As for the torture porn, I don't think Gibson relished in the flogging at all, I find it something he struggled with, but shows so graphically because he felt he has a responsibility to make a point in the same way I think Spielberg had a responsibility to be so frank with Schindler's List.
This just sounds wrong to me.
His analogy would be apt if SL had shown Jews gassed, then shot, then hung (still alive), then poisoned, then electrocuted (still alive), then gassed again. All of it with alot of really closeup shots and gore by the buckets full.
Um. No. And this offends me.
This is basically what Passion is.
No, it's not. It's a spiritual allegory, it doesn't need to be real or restrained, it is over the top in its use of torture for very specific reasons, reasons that are justified.
I'd have to say Cee-Lo, that I think you are letting your preconceived notions of torture porn and religion guide your judgment of this film. Torture porn is torture porn because the torture usually lacks any purpose within the story or a greater purpose outside of the story. The torture in Passion has a purpose within the story and a much greater purpose outside of the story. As far as Christianity is concerned, Passion ties into the long lived Christian tradition of storytelling, something I already elaborated on. The torture in Passion has depth in a meta sense, in a religious sense, in a storytelling sense and in other ways, it is far removed from pointless torture porn.