THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST [4-star review from Roger Ebert]

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | Feb 24, 2004 | Roger Ebert

[BigSkyFreeper]

If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.

The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.

I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:

At the Cross, her station keeping ...

Stood the mournful Mother weeping ...

Close to Jesus to the last.

For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."

This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.

This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.)

If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts.

The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo.

In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous.

Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.

"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."

This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.

A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.

This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.

Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it).

It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.

Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic

[AppyPappy]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084620/posts

Never hurts to do a search

[Monty22]

The movie theater I drove by, at 6:20am this morning, was packed like a Star Wars opening night. It was insane.

People were calling in on the radio about it too. I was hoping to see it soon, but it'll probably be well sold out.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

MEL's -PASSION- sparked by -WE WERE SOLDIERS-

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39081


2 true stories of LOVE and Sacrifice in Action.



Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer / Vet-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965

http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm
(IA DRANG-1965 Photos, 3-Sets)

.

[concerned about politics]

The movie theater I drove by, at 6:20am this morning, was packed like a Star Wars opening night.

I know what you mean. There was no way we could have gotten in last night. We're going to wait for an "off time" to see it. Maybe a Sunday matinee. That way we'd have a greater chance of getting in.

Mel can thank the liberals for their anti-Christ propaganda. It was 24/7 free advertising to see his movie.

[concerned about politics]

Any other Christians out there who got a sneak peek with their church?
If so fill us in.
I have a 14 year old, and I'm wondering whether I should take her, or check it out first.
(If I'm not sure, I'll have to leave her home and get the DVD later).

[Texas2step]

For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of.

BINGO!!! This is what I've been saying all along. This is the purpose of this movie. It's to help us understand what Christ did for us when he died for us.

It's impossible to understand the depth of Christ's love for us if we do not understand the depth of His suffering and His sacrifice.

Paul writes in Philippians 3:10-11
10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

[reasonseeker]

"From the time I was capable of conceiving an idea, and acting upon it by reflection, I either doubted the truth of the christian system, or thought it to be a strange affair; I scarcely knew which it was: but I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the church, upon the subject of what is called Redemption by the death of the Son of God. After the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed his son, when he could not revenge himself any other way; and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of those kind of thoughts that had any thing in it of childish levity; it was to me a serious reflection, arising from the idea I had that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it. I believe in the same manner to this moment; and I moreover believe, that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.

It seems as if parents of the christian profession were ashamed to tell their children any thing about the principles of their religion. They sometimes instruct them in morals, and talk to them of the goodness of what they call Providence; for the Christian mythology has five deities: there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the God Providence, and the Goddess Nature. But the christian story of God the Father putting his son to death, or employing people to do it, (for that is the plain language of the story,) cannot be told by a parent to a child; and to tell him that it was done to make mankind happier and better, is making the story still worse; as if mankind could be improved by the example of murder; and to tell him that all this is a mystery, is only making an excuse for the incredibility of it."

- Thomas Paine

[Texas2step]

Never hurts to do a search

It might have been first, but that threads locked. :-)

No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him.

Ebert gets it.

[concerned about politics]

Well, FOX just interviewed people coming out of the theaters, and they were in awe. They said it drew you into the movie so you almost felt as if you were a witness to the Crucifixion yourself.

[concerned about politics]

PS...

In the movie, there's also Satan behind the scenes while Christ is suffering. A liberal hiding in the dark.

[Texas2step]

Don't know if any of you have read Roger Ebert's full review yet, or not. Thought I would *ping* you, just in case.

[AppyPappy]

It might have been first, but that threads locked. :-)

But it wasn't locked when this was posted :)

[Texas2step]

But it wasn't locked when this was posted :)

Should have said, "now locked". :-)

Don't know why the AM locked that one and left this one, but this is what we've got. What'd you think of this review? When are you going to see the movie?

[Flux Capacitor]

Ebert may be the best film reviewer on the planet. I'm not particularly religious myself but it's been many years since I've looked forward to a movie as much as I am this one.

PASSION is shaping up to be a true blockbuster.... and it will be gratifying indeed to see such a powerful, worthwhile film earn the kind of success usually reserved for empty, soulless special-effects showcases.

-Dan

[Flux Capacitor]

Ebert, of course, said it better:

----The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.----

[AppyPappy]

I'm not. I'm a Protestant. :)

I have a very jaded view of people playing Jesus. Too iconic for my tastes. I feel there is too much temptation to make Jesus more "customer friendly". In reality, He barely survived the flogging (40 lashes was a death sentence in the Roman Empire) and was not able to even be lashed to the beam as was the custom. They had to get Simon the Cyrene to carry the beam for Him.

The most significant event was not how He died but that He died. He left Heaven and came to Earth to die for OUR sins. He could have called down Angels and wiped out that weak bunch of soldiers but He willingly became the sacrificial Lamb so that WE might be Saved. If He hadn't done this, the whole world would have perished. A mere depiction of that is a bit more than I can bear.

[dinasour]

anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism

I find it so touching that the liberals can take time from their Yassir Arafat solidarity marches to stand up for their brothers, the Jews.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Read the morning paper, The Billings Gazette, and read the reviews of the pre-release showing in Billings last night, and it was jam packed. Sounds like the theaters here in Montana are sold out as far as the rest of the week and upcoming weekend are concerned. The theme of many stories I've read are that there's a hushed silence for 5 minutes after the credits finish, then everyone quietly gets up and walks out the door wiping tears from their eyes. I personally haven't seen it, but I think the movie itself vividly depicts John 3:16 in such a way people who don't quite understand what He went through will be able to understand just what that passage means.

[Texas2step]

I'm not. I'm a Protestant. :)

Lot's of Protestants will be going. IMO, it's not possible to know and understand the depth of His love for us until we fully understand the depth of His suffering and sacrifice.

I'm a Protestant, as well, but it's my belief that too many Christians have a very shallow understanding of what Christ went through for our sakes. The cross has been sanitized by many churches and many Christians fail to grasp the humanity of Jesus.

A mere depiction of that is a bit more than I can bear.

If you don't want to go, I can certainly respect that. I am just a little surprised that you won't be going knowing you through your posts on FR as a strong Christian.