I saw it at Butt-Numb-a-Thon this weekend in Austin. Mel Gibson did a Q&A afterwards. It seems that most people there liked it, but I didn’t. My objections are from a filmmaking standpoint rather than a theological one, because I don’t mind a movie’s point of view as long as it’s a good movie.
Anybody want to know anything about it?
Yeah . . . how does it end?
It ends with a brief scene of the Christ’s resurrection This is one of the few scenes that I thought was well-done.
I should point out that the print we saw was a rough cut. Some of the effects are not finished, the score was temporary, and it had no credits. I think there’s still a bit of editing to be done too.
I suppose the obvious questions would be: From your point of view:
Does it portray an engaging, respectful portrayal of the Christ story as it is known from the New Testament?
Per the objections of others, is it Anti-Semitic?
On a purely film (e.g., acting, cinematography, script, direction, etc.) basis, what is good about the film and what doesn’t work?
Thank you.
Mel Gibson was at the Butt-Numb-A-Thon??!
Did he talk about the Bible as some literal interpretation of history or did he acknowledge its metaphorical purpose?
Is the crucifixion as graphic as I am afraid it will be?
I saw an Italian film on The Gospel According to Matthew* as a child, and the screams as they were being crucified haunt me to this day. I can’t get emotional distance from a film of this sort, as I can from slasher films (although I don’t watch slasher films).
Regards,
Shodan
WordMan:
I suppose it’s respectful, but I didn’t find it engaging. I didn’t feel most of the characters were well-developed enough to really draw me into the movie. I have plenty of outside knowledge on the subject, but I want a movie to bring me into its own universe, not expect the audience to BYO exposition. It feels like it’s missing the first reel of the story. That’s more of an answer to #3, but it addresses the issue of why it wasn’t terribly engaging.
I think it’s less anti-Semitic and more poorly written. The characters of the Pharisees are very one-dimensional villains. No attention is paid to any internal debate among them about what they’re doing and why. Instead there are several scenes where Pharisees reach near-hysteria while listing a number of their objections to Jesus and his actions and teachings. They go for maximum melodrama instead of telling a real human story. They were perfectly willing to go off-book for other elements of the story, so they don’t have much excuse for not developing this part better. Still, I don’t think this is meant to be anti-Semitic. I think it’s just bad, lazy writing. More on this in my forthcoming essay, “Answer to #3”. 
I know some people say it’s anti-Semitic to say “the Jews killed Christ!”, but it’s accurate to the biblical account to say that some members of the Jewish establishment of that time decided they didn’t like this Jesus guy. They felt he was a blasphemer and he was splintering their already stressed community, so they got rid of him. Blaming all Jews in all times and places for this is the work of the freakishly ignorant, and that sort of thought isn’t contained in this movie. Blaming some specific Pharisees for it IS there, but that’s in the Bible too.
I’m going to write up #3, but I have to do it later in a separate post. Actual work is interrupting me, darn it all.
Interesting responses cbawlmer - thank you. I look forward to your response to #3.
I suppose another question would be: what can you tell us about BNAT? For those who don’t know, the Ain’t it Cool News website http://www.aintitcool.com is a site for film industry types and film geeks to discuss upcoming releases and film-related topics. Harry Knowles, the site founder, hosts the Butt-Numb-a-Thon every year. It is a big deal to film types - as evidenced by the screening of Return of the King and The Passion of Christ and the attendance of Peter Jackson and Mel Gibson.
I read the AICN site pretty regularly, so would be curious as to what the experience was like and how the AICN regulars were - Harry, Moriarity, Quint, etc. I also have to ask: was Neal Cumpston there?
Thanks.
beajerryYes, he was there, but just for the end of the movie and the Q&A. Not the whole festival. He didn’t really get into the Bible as literal vs. metaphorical too much, but he was clear that he based his film not only on biblical texts but also on writings from various visionaries, mystics and other theologians throughout history.
ShodanThe crucifiction is quite graphic, but the real humdinger as far as violence is the scourging scene, which goes on for at least 15 straight minutes of screentime and is incredibly bloody and awful. It’s so violent that it really took me out of the movie and made me start thinking about things like film editing and special effects and makeup. Definitely not for the faint of heart though.
How is the resurrection visualized?
I’m going to have to write up my answer to WordMan’s Question #3 later tonight, because there’s a lot to write and I want to do it clearly.
Diogenes the Cynic: If you’ll highlight here…
It is one tracking shot inside the tomb. It starts with a black screen, then you see the outline of the stone rolling away and sunlight pours into the darkness. We dolly left across stone walls that are revealed by the moving shadows. Finally we come to rest on the empty shroud, then pull back to reveal Jesus sitting in profile against the wall, awake and physically restored. He stands up, wearing only the loincloth he was crucified in. As he stands up his right hand comes into view and we can see the nail mark in his hand (yeah, his hand, not the wrist). He then walks toward the light and out of frame as drums play on the soundtrack. I know it doesn’t sound like much, but it was very effective onscreen. In his Q&A session, Gibson said that scene was shot later, sort of as an afterthought. I think he said they felt the ending was too much of a downer with no real payoff, so they decided to add that on. I’m glad they did; otherwise the film has no emotional payoff.
