Mel Gibson Responds to Passion Question - What's Up With the Ugly Baby?

Christianity Today ^ | March 3, 2004 | Mark Moring

[NYer]

"Please explain the symbolism in the scene showing Satan holding a bald baby. Thank you."

Rosalinda Celentano as Satan

That's just one of dozens of e-mails we've received in the last few days, asking about a surreal scene in The Passion of The Christ where Satan is shown cradling a hideous baby who looks like he's about 40 years old.

The scene occurs during the flogging of Christ. Satan is passing through a crowd of onlookers, cradling an infant in his arms. The baby turns to face the camera, revealing a sinister infant, creeping out audiences everywhere.

We took your questions straight to the source, e-mailing Mel Gibson's publicist for an answer.

When asked why he portrayed Satan—an androgynous, almost beautiful being played by Rosalinda Celentano—the way he did, Gibson replied: "I believe the Devil is real, but I don't believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good—but not quite.

"That's what I tried to do with the Devil in the film. The actor's face is symmetric, beautiful in a certain sense, but not completely. For example, we shaved her eyebrows. Then we shot her almost in slow motion so you don't see her blink—that's not normal. We dubbed in a man's voice in Gethsemane even though the actor is a woman … That's what evil is about, taking something that's good and twisting it a little bit."

But what about the ugly baby?

"Again," said Gibson, "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."

[NYer]

Song of the Angels
William-Adolphe Bouguereau

What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child?

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[fml]

Sounds clear and simple to me.

[Migjagger]

I thought the baby in question was Michael Eisner.

[nickcarraway]

A lot of people wondered about this one.

[Eala]

The daughter of a co-worker said, "It's the Anti-christ." Everyone I relate this to remarks, "D'oh!" (or something to that effect).

[ilgipper]

"I believe the Devil is real, but I don't believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good—but not quite.

That explains a lot about the period between 1992-and 2000.

[N. Theknow]

The daughter of a co-worker said, "It's the Anti-christ."

What Mrs. Theknow and I both thought as well as everyone else we have spoken to that has seen the movie.

[BossLady]

"it's evil distorting what's good"

The moment a thing is strange is when it is the most familiar...

[JustPlainJoe]

ilgipper, BINGO! You win the grand prize!

(Hillary was the ugly, hairy-backed baby who was along for the ride...)

[Stentor]

I think it was excessive exposure to Ingmar Bergman films.

[Agnes Heep]

"Again," said Gibson, "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."

The movie's okay, I guess, but I prefer the book.

[CSM]

The Passion of the Christ ping!

Interesting information.

[PaulaB]

*LOL* (Sorry got off task)

[LibertyGirl77]

"The movie's okay, I guess, but I prefer the book."

Ditto.

[xsmommy]

the purpose of the movie is to gather in those that continue to eschew the book.

[Agnes Heep]

[T]he purpose of the movie is to gather in those that continue to eschew the book.

True, no doubt; but after all that juicy action I'd find it pretty hard to get into King James.

[Arthur McGowan]

Then we shot her almost in slow motion so you don't see her blink—that's not normal.

Like Michael Kinsley, Marshall Applewhite, Wesley Clark, Jean-Bertrand Aristide--all noted non-blinkers.

[smokeyb]

Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good—but not quite.

'That explains a lot about the period between 1992-and 2000.'

I think you need to rethink this one. Which one was Hillary ?

[xsmommy]

God uses many attention getting devices to gather in his own : ) Best to leave Him the gamut with which to work. Mel is merely an instrument.