| “The Passion of the Christ”: After the Uproar, Three Views of the Film’s
Potential Legacy
MICK STEVENS’ RECENT CARTOON in The New Yorker displays
a small parish now anointed “Our Lady of Mel Gibson.” It’s a good-natured
tease that recognizes the movie’s sweeping embrace by religious
audiences. The director must be smiling. His latest, “The Passion
of the Christ,” continues to break box-office records around the
world, and against all odds, it is the most profitable film of
his career.
Now that the dust of controversy has settled a bit,
I’ll take stock — one more time — of the movie as a movie. Most
significantly, I think, Gibson develops his own mysterious visual
style to breathe life into this meditation on the Stations of the
Cross. Paradoxically, the movie is both highly stylized and unflinchingly
realistic. We first encounter Christ wrestling with fear in the
Garden of Gethsemane, bathed in shadows, mist and dark blue hues.
Slow-motion photography emphasizes a host of iconic moments, from
Judas planting the final kiss; to Mary racing to comfort her son;
to God quite literally weeping, as a single tear falls from heaven
when Christ surrenders his spirit.
Gibson has an eye for muscular,
arresting visuals. He and his cinematographer, Caleb Deschanel,
were inspired by painters — Caravaggio, Gericault and Raphael,
no less — and the movie plays like a series of indelible portraits
that might compose a shimmering but grisly coffee-table book.
At
the same time, the movie depicts the physical violence endured
by Christ with documentarylike precision. The camera creates an
unrelenting immediacy, tracking the actors so closely one can nearly
wipe the dirt off their faces. Of course, this approach is most
disturbing during the scenes of brutality. Yet in fairness, Gibson
pulls back at critical moments. There are a series of flashbacks
of Christ’s life that fracture the cruelty, briefly throwing the
film into relief. Newsweek’s David Ansen — always fair-minded — dismissed
these scenes as “the cinematic equivalent of footnotes” in a movie
whose true fascination lies in the spectacle of physical violence.
I understand the critique, but I disagree. The flashbacks of Jesus
being playful with his mother and breaking bread with the disciples
are wholly necessary in making bearable the unbearable and establishing
a larger context for Christ’s life.
The casting is also impressive.
Gibson shows again and again that he knows how to choose performers.
In a style that departs from so many life-of-Christ movies, the
quartet of Mary, Mary Magdalene, John and Satan takes center stage,
amplifying Christ’s agony as they witness his tortured steps. In
particular, Maia Morgenstern as Mary has an extraordinary face
that’s made for the camera. The movie closes the crucifixion episode
with a shot of her blood-smeared cheeks, her headdress blowing
in the wind, and the holding of her son’s lifeless body. It’s a
complex image that underscores her strength and vulnerability at
the same time that it invites us to consider our own participation
in Christ’s death. You’d need to go back to the silent movies to
appreciate a performance that expressed so many conflicted, jagged
emotions with so little dialogue.
As a work of art, “The Passion
of The Christ” stands as an astonishing achievement. This is Gibson’s
third directing effort. A classic movie star in the old tradition,
he’s also a director with imagination and the courage of his convictions.
His first two movies, “The Man Without a Face” (1993) and “Braveheart” (1995),
might serve as working titles for his third — which suggests why
audiences have responded so strongly to it.
When Tina Turner sang
the theme of “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” (1985), she proclaimed, “We
don’t need another hero.” Yet a hero was exactly what the post-apocalyptic
world of that movie needed, and it arrived in the form of Mel Gibson.
So “The Passion of the Christ” arrives with sound, fury, reverence
and in the context of Gibson’s career, no surprise. He’s been saving
souls (Mad Max, Mrs. Soffel, Ransom) — including his own (Lethal
Weapon, Hamlet) — for years. “Our Lady of Mel Gibson” will forever
be Standing Room Only.
