So, just what are we talking about?

[kandrathe]

I believe this response fits for both Meat and Jester's comments;

It's the story that has religious significance, the form of the thing.

I agree. For me, I think to distill Beaudoin's analysis of "The Passion" down to its salient points is that A] it is the teachings and the example of Christ's life that should be most examined, rather than the focus on his violent death, and B] to reflect on God's human experience through the life of the man Jesus. I think he goes too far to accuse this "entertainment" of being non-Christian. I read the "minimize(s) his Jewishness" aspect more as a rebuke to minimizing his humanity, and thereby also his Jewishness. The danger in focusing on the realism including the use of Aramaic and Latin is that this "story" might be confused with history. Much like Cecil B. DeMille did for his biblical "Extravaganzas", Gibson's focus on the violent final 24 hours of Christ's life places the focus on the sensational and providing movie goers another helping of Hollywood's pablum of violence (without the sex this time).

The movie was just what Mel Gibson wanted!

MEAT, I also agree. But, I being ever the cynic, suspect that "want" might have also included the desire to make a profit by telling a good story in a very compelling way.

I am one who everytime I see a war movie or any historical movie on TV, half way through, I'm 12 history books deep in trying to figure out what is true and what is hollywood. I would apply the same standard to "The Passion".

It's the way religious iconography works.

Or, maybe any human artistic expression. It is the interpretation of the artist, and not neccesarily an accurate portrayal of history. So, then, maybe these artistic expressions should be judged on their own merits, rather than their adherence to a particular dogma or historical accuracy.

edit: B) <> B]