Review: The Passion of the Christ
Last night I attended a screening of Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ. Gibson's ultra-violent take on the last dozen hours of Jesus' life raked in well over $20 million its first day in theaters, and has stoked water-cooler debates for weeks. Is "The Passion" spiritually moving, or just plain ugly? Is it true to the scriptures? And, most hotly argued in the press, is "The Passion of the Christ" anti-Semitic? Does it enflame the age-old charge of deicide - the murder of God - against the Jewish people?
The last question is the easiest to answer: Neither Mel Gibson nor his film seem on the face of it to be anti-Semitic. There are certainly some vicious Jewish men depicted in "The Passion" (the hateful ones are almost exclusively male), but there are also many moments of kindness, outrage and horror by Jews who oppose Jesus' arrest and execution. Although most of the Jewish leaders are portrayed as sneeringly corrupt politicians, Gibson does not seem compelled to extend their unquestionable guilt to all of the surrounding innocents. "The Passion" is hardly a call for retaliation against Jews ancient or modern, whatever else it may be.
As regards the second question, the director and his publicity team have repeated, mantra-like, the idea that "We're just filming what the Bible says."
That's misleading. You won't find Gibson's version of the Passion in your New Testament, no matter how hard you look. The script is actually a cocktail of (in no particular order): the Passion stories from four gospels, each with unique plotlines and points of view; the visions of a pair of eighteenth-century nuns; the Roman Catholic teachings about the Mass; archeological insights into ancient torture methods; visual "quotes" from Gibson's other films, including "Braveheart"; the traditional "Stations of the Cross" tableaus and passion plays; scenes and dialog of Gibson's own invention; horror movie scenarios; and a quote or two from (of all things) the Revelation of John.
Even the portions of the script that are direct quotations of scripture have been edited together into a form that is not found in any gospel. Caiaphas' unintentionally prophetic observation that it is better for one man to die on behalf of the whole nation, for example, is omitted. Pilate's role, on the other hand, is expanded well beyond scripture, with scenes observed of his personal life and struggles. Gibson chooses what parts of scripture to include, which ones to exclude, and which to expand upon beyond what scripture says.
The end result is probably what you might call "historical fiction" or a devotional story, with scripture as its jumping-off point. I do not question Mel Gibson's good faith in attempting to adapt the story of the Passion to the screen; it is, however, less than honest to claim that this is simply the putting of a camera to Jesus' story as told by scripture. It is far more of an personal interpretation of the biblical event than Gibson's publicists would like you to believe.
The first question I raised is perhaps the one I find most interesting, and troubling, now that I have seen "The Passion of the Christ" for myself. Far from being inspired by the film, I found myself dreading going to it beforehand, and feeling oddly empty after viewing it. I had hoped to find in this film a powerful depiction of God's grace toward sinners in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead, it seemed to me to fetishize Christ's suffering, dwelling perversely on every spurt of blood and scream of agony.
Put in its best possible light, the message of this film seems to be: "Look how much Jesus suffered!" Which is an important observation. Christ did indeed suffer.
What's missing is the reason for this suffering: "...out of love for you."
John 3:16 is such a beloved verse because it puts the death of Jesus into its correct context: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." The crucifixion, apart from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ, is a sick exercise in sadism. The spiritual power of the Passion story is the glimpse into the heart of Jesus, even in the midst of excruciating pain. Mel Gibson's film is so fixated on the physical suffering of the Christ that he never really shows us the heart of the man ...or the heart of God.
The tale of the Cross is always incomplete apart from the tale of the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, God glares down at us from the cross, condemning us for this outrageous crime against him. In the Resurrection, God declares the slate washed clean - forgiveness is achieved, death is conquered, and grace abounds for all sinners.
Gibson's Resurrection scene feels tacked on. After spending all his energy (and ours) on the gruesome punishment of Jesus, it as though he realizes that he must at least show the risen Christ before the credits roll. And so we have Jesus in the tomb, grim and naked, striding forth into the sunlight to the strains of a battle march. And then the credits roll. I couldn't help thinking, "My God, he's out for revenge! Jesus is back, and boy, is he ticked off." Look out, Jerusalem. Even in the Resurrection, grace appears to be in very short supply.
For those who know the story, whose lives are already filled with God's grace, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" might prove an enlightening, if mind-numbing visual aid on the horrors of the crucifixion. "Look how much Jesus suffered!"
If only Gibson had managed to capture the spirit of the Resurrection - "...out of love for you" - this might have been a supremely moving film. As it is, "The Passion of the Christ" is much closer in spirit to a two-hour encyclopedia entry on the torture and execution of Roman prisoners than it is to a spiritual classic.
