JESUS CHRIST GOES TO THE MOVIES
I have been up for seven hours trying to write this review as best I can for you people. But it's not a review and I have failed. It says nothing about the movie that I think it should say. Don't let me fool you! This is a good movie. You should see it at cinemas. Go twice if you want. I will be.
This is my reaction to something that I am conflicted over. Do I review the film as it is? Or do I review the ability of the director to make the film he hoped to make? In this case I have done the latter. I have failed as a critic and become a foolish man of self-important theory. I have failed.
Forgive me.
Enjoy.
Oh, there was a lot to take into consideration this afternoon as I sat down to watch Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. I'm sure it's been the same for everyone, of course, but that didn't make it any easier for me. How could I look at the film objectively when along with everyone else in the world I'd been hearing about it for months and months on end? It didn't help that I'd been too busy to see it on opening day. The pundits had already begun to do their thing. Everyone had an opinion, and by Hell they wanted to share it with me. So, what's a guy to do?
Admittedly, I'd been really good with this one. I'd not read any reviews or anything and I'd even refrained from talking about it to others in relaxed and social settings. It was interesting to note, then, as I waltzed into the cinema, that I felt sort of...tingly. I couldn't help but feel that I was lining up for a scary amusement park ride that I [quite surprisingly, given the circumstances] knew very little about.
And it's interesting that I use this analogy because an amusement park ride and The Passion of the Christ ultimately have quite a lot in common. To say this at such an early stage in my reflection, however, would be to misconstrue how I felt about the film. There are a lot of bases that need to be covered, because I had a lot of reactions to this movie.
And note, just now, that I called it a movie.
I wrote recently that the world has started mistaking "good movies" for "high-art," and I used the primary example of Peter Jackson and The Lord of the Rings to illustrate this. I don't think Jackson himself has made this mistake [his intention, as far as I can tell, was never to make anything other than "popcorn flicks"], but the world at large has. As far as intention goes, Jackson was successful [and kudos to him for that].
And therein lies the rub of the whole matter. One must judge a film on the intentions of its maker, and for all its strong points [and I'll get to them], the thing with The Passion of the Christ is that the finished film does not completely achieve what I think Mel Gibson set out to.
And like it or not, it all comes down to the violence. The Passion of the Christ, as you have no doubt heard, is a very violent movie. Disturbingly violent. Unthinkably violent. Until you've seen just how violent this picture is, I don't think you can comprehend what those of us who have are talking about. We're not just talking about nails through hands and feet and flesh and stuff [and that's what I was expecting, let's be honest]. We're talking about whipping and flaying and scourging with metal whips and graphically, graphically so.
Now, I'm not saying that there's "too much" violence in the movie. Don't for a minute think that I thought the violence was excessive. There's a lot of it, yes, but I don't kid myself with the notion that punishment was any less graphic at that point in history than Gibson presented it in the movie. Actually, in reality it was probably worse. The thing is, however, that the violence, though accurate, really gets in the way of everything else. Or rather, it would do if there was more to get in the way of.
Yes, despite its subject matter, there's really not that much to The Passion of the Christ. It's sorta like Gladiator with Jesus. Besides the wonderful flashbacks to "classic moments" from the New Testament, Gibson's movie pretty much is its violence – which would be fine if we were talking about Kill Bill, but we're not. The Passion of the Christ is a story about the Son of God, and when your intentions are as "pure" as those of Gibson, then there really should be a difference between the two. What the movie lacks is complexity of theme.
So, yes. The problem for me was simply one of intention and complexity [which are, in essence, co-dependents]. Gibson set out to make a thought-provoking film about Christ's final hours and left out the thought-provoking part in the process [though not entirely, so please read on]. The movie, for me, didn't provoke thought because it didn't explore its themes in a way that was [overly] inclusive of its audience. If you encourage a student to conduct his own science experiments then he's going to learn more than the student who's forced to copy notes from a textbook. A film has to be a guided exploration of its theme, not a string of unsupported blanket statements. Does that make sense?
It's not that the film feels arrogant or preachy, but that it feels...well, very sure about its "message". Not that being sure is a bad thing. It's not. It's just very hard for me to describe in words, because it's a very fine line that's being trodden.
Look at Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ to see what I'm getting at. Where The Passion of the Christ says, "Jesus died for our sins and this is what it meant," Last Temptation goes one step further and asks us, "Why did Jesus for our sins and what does that mean?" Gibson's movie chooses to "state" as opposed to "ask," "explore," and [in terms of its audience] "include". There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, it's just a personal preference thing. Gibson's faith is there on the screen fully-formed, while Scorsese's being to appear the more we search [with him] for it. Personally, I like to participate as much as I like to observe.
