← Back to Reviews
in
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Lookback/Review by Markdc
The late, great William Goldman—Oscar-winning screenwriter of such enduring film classics as All the President’s Men, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Princess Bride—once said “nobody knows anything.” This deceptively simple quote contains more wisdom and insight than at least half of the screenplays that have ever been written. Goldman was talking about the nature of the film industry, and his broader point was that nobody—not studio executives, professional critics, box office analysts nor anyone else—can ultimately predict whether a given movie will sell or not. Goldman’s full quote, taken from a book he wrote called Adventures in the Screen Trade, is “Nobody knows anything…… Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess and, if you’re lucky, an educated one.” The main takeaway here is that filmmakers should always be faithful to their visions and not surrender to current audience trends or listen to those who think they “know better.” Now, of course, if a director sticks to his or her guns and refuses any compromise, the end result can well be an unmitigated disaster. But, on the other hand, the results can be more successful than anyone ever dreamed—and said director will have the added pleasure of proving the naysayers embarrassingly wrong. You just don’t know. There are few films that illustrate Goldman’s point than Mel Gibson’s 2004 film The Passion of the Christ.
The Passion of the Christ depicts the final 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ, a.k.a. the Messiah or Son of God, and is based on the New Testament (mainly the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) as well as several extra-Biblical literary sources like The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was written by 19th Century German writer Clemens Brentano and based upon the visions of a Catholic nun and mystic named Anne Catherine Emmerich (no relation to Roland). Despite the fact that The Passion of the Christ is an American film, all the dialogue is spoken in three foreign languages—Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew—with English subtitles. (Reportedly, Gibson originally wanted the film to have no subtitles at all.) The movie opens with Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem. A group of local guards take him to the Jewish Temple, where he undergoes a trial held by the Sanhedrin (Jewish elders), who are led by a high priest named Caiaphas. After Jesus informs Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin that he is the Son of God, he’s sentenced to death for the crime of blasphemy. Shortly afterward, Judas Iscariot, a disciple of Christ who betrayed him for 30 pieces of silver, is haunted by guilt for his actions and hangs himself from a tree.
Jesus is brought before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judaea, and after interrogating the Messiah, Pilate delivers him over to the court of King Herod Antipas in Jerusalem since Jesus is from Galilee and thus falls under Herod’s jurisdiction. Herod finds Jesus to be innocent and sends him back to Pilate. The Roman governor, who also believes in Christ’s innocence, doesn’t wish to see him executed, so, in accordance with a Passover tradition, he offers the crowd the choice of releasing Jesus or Barabbas, a notorious prisoner convicted of several crimes, including murder. After the crowd shouts for him to free Barabbas and crucify Jesus, Pilate attempts to forestall execution by commanding that the Messiah be whipped instead. After Jesus is brutally scourged by Roman soldiers, who also place a crown of thorns upon his head, he’s returned to Pilate.
Much to the governor’s dismay, the crowd of Jews, led by Caiaphas, continues to call for Barabbas’ release and Jesus’ crucifixion, and a resigned Pilate finally accedes to their demands. Jesus is then made to bear a wooden cross to Calvary, and along the way, he’s cruelly beaten by Roman soldiers, who at one point force a bystander named Simon of Cyrene to help him carry the cross. (During his arduous journey to Calvary, Jesus is also followed by a group of supporters as well as his parents, Joseph and Mary.) When he arrives at his destination, Jesus is nailed to the cross and dies, but not before bestowing salvation upon a repentant criminal who hangs from an adjoining cross. Once Jesus’ soul departs his body, the Jewish Temple is devastated by an earthquake, and after he is buried, the Messiah is resurrected and leaves his tomb; this final scene sets up the upcoming sequel, Passion II: The Revenge of the Christ. (I’m only kidding! Jesus won’t seek vengeance in the sequel—although you never know with Mel Gibson.)
Given this movie’s subject matter, plus the fact that its dialogue is in three foreign languages, including two dead ones, and features no major stars in its cast, it should come as little surprise that when Mel Gibson sought financial backing for his passion project (no pun intended), every studio in Hollywood turned him down. In the end, Gibson and his film company, Icon Productions, had to provide the $45 million required to produce and market The Passion of the Christ. (While filming in Italy, Gibson reportedly saved a good deal of money by reusing sets left over from the production of Martin Scorsese’s 2002 film Gangs of New York. Coincidentally, Scorsese had, years earlier, made his own movie about Jesus, The Last Temptation of Christ.) Gibson also faced difficulty finding a distributor for The Passion of the Christ, although he eventually secured the help of an independent movie company called Newmarket Films for domestic distribution. Partly because of the unusual nature of his film, Gibson eschewed a traditional marketing strategy in favor of a grassroots campaign aimed at Christian—especially Evangelical—leaders and organizations. For instance, in the months leading up to the movie’s official release date, Gibson held a number of private screenings for Christian audiences that were often followed by lengthy Q&A sessions.
Naturally, many media pundits expected The Passion of the Christ to bomb at the box office. For example, Frank Rich, a columnist for the New York Times, spoke for many when he wrote in August 2003 that “It’s hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America, given that it has no major Hollywood stars and that its dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin.” But when The Passion of the Christ opened on February 25, 2004 (the movie’s release date coincided with Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the season of Lent), it blew away all expectations by earning nearly $84 million during its first weekend at the domestic box office. (Ironically, this Biblical movie would hold the record for the biggest February debut weekend ever until it was knocked off its pedestal by the erotic romantic drama Fifty Shades of Grey in 2015.) By the end of its initial theatrical run, The Passion of the Christ had grossed $370 million in North America and $612 million around the world; it would remain the highest-grossing R-rated film in domestic markets until the release of Deadpool & Wolverine two decades later. Gibson’s unorthodox marketing strategy ended up paying huge dividends, for the incredible financial success of The Passion of the Christ was largely driven by devout Christians, especially Evangelicals, who flocked to the movie in droves. Many theaters were reserved for entire congregations, and the National Association of Evangelicals sold tickets on its official website. Themes from the movie also found their way into sermons and Christian school curriculums.
