The film, The Passion of the Christ which depicts the last 12 hours of Jesus on earth generated so much controversy even at the early stage of its production, because of what its North American critics claim as Anti-Semitic in its portrayal of the Jews.
Mel Gibson, a devout Catholic, not only directed the movie, but also co-produced it, infusing in a lot of his own money ($30 million) when financial backers refused to finance what was thought to be a suicidal business venture.
But business venture it was not for Mel Gibson, rather a matter of personal faith. In an interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC Network, shortly before the official screening of the movie in American theaters, Gibson acknowledged the film is an expression of his renewed faith in Jesus.
In a highly secular world that we live in, it is quite stimulating to find somebody and a Hollywood icon at that, to openly speak about his faith, and to have the courage to defy the odds and prove his critics wrong.
Early on, critics surmised that given the controversies the movie generated Gibson will recoup his production costs in the first few weeks of screening. And it came to passed that the critics’ prediction was fulfilled. The movie generated close to $400 million in its first three weeks of screening.
Artistic masterpiece
How would someone describe a film that rendered her speechless after watching it? No words perhaps are sufficient enough to capture the overriding emotions that flooded the heart after having seen the film and be touched by it. At least that is the way I would describe my own reaction to the movie.
To say the film is well crafted is perhaps an understatement. It is an artistic masterpiece. Vittorio Messori, an Italian journalist who saw the film in a pre-screening in Rome, praises The Passion for its high quality production, citing its excellent lighting and cinematography, credible makeup and fabulous sets.
The movie was shot in Matera in Southern Italy. The place, where the way of the cross and the crucifixion scenes were shot, is called the Sassi, a UNESCO World heritage site. This location was also the same backdrop used by Pier Pasolini in his film “The Gospel According to St. Matthew” which was filmed in 1964.
Jim Caviezel is an excellent choice for the role of Jesus. Gibson, it has been said, was very careful not to cast a blue-eyed Aryan looking Jesus. Maia Morgenstern as Mary rends our hearts with her gripping portrayal of a mother suffering with her Son. Is there any mother who would not offer herself to suffer in place of her child? Throughout the film, Mary is depicted as suffering very closely with her Son, thus emphasizing her role in Jesus’ work of redemption. Mary’s act of wiping all the blood of Jesus splattered on the pavement after the scourging is so heart-rending, anyone would be moved to tears.
The movie also tries to show how Mary’s life and that of Jesus are closely intertwined by offering us some flashbacks on the hidden life of Jesus – as a little child and as a carpenter. As Jesus falls under the weight of the heavy cross, we are brought to a similar scene in a dusty street in Nazareth, when as a child he also fell and Mary came to his rescue.
And when Jesus looks into Mary’s eyes under the weight of the cross, we are again reminded of that close intimacy between Mother and Son, when in another flashback we see a playful Jesus bantering with Mary.
The film is cinematic in its detail. The cinematographer’s choice of bluish color in the garden scene depicts the inner struggle that Jesus is undergoing at that moment. The battle between good and evil is very prominent throughout the film. In the garden, Satan tempts Jesus by saying, “it is too much for one man to bear the sins of all men.” And again, during the scourging of Jesus and on his way to crucifixion, Satan would work his way through the crowd; his sinister presence inciting people and soldiers to inflict more suffering on Jesus.
Towards the end of the movie, Gibson used several flashbacks to reinforce the meaning of suffering and eventually, death of Jesus. The crucifixion scenes are intercut with scenes from the Last Supper, thus emphasizing the profound meaning of the Eucharist.
“It is as it was”
The Passion is not anybody’s ordinary kind of movie. The film is too violent and gory for comfort. The unrelenting and sadistic violence will leave anyone numb, if not moved to tears.
Is the graphic violence necessary? If a faithful representation of the Passion is to be portrayed, then it is. The Holy Father is supposed to have said after seeing the film, “It is as it was.”
Gibson has strayed from the usual Hollywood’s interpretation of the passion of Jesus. In the movie “King of Kings,” we encountered a blue-eyed Jesus preaching around Palestine, and working miracles. Franco Zeffirelli, in his opus “Jesus of Nazareth,” introduced to us a charismatic Jesus brilliantly portrayed by John Powell. Both movies have dealt on the hidden and public life of Jesus and little on his suffering and death. The scourging and crucifixion scenes on these two films are so neat and brief they leave little emotional effect on the viewers. Gibson’s The Passion, on the other hand, is so heart-wrenching in its graphic and slow motion shots they make the viewers unwilling participants in every detail of violence that Jesus suffered.
Gibson does not compromise in his understanding of Jesus’ passion. It is his paramount obsession to make his movie on the passion of Jesus, achieve what it is intended for – to reach and change human hearts just as it changed his. His decision to use Aramaic and Latin - the languages used by Jews and Romans during Jesus’ time gives the film a tad of novelty and antiquity.
Anti-Semitic
Various Jewish organizations in the United States, such as Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, are afraid the film may produce anti-Semitic sentiments. However, the film does not single out any particular race as responsible for Jesus’ death. At best, it points to all of us as being responsible since Jesus died for the sins of all humankind.
The participation of the Jewish leaders in the trial and crucifixion should not be taken against any Jews past or present. In the same manner, the cruelty and sadism of the Roman soldiers in the film do not in any way mean that all Roman soldiers were cruel and sadistic. The portrayals of the Jewish leaders in the film are based on gospel narratives we already knew. To claim that the movie is anti-Semitic is like saying the gospels are anti-Semitic too.
It should be noted that the temple leaders are not representative of the Jewish race. They are people of their own time blinded by their own lust for power. They have their own interests to protect. Remember that there are also a lot of good Jewish characters in the film. The Blessed Mother is a Jew and so are John and Magdalene. How about Simon and Veronica, and the rest of the apostles?
Jesus himself absolved anybody of the responsibility, when, in a flashback, he says “I am the Good Shepherd. No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down on my own.”
Sources
The film derived its script from the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But Gibson also added many non-biblical accounts, which are based from the visions of 19th century German mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich published into a book entitled “The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ.” All the particular details shown at the scourging of Jesus, on the way to crucifixion, and other scenes, which are not found in any of the four gospels, are based from the visions of Emmerich.
Gibson says he tried to be faithful to the gospel accounts. But he is also an artist, and The Passion is his movie, hence, he cannot be faulted for being innovative and adding any scenes he thinks are crucial to the film’s cinematic effect.
New genre
In producing a blockbuster religious movie which many Hollywood people did not want to touch, Gibson has opened a floodgates of possibility of creating a new genre in filmmaking.
Other film makers in the past have consistently portrayed Jesus as the traditional Jesus that we have long identified ourselves with. The Jesus that Gibson introduced to us is atypical of what we have been used to. He is neither the polished Sto. Cristo, nor the richly clothed Santo Entierro, whom we glossed over on Fridays and Holy Week. This is Jesus whose blood we see (albeit on the screen), being shed drop by drop, flesh; being torn piece by piece, embracing our humanity and suffering for us to save us from sin.
The passion of Christ as portrayed by Christian art has lost its emotional impact for most of us. We fail to see the suffering and violence behind the crucifix. Passion narratives and passion plays fail to genuinely move us also. This film has changed all this. It has touched and moved us, and deepened our faith.
This movie will surely have a profound influence on the Filipino audience whose observance of Holy Week activities will probably achieve a renewed and deeper meaning.