Parental advisory: "The Passion of the Christ" contains extremely gruesome, horrifying violence. This film should not be attended by young children, period. Older children and sensitive adults would do well to plan on time to process the images after viewing this film.
The last question is the easiest to answer: Neither Mel Gibson nor his film seem on the face of it to be anti-Semitic. There are certainly some vicious Jewish men depicted in "The Passion" (the hateful ones are almost exclusively male), but there are also many moments of kindness, outrage and horror by Jews who oppose Jesus' arrest and execution. Although most of the Jewish leaders are portrayed as sneeringly corrupt politicians, Gibson does not seem compelled to extend their unquestionable guilt to all of the surrounding innocents. "The Passion" is hardly a call for retaliation against Jews ancient or modern, whatever else it may be.
As regards the second question, the director and his publicity team have repeated, mantra-like, the idea that "We're just filming what the Bible says."
That's misleading. You won't find Gibson's version of the Passion in your New Testament, no matter how hard you look. The script is actually a cocktail of (in no particular order): the Passion stories from four gospels, each with unique plotlines and points of view; the visions of a pair of eighteenth-century nuns; the Roman Catholic teachings about the Mass; archeological insights into ancient torture methods; visual "quotes" from Gibson's other films, including "Braveheart"; the traditional "Stations of the Cross" tableaus and passion plays; scenes and dialog of Gibson's own invention; horror movie scenarios; and a quote or two from (of all things) the Revelation of John.
Even the portions of the script that are direct quotations of scripture have been edited together into a form that is not found in any gospel. Caiaphas' unintentionally prophetic observation that it is better for one man to die on behalf of the whole nation, for example, is omitted. Pilate's role, on the other hand, is expanded well beyond scripture, with scenes observed of his personal life and struggles. Gibson chooses what parts of scripture to include, which ones to exclude, and which to expand upon beyond what scripture says.
The end result is probably what you might call "historical fiction" or a devotional story, with scripture as its jumping-off point. I do not question Mel Gibson's good faith in attempting to adapt the story of the Passion to the screen; it is, however, less than honest to claim that this is simply the putting of a camera to Jesus' story as told by scripture. It is far more of an personal interpretation of the biblical event than Gibson's publicists would like you to believe.
The first question I raised is perhaps the one I find most interesting, and troubling, now that I have seen "The Passion of the Christ" for myself. Far from being inspired by the film, I found myself dreading going to it beforehand, and feeling oddly empty after viewing it. I had hoped to find in this film a powerful depiction of God's grace toward sinners in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead, it seemed to me to fetishize Christ's suffering, dwelling perversely on every spurt of blood and scream of agony.
Put in its best possible light, the message of this film seems to be: "Look how much Jesus suffered!" Which is an important observation. Christ did indeed suffer.
What's missing is the reason for this suffering: "...out of love for you."
John 3:16 is such a beloved verse because it puts the death of Jesus into its correct context: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." The crucifixion, apart from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ, is a sick exercise in sadism. The spiritual power of the Passion story is the glimpse into the heart of Jesus, even in the midst of excruciating pain. Mel Gibson's film is so fixated on the physical suffering of the Christ that he never really shows us the heart of the man ...or the heart of God.
The tale of the Cross is always incomplete apart from the tale of the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, God glares down at us from the cross, condemning us for this outrageous crime against him. In the Resurrection, God declares the slate washed clean - forgiveness is achieved, death is conquered, and grace abounds for all sinners.
Gibson's Resurrection scene feels tacked on. After spending all his energy (and ours) on the gruesome punishment of Jesus, it as though he realizes that he must at least show the risen Christ before the credits roll. And so we have Jesus in the tomb, grim and naked, striding forth into the sunlight to the strains of a battle march. And then the credits roll. I couldn't help thinking, "My God, he's out for revenge! Jesus is back, and boy, is he ticked off." Look out, Jerusalem. Even in the Resurrection, grace appears to be in very short supply.
For those who know the story, whose lives are already filled with God's grace, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" might prove an enlightening, if mind-numbing visual aid on the horrors of the crucifixion. "Look how much Jesus suffered!"
If only Gibson had managed to capture the spirit of the Resurrection - "...out of love for you" - this might have been a supremely moving film. As it is, "The Passion of the Christ" is much closer in spirit to a two-hour encyclopedia entry on the torture and execution of Roman prisoners than it is to a spiritual classic.
Parental advisory: "The Passion of the Christ" contains extremely gruesome, horrifying violence. This film should not be attended by young children, period. Older children and sensitive adults would do well to plan on time to process the images after viewing this film.
posted by Bob at
11:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home