A man of sorrows

Jim Caviezel as Jesus in "Passion" (left) and Warner Sallman's "Head of Christ"

Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker gives a thumbs up to Mel Gibson's "Passion" and sees it as a good thing that the controversial film has gotten people talking:

Most fundamentally, Jesus is himself portrayed as a Jew, even addressed as “Rabbi” by Judas himself. The film portrays two groups of people, Jews and Romans. Historically, these are the people who happened to populate and govern the territory where the story actually happened. The story is about Good and Evil. In order to tell this story, there must be good and evil people. Naturally, some of the evil people were Jewish. To pretend otherwise would not only violate Scripture, it would turn the movie into a politically correct cartoon . . .

I strongly suspect that "The Passion of the Christ" will get people talking. About not just the film, and not just the story. Not just about Jews and their role in the story of Christ (his life AND his death), and the broader theme of Jewish-Christian relations. Talking about the deeper themes. You know: the ones which have been with us since the beginning. The important ones.

It has certainly gotten people talking about the various paths Christianity has followed through the years in this great land of ours. Take Stephen Prothero's historically-rich offering in Opinion Journal:

At least until now, modern American iconography of Jesus has accented the resurrection over the crucifixion, glory over the gory. The most popular such image is Warner Sallman's "Head of Christ," which has been reproduced roughly 500 million times. In this head-and-shoulders portrait, Jesus radiates peace and serenity. His hair is perfectly coiffed, his skin unblemished. And in an artistic coup that recalls the Mona Lisa's smile, he somehow gazes toward God while gazing lovingly at us. Mr. Gibson's Jesus, by contrast, radiates the torment of a divinity committed to taking on a world of sin. In the movie's opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, he does battle with Satan while his pores ooze blood. The rest of the movie feels like one long Munch-ish scream.

While admitting she "ADORED the blue-eyed Jeffrey Hunter in the 1961 'King of Kings,'" our familial correspondent adds this caveat:

Anybody can make any kind of movie about Jesus. He's public property, is dead, and will earn no residuals. BUT . . . It cheapens faith, and His legacy, to bring Him to the Big Screen.

Comments

[Zinc]

I don't agree that any film could "cheapen faith". Now, a cheeky film review is another issue... Does a television documentary about the Holocaust cheapen the historical crimes against the Jews? Lessen it's gravity and meaning to those it affects until this very day?

I think, that Gibson's portrayal of the passion of Christ was intended to depict the magnitude of that event. It was meant to be regarded as accurate a visual representation of a biblical account as it could be. Most likely, Christians will come out of the theaters with a greater appreciation of what the crucifixion was actually like (based on the extensive research Gibson put into it). Naturally, this film will make sense most to those who actually believe the scriptures. For what reason others would have for going to see it, well, still eludes me.

[Shirley Bard]

I want to include a copy of Sallmannn's The Good Shepherd in an inspirational book I have written. I have loved this picture since I was a child. I know it is copyrighted. May I have permission to use it? Shirley

[Sissy Willis]

Shirley: I found the info you want from a Google search:

Since May of 1987, Anderson University and Warner Press have jointly shared ownership of over 140 works by Warner Sallman, with Warner Press holding the copyright and distribution rights, while Anderson University possesses the actual paintings and drawings.