The Passion Of The Christ (Subtitled) (DVD)

~ ~ The mad cabbie and family went to watch the new movie about our Lord, “The Passion of the Christ” over the weekend. I find it hard to recall when a film last caused such a furore of criticism and comment in the media (both good and bad) as this two-hour plus depiction of Christ’s last hours on earth.

~ ~ Mel Gibson, the famous all-action actor (and devout Christian), decided he wanted to make a movie about Christ’s Passion, from ...
...Gethsemane to his death on the Cross at Calvary at the hands of the Jews and Romans.
But the backing (or the motivation) to make such a movie was lacking in present-day Hollywood, so Gibson took the almost unprecedented decision to finance the movie with $30 million of his own fortune. He felt it was a story that he simply HAD to produce on celluloid, and was thus prepared to gamble his own money in order to ensure that it was produced. The ... more

~ ~ The mad cabbie and family went to watch the new movie about our Lord, “The Passion of the Christ” over the weekend. I find it hard to recall when a film last caused such a furore of criticism and comment in the media (both good and bad) as this two-hour plus depiction of Christ’s last hours on earth.

~ ~ Mel Gibson, the famous all-action actor (and devout Christian), decided he wanted to make a movie about Christ’s Passion, from the time of his betrayal by Judas Iscariot in the Garden of Gethsemane to his death on the Cross at Calvary at the hands of the Jews and Romans.
But the backing (or the motivation) to make such a movie was lacking in present-day Hollywood, so Gibson took the almost unprecedented decision to finance the movie with $30 million of his own fortune. He felt it was a story that he simply HAD to produce on celluloid, and was thus prepared to gamble his own money in order to ensure that it was produced. The fact that it is now making massive amounts of money at the worldwide box office was by no means a certainty when the idea was first mooted, and I take my hat off to Gibson for the moral courage and fortitude it must have taken in order to make this movie. (Not to mention the tremendous financial risk!)

~ ~ The film, quite simply, tells the story of Christ’s Passion. Where it comes in for criticism is that it doesn’t do so in the stylised, sanitised way that it has been depicted on film in the past, but shows viewers the way it actually happened; the pain, the blood, the gore, the guts, the courage, and the unbelievable and almost unbearable agony of a person brutally scourged and then nailed and hung on a Cross to die.
The movie does this graphically, and practically from the opening sequences in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus is first arrested, right up to the closing scenes when he eventually dies on the Cross at Golgotha the violence is almost completely unrelenting. I went to the movie having already read acres of newsprint and reviews about it in the media, and so thought I was prepared for what I was about to watch. I was wrong! I wasn’t prepared, and came out at the end totally shell shocked and almost traumatised at what I had just witnessed, such was the power of this film.
That said, I don’t accept the massive criticism that Gibson has had to endure from some quarters in regard to the graphic violence in the movie. The scourging and crucifixion of our Lord WAS violent, and very, very nasty indeed. So I believe that the violence is an integral part of the whole story, and had it been fudged or in some way diluted to make it more acceptable to people’s sensibilities, then the movie would have lost all of its astounding impact and power. As the Holy Father (Pope John Paul) is reputed to have remarked after his private viewing of the film, “It is as it was.”

~ ~ Gibson has also come under fire for his “anti-Semitism”, which is supposedly portrayed in the movie. Quite where this charge comes from is beyond me!
His past has been dredged up and minutely dissected, even the fact that his father is somewhat of an apologist for the atrocities perpetuated on the Jewish people by Nazi Germany.
He has been accused of being a member of some obscure, fanatical, right wing Catholic sect that totally rejects the edicts and reforms of Vatican Two. (Which reformed the Catholic Church back in the 1960’s) Again, this is blown out of all proportion. Put simply, Gibson rejects the changes in the Mass that were instigated by Vatican Two, and instead prefers to celebrate the Mass using the old, Latin rite, where the whole Mass is celebrated in the ancient Latin. He is by no means alone in this belief, and even here in my home city of Dublin you can still attend the Mass in Latin if you so desire. (The Vatican has now sanctioned this, after a short period when it was initially rejected as heretical)
Quite how Gibson could have changed the film in order to protect the sensibilities of the Jewish people escapes me! As the Holy Father rightly pointed out, “it is as it was”. The Jewish people of the time (and their Roman overlords) were responsible for condemning the Lord to death. That’s simple historical fact, however unpalatable it may be to some people. No sensible person could take any serious umbrage at this, as no sensible person could begin to imagine that anyone of sound mind could possibly still hold a grudge against the modern-day Jewish people for something that took place some 2,000 plus years ago.
In fact, the people who come out of this movie with the worst reputations are the ancient Roman soldiers, who by in large are portrayed as sadistic, violent brutes with a love of inflicting unspeakable torture on their victims. (I haven’t heard the modern-day Italians complaining about this. Have you?)

