[Previous entry: "Forgive me?"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Can you really teach an old dog new tricks?"]

03/24/2004 Entry: "The Passion of the Christ"

I was a bit surprised to discover the lack of a crowd when I arrived at UCI Swansea this morning. I'd arranged with my collegaue to get there early because we thought there might be alot of people wanting to see the film as soon as it opened. Apparently not. By the time it started, there were perhaps 2 or 3 dozen people in the cinema. Admittedly, 11:00 on a Wednesday morning isn't the most convenient time to catch a flick, but after all the fuss I thought there might have been more folk there.

The fun started as I queued to pick up my ticket. The women in front of me, who was buying 4 tickets for Saturday, turned to me and said, "Isn't it great that they're showing something Christian for a change?" She seemed a bit surprised when I said, "I don't know. I haven't seen it yet" and came back with, "Oh but it's going to be good - there's a big poster up in my church about it!"

And so into the cinema. After the ads came the trailers. "All trailers are appropriate to the main feature" said the caption. If crowds of fundamentalists do turn up, they're going to love the trailer for the next Harry Potter installment! Perhaps someone should talk to the cinema management about that.

I'd better say up front that I didn't enjoy this film and it is fair to say that I didn't expect to. What I didn't expect is how bad I would find it. This was not "OK but flawed" or "not very good". This was a terrible film. One of the worst I've ever seen - certainly that I've ever paid money to see. It had some redeeming qualities of course, but not enough. Not by a long stretch. And anyone expecting something along the lines of a "Biblical epic" is in for a shock. In terms of its genre, this is a horror film.

Everyone has heard of the violence of The Passion. But I wasn't prepared for how unremittingly violent it would be. Almost from the first moment to the last, the scenes of brutality come thick and fast without a break. It seems that Mel Gibson does not just want to show us that Jesus suffered. Jesus has to suffer more than anyone before or since. Could any man survive the beatings that are portrayed here? I strongly doubt it - but there is something superhuman in this presentation of Jesus despite the suffering. Whereas the two thieves carry the beam of their crosses, Jesus is forced to carry the whole thing. He arrives at Golgotha beaten to a bloody pulp; the thieves are virtually unmarked.

I don't mind watching films with subtitles - Crouching Tiger is a favourite of mine - but in this case it might have been better to have had them switched off. Not knowing any Aramaic I'd have missed some truely dreadful dialogue. "I don't want them to see me like this" could have come straight out of a cheap daytime soap and "If you don't leave him alone I'm not carrying this cross a step further" sounds like it belongs in a Pythonesque parody. As for the reassuring, "Almost there now" -- words fail me. On the subject of language, why did all the soldiers sound Italian? I'm pretty sure that it would have been Greek they spoke rather than Latin.

There were some good moments of course, but even these were not quite carried off. There was a very touching scene in flashback as Mary runs to pick up the boy Jesus after a fall (in the context of watching him stumble on the road to calvary). But as she cradles him there is no sign that he needed her embrace. There are two magnificent scenes of Jesus teaching, again in flashback, but the force of these is destroyed by being contradicted almost immediately We see Jesus preaching: "You have heard it said, love your friends, hate your enemy. But I say..." Jesus prays from the cross for those who are crucifying him. And then, as one of the thieves abuses and torments him, a crow appears. I won't "spoil" it but suffice to say that the scene is both extra-Biblical and suggestive of a God who takes revenge. The suicide of Judas as done well - but the purpose of his tormenting by a gang of demonic children was taking artistic licence too far for me.

I do not agree with those who say that this is an anti-semitic film, though I do see how the idea would arise. There are clearly "goodies" and "baddies" - most of the baddies are Jews (especially the Priests), most of the goodies are either Jesus' followers or else Romans. Even Pontius Pilate gets a sympathetic representation which flies in the face of this film's supposed historical authenticity. "The Jews" do indeed look like Jews. Jesus does not. So although I wouldn't say that there is anti-Semitism here, intentional or otherwise, the "blame" for the crucifixion is clearly located with the Jews. And that surely misses the crucial theological point that it was sinful humanity that lead to the Cross, not the error of one small group.

What disturbed me most about The Passion was how unmoved I was by it. In almost every screen and theatre presentation of the life of Christ I've seen, there has been something deeply moving about the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus. From Jesus of Nazareth through Godspell and The Miracle Maker, flawed as they are they present the Passion of Christ as something that really mattered. Here - and it sounds terrible even as I write it - I just didn't care. As a piece of cinema it doesn't work because there are no real characters. The suffering of Jesus had a context, but that context is mostly absent from this film. What we're left with is pornographic violence without real purpose.

