The Passion of Mel Gibson

April, 2004

April, 2004

ON MEL GIBSON’S THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

By now, you’ve either seen or decided not to see The Passion of the Christ. Several people have asked me what I thought of it, and bashful as I am about expressing an opinion, I have a few points to offer on this much-hyped cinematic event.

Prior to seeing the film itself, I thought that I was going to conclude that: a) this is probably the best-run free publicity campaign ever conceived; and b) in one way or another, both the praises and the criticisms of the film might well be true at the same time-- i.e., it might be a superb film and yet be insensitive to the feelings of contemporary Jews as well. I came out concluding that: a) this is definitely the most effective free publicity campaign ever; and b) it is not a superb film, and it could easily have avoided the charge of anti-Semitism, but chose not to.

First a disclaimer. Nearly all the lay people who saw the film with me liked it better than I did. For one thing, I don’t like Biblical dramatizations. They are always hokey, because it is impossible for actors to dramatize the most important events in the world without acting Important and Dramatic. I also set a very high standard for extra-Biblical dialogue and actions, scrutinizing them for what religious agenda they are advancing (there has to be extra-Biblical material, and there has to be an agenda). I have to quibble with almost every piece of extra-Biblical material Gibson has added, and I certainly quibble with his pre-Vatican II agenda.

Important strengths. I do acknowledge that this is the best of the Gospel-based films. Some efforts have been made for historical authenticity, at least after a Hollywood manner. Many elements of this film are top quality, because they are the best that money can buy, and Mel does know how to put together a film. The sets and costumes are wonderful. The actors are a very capable ensemble of little-knowns, so that we don’t have to deal with, say, Charlton Heston cropping up. These actors did much better than most; at least they didn’t speak in “King James” British accents (they couldn’t, since they spoke only Latin or Aramaic). Most of them gave naturalness a try, though there was still some “awed posturing,” as always happens in religious dramas. But they were hampered by being on-screen for long takes with nothing in particular to do except look horrified and clutch at one another, and that wears thin after a while. Sound, cinematography, editing, special effects—all are seamless in quality. So how can I say the film fails to satisfy?

Scripture, or Catholic Tradition? I’m amazed that Gibson got the Protestant Evangelicals so solidly on his side. My only explanation is that, by stirring up the irreligious critics and the Jewish Defense League against him, he set up a ‘them vs. us’ scenario in which it was necessary for conservative Protestants to support the film in order to be “for” Jesus and “against” the Jewish and agnostic critics. He got the entire Christian right to “stand up, stand up for Jesus.” But for those who think Mel followed the scripture scrupulously, go back and read your Gospels! I’m told the Pope, or someone speaking for him, said, “It is as it was.” That, I can understand better, for this film is a very old-school Catholic rendition of the Passion, including legendary material and later visionary and theological interpretations. For example:

· A woman (Veronica) cleans Jesus’ face with her veil (in Stations of the Cross, not in the Bible)

· Mary Magdalene is misidentified as “the woman taken in adultery” (a different Mary entirely).

· Mary (the Virgin) mops up Jesus’ blood from the Pilates’ courtyard, much as I would reverently clean up a major wine spill at communion (but why did Pilate’s wife give her the towels? This is from the visionary material, not the scripture, and has to do with Eucharistic piety, not the Passion.)

· The tableau of crosses on Gethsemane is straight out of Renaissance painting. Mel has the nails driven into Jesus’ palms, as in devotional paintings, rather than through the wrists as crucifixion was actually done.

· Latin is favored over Greek. In fact, the Romans and Jews would have spoken to one another in Greek, which was the common language of the eastern Mediterranean, understood by everyone. Romans would have spoken Latin to each other, Jews Aramaic to each other (perhaps even Hebrew.)

· Jesus’ mother almost steals the show. Jesus himself, though expertly played, has little to do, except suffer. His mother is much more than the bystander of the Gospels, and contributes the greater share of the emotional impact of the film.

OK, I’m nitpicking. There are more serious problems, though.

