Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ
[I found this unsent email from a couple of years ago and thought I would post it.]
I have finally seen The Passion of the Christ. It is a truly powerful film. As a believer, I can't say there is anything truly new here. It's a story we all know pretty well. To me it's more about how Gibson tells the story than in the familiar details. I think this is a highly personal film.
Some have questioned why he would make a film only about Good Friday's events, with a quick reference to Easter. I found it very effective. Any Jesus story that focusses on His whole life, most of the time will be spent on Jesus' teachings, for example the Sermon on the Mount. The danger there is that we end up making those events the focus of the story. Isn't that what so many so-called "liberal" Christians do: focus on Jesus' teachings of love and forgiveness, and forget all that annoying sin stuff, including His tragic death. Gibson's film is focussed squarely on the suffering and death of Jesus. When he flashes back to, say, the Sermon on the Mount, it is still framed in the context of the crucifixion. We never lose our focus on Good Friday, which is where I think our focus should be (and Jesus' was during His life).
Two things really touched me as I watched the film. The whole sequence of Simon carrying the cross with Jesus reminded me of the classic poem Footprints, but with a totally new spin. As they progress on the road to Calvary, we see the sinner and the savior walking side by side, two sets of footprints. But at Calvary, where God's judgement will be meted out, the sinner walks away free and the savior climbs on His cross, one set of footprints during the most difficult time.
The other is Jesus' strength. I don't mean physical strength. My pastor likes to say that meekness is not weakness, it is strength under control. This is what we see played out in the events of the film. Early on, there are displays of quiet defiance by Jesus. In the garden, being tempted by Satan, he crushes the snake and looks at Satan with an eye of defiance. The first wave of scourging has the Roman guards beating Jesus to a pulp with canes and gloating about their accomplishment. Without a word, Jesus simply stands up. Later, as His physical strength fades under the unrelenting brutality, defiance gives way to resolve. When He falls carrying the cross, He stumbles back to His feet to pick it up again. Look at His face. The one eye that is still open is unwavering, focussed straight ahead to Calvary. Calvary is His goal. It is what He came for, and no amount of pain will stand in His way. At the end, after He has collapsed in total physical exhaustion, every fiber of His body screaming out in agony, He can no longer walk. But He isn't quite there yet. A few more feet to His cross. Unable to walk, he struggles to His knees and crawls the last steps.
That is meekness! That is strength under control. This is not a Jesus beaten beyond the point of lucidity, quiet and unprotesting simply because He is unable to form a coherent thought. This is a man with a strong and powerful heart who is quiet and unprotesting by choice, who will endure all to achieve His goal. Many reviewers have described the film's Jesus as super-human in his ability to withstand pain. I think that misses the point. What we see is not simple endurance of pain. It is a total commitment by Jesus to fulfill His mission.
As a film buff, let me say that I think this film is a masterful work. It's perhaps the only time since the silent movie era where a filmmaker of Mel Gibson's talent has taken on the life of Jesus, or some part of it, with reverence for the Scriptural accounts. (Scorcese made a Jesus film too, but rejected the Scriptural accounts and turned out a work of blasphemy.) The film opens with a breathtaking shot of the Garden engulfed in fog. Visually, the whole film is breathtaking. The acting is superb by everyone. In a fair world, where art was judged purely on its merits, not on politics, this film would be an early front-runner for Oscar nominations, with Gibson being a favorite for Best Director. In the real world, this is doubtful.
I appreciated the human-ness of Jesus as portrayed in the film. One of my biggest complaints about all the Jesus films I've seen--including the only one I actually like, Jesus of Nazereth--is that Jesus comes off as this stereotypical holy man, staring off into some other world and only partially here. Gibson's Jesus smiles, laughs, horses around with His mother, and even stumbles and skins His knee as a child.
When I first heard about the film, I heard that it was done in Latin and Aramaic without subtitles. My first reaction was, "what a stupid idea." (I also felt this was historically inaccurate. Greek should have been used rather than Latin.) Having seen the film, I understand it. Much of the dialog is actually still without subtitles (for example, Jesus' prayers in the garden at the beginning of the film), and personally I didn't feel they were needed there.
