1. I didn't know it was a woman until Mel referred to "her" in his interview with Bill O'Reilly. I thought the Satan character looked completely androgynous and was very effective.

5. That's hilarious. What I saw in January had no credits at all. Mel's got a sense of humor, for sure.

6. I was pondering the opening trailers question earlier today. I'll be curious to see what we get in our theaters.

7. You know, I completely forgot about that. No, not Scriptural, but I don't have a problem with that bit of artistic license.

8. I thought that as well. And I have a whole new appreciation for Mary. I can't even imagine her pain at losing her son and knowing that she was responsible. How truly special she was.

9. I don't know if the final version of the resurrection is what I saw. I thought it was effective and sets the stage for "what's next" questions.

10. Maybe that was their lunch?

Jen, I'm sure that some people did have to catch lunch at the theater. I certainly don't judge anyone on that basis (and most seemed to try to eat quickly so as to be finished before the movie started).

Like you, Eric, I'm a little surprised at the popcorn. I LOVE movie popcorn, but from what I've heard about this movie, I'm not planning on popcorn when I finally see it. Not judging anyone, mind you, but I just don't think snacks will be on tap for me.

I got a diet coke, but thought getting "snacks" would have been a bit much. Hypocritical? Probably.

There were no trailers before the showing I saw. Just the movie.

Really enjoyed the movie. I agree with the popcorn statement. dont judge others but it wouldve been too much for me.
I feel like "the passion of the Christ" was truly a wonderful movie and will have a great impact on believers and unbelievers alike.
My one surprise was Rosalinda. I was very taken back that she was cast for the role of Satan. She did a very good job with her role. Please keep her in your prayers as even she begins to process the message of this movie. she is a friend of mine and has a heart of gold but I dont know that she has actually made a statement of faith.
Great job goes out to all other cast members as well!

@anonymous

Gibson's decision to cast Ms. Celentano as Satan isn't surprising when taken in the context of his interpretation of Christianity.

In a recent interview he presented his reasoning, "I believe the Devil is real, but I don't believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good?but not quite."

Gibson, then, has done his theological homework. Christ Himself explained that Satan "does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."(John 8:42-56)

Let's accept Mr. Gibson's beliefs at face value (since it's his film). Fundamentalists like Mr. Gibson accept the notion of Satan as a genuine being who is the essence of all evil. One of the most fundamental acts of evil is deception, the first evil ever recorded in the Bible was a lie told by Satan to Eve.

However, an Evil that deliberately chooses to appear as a nightmarish being is, in fact, telling the truth. By assuming such a form, Evil is announcing, "Yes. This is what I am. This form accurately depicts my true nature. You should fear and avoid all that I represent."

It follows that the architect of all evil (as Satan) would recognize that and, accordingly, do just the opposite. Evil would take a form that, in itself, is a lie: in this case by appearing as someone beautiful. Beauty is by its very nature considered "good". What better form for Evil to take?

Especially since Satan supposedly wants to seduce us into willingly accepting damnation.

To accomplish that end, Evil would appear as someone who is not only beautiful, but so attractive as to actually transcend the concept itself.

In that context, Ms. Celentano is a natural choice for the role. Looking at stills from some of her other films, it's almost impossible to think of an actress better suited to the part.

As Ms. Celentano is a friend of yours, I'd consider it a personal favor if you relayed my compliments on her portrayal of Satan. In my opinion, it's the most astounding ever performed in cinema. Like the film itself, she's made history.

Oh yes, mention one other thing please.

In term of sheer eroticism, she's hotter than all the fires in Hell.

Many Thanks,

Freen.

Mr. Freen, I believe that you're right about the tactics Satan uses in his deceptions, although I might take mild exception to your use of the term "fundamentalist" to describe those who believe that Satan exists as a person. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume that you use that term in a Scripturally-positive light, rather than the more common negative slant.

Also, perhaps I need to clarify something. I don't know Ms. Celentano and have had no direct contact with her. I'm trying to arrange an online interview with her through an intermediary; we'll have to wait to see how that will play out.

And, finally, regarding your last comment: be careful; you know what happens when you play with fire! ;-)

Thanks for stopping by...

@ Eric

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt, Eric. In truth, no offense was meant. I meant the term "fundamentalist" in its literal sense, i.e. "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" (from Webster).

True, the media, generally anti-Christian for a variety of reasons, has applied a negative connotation to "fundamentalist" and altered its original meaning. Consider what they've done with words like "peace", "social justice", "civil rights", and my personal favorite "tolerance".

Still, many Christians still proudly use the term "fundamentalist" to differentiate themselves from... let's call them something noninflammatory like "progressives".

