The Passion: Five Questions

Bill Park (Prof. em. Sarah Lawrence College, New York), a good friend of mine and colleague, sent to me his point on this film. A worthwhile reading, even if all of us are a little bit saturated, not because the film, not because the new social and film professional phenomenon, but because all the press "hubbub" that Bill mention. The Passion of the Christ: Five Questions 1. Why all the hubbub? In all my years of film going, I do not recall any movie that has caused such a hubbub. Gone with the Wind (1939) comes to mind, but all the hype about that movie centered on two questions: who would play Scarlet O’Hara; and can a huge best selling novel be successfully translated onto the screen? Needless to say, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ raises more serious questions. It's curious that earlier Hollywood versions of the Gospels, King of Kings (1927 and 1961) and The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), caused no such outcries. Admittedly, Gibson's treatment is more graphic and horrifying than anything done previously, but since in the chorus of detractors one hears many secular voices, one suspects the real offence is Christianity itself. In an age in which among the educated elite, tolerance and inclusion stand as the only virtues, in which Christians are regarded as bigots and Christianity oppressive, and in which what religion exists tends toward New Age spirituality, Gibson’s in your face assertion of a Christian perspective can only scandalize. Gibson is not far from St. Paul when he claimed, "We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and the Greeks foolishness." 2. Is the film anti-Semitic?

In various interviews Gibson has claimed that neither he nor the film is anti-Semitic and that his detractors and critics are really complaining about the Bible. With some qualifications, I agree. The uncomfortable fact of Scripture is that some Jews, namely the Sanhedrin, the priestly caste who collaborated with Roman occupation and who wanted Jesus put to death, pressured Pontius Pilate to issue the death warrant. The film shows this. But like Scripture, it also shows that Jesus and all his followers are Jews (Mary is played by Maia Morgenstern, a Jewish woman), that Pontius Pilate is ultimately responsible, that Jesus asks that his killers be forgiven, and that Jesus himself willed his death, in obedience to his Father. As Gibson would have it, there's no one to blame but yourself, which is why, no doubt why he himself drives the nails into Jesus's palms. The real difficulty lies in the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity. One of them is mistaken. Either Jesus is the Son of God, or he is a deluded imposter, another one in a long line of false Messiahs. Both views cannot be correct. From a strict Jewish point of view, Jesus, who called himself "I Am," which is to say Yahweh, or God, was a blasphemer, and as such punishable by death, regardless of what threat he caused to the political status quo of Jerusalem. To a believing Jew, Christianity is a heresy. To a believing Christian, the majority of Jews rejected their own Messiah. There's no way around this, except to call, as the Pope has repeatedly done, for love and understanding, for tolerance, for respect, and for a creative dialogue arising out of the tensions between the two religions. Concern that the film might incite hatred arises from the long history of Christian anti-Semitism, this despite the command of Jesus to forgive and despite St. Paul's warnings and admonitions in his letter to the Romans. Particularly, Passion Plays have a history of causing anti-Semitic outbreaks. So despite Gibson's intentions and his adherence to the Biblical narrative, one can understand in these days of rising anti-Semitism, fueled by the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, that some Jews express serious misgivings about the film. In my opinion Gibson does not portray the high priest Caiaphas as a monstrous villain, but as an authority figure, who for good reasons opposes Jesus and wants him out of the way, even if it means the tortuous Roman way. It's the Roman soldiers, not the Jews, who revel in the cruelty. 3. Is the film too violent? The film warrants its R rating for violence; it is not for children. Though the representation of Christ's sufferings may be accurate, in drama are they obscene? That is, to say, should the flagellation be alluded to, the results shown, but the actual whipping and gouging removed from view? The Greeks never exhibited such sights; the Elizabethans delighted in them. Our own age favors the Elizabethans. Ever since the Production Code was abandoned in 1967, the aesthetic of Hollywood has favored sensationalism, blood spattering and explosions as a kind of ballet of gore. Gibson has merely applied the aesthetic of Peckinpah and Tarantino to the Gospels, where in fact it may be appropriate. There is much to be said for making us sinners feel the sacrifice of Christ so that we may become more thankful. Yet one worries that Gibson panders to the sado/masochism of the audience. This is a very hard call. During the flagellation and crucifixion I had to avert my eyes. 4. Is the film true to the Bible? Gibson admits that his version of the Passion is an interpretation, so of course he exercises his dramatic license. For instance, throughout the film we see Satan tempting and watching, Satan played by a woman. Mary Magdalene and the woman taken in adultery become conflated into the same person; Herod is obviously gay; Jesus makes avant-garde furniture and throws water in his mother’s face (the only light moment in the film); Pontius Pilate's wife, given the name of Claudia, provides linen for Mary and Mary Magdalene to wipe up Christ’s blood from the floor of the torture chamber; we see all the Stations of the Cross, including Veronica's wiping the face of Jesus and an extended and moving sequence about Simon of Cyrene; a raven plucks out the eye of the bad thief, who is also given a name. None of this appears in the Gospels. Yet while Gibson can be faulted for taking more liberties than did Pasolini in his Gospel According to St. Matthew (1966), on the whole he remains faithful to the basic story. 5. Is it a “good” film? As a work of art, the film has many virtues. Caleb Deschanel, the cameraman of among others The Black Stallion (1979) and The Right Stuff (1983) has photographed the events beautifully. The costumes and the setting, the Italian village of Matera, look totally authentic. The acting is excellent. Jim Cazaviel, who plays Christ looks the traditional part, and many of the images of him come from well-known Christian sources, ranging from the Shroud of Turin to Renaissance and Baroque paintings. Hristo Shopov as Pilate is superb. Gibson, who has already won an Oscar for Best Director (Braveheart, 1995), once again displays his talents. His decision to have the actors speak in Aramaic and Latin proved very smart, for he thereby avoided the banalities of contemporary speech as well as contemporary translations. Yet the film does not provide an exception to Park's Law (Position Paper, 359). For it has one flaw. Dramatically, it is one-dimensional. Its plot consists of the Five Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary. The Joyful are omitted; there’s only a brief glimpse of the Resurrection. On the one hand, limiting the film to but one part of the Gospels makes a great deal of sense. It doesn’t try to accomplish too much in two hours and thus cheapen the story. It delivers what its title promises, The Passion of the Christ. But on the other hand, by limiting the film to this one aspect of Christ's life on earth, and dwelling I think excessively on the torture and suffering, despite the flashbacks, which offer momentary relief from the sadism, the film evokes but one emotion – horror or pain. There's no catharsis, and one is left at the end not edified but numb. So yes, it is a very good film about a sublime subject. I admire Gibson for making it, especially at this time. But I suspect that its audience will be those who already believe. It alludes to the significance of Christ's passion, but only in passing. The film serves to deepen one’s faith, but I doubt that it can do much to persuade. Not unlike the Sanhedrin, we see a man who heals an ear but for the most part is a poor suffering wretch who cannot save himself. As a text to justify the ways of God to man, it falls short. Though, hopefully, Gibson will recoup the fortune he used to produce the film, I doubt very much that, except in church circles, the film will have the "legs" of The Lord of the Rings. [Writen by Bill Park]

