To say this film has divided audiences—both Christian and non-Christian
alike—is an understatement of biblical proportions. Like Jesus, the
person whose final twelve hours on earth this movie portrays, The
Passion of the Christ has been criticized from virtually every angle
you can imagine. On one hand, it’s been condemned as anti-Semitic,
obsessed with gore and blood, pro-Catholic to the point of distraction
and historically inaccurate. Others have called it uplifting, inspiring
and one of the most effective evangelistic tools ever made. This
controversy is fitting, seeing as reactions to Jesus himself varied
from those who wanted to crown him as king to those who wanted to
execute him as a traitor and blasphemer. It’s no wonder this film has
received similar treatment. But, as with Christ, the question remains:
Whose version of the truth are we to believe?
Visually speaking,
The Passion of the Christ ranks as perhaps the best “Jesus film” ever
made. Featuring brilliant performances from its mostly unknown cast,
superb cinematography, meticulous accurate costuming and set design,
and a camera that refuses to waver even as chunks of flesh are torn
from Christ’s body, this film succeeds in capturing the brutality of
Jesus’ treatment at the hands of his Jewish and Roman captors like
never before. Further enhancing the sense of realism is the fact that
all dialogue is spoken in the original Aramaic, Jewish and Latin
languages. If you’ve ever wondered what it would have been like to be
there on location during Christ’s trial, torture and execution, this
film is for you. But be warned: Everything you’ve heard about the
violence is true—and then some. So please, please, leave the kids at
home. I’m not one to whitewash the truth, but I wouldn’t take my
children to a public execution either just so they could see what it
was like.
Historical accuracy from a visual point of view is one thing. But
remaining true to Jesus’ life from a factual point of view is quite
another. In this case, The Passion of the Christ is a far cry from such
“literal” retellings of Jesus’ life as The JESUS Film. Drawing from his
own Catholic tradition as well as the writings of St. Anne Catherine
Emmerich and St. Mary of Agreda, Gibson adds his fair share of literary
and theological embellishments to the gospel accounts. For example,
Satan (played by a woman, no less) keeps popping up at key moments in
the film, as do a pack of child-like demons. Flashbacks to Jesus’
earlier life as a young child, as a “pre-ministry” adult and as leader
of the disciples are also interwoven into the passion narrative. The
film also includes such apocryphal scenes as Mary and Mary Magdalene
mopping up Jesus’ blood after his flogging, the meeting between Jesus
and St. Veronica on the way to Golgotha (one of the stations of the
cross), the prolonged interaction between Jesus and Simon of Cyrene and
the raven plucking out the thief’s eye after he question’s Jesus
authority while hanging on the cross. Most viewers probably won’t
notice such additions to the biblical accounts. But be prepared for
questions afterward as people try to parse out what the Bible says
versus fiction and/or Catholic tradition.
Perhaps because of Gibson’s Catholic background, this is also very
cross-centered, gore-obsessed film. In this respect, the movie tends to
spend an inordinate amount of time dwelling on the torture and
crucifixion of Christ and very little time describing the purpose for
his suffering or the glorious resurrection that followed. While many
hail the torture sequence as an unflinching account of Jesus’ actual
experience, the beating Jesus receives in this film is so brutal and
prolonged it borders on the implausible. I’d really like to hear a
physician’s opinion on the likelihood of anyone even surviving never
mind remaining conscious and carrying his cross after receiving the
sort of beating Jesus does in this film. I’d also like to hear a
theologian’s opinion on the accuracy of this sequence, because, to my
understanding, thirty-nine lashes were all that was allowed under Roman
law. But in this film, Jesus got more like seventy times seven. Thus,
at a certain point, it begins to feel like director Mel Gibson has
mistaken the degree of suffering Jesus experienced as being more
important than the identity of the person being punished. The way I see
it, the emphasis of the gospels is not that Jesus suffered more than
any person who ever lived but that Jesus was God and yet he willingly
turned himself over to his creation and let them do with him as they
wished. In no way do I want to downplay what Jesus went through, but I
don’t think overstating the case does us any good either. And that’s
exactly what I think Gibson does in this film.
Taken as one man’s interpretation of Christ, this film merits much
discussion and debate. An entire book could be written on Gibson’s
unique approach to this compelling story. Indeed, there’s already been
as much ink spilled about this film as there was artificial blood in
making it. So if all Gibson hoped to do was re-ignite public dialogue
about the person and mission of Christ, he has already succeeded. And
if he wanted to make a lot of money in the process, more power to him.
He’s scored big on that front as well.
Beyond mere controversy or box office numbers, however, Gibson should
also be congratulated on an artistic level. Not only has he remained
true to his original vision throughout a storm of opposition, the final
product is a powerful piece of religious cinema that will definitely
stand the test of time. While in many cases the artistic license he has
taken with the passion narrative serves to enhance the story, at times
it also tends to muddy the waters. So if you want to get the straight
goods on Jesus, I recommend you return to the books of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John in the Bible. Prepare to be surprised though: You just
may discover a Jesus you never knew.