It's among the "progressives" that we have people claiming Satan and his legions don't exist in the physical sense. They see him as a metaphor for societal evils like poverty, drug abuse, etc. In essence, they have chosen to confuse Satan with the tools He uses. From what I've seen, "progressives" are a group who seem dedicated to converting Christ into an over-glorified inner city social worker with faintly religious overtones and abandoning whatever elements of His teachings contradict modern, secular, pop culture.

It is from that perspective that I used the word, "fundamentalist".

I have to make a clarification on your clarification. I added the "@ anonymous" to reply to the individual posting directly before me, [address deleted], who stated both her surprise at Gibson's choice of casting and that she knows Ms. Celentano personally.

If you succeed in getting an interview with Ms. Celentano, you'll have scored one heck of a blogger's coup! You'll also have a very jealous Freen! :D

All the best,

Freen.

Mr. Freen, I believe we see eye-to-eye on these things; thanks for the clarification.

And I had not previously encountered your convention for directing responses to specific commentors. I'll be more perceptive next time.

Don't hold your breath on the interview with Rosalinda. I understand that she guards her privacy well, something very unusual for someone in her line of work. And, of course, that makes her all the more attractive as an interview candidate! (Hmmm...I'm sure there's a Bible lesson in there somewhere...)

I wanted to comment to you Mr. Freen on your previous entry regarding Rosalinda and the view you take on Satan..
I really enjoyed what you had to say about Satan and the way he was portrayed in the movie. makes alot of sense and I believe Gibson did a great job finding someone to do that.
I am sure Rosalinda will consider it a big compliment that you stated her performance as "making history" thats a pretty huge statement to make!
I agree with you that she is a beautiful woman. Her beauty and boyish charm are what bring this role its uniqueness. Just be careful in going to other places mentally with her as it will lead to a fast trap that the real enemy would love to use to distract us!
thanks again for your compliments and comments!

@ anonymous

Is it a compliment to state the truth (or at least the truth as I see it)? I'm not sure. Is it a huge statement to make?

I'm going to try to substantiate and clarify my view (not that I feel it was challenged) that Ms. Celentano's portrayal of Satan has made history and is utterly unique in the history of cinema. I apologize in advance for the length of this reply.

From the movies I've seen, Satan has always been depicted in one of three basic forms:

1.) The most simple depiction is of a man with the horns, tail, etc. A human male with markedly bestial elements. That depiction can range from grim to cute. There's the fearsome depiction in Disney's "Fantasia". At the other end of the spectrum there's the imps appearing in films like "Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas". The bestial depiction is the oldest and most primitive. It was created by simple people who knew and feared Satan and tried their best to depict him as the Enemy. But as Mr. Gibson pointed out, Satan would never willingly choose such a form himself.

2.) The more evolved depiction is of a sinister yet suave businessman (or noble) always offering "a deal". It's been a depiction popularized by Goethe and Marlowe's Faust. I'll hazard it's a product of the Renaissance and later the Enlightenment. Intelligent thinkers could no longer be frightened by a "bestial" Satan. They began to recognize Satan's real power lay in much more subtle traps. Cinematically, this depiction of Satan is typified by the portrayals of actors like Jack Nicholson in "The Witches of Easwick", Robert De Niro in "Angel Heart", more recently Al Pacino in "The Devil's Advocate". But again, it's a depiction of worldliness that's been done several times already.

3.) The sexy vamp. Again, frequently with bestial elements. Usually a campy Elvira derivative. That depiction is actually a devolved form of the first two. Satan as bestial and tempter (usually temptress). It's a pop culture-approach aimed entirely at men. It's incredibly rare to find, say, a "hunk" Satan aimed at women. But again, it's very limited in vision. Satan's ability to tempt has been reduced to only one, purely physical dimension.

Martin Scorsese's "Last Temptation Of Christ" depiction of Satan demonstrates this (and perhaps Scorsese's own) decidedly limited vision of Satan. There, Satan appears as a young girl to tempt Christ with visions of "what might have been" and Christ nearly succumbs, something implausible in the extreme. A Satan who had already failed in tempting Christ with all the kingdoms of the earth (and all the women in those kingdom) under his dominion is going try something as droll as tempting Christ with a girlfriend? It's questionable whether such a concept is more intellectually insulting to Christ or the audience.

The bestial form was created by frightened peasants and the suave form was created intelligent, politically astute thinkers who realized they could be bribed if the price was right. The sexy vamp form is uniquely suited to the modern age. Cheap, purely physical gratification for a dumbed-down society raised on a steady diet of sitcoms and beer commercials. It's a depiction found in bad comedies. Satan materializes from the pages of Playboy offering "herself" as a willing harlot sitting in a new car with the back seat loaded with coolers of frosty Coors Lite.