Emotional Manipulativeness. The film is relentless and heavy-handed in its emotional manipulation. Its purpose is to stun, appall, and bring its audience to tears, and it goes to work from the first scene. Every camera angle, lighting effect, and editing cut has this one purpose. The death of the artistry, however, is in the gross over-use of slow motion. It seems half the film is slow motion, so that the audience’s nose is incessantly rubbed into the extreme violence of the action.

Gratuitous Violence. I am aware that the crucifixion was a very bloody, violent event, and I do not object to its being portrayed as such. It did not, however, happen in slow motion. Also, Gibson has added touches that no scripture references. When the Temple guards, having arrested Jesus, are dragging him up a long ramp into the city, they knock him off the parapet, and he falls about 30 feet, being caught by his chains just inches before hitting the ground. Then they drag him back up again. The flogging is incredibly brutal, on both back and front, leaving Jesus’ skin hanging in shreds. Yet, oddly, they do not flog the two criminals crucified with him. When the Roman soldiers nail him to the cross, they inexplicably flip him over, cross and all, face down in the gravel. The only reason for inserting these details is to magnify the horror, which was quite horrible enough already.

Anti-Jewish Inferences. Gibson said in interviews, “No anti-Semitism was intended,” and I am almost willing to take him at his word. Many Christians have failed to see any anti-Semitism in the film. Of course, many whites fail to notice racism all around us, too. The problem is, if one says, “I did not intend that,” it is quite reasonable for another to ask, “Then just what DID you mean?” He is not clear enough on this score. There are a couple of tidbits, such as the High Priest sending a servant out with money to bribe rabble to come and help bring about condemnation. There is also one obscure line about “the Council” not all being present (perhaps made by Nicodemus, but that was not clear). But how many movie-goers are prepared to notice and understand these things? I would have been mollified if it had been made clear that the whole reason for arresting and trying Jesus at night was that the clique dominating the Sanhedrin feared the great majority of the people if his arrest were public (as scripture attests), and that they did not want those whose votes they could not count on to know about the meeting, arrest, or trial. The Gospels do indicate that there were some who opposed arresting Jesus. Additionally:

• We needed to be informed that the Sanhedrin did not have the support of the Jewish populace and that they were collaborators who had invited the hated Roman rulers into Palestine in the first place!
• As someone in our group pointed out, the mysterious, symbolic Devil character (not in the Gospels) only moved about among the Jews, never among the Romans.
• No scripture places the High Priest at the crucifixion taunting Jesus on the cross. It would be unthinkable for a man of his position to do so.
• The film fails to mention Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent Jew, going to Pilate at great personal danger to ask for Jesus’ body, and giving Jesus his own tomb. But why not take advantage of such an opportunity to diminish the anti-Semitism?
• Pilate himself is much too sympathetically portrayed as really a pretty nice guy. There are reliable historical references that show him to be a horrible man even by Roman standards. The Emperor Tiberius finally recalled him from Palestine because of his brutality! And Tiberius had a high tolerance for brutality.
• Finally, when American rabbis complained about the Biblical line, “let his blood be upon us and upon our children,” (a curse long ago expiated in any case) Gibson took out the subtitle, so that we Americans would not read that line. But the line itself, in Aramaic, is still spoken! When this film plays in Egypt and Jordan, what effect will that have on audiences who are predisposed to hate Jews, and who, as Arabic speakers, will be able to understand the line without a subtitle? (Remember, Muslims are taught to have great respect for Jesus himself—but their resentments against Jews are dangerously volatile at this time.)

In many ways, this is The Passion of Mel Gibson, even more than The Passion of Christ, for it is clearly Mel’s view of the event, in action and in interpretation. From interviews, it is clear that he identifies himself strongly with this suffering Christ. It will be out on DVD soon enough, and perhaps the gore will be less oppressive on a small screen. Rent and view if you dare. On the positive side, it seems that there are some lackadaisical Christians and some non-Christians who are being moved enough by this film to look more seriously into the Christian religion as a living and personally relevant faith—maybe even to read the Gospels themselves! Because of the excessive violence, I do urge that children NOT be permitted to see it in any case, and I do not recommend it for sensitive adults, either. The rest of you who are Christians and already know how dreadful the crucifixion was do not particularly need to see it. Better yet, come to church on Palm Sunday and again on Good Friday, where the Passion is movingly remembered. Then, let’s get on with Easter.