‘Passion’ proves brutal
Campus Times
February 27, 2004
On Wednesday audiences finally had a chance to see “The Passion of the
Christ,” Mel Gibson’s controversial and long-awaited interpretation
of Christian gospel.
This ain’t your daddy’s “Jesus Christ Superstar,” as Gibson’s
offering proves to be more Mad Max than Prince of Peace.
An interpretation of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ, the controversial
film is a non-stop procession of violence and brutality. Throw in a few explosions
and it would be an instant Hollywood blockbuster.
Remove the biblical context provided by hyper-brief flashbacks, and all that
remains is two hours of watching people thrash a man.
The film is packed with more inhumanity than the Rodney King tape and milked
for 120 minutes. By the third time Christ fell, I was wincing with dread. Every
time he got up precipitated yet another slow-motion fall.
Not to say the film is without merit.
In between the splatterfest, “Passion” looks and sounds great. Underneath
all the fake blood is a gorgeous setting. Although the film substitutes Southern
Italy for Jerusalem, the Mediterranean location fits the bill perfectly.
Occasional aural delights bring sensory salvation from the repetitive sounds
of whacking, whipping, smacking and crunching.
John Debney’s score is often more inspiring than the film itself, but
at times falls to the same horrific level. At its best moments, the soundtrack
offers a layered tapestry of orchestral sound, using ethnic instrumentation,
choir and female vocals to forge something that is both contemporary and timeless.
And it would be hard not to recommend the film for one standout detail –
the dialogue. For authenticity’s sake, every actor voices his or her lines
in the near-forgotten tongues of Aramaic and Latin. Aramaic is the basis for
Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Arabic, and anyone interested in the
period for historical or spiritual reasons should buy a ticket to hear these
rich tones.
Overall, the talent are well-matched with their roles. As much as Western
churches have Anglified Christ and his disciples, the film offers a closer approximation
of how they might have looked – thick beards and features that today would
cause them trouble at any airport.
James Caviezel’s portrayal of the persecuted messiah is uneven. His Christ
is an inscrutable neurotic, but veers competently from fear and doubt to calm
repose. His role, primarily, consists of reacting to the painful abuse thrown
at him, occasionally punctuated by the pithy one-liners expected from the son
of God.
Italian beauty Monica Belluci is underutilized as Mary Magdelene, although
the 40-year-old actress gets more screen time than her wallpaper role in the
“Matrix” films. She is joined at the hip with Maia Morgenstern, who
provides the most convincing performance as Christ’s mother Mary.
An intriguing casting selection is Rosalinda Celentano, who creeps throughout
the film as a goth-rock reject Satan, although the motives behind her leering
smirk are never explored.
As a complete film, however, “The Passion of the Christ” doesn’t
offer much, except perhaps to Christians interested in Gibson’s take on
the suffering of their messiah or sado-masochists needing an ultra-violent fix.
The crucifixion scene alone offers such a labored attention to detail that
it takes on a surreal documentary quality. Gruesome close-ups catch every moment.
If nailing people to wood ever comes back in style, the film will serve as an
excellent guide.
Eventually, the violence acquires a cartoonish quality, worsened by the overdone
harr-harr-harring of the churlish Roman soldiers. Like an intentionally camp
horror film, it was difficult to remember I was not supposed to be laughing
along with them.
The most elegant scene in the film is the last one. Sorry to spoil it, but
the hero comes back to life. His resurrection is condensed into one simple,
mercifully brief shot.
To its credit, the film avoids laboring though each of the Biblical highlights
in Christ’s life. Water is neither walked upon nor turned to wine. There
just isn’t time for miracles. Not between the flogging of the Christ, the
beating of the Christ, the humiliation of the Christ, the whipping of –
well, you get the idea.
In fact, the only miraculous act occurs when Jesus reattaches a guard’s
ear after disciple Peter severs it in a moment more befitting “Xena: Warrior
Princess.”
Truth be told, Gibson is working a minor miracle of his own. Thanks to months
of debate, he will transmute unwarranted controversy into serious cash.
Any discussion of the film would be incomplete without addressing its detractors.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League hurled claims of
anti-Semitism at Gibson months before the film was released. Just like Martin
Scorcese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” in 1988, many complaints
were echoed by people before even seeing the film.
Most critics worried that the portrayal of Jews as Christ-killing bad guys
would stir up anger against Jews in general.
Yes, some of the Jewish elders in the film are unsympathetic jerks, but no
generalizations are made. And isn’t that how the story goes?
Yet the film never suggests any connection between their nastiness and their
faith. In fact, most of the film’s protagonists, including Jesus, are Jewish
and plenty of Jews try to aid him. In one scene, when Jesus is brought before
a tribunal of rabbis, it is clearly established that some oppose condemning
him, only to be silenced by a powerful few.
But there are problems with the characterizations. While Pontius Pilate is
afforded complexity and given human motives for his role in Christ’s fate,
the rabbis leading his persecution are portrayed as two-dimensional villains.
If Gibson is incapable of understanding why, in the context of his faith’s
central story, they would perceive Christ’s message of compassion and personal
empowerment as a threat to their power, how can he claim to understand His passion?