The film tells the story of the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life, on the day of his crucifixion in Jerusalem. According to the media kit, the film’s script, which is in Latin and Aramaic, is based upon several sources, including the diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) as collected in the book, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Mystical City of God by St. Mary of Agreda, and the New Testament books of John, Luke, Mark and Matthew.
One of the major objections to the film is its graphic violence. Critics have gone so far as to compare this film to something written by the Marquis de Sade. While such observations are largely correct, they cannot in all fairness qualify as criticisms of the film. Make no mistake about it: this is indeed one of the most graphically violent movies ever made. Certainly, children and even teenagers are not appropriate audiences. Being the story of the crucifixion of Christ, we watch in utter horror as a man is tortured, beaten, and dehumanized for two hours. And yes, we feel every single blow. But this is expected. After all, what exactly do people think happens at a crucifixion? A crucifixion is a method of torture. It is a process of dehumanization that leads to certain death. To say that The Passion of the Christ is “too violent” or “sadistic” therefore cannot be a criticism of the film itself, but rather merely an observation of the violence perpetuated in a crucifixion. The film promises to show the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life, and it does just that. That the film fulfills its expectations in a raw, honest, and unflinching manner cannot, in all good conscience, be characterized as a flaw. Rather, it can only be characterized as its principal virtue.
Much has been made about the supposed anti-Semitic undertones to the film. However, it is clear to me that this film is not anti-Semitic. To say that The Passion of the Christ is anti-Semitic is akin to saying that a movie about the life of Ronald Regan is thereby anti-Democratic. The simple fact that the story centers on the founder of Christianity does not make it any more anti-Semitic than anti-Buddhist.
But what of the portrayals of the Jews, who play a critical role in turning Jesus over to the Romans for the explicit purpose of having him crucified? Certainly the Jews are portrayed as cold, unfeeling, even unreasonable people with a death-wish for Jesus of Nazareth. But even so, this is completely rational and defensible behavior from a group of religious leaders who feel threatened by the force and freshness of Jesus’ teachings. While I refuse to become an apologist for the Jewish faction at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, I stand firm by the proposition that their behavior is completely justified, and indeed even expected. It is glaringly obvious to me that any religious group in power at the time of Jesus’ uprising would have wanted to get rid of the religious rebel as soon as possible, in the most sensationalistic way possible, so as to deny him any sense of dignity or credibility. The urge to protect and maintain one’s authority is nothing if not natural, and a completely defensible expression of one’s will to power. The fact that the Jews acted according to their human natures says absolutely nothing of their worth as human beings, or as moral actors.
Even if the Jews are portrayed as power-hungry and unreasonable people bent upon torturing an innocent human being, such portrayals have nothing to do with the Jews of today. The film is about a historical event; to extrapolate from this that the Jews of the time of Jesus are somehow morally indistinct from the Jews of today is nonsensical. Holding the son responsible for the sins of the father is one thing; but holding an entire religious people responsible for the death of a man that occurred 2000 years ago borders on the psychotic.
I should note that, if one really believes in the idea that Jesus was indeed the Son of Man, then Jesus’ crucifixion becomes a necessary event. At one point during the torture, Jesus says to Mary, “See Mother, I can make things new again.” Jesus fulfilled his godly purpose by being crucified—namely, he burdened himself with the sins of the world through his suffering, and carried them with him to his death. He cleansed the world of sin through his 'passion'. Christianity's version of things tells us that Jesus was no mere religious rebel: he was God become man. Therefore, the Christian must believe that everything—from Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, through the Jews’ handing Jesus over to the Romans, to the crucifixion itself—was a manifestation of the will of God. I would argue that the Christian must accept and love even Judas and the Jews as but pawns in the omnipresence of God’s will upon the Earth. Without Judas, the Jews, and the Romans, Jesus could not have fulfilled his spiritual imperative.
The most striking thing about Gibson’s film—and indeed the reason it is such a great film—is that it is not didactic or preachy. It tells the story of a human being first and foremost. It is a story we can all relate to by virtue of our humanity; our religious predilections arrive as mere afterthoughts. The great irony, of course, is that Gibson provides us with a startling spiritual experience the power of which has little if anything to do with Christianity itself. We are able to relate to Jesus as people who suffer from the decrepitude of modern life’s lack of spirituality. This suffering afflicts us all—Christians and Jews and atheists alike.
In the end, The Passion of the Christ leaves an indelible mark upon the viewer because, regardless of one’s religious views, it introduces us not only to a great philosopher and moralist, but to an exemplary spiritual revolutionary. Nietzsche once wrote that "in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross." Gibson's film ultimately affirms Nietzsche's controversial view of Jesus, as it shows us a man whose convictions consist not of a "faith"—in the sense of merely considering something to be true—but of a doing, a practice, a way of living, and a state of being.
I’d give Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ an A-.
"...leaves an indelible mark upon the viewer because, regardless of one’s religious views, it introduces us not only to a great philosopher and moralist, but to an exemplary spiritual revolutionary."
director: mel gibson
starring: jim caviezel, maia morgenstern, monica bellucci, mattia sbragia, hristo naumov shopov, claudia gerini
