Posted on 03/26/2004 9:12:56 PM PST by churchillbuff
No green hill far away ALL the best films about Jesus have been controversial. The worst have had more sugar than a builder’s cuppa. No one can disagree that Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ is causing controversy; but is it a good film about Jesus?
It depends on what you want. If you are looking for a straight narrative portrayal of his life, death and resurrection, as you might find in one of the Gospels, you’ll be disappointed. If you prefer evocative Jesus films, poetic and fighting interpretative closure, you’ll get out of your cinema seat heavy with literalist stiffness.
If, however, you are looking for a consciously crafted composite account of the last 12 hours of Jesus’s life, made out of the four Gospels, and for a film that will help you picture some historical and unpleasant realities as those texts are forced into flesh, then you will probably find yourself on the way to telling others to go to see The Passion.
It has to be said that Gibson doesn’t allow us many glimpses of Jesus before his betrayal and arrest. This is a pity, as the flashbacks are some of the most rewarding and moving parts of the film.
We get little sense, then, of Jesus the person, the man we are made to watch being persecuted in such a gruesome way from the opening of the film in a dark, misty Gethsemane, until the end, when we see him sit up and blink his large eyelashes in his tomb. (I would have preferred more Marcan ambiguity.)
If the film has an artistic failure, it is that we are left unsure who Jesus was; and why — metaphysically if not politically — he had to go through such unbearable torments.
They are, let there be no mistake, unbearable. The film has prolonged bloody beatings, whippings, and nailings, all shown in horrific colour (mostly red) close-up. I had to keep looking away. Perhaps Gibson wants me to acknowledge that? Violence ceases to be pornographic if placed within a wider purpose than that of pure entertainment. At times the film struggles to maintain this purpose.
The film is enriched by good actors. James Caviezel depicts a brutalised and dehumanised victim shockingly well, aided by make-up that took seven hours to put in place.
Francesco de Vitto captures Peter’s denial in such a way that most eyes moisten with uncomfortable recognition; and the Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern would make even the hardest Protestant warm to mother Mary, and the most pious Catholic question how she has been sold short by plaster and plastic.
We meet an intriguingly shifty and androgynous Satan, played by Rosalinda Celentano; and a marvellously plausible Pilate, shaped by Hristo Naumov Shopov. The film is subtitled very successfully. All the Jewish characters in the film speak Aramaic, and the Romans speak “street Latin”. Culturally, choral evensong seems miles away.
It is obvious today how difficult it is to present one’s own belief narrative in public and expect trust or even respect. Gibson has many critics, not least some of the Jewish community. I did not find this film anti-Semitic.
It was the Romans I thought were awful; and crowds anywhere are equally prone to feverish injustice. In such a dark epic of violence, it is the small acts of human tenderness that strike you as the true miracles; and these moments of grace are mostly brought about here by ordinary Jewish folk.
Rather, as a viewing priest, I was only too aware of the controlling and inhumane tendencies of organised religion and those who consider themselves spiritually correct. Whether religious and political virtuosi jig up mountains on donkeys or get driven in Volvos, we all have to watch out that they are not denying life or conscience.
So, is this a good film about Jesus? I think it is more likely to be remembered for its brutality than for its portrait of Jesus. It is, after all, about the Passion. I suspect that many British audiences will feel that it is too evangelistic in tone, or that in its final scenes it is too miraculous in the Hollywood style, to be taken seriously.
If so, I hope they will not miss the wider and basic human applications of the film’s themes. As a Christian, I feel it is better for our domestic consumption than for export, because, whether one likes the film or not, whether one is offended or enlightened, one thing is sure: Good Fridays will never quite be the same again.
The Revd Mark Oakley is Rector of St Paul’s, Covent Garden.
Can't have any of those resurrection miracles, they are so unbelievable in a Christian church.
This is a good thing.
God can obviously conquer death. That He would die for us, miserably and as a man, makes the death of Christ, to me, the holiest of His deeds.
Idiotic, especially from a priest. Such a film as he envisions would be 20 hours long (by Hollywood standards) at least. The scope and point of the film was announced in advance, the last 12 hours. That's it. When was the last time any of us remember a film so criticized for not exceeding the exact scope it announced up front? And what about this film did not tell us who Jesus was, either metaphysically or politically? It was absolutely clear to me. His ways are not our ways. The film defined the love Jesus has for us, which is not the love any of us is capable of.
Then those who think such need to be evangelized.
one thing is sure: Good Fridays will never quite be the same again.
Excellent point.
The film is what it is...a staggering glimpse of the suffering Christ endured. If it raises questions as to the "why" of His death, or who He was while here on Earth, then so much the better. If God truly directed the film, as I suspect, He will have no difficulty providing the answers to questions asked.
Thus realizing the purpose for which God created the medium of film, and making "The Passion" the greatest movie ever made. But what do we know...
Subtlety is wasted on some people. The film was about the Passion--the last 12 hours of Christ's life. Mel has said he purposefully ommitted material about Christ's life b/c he hoped viewers would try to find the missing pieces.........and get the inspiring answers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.