Posted by Craig (Oz) @ 03/25/2004 09:05 AM GMT

Hmm. Now do I go and see it or what? I didn't really want to before, and now I want to less.

Re. Isaiah 53: Well, no matter how liberal you are, you have to agree that Isaiah 53 was written before Christ's birth.

The question is not about when it was written, but about what it's talking about. Ask any Orthodox Jew about what that passage means, and I guarantee she'll have a very different take on that passage's meaning.

Posted by Wood @ 03/25/2004 09:34 AM GMT

You're right of course, Wood.
But for the sake of satisfying Craig's interest, I'd put Isaiah 53 in the period of the Babylonian exile, which makes it more like 600 than 700 BC.
Wood's main point remains the most important one.

Posted by Richard @ 03/25/2004 09:51 AM GMT

Hi Richard.

I appreciate your comments on the film but I'd like to make a few comments of my own.

You say, "As an evangelistic tool? If it doesn't engage people with Jesus, how useful can it be?"

I guess the point is it doesn't engage you. It does, however, engage many others.

I was certainly engaged by seeing Mary and a small handful of followers grieving over the punishment Jesus was receiving.

I have been hearing story after story of people wanting to continue their spiritual search after seeing the film. I have heard several instances of people committing their lives to Christ after seeing the film. Saddleback Church in the US reports many hundreds of new attendees from film goers.

On a more personal scale, the chaplain of a local secular school told me recently that he had a couple of 15 year old boys come to him last week wanting Bibles after seeing the film so that they could find out if it's all true.

The Passion of the Christ will not suit everyone and is certainly not the answer to every evangelistic question. I believe it is simply a tool for starting a conversation about Jesus and a very good one at that.

As good or as bad as any of us think the film is, we need to be ready to take the conversation away from the merits of a Hollywood portrayal of the suffering of Jesus, and focus it clearly on who we believe Jesus to be.

Even if we believe that the movie shows nothing of the real Jesus, or fails to engage people as it should, let's welcome the fact that the conversation is now open with many unbelievers, and let's introduce them to the real Jesus, our Lord and Saviour.

Posted by Rodney Olsen @ 03/25/2004 11:33 AM GMT

Amen to that Rodney!
As long as we remember that this film is not "the Gospel" and that our message is not some kind of movie tie-in.
I accept what you say about somepeople have been engaged by it. I can't for the life of me see why, though! Each to his own. The most important question for me is, does this film present an "authentic Jesus" and for me the answer is, sadly, no. It was the crow that clinched it.

Posted by Richard @ 03/25/2004 12:29 PM GMT

Well, Richard, your response sounds a lot like what I had already imagined mine would be if I were to see the film...which is why I haven't bothered.

I'm just not interested.

What bothers me the most, though, is that this is one movie where you aren't allowed to say "Oh, I doubt I'll go see it." Say that about any other film, and the other person might give some reasons why they like it and think you would to, but no big deal. Say that about "The Passion," and suddenly you're a suspected backslider, and you're lucky if you can escape the encounter without a long and impassioned sermon that heaps guilt on your head for not wanting to know "how bad he suffered for you."

Feh.

Posted by Jonathan @ 03/25/2004 01:45 PM GMT

What Jonathan said. I cannot believe how much crap I've gotten from people for not wanting to go see the film. Just tell them you liked the book better.

Posted by Jenny @ 03/25/2004 06:54 PM GMT

Jonathan and Jenny - you're so right.

The church is full of people who think that 'you've got to ....' or you're not walking with the Lord.

You've got to see The Passion or you've got to go and hear the latest visiting preacher or sing the latest worship songs or read books on the latest spiritual fad or whatever.

I get tired of it all too.

We have a wonderfully diverse landscape of Christian practice and yet so many want to channel us down the road that they've found.

What does it matter as long as we hold to the truth of God's Word?

If we veer off and start following stuff that disagrees with Scripture then we need to be pulled back into line, but not if we simply express our love for God differently.

I think The Passion is a wonderful opportunity but I can see that others don't. That doesn't make either of us wrong - just different.

There are several people I know who I don't think should see the movie and I would not recommend it to them. I can't understand the masses of people who think that this movie is a magic pill.

I believe that when others want us to fit their version of faith they simply want to validate their own. That sounds like fairly shaky ground if you ask me.

Posted by Rodney Olsen @ 03/26/2004 12:50 AM GMT

I did go see the movie with my son a few days after it came out. I find myself agreeing with most of the above comments, both pro and con, because this movie is going to effect people differently. I found the movie to be more a representation of the Stations of the Cross than sticking entirely to the Bible. Thus, Jesus carrying the whole cross and not just the cross beam, etc.

