Posted on 03/04/2004 6:25:40 PM PST by Viva Christo Rey
A REVIEW OF THE FILM, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
by Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
Overall rating: EXCELLENT. This film is nothing short of going and witnessing with one's own eyes the passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
General handling of the subject. I went to the movie with great skepticism, fearing that I would be sorely disappointed by the treatment of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Christ is true God and true man, but the person Christ is the divine Person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Nearly always films humanize Christ too much. The dominant characteristic of Christ is His divinity, and not His humanity.
In this film, however, the preservation of the dominance of divinity in Christ's character was very well portrayed. It is a very, very difficult thing to do, practically impossible. To portray Christ as He really was, it is necessary to combine the authority and dignity of His divinity together with the extreme humility, innocence, and kindness of His humanity. Mr. Gibson has combined these two things in this film, at least as far as is humanly possible. It is a great achievement.
The actors. James Caviezel, the actor who plays Christ, does an incredibly superb job during the entire film, whether it is in the scenes of the passion itself, or in the flashbacks to Our Lord's public life. In my opinion, the accurate portrayal of Christ in the flashback was more difficult than the portrayal of Him in the passion, since in the passion, Our Lord's humanity is most evident. In His public life, however, Our Lord's divinity is more evident. Mr. Caviezel makes an absolutely believable Christ, and one quickly loses the idea that one is watching a movie. The viewer is transported to the scene as if an eyewitness.
Maia Morgenstern plays a very convincing Virgin Mary, but greater praise must be paid to the director, who understood that Our Lady was not merely a wailing woman on the side of the way of the Cross, as she is so often portrayed, but instead a true associate of Our Lord in His passion and death. Only a Catholic would have known to portray her in such a way. Our Lady is not some emotional wreck that cannot bare to see her Son suffer, and who needs to be carried off after she meets Him. Instead, she is with Him from the beginning watching every move that is made, feeling every scourge, receiving every blow. This is her compassion, her passion with Our Lord's. St. Bernard commented that her love for Our Lord was so strong that she permitted no suffering to attain Him which did not go first through her own heart. The film portrays this reality perfectly.
While Our Lady is certainly sorrowful throughout, she retains composure; and sees it through to the end. Theologically and historically speaking, this is absolutely correct.
The actor who plays St. John also does a wonderful and convincing job. Again, however, it is the director who gets the credit. Instead of being the effeminate weakling, as he is portrayed in nearly all films about Christ, St. John is a dignified, strong, and innocent-looking young man who intensely follows Our Lord in everything that happens to Him, seeming to understand perfectly the sacred mission which the passion represents.
The actress who plays St. Mary Magdalene is all right, although not as convincing as the others, in my opinion.
The actor who plays Pontius Pilate was also great in his part, being able to speak very effectively by expressions on his face. In most cases he has no need to say anything, since you know what he is thinking. His tortured conscience about the condemnation of Christ is very well presented.
The members of the Sanhedrin, especially Caiphas, were very well played.
Accuracy. The film is, on the whole, very accurate and very faithful to the gospel, even in some minute details:
a.. The arrest in the garden is very realistic, especially the cutting off of the ear of Malchus, and Our Lord's healing of it.
b.. The trial by the Sanhedrin is exactly as the gospel narrates it.
c.. St. Peter's denial is done superbly.
d.. The scourging at the pillar is so realistic and done so perfectly; according all of the details of both the gospels and commentators, that you feel every scourge that they place on Our Lord's back and chest.
e.. Our Lord's willingness to undergo the passion and to carry the Cross is visible in many little details throughout the whole film.
f.. The meeting with Our Lady is one of the high points of the film. It is deeply, deeply heart-rending. During the meeting, He explains to her the reason for His passion: "Behold, I make all things new." Although this is not recorded in the gospel, it is quite believable that He said this or something like it to her.
g.. The three falls of Our Lord are vividly portrayed, as well as a very believable rendition of making Simon of Cyrene carry the Cross, and of the wiping of Christ's face by Veronica.
h.. The scene on the hill of Calvary, the fixing of Christ to the Cross, and the raising of the Cross are lifelike, sorrowful, and powerful.
i.. The seven last words are very well done, especially the giving of Our Lady to St. John.
j.. The darkening of the sky and the earthquake are very accurate and vividly enacted.