— Todd Rendleman, Assistant Professor of
Communication
QUITE INDEPENDENT OF THE FILM’S cinematic quality
or the accuracy of its rendering of the Lord’s Passion, the stunning
popularity of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” has occasioned
a “teaching moment” for the church. We should be profoundly grateful
for this fresh, provocative opportunity to reflect on the costs
and risks of journeying with Jesus.
But the controversy provoked
by this film also reminds the church that earnest Christians are
responsible to provide witness to the existential and eternal importance
of the Passion. Believers must voice graceful commentary to correct
impressions made by this film or wrong-headed interpretations advanced
by the loud pundits of popular culture. Toward this end, let me
make three criticisms that may contribute to our current discussions
of Gibson’s film in our various “town squares.”
First, we should
explain that Gibson’s film is a midrash — that is, any film about
Jesus is an artful commentary on the gospel narrative in a manner
that retells it for a new audience.
We should not mistake this
film for a literalistic take on the gospel narrative or an attempt
to get the facts of history straight. The four different gospel
stories of Jesus’ Passion from arrest to execution are blended
together, and then added to, in order to supply the plotline of
Gibson’s highly personal interpretation of the Passion story. This
is neither Scripture’s nor the church’s commentary on the Lord’s
death. With this understanding, we can better assess elements that
are folded into the film’s plotline but are not found in Scripture,
such as the enhanced role and characterization of the Evil One,
of Pilate’s wife, of the two Marys, of the crowds that lined the
path to the Cross.
Second, I think we should admit that Gibson’s
film is anti-Jewish — not in an obvious or malevolent way, but
clear all the same to those who know what choices Gibson could
have made in characterizing Jesus and his rejection by Israel.
In part, the film is anti-Jewish simply because Jesus is not rendered
as a Jew in contrast to Scripture’s portrayal of him as Israel’s
Messiah who goes first to the household of Israel to announce that
the God of Israel has fulfilled promises made to Israel according
to Israel’s Scriptures. In fact, the hostility of Jewish leaders
is the result of Jesus’ subjection of the central symbols of his
Jewish world — Sabbath, Temple, Torah, purity rules — to his messianic
mission. Yet this film supplies no clear reason for the Lord’s
Jewish opposition.
And Gibson could have provided such a reason.
Flashbacks could have been used more strategically to position
Jesus within his Jewish world. Gibson could have included a more-developed
Nicodemus in the cast of Jewish leaders rather than portray them
in an iconic, flat way as irrationally hostile to him. While pagan
Pilate and not the Jewish Sanhedrin is ultimately responsible for
Jesus’ execution, Gibson makes the Sanhedrin the film’s real villain.
The biblical gospel is not so anti-Jewish, but rather interprets
Jesus’ death as the fulfillment of promises that God makes to Israel
in its Scriptures.
Finally, and most importantly, we should reject
as unbiblical the film’s numbing glorification of the Lord’s heroic
suffering — a retelling of Jesus’ Passion as “Braveheart.” The
biblical gospel actually makes very little of the Lord’s horrific
suffering and much more of his steadfast obedience to and for God.
John’s gospel mentions it only in passing to interpret the Cross
as symbolic of God’s sovereign control over the plotline of his
redemptive mission. The lingering impression of Gibson’s Passion
story is that Jesus’ death is but a Roman execution, following
an arrest, a legal review and an unfair death penalty. But this
plotline subverts the gospels’ Passion story, which concludes in
God’s resurrection of the Messiah precisely to break the flow of
such a juridical process! For this reason, the real climax of the
Passion of the Christ is not a Roman cross, but an empty tomb,
which teaches us that God, the only God, forgives us and desires
to live with us forever.
— Rob Wall, Professor of the Christian
Scriptures
EVEN BEFORE THE OPENING OF “The Passion of the
Christ,” Mel
Gibson had taken as many stripes from the media as Jim Caviezel
(playing Jesus) took from Roman soldiers in the film. With New
York Times reporters leading the frenzy, the movie has been protested
in the press more heavily than any film in recent memory. In contradiction
to the media, most Christian viewers gave the film rave reviews.