That leaves us with one other entirely different and new depiction, the Satan portrayed by Ms. Celentano in "The Passion". For one thing, this depiction is unique because Satan is seen through Christ's eyes. That in itself has never been done. The sheer audacity for Gibson to attempt this and (I believe) his success in doing so is astounding. And what does Christ (and the audience) see? He sees a vision uniquely reflecting His status as man and God.

As a man, Christ sees Satan manifest in the physical form of someone who (in my opinion) is one of the most heart-wrenchingly beautiful people on the face of this earth. Satan is depicted as appearing to Christ the man as a being, not entirely of either gender, yet markedly feminine in an utterly unique way and, of course, stunningly beautiful.

Yet as God, Christ (and the audience along with Him) discerns that this is a ruse. Through His divinity, He sees the traces of Satan's true nature. Gibson pays special attention in depicting this anti-humanity, most likely to prevent Satan as seeming too alluring, an immediate and substantial problem considering his choice of actress for the role.

Consider the voice Satan speaks with, a man's. Or Satan's nails, they're almost claw-like. Immediately we are confronted with the unnaturalness of Satan. There's a number of similar instances, each very powerful and disturbing in itself, throughout the film. In the garden of Gethsemane, Satan is attended by the "vile" creatures God created, such as the maggot and the serpent. During Christ's scourging, Satan parodies the Nativity while cuddling her own hideous child (the Antichrist?) and smiling at Mary. Judas Isacariot, having betrayed Christ, receives the full onslaught of Satan's attention. But while frightening, these depictions of Satan's true nature never descend to the level of some cliche'd goaty satyr. Nowhere do we see Satan with horns, a pointy tail, or yellow eyes, either.

Of all the depictions of Satan I've seen in film, all fit in one of the three main categories I've described. Save one. That one depiction is like no other just as the film in which it occurs is like no other. Both the depiction and the film (I believe) come closer than ever before to portraying the intensity and theological complexity of "The Passion Of The Christ". Given the importance of the role she plays, Ms. Celentano has done it justice, and then some.

As for going places mentally with her... *smiles sadly* Yeah, well Eric's warned me of that as well. No worries there. I sincerely doubt that Satan is going to personally appear to me in the guise of Ms. Celentano.

I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that my chances of just meeting her are slim to nonexistent. As Eric mentioned, he's having quite a time just arranging an interview with her.

Again, I apologize if I've taxed everyone's patience with the length of this reply. If I have, I'll try to make it up with the following. This address has the finest high-resolution film images on-line. They're very large, TIF format and take roughly half an hour each to download on a 56k dial-up connection. But just the same, they're well worth the time. I hope the same can be said of my reply.

http://www.solt3.org/gibson.htm

All the best,

Freen.

Mr. Freen, the only rule I have for posting (aside from a pledge to track down and kill...or, at least, vigorously annoy...spammers) is that no commenter is allowed to write a comment which is better than the post to which it is attached.

Unfortunately, you've come periously close to violating this rule, and I must therefore place you on "Double Secret Special Comment Probation." (I'll let you know what that means as soon as I figure it out.)

Seriously, though, your observations are welcome, as they add to, rather than detract from the discussion.

I have read with extreme great interest in the comments about Passion of the Christ especially the ones about the portrayal of Satan. I think Rosalinda Celentano's performance was the best I have EVER seen so I feel like Freen does. I don't know how anyone could top Ms. Celentano's performance as the devil. She was supremely eerie and very seductive as well as hypnotic just like satan really is! I also hope Rosalinda knows that she has alot of admirers. (I even made a website for her)
I have prayed for Rosalinda as well but she is entitled to her own faith. Freen if you ever show up again please leave your email address since I wanted to email you but my mail was returned.

I have seen the Passion movie several times now and I'm just in awe of it! It is brilliant, moving and shocking. I was so moved after seeing this movie I actually started reading my bible daily for the FIRST time in 7 years! As of this writing March 26, the movie went back to #1 for the moment which is very cool and has made over #300 million. Wonderful movie and thank you Eric for making this thread possible!

I can add little to these insightful comments other than to say that this depiction of Satan was brilliant and the most daring I have seen in cinema. It reconfirms my notion that cinema is the greatest art form combining drama, the visual, music, and a sense of "placing you there." I've seen the film three times and would see it again as I would a beautiful painting. I have always imagined evil as something alluring and although this is an "androgynous" figure, there is definite allure. A film should appeal to the senses and "The Passion" achieves this in very powerful fashion.