The Passion of The Christ

During the Lenten season it is not uncommon to find individuals acting out their devotion to God, or more specifically to Jesus the Christ.  This devotion takes the form self-flagellation, wearing a crown of thorns, or carrying a cross, to name a few.  Christian mystics often meditated on Jesus and the meaning of his life and death, and some acquired the marks of Jesus’ wounds, known as the stigmata.  The Passion of The Christ is Mel Gibson’s personal reflection and meditation on the death of Jesus.  Unlike the well-known epics King of Kings and The Greatest Story Ever Told, which tell Jesus’ life story leading up to the resurrection, Jesus’ death is the story.  It was released on Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent.

While the movie uses dialogue and scenes from the Gospels, it also incorporates creative flourishes that apparently are intended to make a specific point.  The most obvious is the presence of a demonic or Satanic figure that questions and mocks Jesus throughout the movie, suggesting that it is all in vain.  Lest anyone not recognize who this is, a snake crawls from the figure to Jesus during his prayer at Gethsemane.  He promptly crushes its head with his foot, no doubt a visual representation of Genesis 3:15.  While standing before Pilate after being beaten by the temple police, Jesus sees a white dove hovering above the scene, which this viewer assumed was a prefiguring of the coming of the Paraclete at Pentecost, or a representation of the presence of God.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, is present throughout the violence, and Gibson emphasizes the bond between mother and son; when she kneels above his cell in Jerusalem with her face pressed to the ground as he looks up, when he falls on the Via Dolorosa and she recalls a childhood fall, and at the end as a living image of Michelangelo’s sculpture The Pieta. John’s Gospel identifies her as being present at Calvary, while Mark’s suggests the family scorned Jesus, but for Gibson she is the first and most important believer in her son.  In Catholic tradition she is the ultimate intercessor and, while not divine in her own right, is viewed as having a very special relationship with God.

Whatever you read elsewhere about the movie’s violence is absolutely true.  Although Americans have encountered screen violence before, Gibson ratchets it way up in accordance with what is known or believed to be true about the times and the penalty.  There were several moments when I was shocked, even though I know it is all FX.  If it was meant to move me towards a greater appreciation of Jesus’ sacrifice, it failed.  Instead, I found myself considering the fact that torture is still extant throughout the world, practiced with as much efficiency, and as coldly, by various civilized countries.  I suspect that if Jesus were a political prisoner today he would be facing attempted drowning and electrical torture among other ‘improvements.’

One of the criticisms leveled at the movie is its alleged anti-Semitism and it’s lack of historical accuracy.  The meeting of the Sanhedrin is fodder in terms of what would have been legally sufficient.  Yet Gibson had an opportunity to mute the critics and threw it away.  John 11:45-53 describes the plot against Jesus in more detail than the other three Gospels, and would be in some accordance with the politics of the time.  Pilate’s reputation was bloody, and many scholars agree that he would not have hesitated to execute a presumed seditionist (see Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ p. 120).  Gibson does not use John’s text to set up the betrayal and arrest.  If he had done so, and left out the infamous Matthew 27:24-25, I think he could have defused the perception and put the responsibility for the crucifixion where it belonged; into Pilate’s hands as Procurator.  The Jewish leadership, whether or not they were collaborators, knew what Pilate was capable of, and perceived the danger that Jesus brought in the form of excited crowds.  Although it has been said that Gibson pledged to delete the relevant scene from Matthew 27, he hasn’t, he only deleted the subtitles.  Gibson’s expression of faith overcomes the historical truth.  He continues the deception wrought by early Christians eager to account for Jesus’ death as a criminal and distance themselves from the rebellious Jews who were finally conquered by Titus.  It could have been otherwise, and he could have done it with the available text.

As Gibson’s personal expression of faith the film clearly shows his focus.  Jesus’ death is the emphasis, the resurrection scene having only a moment.  That emphasis is Gibson’s statement of his own sense of needing the redemption that he believes arose from Jesus’ death.  The brutally graphic scourging and crucifixion are meant to reinforce the depth of suffering that was endured to restore humanity’s relationship with God. He clearly hopes other viewers will recognize this great sacrifice and be drawn to a deeper reconciliation to Jesus and God.  Gibson’s movie is a cinematic call to witness, such as you see in biblically oriented churches.  In this case, the movie is the sermon with Gibson as the preacher.

Watching this movie, I was strangely unmoved.  I appreciated the use of Aramaic and Latin for it gave a better sense of time and place.  The opening scene in Gethsemane was wonderful and it was clear Jesus was in fear.  However the overall portrayal of Jesus did not create a sense of the wonder and power of the man, even during the interrogation by the priests.  As described in the Gospels, he had the power to impress even as he was being beaten.  Jeffrey Hunter did a better job in that respect.  It has been written elsewhere that the character of Pilate was the most interesting, and that is probably due to the character’s befuddlement with the intransigence of the priests and his effort to understand the enigmatic prisoner in front of him.  I wasn’t there during the historical scourging, but I suspect what we see is as near to reality as we ever wish to be.  Yet it did not move me to tears or sadness.

I once saw a small independent movie on cable that featured David Warner (I think it was him although I can’t find information anywhere now) and portrayed the torture of a woman in an empty white room.  It was chilling as he relentlessly and coolly tortured her both physically and psychologically.  I was absolutely shaken by it.  I was reminded of it when I saw Star Trek: TNG – The Chain of Command, which included Picard’s torture by the Cardassian Gul portrayed by Warner.  That episode was one the best in the series.

It occurred to me as I thought about The Passion that I never felt anything for this movie like I did watching that indie or watching the TNG episode.  Sitting in the theater, I felt like a voyeur watching one horror after another, but unwilling to turn away even though there was no hope of rescue for the hero.  I went to see what the hoopla was about, and I don’t feel any need to go back.