There have been many movies that depict stories from the Bible. What sets Passion of the Christ apart is the very narrow focus of the film. A film like The Ten Commandments works as a self-contained story, and can be appreciated by believer and non-believer alike. Passion, on the other hand, is a movie that focuses intensely on a powerful part of the Jesus story that resonates deeply for Christians but is little more than punishment for everyone else.
The Passion Play as a movie
The Passion Play, in and of itself, is soaked in emotion but does not make for a satisfying self-contained movie per se. I think Mel Gibson missed a wonderful (though ambitious) opportunity to create a trilogy that could have been more compelling for both Christian and non-Christian alike. The first film could have set the stage with the life of Jews under Roman rule and focus on the Nativity story. The second film could have focused on the teachings of Jesus and illustrate why this person means so much to so some people, and the danger he represents to the established order, which would lead to the movie we are now talking about, though possibly supplemented with a more thorough resurrection section, instead of the one that was tacked onto the end of the existing movie.
The fact that Gibson already assumes parts 1 & 2 of the story are given, undermines the true impact and resonance of Jesus’ persecution, torture and murder, but such is the choice of the screenwriter and director. So when a screenwriter and director choos to focus on the most horrific and agonizing portions of the Jesus story, what then should one “get” from the movie? The intense focus on the torture Jesus endured would suggest that the viewer is supposed to realize and appreciate just what Jesus went through for mankind. But if this is the extent of the purpose of the film, it excludes everyone who is not Christian from getting anything out of this movie but a 2-hour obsession with sadism.
Faithfulness to the source material
Well, this is the Gospel according to Mel. It agrees with the existing Gospels as much as they agree with one another. Some feature events that are omitted in other ones. Such is true with this movie. In Mel’s account, Jesus fell more than three times, a crucified theif’s eye gets pecked out and focuses on the description of Jesus’ death more than it’s meaning. How accurate is the depiction of Roman torture? I’m not enough of an historian in Roman punishment to answer. I have to rely on others for that kind of detail.
One of the things I most admired in the film is the use of the actual languages of the setting. Unfortunately, some of truth to the setting is undermined by a European-looking Jesus. In my opinion (which I expect would be received with little support), an actor like John Turturro would have made a more believable “looking” Jesus [Insert Big Lewbowski wisecrack here] – having some Jewish looking features (even though the actor is in fact Italian and Catholic). He has the “hair like wool” mentioned in Revelations and whose lean face and long nose still resemble the Turin shroud’s image (for what that’s worth).
Violence and Gore
Gibson rubs the audience’s face in what I assume is the full measure of the Roman era’s capacity for torture and presumably wants to deliver unto his audience a fraction of the torture that was inflicted upon Jesus. I don’t think there is any value of sugar-coating the degree of suffering Jesus went through, but in my opinion, Gibson utilized the violence to make his point, and then cranked it up a notch, so that you would really get his point. The relentless glee that the Roman soldiers had in torturing Jesus was particularly punishing. Some of the violence, brutality and gore was neccessary, some of it was gratuitous. In any other case, I would expect a movie that traded so much on suffering to earn an NC-17 rating.
Anti-Semitism
Take it for what it’s worth that the movie is no more or less anti-Semitical than the Gospels. With the exception of Pilate, each character or group of characters is painted quite one-dimensional. There is the high preist Caiphas, et al. who deign to stamp out the blasphemous threat to their influence. Is this the only instance of the power elite trying to take out threats to their power? Hardly. There is a crowd of Jews, deeply offended by a blasphemer claiming to be the Son of their God, whipped into a frenzy by the high preists. Is this the only instance of bloodthirsty mob mentality ever recorded? Far from it. One could argue (quite successfully) that the most heinous (and equally one-dimensional) portrayal is that of the Roman soldiers whose sadistic glee in torture is on par with that of the Marquis de Sade.
There will always be those people whose pre-existing contempt of other groups will use an event with high potential for controversy such as this movie to further their own agenda. Some Christian fundamentalists may (somehow) see a movie as affirmation for demonization of Jews. Sensitive Jews may see this movie as a symptom that threatens to pull the hearts and minds of the world back to the horror of Nazi Germany.
Which brings me to what I hope is a provoking question: If an unsympathetic portrayal of a group of Jews of the far-distant past neccessarily equals condemnation of Jews in today’s society; does the unanimous portrayal of Nazis as pure evil equal the condemnation of Germans in today’s society?
My final analysis
It’s tough to go into a movie like this without also bringing in the full weight of your belief system. Given this, it was my goal to go into it as objectively as possible and with as few expectations as possible. With that said, the film has two strikes against it: it’s narrow focus relevance almost exclusively to Christians and a gratutious amount of violence and gore. If you are looking for a good film treatment of the Jesus story, stick with the 6-hour made-for TV epic Jesus of Nazareth by Franco Zeffirelli (available on Netflix, if you’re interested.)
Full disclosure
I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school and was an alter-boy. In my late 20’s I began asking questions about the origin of my beliefs, found the answers (or lack therof) wholly unsatisfactory and grew progressively agnostic. Which is where I currently am. If I were to limit my closest friends to no more then ten people, two would be of the Jewish faith. Moreover, Judaism was central in the life of my last girlfriend.
