MOVIE REVIEW: The Passion of the Christ
Director
– Mel Gibson
Production
Company – Icon Productions and Marquis Film
Producers
– Mel Gibson and Bruce Davey
Screenwriters
– Mel Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald (Wise
Blood, In Cold Blood, Heart of Darkness)
Cinematographer
– Caleb Deschanel (The Black Stallion, The Right Stuff, The Natural,
The Patriot)
Credited
Cast:
- James Caviezel (Count of Monte Cristo, The Thin Red Line) – Jesus Christ
Maia Morgenstern – Mary
- Monica Bellucci (Bram Stoker’s Dracula, The Matrix Reloaded) – Mary Magdalene
- Francesco Cabras – Gesmas
- Rosalinda Celentano – Satan
- Claudia Gerini – Pilate’s Wife
- Ivano Marescotti – Pontius Pilate
- Sergio Rubini – Dismas
Release
Date – February 25, 2004
Distributed
by Newmarket Films
RATED
“R” for extreme violence
After first viewing a rough cut of
The Passion of the Christ in January at Willow Creek Church in suburban
Chicago, an event that included a personal appearance by Mel Gibson, I saw the
film in its final form on February 26.
This is an update of my earlier review.
My chance to preview the movie ahead of the professional critics was the
result of Icon Production’s unconventional promotional strategy of taking news
about the film directly to church leadership to solicit their support of the
project. This was apparently in response
to the generally hostile attitude of the film industry toward Mr. Gibson’s
project from its very inception. Unable
to find investors to share the cost of production (religious films are
generally viewed as bad financial risks in the industry), Gibson put up the
entire 25-30 million dollar budget himself.
Accusations that the film was anti-Semitic further complicated the
enterprise, forcing Icon Productions to ultimately sign on with a small
independent distribution company, Newmarket Films. There was a real fear that, having finally
made the film, nobody would see it. That
fear has proven to be misplaced. The Ash
Wednesday opening was the fifth largest in Hollywood history with receipts of
over $26 million. The Thursday evening
showing that I attended, like most across the country, was sold out. It now appears certain that Mr. Gibson will
recoup his investment by the end of opening weekend.
The movie begins with a black
screen that has the words of Isaiah 53:5 superimposed: “But he was pierced
for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities…” It then jumps to Jesus praying in the Garden
of Gethsemane. The beginning seems
abrupt, like you have just arrived at the start of Act Three—almost like
starting the last installment of The Lord of the Rings without
having read the book or seen the first two movies. Viewers with no background understanding of
the gospels may be a little confused at first.
Consequently the viewer enters into the chaos of the garden arrest that
the disciples experienced. Like them,
you are trying to figure out what’s going on.
As the film continues, occasional flashbacks to earlier episodes in the
life of Christ help to add a larger context to events described in the last
twelve hours of Jesus’ life. They also
add much needed moments of emotional release from the incredible tension that
envelops the viewer over the two-hour duration of the movie.
The garden
scenes were filmed in a foggy mist and with the use of a blue gel, lending a
feel of isolation, mystery and imminent danger.
It is in the garden that we are introduced to one of the recurring
figures in the film: a creepy and strangely sexless personification of Satan
effectively played by Italian actress, Rosalinda
Celentano. There in the garden Satan
whispers to Christ, as he agonizes about the trail before him, “No man can bear
this.” This proffered seed of doubt is
accompanied by a snake slithering up to the figure of Jesus, who is on his
knees in prayer. Jesus’ response is to
stand and crush the head of the serpent with his heel, a clear reference to the
prophecy of Genesis 3:15.
Cinematographer Caleb Deschanel
sought to create a strong contrast of light and dark in the film reminiscent of
the Italian Baroque painter, Caravaggio.
In an earlier interview Gibson said of the painter’s work, “…I think his
work is beautiful. It's violent, it's
dark, it's spiritual and it also has an odd whimsy or strangeness to it. And it's so real-looking. I told Caleb I wanted my movie to look like
that and he said, ‘Yeah, OK.’ Just like
that.” And like an old Renaissance
painting, many of the scenes had something of a golden sheen to them that I
found quite compelling.
