The Passion of the Christ ****
Cast: James Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Maia Morgenstern, Mattia Sbragia, Hristo Shopov, Luca Lionello, Hristo Jivkov, Claudia Gerini, Francesco De Vito, and Rosalinda Celentano.
Director: Mel Gibson.
Writer(s): Benedict Fitzgerald and Mel Gibson.
Country: USA
Language: Aramaic/Hebrew/Latin
Length: 126 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated R for sequences of graphic violence.
Released: 2004
I was raised in a very religious home. As far back as I can remember, my childhood consisted of church on Sunday mornings, Sunday evenings, Wednesday evenings, as well as Thursday evenings. My Mother, God rest her soul, was an extremely devout Assembly’s of God Christian, almost to the point of being a zealot. Her Brother, my Uncle, was an Evangelist, so was his wife. My elder Brother joined the flock as a Minister, so I also learned from him, whether I wanted to or not. I have been a believer, a non-believer, a back-slider, a denier, and an Agnostic throughout my life. Now, I have no idea what I believe, or what I don’t believe, or what my faith may consist of, or not consist of, though I do have a feeling that faith is almost instinctual (at least with me) with most people nowadays. Though a person may deny the existence of God, there is still a small kernel, more often than not, deep down inside, that believes. No matter what kind of belief you may have, or non-belief, for that matter,
The Passion of the Christ is a film that will probably leave an emotional impact on you, and may even possibly lead to a deeper introspection of everything you have ever know before. If that was Mel Gibson’s motive, then he was probably successful.
The Passion of the Christ begins with Jesus’ (James Caviezel) arrest at Gethsemane. It is there where he is filled with fear and worry about what is to befall him, and what the future may hold. It is also there, where Lucifer (Rosalinda Celentano) tries to tempt Jesus to abandon his God and to take the easier path, which can only lead him to damnation. While this is happening, Judas (Luca Lionello) is selling Christ to Caiphas (Mattia Sbragia), the Pharisee leader of the Sanhedrin, for 30 pieces of silver. Judas, who’s motives are never truly known, informs on Jesus’ whereabouts and assures that he will kiss the man known as Jesus of Nazareth, so the soldier’s will know who to arrest. When the soldier’s of the Sanhedrin (The Bible notes that it is actually Roman soldier’s, not Jewish) accost Jesus and ask his name, it is Judas who provides the proof by giving a kiss that equals death upon Jesus. Jesus says onto Judas, “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” Thus, the beginning of the end befalls them both.
During the next hundred minutes, or so, we are to be witnesses of the extreme brutality that Christ suffered during the last twelve hours of his life. It is a brutality so severe, that many critics are calling Mel Gibson a sadist, with a perverse taste for the macabre. I don’t personally see him as such. I see Mr. Gibson as a man whose faith tells him to tell a story that can, and most likely will, reach people in a way that will cause pause for reflection and introspection about their beliefs, or simply their lives. I suppose for a devote Christian, if one soul can be saved with the making of this film, then the millions of dollars spent on it, well, are well spent. Regardless of what Gibson’s motives were for making this film, what resulted was a contemporary masterpiece.
I’d like to take a moment to address the issues that many critics and viewers are sharing about the overall message this film delivers. I have read that some Christians are unhappy because
The Passion of the Christ totally bypasses the true meaning of Christianity; love. I really don’t understand this viewpoint at all. Gibson didn’t want to make another movie about Christ where he delivers his message from the Temple on the Mount, resurrects Lazarus, or heals the leper. Gibson wanted to make a film that would give us an insight of the supreme sacrifice Jesus made for all of us. I cannot, for the life of me, see how that isn’t a message of love. Just because a person feels uncomfortable seeing what he went through, the extremely horrendous truth of it, doesn’t mean that the message is wrong, or not there at all. Quite the contrary, what greater example of God’s love could be shown to us? He gave his own Son to save the lot of us. That God would, and did, let his son take the sins of our kind onto himself, and that Jesus bore this burden without regret or resentment, is a testament for both of their capacities for love. It’s completely ludicrous to me that somebody could claim that this film has lost its purpose, and ultimately strayed from its intent and idealism.
|
Another, well, actually, the largest, controversy in regards to this film, is whether or not it is anti-Semitic. Throughout the film it depicts many of the Jews hating Jesus and calling for his crucifixion. Well, I hate to break this to you all, but that happened. It also shows Pontius Pilate as being regrettable for being forced to comply with the Pharisee’s demands. Again, that’s what is documented, too bad if you don’t like it. It’s also true that Claudia, Pilate’s wife, was a believer in Christ, and begged Pontius to spare Jesus’ life…are we starting to see a trend here? Gibson didn’t lean one way or another at all, he stayed within the Testament, and provided us with a graphic illustration of what happened. It can’t be helped that there are ignorant people out there that want to lump an entire race together and accuse them of being Christ killers (I, personally, am not that ignorant). The only way to give idiot’s like that any merit is to acknowledge their claims by being defensive of them. To not afford them with any form of denial is to rob them of the strength for their argument. Claiming the Jews were at fault for killing Jesus is ridiculous. It wasn’t the Jews, it was the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. They were threatened by Jesus, that is to say, the leaders who had control of the populace were threatened by him. They knew that if Jesus were to establish to strong a hold over the population, they were, basically, out of a job. That’s a human for you. It could have easily been any type of religious entity that could have felt that threat and acted on it. It just so happens that it all happened in a Jewish land. They were men in power, not an entire faith. Those men were the ones who instigated it. Not the Jews. Another viewpoint about that that I like, is what Roger Ebert said on the subject, “Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him”. That’s an opinion that I really believe in, because it makes perfect sense, and is a completely logical conclusion if you are a true believer of God’s doctrine.
