The Passion: Poetic, Poignant, Powerful
February 25, 2004
On Monday evening, the 23rd, I was blessed to attend one of the last “sneak preview” showings of Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ, which officially opens today, on Ash Wednesday. (Although I was on a list of “media people” to attend preview showings, this event was sponsored by several area churches.)
I don’t want to spoil anything for future movie watchers. Most of the reason is that the movie almost entirely defies description. The closest I can come is that it is the greatest movie ever made about the greatest event that ever occurred.
For the past ten years or more, I rarely go to movies. I consider most of what comes out of Hollywood to be trash. In the mid-1990s, I noticed that several of the movies that I liked had the involvement of Mel Gibson. (Most notably: Conspiracy Theory and Ransom.) So, when I began to hear that Mel Gibson was involved in making a movie about Jesus the Christ, it got my attention. (Gibson is grammatically correct in his wording of the movie’s title. The word “Christ” is a title, not a last name. As a college professor of comparative religion taught in a class that I took 20 years ago, “Jesus Christ is not the son of Joseph Christ and Mary Christ. He is Jesus – the Christ. The word “Christ” is the English transliteration of the Greek word Chistos, which means “the anointed one”. The word Meshiach – which we transliterate in English as “Messiah” – means the exact same thing. In other words, “Jesus the Messiah”.) My hope is that Gibson’s proper insertion of the word “the” might be one of the things that will attract at least some curious viewers.
But, the word “viewer” is nearly out of place in reference to The Passion of the Christ. One does not “view” this movie; one “experiences” this movie. You will feel the punches, the mocking, the whips, the betrayal. You will suffer. You will forget that this is a movie. Most likely, even if you are not a Christian believer, you will cry. There is a quote from Saint Basil the Great (d. 379, at age 50) that explains this: “Tears are the water that washes the soul.”
In the recently-televised interview with Mel Gibson, ABC reporter Dianne Sawyer correctly explained that the word “Passion” is used in the movie title in its original sense, from the Greek word “pathos”, which means suffering. And, the final hours of what Christians know as Holy Week was one long string of suffering. Be prepared. This movie hovers in a unique area between documentary and drama. It goes far beyond the 1950s pioneering You Are There television series with Walter Cronkite. People watching this movie will experience a sense that they are right there — in the crowd in Jerusalem — as the trial and execution of Jesus take place ... not merely before them, but around them. (The cinematography in this movie was quite three-dimensional, even though the movie was not shown in a 3-D aspect.)
In the advance publicity — including a “making of” documentary that aired on the PAX-TV cable network on Sunday (and will encore tonight) — Gibson frequently emphasized that the goal of this movie was to help the average Christian realize the totality of the sacrifice of Jesus. He met the goal. Monday evening's preview took up three theaters in the largest movie megaplex in the Eastern United States. (27 theaters). With over a thousand viewers under one roof that evening, The Passion of the Christ was the cause of much open weeping and sobbing. (I was glad that I’d already read about that phenomenon in other reports. Bring a hankie; no, bring two.) Underneath it all, for the true Christian believer, is the knowledge that Jesus underwent all that suffering for each of us. Gibson brought that point home in a personal way during the filming of the movie. As director, he did not technically have a role in front of the camera, even though he has been a remarkable actor for many years. Even so, it was Gibson’s hand that held the spike that was driven through Jesus’ hand in the film. (The PAX documentary reveals how they got the nail-driving scene to look so realistic.)
The intense realism of the movie also contains intense visual poetry. Regardless of one’s theological beliefs, the emotional strength of this movie is totally inescapable. Gibson masterfully employed flashbacks to tie certain events along the Via Dolorosa (Latin for “the way of suffering”) to His teachings and other events in His life. And, unlike most other movies about Jesus, this movie employs some serious special effects. It doesn’t overdo them, which is part of the genius. The contest between good and evil is very real and personal — and this movie reflects that reality in subtle yet profound ways.
Some pastors and other Christian activists claim that The Passion of the Christ will be a great evangelistic tool: something that helps non-believers come to a belief in eternal salvation through Jesus. Although it certainly has the power to do that, I see it as much more of a gift of edification (1 Cor. 14:12) than one of evangelization. In other words, it seems to me that the greatest effect of this movie will be to strengthen the faith of those that already believe in Jesus. Our modern society tends to cheapen almost everything, especially anything that has to do with Jesus. After seeing this movie, one can never again underestimate the reality of the sacrifice that Jesus made.
The finest — but with flaws
I cannot say enough good things about this movie. It is obviously well researched. The acting was so good that there seemed not to be any actors on the screen. The special effects superbly combined the realism and the surrealism of the Passion event. I will say again that it is the greatest movie that has ever been made about the betrayal, trial, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. But, the movie was still made by mortal men. As such, there are flaws. They are mostly minor, but should be noted.
Before addressing the flaws, however, I need to say that some flaws stand out only in contrast to the amazing attention to detail in this movie. In particular, the use of the original languages was fascinating. Reading the subtitles did not in any way detract from following the story, even when the dialogue became heated and fast-paced. (Interestingly, because of my own language background, some parts of the movie sounded “almost familiar”. More importantly, there is finally a major motion picture that Deaf people can attend along with their hearing friends, without a special “captioned” showing. This is a development that I heartily applaud, because I regularly converse in sign language with Deaf people at a gathering called Silent Dinner.) The attention to detail was so remarkable that the movie envelops the viewer.
