The Passion of the Christ

I saw The Passion of the Christ in Erie today with a group of friends from church. It doesn't quite sound right to say that I enjoyed the film -- quite the contrary, sometimes I had to avert my eyes from the onscreen action. So maybe it would be more accurate to say that I regard the film as an outstanding achievement. It's obvious from the first shot to the last that director Mel Gibson was captivated mind and soul by this outstanding story.

"It is as it was" is an oft-repeated quote attributed to the Pope regarding the film. I disagree with that statement -- while the film is reverent with its subject matter, it is still a dramatic reinterpretation of the events of the Gospels, with additional scenes written in to flesh out the narrative. I didn't pick up on anything anti-Semitic in the narrative; indeed, the Romans come off much more as the villains of the piece. I was a little surprised to see the character of Satan portrayed by a woman. Was Gibson trying to make a statement by that unique approach to casting? Nobody I've talked to about the film seemed to notice or care. I wonder if people's reactions would be different if the character of God would have appeared in the film played by a woman? Worth thinking about.

I first heard about this film last year on Harry Knowles' outstanding movie website, Ain't it Cool News. I have to admit that when I first heard that there was this Jesus movie being shot in Aramaic, my first thought was "this movie is going to sink without a trace." Foreign language films do bad enough in the USA, but movies that utilize uncommon languages, like Incubus (Esperanto) and Deafula (sign language), end up gathering dust in a film vault somewhere. Boy, was I wrong. The Aramaic actually helped me suspend my disbelief in a way that a group of classically trained actors with British accents never could. (There are subtitles for key points of dialogue.)

A common mistake that many Biblical epics make is that they try to cover too much ground in one film. Remember The Bible, which tried to condense most of the book of Genesis into one movie? Gibson shows a lot of wisdom in selecting a relatively short period of time for his narrative: the betrayal, trial, and crucifixion of the Christ. (Random flashbacks flesh out the characters, and the resurrection is briefly glimpsed at the end.) I grew up hearing this story all my life, so it was easy for me to put the story in its wider context; I wonder how much sense the film makes to people that haven't had as much exposure to the Bible?

I have read a few articles in which reviewers, obviously moved by the suffering, question who the characters are and what motivates them. A few suggest that perhaps the story should have included more of the events leading up to the events of Holy Week. But that wasn't the story that Gibson wanted to tell. Many of Jesus' teachings can be found in other religions and moral codes. Even the concept of blood sacrifice as a way to appease the gods goes back into prehistory and many varied cultures. But the important difference in the Gospel is its focus on Jesus as the perfect sacrifice for all time to an imperfect mankind. And that's a story worth telling.