~ ~ Gibson’s choice of actors for the film is nothing short of inspired.
For the part of Jesus he chose an actor called James Caviezel. (Angel Eyes 2001, High Crimes 2002) He played the role to almost total perfection, and in fact bore a striking resemblance to the actual historical figure of Jesus. (Or at least to the way he is often depicted in print)
The other actors who made a lasting impression on me were Maia Morgenstern, a little known Romanian actress who played the part of Mary, Jesus’s mother, and Monica Bellucci (Matrix Revolutions) who took the role of Mary Magdalene, the reformed prostitute who Jesus saved from death by stoning.
I wasn’t so sure of the choice of actor/actress for the part of Satan. Gibson used a woman, Rosalinda Celentano, and depicted Satan as an androgynous figure, who it was difficult to place as either male or female. The actual portrayal was excellent, with Satan coming across vividly as the “old deceiver”, and tempting Christ to abandon his plan to take upon himself the sins of the world. But Satan (or so the Bible tells us) is a male figure. He was the leading angel in heaven before his fall, and sat at God’s right hand: Lucifer, the “light bearer”. So where Gibson got the idea of portraying Satan in the way he did is a bit of a mystery!

~ ~ Throughout the film Gibson uses little flashbacks to remind the viewer of the divinity of Christ, and how his death by crucifixion was taking place to fulfil God’s divine plan for the world. He shows us the scene of the Last Supper, where the Lord instigated the Holy Eucharist by breaking the bread and drinking the wine with his disciples. He then graphically compares this with the real-life shedding of his flesh and blood.
“Take this bread all of you and eat it. This is my body that will be given up for you.” Again he took the cup, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take this all of you and drink from it. This is the cup of the new and everlasting covenant. It is shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.” I personally thought that this was magnificently handled. I share in Communion on a regular basis, but these scenes really brought home to me the power and the sacrifice that the Lord made on behalf of all humanity, in the way the printed word never could.
Other moving scenes were of a young Jesus making a table in the courtyard of his home, watched by Mary his mother. The love between son and mother shone through, and Gibson shows us that undying love again in the scene where Mary runs to Jesus’ aid when he stumbles while carrying his Cross. The movie flashes back to Jesus falling and stumbling as a child, and his mother rushing to his aid with concern and love showing all over her face.
Mary’s place in the Christian church is outlined in the scene where she and his disciple John speak to the Lord as he is dying on the Cross. “Mother, behold your son. Son, behold your mother.” This is where Mary was given authority by the Lord as the “Mother” of the Church, and why she is today revered by Catholics as our “Holy Mother” and “Our Lady”.

~ ~ There is a tradition in the Catholic Church called the “Stations of the Cross”.
In every Catholic Church the way of Jesus last journey to Calvary is depicted on twelve plinths portrayed on the walls of the chapel. On occasion, Catholics (some more than others) will slowly re-live the Stations of the Cross by quietly contemplating on the agonies and the sacrifice of Christ on his last, most painful journey, while looking at the pictures.
After watching “The Last Passion of the Christ” I will never look upon this small ritual in quite the same way again. Gibson has forever changed my vision of our Lord’s last journey, and when I perform this duty in the future it will be with a far better understanding of the agonies involved, and with a far deeper Christian devotion as a consequence.
Gibson catches it all on film. Jesus constantly stumbling and falling. The revulsion and loathing of the people on the route to Golgotha as they revile and spit at him. The hatred and sadism of the Roman soldiers as they mercilessly whip, kick and beat him. The compassion of Simon of Cyrene, who was press-ganged into assisting the Lord when his broken body could carry his Cross no longer. The brutality of the nails being driven through his hands and feet. His forgiveness, right up until the end, when he forgives the “good” thief at Calvary, when he repents of his sins.
“Remember me when you enter your kingdom.”
To which Jesus replies, “I assure you, this day you will be with me in paradise.”
His forgiveness of his tormenters. “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.”
The darkening of the sky when the Lord finally breathed his last, and the earthquake that tore asunder the Jewish temple.
And the final (for me unforgettable) scene where the rock is rolled slowly back from the cave where they put his body, to show the resurrected Jesus, with only the holes of the nails in his hands as a reminder of his horrific ordeal and death.
For me, as for all Christians, THAT is the final victory.

~ ~ Was there anything about the film that I didn’t like?
Well, as I already mentioned, I couldn’t quite fathom why Gibson chose to depict Satan in the way he did. Also, I found the depiction of Judas Iscariot rather unsympathetic and harsh. Although I have to admit to always having had sneaking sympathy for Judas, as a man simply caught up in his role in a sequence of events over which he had no real say or control.
I thought the portrayal of Pilate a little “wishy-washy.” Historically, he is said to have been a harsh, brutal man, with a record of massive cruelty when it came to dealing with the Jewish people. Here in Gibson’s film he is shown as a just (if weak) man, who simply wants to cover his own back in case his condemnation of Jesus leads to further trouble and insurrection.
But those few criticisms apart, I thought this was a totally marvellous movie.

~ ~ You may have noticed that I haven’t really dwelt at length on the graphic violence that is shown throughout the film. That’s because (for me) it wasn’t the main point of the movie. The love, compassion and total and absolute goodness of the Lord are what I took most from the film. His love for all humanity, and his divine power shone through in every scene.
Obviously, my interpretation of the movie is coloured by my Christian beliefs. (How could it be otherwise?) But even if you are not a believer, then this movie has much to offer even from the historical viewpoint.
It’s not a film you could by any stretch of the imagination describe as enjoyable in the traditional sense, but it’s a film that cannot fail to leave you unmoved at some level. It took me fully half an hour to recover my composure when we left the cinema, and it had exactly the same effect on my wife, her friend, and our young daughter. (Almost 13)

~ ~ Not a film to be missed, and fully deserving of any honours, plaudits, and Oscars that may come its way. (Not that that’s very likely, given the reaction of the majority of Hollywood moguls!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~

© KenJ April 2004

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

...less