It Is As It Was: A Review of The Passion

Introduction

After two weeks I finally got around to writing my review of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. The delay has been my wish to first post my critical review of Fellini’s 8 ½ because I feel that it better portrays my ability to analyze and write on a particular film. Typically, when I give a critical review, I will first watch the film, then re-watch the film, perhaps watch a third time and analyze specific scenes that I wish to mention, and finally read several other reviews by diverse critics to gain a maximum of appraisal. In the case of The Passion of the Christ, all I must go on is a single viewing and assorted reviews. With this in mind, my review will be less critical in terms of the film itself but more critical in terms of the film’s response. I will not discuss the anti-Semitism issue because 1) that subject has been sufficiently covered and 2) I do not care what unbelievers think about the film’s message. That said, my focus primarily will be on the response of believer’s to the film and the film’s response.

The Film As It Is

Mel Gibson's Braveheart is a fullthroated, red-blooded battle epic about William Wallace, who won famous battles against the English before being captured, tortured and executed as a traitor. Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ is a fullthroated, red-blooded passion play about Jesus Christ, who won salvation for humanity from sin before while being captured, tortured and executed as a traitor. Mel Gibson’s next project is supposed to be Warrior, a fullthroated, red-blooded battle epic about Boudicea, who won famous battles against the Romans after her daughters were captured, tortured and raped before she finally committed suicide rather than be captured by the Romans. I refer to these similarities not as a criticism but as an observation. Certainly, take any director, take any artist for that matter, and compare his overall work and you will find a common thread, a common theme, running through their work. Understanding this helps us grapple with The Passion’s focus, subject matter and Gibson’s creative leanings.

The pace of the film is swift. Although the film is over two hours in length, I felt that much less time took place. This is a sign of a great work of art and story-telling: the ability to suck the viewer in and make him apart of the story. This was Gibson’s publicly stated purpose, to draw in his audience, to make them feel accompany to the execution. After all, we were the cause of the sacrifice.

The performances are good if not great but such appraisals are unimportant. The acting, the directing, the cinematography come together in a cohesive whole that absorbs all its elemental parts. If the acting had been bad we probably would not have noticed. If the acting had been overly emphasized by the directors and actors (which can be done) the performance would have distracted from the story. I believe this is why Gibson chose not to use well-known actors in the roles. If we saw Johnny Depp as the Christ we would not be focusing on the meaning of the character of the Christ being portrayed, we would be focused on the actor Johnny Depp performing the character of the Christ. Gibson chose to focus exclusively on the Passion and the reaction of other characters to Jesus. We the audience follow along, watching with the secondary characters, putting ourselves in the shoes of Judas, Peter, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Simon, Veronica, Pilate and others. This is easier because we see them as characters not as well-known actors playing characters. The over all effect of the film causes us to suspend our disbelief and become centered only with the story and its meaning, another sign of a great work of art.

The Gospel According To Sam Peckinpah

I must admit that I hesitated viewing the film at the theatre, not wishing to view graphic violence on the wide screen. At home, I can see it through a small screen and control the movement of the film with my remote. Much of this hesitation stemmed from my reading of positive reviews. Roger Ebert, who praised the film as a masterpiece, wrote, “The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.” He later writes, “I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. … The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone.” There were other critics who, while praising the film, compared it with a horror/slasher film. The clincher for me was the decision by Mexico to rate the film X.

Needless to say, The Passion was not as violent as I had anticipated. In fact, Braveheart was significantly more brutal than The Passion ever could be. I feel that Ebert was being dishonest when he wrote his review. I am not sure what his motive was but anyone who sits through so many war and horror films for a living could not honestly portray The Passion as the most violent film ever seen.

With regards to the necessity of the blood and violence … that is Gibson’s prerogative. I will admit that I doubt that Jesus suffered as much beatings and droppings as Gibson portrayed. He maybe God but He is also a man. I am sure that Jesus suffered all the kinds of torture that the film suggests but not to the degree given. Feel free to disagree with me.

The Public Response

The build up to the film was important to evangelicals. To people who feel that the sinful world does not reflect Christian values in entertainment, the appearance of a Christian film by a man of faith (a successful Hollywood star in fact) that respected the Gospel message was significant. That the film was criticized and Gibson was “crucified” confirmed the views of many evangelicals that this country has a non-Christian media. The serious persecution of “dislike by others” made us all feel like Paul in prison. The overwhelming success of the film made these same evangelicals feel vindicated.

Many believers, before seeing the film, decided that The Passion was a great vehicle for evangelizing. Has it been? Honestly, I do not know. For myself, I never thought that the film should be used for evangelism because I never saw the film until the hysteria had died down. Even now, I do not see why this film needs to be used for evangelical reasons. As far as I know, Gibson, not an Evangelical, has never offered his film as such. His film is not pragmatic but aesthetic; it is a work of art. As a creative piece it needs to be perceived as such. I have always felt that Protestants, Evangelicals in particular, are overly anti-art in terms of religion. There is too much suspicion of icons and the tendency towards image worship for Protestants to create a piece of work for the glory and worship of God. We have no ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or The Divine Comedy or The Garden of Earthly Delights. When we do create we merely concern ourselves with the practical considerations of evangelism. With this in mind, we copy secular contemporary music and develop contemporary Christian pop. We copy contemporary secular novels to produce contemporary Christian novels. Etc., etc. I will assume that we largely copy the world in order to reach the lost, not specifically to give believers alternatives to the world. I’ll assume. But must me sacrifice mediocrity for accessibility? Doesn’t God deserve our best? Maybe what evangelicals produce is their best. It used to be that Christians were at the cutting edge of art: Bach, Milton, Dante, Micheangelo. And today? I do not mind evangelizing; I believe we are all called to do that. Certainly, I would never call for all art and no pragmatism. But could we have a little creativity not dumb-downed by considerations of its accessibility to non-believers? Leave it to a conservative Catholic to produce a creative work of faith.

