In Mel Gibson's new film, "The Passion of the Christ," there is a slight omission. Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald get screenwriting credit, but I'm guessing the story was somewhat influenced by, oh I don't know, the Bible let's just say. And that's just one way this film assumes its own inevitability presumably to an audience of converts.

The film begins in medias res (which is to say in the middle of action without context). All the context is provided in short, ineffective flashbacks that range from the cheesy (Jesus the IKEA-like visionary carpenter invents the modern chair and dining table!) to the incomprehensible (the scene of Jesus saving Mary Magdalene from a stoning will be too abstract for those unacquainted with verse). The combined effect aims for iconography, not character (it's been pointed out that Mel Gibson's production company is called Icon Productions). It's hard to relate to Jesus' experience, but instead of criticizing that as a flaw, one merely retorts, "Oh yeah, he kind of was God wasn't he?"

But that's the whole point. In Catholicism, you can't really relate to Jesus because he's inhuman and goes through a torture that supposedly equals the suffering of every sin ever committed. Enter Mother Mary, who is more relatable but still painted in archetype. She mainly cries and looks shaken, while flashbacks show her as a concerned mother. Everyone else is either crying for Jesus or thirsting for his blood.

The one-note-ness of the film takes a complex story to its most violent end. The passion play is supposed to begin with Jesus' triumphant entrance into Jerusalem, which is given a brief and cryptic flashback. Even the punchline of the story, the resurrection, is given short shrift. Gibson's focus here is on the violence, making "Braveheart"'s torture scene feel like kindergarten recess. The whipping feels like it never ends and the attention to gory detail (turning the cross around to make sure the nail stays in place, watching Jesus flesh rip off courtesy of a cat-o-nine tails) is both sadistic and admirable. The only film this year likely to feature more blood than "Passion" is "Kill Bill: Volume 2." In fact, why not just call Gibson's movie "Kill Jesus?"

Gibson has undoubtedly made a handsome movie that merits being seen in the theater. The sound design is crisp and the cinematography is painterly. But the film skimps on emotion in favor of disturbingness, which is patently different. I can shake off something that's disturbing, but being emotionally affected can stay with me for days. You don't cry for Jesus so much as feel bad for him. Instead in "Passion," dogma replaces realism, suffering replaces emotional engagement, and by the time a God-sent crow has started to peck out the eye of a trash-talking fellow crossmate of Jesus, you might feel as though Gibson were trying to do the same to your eyes.
-Howard Ho