Robin Hardy Online
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
A Review of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
About 10 years ago, a relative loaned me a videotape series of the Bible produced by a prominent Bible publisher. The first tape of the series we viewed was that of Jesus' trial and crucifixion. Ten minutes into the tape, my 9-year-old was rolling on the floor laughing while my 13-year-old watched in offended disapproval—watched the tape, that is. Even I was grimly chuckling at the hokey costumes, the stilted acting, and the cheesy sets with the Styrofoam® boulders. The Roman soldiers acted tough by shoving people on the shoulder, and Jesus suffered so gamely. The whole thing was so clean and neat that I finally turned it off and said, "It's going to take an R-rated movie to accurately portray the Crucifixion, and you'll never see that coming from a Christian publisher." It took a Mel Gibson.
The Passion of the Christ is probably as close as any modern person can get to portraying on film what the Gospels relate of the Crucifixion. In this country, we are blessed to be so far removed from barbarity that we don't really understand what a Roman death by torture entailed. But this movie should help most of us understand that when the New Testament says that Jesus suffered and died, he suffered and died a horrible, bloody death.
Is the film biblical? From the very first frame, which quotes Isaiah 53:5—"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed"—virtually every scene directly interprets Scripture. The exceptions are some ingenious adlibs (especially involving Satan) and Gibson's own reasonable extrapolations of background and motivations which are not addressed in Scripture. His use of ancient languages struck me as profound. Not only does it help place the viewer in the proper environment, but it strips the story down to its bare essentials.
Is the movie anti-Semitic? Only as far as the Gospels are considered anti-Semitic. To me, the film makes plain that the whole human race is responsible for the death of the Son of God. The religious authorities incited it and the secular authorities enabled it (how contemporary can you get?) but it was our sin that made atonement necessary (from our viewpoint. I'm still having trouble understanding what God gets from the deal.) The Romans don't get off lightly, for the most disturbing images are of their bloodlust. True, some of the Jews are calling for His death, but others are crying, "Stop! Stop them!" Gibson is careful to note the Pharisees who object to the illegal proceedings—and are promptly tossed out. I saw nothing incendiary in the presentation; as a matter of fact, the portrayal of Simon of Cyrene is both sympathetic and inspired. Herod's court is a riot of sensuality and ignorance, which is wholly true to historical accounts.
If I had any criticism (and I'm trying hard to find one) it would be that the Resurrection is presented almost casually and way too briefly after the prolonged trauma that preceded it. But the film is about Christ's Passion—His suffering on the Cross—so dwelling on what followed would be out of its purview. Still, it was reassuring to see Jesus smile slightly as He lays aside the grave wrappings.
Which brings me to the only drawback I see to the movie: that I should start to picture James Caviezel (fine-looking man though he is) when I think of Jesus. Or that I take the film's interpretation of the Gospels as the final word without going back to the source myself. And I don't think that's what Gibson intended at all.
The film is a profound statement of faith. Go see it.
See the official movie website here.
© 2004 Robin Hardy
