THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST: The Bravest “Braveheart” of them all?

Wow, what a phenomenon Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion Of The Christ” has stirred up here in February of 2004. God may be looking down from the windows of heaven and shaking his head in wonder at all the thoughts and words about Gibson’s movie.

I came away from the movie with three impressions. First, the movie is overwhelming, especially if you are a Christian. Second, as a piece of art, it is a great movie. And third, it is extremely painful to watch, and it is this third impression which will probably determine how you feel about it if you see it..

Regardless of all the multiplicity of issues surrounding the movie, if you can bear to watch it, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a tremendous piece of film-making art in and of itself. The people involved did an outstanding job, often at great real pain and sacrifice, and at the risk of their very careers, and it is apparent that they had their own deep and abiding passion in the making of this film. Like what he did or not, you can’t say that Mel Gibson and those working with him didn’t lay it on the line with this movie. They were committed to a dream, and to a cause. While sometimes we might question such motives in film making, it’s not against the law and it has a grand tradition if you search the archives of film. A lot of people had causes to push in their movies.


The politics surrounding the movie are about as interesting as the movie itself, of course. I don’t think it is an “anti-Semitic” movie or that it would arouse “anti-Semitic” feelings in someone who wasn’t already a bigot that way. Even so, at a time when for the last 15 years or so the worldwide Jewish community has been in a particularly embattled state, I can understand why some Jewish folks would be very sensitive to anything that might even remotely put them or even seem to put them, in a bad light. But the bad light really isn’t cast on the Jewish community; no, it is cast on something quite different.


Along with the politics, there is also the question of how much graphic human pain, misery, and suffering should be brought to the screen in order to convey an artistic or even a “religious” message. While many of us are admirers of many of Mel Gibson’s movies, there is a bit of MAD MAX roaring through nearly all of them. Even BRAVEHEART had its share (and in this movie we see what may be the bravest “Braveheart” of them all.) So Gibson knows how to pluck the heartstrings of an audience. By that I mean that Mel knows that graphic pain and violence on the screen can get a traumatic reaction from an audience, even if that violence is a part of the portrayal of a “righteous cause.” Gibson is not alone as a filmmaker in this. Countless modern movies such as GLADIATOR had their share of violence.


Yet the blood and gore of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is appalling even in a day of great blood-spilling on the screen, and I am dead-solid sure that young children should NOT be exposed to such a portrayal of torture and violence done to Jesus in the movie, even if it is arguably “realistic.”


I know this is a matter of personal taste though, and where you are on the scale of “I-can-watch-violent-and-gory-stuff” varies from person to person when they go to see a movie. Saving Private Ryan, for example, was an extremely bloody and painful-to-watch movie in places, but I’m glad Spielberg made it, because it was a great movie, even if I wouldn’t want young children to be exposed to some of the scenes in it either.


The questions of “How much gore do we show?” and “Is this movie exploiting pain and violence?” are questions each individual moviegoer must answer for himself or herself. As for myself, I found the graphic, bloody misery in THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST to be almost intolerable to sit through, but at the same time I am willing to accept Gibson’s premise that the point of showing the misery was to demonstrate the depth of sacrificial love that Jesus had for humanity. But moviegoers and critics will be debating that one for a long time to come.


Another peripheral issue which comes with this kind of movie is the question, “But is it TRULY HISTORICAL?” The movie presents itself as a true human story about true human events that happened almost 2,000 years ago. Yet the only truthful answer to that question is that we simply do not KNOW, in human terms, if its details are historically accurate. But I’m not sure that this is the point anyway. Many people in the Christian community accept the “essentials” of the Passion Story as “true” not because of human “records of proof”, which are actually very scarce, 2,000 years later, but rather, their acceptance of the historical “truth” of the story comes by faith in the witness of the early Christians, a witness which has filtered down to millions of people today. One can say that such a tradition seems to be precious little evidence of the historicity question, but look at the impact of what the Christian belief has been in history that we know.


If you accept it as true (and I’m not saying you must) that this one human life (Jesus The Christ) has had more influence on the human race than any other life in human history, clearly something happened in those days long ago 2,000 years ago in Israel. Of all the kings who have ever ruled, all the philosophers who have ever spoken, all the armies that have ever marched, all the universities that have ever existed, and all the computers that have ever shot out data, no single entity has had more of an impact on human history than this man named Jesus, who came from a town called Nazareth in northern Israel two millennia ago. If you would be serious about understanding humanity, you will somewhere in your journey encounter The Christ.


