Feb 2004
The Passion of the Christ
02/26/2004 15:59 Filed in: Movies and Television
My thoughts after seeing Mel Gibson's movie on its opening day...
My church has reserved three screens for The Passion of the Christ in March. So why did I go opening day? I suppose I wanted to experience it first simply by myself. If I wanted to cry, I could cry. If I wanted to sit and ponder, I could do that in peace. I wouldn't have to worry about someone turning to me at the end and saying "So, whadid ya think?"
No one could ignore this movie with all the buildup surrounding it. I was a bit surprised when I first heard that Mel Gibson was producing and directing it. Mel Gibson? Mad Max? The guy who was in three Lethal Weapon movies? Yeah...that Mel Gibson. But I really wasn't hit with the significance of it all until I saw the Diane Sawyer interview a few days ago. Yes, it was that Mel Gibson. And he was quoting Scripture and espousing theology really well (except for that thing about the exclusivity of the Gospel, but I think if I could sit down with him, I could set him straight).
And then there was the controversy. But is this anything new? And I don't mean this to be anti-Semitic at all, but haven't certain Jews been trying to debunk and detract from the whole Jesus story since Matt 28:13? But I want to bang my head on this one. I don't think it's fair to call the gospels anti-Semitic because what people seem to forget is that Jesus himself was a Jew! And so were the majority of the writers of the New Testament for that matter. Heck, you can legitimately say that the New Testament is a Jewish document.
Can we get beyond this blame issue regarding who killed Jesus? On the surface, yes, there were a group of Jewish leaders who had been conspiring to kill Jesus ever since he raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:47 ff). But it's ludicrous to blame all Jews for the rest of eternity for this. I mean if Jesus had been born a Baptist, the Baptists would have killed him! (I know that makes no sense, but you know what I mean...)
I grew up in the deep South where there was lots of prejudice. I don't remember ever hearing racial statements made against Jewish people. I really don't think this is an issue anymore in most areas of our society. Granted there are some neo-Nazi, white-supremist types who hate Jews, but they hate everybody.
Mel Gibson has a solid understanding of who killed Jesus. He revealed to Diane Sawyer that in the movie, the hand holding the nail to be pounded into Jesus' palm is his own left (Latin: sinister) hand. Who killed Jesus? Mel did. I did. You did. Jew and Gentile alike killed Jesus.
What can I say about the movie that hasn't already been said? Yes it is well done, and yes it is violent--extremely violent. A friend of mine wrote me a couple of days ago to say that he really didn't think people were quite as prepared as perhaps they should be in regard to just how violent it is. He is right. And if you don't like the sight of blood, do not go to this movie. This is not Max Von Sydow in The Greatest Story Ever Told. It is VERY bloody. And any parent needs to really think through taking a child. The movie is Rated R for a very good reason.
Obviously, this movie is like the Titanic in that you already know how it is going to end, so there's not a lot I can worry about giving away here. But there are lots of nice touches throughout the movie. There is a very interesting point of view/camera angle at the moment that Jesus dies on the cross. Intermixed with the trial and crucifixion, there are a number of flashbacks to the Last Supper, the Sermon on the Mount, and even a glimpse of Jesus' childhood relationship with his mother. The movie features some of the creepiest portrayals of the demonic I have ever seen. And I think I realized the movie was going to integrate Scripture seriously when in the first few minutes, Jesus smashes his heel upon the head of a snake, thus fulfilling Gen 3:15.
Throughout the movie, Jesus is pursued by a trio of his followers: Mary his mother, Mary Magdalen, and John, the beloved disciple. Frequent movie goers will recognize Monica Belluci (who played the striking Persephone in the second and third Matrix movies) as Mary Magdalen. Magdalen is portrayed in a flashback as the woman caught in adultery in John 8. And in that scene for a moment, I thought we were going to get to see finally what it was that Jesus wrote in the sand that day. As I watched the actor correctly going from right to left, all I could make out was a Hebrew/Aramaic lamed (equivalent to our "L"). At least now we've narrowed it down to what letter it begins with...
