“The Passion” Lives On…
Mel Gibson’s movie strikes a chord.
By: Bri Smith
Mel Gibson’s movie strikes a chord.
By: Bri Smith
Growing up as an Episcopalian, I knew roughly of the story of Christ’s life. Reading it the Bible, I was left up to my own devices in order to create the images in my head. When I reached the part about the crucifixion, I understood that it was painful, but I never realized the severity of it until I saw Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.”
It became apparent to me that this film was going to be a big deal when I read an article in the New York Times about the message of hate it could potentially send to audiences everywhere. After that article, I made sure that I read every article printed about the film, in order to see what the positive and negative affects could be. I wanted to stay well informed.
So when Ash Wednesday rolled around, I was ready. Being an avid fan of Gibson’s previous directorial efforts, “The Man Without A Face” and five-time Academy Award winning “Braveheart”, I knew I would not be let down with this one.
The film itself focuses on the last twelve hours of Christ’s life. It starts with Judas’ betrayal and ends with Jesus’ death/resurrection, all the while including everything in between. The stuff in between includes his capture, his meeting with Pontius Pilate, the denial by Peter and his carrying of the cross to the crucifixion site. All of this is intermixed with happier moments in his life.
When the film opens, we see Judas standing before the High Priests giving them the whereabouts of Jesus in exchange for money. Cut to Jesus with his followers praying in a garden, asking God what he should do about what has yet to come.
The cinematography in this film, done by Caleb Deschannel, is beautiful. The way the camera moves in and out, slowly against the backdrop of Italy is cinematically breathtaking. It follows Jesus so closely, that it’s almost showing him in an angelic light. The flashbacks are the most beautiful part of the film. They show Jesus giving his first sermon, working as a carpenter at home with his mother, and sitting with his disciples at his last supper asking them to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of him.
Most critics thought that having the film shot in Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew would take away from the film; however, it only added to its artistic quality. I was even excited at one point when I heard that it might not have subtitles, allowing the pictures to tell the story. But when it came time to find a distributor, they would only release the film if subtitles were put in.
Even after reading about critics who were displeased with his shooting of the film in different languages, I continued to read more and more newspaper articles on the film. There was one common theme that resonated with me, the fact that everyone believed the film to be extremely anti-Semitic. Frankly, when looking at the High Priests, I did not think they were Jewish; in fact the thought only ever crossed my mind when I read a subtitle that said, “Jew!” However, it did show Caiphias, one of the High Priests, leading the crowd in chants to crucify Jesus. But still, I felt no ill will towards anyone in the Jewish community. The fact that critics thought the stirring of hatred towards a race or religious group was vaguely reminiscent of “Birth of a Nation” was perplexing to me. I did not feel that way, and didn’t really understand how others felt that way. But then again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
The one thing I do remember the most, something that sticks in the back of my mind, is when one critic said that Gibson “gets off on bloodshed.” While the crucifixion scene itself is bloody and violent, you have to take yourself back to that time period to fully understand the severity of the type of punishment they had. They weren’t sent to a prison to wait out a hearing, they were punished immediately. To simply to dismiss the film as violent and say Gibson was “getting off on bloodshed” is to not want to look at the film artistically, or realize that Christ’s suffering was for us, the people.
Because there were so many articles written about the film and the controversy surrounding the film, everyone was curious about what went on behind the scenes. They wanted to know Gibson’s religious history (he is a Traditionalist) and why he thought he could direct this film, because it is such a sensitive subject for a lot of people. It is my belief that just like any other director Gibson felt passionate about this specific story and wanted to share that with others.
Stories were printed about Jim Caveizel, the actor portraying Jesus, injuring himself while shooting the crucifixion scene. It’s true, he did separate his shoulder, catch pneumonia, and was struck by lightening, all while “nailed” to the cross. Most critics saw this as a sign to not make the film, but Gibson forged ahead, completing his project and releasing it to 3,000 screens across the country.
Amidst all the controversy, the backlash of critics and all the hype surrounding the film, Gibson succeeded in what he set out to do. He gave us a detailed look into the last twelve hours of Christ’s life, and with his depiction, I couldn’t have been more pleased.