I was a little surprised by this movie. I was expecting more violence and I was expecting better filmmaking, given the hype on both counts.
First of all, if you do believe that the Bible is true, that you must accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord & Savior, and that his death was followed by his resurrection, etc., then I think you should see it, show it to your children, your parents, your spouse and anyone else that you want to help understand exactly what it is that you worship. On that level Mel Gibson has succeeded. He has created a movie that dramatically and forcefully portrays the beating, flogging, flaying and crucifixion of a man. This is the central event of the New Testament. When you see it and your children see it, you are as close to seeing the event that you have made the center of your life as you will ever be. Enjoy.
But, let's suppose that you are not a believer. Does the movie still have value? Well, I am a movie buff and I've loved the work that Mel Gibson has done in the past. I went to see it as a Mel Gibson fan and because I am convinced this movie will become part of our popular culture. The cinematography, sound, music and effects were all great. The film has a believable look and the all-important violence is delivered almost unflinchingly and to great effect.
First Criticism: The acting/characters. Jim Caviezel is a veteran actor and does a remarkable job, considering how little we actually see of his face. But he used his whole body to do his job, and did it well. However, the rest of the actors deliver performances that are the essence of stereotype. The Roman guards are all violent, brutal hooligans (except for the obligatory one who Sees Something Of The Truth.) The two Marys are consoling, kind, grieving and lovely. The Jews act as an unthinking, malleable mob (except for the obligatory one who Sees Something Of The Truth,) demanding the death of Jesus, although I can't imagine why, as the majority did not seem to share the political concerns of the Jewish leadership. I also have to mention that there was a faction of dissenters asking for proof of Jesus' crimes, but they also acted as an undifferentiated block.
Why did this happen? Mel is a very good director who can get good performances from his actors. In part, the problem is that the story takes place in a short period of time and there is literally no character development. The characters are all based on extremely meager New Testament descriptions, and perhaps even more on lore and paintings. Mel based a lot of his staging on paintings from the last 1000 years describing the Passion. So, in the end, even though the violence is not comic-book violence, the characters are comic book characters. They remind me literally of a comic book. I can see the illustrations in my mind and the dialog bubbles rising behind their heads as Jesus is beaten to death.
Second Criticism: Why wasn't it more violent? I would think that if Jesus took on all the sins of the world through suffering, he would have had to suffer arguably as much as anyone ever could; as much as humanly possible. Why wasn't he naked? His loincloth covered his most vulnerable male organs. Certainly the Romans were not squeamish about mutilation and humiliation. I think this was Mel, pulling a punch.
Don't misunderstand me: it is horrific to watch. It shows the true nature of violent torture and of state terror. It shows the nature of a time when individual life was of little value and the threat of pain was used to keep the masses in line. It could have been worse, perhaps, but it is plenty bad as it is.
But is it what happened? I am neither a biblical historian nor a theologian (thank God) but I think that Gibson's movie portrayed only as much as he could take and as much as he thought he could get away with. The death of Jesus and of thousand of other crucified victims of the Roman's death-state were probably much worse and Mel has whitewashed it a little.
Last point: Anti-Semitism. I can't see why this objection arose. Gibson portrays Jesus' death in a political light more than in a religious one. The dissenting Jewish faction is duly rolled out and the Roman guards are all just as culpable, given their delight in delivering pain and death. Pontius Pilot is shown, however, as a pawn in a political squeeze-play, rather than as a mass-murderer and dictator. But his lack of determination to kill Christ does not increase the culpability of the Jewish people as a whole. The movie clearly points the finger at a limited number of Jewish leaders feeling a political pressure. Jesus is portrayed, more than anything, as a victim of his times.
Still, I recommend the film. It is not so much a great film as a must-see film. Everybody's talking about it.
Comments