There are only a few seconds devoted to the resurrection (perhaps borrowing from Mark--shorter ending?). At first, I wondered if the average movie-goer might confuse the scene of the resurrected, non-bloody, combed-hair Jesus with one of the flashbacks and totally miss the message. But then the final shot (which I won't reveal here) left nothing to doubt. I was very pleased.
The other thing I might mention is that this movie is very Catholic. Roger Ebert was correct in his review that the movie follows the 14 stations of the cross. Although in interviews, it was said that Gibson primarily followed the Gospels of Matthew and John, I would think it safe to say that the movie's structure is primarily around these Catholic stations. There is even great attention given to Veronica (not mentioned by name in the movie) preparing a drink of water for Jesus and wiping the blood and sweat away from his face (this is the 6th station of the Via Delorosa, by the way--I looked it up). However, to Protestants and other non-Catholics, much of these elements found in conversations and names of characters (such as the names of thieves, Gesmus and Dismas) will come across as artistic embellishment. However, the roots of these elements, while not necessarily biblical, go back hundreds of years into Catholic tradition.
The depictions of the crucifixion in art rarely are all that accurate, and unfortunately, some of the inaccuracies remain in the movie. For instance, we now know that what Jesus probably would have carried on the way to Golgotha was merely the crossbar (the patibulum). The vertical posts (stipes) were usually permanently placed at execution sites. Ironically, in the movie the two thieves correctly carry only the crossbars, but Jesus, for some unexplained reason has to carry an entire lowercase, t-shaped cross. I guess Catholics just can't get away from the image of Jesus carrying an entire cross. The other crucifixion inaccuracy has to do with the placing of the nails. Catholics in the Middle Ages had no real understanding of Roman crucifixion, so they always placed the nails right in the center of the palms in paintings. That misconception continues to this day. However, if a person was crucified by his palms, the nails would tear through and the body would be hurled to the ground. It's now commonly known from archaeology that the nails went into the wrists.
But you know what? These are nitpicks that only someone like myself would even notice. None of that matters. What is important is the message of the movie. As the picture opens, Isa 53:5 is flashed onto the screen. This is the only real context given for the events that take place in this movie. And that has been one of the criticisms from the movie's detractors that audiences might not understand why the Jewish leaders want this Galilean rabbi executed. Well, I suppose that's true enough, but it sure does give the church an opportunity to explain things, doesn't it? And I have a hunch that Mel Gibson knew and wanted it that way. Tell you what...as we're explaining it, why don't we begin around Leviticus 16 and end somewhere around Hebrews 9?
Finally, I might mention the entire movie experience. Yes, this is not the best "date movie" (or is it?). I didn't feel compelled to sit and eat popcorn while Jesus was being crucified (although I did sneak in a thermos of Starbucks coffee). And it's rare to find so many people at the theater in mid-week. Around 12:30 Wednesday afternoon, I tried to reserve my ticket through MovieTickets.com for the 10 PM (last) showing, but it was sold out. I managed to get in a 9:30 showing. I had to stand in a long line that wrapped around the concession area just to present my ticket.
This was the first movie in recent memory that didn't begin with commercials and the first movie I have ever seen in a theater that was not preceded by trailers for coming attractions. I did observe one woman get up and leave during the scourging scene and she did not come back. When it was over, it was over. There was no applause as there had been at the end of the Lord of the Rings movies. Everyone just kind of sat there for a moment. Then, slowly, but not all at once, people began to leave the theater in silence--as if they were quietly exiting a prayer service.
As I walked toward the exit of the theater, I noticed a young woman with cross-shaped ashes smudged on her forehead. I had forgotten it was Ash Wednesday! And because of what I had just experienced, that wonderful symbol from some of the more liturgical expressions of Christianity had a whole new sense of meaning and holiness to me.