Although The Passion of the Christ was the recipient of numerous enthusiastic endorsements from prominent Christian leaders, such as Pastors Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and Tim LeHaye, one endorsement became the subject of dispute. On December 17, 2003, Peggy Noonan, Conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal and former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, reported that, according to Stephen McEveety, a co-producer of The Passion of the Christ, Archbishop Stanisław Dziwisz, secretary to Pope John Paul II, informed him that the pontiff had recently viewed a rough cut of the film and said of it afterward: “It is as it was.” That same day, John L. Allen Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter put out a similar story, and on the following day, this news was confirmed by the Associated Press and Reuters, who used their own Vatican sources. However, on Christmas Eve, a Vatican official, speaking under the guise of anonymity, told the Catholic News Service, “The Holy Father does not comment, does not give judgments on art. I repeat: There was no declaration, no judgment from the pope.” On January 9, 2004, Allen wrote an article in which he stood by his earlier story, writing that his source at the Vatican “is adamant that the original story was right — the pope did indeed say, ‘It is as it was.’” On January 18, the New York Times’ Frank Rich alleged that “It is as it was” was being “exploited by the Gibson camp” in a cynical ploy to market The Passion of the Christ. However, Rich didn’t challenge the veracity of the quote itself. This happened later that day when Archbishop Dziwisz informed the Catholic News Service, “The Holy Father told no one his opinion of this film.” The rest of the month witnessed a furious—and somewhat ludicrous—back-and-forth between Vatican officials who denied John Paul II uttered his now-infamous quote after watching The Passion of the Christ and journalists and members of the movie’s production team who claimed they were told by Vatican sources that he did indeed say it, with statements and evidence seemingly pointing in both directions. (As of this writing, it’s still not entirely clear who was telling the truth in this matter.)
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that The Passion of the Christ was a smash hit with Christian audiences. Interestingly, the film also proved popular in the Arab world in spite of its artistic depiction of a man Muslims consider to be a prophet—something verboten in Islam. Although The Passion of the Christ was banned in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, it attracted large audiences in a number of Muslim countries, including Lebanon, Qatar, Egypt, and Syria. The alleged papal endorsement of the movie may have been contested, but one prominent endorsement that wasn’t in dispute—though was probably less welcome—came from Yasser Arafat, president of the Palestinian National Authority and Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). After seeing The Passion of the Christ, the infamous terrorist leader called it “historic and impressive.” Also, an aide of Arafat’s compared the plight of the Messiah in the film to that of his people: “The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.” (Although The Passion of the Christ was never officially banned in Israel, it went virtually unseen in the Jewish state since no Israeli distributor would touch it with a 20-foot pole.)
The Passion of the Christ became one of the most controversial movies ever made and ignited a firestorm of criticism. This was largely due to two factors. The first was its alleged anti-Semitic content. Accusations of anti-Semitism were leveled at The Passion of the Christ months before its release. After a copy of the movie’s script was leaked in March 2003, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a Jewish organization whose purpose is to combat anti-Semitism, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) teamed up to analyze it and determine if the script contained elements that could be construed as anti-Semitic. To this end, Dr. Eugene Fisher of the USCCB and Rabbi Dr. Eugene Korn convened a panel made up of nine members—five Catholics and four Jews. When this interfaith group finished its work, it reached the conclusion that “a film based on the script they had been shown would promote anti-Semitic sentiments.” According to the panel, The Passion of the Christ’s screenplay fostered anti-Semitic stereotypes and beliefs, especially the one which held that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. The study group also blasted the script’s “significant historical errors” and called Gibson “a fringe Catholic who is building his own church in the Los Angeles area and who apparently accepts neither the teachings of Vatican II nor modern biblical scholarship.” Shortly afterward, the ADL issued a statement accusing Gibson and his upcoming movie of being ignorant (or worse) of how prior depictions of the Passion of Jesus had contributed to anti-Semitic hatred and violence, saying, in part: “Productions such as The Passion could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews.”
Mel Gibson responded to his critics by saying the script that the USCCB had obtained—which he claimed was stolen—was outdated and that his upcoming movie was “a work in progress.” He also said he was consulting Christian and Jewish scholars and maintained that “Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs; it is also contrary to the core message of my movie. 'The Passion' is a film meant to inspire, not offend.” Gibson did make some changes to his movie in an effort to tamp down the controversy. For instance, he removed the English subtitles from a crucial scene in which Caiaphas, determined to see Jesus crucified, cries, “His blood [is] on us and on our children!” However, he retained the quote itself and explained his reason for doing so in an interview with the New Yorker: “I wanted it in. My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house. They'd come to kill me.” And in an interview for the Globe and Mail shortly before the film’s release, Gibson said, “If anyone has distorted Gospel passages to rationalize cruelty towards Jews or anyone, it's in defiance of repeated Papal condemnation. The Papacy has condemned racism in any form...Jesus died for the sins of all times, and I'll be the first on the line for culpability.” However, the criticism and controversy were clearly getting to Gibson. For instance, after the New York Times’ Frank Rich wrote a column in which he claimed the purpose of the famous filmmaker’s promotional campaign for his upcoming movie was to “bait Jews” and “sow religious conflict,” Gibson responded in a most un-Christlike manner: “I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. . . . I want to kill his dog.”
The firestorm continued to grow in the months and weeks leading up to The Passion of the Christ’s opening day. When the ADL’s Rabbi Korn snuck into a screening in August 2003 and viewed a rough cut, he declared, “Those people who are anti-Semitic or bigoted who watch this movie will find that their sense of prejudice and hatred will be strengthened.” After ADL national director Abraham Foxman and other representatives from the organization viewed the finished film in late January 2004, they released a statement claiming, “For those who will see this film, the poisonous accusation that the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus will be unambiguous and clear.” The statement also expressed concern that the movie possessed “the potential to adversely affect years of progress in Catholic-Jewish relations and the possibility that it will fuel new anti-Semitism.” A few people went beyond the ADL’s expressed worries and openly predicted that The Passion of the Christ would incite anti-Jewish violence. For instance, Dov Hikind, a New York State assemblyman and New York City Council member who organized a Passion-ate protest in front of a movie theater in Times Square on February 24, 2004, the day before the film opened nationwide, said this after attending a pre-release screening: “I don’t have any doubt this film will cause anti-Semitism. I don’t have any doubt that this film will result in violence.” Also, in a July 2003 piece for the New Republic, Dr. Paula Fredriksen, one of the members of the interfaith panel that reviewed the leaked copy of the script for The Passion of the Christ, expressed her opinion that the movie wouldn’t spark anti-Semitic violence in the U.S. but also wrote, “But I shudder to think how The Passion will play once its subtitles shift from English to Polish, or Spanish, or French, or Russian. When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.” And one week before the release of The Passion of the Christ, Hutton Gibson, Mel’s father and an ardent Catholic Traditionalist like his son, further fanned the flames when he expressed doubt concerning the veracity of the Holocaust to a radio interviewer, saying, “It’s all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is.”
