The Passion of The Christ

Film Review

Aristotle and Aquinas instruct that art should be judged on its own merit, but perhaps no other movie so blurs the distinction between genre and reality. That is to say, it's nearly impossible to detach from the historical context, cultural reaction and personal pre-disposition.

This multi-layering is also mirrored in the film's style, which is: gritty yet also dreamy; both literal and symbolic; natural and supernatural; repulsive, yet inspirational; it questions the mind while releasing the heart; works on the level of a story, but even more as a meditation.

To some degree I believe this is simply a natural reflection of central character, the most intriguing, unique and landmark individual in human history.

Extraordinary Takes

Caviezel hit by lightning:
CNN 10/24/03 Report

In addition to breaking all-time
5-Day Opening Weekend Record
(beating the then-champion Lord of the Rings III at a scorching $125 million), there are other interesting clues this art is more than mere celluloid.

During filming, the actor playing Jesus (Jim Caviezel) was struck by lightning so hard that a witness saw bolts of light shoot out from his ears, resulting in hair that was all frizzy afterward. Yet he wasn't hurt. Coincidence?

(Also interesting: Jim Caviezel's initials are JC, and like Christ he was 33 years old during the Passion. Further, the last name of actress who plays Mary is Morgenstern, which translates to "Morning Star"—a biblical name for Christ. More coincidences?)

Mel Gibson: "There have been a lot of unusual things happening, good things like people being healed of diseases, a couple of people have had sight and hearing restored, another guy was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene and he just got up and walked away."

Jewish-ness

Clearly there's also something mysterious about the Jewish people—how they are so fiercely persecuted and yet so resilient; and how they have such a disproportionate influence on humanity, being only 13 million out of the planet's 6 billion (0.2%!) Personally, I've always felt a special appreciation to Christianity's 'older brother' from whom we inherit correct (though incomplete) Judeo theology (like having a perfect statue but without the real person it represents).

Popular film Jewish film critic Michael Medved asks ADL to give Gibson a break.
Passion and Prejudice

Anti-semitism? First, were it not for some (disguised as Christians) who have abused the holy narrative there would be no issue here. I can never begin to relate to this bias and I fully support efforts against it. To my Jewish friends: please continue to help me understand the scope of this issue. (And likewise we must both rail against prejudice towards the genuine Gospel.)

But is this movie anti-semitic? No:

1. The film basically portrays the Gospel, in which Christianity is a fully Jewish movement with a Jewish Messiah.
2. Regardless of where blame may lie, the takeaway message is forgiveness—so there's no way to justify a prejudicial interpretation.
3. Numerous prominent Jews have indicated it is not. E.g. ADL National Director Abraham Fox, even Yasser Arafat, Jewish film critic Michael Medved, the Jews for Jesus organization, the Jewish actress playing Mary (Maia Morgenstern, whose parent were holocaust survivors), and many of my Jewish friends! :)
4. Deliberate aspects were included to soften a potential misreading a.) a Roman soldier is seen being anti-Semitic to Christ's cross-bearer; b.) some Jewish leaders dissent at the unethical trial; c.) The subtitle 'his blood be upon us and upon our children' was removed; d.) Gibson even filmed his own hand as the Roman nailing spikes into Christ.
5. The all-time most widely viewed film in history, Campus Crusade for Christ's Jesus (more than 5 billion times, translated into more than 760 languages), reports no anti-Semitic incidents.

The irony: the more this movie is attacked, the greater impact it has—just like Christ. Christianity is growing like wildfire everywhere it is persecuted. (I.e., everywhere but the US!) See www.persecution.org.