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:11-12, NASB)
My church has reserved three screens for The Passion of the Christ in March. So why did I go opening day? I suppose I wanted to experience it first simply by myself. If I wanted to cry, I could cry. If I wanted to sit and ponder, I could do that in peace. I wouldn't have to worry about someone turning to me at the end and saying "So, whadid ya think?"
No one could ignore this movie with all the buildup surrounding it. I was a bit surprised when I first heard that Mel Gibson was producing and directing it. Mel Gibson? Mad Max? The guy who was in three Lethal Weapon movies? Yeah...that Mel Gibson. But I really wasn't hit with the significance of it all until I saw the Diane Sawyer interview a few days ago. Yes, it was that Mel Gibson. And he was quoting Scripture and espousing theology really well (except for that thing about the exclusivity of the Gospel, but I think if I could sit down with him, I could set him straight).
And then there was the controversy. But is this anything new? And I don't mean this to be anti-Semitic at all, but haven't certain Jews been trying to debunk and detract from the whole Jesus story since Matt 28:13? But I want to bang my head on this one. I don't think it's fair to call the gospels anti-Semitic because what people seem to forget is that Jesus himself was a Jew! And so were the majority of the writers of the New Testament for that matter. Heck, you can legitimately say that the New Testament is a Jewish document.
Can we get beyond this blame issue regarding who killed Jesus? On the surface, yes, there were a group of Jewish leaders who had been conspiring to kill Jesus ever since he raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:47 ff). But it's ludicrous to blame all Jews for the rest of eternity for this. I mean if Jesus had been born a Baptist, the Baptists would have killed him! (I know that makes no sense, but you know what I mean...)
I grew up in the deep South where there was lots of prejudice. I don't remember ever hearing racial statements made against Jewish people. I really don't think this is an issue anymore in most areas of our society. Granted there are some neo-Nazi, white-supremist types who hate Jews, but they hate everybody.
Mel Gibson has a solid understanding of who killed Jesus. He revealed to Diane Sawyer that in the movie, the hand holding the nail to be pounded into Jesus' palm is his own left (Latin: sinister) hand. Who killed Jesus? Mel did. I did. You did. Jew and Gentile alike killed Jesus.
What can I say about the movie that hasn't already been said? Yes it is well done, and yes it is violent--extremely violent. A friend of mine wrote me a couple of days ago to say that he really didn't think people were quite as prepared as perhaps they should be in regard to just how violent it is. He is right. And if you don't like the sight of blood, do not go to this movie. This is not Max Von Sydow in The Greatest Story Ever Told. It is VERY bloody. And any parent needs to really think through taking a child. The movie is Rated R for a very good reason.
Obviously, this movie is like the Titanic in that you already know how it is going to end, so there's not a lot I can worry about giving away here. But there are lots of nice touches throughout the movie. There is a very interesting point of view/camera angle at the moment that Jesus dies on the cross. Intermixed with the trial and crucifixion, there are a number of flashbacks to the Last Supper, the Sermon on the Mount, and even a glimpse of Jesus' childhood relationship with his mother. The movie features some of the creepiest portrayals of the demonic I have ever seen. And I think I realized the movie was going to integrate Scripture seriously when in the first few minutes, Jesus smashes his heel upon the head of a snake, thus fulfilling Gen 3:15.
Throughout the movie, Jesus is pursued by a trio of his followers: Mary his mother, Mary Magdalen, and John, the beloved disciple. Frequent movie goers will recognize Monica Belluci (who played the striking Persephone in the second and third Matrix movies) as Mary Magdalen. Magdalen is portrayed in a flashback as the woman caught in adultery in John 8. And in that scene for a moment, I thought we were going to get to see finally what it was that Jesus wrote in the sand that day. As I watched the actor correctly going from right to left, all I could make out was a Hebrew/Aramaic lamed (equivalent to our "L"). At least now we've narrowed it down to what letter it begins with...