Indeed, the controversy over the film’s alleged anti-Semitism was a major reason why Gibson couldn’t get a major Hollywood studio to release The Passion of the Christ in the U.S. (Twentieth Century Fox initially had a first-look deal with Icon Productions but decided to pass on a chance to distribute the movie in August 2003 after protesters demonstrated outside of its headquarters in New York City.) It also explains why Gibson embarked upon his unorthodox marketing strategy of previewing a rough cut to mostly-friendly (and predominantly Christian) audiences. And just as Gibson had hoped, Christians—mainly Evangelicals—who saw the film prior to its official release date voiced their support for The Passion of the Christ and defended it against charges of anti-Semitism. However, it should also be noted that the movie had its Jewish defenders, too. For example, Michael Medved and Rabbi Daniel Lapin, two prominent radio hosts and Orthodox Jews, praised The Passion of the Christ and rejected the notion that it was anti-Semitic. In March 2004, Medved wrote, “The hysterical denunciations of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ by some influential organizations in the Jewish community reached their crescendo long before the movie's release, and began even before he had finished filming it. This proves that the charges of anti-Semitism surrounding this project for more than a year arose not from an honest assessment of the film, but from political prejudice and organizational imperatives.” Rabbi Marc Gellman, an advice columnist and advocate for interfaith dialogue, also defended the film, saying, “Jews who are secure in their Jewishness and secure in the compassion of their Christian friends will see the Christian story in a new way.” And Conservative Jewish commentator David Horowitz described The Passion of the Christ as “an awesome artefact” and said, “I can't remember being so affected by a film before. It is a racking emotional journey which never strays from its inspirational purpose. It is as close to a religious experience that art can get.”
Predictably, The Passion of the Christ received a highly polarized reaction from professional film critics, who—on the whole—judged it rather negatively. Many reviewers excoriated the movie for its alleged anti-Semitism. Jami Bernard of the New York Daily News, for instance, called The Passion of the Christ “the most virulently anti-Semitic movie since the German propaganda films of World War Two.” Writing for the New Republic, Leon Wieseltier wrote, “In its representation of its Jewish characters, The Passion of the Christ is without any doubt an anti-Semitic movie.” Critics also lambasted The Passion of the Christ for its extreme, pervasive violence—the second factor that made the movie so controversial. Throughout the film’s two-hour running time, Jesus is beaten, whipped, crowned with thorns, and finally nailed to the cross—a hideous ordeal that is portrayed in graphic, and often gruesome, detail. (After The Passion of the Christ was released nationwide, media outlets reported instances of audience members wincing, shaking, crying, vomiting, and—in at least two cases—dying of heart attacks. However, it should be noted here that the film also produced several positive outcomes. For instance, in late March 2004, Dan R. Leach, a Texas man who had murdered his pregnant girlfriend and fooled authorities into thinking that her death had been a suicide, was so moved after seeing The Passion of the Christ that he went to the police and confessed his crime.) David Denby of the New Yorker called The Passion of the Christ “a sickening death trip” and “one of the cruellest [sic] movies in the history of the cinema.” Slate’s David Edelstein called The Passion of the Christ “a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it’s an act of faith.” For his part, Newsweek’s David Ansen wrote, “Relentlessly savage, ‘The Passion’ plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade.” And in the same review in which he lambasted the movie for its perceived anti-Semitism, Leon Wieseltier said, “The only cinematic achievement of ‘The Passion of the Christ’ is that it breaks new ground in the verisimilitude of filmed violence.”
However, a number of critics lauded the film. One of these was the Chicago Sun-Times’ Roger Ebert, who awarded The Passion of the Christ a perfect four-star rating. Ebert, who had been raised Catholic, wrote, “What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of.” He also defended the movie against the charge of anti-Semitism: “My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably.” It should also be noted that, controversial elements aside, many critics praised several aspects of The Passion of the Christ’s production, such as its performances, cinematography, and music. (The allegations of anti-Semitism resurfaced in the summer of 2006 after Gibson made anti-Semitic remarks to a sheriff’s deputy—who happened to be Jewish—following a DUI arrest. Some of his detractors cited the incident as “proof” that The Passion of the Christ was anti-Semitic. For example, the filmmaker Rob Reiner, who is also Jewish, said Gibson must admit that “his work reflects anti-Semitism” before he could be “redeemed.”) In early 2005, The Passion of the Christ was nominated for Academy Awards in three categories—Best Cinematography, Best Makeup, and Best Original Score—but failed to win any of them. Bizarrely, the movie was also nominated for the American Film Institute’s (AFI) “100 Years...100 Cheers” list alongside such upbeat films as Chariots of Fire and Rain Man. (I get that many people found The Passion of the Christ to be spiritually fulfilling, but for two straight hours, it depicts a poor guy undergoing the kind of pain and suffering that would have scared away the albino monk from The Da Vinci Code. Just where was the cheering supposed to come in?) In March 2005, Gibson released an edited version of The Passion of the Christ called The Passion Recut, which omitted approximately five minutes of the most explicit material. However, this shorter iteration was a box office bust, barely grossing half a million dollars. The Passion of the Christ remains controversial to this day, and if its dismal 49 percent rating on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes is any indication, professional critics don’t hold the movie in any higher esteem now than they did when it was first released two decades ago. However, The Passion of the Christ remains deeply popular with Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) in America and around the world. Also, following the film’s massive financial success, Hollywood studios suddenly found that old-time religion and bankrolled a number of epics featuring Judeo-Christian subjects and themes, including Noah (2014), Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014), and a remake of Ben-Hur (2016).