One “flaw” occurs during the Crucifixion. Those familiar with the Gospel story know that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. As they hung there in agony, one thief mocks Jesus. The other says, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” Traditionally, the “good thief” was the one at the right hand of Jesus. But, in the movie, it was the one on the left. (The Gospels are actually silent on this point, but Church Tradition is in line with cultural traditions. The right side is the place of honor. Thus, just as Jesus ascended to Heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father, the penitent thief is traditionally depicted as being to the right of Jesus.) This flaw is quite minor in the big scheme of things. And, I note it precisely to show the reader that the movie is near-perfect in its presentation of the Gospel story.
Another flaw has more to do with what is left out of the movie than what is shown. I noticed this in two places, and it has as much to do with interpretation as it does to do with representation. The first place where something is “missing” from the movie is during the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. As described in John 18:6, after Judas brings the band of Temple soldiers, Jesus steps forward to ask them, “Whom do you seek?” When they reply, “Jesus of Nazareth,” then Jesus reveals His true nature and power by proclaiming the divine Name to which only He is the proper heir: I AM. The soldiers are thrown to the ground by the power of The Name. Sadly, this detail is missing from the movie. The significance of the detail is that, even in the intensity of His betrayal and arrest, Jesus tried to give His captors “one last chance” to avoid participating in the savagery against the Son of God.
The second place is where something is missing is during the Crucifixion scene. There, Gibson seems to follow the “culturally current” interpretation of the verse where Jesus says, “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” Our modern culture implies that Jesus wanted God to forgive all the people involved, because all of them were ignorant of their actions. But, in a superb analysis of the background of the religious leaders of that day, an Arab Christian writer named Salem Kirban described that it was impossible for the leaders of that day to have not recognized that Jesus was the Messiah. And, given that it was an execution, the leading Pharisees would not have been present on Golgotha (the Hebrew name for what many modern Christians only know as Calvary), because they would have been made ritually unclean by the blood spattered from the victims. Thus, Jesus was saying only that the members of the crowd knew not what they were doing. The Pharisees, who controlled both the religious and governmental “machinery” of that day, had unduly influenced the crowd. It is a standing principle in the law that proof of “undue influence” can be used to exonerate someone that is otherwise guilty. I believe that Jesus held, and will hold, the Pharisees quite guilty for what they did.
My main regret is that the end of the movie seems almost anti-climactic in its depiction of the Resurrection. Yes, the movie clearly implies that Jesus did rise from the dead. But, after all the suffering beforehand, the movie’s ending lacks the sense of triumph that any depiction of this event should convey. The final scene is way too short, and lacks a certain “hooray” that I waited the entire movie to see. The reason that I make this point is that — if one invites a non-Christian friend to see this movie — the crowning event (which makes Jesus so special and unique) is so understated that some viewers might miss the point. But, my experience is colored by the almost pep-rally atmosphere at an Orthodox Christian celebration of the Resurrection, with normally reserved parishioners shouting, “Christ is risen from the dead!” — usually in several languages. In the movie, there was no earthquake, no angel seated upon the stone, no proclamation, no blinding light, no Roman soldiers quivering in fear; and, unfortunately, no rejoicing at the Good News (Matthew 28:2-9). No depiction of the Resurrection of Jesus should be without that atmosphere of triumphant rejoicing. That was my only true disappointment with the movie. But, the quiet rejoicing burned afterward like embers, even if the flame had been absent on the movie screen.
Absolutely NOT anti-Semitic
Much has been said about accusations that The Passion of the Christ is a movie that can incite hatred of the Jews. In my opinion, such an accusation is totally without merit. The original story, and this movie’s depiction of that story, is about a man that was born into a Jewish family — with both parents being descendants of King David — and who grew up to be the Savior of all mankind. As it is written by Saint Paul — twice in his Epistle to the Romans — salvation and honor are given “first to the Jew” (emphasis added). True Christians cannot be against the true Israelites, because it would be like the branch rebelling against the tree.
Thus, having now seen this movie, I can heartily recommend it to all my readers.
My hope and prayer is that God will bless this movie, and its makers. I have heard that Mel Gibson put up $23 million of his own money to make this movie happen. I have also heard that — unlike any other movie in history — The Passion of the Christ — has the opportunity to make a profit from the very first day of its official run. That is because of overwhelming advance sales and sneak previews. In the theater that I attended (one of three running this movie under one roof on one evening) there were almost no empty seats with about 439 capacity in that room alone. If this is an indication of things to come, then Mel Gibson will recoup his investment of time and effort — as well he should. But, I’m sure that The Enemy will try to attack Gibson, his cast, and his crew. Please pray for their protection, and for their continued ability to stand up for their faith in Jesus Christ. I think this movie has the potential to help Christians unite in our faith, and overlook any differences, better than about anything in the last hundred years.
The above thought is best expressed in a prayer from the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church: “For the welfare of the holy churches of God, and for the union of them all, let us pray to the Lord.” That is, indeed, something to be passionate about.