|
I’d like to get back to the movie at this point, instead of focusing on all of the religious faction’s arguments why this movie should not be respected. But there is one thing I feel obligated to say before I continue; do not take any young children to see this. The torture that Jesus goes through is much too realistic for young eyes. There are scenes where flesh is torn from Jesus’ body by cat-o’-nine-tails (a whip made up of knotted tails with bits of metal or glass attached) that is up close and personal, scenes where he is punched in the face in such a realistic manner, I heard people in the audience gasp and moan, scenes where Jesus is shown with his flesh torn so much that he appears to me more ripped flesh than whole, and scenes where Satan is involved that could easily terrify small children. Please think twice before taking anyone under the age of thirteen.
There were so many different scenes that broke my heart that I lost count. It began with Peter (Francesco De Vito). According to the Gospel of Mathew, Jesus says unto Peter, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." Peter, of course, doesn’t believe him all together. He says to Jesus that he would follow him anywhere, even unto death, but when Jesus is arrested and brought to the Sanhedrin temple to face judgment, people in the crowd recognize Peter as one of Jesus’ disciples. When they grab on to him and begin to denounce him, he swears that he is not Peter, for fear of death, and that he has never seen Jesus before in his life. There is a moment, after peter has denounced Jesus three times, that Jesus looks Peter in the eye from across the chamber, and the memory of what Jesus said floods back into Peter’s memory. The look on Peter’s face can break the Ice Queen’s heart, especially when he runs from the room and is confronted by John, Mary, and Magdalene. It is there where he falls to the floor on his knees in front of Mary and confesses his weaknesses, and it is also where my heart breaks for the first time. There are many more scenes like that, so I won’t waste your time by listing them. But, needless to say, even the most stalwart person will have a hard time not being moved by the endless heartbreaks portrayed in this movie.
|
I must say that James Caviezel is the perfect choice for the role of Jesus. He is a beautiful man who is easy to love, and it is because of this, I’m sure, that he was chosen for the role. Computer enhancement was used to color his eyes brown (they are naturally pale blue), and he spent some time tanning, to make sure that he could pass for a Jewish man. I’ve read a couple of reviews that bashed the film for using a whit man for the role of Jesus. I can see the validity for that argument to a certain extent, but the truth is, James Caviezel is a beautiful man. It is easier for the audience to feel compassion for a man that resembles the stereotypical rendition of Christ, and is also so handsome and charismatic, that it is hard not to love him. Caviezel is so wonderful in the role, that it may be, for some, what they picture in their dreams and prayers when they picture Jesus. I’m equally impressed with the way Caviezel learned Hebrew and Aramaic for the role. He spoke it with pitch perfect tone and inflection. That must have been extraordinarily difficult, so I only have a deeper respect for him as an actor. Actually, all of the actors did an extraordinary job. I truly, and literally, hated the Roman soldiers that were in charge of the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus. They played the hateful soldier’s so perfectly, that most of the audience was sickened by them. The acting all around was superb (I was especially impressed with Rosalinda Celentano’s portrayal of Satan; wicked and eerie, to say the least).
|
Upon viewing this film, I could only see a small handful of liberties used by Gibson in the interpretation of the Biblical text. One was who actually arrested Jesus, another was the destruction to the temple during the earthquake after Jesus dies. In the Bible, the temple head is separated from the common room with a huge curtain, and the curtain is rent asunder during the earthquake. In the movie, however, it shows the cement steps and platform being broken in two. It is certainly more dramatic that way, and really doesn’t take away from the overall message; that the Christ was really the Son of God, and that his death caused the destruction. According to Abenader (Fabio Sartor), the Sanhedrin attorney, Jesus claimed that he could tear asunder the temple, and rebuild it in 3 days. It took decades for them to build the temple, which is why he used this as another blasphemous utterance by Jesus, because he believed there was no way to build the Temple in only three days. Little did he know that Jesus was talking about himself; being his death and resurrection, and not the actual Sanhedrin temple itself.
|
Another point about the film I’d like to address is the pitch perfect score by John Debney. Not only is it beautiful and haunting, but it never takes away from the film itself. There are so many movies (Spielberg’s for example) where the massive score detracts from the film itself. It can sometimes become a nuisance, but not here. The score plays well with the film in a way that it isn’t obtrusive or distracting in any way. It is as perfect as the film itself. Caleb Deschanel’s cinematography is also a wonder to behold. At times it is so close that you can almost smell the sweat and blood, and at other times, just the perfect distance away from the action where you can get the true feel of all the different personalities involved. It is truly a beautiful film to look at, regardless of its brutality. I find it hard to find a complaint to lodge against either of these men. I am in awe.
My total analysis of
The Passion of the Christ is this: It is a beautiful film about a beautiful person, during his beautiful sacrifice for an ugly people. We should look at this film with an open eye and be humbled, because above all, it is a message of love, given to us by a loving man, with love in his heart, and all we have to do is accept it.
