Movie Review:

The Passion of the Christ

   Though it's not nearly as hard to watch as many non-Christian critics have made it out to be, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is still problematic in a variety of ways.  Chief among these is not even the anti-Semitism that some have charged the movie will invite, but rather Gibson's depiction of Jesus himself.  The flashback in which we see Jesus build a table is a welcome suggestion of his humanity, but this is brief and largely decontextualized.  Instead, Gibson chooses to focus almost exclusively on the last agonizing day of Jesus' life, in which he is, as the scripture the film opens with states, "crushed for our iniquities."

    Gibson's point is quite clearly to display how brutally Christ died for our sins, but it's not clear who he's aiming this film at, which is another problem.  Considering the film's overall lack of explanation (made only worse if you watch it without subtitles as Gibson originally intended), which makes at least a cursory knowledge of Biblical history a virtual prerequisite to viewing, it's hard to see this as anything other than preaching to the converted - but if that's the case, what was the point?

    At least the film looks nice, though it's easy to make the argument that it looks too nice - certainly the slow motion is overused, though at least that's pretty much the only trick Gibson employs.  It's bad enough by itself to make up for that, however; pounding the viewer over the head with "this is important!" practically flashing on the screen in neon letters is a serious directorial misstep in a film that hardly needed that kind of superficial emphasis to get its point across.

    Too often overlooked in the Jesus story is the fact that for Christianity to exist, things basically had to happen as they did.  Considering the inevitability of Jesus being martyred for the sins of the world, it's strange how much energy has been historically devoted to maligning those who facilitated his martyrdom - in particular Judas, Pontius Pilate, and a large segment of the Jewish population, with the high priests leading the way.

    Gibson casts Pilate as a regional politician with no desire to crucify Jesus, who orders it done only because he fears an uprising and takes no joy in doing it.  Judas is a traitor but one who immediately realizes his crime and attempts a form of repentance.  The Jewish leaders, on the other hand, are a gang of bloodthirsty cowards, who drag Jesus from point A to point B, looking desperately for someone to condemn him because their laws prohibit putting a man to death (but obviously not actively stumping for it).  They call for the freedom of a notorious murderer, Barabbas, rather than let Jesus be released.  There is no shading to them at all.

    The easy defense here is "well, that's what happened," but it would still ignore the fact that even if the Jews' reasons for condemning Jesus were as bad as the film depicts Caiaphas and his cronies, they were still only a means to an end.  Besides that, the Jews evidently considered Jesus a blasphemer, which seems to make their actions marginally more justified from their point of view.  It's hard to see how you could really have villains when the worst they can do is cause something to happen that had to happen anyway, but that's the brush the Jewish leaders get painted with.  It's not just what they do - they even look like weasels.  It's not a subtle depiction.

    Gibson intended to have his film depict the Gospels as written, and the desire of early Christians not to offend their Roman rulers has a lot to do with why Pilate is cast so sympathetically (despite extra-Biblical historical evidence suggesting the opposite); the Jews are the easy villains for similar reasons.  Though I suppose we can’t expect Gibson to stray away from what he considers to be the gospel truth – pun partially intended – he certainly takes liberties with the appearance of Satan, and since the Roman Empire hasn’t been a force in global politics for 1500 years or so, the humanizing of Pilate at the expense of the Jews isn’t really necessary and could have merited a minor edit, just as Satan is given a little more to do for the dramatic effect.  It’s not surprising that Gibson didn’t make the film slightly more politically correct, but this doesn’t mean he isn’t leaning on two thousand years of cultural stereotype.  It hurts the film for anyone who isn’t squarely in line with Gibson’s views – but then he wasn’t making the film for those people, was he?

    Besides all that, the film is just overly brutal.  Frankly, it's not as bad as the hype made it out to be, but that doesn't mean it isn't cringe-worthy.  Presumably Gibson intends to point out exactly how much Jesus suffered in the hopes of showing people how much they owe him for taking on their sins in such a way, but did it need to be this graphic?  Adding to the questionable motivation is the fact that Gibson spends a significant portion of time on the scourging of Jesus, and then even more on the Stations of the Cross, but only the violent stations - somewhat more tranquil stations like Jesus meeting the women of Jerusalem and Jesus being laid in the tomb are either glossed over or entirely dropped.

    The performances are good, at least, with James Caviezel an effective Jesus and Hristo Naumov Shopov also deserving of notice for his role as Pilate.  More importantly, Gibson does a good job in capturing what feels like it could be Jerusalem in 33 AD; considering that two of the three languages in which the film is shot are dead, the dialogue sounds good and feels authentic.  The atmosphere makes or breaks a film that tries to take on a story of this magnitude, holding so much meaning to so many people, and Gibson doesn't disappoint in that department.  It's pretty much the only place he's perfect, but it's not a bad one to choose for that.

    Often too didactic for believers but rarely clear enough for anyone else, The Passion of the Christ doesn't quite come over as well as it wants to, and its none-too-veiled anti-Semitic leanings have to be considered at least a little problematic, but it deserves some credit for its ambition, even if that may have been somewhat misplaced.  Gibson clearly knew what movie he wanted to make, but he doesn't seem to have ever thought of the kind of movie most people would have expected from the subject matter.  It's nice that Gibson feels personally fulfilled by two hours of Jesus getting tortured, but the sheer brutality of his portrayal feels extreme.

   Jesus may have suffered so we didn't have to, but watching his fate in The Passion is enough to make most people feel that they've repaid part of that debt. C

The Passion of the Christ is a Newmarket release.  Rated for sequences of graphic violence.