Production Critique

The film's acting, flashbacks, cinematography, audio and overall production are top shelf (esp. given the budget), but the presentation has flaws:

Read the inside story behind
the Pope's film commentary
'It is as it was'
by Peggy Noonan
(Wall Street Journal)

• Some of the details aren't accurate. e.g., every major passion portrayal since the 70s has Jesus carrying only a crossbeam (not both), being nailed through his wrists (not hands, thought this is debated), crucified naked etc. Pilate was apparently nastier. It also associates Mary Magdalene with the adulterous woman (which could be, but's not in the Bible). Further, some of direct scripture lines are quoted in misplaced scenes.
• The Satan character is portrayed effectively, as is Mary (though she's given an overbalance of screen time for being mentioned only once in all four gospels.)
• Editing and pacing are good except on the road to Calvary, where it loses steam.
• In reality, Jesus wasn't that good-looking. Surprised? See Isa 53:2.
• The resurrection is too underplayed. I don't have a problem with it being brief or implied, but this one just doesn't engage enough. Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today) writes "watching The Passion is like experiencing a woman's labor pains—but never witnessing the joy that makes the pain worth it all."

These defects are important, but relatively minor compared to the strengths. Overall, the movie is first rate.

Too Brutal?

Actually, in the interests of accuracy, the movie isn't violent enough since the Bible says Jesus "was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness." Isa 52:14.

Authenticity aside, is it too violent for art? There's no question it's rough, but it certainly wasn't as scathing as Saving Private Ryan, and yet in neither film did I get the sense that there was a spirit of violence. That is, we are never made to be entertained by it, or agree with it, or that its inclusion isn't integral, or that Gibson was trying to baptize cruelty.

There were times where I thought it could've been dialed down and remain as effective (e.g., the Judas donkey scene, the crow on the thief). However, I see what Gibson was targeting, in which he succeeded: to over-run the viewer's buffers. That is what crucifixion is like. The movie is primarily a visceral experience, not an intellectual activity, designed to bypass the rationalizations of our top-heavy culture.

Remember the surprise of meeting someone nice after you've heard bad things about them? Revealing the real person is key to understanding this movie.

Who is This?

One of the most exciting aspects about this movie is that it poses questions that our culture is not currently asking: Who is this person? What is the meaning of this? Can I experience more of God than I already am?

From that perspective, if it did nothing more, The Passion would still be tremendously significant. For asking the right question gets us halfway to the right answer. See the Jewish Carpenter.

Every accusation of this art seems to be a distraction to the film's central purpose: introspection that leads to meeting our very own Artist. (For example, in the case of the anti-Semitism charge, the real core issue is not cause of Jesus' death, but the meaning of it.)

Another irony here is that modern Christians relate to the persecuted Jews; while modern unbelievers relate to the persecuting Jews, the ancient ruling elite. What's up with that? Why are some critics find more concerned with the Sanhedrin than with Jesus? Could this be the real bias?

Christ in Hollywood

I find it entertaining that attempts to find flaw with this movie (not that it doesn't have flaws) are not typically criticized in other films! Examples:

(a) "This movie doesn't have a story"—yet plotless 'slice of life' movies have been in vogue since The Big Chill.  (b) Film classes teach that the primary criteria for a good film is that it engage you—so this should be unilaterally praiseworthy!  (c) Has anyone who complained about violence made issue of it in the many that actually do have a spirit of violence?

In effect this "greatest story every filmed" is a Lethal Weapon against the devil in at least three ways.

• Message to Hollywood: You're out of step with the people.
• Message to non-believers: Meet the Man.
• Message to believers: revive life-changing Christian beauty.

This century Christian art has deteriorated from its glory when we were the creative vanguard (e.g., classical music, cathedrals, novels, paintings, sculptures, etc.)

As proof I ask: in the last 10 years which has impacted mainstream culture more, Mel Gibson's film or the entire canon of Christian pop music? Gibson's film or the last 15 papal encyclicals? I think we know. Pray for a genuine renewal and integration of the Good, the True and the Beautiful. You'll know God's art because it moves the spirit to love like nothing else.

The Bottom Line: This movie is just one direct and intense way to better know God's passion. That's why it's great. (Although I've heard the Book is better.)