The Passion of the Christ
 Before I get into this post, let me warn you that I’m almost sure to give away parts of the movie. So if you haven’t seen The Passion of the Christ yet, and don’t want anything spoiled, you might want to skip reading this. The again, if you’ve read the Bible, then you should already know how this story goes. Kind of like knowing the boat is going to sink at the end of Titanic. No matter what, the outcome is pretty much set.
What apparently isn’t set, at least in Mel Gibson’s mind, is how much extra stuff you can squeeze in between the lines of what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote. I have to admit, it had been awhile since I’d read the Bible. I’m an atheist, so it’s not like I go to church every Sunday and brush up. So after watching the movie yesterday, I broke out my Bible (yes, I own one) and re-read the parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that discuss the events in the movie.
Now of the four books, Luke seems to be the one that Gibson follows the closest. It’s the only one that mentions Herod, or the soldier’s ear being cut off and then re-healed, or the disagreement between the other two criminals crucified along with Jesus about who deserved to be there and who didn’t. Matthew, Mark, and John leave those tidbits out.
But none of the books include snakes, a demon baby, a scary woman dressed in black, Judas being chased by rabid Jewish kids, or a “tear” falling from heaven just like the bomb in Pearl Harbor. The also don’t include eyes being pecked out, flashbacks to Jesus inventing a new type of table, or the buckets of blood that Gibson makes every effort to capture in The Passion of the Christ. Maybe other books in the Bible get into all that, but I don't have the desire to go on a needle in a haystack hunt.
By the way, the whole table scene was incredibly cheesy. Not only is Jesus the son of God, but he also invented the dining room set! But that’s not nearly as cheesy as the resurrection at the end of the movie. I half expected the theme for Superman to start playing in the background as Jesus rises up to go kick some ass. That’s exactly what it looks like, especially with the shot of the hole through his hand placed at his side as if he’s about to pull his six-shooter from the holster and bring law and order back to the Wild West. The movie would have been better off without those two scenes or if they’d been done another way. In fact the whole flashbacks idea should have been rethought so that it told us more about Jesus’ background and why he was willing to die for everyone’s sins rather than how good he is with wood or showing his mom running to him when he was a child. The flashbacks were a wasted opportunity in my opinion.
The Passion of the Christ also would have been better off if there had been less emphasis on pain and agony (which the Bible does not stress at all) and more on the message that Jesus was trying to get across. I would have liked to know more about the other characters and their motivations. If you’re not a Bible student, you may not know why Judas betrayed him. Or why Peter and the rest abandon him. Or his relationship with the other woman who follows his mother around. All of that is glossed over to make room for the good 90 minutes of torture that you get to see in gory detail.
Now Roger Ebert has said that The Passion of the Christ is the most violent film he has ever seen. I disagree. While it is violent, I can think of plenty more examples of movies that show way more blood and gore than this. Frankly, the first fifteen minutes of Saving Private Ryan are more disturbing to me. But he is right in saying that if it were about any other subject than Jesus Christ, it would have gotten an NC-17 rating. There’s a bit of hypocrisy there. The subject matter should not be the determining factor for a movie rating. Content should be.
I also wouldn’t give the movie four stars like he did. The Passion of the Christ is just not that good of a movie. You don’t know much about the characters, it focuses too much on one thing (well two things if you count pain and blood separately), and it doesn’t stick enough to the original stories to avoid losing credibility. I’d give it three stars, tops. More like two and a half.
Finally the depiction of Jews in The Passion of the Christ. I don’t think the movie is overtly anti-Semitic, because there are a few Jews who are shown to be on Jesus’ side. But then again you do have the scene with the devilish Jewish kids chasing Judas that is pretty disturbing. The Jews are also shown as much more blood-thirsty, especially when compared to the Romans, who while they beat the living crap out of him, do show conversion by the end of the movie. If I were Jewish, I’d think The Passion of the Christ wasn’t as fair as it could have been. I’d be wondering if Gibson is going to modify what is written in the Bible to make Romans look better, then why didn’t he do the same for the Jews? That’s a troubling question. Again, not anti-Semitic, but definitely leaning in that direction.
Plus there are lots of other problems with The Passion of the Christ. Too many shots of people just staring at each other. Too many shots of a demon woman walking through the crowds. Too many shots of people taking enjoyment in Jesus’ suffering. And of course too much blood and not enough of why it is all necessary, which I think most Christians would agree is the real message of the story.
Related links:
12:27:31 PM  |
|
|
![Subscribe to "[ random acts of alex ]" in Radio UserLand.](http://radio.weblogs.com/0117496/images/xmlCoffeeCup.gif){kind=small}
