Die Passion Christi

A lot of critics I have heard disliked or even dismissed this movie. They seemed to think that the movie should have focused on Christ's ministry and his teachings, and not on the crucifixion and the events leading up to it. These critics miss the point of this movie. As with all movies, The Passion was directed at a target audience, in this case Christians. The point of the movie was simply this: to make Christians understand, in a visceral way, what they knew intellectually from reading the bible: that Christ endured a horrible and brutal death in order to save us from our sins. It was completely successful in this, and was, perhaps, the most powerful movie I have ever seen.

...which is precisely why so many people can't handle it. Gibson could have toned everything down, but then would have been met with apathy or mockery. Both the absurd accusations of antisemitism (in a movie where almost all the characters are Jewish, and where the Romans soldiers are more brutally inhuman than anyone else), and the hypocritical criticism of the violence (there are only TWO sequences in the movie that are difficult to watch, and the first---the scourging---happens around 50 minutes in) are overblown and hyped up because these are the only criticisms people can latch on to. You can't fault the dialogue and line delivery because it's not even in English. You can't fault the direction because the minimal dialogue leads to a more visual story. The soundtrack is criminally underrated by itself. And so on. It is too well made and was way too popular to simply dismiss, and that's why it was so controversial.

The violence criticisms are especially silly given that we live in this culture where audiences and critics regularly gush over shows where graphic violence is played for laughs (Fight Club), nihilism (Game of Thrones), or both (Tarantino). Is it so horrifying that a film appears which demands you take the implications of brutality seriously? Who is really the degenerate here, Mel Gibson or American society as a whole? That being said, there is an anguish which pervades every frame of this film and I could maybe see how that can color people's perception and memory of the violence. Even Roger Ebert, one of the few critics who 'got' the film, estimated that '100 minutes, maybe more' of this two hour film was concerned with graphic torture. His calculations are way off. The people calling this a 'snuff film' obviously haven't watched it and are just parroting that one loser critic. (The Passion is obviously not a 'snuff film' anyway--you're supposed to feel emotional connection to the characters and not just sadism. Some of the Rotten Tomatoes critics are obviously very anti-Christian, and expecting them to give a reliable evaluation to this movie would be like expecting anti-Semites to review Schindler's List fairly.)

Do you have to be religious to 'get' this film? Not particularly, the same way you do not have to be religious to appreciate Renaissance art, much of which seems to have influenced the film. It's also interesting how relatively influential it was, given the smattering of 'visionary' Biblical epics that sprang up in its wake but were consigned to mediocrity. (Ridley Scott's Moses film and Aronofsky's gnostic Noah film).

Side note: The soundtrack for this film is on another level. If you like lots of percussion and vocals in your epic soundtracks, try checking it out. Even if you don't intend to watch the movie.

It took me a long while to decide whether to see The Passion of the Christ. It had been my intention to since Mel Gibson first announced the project, but endless reports of the film's unflinching brutality made me fear it might be too much to bear. I eventually decided, however, that whether I really wanted to or not, this was a film I needed to see. It took me two viewings to really get a grip on it, so intense were the emotions it provoked in me. Even now, weeks later, re-examining it in detail is still deeply affecting. For those few still unaware, the film details the last twelve hours in the life of Christ. Its dialogue is entirely in Latin and Aramaic, with English subtitles, a remarkably bold decision by Gibson, and one that pays dividends. On one level it unites an international cast, sparing us any clashing accents, and gives the film a greater sense of authenticity. On another, it forced Gibson and his team into a very visual form of storytelling; even amongst the carnage there are shots of aching beauty.

Huge credit must go to the cast for mastering the language, and employing it in such universally excellent performances. As Jesus, James Caviezel has the immense task of embodying the most important figure in human history, and often doing so with little dialogue, and one eye swollen shut. Despite these handicaps Caviezel delivers a performance of great emotional depth, embodying quiet nobility and sacrifice. The performance that really stood out was that of Maia Morgenstern as Mary. The pain she conveys through her large and expressive eyes is heart-breaking, as she is forced to watch her child endure the most unimaginable suffering. Yet throughout the film she maintains an almost luminescent beauty, entirely befitting the mother of God.

One of the themes of the story emphasised by the film is the bond between Jesus and Mary. One flashback, found nowhere in the Bible, details the mundane routine of Jesus being called in from carpentry by His mother to eat. It was an immensely powerful reminder that for all He was the Son of God, Jesus was also the son of an ordinary woman, who He loved as any child loves its mother. It was also from this vein that the most powerful moment of the film sprang. As Jesus carries His cross, Mary begs John to get her closer to Him. She emerges into His path just as He fall under the weight of the cross. She runs to His aid, and as she does so the film cuts between this, and a similar moment when Jesus was a child and fell outside the house. While she could offer him protection then, now she is powerless; she weeps as the guards thrust her roughly away from her son, and so do we.

