I have been hesitant to see this film because of the nature of
the material. Whether you believe in Jesus, there is something to
be believed in
”
The Passion of the Christ.
”
I have been hesitant to see this film because of the nature of the material. Whether you believe in Jesus, there is something to be believed in “The Passion of the Christ.” It was almost more interesting for me to observe the reactions of others taking in this experience. When I say “experience,” I mean that this film is not merely something to be watched, but it is something to be felt. Audience members were crying, gasping and, in general, reacting very strongly to what was taking place on the screen – more strongly than I have ever witnessed.
It has taken a few hours to formulate exactly what should be said about this movie, and even now it probably won’t receive its due justice. I think one will believe in both the endurance yet fragility of the human body – what it can take and what it can’t. At the very least, you will believe in the power of conviction and how at least conviction can be a painkiller and from a hypothetical standpoint what it finally means to die for our sins. How gruesome, how ugly and how undeniably, unfairly, frustratingly and torturously painful it was for him to ever be put in his position: To die because of the same sins that frankly we’ve come no closer to shedding today.
This was not your typical epic film. Rather it felt like a series of beautiful cinematic moments strung together to form this elongated and drawn out view of the last hours of Jesus’ life. In this, the film is unique. Using flashback techniques, the film fills in narrative gaps. On a technical note: “The Passion” is gorgeously shot, perfectly directed by Mel Gibson and the performances are all going to stay with me for a long time. Jim Caviezel has a natural peace to his acting, and to see it in this movie is unexpected; however, it is frustrating to see him tortured in all directions in this film. His ordeal is center stage.
Of course, Gibson never loses sight of the dilemmas of the supporting characters: Mary simply can’t bear to see her boy tortured, the horrors Judas faces, Pontius Pilot’s dilemma – all subplots are effective and moving. However, I was most enamored with Caviezel, while the other characters seemed to blend in more as part of an expansive backdrop.
Interestingly, it was strange to see parts of the film, because I was able to see the sets for “Passion” last summer while I was studying film in Rome at Cinecitta Studios. Seeing the sets as portrayed on-screen and comparing them with what I remember about Rome was funny. In real life, the sets are very small and are very confining; whereas, the film makes some of the sets look expansive and wide.
This movie will divide people as some will not see it because to them it’s akin to being preached to. Others will be offended by its anti-Semitic implications. Some find it a tasteless dragging of Jesus through the streets. Some find it short of plot, like it’s some two-hour execution scene ala Gibson’s other claim to fame, “Braveheart.” Some won’t find it at all …
I found parts of it to be extremely powerful, provocative and stimulating. It’s light on plot by its very nature – most everyone knows this story, but it’s heavy on circumstance and situation. Finding it hard to sit comfortably when watching this movie is exactly the point. No longer should Jesus’ execution be sugar-coated and simplified and beautified. What happened was horrendous, ugly, unfair, impassioned and ridiculous, and the film purposely evokes physical reactions from the audience.
This is a film extremely relevant in that it shows how little things have changed. One of the closing images of the film is a haunting one of Mary holding her son, looking out to the audience as if to say, “Hope you’re worth this,” and to this day, who knows if we are.
