The Passion of the Christ
If Harvey Keitel had played Peter, and Steve Buscemi played Judas, this film could easily have been The Gospel According to Quentin Tarantino. It might also have been a much better film. As it is, the film dwells on extreme violence with none of Tarantino’s wit or insight. Director Mel Gibson lays the violence on with a trowel, and shocking as it is, it doesn’t really give one anymore insight....
If Harvey Keitel had played Peter, and Steve Buscemi played Judas, this film could easily have been The Gospel According to Quentin Tarantino. It might also have been a much better film. As it is, the film dwells on extreme violence with none of Tarantino’s wit or insight. Director Mel Gibson lays the violence on with a trowel, and shocking as it is, it doesn’t really give one anymore insight into the crucifixion or the reasons behind it.
Okay, it’s supposed to be about Christ’s death, so Tarantino-esque jokes may be a little out of place, but anyone who, like me, grew up with the rather fluffy Sunday School version of Christ – or Robert Powell’s definitive Jesus of Nazareth – will be in for a shock. The tone is relentlessly dark, as is the lighting. As few of the actors are well known, it makes it hard to tell who’s who. More than once my daughter had to ask me ‘is that Judas or Peter?’ More than once, I couldn’t answer because I didn’t know or it was too dark to tell.
There were only two actors I recognised (so Keitel and Buscemi would have been more than welcome additions). Jim Caviezel as Christ, and Monica Belucci as an impossibly beautiful Mary Magdelene. Unfortunately, as with Belucci’s appearance in the last two Matrix films, she only has to stand around looking delectable or (in this film) upset. It doesn’t exactly stretch her as an actress.
The only actor I feel qualified to judge is Caviezel. I’m sorry, but he was dull as The Count of Monte Cristo and he’s dull as Christ. Despite the anger and violence, there is none of the fire and passion that we expect from our Lord, nor any of the resignation that his end is near. He has the same bland expression when he’s frightened and angry as he does when he’s happy - and the only time he’s (relatively) happy is in flashback, when, apparently, Christ invented the dining table. I bet that’s a bit of religious history you didn’t know.
The violence is pornographic, and not a little discomfiting. Do we really need to see every ounce of flesh torn from Christ’s body to get the message that his death was horrible? Do we need to see non-believers carried off by devils in the guise of children? After all, God was supposed to forgive sins through his Son’s death, yet Gibson spares no unbeliever in his quest for vengeance.
Actually, no one is spared Gibson’s wrath, be it the Jews or the Romans, or even those who surround Christ, who’s misery in his presence is all-consuming, even in the ‘good days’ showed in flashback. I heard that the film was anti-Semitic, but it’s actually anti-everything. The people in it have so few redeeming features, it’s hard to know what Jesus died for. Bearing in mind he was sent to earth to die for our sins, his death wasn’t really anyone’s fault. It was a foregone conclusion, and those involved were merely pawns in a ‘divine’ game. I’d have thought Gibson would have been intelligent enough to understand that. But this is the actor who has insisted on blaming the British for every bad event in history, so we shouldn’t expect any different. I’m only surprised he didn’t succeed in pinning this one on us.
Another thing that jars is the language. Again, this may be a result of my ‘fluffy’ Sunday School teaching, but I had the idea that when Christ spoke, all would understand his words. Having the actors speak entirely in Arabaic or Latin, with English subtitles, has the effect of detaching the viewer from the events on screen, and making us feel outsiders. It backs up the worst type of Christianity, which insists that only some people are fit to be a part of God’s Word. Yes, I know it’s authentic, but surely the Son of God should easily transcend language barriers?
I feel guilty about not liking this film. Something in me says I should like it, or at least understand it. Gibson had excellent material to work with, yet somehow he blew it. It would have been improved by using better, and better-known actors, and by concentrating as much on His Word, as on His Ending. As it is, the film leaves no hope for the future, and no indication that we were really forgiven. Well, Gibson hasn’t forgiven us anyway.
This page has been read:
3408
times