Inaccuracy. There are a few inaccuracies in the film, which the movie-goer should be aware of:
a.. He shows Christ being tempted by the devil in the agony of the garden. This is not mentioned in the gospel, but it is not impossible either.
b.. The greatest inaccuracy is the flashback to Our Lord's life in Nazareth, where He is portrayed as a young man who (a) does not answer His mother when she calls; (b) is working on a table which is made improperly; (c) playfully splashes water in Our Lady's face as He is washing His hands. It is impossible that any of these things be true. The scene detracts from the film, and should be removed altogether.
c.. St. Mary Magdalene is portrayed as the woman caught in adultery whom Our Lord saved from stoning. This is not true. She was the woman who washed Our Lord's feet in the house of the Pharisee, and was the brother of Lazarus, whom Our Lord raised from the dead.
d.. Some of the translations on the screen were poor or inaccurate. The Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, is called "The Helper," which is a poor translation. Our Lord says that the Holy Ghost is "from the Father." This is seriously inaccurate. The true translation is that He proceeds from the Father. This is a very important distinction. Furthermore, Christ in the film fails to respond to Pilate, "Thou hast said it," when asked if He were a king. This response is a Hebrew expression which is a very emphatic yes. There are other cases in which I thought the translations were lacking. To the film's credit, however, the words of consecration of the wine do not say for all, which is Novus Ordo, but for many, which it the traditional translation. On the other hand, at the film's Last Supper, the text should have been, "This is the chalice of My Blood which (chalice) poured out." Instead we read in the subtitle that the Blood is given, which is not accurate.
Omissions. Surprisingly and sadly, there are a few omissions:
a.. The soldiers in the garden falling back when Our Lord identifies Himself. This event recorded in the gospel is a clear indication of Our Lord's divinity.
b.. The incident of Pilate's insistence to the Pharisees concerning the INRI: "What I have written, I have written."
c.. The statement by the Jews, "Let His blood be upon us and upon our children."
d.. The solemn splitting of the Temple curtain. It is seen very briefly, and it is a result of the earthquake, but it did not happen in such a perfunctory or accidental manner, but in a miraculous way.
e.. The declaration by Longinus, "Truly this man is the Son of God. "
Conclusion. Despite these inaccuracies and omissions, the film is a splendid, first-rate, genuine, and deeply moving rendition of the passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I recommend it to all. Go and see it not once, but many times.
Although I believe that Mr. Gibson needs to publicly repudiate many bad films from years past, he has done us a great service by bringing to our eyes the passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He deserves thanks for this great and courageous project, and especially for bringing it to term over the objections of the modern-day Sanhedrin.
The link for the above article is currently missing but the parent websites are:
Overall rating: EXCELLENT. This film is nothing short of going and witnessing with one's own eyes the passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Another view!
.....
c.. The statement by the Jews, "Let His blood be upon us and upon our children."
The statement is still in the film. Gibson chose not to have it in the subscript.
Concerning the INRI. Mel went to so much trouble to be accurate, but he didn't have it in Greek as well as Latin and Hebrew per Pilate's order.
Also, Mel had a BIG no-no when he showed the soldiers tear Christ's tunic in two before crucifying Him. Scripture - both the Gospel account and the Psalms it quotes - is VERY clear (for theological reasons) that the tunic, woven of one piece, remained intact. b.. The greatest inaccuracy is the flashback to Our Lord's life in Nazareth, where He is portrayed as a young man who (a) does not answer His mother when she calls; (b) is working on a table which is made improperly; (c) playfully splashes water in Our Lady's face as He is washing His hands. It is impossible that any of these things be true. The scene detracts from the film, and should be removed altogether.
I don't know why the author feels it is "inaccurate". Clearly imagination on the part of Mel. Non-scriptural but not necessarily anti-scriptural. If anything else, it allowed Mel to show Christ in His "hidden life" as a carpenter and the special relationship He had with his mother. Also, His humanity comes through in this scene from daily life. It introduced Mary in the movie visually, which seems to follow the events mostly through her eyes (sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary). I thought the scene worked well. It got people in the theatre to laugh. If ever a man laughed, Christ must have. From there on out, no laughing occurred.
The table is made to the specifications of "a rich man". I interpret Jesus's willingness to do such a thing as another dimension of his humility. Clearly the table prefigures the table in the Upper Room, as well as the Altar -- both of which antiquity would have considered too high for proper dining.
The splashing of Mary with water is a clear reference to the Asperges. I'm stunned that a Lefebvreite follower should not get this.
The statement is still in the film. Gibson chose not to have it in the subscript.
Regarding this, I am not that sure, it could be, but it seems that a lot was edited out of the scene with Pilate. It was rather choppy with an editing, that seemed purposely unprofessional as if to say: "I had to cut something here guys ;-( "
I am thinking of the scene BEFORE the table flashback to Nazareth, when Our Lord glances at a carpenter with a chisel in Caiphas' courtyard - the carpenter who was already making His Cross before the hearing of His guilt or innocnece was finished. I think this was some material from the stigmatic, the Veneraable Ann Katherine Emmerich, that was deleted, only Mel wanted to keep the Nazareth scene so he had the briefest galnce and then a very choppy edit.
The music during the scenes with Pilate were also very choppy or fading in our out - did anyone else notice this or did I just catch a bad print?
As far as the author's views, they are the author's not my own. I thought the squatting at the table bit was a little silly but the wholse scene was appropriate - and YES, GOD DOES LAUGH - WELL HE CERTAINLY HAS A SENSE OF HUMOR!
