|
| . |
|
The Passion of the Christ 2004 |
Review by Jonathan Cornwell |
Directed by Mel Gibson
R, 126 min. (sequences of graphic violence) |
 |
Starring: James Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern, Monica Bellucci, Hristo Shopov, Mattia Sbragia, Luca Lionello, Claudia Gerini, Francesco Cabras, Rosalinda Celentano
Producers: Mel Gibson, Bruce Davey, Stephen McEveety
Screenplay: Benedict Fitzgerald, Mel Gibson
Cinematography: Caleb Deschanel
Distributor: Newmarket Film Group
Released: 2.25.04 (Wide)
(In Aramaic and Latin with subtitles) |
Rating:
 (out of ) |
"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Any attempt to recreate the life and death of Jesus Christ, unquestionably the most influential person in human history,
will certainly be scrutinized like no other film would. It's fair to say that no other film has come close to capturing the
horrific torture and final hours of Christ's life like The Passion of the Christ, which is director Mel Gibson's
penultimate work of his career (and, from his perspective, his life). Surrounded by controversy and riding a wave of
anticipation from Christians and the curious alike, the film, in its entirety, speaks for itself. Gibson's singular vision of
Christ's passion for humanity takes center stage, as Jesus' message of love for one another resonates with each scourge
of the whip and each blow of the hammer upon the nails pierced into his hands and feet. That a man, even one strengthened
by the will of his purpose, could endure such physical, emotional, and spiritual pain is awe-inspiring, regardless of one's
religious beliefs. The film, despite cries to the contrary, accomplishes its mission - to communicate the immense, relentless
suffering of Christ. And, as such, it is one of the most important films in the history of the cinema.
I say important because it forces viewers to contemplate the spirit of a man who willingly gave himself over to be viciously
abused and executed, and also to provoke discussion of the purpose of such an act of selflessness. Jesus has millions of
followers to this day, believing him to be resurrected and alive today in heaven, who anticipate his return as he prophesized
during his ministry on earth. According to Christianity, Jesus did all this to provide a choice for man - accept or reject his gift
of salvation from the wages of sin. Very few films in cinema have achieved this level of thought-provoking material, and
thus on just this merit alone, it's worthy of tremendous admiration and respect.
In making his film, Gibson was driven by the necessity to portray the authenticity of the times and the vivid, excruciating
details of the crucifixion. He wanted to fill a niche that had previously gone unfilled - the aforementioned suffering that
Christ endured on his way to the cross. As Roger Ebert correctly espouses in his review, a film's title has never been more
appropriate. The Passion of the Christ is one of the most violent films ever made, bloody and unflinching in its depiction
of torture and barbaric actions of his tormentors. But it is also one of the most powerful, visceral experiences one is likely
to encounter in film. The effectiveness of Gibson's vision is accentuated by his attention to detail, from the poverty of the
time, through the 14 Stations of the Cross, and in the gritty realism that each blood-soaked scene evokes. Gibson is a
talented filmmaker; he's gifted with the ability to convey heroism amidst the ugliness of humanity. He proved it with
Braveheart and now confirms it with this devastating effort. His approach turns a once postcard sentimentality
of the story of Christ into the harsh reality of the ultimate sacrifice.
If The Gospel According to St. Matthew
is the most accurate retelling of the Christ's entire life, then The Passion of the Christ masters the final 12 hours of his life, from the garden of Gethsemane to
his eventual crucifixion at Golgotha, which is taken from the four gospels and the visions of two nuns (Mary of Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich).
The opening scene, one of the best in the film, shows Jesus (James Caviezel in a performance for the ages) in agony over his impending
road to the cross, pleading with God to "let this chalice pass from me," while resisting the devious temptations of Satan's
icy gaze, who (played by Rosalinda Celentano) tells him that "no one can endure such a burden for man's soul." The ensuing
betrayal of Judas (Luca Lionello) and Christ's arrest in the garden signal the beginning of the journey. He is taken first
to the Sanhedrin and high priest Ciaphas (Mattia Sbragia), who calls Christ's claims blasphemous and then leads the
charge to see him executed. Jesus is brought before Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), who, despite his historically
notorious tendency to crucify without constraint, finds no fault in him. Christ then appears before a depraved Herod,
and is then sent back to Pilate for a final judgment. After a vicious scourging by sadistic Roman soldiers, Jesus is brought
before the crowds as Pilate eventually relents to the people's will to see him executed. Finally, Christ's slow, burdensome
carrying of the cross to Golgotha is interspersed with flashbacks of his life and ministry - as a youth under Mary's (Maia Morgenstern)
watchful eye to his Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper.