Before I give my assessment of The Passion of the Christ, I would first like to stress here that I am not a person of faith, nor do I believe in God—which obviously means that I don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God. I’m also not an expert on Christianity or the location and time period in which this movie takes place. Therefore, I’m not equipped to judge The Passion of the Christ on historical or theological grounds. However, as a lifelong movie buff, I feel that I am capable of judging this film on cinematic grounds. And on this score, The Passion of the Christ is one of the greatest movies I’ve ever seen and a true visual work of art. Indeed, I consider The Passion of the Christ to be the Sistine Chapel of films about the Messiah; watching it is like witnessing the Stations of the Cross come to life. In my retrospective review for Warren Beatty’s Reds, I said I always love it when a filmmaker puts his or her career on the line for a deeply-held conviction, and that principle certainly applies in the case of Mel Gibson’s masterpiece. In my opinion, The Passion of the Christ was hands-down the finest American film of its year, though I totally understand why the Academy didn’t nominate it for Best Picture.
There are so many wonderful things about this movie, but I must first start out with the great cast. The best performance here is, of course, by Jim Caviezel as Jesus Christ. I’ve loved Caviezel as an actor ever since I saw him in Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line, and, in expressing the agony and perseverance of the Messiah, he gave his career-defining work in The Passion of the Christ. The suffering that Caviezel went through to deliver his iconic performance alone should have warranted an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. Reportedly, Caviezel experienced a bout of pneumonia, an infected lung, a dislocated shoulder, hypothermia, migraines, and several accidental whippings while filming his scenes. (The actor also claimed in an interview that he and Jan Michelini, the assistant director, were struck by lightning. However, I don’t believe this story, which strikes me as the sort of tall tale that movie people like to tell in order to promote their films and buff up their reputations.) All of the supporting cast members are magnificent, but my favorite is Maia Morgenstern, who portrays the Blessed Virgin Mary with a gentle, dignified grace; the suffering and sorrow that her character endures as she watches her son undergo the Passion is one that any mother can relate to.
Two aspects of this movie that are crucial to its artistic success are the cinematography by Caleb Deschanel and the musical score by John Debney. Deschanel’s harsh, beautiful photography gives The Passion of the Christ the look of a gorgeous painting. Debney’s music, which combines traditional Western orchestral and choral elements with instruments from all over the world, conveys the film’s universal message while enhancing its emotional impact. Reportedly, Gibson wanted The Passion of the Christ to have no music at all, so I’m glad he eventually changed his mind on this matter. I also think it’s fortunate that Gibson never backed down from his decision to have all the dialogue in The Passion of the Christ be spoken in Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew. The use of these foreign tongues adds a layer of authenticity to the movie, and whenever I watch it, I always turn the English subtitles off in order to better focus on the images unfolding onscreen. Oh, and I just love the sound of Latin.
Although I believe that Mel Gibson would have done himself and his movie much good if he had afforded the Caiaphas character the same complexity that he gave to Pontius Pilate, I don’t think The Passion of the Christ is inherently anti-Semitic. Yes, a number of the Jews in the movie are portrayed as bad guys, but almost all of the good guys are also Jews, including Mary Magdalene, Simon of Cyrene, Jesus’ parents, and—of course—Jesus himself. Near as I can tell, the group who comes off looking the worst in the film are the Romans who beat, whip, and crucify the Messiah. Also, I think it was irresponsible for people to claim publicly that The Passion of the Christ would incite anti-Semitic violence against Jews. (Oh, and by the way, those prophesied pogroms never materialized.) And while I acknowledge that The Passion of the Christ is extremely violent, that doesn’t bother me at all because I believe that the brutal, graphic depiction of the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus was necessary to convey the enormity of the sacrifice he made to cleanse humankind of its sins (according to Christian teaching). However, I also appreciate that Gibson intersperses these harrowing sequences with flashbacks of Jesus’ life, including famous moments like the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper and more personal ones involving Jesus and his mother. The violence in The Passion of the Christ may have received a torrent of criticism, but there’s no doubt in my mind that it was a crucial factor in the film’s box office success; for many Christians, the depiction of Christ’s suffering and crucifixion held spiritual and emotional value. I also suspect that many secular viewers were drawn to the movie and its violent content partly out of curiosity. It should also be noted that The Passion of the Christ was part of a trend of realistic, ultra-violent historical epics that were made in the wake of Gibson’s Braveheart and Ridley Scott’s Gladiator; indeed, in the months between the release of The Passion of the Christ and the end of 2004, Hollywood released no less than three such movies—Wolfgang Peterson’s Troy, Antoine Fuqua’s King Arthur, and Oliver Stone’s Alexander.
With regard to the violence in The Passion of the Christ, what does bother me is that so many adult Christians took young children to see it on the big screen. In 2019, reporters for the entertainment website the A.V. Club interviewed a number of grown-ups who saw the movie at a tender age—even as young as 10 in a few cases. Writes the A.V. Club’s Randall Colburn, “Some weren’t allowed to cover their eyes. Some sobbed. One puked in her seat. For nearly all of them, it was framed as an event by their parents, their pastors, their teachers, none of whom seemed to care that it spilled more gore than a Troma flick. It was mandatory viewing, and, furthermore, it demanded a reaction.” Many church leaders encouraged children to see The Passion of the Christ because they believed that it held educational and spiritual value for them. For example, Jerry Johnston, pastor of the First Family Church in Kansas City, Kansas, called the movie a “wonderful teaching tool” for kids as young as seven. In my opinion, any parent who allowed a little kid to watch The Passion of the Christ in the theater should have received a visit from child services. And while we’re on the subject of violence in films, I find it interesting that many of the same Christians who flocked to The Passion of the Christ largely avoided Catherine Hardwicke’s The Nativity Story, which came out in 2006 and depicted Jesus’ birth, even though that film was a PG-rated, family-friendly affair. (In his review of The Nativity Story, Christianity Today’s David Neff gave a largely positive assessment but—tellingly—complained that it “is not boldly realistic like The Passion of the Christ.”)
In closing, I’d like to say here that there’s no doubt in my mind that if The Passion of the Christ had dealt with a subject favored by American cinema’s cognoscenti, it would have been showered with all kinds of praise and accolades. My hope is that the majority of professional critics eventually come around and acknowledge the artistic merit of this masterpiece—but I won’t hold my breath. Still, I’m thankful that the movie has demonstrated an enduring popularity with millions of Christians around the world. (At least somebody appreciates it.) I have seen four of the five films that Mel Gibson has directed thus far, and The Passion of the Christ is undoubtedly his magnum opus. At a time when Hollywood studios refuse to take risks and constantly crank out conventional, crowd-pleasing superhero flicks, sequels, and reboots, bold, unique works of cinematic art like The Passion of the Christ are needed now more than ever.