It is moments such as these that make the film so much more than the orgy of violence its detractors claim. For example, Peter's panicked betrayal, and subsequent horrified realisation of what he has done is handled in such a way as to move one to tears. There is also an immensely poetic moment near the film's end, in which the camera tracks the progress of a single drop of rain from miles above Golgotha, which falls as Jesus breathes His last: a teardrop from Heaven.

As a film, The Passion of the Christ is excellent; as a religious experience it is even better. Gibson has come under attack for focusing merely on Jesus' death, and omitting His message of love - this criticism is both unfair and ill-judged. In fact, he strikes the perfect balance, including flashbacks at pivotal moments of the film to events such as Jesus washing the disciples' feet, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Last Supper. These remain very true to the text, with quotes such as "You are my friends, and the greatest love a man can have for his friends is to give his live for them" (John 15:13) incorporated whole and delivered beautifully.

Even is there were no flashbacks, however, the point of the film would remain, and it is a vitally important one. It serves as a powerful reminder of the reality of what happened: Jesus did not merely die for us, He was killed by us in the most terrible way imaginable. It is something that can easily be lost through over familiarity with the text, and the flowery nature of other representations, but which must not be forgotten.

It has been said that "If Christ be not risen, then our faith is in vain", and the film has also been attacked for devoting just a few minutes to the Resurrection. Such criticism, however, betrays a very narrow minded approach; the manner in which this sequence is filmed conveys the full thematic significance it.

Perhaps the film's greatest impact has been to get me to pick up the Bible again, and do so with a new faith and understanding. And for that Gibson deserves nothing but praise.

Director Mel Gibson brings the last day of Jesus (Jim Caviezel) to the screen. It is after the last supper and Judas betrays Jesus to the authorities for 30 pieces of silver. Jesus is arrested, beaten, convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death. Roman Governor Pontius Pilate sends him to King Herod. Herod sees Jesus as a fool and releases him back to Pilate. Fearing a revolt, Pilate offers a choice to the crowd between Jesus and Barabbas.

This is a relatively literal interpretation of the passion play. Mel even uses Aramaic. It is expertly made and delivers the material. There is a vein of anti-semitic bend while Pilate is excused with more humanity. I don't think the film can force modern values on the 2000 year old text. For true believers, this is heaven. Every whip mark is felt. For non-believers, this is a good representation of the text.

I've seen a lot o people talking trash about this movie - even a lot of christians -, and I find it hard to understand why. Philosopher Peter Kreeft called it the "most beautiful movie ever made", and when I think about it in the light of the Christian faith, it's hard to disagree.

First of all, passion means suffering, and for all those people that complain about the violence in the movie, I think it's because they don't get Christ's Passion at all. The emphasis on violence is fundamental, as it's what reveals how much God suffered because of what I did. So I, the spectator, am experiencing with all my emotions what I can only imagine and reflect about when reading the Gospels. And I'm not the kind of person that reads about Jesus crucified and direct relates it to all the bad things I did to contribute to that moment, and even when I do, it's more like in a lucid, almost indifferent way, while the movie forces me to feel the burden that I've put on My Lord's shoulder.

This is of course from my Christian perspective, and I wouldn't even try to talk about what's great in the movie from a secular perspective. The lens through which one watches it it's what define its greatness. And that lens is faith. So I really don't think it's a big deal if an atheist doesn't like it; but if a catholic doesn't like it I'll be confused.

The way Jim Caviezel plays Jesus is so powerful. He seems very humble, very vulnerable, very soft, yet very strong and confident. When he talks to the people, you feel so much goodness in his tone; when he is accused of blasphemy you can feel his innocence even if nothing is spoken. When he is carrying the cross and falls, Mary runs to him and it's such a symbolic scene of how much she loves her Son, and how much she wants His suffering to end, even though she accepts the will of God.

Mel Gibson did a great job with all the symbolism in the movie: Mary's obedience; Judas' desperation; all the people shocked by Jesus' mere presence. There's so much of it, and it feels so natural.

I can only assume that christians that don't like The Passion of the Christ are those that didn't actually take their time to think about the Passion of Christ. The movie is a chance to do so. It's ugly and repulsive? Yes, but only for a moment. When you realize that it captures the essence of God's love for humanity, it becomes eternally beautiful. Jesus didn't have to do that. He did because of me, because of you; because He is the good shepherd that lays his life for the sheep.

So what if the reality of the Passion is full of gore and tears and injustice? We are the cause of that, and sometimes we better realize it by having it thrown on our faces, however hurt we may end up feeling. Just remember that our pain is nothing compared to our Lord's pain. I can only speak for myself when I say that my love for my Savior is very small; but I know very well that He loves me with a heart that is ready to bleed without hesitation, even though I'm not worth it.