The Passion of the Christ

Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ is a failed experiment. The aim of the movie is to shatter the 1950’s matinee-epic vision of the Messiah and replace it with a visceral sense of Jesus’s humanity and his suffering. Gibson is essentially reacting against the tradition of the effete, otherworldly Jesus whose death was anything but painful. The fundamental motive behind the movie, which must be understood if we are to make any judgments, is to show Jesus as a man, suffering just as much as any human being in that situation would.

Gibson attempts to realize this goal by translating the medieval passion play to the screen. Of course, he takes his cue from mystical writings and the Gospels more so than he uses any particular passion play. That said, his relentless emphasis on convincing the audience that Christ suffered—making us uneasy spectators to his ordeal—is unmistakably an extension of the passion-play tradition. Many of the most common criticisms hurled at the movie—overly blunt statement of its message, one-dimensional characters, too much violence—do not quite apply if the film is to be interpreted as a modern-day passion play, and therefore little more than a piece of propaganda. After all, we judge propaganda by its ends rather than its means, and the question must always be: Is the message effectively expressed?

The only problem is, the movie fails even as a passion play. First off, the use of flashbacks is embarrassing. That technique is one of the prime clichés of the movies, and for that reason flashbacks should always be handled very carefully. Unfortunately, Gibson’s pounding and brutally blunt style does not lend itself well to a matter requiring such care. The flashbacks serve two purposes: to provide context and allude to Jesus as a teacher, a carpenter, a loving son; and to offer momentary relief from the violence of his passion. However, these brief scenes represent merely the most superficial and cursory examination of Jesus’s life and teachings, and, more importantly, they are not in keeping with the passion-play tradition. Obviously, medieval passion plays did not take a break to show a moment from the Last Supper. Such contrast of tone helps make watching the otherwise gruesome movie more bearable, but it sabotages Gibson’s point. You can sense the uncertainty of the filmmaker during these flashbacks, as if he has decided to temper his material because he’s anxious about it. That nervousness is a major flaw: no work of propaganda can stand up if it does not at least feel assured.

The Passion falls flat in another even more glaring respect. Even though it may at heart be a passion play, it still has to work on the screen. Theater and cinema are two very different modes of expression, and, for Gibson’s film to work as a film, it needs to possess something that allows it to leap from the screen, so to speak, and truly touch its audiences. Unfortunately, by the end of its two hours, The Passion feels more like a prolonged snuff movie than a depiction of the Christian faith’s most important event. The flaw in this case lies precisely in Gibson’s attempt to humanize Jesus. Theoretically, I respect that goal, but I believe it backfires in the context of a full-length feature film, because there is so little to indicate, in any deep sense, what all the blood and gore is for. Jesus’s pain should indeed be portrayed as that of a man, but without any moral or spiritual context for the violence, it feels empty. Christ’s passion is the central moment in Christanity because, according to the doctrine, Jesus endured unspeakable suffering and was crucified so that humanity may be saved: he died for our sins. Although Gibson includes quick glimpses of Jesus’s divinity (he heals a Roman soldier’s ear, he forgives his executioners), I didn’t feel the movie grappled, in any deep way, with what his death meant. Gibson’s experiment is highly problematic here: perhaps the medieval passion play did not require anything more than a man suffering onstage, but the two-hour movie equivalent turns the audience into voyeurs of another man’s pain, not witnesses of a “passion.” I’m not saying Gibson should have used more extensive flashbacks—he should have used none—but rather that he should have expressed, in purely cinematic terms, the divinity behind the event, the grace behind the violence. The approach he chose might have worked for a half-hour movie, but at the end of two hours it beckons the question: Why do we care? As soon as we wonder that, the propaganda has clearly failed.