Lookback/Review by Markdc
The late, great William Goldman—Oscar-winning screenwriter of such enduring film classics as All the President’s Men, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Princess Bride—once said “nobody knows anything.” This deceptively simple quote contains more wisdom and insight than at least half of the screenplays that have ever been written. Goldman was talking about the nature of the film industry, and his broader point was that nobody—not studio executives, professional critics, box office analysts nor anyone else—can ultimately predict whether a given movie will sell or not. Goldman’s full quote, taken from a book he wrote called Adventures in the Screen Trade, is “Nobody knows anything…… Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess and, if you’re lucky, an educated one.” The main takeaway here is that filmmakers should always be faithful to their visions and not surrender to current audience trends or listen to those who think they “know better.” Now, of course, if a director sticks to his or her guns and refuses any compromise, the end result can well be an unmitigated disaster. But, on the other hand, the results can be more successful than anyone ever dreamed—and said director will have the added pleasure of proving the naysayers embarrassingly wrong. You just don’t know. There are few films that illustrate Goldman’s point than Mel Gibson’s 2004 film The Passion of the Christ.
The Passion of the Christ depicts the final 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ, a.k.a. the Messiah or Son of God, and is based on the New Testament (mainly the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) as well as several extra-Biblical literary sources like The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was written by 19th Century German writer Clemens Brentano and based upon the visions of a Catholic nun and mystic named Anne Catherine Emmerich (no relation to Roland). Despite the fact that The Passion of the Christ is an American film, all the dialogue is spoken in three foreign languages—Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew—with English subtitles. (Reportedly, Gibson originally wanted the film to have no subtitles at all.) The movie opens with Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem. A group of local guards take him to the Jewish Temple, where he undergoes a trial held by the Sanhedrin (Jewish elders), who are led by a high priest named Caiaphas. After Jesus informs Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin that he is the Son of God, he’s sentenced to death for the crime of blasphemy. Shortly afterward, Judas Iscariot, a disciple of Christ who betrayed him for 30 pieces of silver, is haunted by guilt for his actions and hangs himself from a tree.
Jesus is brought before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judaea, and after interrogating the Messiah, Pilate delivers him over to the court of King Herod Antipas in Jerusalem since Jesus is from Galilee and thus falls under Herod’s jurisdiction. Herod finds Jesus to be innocent and sends him back to Pilate. The Roman governor, who also believes in Christ’s innocence, doesn’t wish to see him executed, so, in accordance with a Passover tradition, he offers the crowd the choice of releasing Jesus or Barabbas, a notorious prisoner convicted of several crimes, including murder. After the crowd shouts for him to free Barabbas and crucify Jesus, Pilate attempts to forestall execution by commanding that the Messiah be whipped instead. After Jesus is brutally scourged by Roman soldiers, who also place a crown of thorns upon his head, he’s returned to Pilate.
Much to the governor’s dismay, the crowd of Jews, led by Caiaphas, continues to call for Barabbas’ release and Jesus’ crucifixion, and a resigned Pilate finally accedes to their demands. Jesus is then made to bear a wooden cross to Calvary, and along the way, he’s cruelly beaten by Roman soldiers, who at one point force a bystander named Simon of Cyrene to help him carry the cross. (During his arduous journey to Calvary, Jesus is also followed by a group of supporters as well as his parents, Joseph and Mary.) When he arrives at his destination, Jesus is nailed to the cross and dies, but not before bestowing salvation upon a repentant criminal who hangs from an adjoining cross. Once Jesus’ soul departs his body, the Jewish Temple is devastated by an earthquake, and after he is buried, the Messiah is resurrected and leaves his tomb; this final scene sets up the upcoming sequel, Passion II: The Revenge of the Christ. (I’m only kidding! Jesus won’t seek vengeance in the sequel—although you never know with Mel Gibson.)
Given this movie’s subject matter, plus the fact that its dialogue is in three foreign languages, including two dead ones, and features no major stars in its cast, it should come as little surprise that when Mel Gibson sought financial backing for his passion project (no pun intended), every studio in Hollywood turned him down. In the end, Gibson and his film company, Icon Productions, had to provide the $45 million required to produce and market The Passion of the Christ. (While filming in Italy, Gibson reportedly saved a good deal of money by reusing sets left over from the production of Martin Scorsese’s 2002 film Gangs of New York. Coincidentally, Scorsese had, years earlier, made his own movie about Jesus, The Last Temptation of Christ.) Gibson also faced difficulty finding a distributor for The Passion of the Christ, although he eventually secured the help of an independent movie company called Newmarket Films for domestic distribution. Partly because of the unusual nature of his film, Gibson eschewed a traditional marketing strategy in favor of a grassroots campaign aimed at Christian—especially Evangelical—leaders and organizations. For instance, in the months leading up to the movie’s official release date, Gibson held a number of private screenings for Christian audiences that were often followed by lengthy Q&A sessions.
Naturally, many media pundits expected The Passion of the Christ to bomb at the box office. For example, Frank Rich, a columnist for the New York Times, spoke for many when he wrote in August 2003 that “It’s hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America, given that it has no major Hollywood stars and that its dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin.” But when The Passion of the Christ opened on February 25, 2004 (the movie’s release date coincided with Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the season of Lent), it blew away all expectations by earning nearly $84 million during its first weekend at the domestic box office. (Ironically, this Biblical movie would hold the record for the biggest February debut weekend ever until it was knocked off its pedestal by the erotic romantic drama Fifty Shades of Grey in 2015.) By the end of its initial theatrical run, The Passion of the Christ had grossed $370 million in North America and $612 million around the world; it would remain the highest-grossing R-rated film in domestic markets until the release of Deadpool & Wolverine two decades later. Gibson’s unorthodox marketing strategy ended up paying huge dividends, for the incredible financial success of The Passion of the Christ was largely driven by devout Christians, especially Evangelicals, who flocked to the movie in droves. Many theaters were reserved for entire congregations, and the National Association of Evangelicals sold tickets on its official website. Themes from the movie also found their way into sermons and Christian school curriculums.
