I would honestly say, without hyperbole, that The Passion of the Christ is one of the most powerful films I've ever seen. [The remainder of this review contains spoilers, so stop here if you want to wait until you've seen the movie.]
This is not to say, however, that it's a film for everybody. If religious movies aren't your thing, this isn't going to be the movie that converts you. If you're not Christian, or uninterested in Christian art, I doubt you'll find much that interests you.
That being said, this is probably the best biblical film I've ever seen, and certainly the best of the Gospel accounts. All of the actors embody their roles well, particularly Jim Caviezel as Jesus. The cinematography is hauntingly beautiful, with angles and shots that provide some incredible perspectives of the action. And the music fits the mood perfectly--when it's there. There are long stretches where there's no music at all, and the lack of music adds to those scenes.
As for the sequence of the film itself, this is the most brutal depiction of Jesus' last hours ever filmed. It was difficult to watch in parts, and it's a tribute to Gibson's direction that the agony of Christ's suffering is portrayed in a way that keeps the audience in empathy with this man's pain. And Gibson doesn't pull any punches. You see flesh get ripped from Jesus' skin. You see the nails go through his hands.
Through this pain, though, are scenes of powerful emotional impact, including flashbacks from Jesus' life such as rescuing the adulteress from stoning and the Sermon on the Mount. There's also a heartwrenching scene involving one of Mary's memories from Jesus' childhood.
Is The Passion anti-Semitic? No. In fact, anti-Semites expecting this film to comfort their prejudices are likely to come away angry. Jesus and his disciples are clearly Jews. And while some of the High Priests are clearly villains of the piece, the film shows some of the Priests protesting the treatment of Jesus, and it's made explicit that most of the Priests weren't around for Jesus' trial at all. In the mob scenes, while there are some calling for Jesus' death, there are others in the crowd--clearly Jews--calling for his release and for his torments to stop.
Article comments
1 - Howard Lovy
Hi, I have not seen the film yet, so I'll hold my praise or criticism.
However, one thing that is not being said in the debate over the film is the title, itself, and the historical context behind this outrage by Jews who are aware of the connotations.
Back before my grandfather and the grandfathers of other Jews found the relative safety of America, European townspeople would hold "passion plays," in which the crucifixion of Jesus would be acted out, with those playing the Jewish characters employing all the usual cartoon images.
Often, these plays were then the prelude to a pogrom. The townspeople would be worked into such an anti-Jewish frenzy, that real blood (certainly not of the Hollywood type) would flow.
Howard
2 - Alex Knapp
I certainly understand and appreciate the history of Passion plays. However, this movie does not display anti-Semitism. Quite the contrary, in fact.
3 - Scott Pepper
I think the concern is that the film, whatever its content, will stoke the flames of anti-Semitism, particuarly in parts of the world where it is already on the rise again.
4 - Alex Knapp
And how is that different, substantively, from claims that playing video games and watching violent movies makes kids more violent?
5 - Eric Olsen
Thanks Alex, very fine job.
There clearly IS a relationship between media, including violent media, and the actions of some and the attitudes of many others. This film will doubtless inspire some kind of anti-Semitic action somewhere by someone; but as you say, if the anti-Semitism isn't inherent in the film, it is inappropriate to blame it for this action.
This does not mean that there is no relationship between violent (or whatever) action and media, however, there clearly is one.
6 - Phillip Winn
I think that is easy for those of us in America to dismiss claims of anti-Semitism, since most of us haven't even seen any real anti-Semitism outside of the movies. Sure, kids get teased. We all get teased for something, and if you're not Jewish, you're fat, or short, or tall, or just there.
But I think that our European neighbors could tell us a bit more about anti-Semitism. I was chatting with a friend who recently returned from a trip through parts of Europe, and she takes trips there often. She tells me that every trip is worse - swastikas painted on walls, schoolchildren being beaten, Jewish people being spit on, etc.
I don't think anybody should shy away from making films because of their possible effect on the mentally unstable. But I do understand why people feel differently, because they often see a different picture than I do.
7 - Eric Olsen
Hey Phillip, it looks like we don't have to go as far as Europe:
Controversy continued Wednesday when Lovingway United Pentecostal Church in Denver put up a marquee sign outside the church saying, "Jews killed the Lord Jesus." The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement of outrage after asking the pastor to remove the sign. He refused.
