When I watch a film, I try to separate myself from the content. But because watching movies is a subjective experience, it’s impossible to do so. Mel Gibson’s much hooplaed The Passion of the Christ is a film that makes this statement obvious because if you watch it simply for the 24 frames per second flashing by you’re going to miss the point. But even as I watched the beatings, torture and chastisement with my beliefs on my sleeve, I still was left wondering if I missed Gibson’s point.
The story of Christ is one of the best known tales in all of the world. Regardless of what you believe, chances are you know that Jesus was born in a manger and died on a cross. The Passion interprets Christ’s final 12 hours with the occasional contextual flashback tossed in to add a little background. But the majority of the two-hour film is spent dwelling on the torture that led up to Christ’s final breath. It’s grim and downright gross at times, somewhere in between the over-the-top gore of slasher flicks and the realism approach taken to the opening 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. Of course, The Passion is meant to show us the pain that Jesus went through dying for the sins of humanity.
For the past 20 years, I’ve watched on TV as various groups try to guilt us into supporting such worthy causes as famine. Through images of suffering children and crying babies, and promises that you can do your part for the price of a cup of coffee (pre Starbucks), Sally Struthers and company appealed to our most vulnerable sensibilities as they juxtapose their suffering with our lavish Western way of life. I’m sorry, but being forced into guilt is not something that I react to personally. I’d rather be presented with a situation or issue with balanced information and be left to make up my own decision. Gibson takes the same guilt approach, much to my own dismay.
Conflicting reports said that the Pope declared The Passion, “It is as it was.” Regardless of whether he did or not, this is not how it was. Part of Gibson’s dwelling on the torture comes from his regular use of slow motion, drawing out the flesh ripping to the point where single drops of blood can be seen dripping. Artistically, The Passion is often gorgeous. Gibson uses the screen as a genuine canvas that just happened to turn it into a rare water cooler film, no matter the viewer’s background.
With my own beliefs, I came into The Passion looking to be moved but instead I was left closer to cold. I know, understand and go along the much the same lines as Gibson. I understand that he was trying to evoke a sense that we are all responsible for the death of Jesus (Gibson himself shows his guilt by driving the nail into Christ’s hand). He also goes to great lengths to show that the crucifixion was not Sunday School sweet. Unfortunately, I feel as though Gibson conveyed his message with mixed results.
At the end of Braveheart, Gibson’s last directing gig, there’s the unforgettable cry of William Wallace proclaiming, “Freedom.” Just thinking about the scene, I still get goosebumps. The Passion picks up on the theme as Jesus becomes the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. William Wallace was given a somewhat merciful death when you compare it to that of Christ. Gibson depicts both as tortures but Wallace’s was not drawn out like the brutality seen here. While some might argue torture and execution cannot be justified as calm no matter the circumstances, there is a definite difference between the two. The Passion never lets up from 20 minutes in until the final credits. There is no reprieve for the audience. It got to the point where I was no longer reacting as I went into a minor state of shock. Just let it end. Put him out of his misery. I felt myself thinking and squirming at several points. But that’s just the point. The crucifixion never was pretty. But somehow in the near 2,000 years with which the legend has been told and retold, the violent nature of the incident had been overlooked. The Passion gets back to the most violent details of the event and stays there.
Much controversy has surrounded The Passion and much of the debate isn’t so much on the violence and torture as the perceived presence of anti-Semitism. While I don’t see it myself, I did find the Jewish and Roman “villains” to be the weakest part of the film. They are a collection of cartoon characters given little to no background or context. So when Gibson shows them as grizzly men with crooked teeth akin to Hollywood pirates, that’s all they become. They are given no time to show reason, rather they are simply persecutors. Some balance or at least a small explanation for their actions and attitudes would have been nice and offset their one-dimensional barbaric sides somewhat.
Gibson knows how to develop characters to tell a strong story. He did so with Braveheart as every main character had an arc that was developed. In The Passion it’s more hit and miss. Christ is somewhat developed, although his story is so well documented it isn’t necessary to dwell on his background so much. His mother Mary (Maia Morgenstern) is given a strong back story that built stronger emotions within me more than much of the torture. The same can be said for Mary Magdelene (Monica Bellucci).
The enigmatic Satan figure, on the other hand, feels more like something David Lynch might try. Androgynous and without hair, he is the temptation trying to get Christ to drop his perfection and give up on his Father, on the world. He is indeed frightening, but more in an odd way rather than the threat to humanity that he is. Iconic snakes and suckling dwarves are the memorable images I have of him rather than his actual temptations.
As time passes and The Passion breaks box office records, there are increasing parallels between this film and D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation. I’m not suggesting that The Passion is racist like Birth of a Nation, but rather the comparisons rest in the reaction to both films. Each were blockbusters in their time. Despite protests, Griffith’s movie that drew the Ku Klux Klan as the country’s saviors was at a time the most popular film of all time. The Passion has already become the biggest independent film ever and will likely make close to a billion dollars worldwide. In response to the critical lambasting Griffith received for Birth of a Nation, he went on to bankroll his follow-up, Intolerance, himself. The film, which was a direct jab at his critics and it almost bankrupted Griffith. Now in response to his critics claiming The Passion might be anti-Semitic, Gibson is openly hinting his follow-up will be based on the origins of Hanukkah. It just goes to show that movies aren’t always about entertainment.
I never expected to view The Passion as some disposable popcorn flick. I came at it as something to experience and that’s exactly what happened. Although artistically sound and thematically commendable, The Passion is ultimately a mixed bag. While there is some gorgeous work happening, it feels as though Gibson almost became too passionate about his pet project to view it a little more critically himself. I wanted to be moved. Really, I did. A lot. Instead, I left cold.
The Passion of the Christ Gallery
Trailer
