Confessions of a Liberal Puritan

"It was a sweet scene, but it clothed Claudia (and so by proxy, her husband, who was already getting off easy) in a righteousness not evident in either the texts or history."

'Clothed in a [textually dubious] righteousness' -- that's a great way to describe what that scene with Claudia and the Marys seemed to be trying to do for Mr. and Mrs. Pilate. Luke and the other gospel writers had a really good excuse for trying to soft-pedal any implied criticism of Roman government officials (since they had to live and work within the Roman empire and were trying very hard to convince the powers that be that 'Christian' was not the same thing as 'rebel' or 'traitor' -- they couldn't be caught circulating texts which questioned the justice or righteousness or intelligence of the government, and even the author of Revelation had to put his critique of Rome into code words and fantastical imagery, in order to cover his butt at least a little), but what's the rationale nowadays?

Oh, that's right, I forgot -- somebody might think the U.S.A. bears some resemblance to ancient Rome and be offended enough not to shell out money to see the movie, or worse yet suggest that the unpatriotic message of this film is grounds for prosecution or sanctions in the interests of national security. Never mind, then.

"The scenes with Mary (mother) and Jesus were the heart of the film--made the emotions work for me. However, where and when the film erred in my eyes, the missteps were almost always a result of elements brought in, from outside canon."

I second that, in its entirety. Yea, verily.

"I think the damage to the temple must have been short hand for all the other (super)natural phenomena that occurred at the time of death. However, Mel could have cut 5 minutes out of the scourging,... and had time to be more faithful to the text, with regard to the things that happened at the time of death."

I didn't think about that scene being a conflation of the other earth-shaking events described in Matthew's gospel. That could be. But like you I figure Mel could have taken a minute or two to show those events as described, rather than presenting us with yet another suggestion (or scene that could be misinterpreted to mean) that the Jews are being singled out for God's judgment because they were extra mean to Jesus.

"The resurrection--I wanted a little more. I only got promise."

Yeah, the 'bit-o'-resurrection' seemed VERY anticlimactic, as though it were beside the point, the beginning of a new story more than the completion and climax of the passion narrative. But I put that down to differences in theology, and the fact that Mel seemed to be favoring John's gospel more than the others (and for John the crucifixion really IS the whole deal, rolled into one multi-tasking moment -- it's the death, resurrection, and ascension all at once, as the "Son of Man is lifted up" [Jesus talking to Nicodemus in John 3] like the bronze serpent Moses made in Numbers as a cure for deadly snake-bite). I much more favor Luke-Acts, myself, for both literary style and theology.

Thanks for giving me even more to think about, friend!