Whether or not this failure demonstrates that the passion play can never be properly adapted to cinema remains open to speculation. It's important to remember that passion plays were usually performed just outside the church building, during the Easter season. They grew out of the liturgy that commemorated Jesus' passion—the last week of Lent directly preceding the celebration of his resurrection at Easter. For medieval audiences, the plays fused with their own experience of the liturgy and, within this context, with their witness of the baptisms at the Easter vigil and their participation in the celebrations of the mass on some of the days of Holy Week and at Easter. A passion play's performance, while portraying Jesus as a suffering human, was therefore part and parcel of a larger experience that constantly reminded these audiences of his divinity in all sorts of ways (as did their own faith). Moreover, when Christian churches today commemorate the stations of the cross the participants in the recreation are members of the church community who undertake the task, and thereby become performers, as an expression of their faith. As depicted in Denys Arcand's wonderful film Jesus of Montreal (1989), the audience and the performers are one, in a sense—a single body of faithful joined also by their belief. Thus, another problem with Gibson's movie is, ironically enough, the screen: it is a barrier that separates the audience from the performers. Gibson's passion play is removed in every sense from the context that, in the passion play tradition, constantly recalled Jesus's divinity as well as his humanity; the audience itself is further removed—placed in a modern movie theater, watching a screen, eating popcorn, etc.—and, of course, not necessarily composed of practicing Christians. On all levels, it's clear that the modern cinema prohibits the fusion of audience and performers, of the liturgy within the church and the play outside, of the suffering man depicted in this play and the sacrament of the eucharist in which Jesus's divinely empowered, sacrificed body and blood are eaten and drunk.

One last point remains to be made, and fortunately it's a simple one: The Passion of the Christ is indeed anti-Semitic. Whether it was actually fueled by anti-Semitism in its making is unimportant. The result on the screen breathes such hatred. Gibson goes out of his way to depict the Roman governor Pontius Pilate as a conscientious and tortured man—almost a tragic hero, who, by his weakness, gives in to the Jewish mob demanding Jesus's death. The film's Pilate does not exactly jive with the historical account: we know that Pontius was, in fact, a notably cruel governor who showed no hesitation in sending Jews off to crucifixion. But, then again, Gibson doesn't claim to follow the history books. The problem is, not even the Gospels are as kind to Pontius as he is. In the Gospel of St. Matthew, Pontius's wife has dreams of a bad omen associated with Jesus's death, and so, out of fear instead of principles, she advises her husband not to crucify the man. Pontius gives it a few moments' thoughts—nothing like the prolonged soul-searching we see in the movie—before bowing down to the mob and sending Jesus to be beaten and crucified. (In The Passion, he first orders Jesus to be beaten but not killed, trying to buy time and hoping to appease the Jewish priests without crucifying him; only once that plan has failed does he finally, with great reluctance, send Jesus to die.) It's clear who the real villains are in the movie: Caiaphas and his fellow priests, who sneer at the bleeding Jesus and continually call for his death, not once displaying a shred of mercy. Thus, when we compare the authority figures in the film—Pontius Pilate v. Caiaphas—we find an obvious imbalance. Plus, the only Romans in the film who are truly villainous are the soldiers, who are depicted in such an animalistic fashion (and are even scolded by their own officers for their brutality) that they hardly seem to represent the Roman establishment. Granted, the movie also features the kind gestures of the likes of Simon and Veronica, but on the authority level the anti-Semitism is undeniable.

Although it may sound like I absolutely detested this movie, I did find things to admire. For one, if you can get past the ideological slant of the film, it's beautifully shot (though not as visually compelling as it should have been, in my opinion). In particular, the pietà is exquisitely handled: it's by far the best and most touching moment in the film. The resurrection is, likewise, well-done—not depicted in the same hammer-the-point-home style of the rest of the movie, but rather swiftly shown in a single take. Finally, one may admire the focus and clarity of vision with which the story is told. Is The Passion worth seeing? I would hesitantly say yes, but not on account of its quality. The movie is, at its core, an experiment, and it's unlike anything that has been done before. That's the reason to see it, and the only reason. Other than that, it's very little more than a brutal, sadistic, hateful, and fatally flawed venture. With a few nice shots.

Comments

[stennie]

Hey, what happened to you? If you don't blog more often, people will think God smote you down for dissing Mel's movie.