Concerning the INRI. Mel went to so much trouble to be accurate, but he didn't have it in Greek as well as Latin and Hebrew per Pilate's order.
Yes, I caught this also. It would have been nice to also hear Pilate tell the Pharisees:
JOHN 19:22 Pilate answered: What I have written, I have written.
I had my own little list also, I guess we all had!
Oh, if you mean is the SSPV another ***TRULY ROMAN CATHOLIC SOCIETY OF VALIDLY ORDAINED PRIESTS***, yes it is along wiht the CMRI and many other independent Roman Catholic priests!
:-)
I gave a brief pedigree, for those unfamiliar with the SSPV, but here is a bit more. In 1983 although Abp. Lefebvre still permitted the SSPX priests in Australia to use the unadulterated pre-Bugnini rubrics of the Mass, i.e the Saint Pius X rubrics, he forbade the SSPX priests in the U.S. from continuing to use them and ordered them to switch to the John23rd rubrics. Nine priests refused and he expelled them.
They then formed the SSPV which later fragmented in the early 1990's over the issue of whether the Holy See is vacant or its authority and occupation merely impeded.
Bp. Dolan, Saint Gertrude the Great
=============================================
And not connected to them but they are good Roman Catholic priests and I'll post them also:
Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae
===============================================
There is also the Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, an independent order of former SSPX Roman Catholic priests based in Europe and headquartered in Italy.
Here's mine, which actually got printed in our local paper under letters to the editor:
Go and see the greatest story ever told."Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34) "Behold, I make all things new!" (Revelation 21:5)
These verses make up the heart of "The Passion of the Christ." You may have heard them before, but after seeing this movie, you will never hear them in the same way again.
Theater doesn't reflect a culture as much as precede its future direction. Who controls the theater determines the future direction of society. Why? Because the theater is the greatest of all the arts, in that it so closely imitates life itself, and engages every aspect of human sensibility. For good or evil, the sights and sounds of the theater directly affect the soul. For the theater goer, intellectual examination of what has been taken in may or may not follow. Therefore, it is critical for the health of a society that what its members absorb through the theater be moral and uplifting.
At a time when the arts seem to have been captured by the demonic, we have been graced with a movie that conforms with the proper object of the medium. Most importantly, the subject matter of the movie is the greatest story ever told. Secondly, but just as important for the movie's success in changing hearts, the artistic quality of the film is of the highest order.
This movie is brutally honest. The characters are real. The setting is real. The dialogue is real. The pain is real. At no time was I conscious of watching a dramatization. Within a few minutes of the film's opening I felt that I was there with Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. I was there with Him at the scourging. I was there with Him at the crowning of thorns. I was there when they crucified my Lord.
There are several keys to the films realism, perhaps the most important being the use of the original languages. Another key is the characterizations of Jesus and Mary. Both are convincing. Unlike previous "Jesus movies," Jim Caviezal captured Jesus' dual nature perfectly. Jesus is neither too human nor too otherworldly. Mary's portrayal surpassed my expectations. In her there is no sentimentality. She courageously and stoicly embraces her cross. In one stunning scene Satan moves along the route to Calvary, mirroring Mary's movements. Mel Gibson is contrasting God's two greatest creations, Mary and her evil antithesis. Perhaps for this reason Mel cast a woman as Satan. The androgenous figure is striking not so much for its malevolence but for the fact that Satan appears as a shell of a being, something that once was but is no more.
Further heightening the realism are the many crowd scenes. The camera alternately takes the viewpoint of the crowd and the central characters. This is most effective when Jesus is carrying His cross. The camera places you in Jesus' position and then in the crowd. I could see and feel myself in both positions, sometimes as an innocent victim and sometimes as Jesus' antagonist, sometimes as a helpless bystander and sometimes as someone going along with the crowd.
Perhaps this is what makes the film so effective, in that it forces you to take a hard look at yourself and your own life. This lesson is reinforced with the portrayal of Simon of Cyrene. In Gibson's rendition, Simon is singled out by a Roman soldier to help Jesus carry the cross. At first unwilling and proudly indifferent, Simon eventually sympathizes with this man who is being so horribly brutalized. Eventually he summons the courage to defend Jesus against the sadistic soldiers. He is transformed by Jesus' suffering.
But what sets this movie apart from all other depictions of Jesus' life, above all else, is its unflinching portrayal of Jesus' brutalization. Jesus is sadistically beaten with canes, and then with a flagrum by His Roman captors. It is very difficult to watch. I wanted to shout, "God, make it stop!" And then when it appeared that Jesus was going to be released by His torturers, they began beating Him again. The effect is stunning. It breaks through your emotional defenses. It breaks you. "No greater love has a man..."
The effect continues through the Crucifixion, where the words, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" take on new meaning. This is superhuman, supernatural love. It is a transcendent moment, one of many in the greatest movie ever made.
What's that?
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.