Although The Passion of the Christ was the recipient of numerous enthusiastic endorsements from prominent Christian leaders, such as Pastors Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and Tim LeHaye, one endorsement became the subject of dispute. On December 17, 2003, Peggy Noonan, Conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal and former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, reported that, according to Stephen McEveety, a co-producer of The Passion of the Christ, Archbishop Stanisław Dziwisz, secretary to Pope John Paul II, informed him that the pontiff had recently viewed a rough cut of the film and said of it afterward: “It is as it was.” That same day, John L. Allen Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter put out a similar story, and on the following day, this news was confirmed by the Associated Press and Reuters, who used their own Vatican sources. However, on Christmas Eve, a Vatican official, speaking under the guise of anonymity, told the Catholic News Service, “The Holy Father does not comment, does not give judgments on art. I repeat: There was no declaration, no judgment from the pope.” On January 9, 2004, Allen wrote an article in which he stood by his earlier story, writing that his source at the Vatican “is adamant that the original story was right — the pope did indeed say, ‘It is as it was.’” On January 18, the New York Times’ Frank Rich alleged that “It is as it was” was being “exploited by the Gibson camp” in a cynical ploy to market The Passion of the Christ. However, Rich didn’t challenge the veracity of the quote itself. This happened later that day when Archbishop Dziwisz informed the Catholic News Service, “The Holy Father told no one his opinion of this film.” The rest of the month witnessed a furious—and somewhat ludicrous—back-and-forth between Vatican officials who denied John Paul II uttered his now-infamous quote after watching The Passion of the Christ and journalists and members of the movie’s production team who claimed they were told by Vatican sources that he did indeed say it, with statements and evidence seemingly pointing in both directions. (As of this writing, it’s still not entirely clear who was telling the truth in this matter.)
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that The Passion of the Christ was a smash hit with Christian audiences. Interestingly, the film also proved popular in the Arab world in spite of its artistic depiction of a man Muslims consider to be a prophet—something verboten in Islam. Although The Passion of the Christ was banned in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, it attracted large audiences in a number of Muslim countries, including Lebanon, Qatar, Egypt, and Syria. The alleged papal endorsement of the movie may have been contested, but one prominent endorsement that wasn’t in dispute—though was probably less welcome—came from Yasser Arafat, president of the Palestinian National Authority and Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). After seeing The Passion of the Christ, the infamous terrorist leader called it “historic and impressive.” Also, an aide of Arafat’s compared the plight of the Messiah in the film to that of his people: “The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.” (Although The Passion of the Christ was never officially banned in Israel, it went virtually unseen in the Jewish state since no Israeli distributor would touch it with a 20-foot pole.)
The Passion of the Christ became one of the most controversial movies ever made and ignited a firestorm of criticism. This was largely due to two factors. The first was its alleged anti-Semitic content. Accusations of anti-Semitism were leveled at The Passion of the Christ months before its release. After a copy of the movie’s script was leaked in March 2003, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a Jewish organization whose purpose is to combat anti-Semitism, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) teamed up to analyze it and determine if the script contained elements that could be construed as anti-Semitic. To this end, Dr. Eugene Fisher of the USCCB and Rabbi Dr. Eugene Korn convened a panel made up of nine members—five Catholics and four Jews. When this interfaith group finished its work, it reached the conclusion that “a film based on the script they had been shown would promote anti-Semitic sentiments.” According to the panel, The Passion of the Christ’s screenplay fostered anti-Semitic stereotypes and beliefs, especially the one which held that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. The study group also blasted the script’s “significant historical errors” and called Gibson “a fringe Catholic who is building his own church in the Los Angeles area and who apparently accepts neither the teachings of Vatican II nor modern biblical scholarship.” Shortly afterward, the ADL issued a statement accusing Gibson and his upcoming movie of being ignorant (or worse) of how prior depictions of the Passion of Jesus had contributed to anti-Semitic hatred and violence, saying, in part: “Productions such as The Passion could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews.”
Mel Gibson responded to his critics by saying the script that the USCCB had obtained—which he claimed was stolen—was outdated and that his upcoming movie was “a work in progress.” He also said he was consulting Christian and Jewish scholars and maintained that “Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs; it is also contrary to the core message of my movie. 'The Passion' is a film meant to inspire, not offend.” Gibson did make some changes to his movie in an effort to tamp down the controversy. For instance, he removed the English subtitles from a crucial scene in which Caiaphas, determined to see Jesus crucified, cries, “His blood [is] on us and on our children!” However, he retained the quote itself and explained his reason for doing so in an interview with the New Yorker: “I wanted it in. My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house. They'd come to kill me.” And in an interview for the Globe and Mail shortly before the film’s release, Gibson said, “If anyone has distorted Gospel passages to rationalize cruelty towards Jews or anyone, it's in defiance of repeated Papal condemnation. The Papacy has condemned racism in any form...Jesus died for the sins of all times, and I'll be the first on the line for culpability.” However, the criticism and controversy were clearly getting to Gibson. For instance, after the New York Times’ Frank Rich wrote a column in which he claimed the purpose of the famous filmmaker’s promotional campaign for his upcoming movie was to “bait Jews” and “sow religious conflict,” Gibson responded in a most un-Christlike manner: “I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. . . . I want to kill his dog.”
The firestorm continued to grow in the months and weeks leading up to The Passion of the Christ’s opening day. When the ADL’s Rabbi Korn snuck into a screening in August 2003 and viewed a rough cut, he declared, “Those people who are anti-Semitic or bigoted who watch this movie will find that their sense of prejudice and hatred will be strengthened.” After ADL national director Abraham Foxman and other representatives from the organization viewed the finished film in late January 2004, they released a statement claiming, “For those who will see this film, the poisonous accusation that the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus will be unambiguous and clear.” The statement also expressed concern that the movie possessed “the potential to adversely affect years of progress in Catholic-Jewish relations and the possibility that it will fuel new anti-Semitism.” A few people went beyond the ADL’s expressed worries and openly predicted that The Passion of the Christ would incite anti-Jewish violence. For instance, Dov Hikind, a New York State assemblyman and New York City Council member who organized a Passion-ate protest in front of a movie theater in Times Square on February 24, 2004, the day before the film opened nationwide, said this after attending a pre-release screening: “I don’t have any doubt this film will cause anti-Semitism. I don’t have any doubt that this film will result in violence.” Also, in a July 2003 piece for the New Republic, Dr. Paula Fredriksen, one of the members of the interfaith panel that reviewed the leaked copy of the script for The Passion of the Christ, expressed her opinion that the movie wouldn’t spark anti-Semitic violence in the U.S. but also wrote, “But I shudder to think how The Passion will play once its subtitles shift from English to Polish, or Spanish, or French, or Russian. When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.” And one week before the release of The Passion of the Christ, Hutton Gibson, Mel’s father and an ardent Catholic Traditionalist like his son, further fanned the flames when he expressed doubt concerning the veracity of the Holocaust to a radio interviewer, saying, “It’s all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is.”