This was certainly not the only direct
allusion to classical art in the film.
The most explicit was the scene at the foot of the cross as the body of
Jesus was being removed for burial. Here
Mary, played by Maia Morgenstern, a little-known Jewish Romanian actress,
cradled the lifeless body of her son in exactly the same posture used by
Michelangelo in his famous Pietà, one hand cradling his body and the other open
toward the viewer. But as Elizabeth Lev,
Professor of Christian Art and Architecture at Duquesne University in Rome,
points out, the depiction in The Passion is slightly altered:
“The variation comes in that while Michelangelo's Mary gazes solemnly down at
her Son, Gibson's Mary looks straight out at us. The movie draws to a close
provoking a full and conscious acknowledgment of whom this suffering has been
for.”
The
preponderance of the film’s two hours is a straightforward account of the
events marking the last twelve hours of the life of Christ as recorded in the
four gospels. As a seminary-trained
student of the New Testament, I give Mr. Gibson high marks for accuracy. The few and slight artistic liberties that he
takes are easily justifiable as he seeks to take the written word and translate
it to film. Gibson is a faithful
adherent to a small sect of Catholicism that continues the use of the old Latin
mass and rejects the liberalizations in church practice and dogma that came
with Vatican II. This is one of the
sources of the claim that The Passion is anti-Semitic, since
Vatican II specifically condemns anti-Semitism.
I could see nothing to support that claim. It is true that the members of the Jewish
Sanhedrin are portrayed in a most unsympathetic light. But neither do they fare well in Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John. The legionaries of
the Roman army of occupation are the most sadistic and brutal figures in the
movie. The Pharisees and Sadducees come
across as opportunistic and cynical politicians in league with the Romans. To interpret The Passion of the Christ
as anti-Semitic would require one to start with the outlandish premise that the
gospel accounts and Christianity itself are themselves inherently
anti-Semitic. And there are a few fringe
groups that hold to just such a radical position. As far as this reviewer is concerned, The
Italian Anti-defamation League has as much to complain about as its Jewish
counterpart. Any complaints of
anti-Semitism should be lodged with the Evangelists, not with Mel Gibson.
For any
Protestant Christians that might be concerned about an overtly Catholic bias to
the film, they too may rest easy. Had a
Protestant produced and directed the film, the only likely difference would
have been a little less screen time for the character of Mary. But once again, the portrayal of Mary is
entirely consistent with the New Testament.
Gibson weaves her character throughout the film as something of a
counterbalance to the recurring appearances of Satan. Where one challenges the sufficiency of his
humanity to rise to the challenge of dying for the human race, Mary embraces
his humanity with the broken-hearted love of a mother. One of the most poignant and moving scenes in
the film involves a flashback by Mary of Jesus as a little boy, stumbling and
falling—a memory triggered by the sight of the fully-grown Jesus stumbling and
falling under the weight of the cross.
Much
attention has been given to Gibson’s decision to use only the languages of the
First Century in making the film. Most
of the dialogue is in Aramaic, the language spoken by most Palestinian Jews of
that day, and in the common or vulgar form of Latin that a soldier from the
Italian peninsula would have used in daily speech. Hebrew is used in scripture quotations. Gibson’s original intention was to release
the film without subtitles. While this
sounded like an absurd idea when I first encountered it, having seen the film I
now realize that it could actually work.
(The film did ultimately have English subtitles added.) As one who despises watching movies with
subtitles, I am happy to report that these were not at all distracting. In part this was simply because there is not
that much dialogue in the movie. The
story is mostly told with images. In
fact, the use of the languages of that day adds a real sense of authenticity to
the experience. You feel like you have
been transported back in time and are an actual eyewitness to history in the
making.
The casting
could not have been better. Pontius
Pilate is marvelously portrayed by Italian actor Ivano
Marescotti as a cynical and conflicted soldier-bureaucrat with a sense
of duty that is at war with hard political realities. He comes across as a somewhat sympathetic
character that faced the opportunity to do something heroic in the name of
justice but failed to rise to the occasion.
