Response to "The Passion of the Christ"

Before I begin I need to make a humorous note. (The film) The Passion of the Christ is Restricted. Even though I understand the rating after seeing it, I still find that sentence funny.

To summarize: the good parts were good and the bad parts were bad. I will go into detail in this posting so if you don't want any "spoilers" read no further until you have seen the movie. Though I imagine most of you know the basic storyline. There is not a surprise ending.

I found the movie to be highly emotional, engaging, and challenging. There is no doubt that everyone who sees this film will be affected in some way. Gibson, however, took many liberties with the story. Before I get to those, I want to talk about what I thought was good. The crucifixion scene most closely approximates what I imagine an actual crucifixion to have looked like, with all the violence and all the gore. Other films have not shown the violence to such an extent and I think have missed the power that this film captures. It is painful to watch, to hear, and to try to understand. But, it is well done. The use of the original languages I found to be very effective. As someone else said, it heightens the sense that you are really looking in on the Passion of Jesus and not just watching a rendering of it. The initial Devil scene (in the Garden of Gethsemane) I thought was superbly well done. Even though it was not Biblical, I can easily imagine how that might have happened. Maybe it even did and was not recorded, but I doubt it. The Devil itself was entirely creepy - not to many silversceen Satan's actually freak me out. This one accomplished her (the role was played by a female) acting goal. The scenes of Judas' inner turmoil were very well done, though the demon children that seemed to torture him were odd and out of place. Peter's three denials of Jesus were most excellently portrayed; I can imagine the fear, the sense of unknowing that he must have felt, making his denials believable and not just something that they have to show because its in the text. I thought the acting, on the whole was very well done, even though several characters went over the top on occasion.

Now, for the criticisms: First - the Scourging scene - I can well imagine that the scourging of Christ was awful. However the extent to which they showed him being scourged was over the top. The instruments first used to beat him shown were wooden reeds. Lashes from these alone raise large welts and can even cut the skin. A beating from these is enough to drive anyone to their knees. When Jesus stood after receiving these beatings, the torturers turned to cat-'o-nine tails, which are whips with nine tails on them, often with knotted leather at the end. These certainly cut through skin and cause immense pain. Up to this point, the scourging is believable, but after this the torturers turn to actual scourges. Scourges are like cat-'o-nine tails, but with metal barbs at the ends which are ferociously hooked. The purpose of these is to drive the barbs deep into muscle tissue and then rip it out when the whip is jerked back. Deep gashes and horrible injuries are the result, ending in permanent crippling and likely death. The number of times they beat Jesus with these scourges is very high. His body is literally flayed after it. Skin and tissue hang off him in shreds. There is no way, absolutely no way, anyone could endure such a beating and live longer than ten minutes. The blood loss alone would kill him, let alone the trauma. This is not to mention the fact that he was able to walk to Golgotha carrying a cross (albeit with some aid) after this. Impossible. With the scourging they showed in the film, he would have died at the end of a whip. So, I thought that was over the top. Second - as mentioned, the inclusion of the Devil was very strange in most instances. Judge for yourself on this one. I thought it was weird. Third - I understand why there is the controversy now. Several lines were certainly made with a potentiall anti-semitical bent to them. In particular the line Jesus delivers to Pilate after Pilate asks Jesus why he is making him do this to him. Jesus responds, "Do what you have to do. Those who have delivered me to you have the greatest sin." Immediately it is followed by a cut scene to Caiaphas. Not only is that extrabiblical, but it is just uncalled for. There is no doubt that the Sanhedrin Council played a large role in delivering Jesus to his eventual crucifixion. That's just history, not anti-semitical. But to further that point as Gibson chose to do borders on dangerous ground. (Moreover, why all this argument over assigning blame for Jesus' death? It's pointless. That was the whole reason Jesus came to earth, to die. For you and for me. If he didn't, or if he was spared in some way, we would not be saved!) Fourth - as a friend of mine phrased it, "assigning the moral high ground to the Romans" was a poor choice. By and large, Roman soldiers would simply have been following orders with no more care for a prisoner than anything. Pilate was doing what he had to do in order to stop a rebellion. There was a mob at his gates and he needed to keep Rome/Caesar happy. He was not thinking beyond that.

Overall then, I have to say that I liked the movie, but parts of it are to be taken with a grain of salt. It is not the sensational phenomena that many make it out to be. That was the actual event folks, 2000 years ago or so, not some film about it made in 2004. Go see it - know that its rough and emotional. I wept - I'll raise my hand with that crowd. But don't, by any means, let it be the basis of your faith. Trust in Christ alone for that.

-R