Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
November 24, 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

Details like these may not satisfy some of the film's critics, who have said, with some justification, that it tends to divide the Jewish people into those who follow Christ and those who have him killed, with only the briefest of nods to those who might be neutral. And while the Roman soldiers may be unrelenting brutes, Gibson does cast a positive light on the Roman authorities, who chastise both the Jews and their own soldiers for their bloodlust. Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov), whose brutality and religious insensitivity are mentioned not only by secular historians but also in Luke's gospel, is virtually let off the hook. He comes off as an innocent pawn who tries to do the right thing until the mob forces his hand.

The real villain in Gibson's film, however, is no mere human. Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) is depicted here as a bald, pale, androgynous figure who lurks in the crowds and taunts Jesus at every turn—and it is in his bold, haunting, and audacious depiction of Satan that Gibson's vision turns truly surreal.

In Gethsemane, Satan prods Jesus to doubt his Father and sends a snake slithering his way, which Jesus quickly crushes underfoot. Later, Satan mocks Jesus' mother in a bizarre parody of Marian iconography that could have come from David Lynch; Satan is also absolutely ruthless with Judas (Luca Lionello), who is driven to suicide by seemingly demonic beasts and children. And—who knows?—Satan may even be behind the crow that pecks out the eyes of the crucified thief who mocks Jesus.

But Gibson's creativity is not limited to graphic depictions of evil; he also makes brilliant use of flashbacks to draw us into the mind of Christ. Most movies about Jesus have protected his divinity by treating him objectively, as someone to be observed and talked about, but not as someone with whom we can identify. More recent productions like Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ and the CBS miniseries Jesus have tried to humanize Jesus by treating him more subjectively—we see his dreams, we hear his thoughts in voiceover, and we get inside his head the same way we do with many other movie characters.

Where those films failed, partly because they demystified Jesus so thoroughly that he seemed to lose his divine authority, Gibson succeeds, by shooting much of the film from Jesus' own point of view and by using flashbacks to create the impression that we are being drawn into the flow of Jesus' own memories. When Jesus sees a man with carpentry tools, he thinks of his days as a carpenter; when he sees the street filled with people shouting at him, he thinks of his Triumphal Entry a few days before; when he sees Golgotha, he thinks of the sermon he gave on another mountain in which he told his followers to love their enemies.

By giving us the feeling of experiencing Jesus' thoughts, and by making us privy to the prayers Jesus offers up as he submits to the will of his Father, The Passion draws us toward Christ's full humanity like no film before.

For all that is praiseworthy in this film, it is still somewhat unsatisfying. Indeed, the flashback structure itself is part of the problem. In Scripture and in much of Christian tradition, the death of Christ is placed within the context of his life and Resurrection, but Gibson's film reverses that by placing small bits of Jesus' life within the overwhelming context of his death. As full of faith as The Passion is, it never gets beyond its raw and prolonged depiction of human and demonic cruelty; after vividly depicting the suffering and grief and despair of Jesus' followers for two hours, the film forgets all about them, while reducing the Resurrection to a couple of special effects tacked on to the end.

Watching The Passion is like experiencing a woman's labor pains—but never witnessing the joy that makes the pain worth it all.



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