Complaints
I have to say I have a few complaints about the film. Given all the controversy surrounding the film, I was fairly sensitive to how Pilate would be portrayed. I don't find the Biblical account to present a Pilate at odds with the Pilate found in secular history. I think Gibson goes beyond the Biblical account and his Pilate does seem at odds. I thought the actor did a wonderful job, but the script paints what I see as an erroneous picture of the man. The historical figure was a brutal tyrant who executed thousands without blinking an eye. Innocence or guilt was irrelevant. If they were trouble makers, they were executed. I don't see the Biblical account being inconsistent with this. But the film's Pilate truly wants to free Jesus and is clearly bothered by the Jewish leadership's insistence that Jesus be executed.
This is an incredibly brutal film. It is so brutal that I think unnecessary brutality should have been kept out. Did we really need to see the taunting thief's eye pecked out by a bird? This is the kind of thing that should have been left out as a sign of mercy to the audience.
Anti-Semitism
The big one. This is what all the fuss has been about all along. Having seen the film, I have to ask how many hoops does Mel have to jump through to make it clear what's going on? Gibson includes flashbacks at crucial moments to Jesus declaring that no one takes His life, but that He lays it down freely. He has Jesus repeatedly forgive those who are executing Him. And, just to make sure no one missed the point, he has the good thief tell the High Priest that Jesus is asking forgiveness for him. The very first image of the film is a quotation from Isaiah 53 showing that it is our sin that put Jesus on the cross.
Don't misunderstand me. I fully understand the historical background to the Jewish complaints and concerns. There's no question that Christians over the centuries have used the events of the Passion as fodder for violent anti-Semitism. But I think Gibson has made it abundantly and unambiguously clear in his film what he is trying to say. Artistically he made his point by being the actor playing the hand who held the nail as it was driven into Jesus' hand. I read somewhere that people allow the past to cloud the present. Because things have been misused in the past, they are bad today. To me, this is like what we saw in the former Yugoslavia where ethnic hatreds spilled over into brutal war because of events well in the past.
As to the idea that the film, while not the intention, might inspire anti-Semitism anyway, well I imagine there were plenty of neo-Nazi's around the world who viewed Schindler's List as an inspiration, a view of what could be accomplished with enough will power. That was clearly not the intention of Steven Spielberg, but nonetheless a likely consequence. Should we therefore ban Spielberg's masterpiece because somebody somewhere might have taken it the wrong way?
I have finally seen The Passion of the Christ. It is a truly powerful film. As a believer, I can't say there is anything truly new here. It's a story we all know pretty well. To me it's more about how Gibson tells the story than in the familiar details. I think this is a highly personal film.
Some have questioned why he would make a film only about Good Friday's events, with a quick reference to Easter. I found it very effective. Any Jesus story that focusses on His whole life, most of the time will be spent on Jesus' teachings, for example the Sermon on the Mount. The danger there is that we end up making those events the focus of the story. Isn't that what so many so-called "liberal" Christians do: focus on Jesus' teachings of love and forgiveness, and forget all that annoying sin stuff, including His tragic death. Gibson's film is focussed squarely on the suffering and death of Jesus. When he flashes back to, say, the Sermon on the Mount, it is still framed in the context of the crucifixion. We never lose our focus on Good Friday, which is where I think our focus should be (and Jesus' was during His life).
Two things really touched me as I watched the film. The whole sequence of Simon carrying the cross with Jesus reminded me of the classic poem Footprints, but with a totally new spin. As they progress on the road to Calvary, we see the sinner and the savior walking side by side, two sets of footprints. But at Calvary, where God's judgement will be meted out, the sinner walks away free and the savior climbs on His cross, one set of footprints during the most difficult time.
The other is Jesus' strength. I don't mean physical strength. My pastor likes to say that meekness is not weakness, it is strength under control. This is what we see played out in the events of the film. Early on, there are displays of quiet defiance by Jesus. In the garden, being tempted by Satan, he crushes the snake and looks at Satan with an eye of defiance. The first wave of scourging has the Roman guards beating Jesus to a pulp with canes and gloating about their accomplishment. Without a word, Jesus simply stands up. Later, as His physical strength fades under the unrelenting brutality, defiance gives way to resolve. When He falls carrying the cross, He stumbles back to His feet to pick it up again. Look at His face. The one eye that is still open is unwavering, focussed straight ahead to Calvary. Calvary is His goal. It is what He came for, and no amount of pain will stand in His way. At the end, after He has collapsed in total physical exhaustion, every fiber of His body screaming out in agony, He can no longer walk. But He isn't quite there yet. A few more feet to His cross. Unable to walk, he struggles to His knees and crawls the last steps.