8 - BB
You are always going to find the occasional oddball out there. It is unfortunate that the 99.99999999999% majority of decent folk don't get equal air play.
9 - Chris F
Amen to all of this. A voice of reason, from someone who has seen the movie!
You're right about anti-semitism feeling distant to those of us privleged to live in america. I pity those who endure suffering as a result of ignorance, almost as much as I pity the ignorant themselves.
I hope everyone is rational enough to remember that this is just a movie.
Four words against "violent movies beget violence" and anything else anyone would like to offer up against this film:
Education cures all ills.
Moral education by parents and the community. Political education by parents, the community, and the public schools. General education by everyone and the Discovery Channel. And if you see you kid watching something that he or she isn't ready to digest properly, TURN OFF THE DAMN TV AND TALK TO THEM.
Oh yeah, and my signature:
fuck.
10 - Dawn
I pity those who endure suffering as a result of ignorance, almost as much as I pity the ignorant themselves.
Well Chris F. consider yourself pitied, as you suffer as a result of your ignorance. In fact we all suffer due to your ignorance.
My signature:
SCREW CHRIS F.
11 - Shark
"...And if you see you kid watching something that he or she isn't ready to digest properly..."
Would a 90 minute torture scene qualify?
The hypocrisy is astounding; the same people and organizations that call for censorship in violent movies are claiming this movie is the greatest thing since the donation plate.
Wait'll we get news of the first little fucked up Christian 'trench-coat' psycho who says he beat and tortured his Jewish neighbor because of a movie about Jesus.
Doh!
12 - BB
Shark the difference is this is a movie about a real event. An event that brought salvation to millions.
I realize for an unbeliever that is hard to digest but if you have truly been convicted of your own sin, in this case the end really justified the means.
If that bothers anybody then as Mel said your problem is really with the gospels. I'm seeing the movie tonight so I will have more personal thoughts to share later.
13 - Shark
BB: "Shark, the difference is this is a movie about a real event."
Well...
Then...
Um...
Never mind....
...shark's head goes plunging through a windshield as his train of thought plows into a gigantic transparent winged holy cow labeled "A Real Event" that was placed on the tracks by a saboteur typist...
14 - BB
...I knew you would understand ;-)
15 - Al Barger
Shark- the same people and organizations that call for censorship in violent movies Who would this be, exactly?
Beyond that, "censorship" specifically aside, context makes all the difference. I could perfectly well accept as legitimate that the same person might think The Passion was great and Kill Bill was a very bad idea.
16 - Shark
Who would this be, exactly?
Rev. Donald Wildmon
American Family Assoc. fer starters.
But Al, I agree; context IS everything. That's my point, obtuse as it was.
I also believe we can't begin to know or predict how violence in the entertainment industry is going to affect an individual. (...for instance, viewing Passion might 'cause' me to want to kill Mel Gibson, but hey, if Air America didn't push me over the edge, nothing will)
I think Psychology is bunk and that everyone should use their own good or bad judgement.
17 - E. Shaver
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MEL
If the flurry of publicity and gallons of spilled ink inspired by Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ prove anything, it is that viewers have tended to get out of the movie what they take in with them. Jews tend to see it as anti-Semitic, atheists as pointless, humanists as gratuitously bloody, and almost inexplicably, fundamentalist Protestants as deeply moving. That said, it is only fair that I lay my particular set of biases on the table. I am a politically moderate, tail-end baby boomer and a fairly liberal Methodist. My family’s religious background is Presbyterian and Church of the Brethren, and while I am Protestant both by ancestry and inclination, there is a great deal about Catholic tradition and the Catholic Church which I admire.
Last week, I rather reluctantly took my biases to a screening of “The Movie.” Had I not been there with my wife, who wanted very much to see it, I would have walked out after the first twenty minutes. I did not, and everything in the hour and three quarters that followed confirmed my initial reaction. This movie does not dramatize Christ’s suffering" it trivializes it. For any reasonably orthodox Christian, Christ’s suffering and crucifixion are events of monumental spiritual importance. To see those events reduced to two hours of gratuitous, gross-out special effects was repulsive. To see them almost completely divorced from the context of Christ’s ministry and resurrection was perhaps even more troubling.