There are only a few seconds devoted to the resurrection (perhaps borrowing from Mark--shorter ending?). At first, I wondered if the average movie-goer might confuse the scene of the resurrected, non-bloody, combed-hair Jesus with one of the flashbacks and totally miss the message. But then the final shot (which I won't reveal here) left nothing to doubt. I was very pleased.
The other thing I might mention is that this movie is very Catholic. Roger Ebert was correct in his review that the movie follows the 14 stations of the cross. Although in interviews, it was said that Gibson primarily followed the Gospels of Matthew and John, I would think it safe to say that the movie's structure is primarily around these Catholic stations. There is even great attention given to Veronica (not mentioned by name in the movie) preparing a drink of water for Jesus and wiping the blood and sweat away from his face (this is the 6th station of the Via Delorosa, by the way--I looked it up). However, to Protestants and other non-Catholics, much of these elements found in conversations and names of characters (such as the names of thieves, Gesmus and Dismas) will come across as artistic embellishment. However, the roots of these elements, while not necessarily biblical, go back hundreds of years into Catholic tradition.
The depictions of the crucifixion in art rarely are all that accurate, and unfortunately, some of the inaccuracies remain in the movie. For instance, we now know that what Jesus probably would have carried on the way to Golgotha was merely the crossbar (the patibulum). The vertical posts (stipes) were usually permanently placed at execution sites. Ironically, in the movie the two thieves correctly carry only the crossbars, but Jesus, for some unexplained reason has to carry an entire lowercase, t-shaped cross. I guess Catholics just can't get away from the image of Jesus carrying an entire cross. The other crucifixion inaccuracy has to do with the placing of the nails. Catholics in the Middle Ages had no real understanding of Roman crucifixion, so they always placed the nails right in the center of the palms in paintings. That misconception continues to this day. However, if a person was crucified by his palms, the nails would tear through and the body would be hurled to the ground. It's now commonly known from archaeology that the nails went into the wrists.
But you know what? These are nitpicks that only someone like myself would even notice. None of that matters. What is important is the message of the movie. As the picture opens, Isa 53:5 is flashed onto the screen. This is the only real context given for the events that take place in this movie. And that has been one of the criticisms from the movie's detractors that audiences might not understand why the Jewish leaders want this Galilean rabbi executed. Well, I suppose that's true enough, but it sure does give the church an opportunity to explain things, doesn't it? And I have a hunch that Mel Gibson knew and wanted it that way. Tell you what...as we're explaining it, why don't we begin around Leviticus 16 and end somewhere around Hebrews 9?
Finally, I might mention the entire movie experience. Yes, this is not the best "date movie" (or is it?). I didn't feel compelled to sit and eat popcorn while Jesus was being crucified (although I did sneak in a thermos of Starbucks coffee). And it's rare to find so many people at the theater in mid-week. Around 12:30 Wednesday afternoon, I tried to reserve my ticket through MovieTickets.com for the 10 PM (last) showing, but it was sold out. I managed to get in a 9:30 showing. I had to stand in a long line that wrapped around the concession area just to present my ticket.
This was the first movie in recent memory that didn't begin with commercials and the first movie I have ever seen in a theater that was not preceded by trailers for coming attractions. I did observe one woman get up and leave during the scourging scene and she did not come back. When it was over, it was over. There was no applause as there had been at the end of the Lord of the Rings movies. Everyone just kind of sat there for a moment. Then, slowly, but not all at once, people began to leave the theater in silence--as if they were quietly exiting a prayer service.
As I walked toward the exit of the theater, I noticed a young woman with cross-shaped ashes smudged on her forehead. I had forgotten it was Ash Wednesday! And because of what I had just experienced, that wonderful symbol from some of the more liturgical expressions of Christianity had a whole new sense of meaning and holiness to me.
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:11-12, NASB)
|