Mel Gibson's "Passion"
an agnostic's view
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Saw "The Passion of the Christ" on Wednesday when it opened. Could have posted this sooner, but didn't because (a) I wanted to internalize the movie a bit more, and (b) I'm at a place where the Internet is slower than my fiance's driving. Advance apologies for typos but the keyboard : monitor delay is a good three seconds sometimes, and I type really fast.
Entered the theatre wondering about the merit of the anti-Semitism claims. Figured I'd give the movie a fair shot since I have general respect for Gibson and no respect for racism. Was raised Christian, tend toward agnostic, like several things about buddhism and believe in evolution. Those are the claims I tried to put aside at the door.
I didn't find the movie to be anti-Semitic, and I looked. At one point Jesus says to Pilate, "The sins of the one who brought me here are greater than yours." At first I thought he was referring to the Jewish leaders, which would obviously be viewed as anti-Semitic by some (though, can a Semite be anti-semitic? can I hate white people even though I am one? or the french because I'm french? no; maybe?). Anyway, I think Jesus was referring to Satan as the one whose sins were greater than Pilate's, or else the sins of the world. If it was God's plan for Jesus to die that way (and I'm not going to get into that), then Pilate (or the Sanhedrin) didn't actually have a choice (also not going to discuss pre-destination). Perhaps that's why the Christianity I have known, which isn't Gibson's version, has viewed him so sympathetically, and the juxtaposition of his sympathetic character next to the Sanhedrin makes for a very stark picture.
As for the Jewish leaders, the Sanhedrin, at one point even Caiphas, the Jewish head honcho, turns away from the flogging because it was too much for him. So there was humanity in those leaders, particularly in the end where they enter the temple after the earthquake to see the curtain dividing the sanctuary from the most holy place rent into two; the looks on their faces are, "What have we done?" It's almost like their realisation of their actions came too late, but was there nonetheless.
I liked the movie very much; it felt real in that gritty way. The acting was well-done except, perhaps, for John the beloved; he seemed pretty flat. There were a few continuity issues from frame to frame, though noting compared to any of the LOTR continuity problems. Overall the story line and characters were very similar to the gospel story; there were some additions, including Jesus' dialogue, but it stayed pretty close. I didn't feel there was too much violence, and it was never gratuitious. Even when covered my eyes I could still hear it, and when the camera was focused on the crowd during the flogging, it was the sound that elicited the emotions in my brain more than the pictures. It was real; it was hard to grapple with; but it wasn't gratuitious. The character of Satan added complexity and intrigue. Didn't like the part where he was holding that naked child devil, or whatever that was; seemed unnecessary. Good acting. Good lighting effects in the Gethsemane scene. Even the extras were believable, and they're the ones that can ruin movies for me. Judas was complex, though not as much as I read into the story.
I would fault the movie on a couple things: I think Pilate could have been weak behind doors, but not in front of the crowd--not a man in his position. His character did seem too flimsy. Similarly, I think that two of the Roman guards (note: not Jews) were too vindictive about their task (if anything, the film is anti-Centurian). Both Pilate and those guards just went a little too far with their roles. The part with the crow or raven was sick and shouldn't have been there.
Phenomenal ending. Best. Panned. Shot. Ever. (the one in the tomb)
The bottom line: I see it reinforcing the faith of Christians. I don't see it evangelizing athiests, Jews, or Eastern religions to Christianity. Agnostics, maybe. The view Gibson's portrayed of Jesus, the Sanhedrin, and Pilate is a very traditional view the Christian church has held. I don't think it is anti-semitic nor was I ever raised to think so.
I once heard a rabbi say, "The Christians, they're looking for the second coming; us, we're looking for the first. Maybe it's the same thing." Maybe.
Entered the theatre wondering about the merit of the anti-Semitism claims. Figured I'd give the movie a fair shot since I have general respect for Gibson and no respect for racism. Was raised Christian, tend toward agnostic, like several things about buddhism and believe in evolution. Those are the claims I tried to put aside at the door.
I didn't find the movie to be anti-Semitic, and I looked. At one point Jesus says to Pilate, "The sins of the one who brought me here are greater than yours." At first I thought he was referring to the Jewish leaders, which would obviously be viewed as anti-Semitic by some (though, can a Semite be anti-semitic? can I hate white people even though I am one? or the french because I'm french? no; maybe?). Anyway, I think Jesus was referring to Satan as the one whose sins were greater than Pilate's, or else the sins of the world. If it was God's plan for Jesus to die that way (and I'm not going to get into that), then Pilate (or the Sanhedrin) didn't actually have a choice (also not going to discuss pre-destination). Perhaps that's why the Christianity I have known, which isn't Gibson's version, has viewed him so sympathetically, and the juxtaposition of his sympathetic character next to the Sanhedrin makes for a very stark picture.
As for the Jewish leaders, the Sanhedrin, at one point even Caiphas, the Jewish head honcho, turns away from the flogging because it was too much for him. So there was humanity in those leaders, particularly in the end where they enter the temple after the earthquake to see the curtain dividing the sanctuary from the most holy place rent into two; the looks on their faces are, "What have we done?" It's almost like their realisation of their actions came too late, but was there nonetheless.
I liked the movie very much; it felt real in that gritty way. The acting was well-done except, perhaps, for John the beloved; he seemed pretty flat. There were a few continuity issues from frame to frame, though noting compared to any of the LOTR continuity problems. Overall the story line and characters were very similar to the gospel story; there were some additions, including Jesus' dialogue, but it stayed pretty close. I didn't feel there was too much violence, and it was never gratuitious. Even when covered my eyes I could still hear it, and when the camera was focused on the crowd during the flogging, it was the sound that elicited the emotions in my brain more than the pictures. It was real; it was hard to grapple with; but it wasn't gratuitious. The character of Satan added complexity and intrigue. Didn't like the part where he was holding that naked child devil, or whatever that was; seemed unnecessary. Good acting. Good lighting effects in the Gethsemane scene. Even the extras were believable, and they're the ones that can ruin movies for me. Judas was complex, though not as much as I read into the story.
I would fault the movie on a couple things: I think Pilate could have been weak behind doors, but not in front of the crowd--not a man in his position. His character did seem too flimsy. Similarly, I think that two of the Roman guards (note: not Jews) were too vindictive about their task (if anything, the film is anti-Centurian). Both Pilate and those guards just went a little too far with their roles. The part with the crow or raven was sick and shouldn't have been there.
Phenomenal ending. Best. Panned. Shot. Ever. (the one in the tomb)
The bottom line: I see it reinforcing the faith of Christians. I don't see it evangelizing athiests, Jews, or Eastern religions to Christianity. Agnostics, maybe. The view Gibson's portrayed of Jesus, the Sanhedrin, and Pilate is a very traditional view the Christian church has held. I don't think it is anti-semitic nor was I ever raised to think so.
I once heard a rabbi say, "The Christians, they're looking for the second coming; us, we're looking for the first. Maybe it's the same thing." Maybe.
