This weekend the world will finally discover whether there really is no such thing as bad publicity. Much has already been said regarding Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ;” little of it has been said by anyone who has actually seen the movie. For months, a maelstrom of controversy, fueled by a sensationalist media and a savvy filmmaker, has hovered around this most recent depiction of the last twelve hours in the life of Jesus Christ. The majority of these rumors have surrounded the possible anti-Semitism espoused by the film and its co-writer, producer, and director, Gibson.
Despite his considerable notoriety and enormous financial and creative investment in the film, Mel Gibson’s personal beliefs are not relevant in any discussion of the movie. Is Mel Gibson an anti-Semite? Since the closest I’ve ever been to Mel is when I somehow managed to score a ticket to the premier of “Signs,” I don’t think I’m in a position to answer that question. However, having now seen “The Passion of the Christ,” I can address whether the film is anti-Semitic, and just as importantly for the purposes of this column, whether or not it’s actually a good movie. After all, Leni Riefenstahl proved, anti-Semitism and cinematic talent are not mutually exclusive.
Is “The Passion of the Christ” anti-Semitic? This is a question, which viewers will most likely be forced to answer for themselves. For me to dismiss all claims of anti-Semitism would be both arrogant and naïve. Those who enter the theater determined to condemn the film will undoubtedly find evidence to support their preconceptions. However, this may have more to do with the audience than with the movie itself.
While it is true that the film features the Jewish high priests mainly as villains who capture Christ and clamor for his crucifixion, Gibson also depicts individual priests rising to Christ’s defense, as well as a number of Jewish characters in distinctly positive roles. Yes, the film’s portrayal of Jewish community leaders is decidedly unsympathetic. Yet no more so than its depiction of the Romans, whom the film paints as sadistic, bloodthirsty barbarians. Ultimately, the film undermines the primary dogma of anti-Semitism, the notion that the Jews killed Christ, by insisting, both visually and through dialogue, that Christ gave his life by his own accord.
“The Passion of the Christ” is not about the murder of Christ at the hands of the Jews, but rather Christ’s own sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. Thus the film is most notable not for its indictment of the Jews, but for its indictment of all mankind.
In The Prince, Machiavelli writes: “One can generally say this about men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; and while you work for their good they are completely yours, offering you their blood, their property, their lives, and their sons when danger is far away; but when it comes nearer to you, they turn away.”
Judging from “The Passion of the Christ,” Mel Gibson relegates Machiavelli to Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood. The perspective of human nature from which the film is told is so dark that were it not for the glimmering presence of Christ, himself, viewing the film would be not just unpleasant but unbearable.
The movie Gibson has released is not for those with delicate sensibilities. While I hesitate to join other critics in labeling the film the most violent movie ever made, the violence is prevalent, disturbing, graphic and, most importantly, narratively appropriate. The film is gruesome. But so is the story. “The Passion of the Christ” is in fact no more violent than a typical R-rated action movie. However, Gibson’s detailed, persistent treatment of the violence lends it a vivid authenticity that is rarely, if ever, seen in mainstream American film.
What Gibson has done is depict not just epic, but Biblical violence, in a literal manner, recreating the physical actualities of a crucifixion. While Gibson could have chosen to simply imply the extensive torture, which Christ endured, this would have undermined the ultimate gravity of Christ’s sacrifice. Only by experiencing, frequently from his actual point of view, the relentless brutality to which Christ was subjected, can the audience come to fully appreciate the significance of his martyrdom.
In keeping with the film’s portrait of Christ (a stoic Jim Caviezel) as not just an historical figure but also a Holy leader, Gibson and cinematographer Caleb Deschanel (“The Natural,”) have opted for a visual style of hyperbolic realism. The filmmakers bathe the flashbacks of Christ interacting with his disciples in a soft, golden hue, lulling the audience into brief moments of tranquility before thrusting us back into the midst of unbelievable horror. Even the most violent sequences retain the film’s stunning aesthetic beauty. While the frequent shots of blood dripping from the crown of thorns fixed atop Christ’s head will cause most viewers to squirm, the images themselves are mesmerizing, a strange fusion of the grotesque and the magnificent, like the film itself.
Assembled with great skill and presented with considerable confidence, “The Passion of the Christ” is remarkably powerful. Released during a time when cowardice and a desire for profit breed both blandness and mediocrity in the cinema, Gibson ought to be complimented, not condemned. He has risked his career to offer exactly what most contemporary movies lack: a point of view.
Leave a Reply