[troy]

Hi just like to say to whoever wrote this must not be a good of judging movies cause The Passion of the christ was the best movie ever and millions of people going to see it over and over again prove my point. This movie is going to be around forever cause once it comes out on video you know every church is going to get it and show it to people all the time. When i saw this movie i felt Gods precense it was so awesome this movie made me cry cause of all the bad things i have done to hurt Jesus and this movie has changed my life completly to want to follow him and not only my life has been changed but millions of people are saying the same thing so it isnt just me. So diss it or praise it ether way man this film will be around till the ends of time so you might as well get used to it. I just dont see how you can say this movie is a bad movie i think cause it shows the truth that is probably why.

[stennie]

Lots of people going to see a movie doesn't make it good. It makes it popular.

[Mark]

what??? you have no idea what's going on. The Passion is incredible. Maybe you just need to get tuned in to the God channel a little and maybe you would be begin to understand what Gibson actually did. This movie was an experience. It wasn't made for critics. I myself am a student of film and a film maker. It was made to envelop the viewer into what Christ did for us. It's beyond a movie. The sooner you see that, the sooner you'll understand.

[damien]

well done, mark. a nice little response there. now, you say you're a film-maker. well, i'm glad you work in a visual medium because you can't write for shit. how exactly does one get "enveloped" into what somebody did? you obviously have all the answers on this one. why should a viewer have to tune into the "God channel" to be able to appreciate a film? a film should stand on its own. i don't entirely agree with communist propaganda, but i admit that "battleship potemkin" is a towering masterpiece. i don't think the cuban revolution was an altogether great thing, but i adore "la hora de los hornos." let's compare two contemporay pieces of propaganda, so to speak, then: "passion of the christ" and "fahrenheit 911." the latter was done with swiftian wit and great panache; it was a self-assured work that managed to combine a kind of mordant, bitterly ironic and satirical humor with a very deep and very real feeling of anger and dismay. gibson's film, on the other hand, resorted to passion-play techniques to ram home a message that itself is problematic given the construction of the film. there was more passion in "fahrenheit 911" than in "passion." but, i guess i haven't been listening to the "God channel" enough. hmmm, what do you mean by that exactly? evangelical fundamentalist preachers? right-wing radio talk shows? the self-appointed moralists, among whom we can count such luminaries as jerry falwell and bill bennett? you think "passion" is passionate? you think it's bold and unflinching? i say it's a cop-out. i say it's sanitized. it takes jesus's sacrifice and turns it into a video-game. there have been religious movies made with such conviction, that resonate so deeply and ask such deep questions about faith and humanity's relationship to God, that in comparison a B-movie like "passion" looks like a rip-off of exploitation horror movies. if you're so in tune with the "God channel" and are on top of it all a "student of film", then i'm sure you've studied and labored over "the passion of joan of arc" and "the gospel according to saint matthew" and "diary of a country priest" and every ingmar bergman movie ever made. those are real religious movies. they don't take religion for granted but delve into it, ask the tough questions, and invoke a deep sense of faith. tell me, does religion have to be dumbed down? at the risk of sounding snobbish, it is telling that "the passion of the christ" played the best in the parts of the country with the lowest iq's. academia and the urban centers revolted against the film because they saw it for what it was: stupidity.
i normally never write back to posted comments, and i'm not even doing the site anymore, but your wonderfully insightful entry just necessitated a rebuttal.