Gibson, as a devout Catholic, gives special attention to the mother/son relationship between Mary and Jesus. The film is
patently constructed around their bond, as frequent gazes between them and flashbacks to better times act as a reprieve
to the intense graphic violence that grips the audience. Mary, along with Mary Magdalene (Monica Bellucci) and
the disciple John (Hristo Jivkov), follow closely behind Jesus' journey, looking on in desperation with haunting, tearful
eyes. His disciples fled, leaving Christ to communicate his pain through glancing exchanges with Pilate, his tormentors,
Simon of Cyrene (Jarreth J. Merz), and finally Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John. The poignancy of these scenes, as if
Christ is saying "I'm doing this for you," is as powerful and moving as any part of the film.
Technically speaking, The Passion of the Christ is a masterpiece of filmmaking. Shot in a relatively obscure
city in Italy, which reflects a more realistic look of Christ's time and place, Gibson and his cinematographer,
the talented Caleb Deschanel, capture the various stages of Christ's journey by matching light and mood in the film
itself. The bluish haze that eminates throughout the early Gethsemane scene represents the calm before the storm and
also the critical moment in Jesus' surrender to the Jewish temple guards. Then, the golden hues that saturate his trial
and confrontations with the mob give way to the stark, untouched presentation of Christ's brutal torture at the hands of the
Roman soldiers. Gibson is an artist, and as such, he has created a stylized expression of his vision in and around Jesus' final
hours. His portrayal of Satan's final temptation, as he slips through the crowds to cast menacing glances toward Jesus and Mary,
reflects the belief that Satan believed that Jesus couldn't go through with his passion for humanity. Also, the tormented
mind of Judas is seen being chased by demonic-like children until his self-inflicted hanging is complete. The relationship
between Pilate and his sympathetic wife, Claudia (Claudia Gerini), interjects the idea of truth, and if such an absolute
actually exists. Later, Claudia is shown offering a linen to Mary during Jesus' scourging as an act of repentance for her
husband's lack of courage in the face of a riotous crowd. Finally, John Debney's haunting musical score punctuates each
successive scene perfectly until the rousing crescendo at the cross; it's worthy of award consideration. Gibson is so intent
upon his conviction to make his film that he spares no amount of possible criticism in the process, including using Aramaic
and Latin with subtitles for the greatest impact. Moreover, as well-documented, claims of anti-Semitism quickly emerged
following the completion of the film.
To the accusation or fears of anti-Semitism in the light of the The Passion of the Christ, there seems to be a lack of evidence
in the film for such a charge. It's true that a few original scenes were cut from the final version of the film to appease
such claims, but there is hardly anything here that would warrant ill-feelings toward Jews for Christ's death. I find the argument
unwarranted, because 1) Christ was a Jew himself, and 2) the sins of all humanity sent Jesus to the cross. It's important to remember,
and pointed out in the film, that Christ willingly gave himself over to be tortured and killed. From a Christian perspective,
though history would claim otherwise, blaming Jews for the death of Christ is illogical. By that argument, why would not
the Romans be mostly culpable for his death? It was the Roman governor, Pilate, who had the ultimate authority to
execute, not the Jews. It's also interesting that many who criticize the film for anti-Semitism haven't actually seen the
film for themselves, thereby shortcutting their argument.
The next claim against the film is the level of violence that is portrayed. There's no question that The Passion of the Christ
contains almost unbearable amounts of sickening torture, but that's exactly what it's intended to do. Gibson made the film
with the distinct purpose of shocking viewers with the reality that Jesus was brutalized before he died on the cross. The
film is specifically about the crucifixion of Jesus, therefore of course it will be violent.
The scenes of the scourging, which shows flesh torn from his body, is the most difficult to endure, but Gibson mercifully
interrupts the torture with flashbacks and reactionary shots from Mary, Satan, and the crowd that has gathered to watch.
But for Hollywood to claim that the film is too violent to be taken seriously is the height of hypocrisy, considering the mind-numbing
amount of senseless, meaningless violence that is portrayed in film after film for "entertainment." Now, to be fair, some of those films
are well-made, but to claim a film about an actual event (Jesus' death) is too extreme to contemplate is intellectually dishonest.
From a Christian perspective, the numerous cross charms and necklaces, portraying Christ as a nice guy who is a symbol of
goodness, have lost meaning in our society; Gibson was determined to remind society of the heavy price that Jesus paid,
in all its ugly, graphic detail. Christ endured a combination of physical and spiritual pain that is beyond comprehension,
and Gibson comes closest to capturing this reality without actually being there 2,000 years ago. Without the level of violence
portrayed here, the film would have lost considerable impact and lessened Gibson's overall objective.
