The Passion of the Christ [DVD] [2004]

The story should be familiar to viewers, following the last few hours of Jesus' [Jim Caviezel] life on Earth. Beginning with His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, we witness Jesus' betrayal by His own disciple, arrest and trial by Caiaphas [Mattia Sbragia] and the Jewish leaders, subsequent investigation by Roman governer Pontius Pilate [Hristo Shopov], violent scourging and finally His crucifixation and death. Interspersed are flashbacks to moments from his earlier life and ministry.

Undoubtedly everyone who sees The Passion will take home their own haunting images, and most shocking of all is the flogging sequence. In part this is due to the fact it is often overlooked in favour of the crucifixation, whereas in fact it is far more brutal. With terrifying realism we watch as Caviezel's Christ is beaten and then whipped till His skin is torn and His back is a shredded pulp. It comes as something of a relief then that Jesus wears a tunic while carrying the Cross, else being forced to look at His ripped and ruined flesh for that length of time may well have become unbearable. Most amazing is Caviezel's astoundingly empathic performance; bowed and broken we can still feel the love in his eyes and the divinity in the way he carries himself. Morganstern and Bellucci are equally magnificent in imbuing their performances with real character behind the floods of tears. Mary is at times more moving to watch than Jesus, painted in a devastatingly tragic light as a mother who is forced to see her son suffer with no way to ease his pain.

Fortunately the accusations of anti-Semitism are unfounded, and really constitute a poor attack from those who were determined not to like the film. While clearly the Jewish leaders are portrayed as the ones who condemned Jesus, this is a film with a cast composed almost entirely of villains. The wickedly laughing Roman soldiers are shown every bit as harshly while they torture Christ. And the good Jews are all clearly evident too, with Mary Magdalene, Luke and of course Jesus' Mother Mary all at the foot of the Cross. In addition there are two of the Sanhedrin who defend Jesus, and Veronica who aids him as he bears his Cross, and the women of Jesus followers weeping as they watch, all given screen time and shown fairly. While Pilate's inner struggle and desire to avoid an uprising is clearly portrayed, Caiaphas is shown as unswerving in his views. While this may seem unfair, it really (if inadvertantly) holds a warning about blindly following a spiritual leader of such unquestioning conviction in any religion.

It must be remembered that The Passion is primarily a visual film as allegedly the director only included subtitles to the fully Aramaic and Latin dialogue as an afterthought; the right decision, certainly, for a film that is already less than accessible. While much of the imagery is very obvious, the occassionaly visual subtleties are nice, such the imprint left on Veronica's Veil which we only see for a few moments in the background of shot, rather than the all-too-easy dramatic close-up. But again the problem is that this expects a detailed knowledge of the story else such things will be wasted. Other images can also be more confusing than evocative. For example, there are some excellent shots of a beautiful androgynous Satan wandering through the crowds but their message seems muddled. At one point his gaze locks with Mary's and the two adversaries seem like opposing equivalents. In another more clouded appearance he holds a grotesquely grinning child, perhaps taunting Jesus as if to say that even he would protect his own child. The lack of clarity may of course simply be an indication that these elements are purely visual additions. Similarly the overuse of the slow motion effect, beginning with Judas catching his money, and then every subsequent dramatic sequence including the numerous occassions on which Jesus collapses, serves to reduce its powerfulness rather than increase it.

Some critics will argue The Passion is flawed in focusing too much on Jesus' final hours with not enough of the man himself or his early life. In truth this focus was an intentional step in order to avoid simply creating another Biblical epic rehashing. The result is infinitely more harrowing but also refreshingly new. Due to the expectation of a working knowledge of events, it is really only Christians who will find this moving rather than slightly disturbing (especially in the modern world of film where we are almost numbed to much violence anyway) because each sting of the whip, each bloody footstep under the heavy burden of the Cross, represents the price of our sin. Yet it is to his credit that Gibson ends the film without dragging on unduly, and manages to offer his audience a final redemptive glimpse of hope in the closing image of Christ as the heroic saviour He is.

I believe this movie will bring the person and death of Jesus Christ to our nation like few others have done in the past. Though embellished by Gibson in a few parts, it is a substantially more accurate account and vivid depiction of what Jesus endured during the last hours of His earthly life than most other films about Christ. It is the best film on Jesus I've ever seen, even though it focused largely on the last twelve hours of His life. It was a very descriptive and moving motion picture. Even though it was filmed in three languages of Jesus day (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin) with English subscripts, I was mesmerized by the power of the visual message. Do you want to know the Truth about the sufferings and crucifixion? See the film!

The Passion Of The Christ is a biblical retelling of the betrayal, trials, suffering, and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, detailing the last 12 hours of His earthly life, artfully intertwining flashbacks to earlier moments in His life and ministry. The film is a project in which Gibson invested 12 years of his life and $25 million dollars of his own funds. As a director and Academy Award-Winning Actor, Gibson, who is credited with such movies as Braveheart, The Patriot, and Forever Young, explained to our pastoral audience, "I had to do this movie. It was a calling, I did not have a choice."

Nationally known Christian leaders like Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, James Dobson, and Bill Bright have endorsed this movie as one of the most truthful and inspiring depictions of Christ's suffering and death on film to date. I agree. For this reason, it has been rated R for "graphic violence. In this case, rated R stands more for Realistic. Nevertheless, I strongly urge adults to preview the movie before bringing younger people to see it. I think the content is too graphic or mature for all children 12 or under.