Unfortunately, however, Christian communities tend to approve of
any art that echoes their beliefs. What has been missing, in my
opinion, is thoughtful consideration of whether or not “The Passion” is
great art. Great art requires contemplation, time and repeated
visitations before its true significance unfolds. It will be interesting
to see how “The Passion” is regarded in 10 years, after the cacophony
of vitriol and praise has died down. So far, critics have insisted
on viewing it through a few limited lenses, considering only certain
aspects instead of looking at the aesthetics of the work as a whole.
Imagine C.S. Lewis’ satirical devil Screwtape suggesting to one
of his errand runners:
“Urge critics to condemn the film’s graphic
violence. Let them forget the hyperviolent films they have previously
celebrated or the way they champion ‘freedom of expression.’ Censor
the fact that this violence is a meaningful meaningful
part of the storytelling, not mere gore for the splatter-movie fan.
“Distract
the general public with petty debates about historical accuracy. Granted, few
detailed historical records tell us exactly what happened at Golgotha. But let’s
criticize at the expense of artistic license.
“Yes, Jesus, Mary, John and Simon
of Cyrene are portrayed as admirable Jews. Yes, the Roman soldiers are portrayed
as hating Jews. But let’s make anti-Semitism the focus of discussion so that
people don’t think about the person of Jesus.”
Sound plausible?
To be fair, a
handful of reviews have treated the film as a work of art — indeed as the latest
in a centuries-old tradition of graphic, unsettling crucifixion art. But the
church seems to have been preoccupied with “The Passion” as an evangelical tool,
sometimes beating secular audiences over the head with it. Consequently, the
true potential of the film to do a deeper work in people’s lives may be muted.
It is all too possible to exaggerate Gibson’s achievement, however. We must remember,
this is Gibson’s expression, not the expression. Scripture tells us to “test
all things and hold fast to what is good.” “The Passion” deserves close artistic
analysis. It is a flawed work by a flawed human being, great in some ways, lacking
in others. It should be discussed in the context of other great cinematic works
about Christ.
In fact, there are meaningful films reflecting the gospel being
made all the time. In recent days, the big-screen interpretation of “The Gospel
of John” brought a wider lens to the story of Jesus’ life. Lars Von Trier’s harrowing
parable “Dogville” asked what would happen if a Christ-figure gave up the path
of grace and turned vengeful. Robert Bresson’s 1966 masterpiece “Au Hasard Balthazar” has
been restored, introducing viewers to what may be the most beautiful cinematic
poem about Christ ever filmed.
We have an opportunity to engage in the cultural
conversation about Christ by noticing not only “The Passion” but also such other
films, bringing attention to them, supporting and discussing them. By exploring
and responding to the art and ideas of others, we imitate the way Jesus carried
on redemptive conversations with his contemporaries. In the process, we may encounter
God — and learn a thing or two about ourselves.
— Jeffrey Overstreet, film critic and Response Staff
Writer
Back to the top
Back to Campus |
 |
From the President
As today’s opinion-shapers declare the Christian message irrelevant, Seattle
Pacific University President Philip Eaton reminds us: “For two billion
people, the resurrection of Jesus Christ changed everything.”
“This Is Our Campaign”
Creativity and commitment are the hallmarks of faculty contributions, including
finding precision science equipment and seeking grants. [Campaign]
Acting on AIDS
A student-led campaign encouraging a Christian response to a world pandemic
had the campus seeing orange. [Campus]
When Disaster Strikes
As senior development officer for Northwest Medical Teams,
alumnus Dick Frederick ’63 helps deliver care to those who
need it most. [Alumni]
Looking Ahead
Falcon women keep their sights on a national championship after a perfect season
ends too soon at the Elite Eight. [Athletics]
My Response
Nicaraguan native Maria Antonia Caldera Hunter ’89 tells of an SPU study
tour to her homeland that showed her the presence of Christ in unlikely places. |
|