Comments

[Publicado por: dennis capraro]

I just read you commentary...discovered it on a search for "anti-semitic outbreaks" since the airing of the passion.

I was impressed by your analysis and, for the most part, am in agreement with your words.

I just saw the film, Passion of the Christ this past weekend. I am a Christian and I believe in the message that this film sends. You alluded to it when you mentioned that Mel Gison personally participated in the crucifixion scene by hammering the nails into Jesus' hands. This was a clear indication that Mel Gibson "gets it"...he, like all of us sinners, put Jesus on that cross. The same way that Rembrandt, in his painting depicting the crucifixion, painted himself into the scene as one of the people lifting the cross into it's hole. Rembrandt "got it" too.

Even you touched on this part when you spoke of how Christ "...willed his death...". But you later said that Jesus was a "poor suffering wretch who cannot save himself...". Obviously, you don't "get it". The fact is that Jesus Christ could have ended his journey of pain at any time. But in order to fulfill the promise of the Scriptures, that a Messiah will come and he will ring the GIFT of SALVATION to the world, he allowed man to shed his blood. Why? Because Christ knew that he would resurrect in three days to illustrate his victory over sin and death. Because, as the Chief Priest mentioned repeatedly, and as was shown in the last scenes of the movie, the "Temple" would be destroyed and then "be rebuilt in three days". The Sanhedrin, and all those unsaved, still believe that he was referring to the temple in which they congregated and from where they ruled and worshipped. The significance that Gibson's film delivered was that, in fact, the temple building WAS destroyed as was the physical temple that was Christ. But Jesus rose from his tomb. The fact that Gison ends the film there is most significant because Jesus is still influencing lives. He lives! therefore the story has not ended! That is why we see Satan languishing amongst the skeletons in his everlating grave, knowing that Christ was sovereign over him, as he cried out toward the heavens. Satan knows that he cannot win.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely.

Dennis Capraro

[Publicado por: William Park]

Dear Dennis, I hope that I do "get" the message of Jesus; it's just that I had doubts that the film adequately conveyed it. But I see that,thanks to your analysis, I could be wrong. Best wishes, Bill Park.

[Publicado por: Paul]

Unfortunetly the movie is full of unscriptual Catholic cultic traditions. A lot of it coming from a astral travelling nun who got visions from a dead person.(Mary is DEAD.If you didn't know) The movie focuses on the physical torment Christ went through, when this is not the most important thing Christ did for us. He took God's Wrath on the Cross which was for us sinners. The spiritual suffering that Christ took for us is what saves us, not what MAN did to Christ. If any of you out there are Bible Believing Christians PLEASE have some discernment.
Galatians 1:6 'I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:'