Indeed, the controversy over the film’s alleged anti-Semitism was a major reason why Gibson couldn’t get a major Hollywood studio to release The Passion of the Christ in the U.S. (Twentieth Century Fox initially had a first-look deal with Icon Productions but decided to pass on a chance to distribute the movie in August 2003 after protesters demonstrated outside of its headquarters in New York City.) It also explains why Gibson embarked upon his unorthodox marketing strategy of previewing a rough cut to mostly-friendly (and predominantly Christian) audiences. And just as Gibson had hoped, Christians—mainly Evangelicals—who saw the film prior to its official release date voiced their support for The Passion of the Christ and defended it against charges of anti-Semitism. However, it should also be noted that the movie had its Jewish defenders, too. For example, Michael Medved and Rabbi Daniel Lapin, two prominent radio hosts and Orthodox Jews, praised The Passion of the Christ and rejected the notion that it was anti-Semitic. In March 2004, Medved wrote, “The hysterical denunciations of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ by some influential organizations in the Jewish community reached their crescendo long before the movie's release, and began even before he had finished filming it. This proves that the charges of anti-Semitism surrounding this project for more than a year arose not from an honest assessment of the film, but from political prejudice and organizational imperatives.” Rabbi Marc Gellman, an advice columnist and advocate for interfaith dialogue, also defended the film, saying, “Jews who are secure in their Jewishness and secure in the compassion of their Christian friends will see the Christian story in a new way.” And Conservative Jewish commentator David Horowitz described The Passion of the Christ as “an awesome artefact” and said, “I can't remember being so affected by a film before. It is a racking emotional journey which never strays from its inspirational purpose. It is as close to a religious experience that art can get.”
Predictably, The Passion of the Christ received a highly polarized reaction from professional film critics, who—on the whole—judged it rather negatively. Many reviewers excoriated the movie for its alleged anti-Semitism. Jami Bernard of the New York Daily News, for instance, called The Passion of the Christ “the most virulently anti-Semitic movie since the German propaganda films of World War Two.” Writing for the New Republic, Leon Wieseltier wrote, “In its representation of its Jewish characters, The Passion of the Christ is without any doubt an anti-Semitic movie.” Critics also lambasted The Passion of the Christ for its extreme, pervasive violence—the second factor that made the movie so controversial. Throughout the film’s two-hour running time, Jesus is beaten, whipped, crowned with thorns, and finally nailed to the cross—a hideous ordeal that is portrayed in graphic, and often gruesome, detail. (After The Passion of the Christ was released nationwide, media outlets reported instances of audience members wincing, shaking, crying, vomiting, and—in at least two cases—dying of heart attacks. However, it should be noted here that the film also produced several positive outcomes. For instance, in late March 2004, Dan R. Leach, a Texas man who had murdered his pregnant girlfriend and fooled authorities into thinking that her death had been a suicide, was so moved after seeing The Passion of the Christ that he went to the police and confessed his crime.) David Denby of the New Yorker called The Passion of the Christ “a sickening death trip” and “one of the cruellest [sic] movies in the history of the cinema.” Slate’s David Edelstein called The Passion of the Christ “a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it’s an act of faith.” For his part, Newsweek’s David Ansen wrote, “Relentlessly savage, ‘The Passion’ plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade.” And in the same review in which he lambasted the movie for its perceived anti-Semitism, Leon Wieseltier said, “The only cinematic achievement of ‘The Passion of the Christ’ is that it breaks new ground in the verisimilitude of filmed violence.”
However, a number of critics lauded the film. One of these was the Chicago Sun-Times’ Roger Ebert, who awarded The Passion of the Christ a perfect four-star rating. Ebert, who had been raised Catholic, wrote, “What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of.” He also defended the movie against the charge of anti-Semitism: “My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably.” It should also be noted that, controversial elements aside, many critics praised several aspects of The Passion of the Christ’s production, such as its performances, cinematography, and music. (The allegations of anti-Semitism resurfaced in the summer of 2006 after Gibson made anti-Semitic remarks to a sheriff’s deputy—who happened to be Jewish—following a DUI arrest. Some of his detractors cited the incident as “proof” that The Passion of the Christ was anti-Semitic. For example, the filmmaker Rob Reiner, who is also Jewish, said Gibson must admit that “his work reflects anti-Semitism” before he could be “redeemed.”) In early 2005, The Passion of the Christ was nominated for Academy Awards in three categories—Best Cinematography, Best Makeup, and Best Original Score—but failed to win any of them. Bizarrely, the movie was also nominated for the American Film Institute’s (AFI) “100 Years...100 Cheers” list alongside such upbeat films as Chariots of Fire and Rain Man. (I get that many people found The Passion of the Christ to be spiritually fulfilling, but for two straight hours, it depicts a poor guy undergoing the kind of pain and suffering that would have scared away the albino monk from The Da Vinci Code. Just where was the cheering supposed to come in?) In March 2005, Gibson released an edited version of The Passion of the Christ called The Passion Recut, which omitted approximately five minutes of the most explicit material. However, this shorter iteration was a box office bust, barely grossing half a million dollars. The Passion of the Christ remains controversial to this day, and if its dismal 49 percent rating on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes is any indication, professional critics don’t hold the movie in any higher esteem now than they did when it was first released two decades ago. However, The Passion of the Christ remains deeply popular with Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) in America and around the world. Also, following the film’s massive financial success, Hollywood studios suddenly found that old-time religion and bankrolled a number of epics featuring Judeo-Christian subjects and themes, including Noah (2014), Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014), and a remake of Ben-Hur (2016).
