Movies surrounded by controversy generally get seen by everyone and then are unfairly praised or rejected by one’s political views and not by the actual quality of the filmmaking. Well, I’m not falling for that trap. I’m going to review this intense and heartbreaking film solely on its merits as a work of modern cinema. That being said, this movie is a piece of crap. Not that anyone would notice, but the book didn’t have much of a plot either.
When Jesus (Jim Caviezel), the spiritual leader of a small cult of Jews in the early first century, is betrayed by his friend Judas (Luca Lionello), he hides out in the forest with some of his remaining disciples. The Devil (Rosalinda Celentano) pays him a visit here and several times throughout the film. The Jewish high priests, lead primarily by Caiphas (Mattia Sbragia), orchestrate his capture and bring him in for questioning. It appears he’s been going around claiming to be the son of God. But their invisible man in the sky doesn’t go around impregnating people and the claim is considered blasphemous.
Normally, this is a sin probably repayable by roasting a goat or something, but the priests won’t tolerate a challenge to their authority and certainly won’t tolerate any risk to the sweet deal the Jewish elite had from Caesar. So they plead with the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov) to have him crucified. Although he slaughters innocent Jews on a daily basis, he is reluctant to kill Jesus. He refers them to the authority of King Herod, who’s rather silly and sees no reason to kill Jesus either.
Well, the Jewish high priests are gonna get this guy killed if it’s the last thing they do. So they return to Pontius Pilate and beg him again to please, please crucify Jesus. Finally, the good and decent daily Jew killer submits to the evil pressure of the high priests and agrees to at least torture Jesus for a bit. So the Romans whip him, then flog him, then mutilate his body for about forty minutes while he’s chained to a rock.
He’s then offered back to the Jews, who still want him killed. Pilate nearly wets his pants when the Jewish priests choose the release of a murderer over the release of Jesus. Finally, he shrugs and sighs and sends Jesus to be crucified, muttering under his breath something like, “Crazy, crazy Jews.” As Jesus, his body a complete mess, carries his cross to his final destination, he is beaten regularly. A Jew is forced to help him carry the cross, and like any good Jew in Mel Gibson’s world, is willing to help when forced to by armed soldiers. After falling about a dozen times in slow-motion, we all finally make it to the end of the film. Here, Jesus is nailed to a cross and dies. Immediately, an earthquake ensues, which is odd. The Romans stab him to make sure he’s dead and a few days later, we find him in a cave and he’s, uh, not dead. The end.
Or in other words, a religious profit is rejected by his community and tortured for an hour and a half by Romans until he dies.
Traditionally, a screenplay has a beginning, a middle and an end. There is also character arc, in which our main participants are influenced by the story and grow as a result. Occasionally, there are a series of relationships that begin, run their course and result in something. The Passion of the Christ has little, if any, of these elements and in fact is more of a directorial vanity convention in which a man is gruesomely mutilated for a really, really long time than an actual contribution to the world of cinema. This is all done without any context and a complete rejection of the possibility that some audience members don’t see a messiah dying for our sins, but see instead a man. We are given occasional glimpses into the back-story, but only as it pertains to these final hours. We don’t see the history that lead up to the Jews living under Roman rule and the relationship between Caesar and the high priests. We don’t see Jesus develop into the messiah, but instead are to immediately accept him as our savior in the first shot.
If Gibson made a film about the Holocaust, would it only involve children being mutilated by Nazis? Wouldn’t there still have to be a story? A plot? Something worthy of a two-hour film? And if his father made a film about the Holocaust, I imagine it would only qualify as a short. But I digress.
The Passion is not a complete waste. Gibson is certainly competent with screen imagery, some of which is beautiful, some indulgent and gross, but all vivid and convincing. The music does its best to add drama to situations that are less dramatic than they are gruesome. Caviezel is a talented actor, no doubt, but does more wincing and blood-gurgling than speaking. Maia Morgenstern delivers well as Mary, but does next to nothing in the story to help her son or further the elusive plot. Rosalinda Celentano is excellent as the Annie Lennox-like devil. Monica Bellucci plays Mary Magdalene, who is simply around in every other scene, but not a real participant. Again, we see Gibson’s assumption that everyone appreciates the significance of the New Testament’s supporting cast. Hristo Shopov is excellent as the fictionalized Pilate. Mattia Sbragia is strong as the blood-thirsty high priest of the Jews and I have no doubt the Jewish priests in power at the time were less than humanistic. Y’know, like those great big pious Catholic priests we keep reading about in the paper.
Is the film anti-semitic? No. Ok. It’s settled. For the Jews of today to take offense at the unflattering portrayal of Jews from nearly two thousand years ago, is a little silly. Especially since this portrayal is based on accounts from a testament Jews do not even believe in. Plus, why would anyone blame the Jews for what happened to Jesus? It seems to have worked out pretty well for the Christians in the end and they should be thankful they even have a religion.
Do I agree with Gibson’s choice to make the Jews generally look blood-thirsty and unreasonable while glorifying a Roman butcher like Pontius Pilate as a conflicted do-gooder? No. It’s silly and historically inaccurate, not unlike the earthquake at the end of the film, which I don’t remember getting recorded into history and the presence of a two-humped camel that doesn’t exist in that region of the world.
But then does a film rooted in history have to be historically accurate? Or can it just be fantasy like the films Pearl Harbor and Pocahontas? And then of course, is making it accurate to the Bible the same thing as making it historically accurate? No, no it isn’t. Gibson has every right to make any kind of movie he wants, even if it doesn’t have a plot.
In the end, it’s too easy to criticize this film simply because it’s about Jesus. Where The Passion of the Christ truly fails is in its own objectives. Gibson would like the world to understand the way he does that Jesus Christ, the son of God, suffered and died because of our sins and the suffering was great and so must be our sins. But without a script that develops this very idea of sin and in the context in which this story takes place, we are left with nothing but Gibson’s obsession with violence – something Jesus himself might not have appreciated.
Oh, and where all the brothas at? C-