sincerely yours,
dmien

[damien]

well done, mark. a nice little response there. now, you say you're a film-maker. well, i'm glad you work in a visual medium because you can't write for shit. how exactly does one get "enveloped" into what somebody did? you obviously have all the answers on this one. why should a viewer have to tune into the "God channel" to be able to appreciate a film? a film should stand on its own. i don't entirely agree with communist propaganda, but i admit that "battleship potemkin" is a towering masterpiece. i don't think the cuban revolution was an altogether great thing, but i adore "la hora de los hornos." let's compare two contemporay pieces of propaganda, so to speak, then: "passion of the christ" and "fahrenheit 911." the latter was done with swiftian wit and great panache; it was a self-assured work that managed to combine a kind of mordant, bitterly ironic and satirical humor with a very deep and very real feeling of anger and dismay. gibson's film, on the other hand, resorted to passion-play techniques to ram home a message that itself is problematic given the construction of the film. there was more passion in "fahrenheit 911" than in "passion." but, i guess i haven't been listening to the "God channel" enough. hmmm, what do you mean by that exactly? evangelical fundamentalist preachers? right-wing radio talk shows? the self-appointed moralists, among whom we can count such luminaries as jerry falwell and bill bennett? you think "passion" is passionate? you think it's bold and unflinching? i say it's a cop-out. i say it's sanitized. it takes jesus's sacrifice and turns it into a video-game. there have been religious movies made with such conviction, that resonate so deeply and ask such deep questions about faith and humanity's relationship to God, that in comparison a B-movie like "passion" looks like a rip-off of exploitation horror movies. if you're so in tune with the "God channel" and are on top of it all a "student of film", then i'm sure you've studied and labored over "the passion of joan of arc" and "the gospel according to saint matthew" and "diary of a country priest" and every ingmar bergman movie ever made. those are real religious movies. they don't take religion for granted but delve into it, ask the tough questions, and invoke a deep sense of faith. tell me, does religion have to be dumbed down? at the risk of sounding snobbish, it is telling that "the passion of the christ" played the best in the parts of the country with the lowest iq's. academia and the urban centers revolted against the film because they saw it for what it was: stupidity.
i normally never write back to posted comments, and i'm not even doing the site anymore, but your wonderfully insightful entry just necessitated a rebuttal.

sincerely yours,
damien

[joyce]

hi i would just like to say that your wrong, it made millions of people cry and come back to Jesus. Maybe it's because your not christian, but everyone is different so i won't say anything about religious things, but all i'm saying is that if there was a different message to this film; that you seem to hate so much, then i think that you would've said something more nicer. the effects and the flashbacks were touching and looked real. i didn't think anyone can say something bad about that.. but i was prooved wrong because, YOU did.

ps/ if your not a christian which i think you aren't, then try going to church, it'll help you understand the film more because you seem to be getting the wrong idea of this film(not that i'm an expert or anything)

Good day and God bless you =)

[joyce]

oh yeah, and by the way, this film is not a failed experiment, and i think the message was to show people that Jesus came to earth and go through the pain and your so-called humiliation because that's how much He loved and still does love us. you can just say that i'm a little 15 year old who doesn't know anything about films, but i'm pretty sure i'm not wrong about my comment on this one.

[Sarah]

ok...well heres what i think about this subject...yes the passion was an amazing movie...but that dosn't mean that everyone is going to think that...the response that you "chirstians" have put on here...are turning people off...i myself am a devoted follower and born again believer...but i would never post something like that on here...just because...people who don't look at things from a chirstian perspective are going to get turned off by the way you try to shove your defence down their throats...i know you probably didn't realize what you were doing but that is what it seemed like to me...so...just chill out a little bit peeps...lol
jumping the gun isn't a good thing all the time.

[Zach Baker]

All,

The thing to understand is that the author of this blog and Mel Gibson are not looking for the same effect. Without putting words in his mouth, it seems that the former was looking for entertainment - the most stunning visuals and storyline, etc. Mel was looking to tell the events of Christ's death and in the process elicit a response from the viewer. Which is why open-minded people are going to think about this, and also why the blogger says things like "if you can get past the propiganda...".

Unfortunately his expectations were not met. Sure, he did miss the point. But he is missing the point very very intentionally. That's his perogative! With any critic, you must evaluate the authority and weight of the statements based on the understanding, the faith/spiritual context/capacity of the writer, etc.

