Judging ‘Passion’ Simply As A Movie, Not A Statement

In less than two weeks at the box office, Mel Gibson’s third directorial effort, The Passion of the Christ, made for approximately $30 million (most of it Gibson’s own money), has made over $200 million. Starring James Caviezel as Jesus Christ, the film (in Aramaic, Latin and Greek, with subtitles) is a dramatization of Christ’s last 12 hours, beginning at the Garden of Gethsemane, the location of Jesus’ betrayal by the disciple Judas, and leading up to, and including, the crucifixion.

Much ink has been spilled over this visceral movie, which unflinchingly examines the physical sufferings of Christ in those final hours. Dialogue about the movie has ranged from debates about whether it is anti-Semitic, arguments over whether it is the most historically accurate depiction of Christ’s passage to the crucifixion, to considerations of it being an evangelistic tool to be used by pastors and clergy across the nation.

In such a heated arena, there’s a temptation is to cast conversations about the movie into pro-God, anti-God dichotomies. But perhaps a pastor quoted in Entertainment Weekly said it best when he cautioned, “Some people may not like this film because they just think it’s a bad film. That doesn’t make them evil.” Indeed, although it may be difficult to put aside one’s faith or beliefs when watching this film, there needs to be an attempt to judge the movie simply as a movie, first and foremost, before moving on to other discourses about it’s sociopolitical and religious implications.

As a movie, Gibson’s Passion, though intriguingly stylized (like a modern version of a silent film, with sweeping action, sparse dialogue and broad emotional strokes on the faces of the actors), fails to compel us to check our pre-conceived notions at the door.

Who is this Christ? Why should I be so moved by seeing the agonies inflicted upon this individual, other than being repulsed by seeing the horror of man’s inhumanity and brutality meted out against another man? Sure, these questions are answered by my upbringing in a Baptist church, and I’m sure many in the audience also bring an understanding to the table, whether it be traditionalist Catholic views (as is Gibson’s), Jewish perspectives, Protestant points of view or otherwise. In fact, I’m almost positive that Gibson and co-screenwriter Benedict Fitzgerald are counting on this notion because they do not give us much in the movie itself to answer those questions.

But this is a miscalculation because ultimately it distances us from the characters up on the screen. There’s a wonderfully warm sequence, revealed in flashback, in which Christ is shown plying his carpentry skills, diligently crafting a table, as his mother tries to rouse him to take a break and eat.

I wish there were more scenes like this, more opportunities to tangibly see the humanity and character of Christ played out before us. This would have given later scenes of his graphically depicted torture and crucifixion more impact.

As it is, the movie is full of blood and gore, but it is quite emotionally bloodless. It’s apparent, both from the film itself and all the extracurricular interviews and all, that Gibson is very passionate about this subject, but unfortunately, that fervor doesn’t quite translate to a real, tangible, touching connection with the images on screen. Despite some poignant, near beautiful images, much of the audience’s connection with the film will depend on what one brings to it, rather than what the movie actually offers.

Rated R for graphic, bloody depictions of violence and some horrific images, The Passion of the Christ may be a tough viewing experience for many audiences. Despite support from countless Christian groups, it’s difficult to imagine such a bloody film, a film that pushes the depiction of Christ’s bloodshed to new heights (lows?), becoming a staple of viewing at Easter time, despite the fact the very message of the cross is that Christ’s blood was shed for all.