The Passion of The Christ
A movie like The Passion was always going to come under intense media scrutiny and criticism. The film has garnered support from leaders of various denominations (even aside from the commendation claimed to have been uttered by the Pope that turned out to be a fabrication) and, interestingly, also a Rabbi or two. Nonetheless, the main two criticisms have been that the movie is anti-Semitic, and that the movie focuses so much on gore and Jesus’ physical suffering, that it is so far removed from any of the tolerance, love or forgiveness that director Mel Gibson claimed to seek in the film.
Virtually all the people I’ve spoken to do not see the movie as being anti-Semitic. At the very least, no one emerged from the cinema with a cold hatred for the Jews who “killed God”, and anyone who did probably had that feeling going in to the cinema in the first place. The concern arises over the depiction of Caiaphas (and the rest of the Sanhedrin) as a cold, deceitful, heartless instigator of the pain inflicted upon Christ. However, this is no different from any other movie with a sadistic antagonist. Just because Tavington in The Patriot had a penchant for more “brutal” methods of quashing the American revolution, didn’t mean all English were likewise cruel. On the contrary, there are numerous scenes where Jews were portrayed in kinder lights, such as Simon, the cross-bearer.
In any case, on a religious level, without Caiaphas’ actions, the prophecies never would have been fulfilled. The fulfillment of the prophecies was only necessary because man was sinful and nothing else could erase that. If you want to be picky, the Jews may have ordered Jesus’ death, but can anyone really think that Jesus, the Son of God, would have let himself be abused, let alone crucified, if it was not God’s will? (Mat 26:53; cf Mat 26:39) To come away with animosity towards the Jews of today for the acts shown in this movie is just not logical.
But you also can’t really blame the Jews for voicing such concerns, as inaccurate as they may be. Compared to the conflicted and reluctant character of Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas is definitely not portrayed in a positive fashion. I imagine it’s also touchy because Judaism has always denied Jesus as being the Messiah. In other words, Caiaphas’ disbelief that Jesus was the Son of God extends to the present for Jews today. Of course, this belief is entirely different from the motivation of Caiaphas wanting Jesus crucified in order to secure his position at the head of the Sadducees.
Another issue arises with Gibson inserting some scenes that are not mentioned in the Bible, but are part of Catholic tradition. For instance, when Jesus collapses when carrying the cross, a woman scuttles over to him, wipes his face with a cloth that later retains an imprint of Jesus’ face, and tries to offer him a drink. That woman is supposed to be St Veronica, who is not found in any of the Gospels. It is known that Gibson supplemented his Bible readings with the writings of two nuns,
Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda. Such scenes are obviously not canonical, and to some it taints the Gospel (perhaps with reference to Rev 22:18). It is true that the movie might have been a little more interdenominational had Gibson left out these scenes. However, the movie is not a substitute for the written gospel. It is a dramatical re-enactment, and you’d expect that the Christians in the audience would be aware that what they are seeing is just like any other film based on a true story – not 100% accurate, nor claiming to be. It’s not a documentary, it’s not a Gospel substitute. It’s a movie.
More strongly, some believe the movie to be heretical in itself, violating the commandment about idolatry (Exo 20:4) by even attempting to depict Jesus. But again, the movie is not creating a figure of Jesus to be worshipped. No one’s going to be worshiping Jesus thinking he looks like Jim Caviezel (although it seems to me that any dark-haired caucasian with a beard like that will automatically look like a movie-Jesus). The movie isn’t trying to create an idol. It is merely an aid to understanding the Gospels.
That said, and away from any theological concerns, the movie does a wonderful job as a period piece. It was filmed in Italy, with dialogue in Aramaic and Latin and subtitles. Some people dislike subtitles, but to be honest, there’s not a whole lot of dialogue, and the majority of dialogue is taken straight from the Book anyway. It’s certainly refreshing not having to hear the actors speaking stilted lines in American-accented English.
One of the most contentious aspects of the film is that it is quite intensely graphic. For most of us, it will be the most gory movie we have ever seen. Not because it features the most people dying, or the most blood spilt, or the most gruesome methods of death, but because it’s essentially a two hour long torture session. That’s never been done before. The movie turns a single sentence, “He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.” (Mark 15:15) into a thirty minute spectacle of Jesus getting his skin flayed off, inch by inch, by two burly Romans who are doubled over with exhaustion by the end of it all. There’ve been reports of people leaving the cinema – not so much because they were offended by the gore, but because they couldn’t stomach it.