And so that's my first problem with the movie. In wanting to make statements and draw conclusions without discussing how they were reached or what they entail, Gibson automatically forfeits a great deal of his film's complexity [and its potential] in the process. It becomes, like The Lord of the Rings, a simple morality tale – good versus evil, with Jesus representing the good. However, it's not as though The Lord of the Rings doesn't work despite this. As I've discussed, Peter Jackson never intended to do anything other than what he did. Because of the type of films they are, because of their genre and their purpose, they need not be morally complex. The Passion of the Christ is not The Lord of the Rings, however, and personally, I think Gibson intended for the film to be "more" than just a popcorn movie. I think he intended for it to be "high-art". But "high-art" must, must, must be more complex than The Passion of the Christ is. Gibson, as I've said, wants to be thought-provoking and confronting, but there's a thin line between "confronting" and "shocking," and The Passion of the Christ falls on the wrong side of it.
When one watches Lars von Trier's Dogville, the ideas he explodes are "confronting". They're difficult. When one watches The Passion of the Christ, however, the ideas are surprisingly "safe" and it’s the visuals that are difficult. The impact upon the audience, then, is not cerebral but visceral. Look at it this way: will seeing a man get crucified really make you re-evaluate your values and belief systems? I'll bet it doesn't. It takes you out of your comfort zone, sure, but it does so without forcing you to ask yourself any of the questions that matter. The Passion of the Christ is "shocking," but it's not "confronting".
And I can't help but feel that if the movie had been as anti-Semitic as people many presumed it might be, then it would've probably been more confronting than it actually was as well. And that really could've been interesting. Of course, the movie does, let it be said, do the whole visceral thing very, very well, but I'm absolutely convinced that Gibson wanted to do more than just shock his audience with a whole lot of blood, and therein lies the ultimate rub. You must be able to judge a film on the intentions of its maker. If there was more to Gibson's movie than its violence for violence's sake [in other words, if there was an intricate and detailed discussion in there about why Christ died for us and not just how] maybe then the film could be considered more than just a collection of aesthetically pretty [if not gory] pictures and simple moral statements.
However, though the film is not a masterpiece, it's not a failure either. To be honest, I liked it very much. As far as the realising of Gibson's directorial vision goes, in my mind the film really can't be considered a success. His intentions aside, however, and it's an engaging and shocking ride. The film's use of cinematic technique is a no-holds-barred affair. Gibson uses slow-motion photography like it's going out of fashion and the make-up is some of the most remarkable you'll ever see.
But you know what? The best thing about this movie is its story. It's a killer. As I watched, I couldn't help but appreciate, for one of the first times in my life, the fact that I went to a Catholic primary school. As I watched, I realised that for eight years, I had been subjected to one of the greatest pieces of literature – fictional, Gospel or otherwise – ever written: the Bible. It was such a remarkable thing to be able sit and watch as the Stations of the Cross were each addressed in turn on the screen, and to understand what was actually happening and what it meant [especially as Gibson wasn't really addressing those things too much]. I was particular impressed by the handling of Simon, and when he stared into Christ's eyes at the summit of the mountain, I found that I was incredibly moved.
I also really liked the use of flashbacks. The scenes depicting the Last Supper were the most emotionally engaging of the picture as far as I was concerned, and I couldn't help but wish that Gibson had focused more on the life of Jesus than solely on his Passion. Yes, the film would've probably been less unique in its focus if this had been the case, but there would've also been much more depth to it as well. I really liked Jim Caviezel's portrayal of Jesus, and would have loved it had he been given a greater chance to explore the role. There was something undeniably beautiful about him that was hidden underneath all that blood. Just like with the movie.
But them's the brakes. Oh, well.
I had a discussion with someone recently about the Bible's merits as a story [specifically in regards to the Gospels, though Exodus is awesome too]. The thing that most people don't realise is that the thing's really worth reading. Whether you're a believer or not, the story's a good one. And that's what's so infuriating about The Passion of the Christ. It's been founded on a great story, but has wasted absolute gobs of potential. It's all a matter of complexity and intention, and Gibson didn't achieve what he set out to [or at least, not in my opinion].
Moral simplicity is all very good and well if you're a Hobbit, but Jesus Christ was not one. Mel Gibson has made a good, solid movie, but not a piece of "high-art". And as he set out to do the latter, he has ultimately failed.
Reply to Topic
What are they expecting the people working in the theaters to do about that?
I hope you write more for the forum.