Did he say how the choices were made of what to use and what not to use?
Two reviews of the film on AICN. I hadn’t heard of the BNAT before and there is a brief description about it as well. It sounds great and both Mel Gibson and Peter Jackson deserve credit for showing up.
TWDuke From what he said, I gathered that he picked and chose whatever struck his fancy. His interpretation of Judas Iscariot (which I didn’t care for) came largely from one 18th Century nun who had visions of Judas constantly surrounded by demons. I can’t remember the nun’s name (he mentioned it once rather quickly and I didn’t catch it), but he said she told her visions to an agnostic writer who them copied them down and published them. Gibson also took inspiration from different kinds of art (he mentioned Caravaggio) and from his own “meditations” as he put it.
CyberPundit: I can’t get the link to come up right now. AICN is probably swamped today. It really was cool of Jackson and Gibson to show up. Even though I didn’t like Gibson’s film (and I have problems with him related to his overt homophobia, which he even managed to work into Passion for crying out loud!), I was glad for the opportunity to hear him discuss it and field questions from the audience. And in case you were wondering, he is very good-looking in person. It’s not just good makeup and lighting in the movies, folks.
I was in a meeting with our priest last not who had just come from a sneak preview that afternoon, with Mr. Gibson attending (he sure gets around).
Let me stress, that although he is a preist, he is a very knowledgable and sophisticated filmgoer. He has complained in the past that Christian films tend to be accurate but not very good, and secular films are often very good but tend not to be very accurate (biblically speaking).
For example, he admires The Last Temptation of Christ as a great film, albeit heretical. The Jesus film, on the other hand, while very literal to the bible, is tedious and awkward.
His response to Passion – he was completely blown away. He wasn’t even really able to talk about it so soon after the experience. He just said that it was completely amazing. He had a gut-level, physical reaction to it (he did admit, however, that the first 20 minutes or so were kind of slow).
cbawlmer, everyone’s entitled to their opinions about a film, but is your distaste for Gibson’s politics clouding your judgement of the film? Yours is the first review I’ve read that actually criticized the quality (vs. the content) of the film.
How’s your Aramaic and Hebrew?
Did Gibson say anything nutty in the Q&A?
[Side note: While the language, “rejected by the Jews” is used in the Gospel of John, it needs commentary to be understood correctly. A film which uses such language should be able to cinematically get across the right interpretation. If it doesn’t, then it’s either bad film-making, or possbily, purposely anti-Semetic. Keep in mind that the other three Gospels and the letters of Paul don’t use that language. Therefore, a film of Christ’s passion could simply avoid the whole controversy of that language, if it wanted to.]
Wait— what? Elaborate please. I’m trying to stay objective, so I can give Gibson’s movie a chance when I see it, but this is a huge red flag for me.
Skammer: No, my feelings on his politics aren’t clouding my judgement. I know lots of people at our screening were really, really into the movie and dug it a lot. I disliked it, but because I see it as a major missed opportunity and it had a lot of elements that made me cringe. I’ll get into that later tonight when I have a chance to write up a coherent review.
And yes, the first 20 minutes or so are extremely slow. Literally. Most of the confrontation between Jesus and the soldiers who come to arrest him is played in slow motion. Minute after minute of slo-mo. That section of the movie is like a bad student film. I was really disappointed in the movie. I’m a big fan of Braveheart, so I’d hoped it would be up to the same directorial quality.
Yeah, he was on his way to Nashville that night. He just did a brief stopover in Austin because he wanted to see the reaction of a largely secular audience who didn’t necessarily “have a horse in this race” theologically speaking.
moriah: My Aramaic and Hebrew are non-existent and my Latin is awful, but I can read English subtitles, which this print had. He said he thought maybe some of the current subtitles they have are a little wordy and he might make them a bit more minimalistic though. The subtitles were a good idea. There are some scenes (especially one featuring a conversation on the nature of truth between Pontius Pilate and his wife, Claudia) where viewers would be pretty lost without them.
He didn’t say anything especially nutty in the Q&A. One person asked a question about his feelings on Vatican II since it gets brought up in every article written about this film. He said his feelings about that have nothing at all to do with the content of the film, so it was pretty irrelavent to the subject. I think he’s right about that. Vatican II wouldn’t affect the theology of the film in any way.
Cervaise: There is a brief scene where Jesus is brought before Herod for judgement. Herod shows up wearing a long wig and lots of eyeliner, and he has an effeminate boytoy waiting for him on his throne. I just groaned when I saw it. What the hell was accomplished by that? It added nothing to the story or Herod’s character (who has maybe 3 minutes of screentime). I guess Gibson decided to take the Jesus Christ Superstar approach to Herod. It works in JCS (a totally different animal from this film), but is just silly here. It’s just this moment of “even though Herod finds nothing wrong with Jesus, he’s an evil, hard-partying flamer”. Huh?