Admittedly, the violence is overly emphasised (it’s hard to believe a man could endure that much suffering without passing out at least once), but it’s not gratuitous. Whether confronting (some would say punishing) the audience with so much of it was warranted is a matter of personal opinion.
I think it was warranted for a couple reasons. It is shows, in a very raw way, what Jesus went through. It’s certainly not the image any of us had of the scourging in Sunday school. To me, however, the real power in it is that, from a Christian perspective, we know that what Jesus really, really feared when he was praying in Gethsemane was not the physical agony he was about to endure, but the imminent spiritual separation from God (Luke 22:42-44). (It is interesting that Gibson replaced the angel in verse 43 with a leering Satan.) That spiritual separation scared him more than the crucifixion is telling indeed. There will be a lot of Christians saying afterwards, “look, you can see what the Lord had to go through to save us all”, but what he really had to go through is absent from the screen. We will never know what he really had to go through to save us – you can’t depict that sort of anguish on screen. So in place of that, Gibson has substituted it with something we all (Christian or not) can identify with – physical suffering. And that, I suppose, is the justification for upping the level of gore. For non-believers without an understanding of Christianity, the violence is something I imagine that would arouse curiousity.
Interestingly, the film only received an MA rating, which means it is accessible to all ages. As Ebert has noted, it either means that the ratings board will not award an R for violence alone, or that its subject-matter played a part in getting it downgraded to an MA.
One thing I would have liked to see is more about the resurrection, to round out the 2 hours of suffering we had to watch. Regardless, I do highly recommend this film. I’m not sure what atheists or agnostics who are set in their ways will get out of it, but it is a quite competent piece of cinema.
4:01pm (GMT +11.00) tomorrow 
Best “moral” part of the film: well, more of an ongoing theme than a single event. About the time when Simon (of Cyrene) was yelling at the Romans, I started feeling really annoyed at the Romans and hoping that he’d smash one of them – then it occurred to me, that’s how I would have reacted. That’s how Peter reacted in Gethsemane. But it was nothing like how Jesus reacted. Very powerful to actually realise that.
Best “clever” part of the film: When Pilate took Jesus aside and asked him (Jn 18:33) “Are you the king of the Jews?”, he asked the question in Aramaic. Jesus replied in Latin. Pilate was taken aback for a second, and the rest of the conversation was in Latin. Nice touch.
Is it possible for someone who knows little about the whole story to understand it?
Or does it rely on a lot of assumed knowledge?
Kraz, it’s definitely easy to understand what is going on. Probably not so evident is why it’s happening without consulting someone with some knowledge of Christianity. If you see the movie and have questions, I’d be happy to try and explain some of it to you.
Shish, those are very interesting observations… thanks!
the movie was a pornography of violence designed to connect viscerally–not spiritually–with an audience. the reactions to this movie will generally not be of any genuine spiritual nature, though they will frequently be mistaken as such.
in general, people who connect with this porn are really doing nothing more than worshiping violence. who knew that so many christians doubled as nihilists?
AND simply because it’s irrational to respond in an anti-semitic way to this film implies nothing about the film’s objective anti-semitism. i’d say it’s irrational to be anti-semitic no matter what kind of media you’re watching. does that mean that no film is anti-semitic? that no film could attempt to appeal to people’s general irrationality for the sake of some ulterior motive?
can you come up with any real, non-anti-semitic reason for gibson’s portrayal of caiaphas? i’ve thought about it for days, and i still haven’t come up with anything.
stop fucking apologizing for this trash. you’re making the smart christians look bad.
Not an unexpected reaction from you. Yes, deem in pure arrogance what everyone’s reactions actually are because you felt one way about the movie and no rational person could possibly have felt anything else. And if they did they were deluded or mistaken.
What on earth are you going on about anti-semitism for? You’re just trying to incite an argument for its own sake. It’s safe to assume that Gibson’s portrayal of Caiaphas is based on his interpretation of the Bible. Let us also assume that Gibson is not an anti-semite. Then the objective anti-semitism you’re talking about is from the Bible. If you want to regard the Bible as an anti-semitical piece of work, that’s your own problem (I doubt even you would say this though). The Jews did spin the wheels in motion to kill Jesus. That’s a Biblical fact. Your grandstanding about “objective anti-semitism” is irrelevant if you’re basing it on this. If you think Gibson exaggerated the image of Caiaphas, again, that’s your interpretation of the Bible. Stop talking like you’re God and know it all, full of condescension, insults and absolutely nothing useful to add.
I’m still waiting on those WMDs that you claimed everyone was blind and stupid not to believe Iraq possessed (and don’t give me some bullshit about liberating the Iraqi people from a dictator).
