sin, for the sin of all
> mankind Jew and Gentile alike for all time and history and that he then rose
> from
> the tomb and death to ascend to Heaven and the right hand of God his Father.
> That is miraculous but not to be unexpected. God is a living God. How could
> his
> Son not live? He had to have risen. If God the Father is living then God the
> Son must also live. In retrospect, there could be no uncertainty that Christ
> would rise from the tomb. He had said as much himself, for however
> cryptically,
> that he would rise in three days from the dead.
>
> Even still, Christıs torture and murder must have aggrieved his Father. There
> are recorded several times in the Old Testament where God, thoroughly
> aggrieved by sin and disobedience, punished the Israelites. The bible even
> tells in
> the story of Noah how God repented the day he made Man and if you recall the
> account, sought to destroy the world and all of mankind, his creation with a
> great flood. So what of this horrible crime, this sin perpetrated against his
> Son? What did he do? He turned away, he could not be a witness to it and why?
> Because the sin of the world and all time was laid upon Jesus and without
> benefit
> of Priest, shroud or tether Christ was presented imperfect, unclean, bloodied
> and sinful beyond all recompense in the full presence of the glory of God.
> More importantly, God was not shrouded away from an imperfect, unclean,
> bloodied
> and sinful Christ and for one brief and terrible instant, he rejected Christ
> his Son. In that moment all of creation teetered dangerously in
> the balance of Godıs wrath and accusation. Only Christ knew how close we
> came to the void, how close he came and he cried out, "Father, why have you
> forsaken me?" If there was a time for man to fear, for you and I to tremble,
> it was
> in that one awful moment when God could not, would not endure the sinful
> presence of his own son. And so, like an unclean and unworthy Priest, Jesus
> was
> struck down. His sin was not to be ignored or set aside. His imperfection, his
> blemish and scars marked him irretrievably and beyond repair. His life was
> required and he gave it. Only there was no bell to tell those of us trembling
> in
> the anteroom of history and no tether by which we could be retrieved. And that
> is the miracle, the revelation, the understanding. Not that Christ died and
> not that he rose but that for one brief moment he was beyond atonement and the
> conclusion was in doubt.
>
> It is the doubt then that I seek to celebrate for it is the doubt that
> defines us even as it defined Thomas. Doubt is so very human and it is doubt
> that
> inspires faith, the very faith that took Christ to the edge of eternity, to
> the
> end of the mercy of God his Father, our Father and yet restored us all safely
> and forever redeemed from the abyss.
>
>
>
> Mitchell L. Peterson
|