After the preview concluded, Gibson was interviewed by nationally known Christian author, Lee Strobel ("The Case For Christ"). While Strobels questions covered a wide range of serious topics about this biblical drama, Gibson often brought the crowd of clergy to laughter with his lighthearted humor. For example, Strobel asked Gibson, "Why did you choose the actor Jim Caviezel to play the role of Jesus? Gibson wittingly answered, Its because hes thirty-three years old and his initials are J.C.!"

On a more solemn note, when asked about the criticism the movie is already receiving from some Jews, Muslims, and theological liberals, Gibson replied, "Im sorry if some people are offended by the truth. The film is historically true, though I did take some poetic license in a few parts. My concern in making the film was to be authentic, right down to cultural customs and practices. Other films about Jesus havent always done that. At times they have even depicted him with blonde hair and blue eyes. My film is based upon the historical accounts of the Bible. I dont understand those people who dont believe the Bible as history. The Gospel writers were eyewitnesses. Its not only history; its the Word of God. I didnt make this up! I also consulted with many bible scholars about the film."

As far as the personal reasons for producing this film, Gibson passionately confessed, "The film was born at a turning point in my life 12 years ago, when I was literally looking down from a 15-story window. Something wasnt right. I had all the fame and money in the world., but I had to make a choice, whether or not getting out of this frying pan was just jumping into another. At that point, I re-examined the Truth. Christ's wounds healed my wounds."

Bottom line, see the movie. Then read The Book.

"The Passion of the Christ" focuses on the last hours of the life of Jesus of Nazareth (Jim Caviezel). The film begins in the Garden of Getheseme where Jesus is betrayed by Judas for thirty pieces of silver. It ends with the crucifixion at Calvary. The bulk of the film is what happens in between Getheseme and Calvary and it focuses on Jesus' suffering. This is what sets "The Passion of the Christ" apart from every other film made about the life of Jesus. Many deal with the life of Christ, and others with his teaching. "The Passion of the Christ" deals with one very short, and particular, period in his life: those last hours, the Passion. The American Heritage Dictionary includes as one of the definitions of "passion" as "The sufferings of Jesus in the period following the Last Supper and including the Crucifixion, as related in the New Testament", and that is exactly what this film is about. This is Mel Gibson showing us what Jesus went through and at times I could almost hear Gibson saying "This. He went through this for us."

While "The Passion of the Christ" is a very brutal movie, and perhaps half of the film features in some way the beating that Jesus took on the way to Calvary, it isn't the violence that has stuck with me after the movie ended. What I found particularly memorable were some of the smaller moments: the flashbacks that showed Jesus with his mother (Maia Morgenstern), Jesus teaching, Jesus with the apostles. Just as memorable, though, were the moments of betrayal: the look between Peter (Francesco De Vito) and Jesus after Peter denied Jesus for the third time, Mary (the mother) and Mary Magdalene (Monica Bellucci) together weeping at the torture Jesus is suffering, and any time we saw Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) moving through the crowd, or tempting Jesus. Lastly, Mel Gibson's handling of the Resurrection was particularly moving. It is a mix between beautiful and simply powerful moments that allow this movie to rise far above what could otherwise be called (and has been) nothing more than two hours of Jesus being beaten.

What makes reviewing this movie a challenge is that it is very difficult to separate the story from the filmmaking. As a Christian, the story is one that is very familiar to me and is also one that I personally believe in. As a reviewer, I have questions about Mel Gibson's storytelling. If I knew nothing about Jesus of Nazareth and was not familiar with the story of Easter Week, would I understand what is happening in "The Passion of the Christ"? The film lets us know that this is a man named Jesus who is being persecuted, that it is the Jewish Pharisees of Jerusalem which have brought charges against Jesus to the Romans, and they feel that he is blaspheming God. For this they wish Jesus to be put to death. What the film does not go into is why. Are these Jewish leaders just blood thirsty? Are they threatened by Jesus' teaching? Is there a serious law that he has, in fact, broken? Why are they pushing so hard for his death? "The Passion of the Christ" does not answer these questions. Someone who does not know the story of Jesus may not know why he is being brutalized to this extent and what promises Jesus' life and death, and resurrection bring.

Viewing the film from my perspective, the lack of that detail being in the film did not affect what I think of it. "The Passion of the Christ" is a bold, moving, powerful film and the fact that the subject of the film is so central to what I believe only makes it more so. I cannot speak to what a non-Christian would feel about "The Passion of the Christ" because an emotional response is so personal and subjective, and that emotional response is exactly what "The Passion of the Christ" taps in to. The combination of how skillfully Mel Gibson has crafted his film (excepting that little issue with exposition) and the emotional response that it encourages, this is arguably one of the best films of the year so far and may very well be a contender for Best Picture come Oscar Season.

The one criticism that I would like to address here is the charge, of some, of anti-Semitism. It is one that I do not understand. At the beginning of the film, when Satan is tempting Jesus, Satan mentions that carrying the full burden of sin is too much for one man. The suggestion is that Jesus (and therefore God) is choosing to do this, and that Jesus knows what is coming. In fact, Jesus says as much in the flashbacks throughout the movie. Moreover, while it is true that it is the Jews who turn Jesus over to the Romans, there were some Jews who spoke up against their leadership saying this was wrong. It was also only in the power of the Romans to condemn Jesus to be crucified and the film shows Pilate symbolically "wash his hands" of the whole affair, which was a cop-out. Pilate made the decision. It is also the Romans who are brutally whipping Jesus as punishment before he is to take up his cross. The implication here is not that the Jews nor the Romans who are specifically guilty, but rather: All are guilty. All. With Gibson's hand being the one that drives the nail into Jesus, he includes himself in the "all."

-Joe Sherry