I find it interesting that many of the same critics who heaped praise upon Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ,
a very liberal interpretation of Christ's life, would now denigrate Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, a film much more
factually accurate in its presentation. It would seem, by this contradiction, that these critics would also have to
denounce the Bible as an accurate historical record, but would they actually have the courage to say so? Scorsese angered
millions of Christians because he over-emphasized Christ's humanity, which he argued could likely have led Jesus to deny his divinity and to commit sin instead
of fulfilling his purpose. Gibson merely interjects a few interpretations of scripture, but leaves the canonical
line of scripture intact. Most who see the film will consider Gibson's version a fair presentation of Christ's final hours despite
its inherent violence. An emphasis on violence will be tolerated any day over the alteration of a text that is considered
sacred by millions of people worldwide.
Some have made comparisons between Gibson's Passion and Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List, another picture about the
horrific tendency of man to inflict evil upon others. For Christians, the pain that their Savior endured for the sins of the
world has the same sort of emotional impact that Spielberg's film garnered for the plight of the Jews during the Holocaust.
Both films are stylized, well-acted and directed, with an atmosphere that draws the viewer into the picture and keeps them in
riveted attention throughout. Few people will be able to endure either masterpiece without being deeply touched on an at least
an emotional, if not spiritual level. It's also fair to point out that Christians will be more likely to defend and praise Gibson's
film than those who are not religious or do not believe in Christ's claims, while Spielberg's film was more universally
accepted because of its emphasis on a group of people who have been mistreated consistently throughout history.
Even those from a non-Christian perspective will most likely be deeply moved by the sacrifice of one man for his beliefs.
At the very least, Christ's life was an example of humanity in its perfected state; a man who lived by the Golden Rule and
loved those who persecuted him. And the cinematic experience of observing film in its most viscerally powerful state is
something that any moviegoer should want to experience, despite the subject matter. You don't have to be a believer
to understand the message of love that is clearly communicated in the film.
The material in the film is so disconcerting and emotionally-draining that any observance of the brilliant acting on display here
will most likely be recognized in hindsight. James Caviezel gives himself completely to the pains of the production, which he
has stated was excruciating, and his performance speaks for itself. That we hardly notice an actor playing Jesus is all the
evidence needed to know he has given the effort of his career. Maia Morgenstern and Monica Bellucci provide a peripheral
depth to the suffering as their crushed demeanor gives us an insight into the pain of watching a loved one endure such
agony. The rest of the cast is similarly effective, never distracting the viewer from the central purpose of the film.
Gibson's message, I think, is one of forgiveness for others; Christ forgave his tormentors during his agony, and, if he could
do it in the middle of persecution, then we ought to be able to forgive and tolerate others in the absence of pain. So,
in other words, the film encourages, as Christ taught, that we should love one another. Despite the arguments against the
film - violence, prejudice, etc. - it seems that this theme is a worthy endeavor.
The Passion of the Christ is a film of greatness because it powerfully touches the viewer on every cinematic
level - artistically, thematically, and, of course, spiritually. This is a film that is to be experienced; there's no real way to
faithfully describe the impact that its presentation has on the viewer. Despite its narrow focus on the end of Jesus' life, it conveys
the depths to which a man would descend for the love of humanity. Along the way, Gibson has given us an artistic vision
of the events surrounding the story while urging the audience to react to the film in a spiritually uplifting way. That he
could achieve this in a film that limits its material to one segment of Jesus' life is an astonishing achievement. As a result,
Gibson must be considered one of today's greatest directors.
C.S. Lewis once stated that a person must either accept Christ's claim - that he is the Son of God and offers eternal life to those
who believe in him - or that he was simply a good man but also a lunatic. I think that best describes the dilemma that the viewer
is confronted with when pondering who Jesus Christ was. The Passion of the Christ merely presents what Christ endured
for what he believed was God's will, but whether or not one believes in him and his mission is a matter of personal choice. But
regardless of spiritual implications, the film stands as an epic piece of filmmaking that will only increase its standing among
the great films of cinema as the years pass.
© 2004 Jonathan Cornwell
|
|
 |
 | Masterpiece - Film perfection |
 | Excellent - A Must See |
| Good - Highly Recommended |
| Fair - Worth seeing |
| Average - Viewable, but not recommended |
| Below average - View at own risk |
| Poor - Avoid at all costs |
| Very poor - An embarassment to the film industry |
| Zero | Awful - One of the worst films ever made |
© 2000 - present ReelCriticReviews
All movie pictures are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Their use on this site is for informational purposes only and does not imply ownership
|