He ought to be considered for a best supporting actor Oscar. Likewise, as already mentioned, Morgenstern
is a tremendously effective Mary.
But the
undisputed star of the film is James Caviezel. His portrayal of Jesus is nothing short of
sheer genius. Like George C. Scott as
Patton or Hal Holbrook’s Mark Twain, you must constantly remind yourself that
the person on the screen is, after all, just an actor and not the actual figure
from history. In a role that cost him
considerable physical pain (He suffered a dislocated shoulder during the filming
of the scourging, was inadvertently actually lashed twice during that same
sequence, nearly succumbed to hypothermia while being filmed on the cross
during cold November weather in Italy and was literally struck by lightning –
without any apparent lasting injury – during the filming of the crucifixion!)
he vividly portrayed the lingering death of one who died for the sins of the
world. For most of the filming he spent
seven hours a day in makeup prior to shooting.
In fact he actually slept in makeup at times. His is not only the most authentic portrayal
of Christ in cinematic history, but it may well be the most effective portrayal
by any actor or actress of a historical character on film.
The
most disturbing aspect of this movie is its graphic violence. I cannot overstate just how violent it
is. The violence is shocking. It is brutal.
It is horrific. The agonizing and
painfully accurate portrayal of Jesus’ scourging at the hands of two Roman
legionaries (it was not unusual for a condemned prisoner to die during
scourging) was undoubtedly what earned the film an “R” rating, and rightly
so. It was so awful to watch that you
are almost relieved when they get around to crucifying him.[i] At least then the end of his suffering was in
sight. This is not a movie for children
under the age of 12 or 13 under any circumstances. Gibson was asked about the violence during
the interview after last month’s preview.
He was quite matter-of-fact about it.
Yes, it is violent. Yes, the
violence is at times “over the top”.
This was deliberate. He
referenced the Old Testament insistence that blood be shed as the atonement for
sin. Too often, he suggested, we
sanitize the gospel accounts until we forget what that really means. It was his intent to remind us. He succeeded.
One Christian leader, after viewing the film was quoted as saying, “I
forgot. I’m sorry.”
At one
point in the interview Gibson made reference to the art in great cathedrals of
Europe. Those cathedrals were built as
teaching models for an illiterate oral culture.
In a day when even many priests were unable to read the word of God, the
cathedrals, through their statuary, their stained glass, their symbolism and
their Stations of the Cross attempted to teach the message of the gospel to the
unlettered. Today, in the midst of an
increasingly visual society and culture, Mel Gibson has created a 21st
Century cathedral in film.
If I were
to sum up in one word the experience of watching The Passion,
that word would be “shattering”. The
film runs just over two hours. The
January preview screening was in a room filled to capacity with 4,500 people
where not once did I hear so much as a man clear his throat during the entire
showing. Absolute silence and rapt
attention for 120 minutes—in a room full of preachers! And when the movie finally ended the stunned
silence continued on for at least another minute. The audience with whom I saw the movie on the
26th responded in exactly the same way. Most of those present sat quietly throughout
the credits, reluctant to leave. The
Passion of the Christ was the most intense emotional experience that I
have ever known while watching a movie.
From beginning to end it maintained the intensity of the first thirty
minutes of Saving Private Ryan—squared. That night, when at a late hour I finally got
to bed, sleep did not easily come. The
images of the film continued to haunt my memory. And days later, as I write these words, the
images are with me still. But these are
not nightmare images, even with all the blood and brutality. They rather serve as a reminder that thanks
to the love of that One so wonderfully brought to the screen by Jim Caviezel, I am bought with a price. And I think of those wounds He bore, not in
horror, but with gratitude.
[i] The
source material for the film’s depiction of scourging was the cover story from
the March 21, 1986 issue of JAMA: The
Journal of the American Medical Association. “On the Physical Death of
Jesus Christ” by Dr. William D. Edwards, MD; Rev. Wesley J. Gabel, M.Div.; and
Mr. Floyd E. Hosmer, MS, AMI. The article provides a coldly clinical
examination of both the historical and medical realities of death from
scourging followed by crucifixion.
