Though material is drawn from all four Gospels, this is not a literal rendering. There are many interpretive moments. The devil (Rosalinda Celanteno) appears throughout, as a kind of androgynous deceiver, one who lurks in the shadows whenever there is doubt, despair, deception and cruelty.
Religious arguments appear to be this snake’s particular triumph. Much has been made in this film of the active prosecution of Jesus by the Jewish leaders, most notably Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia), the high priest. There is no question that they considered Jesus to be a dangerous charlatan, a delusional, self-appointed Messiah who needed to be stopped, lest he lead astray even more of the faithful than he already had. They are not portrayed sympathetically. They seem to delight in the physical suffering of Jesus, which itself may be some poetic license, but Gibson’s representation of their cries for Jesus’ crucifixion are taken from the Gospels themselves (Mark 15: 13-14). (Gibson did, however, under pressure from the charge of anti-Semitism, delete the line from Matthew 27:25, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.”)
The Aramaic spoken throughout is said to be authentic, but there are a limited number of people who could actually verify that. For the purpose of the film’s impact, there’s always a certain viewer distancing created by subtitling. But this epic is not about the dialogue, anyway. It’s about the emotions generated by the scourging and the bleeding and the sweating and the sheer brutality of this execution.
The Roman soldiers, who are portrayed in Scripture as jeering thugs (John 19: 2-3), here seem to take particular delight in beating and tormenting the helpless prisoner, as if they are more sadistic torturers than true soldiers. They laugh uproariously at their victim’s suffering, as if nothing could be more hilarious than having his blood spattered all over them from their constant whipping.
Mary (Maia Morgenstern) is a prominent figure in this film, always watching sorrowfully from a distance, and even remembering fondly, in a flashback, how she picked him up as a child when he had fallen. In flashbacks, as well, are (very brief) scenes of Jesus teaching the crowds, of breaking bread with his disciples, and of washing their feet. But these represent only a brief respite before it’s back to the blood and gore again.
Mel Gibson wants his viewers to be impressed, even shocked, with how much physical suffering Jesus endured for our sake. One cannot possibly see this movie without acknowledging that point. And yet, for this believer, at least, there’s something of an opportunity lost here: the millions who are going to see this film worldwide could have been presented with more positive reasons to believe in this Jesus who suffered: incredible healings, memorable teachings, enigmatic sayings, dramatic miracles. Instead, all we get is the bloody slashing. Of course, it’s not intended to be a complete depiction of Jesus. But it could have been more balanced, more winsome, more appealing, and more representative of the fullness of life which the Christ brings to the faithful.
Definitely, for the believer, “The Passion of The Christ” is a sobering Lenten devotional, and appropriately released at the beginning of Lent. But the resurrection is rendered only as a fleeting suggestion. It’s as if you were to introduce someone to Christianity by attending a Good Friday service. Reveling in the sorrow, without the peace and love and joy and hope, makes for a grim-faced faith, indeed.
Posted Feb. 25, 2004
Ron Salfen is pastor, Westminster church, Dallas.
Send your comment on this review to The Outlook.
Please give your full name and hometown.