That is meekness! That is strength under control. This is not a Jesus beaten beyond the point of lucidity, quiet and unprotesting simply because He is unable to form a coherent thought. This is a man with a strong and powerful heart who is quiet and unprotesting by choice, who will endure all to achieve His goal. Many reviewers have described the film's Jesus as super-human in his ability to withstand pain. I think that misses the point. What we see is not simple endurance of pain. It is a total commitment by Jesus to fulfill His mission.
As a film buff, let me say that I think this film is a masterful work. It's perhaps the only time since the silent movie era where a filmmaker of Mel Gibson's talent has taken on the life of Jesus, or some part of it, with reverence for the Scriptural accounts. (Scorcese made a Jesus film too, but rejected the Scriptural accounts and turned out a work of blasphemy.) The film opens with a breathtaking shot of the Garden engulfed in fog. Visually, the whole film is breathtaking. The acting is superb by everyone. In a fair world, where art was judged purely on its merits, not on politics, this film would be an early front-runner for Oscar nominations, with Gibson being a favorite for Best Director. In the real world, this is doubtful.
I appreciated the human-ness of Jesus as portrayed in the film. One of my biggest complaints about all the Jesus films I've seen--including the only one I actually like, Jesus of Nazereth--is that Jesus comes off as this stereotypical holy man, staring off into some other world and only partially here. Gibson's Jesus smiles, laughs, horses around with His mother, and even stumbles and skins His knee as a child.
When I first heard about the film, I heard that it was done in Latin and Aramaic without subtitles. My first reaction was, "what a stupid idea." (I also felt this was historically inaccurate. Greek should have been used rather than Latin.) Having seen the film, I understand it. Much of the dialog is actually still without subtitles (for example, Jesus' prayers in the garden at the beginning of the film), and personally I didn't feel they were needed there.
Complaints
I have to say I have a few complaints about the film. Given all the controversy surrounding the film, I was fairly sensitive to how Pilate would be portrayed. I don't find the Biblical account to present a Pilate at odds with the Pilate found in secular history. I think Gibson goes beyond the Biblical account and his Pilate does seem at odds. I thought the actor did a wonderful job, but the script paints what I see as an erroneous picture of the man. The historical figure was a brutal tyrant who executed thousands without blinking an eye. Innocence or guilt was irrelevant. If they were trouble makers, they were executed. I don't see the Biblical account being inconsistent with this. But the film's Pilate truly wants to free Jesus and is clearly bothered by the Jewish leadership's insistence that Jesus be executed.
This is an incredibly brutal film. It is so brutal that I think unnecessary brutality should have been kept out. Did we really need to see the taunting thief's eye pecked out by a bird? This is the kind of thing that should have been left out as a sign of mercy to the audience.
Anti-Semitism
The big one. This is what all the fuss has been about all along. Having seen the film, I have to ask how many hoops does Mel have to jump through to make it clear what's going on? Gibson includes flashbacks at crucial moments to Jesus declaring that no one takes His life, but that He lays it down freely. He has Jesus repeatedly forgive those who are executing Him. And, just to make sure no one missed the point, he has the good thief tell the High Priest that Jesus is asking forgiveness for him. The very first image of the film is a quotation from Isaiah 53 showing that it is our sin that put Jesus on the cross.
Don't misunderstand me. I fully understand the historical background to the Jewish complaints and concerns. There's no question that Christians over the centuries have used the events of the Passion as fodder for violent anti-Semitism. But I think Gibson has made it abundantly and unambiguously clear in his film what he is trying to say. Artistically he made his point by being the actor playing the hand who held the nail as it was driven into Jesus' hand. I read somewhere that people allow the past to cloud the present. Because things have been misused in the past, they are bad today. To me, this is like what we saw in the former Yugoslavia where ethnic hatreds spilled over into brutal war because of events well in the past.
As to the idea that the film, while not the intention, might inspire anti-Semitism anyway, well I imagine there were plenty of neo-Nazi's around the world who viewed Schindler's List as an inspiration, a view of what could be accomplished with enough will power. That was clearly not the intention of Steven Spielberg, but nonetheless a likely consequence. Should we therefore ban Spielberg's masterpiece because somebody somewhere might have taken it the wrong way?
posted by Doc @ 8:38 PM
0 comments
