|
Amid the huge controversy around Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of
the Christ," the cast of characters are set: Jewish Groups lament a new
swell of anti-Semitism, the evangelical Christians praise the movie as
an accurate portrayal of history, and non-religious commentary warns of
the movie's ultra-violent and gory scenes. What's my view on this? As
Shakespeare would say, "much ado about nothing."
The movie is essentially a slow-mo replay of the day Christ is sent to
the cross. He's essentially lynched, taken to the Romans, beaten to
near death, and forced to carry his cross to the top of a hill where
he's nailed up. That's basically it. This is not a story with a plot,
there are no characters—at least, none that are developed as people we
care about in the traditional ways that stories go—and there is little
context for how and where and why any of this is happening. Of course not,
because all of this depends—no, demands—that you not only know
the new testament by heart, but that you believe it as the Gospel Truth.
That last part is critical, because unless you believe the King James
Bible, which was written 1600 years after Jesus died, what you witness on
screen probably won't move you very much. Thus, it's no wonder the
extreme religious right is so exuberant about the film.
However, I'm confused why the Jewish community feels threatened by
it. Well, perhaps I'm not "confused," per se. I do understand, but only
because the majority of them haven't seen it yet. True, the film does
depict the Jews as those who sent Jesus to the Romans and virtually
coerced them to crucify him, but the manner in which this is portrayed,
as is the way everything in this film is done, is so over-simplified
and without any context, that an objective viewer could not possibly
extrapolate any emotions against the Jews. At least, none that they don't
already have. The movie isn't interesting enough to "fan the flames"
of anti-Semitism. At most, it'll be fanned by people who do enough of
their own fanning, that this movie's contribution will be largely irrelevant.
In the broader scope of the film's characters, the Jews were hardly more
than a bunch of extras on the set. The only character that had appreciable
screen time is, of course, Jesus. And the worst part of it is that I
couldn't even find sympathy for Him! (Remember, I'm reviewing a film,
not making statements against the man himself.) As a character in a movie,
Jesus is not depicted in an inspirational way; the few words that he
spoke were hardly compelling (and nothing we haven't heard quoted before),
and we didn't witness any act or flashback that stirred emotion. Anyone who
would feel for him, already did so before they entered the theater. For
them, "The Passion of the Christ" may have filled missing visuals that,
until now, were provided by copious paintings, drawings and statues
throughout history. For the rest, the visuals here don't really mean much.
As for the gore and violence, yes, they are extreme, but I was mostly
unmoved by it, since there was no context or character development to
bond the audience to the event. Again, this doesn't apply to those who
already feel a personal attachment to Jesus. The reason for the extremity
is specific: in the beginning of the film, Jesus is told that carrying
the weight of all mankind's sins is so overbearing that no one could
possibly withstand the pain. The beatings in the film are supposed to
give the viewer a sense of this burden. Gibson's stated goal is to force the
viewer to suffer as Jesus did. But the lesson that mature filmmakers have
learned is that physical violence affects audiences in one of two ways:
the horror of viewing someone being mauled (as depicted in common slasher
films enjoyed by teens), and when the audience has a personal attachment
to the character. In the first case, it's a cheap shot that just about
anyone can do. Since "Christ" is not a slasher film, it's beneath Gibson
to stoop to that level. Being "offended" by violence cannot be confused
with "genuine" sympathy, which is only accomplished through character
development, which doesn't exist in this film. Again, the exception
is the group of people who already have a personal attachment to Jesus,
but they did so before they saw the film. Clearly, they are the target
audience for the film, so it isn't saying much that Gibson is preaching
to the choir. (The cliché aptly applies here!) In the end,
as an objective art form, Gibson should have made the film that could
reach those who aren't already singing the Gospel, much the way Steven
Spielberg affected non-Jewish audiences with "Schindler's List," a deeply
disturbing movie about the Holocaust.
On the positive side, the film was extremely well-produced: the sense
of place and time were unmistakable, the characters spoke the actual
(and extinct) languages of the era (Aramaic and Latin; so there were
subtitles in English, though the script is surprisingly brief), and
the music was, as one might imagine, epically dramatic in the most Godly way.
Make no mistake, "The Passion of the Christ" can be extremely
moving—especially the gore and violence—but only to a believer
who considers the Bible a literal account of history. But, for the
non-believer, or even one who regards the Bible as a story told with
symbolism, this film isn't likely to hold much interest. For an armchair
sociologist like myself, though, what intrigues me the most is watching
how extremists on both sides of the religious spectrum react. If you find
this movie worthy of hailing, or as a threat, check your religious meter:
it may require turning it down a few notches.
You can find this movie on the internet database here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/
|
|