Many of those who have praised Passion have stated that the movie brings to life Christ’s suffering, allowing the viewer to “be there,” and to understand more personally the way Christ suffered for them. Such an experience is intensely personal, and I can not say that the movie has not been a positive experience for those people. For several reasons, however, I do not share the sentiment.
First, I submit that the movie does not accurately depict Christ’s suffering. Nowhere in the Gospels is it stated that Christ was beaten by the Jews at Gethsemane, that he was dangled from a bridge by his chains, that he was scourged in the manner or to anything like the degree shown by Mr. Gibson, or that blood spurted from his hands in a biologically improbable slow-motion stream of gore as the nails were driven in.
Second, the movie’s emphasis on Christ’s physical suffering is misplaced. The film implies that Christ’s scourging and crucifixion were somehow uniquely horrible and brutal. In fact, crucifixion was a fairly common punishment for non-citizen subjects of the Roman Empire. In 71 BC, for example, at the conclusion of the Spartacan uprising, Licinius Crassus lined the Apian Way from Rome to Naples with the bodies of thousands of crucified prisoners. Other Christian martyrs suffered considerably more gruesome fates. St. Bartholomew is supposed to have been flayed alive, and St. Andrew and St. Peter were both traditionally crucified upside down or on an angled cross. In later years, the Church itself tortured and burned heretics in exercises that probably made scourging and crucifixion appear relatively humane by comparison. It would be no exaggeration to state that millions of people throughout history have died in ways that were at least as brutal and unpleasant as the death depicted in Passion.
It seems obvious to me, therefore, that the true significance of Christ’s death is not the manner in which it occurred, but rather the fact that it occurred, and, in the words of the Nicene Creed, that “he descended into Hell.” Christ’s atonement for our sins was accomplished when he assumed human form, subjected himself to physical death, and was then delivered into the hands of Satan for the three days preceding his resurrection. We are not redeemed by the simple physical suffering on which Mr. Gibson so obsessively dwells, but by what occurred afterward.
Third, especially from a reformed Protestant perspective, Passion contains a great deal of extra-Biblical material. This should be a far greater issue for those who hold themselves out as Biblical literalists than it appears to be. Mr. Gibson has made no secret of the fact that Passion follows very closely the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a Nineteenth Century Catholic stigmatic and mystic. I am unfamiliar with Emmerich’s visions, and to be honest, am no more likely to study them than I am to go see an apparition of the Virgin Mary in a tortilla. The film’s emphasis, however, on the character of Mary, the fetishistic focus on the physical blood of Christ, and the obvious references to traditional Catholic iconography left no doubt in my mind that this film was what my Calvinist and Anabaptist ancestors would have denounced as “popish idolatry.”
I do not share my ancestors’ iconoclastic horror of the Catholic church, but I am a Protestant. I am not a Biblical literalist, but I am familiar with the content of the Gospels. Despite my theologically liberal leanings, and my basically tolerant inclination toward other people’s choice of religious views, I found the overtly Catholic imagery jarring, and when wrapped in Mr. Gibson’s simplistic, blood-thirsty cinematography, repulsive and offensive. This effect is the fault of Mr. Gibson, not of the Catholic iconography he exploits. The Stations of the Cross and meditation on the Passion are beautiful, time-honored expressions of faith, and any sincere Christian can find much in them of value, regardless of his or her denominational affiliation. Passion, however, focuses obsessively and sadistically on the carnally brutal aspects of those traditions, divorcing them entirely from any sense of redemption, mercy or even of purpose.
Some might argue that the film did, in fact depict both aspects of Christ’s ministry and the resurrection, and indeed, there are brief scenes alluding to both. Like the Catholic iconography, however, these scenes are so brief, and so deeply immersed in cheap, horror movie special effects and gallons of fake blood that they loose any sense of meaning. Anyone unfamiliar with the Gospels would leave the theater with no useful impression of the purpose or meaning of what he had just seen.
Mr. Gibson got $6.50 of my money and wasted two hours of my life. He will get nothing more from me. Personally, I can not imagine ever watching one of his movies again, and I have vowed that during the season of Lent, I will do everything in my power to dissuade others from wasting their time and money on this cinematic travesty. If I convince one person not to see it, the effort will be worthwhile. If I convince thousands, so much the better.
18 - tenisi liuanga
.......no comment.....