“The Jews did spin the wheels in motion to kill Jesus. That’s a Biblical fact.”
who knew you were into blood libel? an anti-semite in my midst? hallelujah!
i’m not willing to assume anything about mel gibson. while i think the gospels themselves are anti-semitic, i think he embellished them to such an extent that it’s hard to conclude something other than he IS an anti-semite.
btw, you’re an idiot. (since you’re suggesting i insulted you already [i didn’t], and since you won’t recant [since you’re a willful liar], i might as well earn the accusation).
The Sanhedrin were Jews. They had Jesus crucified. Jesus was a Jew too. Get over it.
And oh no, of course “you’re making the smart christians look bad” wasn’t an insult at all, however true you may think it is.
Why do you keep coming back anyway? Do you get your jollies from trying to put people down with self-righteous crap. Or is it to warn everyone about all the terrible lies I’m spreading?
haha. nice try, buck. except you didn’t say the sanhedrin. you said (let me quote): “The Jews“. You know that “The Jews” objectively has only one real sense — the Jewish nation/people/culture. This is so patently blood-libelous it makes me want to wretch.
What lovely people you Christians are.
Ok I’m sorry my phrasing was too loose for you. Obviously with reference to the context of my post I was referring to Caiaphas and the rest of the Jews in on it at the time (Sanhedrin, the mob, etc). But if being sloppy with my wording (or you being a zealous pedant) makes me an instant libelous Jew-hater, then go ahead and wretch. You’re pathetic.
I don’t think you’re genuinely anti-Semitic (in the sense of evincing a conscious hatred of Jews). But the fact that you’d throw around a phrase that has an obvious sense in a manner totally insensitive to historical facts of persecution is pretty insensitive (and, thus, says a lot about your sensitivity to issues of anti-Semitism. Not that that’s surprising for a lot of Christians, given the sad prevalence of the blood libel among its members). Only a real jackass talks about “The Jews” when referring to the crucifixion of Christ.
Somehow, I think your bigot radar would have gone off had your fingers wanted to type “the blacks did something or other”. There’s a good reason–the norms of civil discourse generally eschew talk of persecuted ethnicities or cultures in toto.
So if I said “the Romans crucified Christ”, that would be also blood-libelous and make me a jackass. Or is it just a few, select groups that demand a greater level of political correctness.
Well, in the sense that it’s OK to talk of political entities as instantiating actions really undertaken by individuals, I’d say it’s OK to say the Romans (or the Roman Empire) killed Jesus (just as it’s OK, e.g., to say America attacked Iraq). Pretty clearly, though, there are some pretty strong norms of discourse such that the rules we apply to political entities don’t apply to cultural/ethnic/religious/racial entities and vice versa, ESPECIALLY when a group of the latter sort has a history of persecution strongly associated with their conflation into a massed entity (i.e., as Jews). I don’t think you actually believe that there is no such thing as this sort of norm, do you?
Less esoterically, “The Jews” refers to a group that transcends the lifespans of its members. When we talk about Jews, we talk about a cultural (some would say ethnic) entity that has existed across history since the inception of Judaism. So to refer to “The Jews” is objectively to refer to that historically transcendent entity. So when you say “The Jews [are responsible for Jesus’ death]” you’re implying not only that specific Jews involved in encouraging the crucifixion of Jesus were responsible for his death (which is extremely dubious as a matter of historical fact, but whatever); you’re implying that the transcendent Jewish entity is responsible for his death. This is the very essence of the blood libel. Only a charlatan, fool, or bigot would try to maintain otherwise.
Well if I said “The Aborigines attacked the police” (in the recent Redfern riots), would that be wrong? They are a racial/cultural/non-political group that “transcends the lifespan of its members”. There’s strong political correctness issues with the Australian Aboriginals. They’ve been the target of genocide in the past too. Sure, you might imply from that I’m placing responsibility of the riots on the Aboriginal community as a whole — but no reasonable person would, given the context.
I’m not saying there is no norm, there is. As a cultural norm, Judiasm seems to be more touchy in America than it is in Australia. Perhaps that’s why you’ve chosen not to give me the benefit of the doubt, interpreted it in such a negative light, and then jumped to condemn me for an obviously unintentional faux pas.
The “faux pas” would be negligible if you weren’t so set against the possibility of Mel Gibson’s having made an anti-Semitic movie (you just disqualify the possibility ex hypothesi!) Faux pas can be pretty revealing in light of that sort of dogmatism.