Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
November 8, 2009
Free Newsletters:
RSS Feeds | Audio | Twitter

Home > Movies > Reviews > 2004 |  
The Passion of The Christ
Lethal Suffering: The Passion
| posted 2/25/2004




The Passion of The Christ

Our rating: 2½ Stars - Fair

Your rating:  

MPAA rating: R
(for sequences of graphic violence)



Theater release:
February 25, 2004
by Newmarket Films

Directed by: Mel Gibson

Runtime: 2 hours 15 minutes

Cast: Prime

Related: Talk About It/Family Corner



Buy the poster




The Passion of The Christ may be the most artistically and commercially ambitious feature film about Jesus to come out of Hollywood since the 1960s. It is certainly the most devout, though at first it seems odd that Mel Gibson should be the one to produce, write, and direct a film about the Prince of Peace.

From the buddy-cop Lethal Weapon franchise to revisionist epics like The Patriot, Gibson has specialized in playing violent action heroes who take bloody revenge for the deaths of their wives, children, and girlfriends. In Braveheart, the 1995 film for which he won the Best Director Oscar, Gibson kept the fatal wounds inflicted on William Wallace and his wife just out of frame, to spare his audience the full brutality suffered by these heroes, but he reveled in the gory details with which Wallace executed his personal enemies.

In some ways, The Passion seems like a repudiation of much of his career to date: last year, Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic whose faith has surfaced in recent films like Signs and We Were Soldiers, told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly he wanted to promote faith, hope, love, and especially forgiveness through this film. But The Passion also dwells, at considerable length, on the physical pain inflicted on Jesus. Has Gibson found a way to baptize, as it were, the sadistic or masochistic impulses of his other films? Is it possible he is indulging himself under the cover of religious piety?

At times it does seem so. Much has been made of The Passion's adherence to Scripture, but in the rough cut shown to pastors and ministry leaders a month before the film's release, it was clear that Gibson often goes beyond the text. Jesus, played with inspiring sincerity by James Caviezel (Frequency, The Thin Red Line), is not even out of Gethsemane yet when the Temple guards knock him about and hang him over a bridge by his chains, swelling shut his right eye. During scenes like this, you cannot help wondering whether Gibson, as the one who conceived and directed all this simulated torture, is more complicit in the horrors on display than he would like to admit.

The Passion of The Christ

Yet Gibson does exercise restraint at crucial moments. The flogging of Jesus may go on and on—and Jesus himself seems to encourage it when he pulls himself up and stands defiantly erect after the first round of beatings—but as several characters begin to find the violence so unbearable that they have to look away, so does Gibson: His camera follows Jesus' mother Mary (Maia Morgenstern) as she retreats to another room, where she tries to cope with the cries of pain that she can still hear.

The film's violence has been defended as a sign of its historical realism and biblical accuracy, but one of the more striking and impressive things about The Passion is just how much artistic license it takes with its source material. Gibson erroneously identifies Mary Magdalene (The Matrix Reloaded's Monica Bellucci) with the woman caught in adultery, and his depiction of the Crucifixion owes more to medieval art than modern scholarship. Taking their cue from historians and archaeologists, nearly every film and miniseries produced since the 1970s—including Campus Crusade's Jesus film and The Visual Bible's recent Gospel of John—has depicted Jesus carrying only a crossbeam, being nailed through his wrists, being crucified naked, or some combination thereof. Gibson rejects all of these details, though he does, oddly, have the thieves carry crossbeams, while Jesus carries his full cross.

Gibson does embrace at least one welcome form of realism by emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus and his followers. Caviezel has been made up to look more Semitic, and the first time we see Mary, as she senses that something terrible is about to happen to her son, she recites a line that comes straight from the Passover seder: "Why is this night different from every other night?"

In addition, when Simon of Cyrene (Jarreth Merz)—who becomes a significant supporting character deeply moved by his contact with Jesus—is forced to carry the cross, one of the soldiers practically spits the word Jew at him, thus stirring our sympathies for this oppressed people.



Related Elsewhere:


E-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: 

TAS   Posted: October 20, 2009 7:54 PM
Not rated
It's supposed to be graphic. This is the real world where bloodshed and grusome pain are everywhere. If you want to go see a fake movie about what Christ really had to go through watch one of those rated g movie's they show for kids during Sunday school. Although i dont love everything about the movie, but i dont think we should give a broad opinion on the whole movie when some of the scenes in the movie are inspirational and uplifting.

Danny Nguyen   Posted: October 02, 2009 3:26 PM
Why violence things need to be bad? What do we expect? Jesus on a cross laughing without a wound? I believe Mel Gibson had done a tremendous good job in remaking a Jesus, he did not just show a side of Jesus who healing people, fed 5,000, but he had done what others had not done before. Descriptively describe a Jesus who nailed on the cross for human sins. The movies gave us the message of Jesus, his feelings and Mary's feelings. If we judge a movie that is bad because it's violence, why don't we look at "Save private Bryan"? That movie was also so graphic, but why don't we put aside that part and focus on the message of the movie? The message is not that how many blood Jesus poured out, but the message is why did Jesus poured out his blood. The whole movie, though graphical, but artistic. The whole movie had given us one thing, one good message: "Jesus is love."

srah   Posted: September 30, 2009 3:38 AM
i found the violence way, way too graphic. i can't understand christians who say christ's suffering is more real and meaningful to them after watching the movie. why wasn't it real and clearly understood beforehand? how can you study the bible and not see how much suffering there was? movies about the life and death of christ all leave me feeling empty. this one left me feeling disgusted. as a matter of fact, i spent most of the movie with my eyes covered because it was way too violent for me to sit through.

The allotted time for commenting has ended.

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search

























Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Kyria.com
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com