I skipped Pulp Fiction. I only watched Saving Private Ryan because it is my husband's favorite movie and when we were engaged it was a really big deal to him for me to watch it with him. He loves it because it puts him in touch with the whole mindset of his dad's generation, and I think it also gives him a sense of duty, self-sacrifice and completing one's mission no matter what.

But there are some scenes that I have to get up and leave the room when they come on, they are just too intense for me to watch.

Hi Lee Anne,

I would like to see Saving Private Ryan sometime. From what I understand, it's a fine movie that brings home the brutal realities of war. I just think it's a bit hypocritical for those who moan about the violence in The Passion to give SPR a pass. Maybe they didn't, but I sure don't remember any criticism like I'm hearing about The Passion.

I wouldn't recommend Pulp Fiction to anybody. Tarentino's films are stylish, but are just empty excuses to show gore. I've seen some people in the comments on the linked threads try to rationalize their criticism of The Passion with giving QT a pass. They say the QT films are "cartoon" violence (funny, but Pulp Fiction's brain splatters didn't look "cartoonish" to me). So if violence is treated lightly and made into a big joke, it's okay. But seriously portraying the Savior's suffering -- not okay. Somebody explain to me how that makes any sense whatsoever.

But the violence in Saving Private Ryan is not supposed to be gratuitous, as that in Pulp Fiction was. So there is that difference -- I have seen bits of both movies, and of the two I felt like Ryan would be less of a waste of my time if I decided to see the whole thing. I may even watch the Passion movie.

I don't know what my point is here, unless it's to attempt to rail against the tendency of movie culture to push wink-wink, not-for-real fake-o ultraviolence and then getting upset when someone makes a serious movie in which the physical knocks aren't just for laughs.

I'm with you on Pulp Fiction. I will never forget the experience. DH and I rarely get to go OUT to movies (we usually watch videos), but we decided to actually see something in the theater. He asked around at work. Pulp Fiction was the top recommendation.

I have never been MORE uncomfortable in any movie theater in my life. I just kept squashing further and further down in my seat. And I KNEW I was in the wrong place when people LAUGHED at the "brains blowing out" scene.

I spent the next two weeks telling everyone I knew or spoke to NOT to go see that movie.

The irony is strong. Pulp Fiction with its random violence, sex and nastiness is A-OK. The Passion, with its purposeful violence and suffering is beyond the pale.

Puh-leeze!

Side thought, not necessarily unrelated, and having to do with the post about the guy who laughs at roadside memorials below... is that sort of cynicism (or whatever it is) a symptom of some sort of societal disease just as the preference for even cultured, educated people for "ironic" "cartoonish" violence in movies? Nothing is real, nothing is worth getting upset about... except the idea that there are things worth getting upset about; that starts the tantrums.

Andrea,

Both the points you made are excellent ones. I've been astounded at the negative reactions by some people to The Passion. Now they decide to get upset about violence? Also, I had similar thoughts to yours regarding that earlier post and how it ties into how people look at violence in our culture.

Terry,

I saw Pulp Fiction on video. Why I sat through the whole thing, I have no idea, except that I'm stubborn that way and I hoped there would be some redeeming qualities. That movie disturbed me...I felt there was something truly evil about it. I had trouble sleeping that night after I watched it.

Good Morning Susan,
Addictions.... Aren't they interesting? The creatures whom the Father Almighty created in His likeness have a tendancy to enter into addictions. What is even stranger than the addiction (or perhaps an attendant attitude) is the fight and struggle that a person manifests when their addictive behavior is threatened or confronted. Anger, Crispy Creme Donuts, violence (football, hockey, etc.), sex, power, knowledge, independance and many more---all these we lust after.

I contend that humanity is addicted to fantasy and falsehood. Not only that, but they FEAR the truth! (Oh no Moses, we don't want to go up to that mountain. You go talk for us!)

Mr. Gibson, IMHO, has lain out the death of Christ in an exceedingly stark manner which would therefore threaten the manufactured fantasy world of both religeonists and the openly pagan. The impact is real, the threat real, and they must somehow rationalize why this stark reality cannot be an accurate portrayal of God's Lamb. Miss Susan, as you know the world is an not a nice place---it's actually pretty ugly. Mr. Gibson is serving up that ugliness on a silver platter and than saying that God, their creater, finds this acceptable. It wipes away 1000+ years of a 'Nancy-fied' pansey Jesus and then replaces with a God-man who bleeds and suffers for them. Aye, truth is a painful thing; but not nearly as painful as slavery and the shackles therewith.

Larry,

Well put...Gibson's Jesus is no wimpy, non-threatening, hippie Jesus. That's very unsettling to some people.

If I recall correctly, the violence in SPR was considered "groundbreaking."

Man's inhumanity to man is astounding - to see it in film is (should be anyway) horrifying. What makes The Passion different from all other violent movies is the context. Jesus chose it. He came to earth for the express purpose of dying on that cross. It was his main mission.

And there's redemption in the violence against him that was portrayed in The Passion - not just the redemption Jesus offered through his death, but the redemption of the film itself with the exquisite glimpse of the resurrection. He lives! There is hope.

Jen,

And there's redemption in the violence against him that was portrayed in The Passion - not just the redemption Jesus offered through his death, but the redemption of the film itself with the exquisite glimpse of the resurrection. He lives! There is hope.

Exactly! :-)

I was talking with some students about this very subject today, and I think one thing that may be throwing people off about this violence as opposed to the violence in SPR or Schindler's List, for example, is the fact that the violence all occurs to one man over the course of the movie. SPR and Schindler's List, or any slasher movie has gore and inhumanity, but the victims are only in pain for a relatively short time on screen. Arms blow off, legs are gone, heads explode, yada yada yada, but you (and the camera) move on to another person soon enough.

The Passion (which I have not seen yet, but I've heard enough and read enough to know enough to make this comment) is focused on the suffering of that one individual for a long time in movie time. we aren't used to that, which - I think - is why we find it unsettling.

Bryan,

That's a great point. I guess it comes back to how violence is usually taken lightly in movies. (For example, in horror movies and the like, it's usually the evil or unlikeable characters who get killed off. That way, the audience thinks, "Eh, they deserved it!") Seeing an innocence Man, a holy Man, suffer so greatly can't be laughed off or dismissed. You have to deal with it.