Mel Gibson’s newest movie, “The Passion of the Christ” has been causing quite a stir. Some say it’s brilliantly moving. Others call it anti-Semitic and historically inaccurate. Others claim that Gibson is touting an orthodox agenda. But no matter what you’ve heard or your religious affiliation, when you cut through the hype, Gibson has produced a cinematically beautiful and moving film.
I have to admit, entering the film I was nervous. I’ve heard stories of the graphic epic enraging some, bringing others to tears. From my first moments in the theater, I began to understand the enormity of this film.
Almost a week after its release, I faced several sold out shows and had to buy tickets for a show for several hours after I had arrived at the theater.
After finally entering the theater, I was amazed to see cops at every door, along with religious groups handing out flyers and talking up moviegoers. Clearly, this was becoming not just a film, but an historical event for modern Christians.
The movie follows Jesus of Nazareth (James Caviezel, “The Thin Red Line,” “The Count of Monte Cristo”) during the final l2 hours of his life. The film opens in the Garden of Olives (Gethsemane) where Jesus has gone to pray after the Last Supper.
Betrayed by Judas Iscariot, Jesus is arrested and taken back to Jerusalem where the Pharisees confront him with accusations of blasphemy and condemn him to death.
Jesus is brought before Pilate, the Roman governor of Palestine, who listens to the accusations. Not wanting to make the choice himself, Pilate gives the crowd of onlookers the choice of freeing Jesus or the known murderer Barabbas. The crowd ultimately chooses to condemn Jesus, who is flagellated by Roman soldiers and ultimately crucified.
The story is simple and known to many, but Gibson manages to present it in a way that audiences have never experienced before. By focusing on the torture and pain Jesus was put through in his final 12 hours, Gibson makes him human through his suffering.
At times the scenes become horrifyingly graphic and almost impossible to watch. As Jesus is flagellated by the Roman soldiers with whips and chains, his body is beat into almost unrecognizable form.
Covered in blood, his ribs exposed, Jesus is crowned with thorns before carrying his cross through the streets of Jerusalem, all the way up to Golgotha. Perhaps the most graphic and disturbing moments in the film occurred as the nails were driven through Jesus’ hands and feet, a moment Gibson focuses in on and slows down. The graphicness of this movie certainly merits its ‘R’ rating.
The film, filmed entirely in Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles, was surprisingly simple to follow. The emotion portrayed by the actors, along with the familiarity of the story made the subtitles, I would argue, unnecessary.
“It wasn’t hard to follow at all,” said Pat McHugh ’06. “At first I had heard it wasn’t even going to have subtitles…without subtitles, it would have been great, like an opera. It would have allowed the viewer to pay closer attention and draw their own conclusion.”
Throughout cinematic history, there have been dozens of films that have depicted the Passion, from “The Life and Death of Jesus Christ” to “King of Kings.” “The Passion of the Christ,” however, does the best job of portraying Jesus as both man and Christ, portraying his human flaws while emphasizing his compassion and forgiveness. Caviezel turns in an amazing performance, using his body and expression more than his words to depict the horror of the situation.
The finest performance of the film is turned in by Maia Morgenstern, a Jewish-Romanian theater actress, as Mary. With few words she offers emotional and insightful glimpses into Jesus’ childhood, which add depth and dimension to the otherwise linear plot line. Overall, the character of Mary is perhaps the most feeling and well-developed of the movie, since Jesus maintains an air of other-worldliness throughout.
Perhaps the finer moments of the film are when Gibson chooses to implement special effects, such as raging storm that ensues after Jesus’ death, the giant teardrop of God that falls from the sky and the eerier scenes in which an androgynous Satan tempts Jesus.
Although the controversial film has upset many, Fairfield students have had positive responses.
“I thought the cinematography was unbelievable,” said McHugh. “The way that Gibson chose to portray the Passion was really interesting.”
In the end, the final decision on the effectiveness of the film will belong to the individual viewer. The film is too personal and too powerful for any one critic to assign it a declarative review.
Personally, taking into account my own spirituality, the film was a chance to reflect on an event that I’ve never really examined closely in my life. In fact, I think it’s a movie that I, and everyone else who sees it, will reflect upon for some time to come.
As I watched the theater-goers walk out of the cinema, applauding, crying, shocked at what they just seen, I had no idea what the final say would be on the film, but I did know that it is a film that will hold a place in cinematic history for some time to come.
Leave a Reply