La Passion du Christ

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.

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.

For the first time in my life, when it comes to discussing a film, I've been rendered nearly speechless. Mel Gibson's `The Passion of the Christ,' which depicts the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus, defies the typical `it's good' or `it's bad' mentality of a review. It's so visually gripping, so heart-wrenching and so emotionally draining that writing about it simply can't do it justice.

Gibson, who directed and co-wrote the screenplay, went to great lengths to make sure his film was Biblically accurate and it shows. Jesus (played brilliantly by James Caviezel, `Frequency') looks Jewish, instead of the blond-haired, blue-eyed man usually seen in the role. Every line spoken is in Aramaic or Latin (with English subtitles). Every prop used, from whips and swords to clothing and wigs, looks stunningly authentic. What emerges is the most realistic depiction of Christ's suffering ever put on screen.

Most films about Jesus begin at His birth, give a kind of Cliff's Notes glance-over of His life, and make crucifixion seem slightly unpleasant - not `Passion.' The film is entirely about the journey to that specific event and shows it's possibly the most horrific method used to kill someone. `Passion' begins as Jesus agonizes in the Garden of Gethsemane, so troubled by His upcoming duty that His sweat turns to blood.

As He prays, He fights a spiritual battle. He knows He must die and, despite leading a sinless life, take on the sins of mankind so they can be saved. He has been abandoned by His followers. He is constantly tempted by Satan, who tells Jesus that one man can't possibly die for everyone's sins. After setting aside His own will and seeking His Father's, Jesus is betrayed by Judas Iscariot (one of His disciples) and handed over to Jewish authorities and eventually the Roman government.

What follows is an unflinching look at the way Christ was killed. His beatings, scourging and eventual crucifixion at the hands of Roman soldiers is shown in graphic detail. Where other films would cut away, `Passion' zooms in - every punch, every piece of flesh ripped away, every drop of blood, every thorn in His crown and every nail driven into His body is vividly captured on camera.

The film is slightly over two hours long, starts with Christ's arrest in the Garden and ends with His resurrection (covered in about 12 seconds). Everything between is His brutal suffering and it is relentless. There are several brief flashbacks to earlier times in Christ's life to provide a short relief from the violence, but none long enough for the audience to forget what they are watching.

The controversy that has surrounded `Passion' in recent months (consisting mostly of claims that it's anti-Semitic) is unfortunate. Yes, some Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. But so are some Romans and, most importantly, so are the rest of us. Everyone, whether literally or symbolically, placed Jesus Christ on that cross to die. The film in no way implies that the Jewish nation as a whole is to blame for killing Him.

As a Christian, this film is a wake-up call. I've always known that Jesus suffered and died for me. I even know the physical things that happen during a scourging and crucifixion. Seeing the process right in front of you, however, is a completely different matter. I have never cried as hard as I did during `The Passion of the Christ.' As I watched Jesus being beaten, spit upon, whipped to near-death and ultimately nailed to a piece of wood, all I could keep thinking, over and over again, was `He did that for me. He did that for all of us.'

C.S. Lewis once said that Jesus could only be one of three things: Lord (as He said He was), a liar or a lunatic. Before viewing `The Passion of the Christ,' and strongly reinforced afterward, there is only one option for me. Whether Christian or non-Christian, I strongly urge you to see this film.

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.

...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.