--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
> --- In email@example.com, "orthodoxchurch_sg"
> <orthodoxchurch_sg@y...> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "stefanvpavlenko"
> > <StefanVPavlenko@n...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Those pictures truly make one think about what Our Lord Jesus
> > > suffered!
> > >
> > Evlogeite!
> I'm glad you mentioned this. I am writing a piece on this very
> right now. I appreciate Mr. Gibson's courageous stand for Christ,
> he has been pilloried in the media, but the fact remains that the
> film has serious drawbacks. First, there is the issue you mention:
> Can Christ be portrayed in a film? Some would argue that such a
> can be a powerful and effective tool for leading someone to Christ.
> Perhaps. I maintain that the most powerful visual tool is an icon
> Christ and of his Crucifixion. Of course the Resurrection is
> inseparable from the Passion, but the film in question stops at our
> Lord's death. And the most powerful aural tool is the Holy Thursday
> Matins of the Twelve Passion Gospels.
> Gibson's film was not based solely on Scripture and Orthodox
> Tradition. He makes no bones about the fact that he bases it on the
> purported visions of an 18th cent. mystic, Anne Catherine Emmerich,
> who claimed God showed her a vision of what "really" happened at
> Crucifixion. She also claimed to have had visions of every single
> of Christ 3 1/2 yr. ministry and of the creation of the world.
> decided to make his film after a copy of Emmerich's
> book "miraculously" fell into his hands.
> Western views of Christ's sacrifice emphasize His victimhood over
> victory. This is why RC depictions are often so gory. The more
> and guts we see, the more we are assured of our salvation, the
> goes. But in Orthodox icons, Christ is the "the King of Glory" and
> little blood is depicted, if any. This is because in the West, sin
> and grace are quantifiable commodities, so the more Christ
> the better for us. For a Western Christian, then, it is
> comforting to view the blood and gore. In Orthodox thought,
> what is salient is the fact that Christ died, not how much He may
> have suffered. His death trampled down death, so that His rising
> might bestow life. A film such as Gibson's which stops at the
> of Christ's death misses the boat. It is not uncommon for RC films
> Christ to omit the Resurrection. For them the Crucifixion is
> more central to their piety, while the Resurrection is often viewed
> as an epilogue.
> A correspondent of mine noted that if we were present at the actual
> Crucifixion, we would indeed have seen the blood and gore Gibson
> presents to his audience. True enough. But neither the Gospel
> accounts nor our iconography nor our hymnography revel in all this
> morbidity as the West does.
> We need to support traditional-minded Christians like Mel Gibson
> they are being attacked by our culture. But this does not mean we
> should view, support or recommend his film. It is scheduled to be
> released around Pascha next year. I shudder to think of Orthodox
> Christians going to see this film to "supplement" their worship. I
> shudder even more to contemplate those who might see the film
> of attending Passion Week services.
> Fr. Peter Jackson
Many thanks for your thoughtful response to my question. I had not
realised that Mr Gibson's film ended before the Resurrection. For
this reason alone, I suggest, it cannot be consistant with our
Paradoxically, Pasolini's "Gospel of Matthew" (for which I retain a
pre-conversion 'soft-spot', despite my qualms about a man 'playing'
our Saviour) goes right to the end - cinematigraphically, a wonderful
appearance of the Angel to the Myrrh-bearers, and beyond) because, as
a communist-atheist, he saw the Gospel as a literature text and