“Pilate is soft spoken, sensitive and thoughtful. I like that in a tyrant.”

by

Giblets of the Fafblog provides the definitive review of Mel Gibson‘s “The Passion of Christ”:

The supporting cast was very underdeveloped. . . . . there was Mary Magdalene, who was hot, but didn’t get nearly as much screen time. Put the hot chick up front, Gibson! Of all the supporting characters, I would have to say the one who comes off the best by far is Pilate. Now of all the Roman tyrants who send thousand of Jews to their agonizing deaths without trial I have to say Pilate has to be the nicest.

(Paul Cella, as might be expected, is a bit more charitable. Hey, gotta keep it fair and balanced.)

9 thoughts on ““Pilate is soft spoken, sensitive and thoughtful. I like that in a tyrant.””

  1. Paul Cella hasn’t seen the damn film, has he?
    Oh, I give up, I’m going to be starting a Cellawatch blog at this rate.

  2. Giblet’s review was so funny, I fear if I go watch it now…I’d laugh in the most inappropriate parts…

  6. For what the critics miss is that this account makes Pilate a far worse villain than Caiaphas. After all, Caiaphas believed that Christ had committed the ultimate sin of blasphemy by claiming to be the Son of God. As a leading representative of religious laws that condemned adulterers to death by stoning, he was almost bound to call for His execution. Caiaphas is making a terrible mistake. He may also have corrupt political motives for his actions. But he is plainly sincere in believing that, however conveniently, he has the law of God on his side.
    Pilate is on much weaker ground. He condemns to death a man he believes to be innocent — and he does so, moreover, in a shifty manner that seeks to fix all guilt for the murder on Caiaphas and the mob and to exculpate himself.
    From the standpoint of the New Testament, according to the traditional teaching of the Christian church, and in Mel Gibson’s movie, Pilate is by far the greater villain. And if any charge of bigotry can be sustained against Gibson, it is that of anti-Romanism since in addition to Pilate’s murderous cowardice, the Roman soldiers are shown gleefully enjoying their torture of Christ     — O’Sullivan

  7. James Tabor on Pilate and The Passion:

    Philo describes him as inflexible, merciless, obstinate, a man of ferocious passions, hopelessly given to acts of rapine and cruelty. He singles out Pilate’s reputation for murder of the innocent, the untried, and the uncondemned. Even the emperor Tiberius called him home in the year 36 A.D. for being “too harsh” in his treatment of Judean affairs. In the film we get a sympathetic even kind Pilate, weak under pressure to be sure, but wholly positive in overall portrayal. This is really inexcusable I think for a filmmaker, and I do not think the Gospel picture has to be taken as contradictory to the historical record. Once again we are left with the impression that it was the Jews who really wanted this, and the noble Roman leadership would have tolerated a Messianic claimant to operate freely at Passover. This is contrary to everything we know about Roman policy in Palestine in this period where dozens of such “Messiahs” were regularly hunted down and slaughtered by Roman officials.

  8. “And if any charge of bigotry can be sustained against Gibson, it is that of anti-Romanism since in addition to Pilate’s murderous cowardice, the Roman soldiers are shown gleefully enjoying their torture of Christ”
    Sorry, that’s just funny.
    Someone call the Anti Defamation of Descendents of Roman Legionnaires League.

Comments are closed.