Did Mel Gibson and his crew capture the “true story” of The Christ and His Passion on the silver screen? I think that is for every individual moviegoer to decide. I was blown away by the violence of the depiction. I kept wondering, if Jesus of Nazareth were somehow sitting in the theater seat next to me, what he would think of the movie and the portrayal that Gibson gave of him?


The dialogue is in “the original Biblical languages” of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin with subtitles for English-language audiences and others. This is interesting in and of itself. I once knew a man at a university I attended who had learned Aramaic. When I asked him why he had gone to all the trouble to do this, he said, “So when I get to heaven I can speak to Jesus in his own language.” Touche’, as they say. Maybe my friend was on to something. Yet while the use of the Biblical languages in the movie was a little disconcerting, even so I found it to be an interesting approach, and I found the intonations of the ancient languages intermixed with the subtitles a process that kept my attention glued to the screen in a way that probably had more intensity than if I had only been listening to the dialogue in English. Even so, some people might be put off by that. But I wasn’t. The thing that gave me pause, and where I was almost put off, was the utter brutality depicted.


This is the thing that will shock most people: the unrelenting violence of the movie. As Roger Ebert said in his review of the film in THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, “This is the most violent movie I have ever seen.” Consider that Ebert sees a ton of movies every year, and that says a lot. In his review in NEWSWEEK, a “secular” film critic, David Ansen wrote: "The relentless gore is self-defeating…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." So the violence is not simply stunning in and of itself, it will be divisive for many and lead to a whole spectrum of diverse opinions. Many, many, may go away confused by what they saw on the screen.


Yet it is the very violence itself which, I think, finally moves the movie toward what we might call a “Gibsonian” coherence. The (Gibson) message is that if Christianity speaks of a “sacrifice on the Cross” then best we look into the heart of darkness that IS that cross-event if we are to truly understand what Jesus was doing for humanity.


Mel has every right to give such a message. But I kept wondering what my phantom seatmate, Jesus of Nazareth, would say about the movie. WWJD? A few years ago, a Christian devout friend of mine said that a good litmus test for any piece of art that a Christian is to experience as “good” is to raise the question to it: “Is it good for children?” By that she meant that if there is any real beauty or truth in the art, we would feel comfortable enough for a child to be exposed to it. I think, and still maintain, that my friend was right, at least in general, about her litmus test. But Gibson’s CHRIST definitely is not for children. So does it fail the test? Of course it does. I wouldn’t want a 5-year-old son or daughter to see this movie any more than I would want my 91-year-old mother to see it. Maybe that’s being patronizing and manipulative on my part, but I would instinctively be repelled from doing such a thing.


Even so, I think this is a good movie for some of the rest of us to see.


Some of us need to see this one.


Why? Maybe it’s because deep down we need the shock of all shocks that “the most violent movie I’ve ever seen” gives to us, in order for us to see a deeper seed of truth. C.S. Lewis once held up suffering as a window into life’s deepest truths. While the movie seems to drown in hate, and blood, and violence--- even so there is something stronger than all those things which is depicted, at least as I saw it. And that, simple as it sounds, is love.


The Jesus which James Caviezel (through Mel Gibson’s creative passion) shows us goes through the wall of pain, suffering, and death---but never, never gives up on love. Love is still standing when everything else has fallen.


And that, in and of itself, is worthy of seeing. Here, in the crucible of all this awful evil, one man dares to go through it, and through it ALL, because he loves. And he doesn’t give up on his love.


Foolish? Yes. Of course it is, by some standards. But such loving sacrifice is an epic archetype, perhaps THE epic archetype of all time, and it is given to us straight up. And that is why I thought this is a great picture. The art within that message clicks, in spite of the events supporting that message, as I saw it.


You must make your own decision about that. If you are a certain kind of person, maybe the kind of person who needs to see a film like this, and will resonate with it in spite of the shock you will receive, you will see it as worthy. And perhaps you will see it as worthy on a level you can’t explain. On the other hand, it may not be for you that way at all, and you may hate it. If it’s about love, you may say, this is a strange way to deliver the message.


One way or another though, I think we have to be in awe of the courage of Mel Gibson and his crew. Never before has there been a film like this, and it will surely be one remembered in film history, and perhaps in the spiritual history, of many of those who experience it. Simply by experiencing it, you will be a part of history, and you will probably never forget it for the rest of your life.

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, 2004.

The actors:

Jesus, the Christ: James Caviezel
Mary: Maia Morgenstern
Mary Magdalene: Monica Bellucci
Pontius Pilate: Hristo Shopov
Caiaphas: Mattia Sbragia
Judas: Luca Lionello
Claudia: Claudia Gerini
Gesmas: Francesco Cabras
Satan: Rosalinda Celentano

The director: Mel Gibson
*****