“The film is too Catholic.”

I was much surprised that so many conservative Evangelicals were thrilled about this film, seeing that it was made by a conservative Catholic. Many uneducated conservatives would say that Catholics cannot be true believers; I wonder if they have changed their minds. Many educated conservatives say that Catholics cannot be true believers. These are the people who I now speak about for the remainder of this review.

The criticism that the film is too Catholic is a non-starter with me. Of course it is Catholic; it was made by a Catholic. Imagine if Baptists made a film about The Passion of the Christ, the Catholics would claim it was too Baptist. The same goes for Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians.

One criticism I hear was that there was too much emphasis on the Catholic Eucharist. Or to put it another way, there is too much emphasis on the symbolism of the Last Supper. Or to put it another way, Gibson understands the significance of Jesus' use of symbolism in the Last Supper and appropriately applies it to the motif of the film. If one did not know that Gibson was Catholic, one would not suggest Catholic interpretive dominance in the communion motif; it’s not there.

Another, more serious, charge leveled by conservative academia was that the film exposed Catholic Mariolatry. My question: at what point in the film does anyone worship Mary? At what point in the film does Mary become placed in a position that causes us to worship her? I could not see it. I think my position on the supposed Catholic Eucharist motifs applies to the supposed Catholic Mariolatry. Mary was at the crucifixion and played a significant event in the life of our Lord. She was a woman of great faith that should be respected as much as we honor Peter, Paul and John. That many Catholics adore her more than one should a mere mortal should not cause us to react against all things Mary.

I have not read or heard this mentioned by any reviewer or audience member but at one point the figure of Veronica brings a cloth to wipe the face of Jesus. After a moment, woman watches Jesus pass and the audience can see the bloody imprint of Jesus’ face on the cloth. Now that is Catholic! That is a medieval Catholic legend. One can observe European Christian paintings throughout the millennia and see renditions of the cloth of Veronica on display. Veronica means “true icon.” The bloody imprint of Christ’s face on the cloth was said to be the only true icon of the middle ages. Now, I did not care that this Catholic myth was in the film. Yes, it does not appear in Scripture, but so what? It’s a film, not Scripture. Its inclusion made me want to see the film again in order to see if I might have missed other subtle details. I imagine that the film might be layered with much significant Catholicity that the average evangelical will not notice. If it’s not a cliché then it can’t be recognized. Personally, I like such layering; it makes the film experience that much more enjoyable.

“I do not like the evangelical response.”

That the uneducated masses of pew-warmers were thrilled by this film sent sneers and curled lips upon the snob faces of conservative academia. These educated conservatives seem to frown upon anything that has mass appeal. Well, almost anything. They will laugh at a film depiction of biblical fact and urge others not to see it but will not stand up to the Left Behind series which is an uncreative tissue of unbiblical material. If anything is polluting the biblical understanding of the average church-goer it is not The Passion but the Left Behind books and movies. Dispensationalism is absolute nonsense with no basis in Biblical fact. Unfortunately, the educated conservatives who know that it’s a lie are too scared of “lay people” to speak the truth. They’d rather not touch that matter; they’d rather go after an easy target like a personal film by a Catholic. I blame you educated conservatives, you elders of education for allowing Dispensationalism to continue. If you offered your opinion in a loving way and with the careful instruction you might create a generation of church-goers who had a proper hermeneutic.

The Passion of the Christ is a good film that has had a good response by believers and unbelievers alike. There is little if any aspect of this film that is going to create a false hermeneutic in the minds of believers. Before you go around pointing at specks in Gibson’s eyes why don’t you look at the plank in your own.

“The film does not contain other aspects of Jesus’ life and message.”

If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Church theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made Him willing to suffer and die for us. I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid when He died for our sins. Essentially, this is a modern day medieval passion play set to film. The title says it all. That’s it. I imagine if Gibson had made a film titled The Sermon on the Mount, there would be have been less emphasis on the crucifixion. Conservative critics might then complain, “Hey! Where is the crucifixion?” Many liberal critics who complained that medieval passion plays were often bastions of anti-Semitism at least understood the context of Gibson’s film.

That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the life of Jesus. Take it or leave it.

Conclusion

Take it or leave it. It is as it was. I think The Passion of the Christ was a great film that is going to need many subsequent viewings to understand the depth of Gibson’s creative process. I look forward to the DVD release whenever it comes. Again, I do not view this film as an evangelisitic tool but as a creative work of faith. If people are led to Jesus because of the film, then wonderful! If not, then too bad; but that was not the film’s purpose in the beginning.