delbomber

Brutal. Savage. Gory. Disturbing. Horrifying. "The Passion of the Christ" is all of these things.

Moving. Haunting. Powerful. Mesmerizing. Unforgettable. It is also these.

What it CERTAINLY is NOT: anti-Semitic. But I'll get to that...

I was raised Catholic, but have very few ties with the Catholic Church today. I eat meat on Fridays, live in sin, and do lots of other things frowned upon by the Pope and the Church. While there is certainly much more to Christ than Catholicism, I added this qualifier for those who are quick to label anyone broaching the subject of religion a "fanatic".

Few have endured hell-on-earth as Jesus did, as portrayed in this film. The last twelve hours of his life consisted of being betrayed, abandoned, tortured, and martyred. Was he as savagely beaten as Mel Gibson portrays? It doesn't really matter. What matters is that, for the first time in memory something attempts to convey, in all its rawness, the monumental sacrifice Jesus made for mankind. Regardless of his legitimacy as the messiah--even if he was just a kook--this man endured more pain, suffering, and humiliation than I ever realized or cared to imagine. This doesn't strengthen the love I have for Jesus, it makes me appreciate it that much more. Until today, no film has explored the physical sacrifice in such depth, and as a result this appreciation has long been missing, not just by myself, but by most Catholics and Christians I have known throughout my life.

Viewers of this film will generally fall into two groups: those who believe in and love Jesus and those who do not. The first group will be horrified and moved by seeing their Messiah in such a blunt, prone, conquered state. To see the baseless contempt for and malice perpetrated upon Jesus, presented in such gory fashion, will leave most aghast, and some nauseous, but it will surely impart a visceral reaction of awe and wonderment for Christ to which few other sources have been able. The images projected in front of our eyes are so rattling that, perhaps for the first time, Christ is relatable, and accordingly extraordinary.

Members of the second group, who are not watching their God being tortured as almost no human should ever deserve, will not be touched on this level, and will be more likely to complain of the violence. They may gain and understand an appreciation for Christ's devotion, but their lasting image of this film will be one of excessive violence and gratuitous gore. This won't even be so much of a conscious decision as an practical reality. They have no stake in this, and simply will be unable to interpret or digest in quite the same way what the anguish symbolizes for the first group. Without an existing compassion and deference for Jesus, few will have any feelings or ideas to be enhanced, and the film will be remembered for the excessive violence it certainly contains.

Members of this second group are also much more likely to perceive an anti-Semitic message. Mel Gibson repeatedly focuses on the insistence by the Jewish high priests that Jesus be punished. Again, without a base of love upon which to build, these viewers will, in addition to the visual onslaught, focus on a plot that does not hide who is ultimately responsible for Christ's torture and execution... ...but to say the film has gone out of its way to blame all Jews for the death of Jesus is absurd, and a monumental leap. Not only are there dissenters within the group that condemn Jesus, there is not one single reference to the faith of that group. One man in particular, rather than canyons and canyons of Jews, is shown as the driving force behind Jesus' fulfillment of his fate. Additionally, it's the Romans who are portrayed as sadistic goons in their scenes of wanton cruelty, and the mob of Jews calling for crucifixion are no different than the mobs shown in any other historical Jesus picture. (Without the hoopla and hubbub surrounding this film, very few would even consider that the group is Jewish. But then, our media is one that thrives on controversy and perpetuating prejudice, so why should anyone be surprised?) What is key to note is that the characters in this film act in accordance with self-interest, not faith or religion.

And I ask, what would detractors have Gibson do? Historical texts tell us Jewish priests prompted the death of Jesus, so how can the story be told otherwise? Should aliens have been substituted for the typically power-hungry, religious officials? Perhaps Russians. They were demonized in films for the last fifty years, why not rewrite history for the sake of over-sensitivity for just one more picture?

We do not blame all Germans for the Holocaust, and we do not blame all Americans, most descendents of Europeans, for the slaughter of Native Americans. Why, then, is there this idea that people will suddenly begin organizing lynch mobs to punish all Jews for the nearly 2000-year-old crime of only a handful?

I'm certainly not going to change anyone's opinions. People will see what they want to see, and read into this film whatever they wish. This is not what this film is about, and those focusing on such a contrived detail, no matter their personal beliefs involving Jesus, are depriving themselves of an unforgettable experience. Good or bad, but certainly unforgettable.

One last note--I can't help but be baffled by critics' reactions to this film. It has widely been panned for its overt and `exorbitant' violence. The website `Rotten Tomatoes' indicates 58 positive reviews to 55 negative. A quick check of reactions to `Kill Bill Vol.1' shows 159 positive reviews to only 32 negative. The only logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that violence, no matter how graphic so long as it is `stylized', is accepted with impunity, while true human suffering is intolerable and repugnant. Didn't 9/11 teach us we're not living in a dream world, or I am one of the few who has not forgotten?

I'm a believer, and that's what I took away. In the end, each of us will have a unique reaction, and it would be foolish to allow the rhetoric of others to influence that.

Beyond the gruesome brutality, I found this film to be beautiful. It is the first time someone or something has conveyed to me the true awesomeness of Christ's sacrifice. Some will agree, others will be disgusted, but few will walk away unmoved.

While reading user comments I noticed a recurring theme: many viewers rebuking this film for what they perceived to be Spike Lee rhetoric. The Ed Norton mirror scene was vividly reminiscent of the most famous scene in "Do the Right Thing," any many may have felt bludgeoned by "Lee's" political agenda. Additionally, many saw little connection between the plot and 9.11.

Surprisingly, however, Lee does not have a writing credit for this film, and the mirror scene was contained in the original novel.

I found this to be Lee's least socially preachy, yet morally engrossing film. The theme here is not black and white, but crime and punishment. The three main characters all surrender to desire and all engage in degrees of morally reprehensible behavior, yet only one is being punished. Why? That's a question Lee allows us to ponder on our own.

The connection to 9.11 is clear in my mind: some people sell drugs and get away with it, others get caught with a kilo in their couch, and others die when a jetliner is flown into their office building. In other words, life is not fair, and consequences are not always appropriate.