My strong recommendation to everyone who thinks in about the spiritual, and anyone compelled to write anything related to this stuff (propiganda, spiritual things, Bible, etc) is to NOT decide what you are going to do with the story of Christ based on ANY critic or website, and not even any movie. If we were critiquing one of the many new cooking shows that are meant to be entertaining, would we evaluate the quality of the recipie or food based on the critic's opinion of the show?

We are dealing here with what people believe, wether you're an atheist or a miracle-working believer. Throughout history the Bible and story of Christ has been visciously attacked (attempts at eradication, change, etc) and yet somehow the same words survive today. How could any book elicit such an amazing reaction from humanity through history? Rather than trust our flakey, subjective history books, why not go to the source itself and decide what to do with Christ?

No doubt if you know the Bible fairly well, this film was simply beautiful to you, and the film was anything but propiganda, but rather perhaps the greatest love story ever told. Christian, remember the Bible says it is spiritually discerned - don't expect everyone who refuses to acknowledge God to value it.

[Rosie]

I read this expecting something good pero all I got was trash on top of trash trying to misdermean something so beautiful. Personally I absolutely found the movie brilliant. I went through a box of tissues by myself and I am but a child(15). I went to this mvoie with my old youth group all of us were not doing very good in Christ pero after watching this film I fell to my knees and cried. I have never cried or even thought about crying this much in my life. Except once. When I read this review. I was so stunned by how ignorant the critic was. This movie touched so many innocent lives. I remember after watching this I ran around Reno asking every one to watch it. I walked up to complete strangers and got them to accept Christ with me. This movie had such an imapct on my life. I have read the bible since I could talk and I know the story of Jesus pero a picture says so much more. Mel Gibson is my hero. He knew this movie wouldn't be accepted by all pero he did it anyways. And I respect that he would risk his reputation to make a movie that would affect so many people. I could go on for so much longer pero I have to go help with a dance my mama and my sister are doing for good friday.

[Claudia]

I agree with Damien!
This movie is a dramatic effort to pull humanity back into the suffering and victim mode. Although it’s done with integrity, does it exemplify what this master taught? Does the movie, based partially in myth instead of real history, show the joy of Jesus’ life?

[Alex]

I found the movie very touching. It definitely wasn't made for entertainment purposes. Film critics all differ on how they rate this film. For example, Ebert gives it 4 stars. Basically, it comes down to your own personal judgment. I personally thought the movie was excellent. The cross is the central message of the gospels. It's the central element in all 4 gospels in the Bible. It's mentioned or alluded to pretty much in every single New Testament book.

Anyway, great discussion everyone and God bless.

[Nigel]

This movie sucked cock.

[Anandhan.M]

i want join

[candy]

good film......

[NetoPingeRy]

Hi. Test post 333 4
1

[XRumakTheBest]

XRumer 4.0 is the perfect program for promotion!
It's have CAPTCHA recognizer, email verificator, and a lot of other functions...

But. I forgot link to it :(

Can you give me link to the xrumer description? screenshots, etc.

Thanks

[Zeratulss]

24% of Americans believe that the Internet is able for a time to replace them with a loved one. For obvious reasons, such sentiments particularly prevalent among residents of the United States alone. Both men and women can replace the beloved, beloved trips to the World Network. However, the willingness to such transactions vary among followers of different ideologies: conservatives frowned relate to this idea, and the "progressive-minded" on the contrary, Nerkarat it.

Study company Zogby International also showed that every fourth resident of the United States have their own representation in the web-site or internet-stranichka. Creating internet-dvoynikov most passionate about young people (18-24 years of age) - 78% of them have personal Web page. In doing so, 68% of those surveyed said that the World Wide Web, they do not appear in its original capacity, their virtual overnight seriously different from the real.

Only 11% of Americans would agree implantable microchip in his brain, which would provide them with direct contact with the Internet. But the situation is changing, in the case of children. Almost every fifth resident of the United States would agree to equip their child safety device which would allow him to track the movement in space on the Internet.

10% of U.S. stated that the Internet brings them to God. " In turn, 6% are convinced that because of the existence of the World Wide Web God away from them.

And how you feel? Sorry bad English.