Crucifixion? Gooood. by Catherine Shaffer

Seen The Passion of the Christ? I wasn't going to bother, but my mother wanted to see it, so I figured, what the heck. I'll give it a try. It was actually kind of good. I'd give it a thumbs up and maybe a solid B. This is definitely a movie that's going to work best for people who have already read the Book. I had a lot of conflicting reports and questions about the movie before I saw it, and was almost scared away by the comparisons to Reservoir Dogs, which is the movie I'd like most to scourge out of my brain. So, in no particular order, here are the questions and my answers:

Is it like Reservoir Dogs? No.
Is it like Saving Private Ryan? Not really. The one thing it has in common with these movies and some others is the tendency toward hyper-realistic violence. Not a trend I really approve of, since I believe it leads to further desensitization.
So what's the deal? How violent is it? Honestly, my mother and I both spent a lot of time privately thinking, "Wow, did Caviezel spend hours in makeup or what?" The violence was overdone to the point of cartoonishness, and I think it detracted from the story by throwing the viewer out too much. There are also some theological problems with the emphasis on suffering. But, okay, let's just say this is the Suffering Passion. Python did the Funny Passion. Mel did the Suffering Passion. We'll see what happens when George Lucas joins in. "Use the force, Jesus."
Do they flog him forever? No. Somehow I got the impression that the scourging was a frame that stretched through the entire two hour movie. But that's not true at all. It lasts about five minutes. I went to the bathroom and when I got back it was half over.
Is it antisemitic? I did not sense any overt antisemitism in the writing, direction, or production of the film. I did not experience any antisemitic stirrings in my own bosom and I didn't get that vibe from the audience. However, there were a couple of potentially problematic moments, and nothing was done to avoid that misunderstanding. It should be emphasized that Passion plays have been used to foment antisemitism in the past and that this seems like a nearly unavoidable misinterpretation of the Passion story. I think Mel probably could have tried a little harder, but I really hated the Romans a lot more in this movie.
Is it biblical? Only somewhat. There's nothing in it that contradicts the bible as far as I can tell (I'm not an expert). Many of the "extra" scenes are drawn from the writings of mystics and visionaries. However, the extra stuff is really cool.
Is it okay for children? No. It's a rated R movie. Get some perspective, people.
Are Jim Caviezel's eyes blue or brown? Jim has naturally blue eyes that were colored brown in post production. It looks kind of fake in some places.
Was it historically accurate? No heroic efforts were made to make it historically accurate. The Romans spoke church Latin. It amused me that I understood so much of it, even though I was taught to pronounce *properly*.
Why wasn't there more stuff about Jesus's ministry? Because it's a Passion play. That's the nature of the genre. It's like asking why doesn't a science fiction story explain the theory behind faster than light travel. Certain knowledge is assumed. Mel actually added a bit of this material in flashback form, probably to make it more accessable to the non-Christian public, but it's still a bit thick.
Would I recommend it? Sure. It's definitely worth seeing. The theater was full of sobbing people. The most emotional scenes were not the bloody ones, but the ones dramatizing Jesus' relationship with his mother. See it, then go and rent The Life of Brian for balance.

Always look on the bright side of life...

Comments

[Lisa]

To represent an opposite view point.... This below article at the UK Guardian touches on the main reasons why I won't see The Passion of Christ and give money to Mel Gibson.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1178721,00.html

[Catherine Shaffer]

He's entitled to his opinion, but it's pretty extreme, and I suspect like many scathing reviews, composed to make himself sound as maximally clever, educated, and erudite as possible. The fact that he seems to have missed that Satan was played by a woman tells me that this wasn't a careful or serious evaluation of the movie. I might have missed this film, because I was put off by reviews such as this one. Instead, I'm actually glad I saw it. There was a lot of food for thought and there was no substantial difference in antisemitic content from the gospel of Luke. In fact, there was one line that bothered me a lot, and when I looked it up, it was straight from the gospel. I think there are a lot of subtleties to this Passion that have been overlooked by the masses. I read one review that criticizes the presence of Pontius' wife in the film as being too sympathetic, etc. But I thought the scene where she delivers the towels was really *interesting*. The way she's trembling, cringing, and averting her eyes from Mary even as she's trying to do something compassionate was very, well, all I can say is Interesting. Likewise, I heard someone else who was upset by the way Mary stares into the camera at the end. He interpreted it as an accusatory stare, but as the camera pans backward, you can see that Mary is holding Jesus' body, with her hand outstretched, palm upward, in an imitation of The Pieta. I thought that was Interesting as well. There was a lot that was Interesting. I don't think it was a Must See, and I don't want to browbeat anyone into viewing it, but I also wouldn't want to see anyone substituting a reviewer's judgment for their own if they have an interest. If it's something that you might be attracted to on your own, it's worth seeing and judging for yourself. If you might have missed it if not for the hype, or if it plain doesn't interest you, then that's okay, too. There are other movies.