Before I give my assessment of The Passion of the Christ, I would first like to stress here that I am not a person of faith, nor do I believe in God—which obviously means that I don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God. I’m also not an expert on Christianity or the location and time period in which this movie takes place. Therefore, I’m not equipped to judge The Passion of the Christ on historical or theological grounds. However, as a lifelong movie buff, I feel that I am capable of judging this film on cinematic grounds. And on this score, The Passion of the Christ is one of the greatest movies I’ve ever seen and a true visual work of art. Indeed, I consider The Passion of the Christ to be the Sistine Chapel of films about the Messiah; watching it is like witnessing the Stations of the Cross come to life. In my retrospective review for Warren Beatty’s Reds, I said I always love it when a filmmaker puts his or her career on the line for a deeply-held conviction, and that principle certainly applies in the case of Mel Gibson’s masterpiece. In my opinion, The Passion of the Christ was hands-down the finest American film of its year, though I totally understand why the Academy didn’t nominate it for Best Picture.
There are so many wonderful things about this movie, but I must first start out with the great cast. The best performance here is, of course, by Jim Caviezel as Jesus Christ. I’ve loved Caviezel as an actor ever since I saw him in Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line, and, in expressing the agony and perseverance of the Messiah, he gave his career-defining work in The Passion of the Christ. The suffering that Caviezel went through to deliver his iconic performance alone should have warranted an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. Reportedly, Caviezel experienced a bout of pneumonia, an infected lung, a dislocated shoulder, hypothermia, migraines, and several accidental whippings while filming his scenes. (The actor also claimed in an interview that he and Jan Michelini, the assistant director, were struck by lightning. However, I don’t believe this story, which strikes me as the sort of tall tale that movie people like to tell in order to promote their films and buff up their reputations.) All of the supporting cast members are magnificent, but my favorite is Maia Morgenstern, who portrays the Blessed Virgin Mary with a gentle, dignified grace; the suffering and sorrow that her character endures as she watches her son undergo the Passion is one that any mother can relate to.
Two aspects of this movie that are crucial to its artistic success are the cinematography by Caleb Deschanel and the musical score by John Debney. Deschanel’s harsh, beautiful photography gives The Passion of the Christ the look of a gorgeous painting. Debney’s music, which combines traditional Western orchestral and choral elements with instruments from all over the world, conveys the film’s universal message while enhancing its emotional impact. Reportedly, Gibson wanted The Passion of the Christ to have no music at all, so I’m glad he eventually changed his mind on this matter. I also think it’s fortunate that Gibson never backed down from his decision to have all the dialogue in The Passion of the Christ be spoken in Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew. The use of these foreign tongues adds a layer of authenticity to the movie, and whenever I watch it, I always turn the English subtitles off in order to better focus on the images unfolding onscreen. Oh, and I just love the sound of Latin.
Although I believe that Mel Gibson would have done himself and his movie much good if he had afforded the Caiaphas character the same complexity that he gave to Pontius Pilate, I don’t think The Passion of the Christ is inherently anti-Semitic. Yes, a number of the Jews in the movie are portrayed as bad guys, but almost all of the good guys are also Jews, including Mary Magdalene, Simon of Cyrene, Jesus’ parents, and—of course—Jesus himself. Near as I can tell, the group who comes off looking the worst in the film are the Romans who beat, whip, and crucify the Messiah. Also, I think it was irresponsible for people to claim publicly that The Passion of the Christ would incite anti-Semitic violence against Jews. (Oh, and by the way, those prophesied pogroms never materialized.) And while I acknowledge that The Passion of the Christ is extremely violent, that doesn’t bother me at all because I believe that the brutal, graphic depiction of the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus was necessary to convey the enormity of the sacrifice he made to cleanse humankind of its sins (according to Christian teaching). However, I also appreciate that Gibson intersperses these harrowing sequences with flashbacks of Jesus’ life, including famous moments like the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper and more personal ones involving Jesus and his mother. The violence in The Passion of the Christ may have received a torrent of criticism, but there’s no doubt in my mind that it was a crucial factor in the film’s box office success; for many Christians, the depiction of Christ’s suffering and crucifixion held spiritual and emotional value. I also suspect that many secular viewers were drawn to the movie and its violent content partly out of curiosity. It should also be noted that The Passion of the Christ was part of a trend of realistic, ultra-violent historical epics that were made in the wake of Gibson’s Braveheart and Ridley Scott’s Gladiator; indeed, in the months between the release of The Passion of the Christ and the end of 2004, Hollywood released no less than three such movies—Wolfgang Peterson’s Troy, Antoine Fuqua’s King Arthur, and Oliver Stone’s Alexander.
With regard to the violence in The Passion of the Christ, what does bother me is that so many adult Christians took young children to see it on the big screen. In 2019, reporters for the entertainment website the A.V. Club interviewed a number of grown-ups who saw the movie at a tender age—even as young as 10 in a few cases. Writes the A.V. Club’s Randall Colburn, “Some weren’t allowed to cover their eyes. Some sobbed. One puked in her seat. For nearly all of them, it was framed as an event by their parents, their pastors, their teachers, none of whom seemed to care that it spilled more gore than a Troma flick. It was mandatory viewing, and, furthermore, it demanded a reaction.” Many church leaders encouraged children to see The Passion of the Christ because they believed that it held educational and spiritual value for them. For example, Jerry Johnston, pastor of the First Family Church in Kansas City, Kansas, called the movie a “wonderful teaching tool” for kids as young as seven. In my opinion, any parent who allowed a little kid to watch The Passion of the Christ in the theater should have received a visit from child services. And while we’re on the subject of violence in films, I find it interesting that many of the same Christians who flocked to The Passion of the Christ largely avoided Catherine Hardwicke’s The Nativity Story, which came out in 2006 and depicted Jesus’ birth, even though that film was a PG-rated, family-friendly affair. (In his review of The Nativity Story, Christianity Today’s David Neff gave a largely positive assessment but—tellingly—complained that it “is not boldly realistic like The Passion of the Christ.”)
In closing, I’d like to say here that there’s no doubt in my mind that if The Passion of the Christ had dealt with a subject favored by American cinema’s cognoscenti, it would have been showered with all kinds of praise and accolades. My hope is that the majority of professional critics eventually come around and acknowledge the artistic merit of this masterpiece—but I won’t hold my breath. Still, I’m thankful that the movie has demonstrated an enduring popularity with millions of Christians around the world. (At least somebody appreciates it.) I have seen four of the five films that Mel Gibson has directed thus far, and The Passion of the Christ is undoubtedly his magnum opus. At a time when Hollywood studios refuse to take risks and constantly crank out conventional, crowd-pleasing superhero flicks, sequels, and reboots, bold, unique works of cinematic art like The Passion of the Christ are needed now more than ever.