I did find this movie much more authentic to Scripture than the very profitable "Left Behind" series of books and movies that are also making their authors very wealthy and they aren't even connected to Holywood.

Ah, well, the passion for The Passion has been usurped this past weekend by the remake of "Dawn of the Living Dead" or the "Zombies" or something like that. I wonder how many who sat through the Passion also sat through its successor? Me, give me "O Brother Where Art Thou?" any day.

Ivan

Posted by Ivan The Crank @ 03/26/2004 12:52 AM GMT

Richard,

I've had another thought about why I was not as much moved by the movie as I thought I would be. I think I've become somewhat desensitized to violence on the screen. I'd expected this movie to have more of an impact on me because it was based on fact whereas most other movies are pure fiction. I was kind of shocked when that didn't happen.

About the gang of demonic children tormenting Judas, I actually found that kind of realistic. In the beginning (when they still seemed like regular children) they reminded me of children bullying someone (like some of my classmates when I was in my early teens). But in Judas' state of mind after what he had done they may well have seemed like demons (whether they were or not doesn't really matter, I think; the movie portrayed how Judas perceived them).

Posted by Swan @ 03/26/2004 03:35 AM GMT

There is nothing Christian about this film. Mel believes in universalism, stated to Diane Sawyer: "we are all children of God...everybody going to heaven, Christians just have an easier ride there."

He has distorted and heaped extra abuse into the gospels, he maliciously delights in dumping gratuitous savagery on our blessed Savior, shoving Him off a bridge so He dangles from a chain: Total Depraved Disrespect to Jesus.

Mel is a deeply confused, troubled, and irreverant man. Pray for him, that God will not punish him for making this horrid heretical Mary exalting film, but will correct and reform his soul.

Do not go to this film...you will be funding a fringe, cultish church and masochist mystic blasphemies. One Eyed, Mothering-strengthened Jesus? Not in my Bible.

Posted by seated in the heavenlies @ 03/27/2004 03:33 PM GMT

I hadn't been planning on seeing the film, as there are a number of things that I disagree with about it, particularly the attitude expressed by Mr. Gibson last year that God was basically the director and he, Mel, was just directing traffic. That smacked of hubris to me. I'd also been fairly open to my family about my disdain for Mr. Gibson's project, which had caused me a few problems.

My parents saw the film last week, and called me afterwards. To my great surprise, they absolutely hated it. I was gobsmacked. My dad said it was too violent, starting from the first moment to practically the last. My mom said it was too violent plus Gibson had engaged in anti-semitic stereotypes. I asked her if there was anything of redeeming value in the film, and she said, "Yes, the flashbacks." My dad said that hardly nothing was explained about Jesus, that one had to know what he was about to bring any sort of real meaning to the film. He ended up by saying it was the worst film he'd seen in his lifetime. Considering that he turns 70 next week, that's pretty harsh criticism. Mom said she'd been led to believe this film would be a great spiritual experience and that nothing could be further from the truth.

I could hardly believe it. I thought that if they saw the film, they'd call me up and chew me out for not seeing it and for being critical of it. I guess the apple really doesn't fall too far from the tree (we're more like our parents than we think).

Posted by Mirele @ 03/27/2004 07:34 PM GMT

Since it sounds like they agree with me, your folk must be fine people, Mirele! ;o)

Posted by Richard @ 03/27/2004 07:59 PM GMT

This comment is coming from an artist and screenplay writer - neutral to religious views.
'The Passion' is beautiful, deep, and bold. An emotional masterpiece. I don't respect comments regarding emotion and art from surface-overeducated debators who lack any flair or emotional insight. I've felt that in many of the critical reviews.
Someone has compared this to Rocky. Please don't tell me you're insight ends there too!?

Posted by Steven @ 03/29/2004 09:57 PM GMT

What a lot of people seem to miss as far as the question of anti-semitism in the film is Mel Gibson's display of ignorance of the Jews. Not only is it the night of the first Passover seder that Jesus is arrested on, he dies (if I remember correctly) near sundown on Friday, the beginning of the Sabbath.
First of all, why would any Jew be out at night arresting ANYONE after the seder? Jews do not work or attend to business on that day. And I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but he was not unique for that period. There were many, many Jews expecting the end of the world and the coming of the Messiah, and Jesus probably would have been just another street preacher to the Jews in general. No "threat" to the priests. It is so unlikely that they would "have it in for him" that it's ridiculous.
That would have been too busy a time of year and too busy a time of week for most Jews to even know what was going on with some street preacher. It is most likely and certainly very sad that very few people attended the last hours of Jesus' life.

Posted by Neil B @ 03/30/2004 10:58 PM GMT