'Passion' movie showed it like it was

March 02, 2004

Dear Editor:

I read Herb Brock's Thursday column on the editorial page. In it, Herb cited his reasons for not going to see the much-talked-about movie, "The Passion of the Christ." All though he has not seen the movie nor intends to, Herb uses his column to infer that the movie was likely anti-semitic. He surmises that the Aramaic dialogue and English subtitles would give him a headache.

He feared the theater would be crowded and that the movie would likely be more faithful to the "Gospel of Mel" than that of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Well Herb, I saw the movie, and since you were too squeamish to go see it yet quite ready to downgrade it and Mel Gibson without seeing it, I thought I would fill you in on what I saw.


I saw a picture that told it and showed it like it was: bloody, brutal and painful. I saw nothing one could label as anti-semitic, only the truth, which brings me to your fear that it would be a "Gospel of Mel." I found it to be true to the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that I have read. Of course I have no idea what you read or have read. I thought the Aramaic dialogue added to the movie, making even the language spoken faithful to the written word.

I went to an afternoon showing and found no reason to fear claustrophobia.

I am glad Mel Gibson made the movie and I'm glad I went to see it. It has given me a much greater realization as to the suffering Christ endured.

There is an old saying, Herb, which I find to be true, and that is, "one picture is worth a thousand words."

Paul Overstreet


Central Kentucky News Articles