By Andre Wright, Staff ReporterRESTON, Virginia:
BLOOD. GORE. Horror. And then more blood, gore and horror.
Director Mel Gibson's bold adventure The Passion of the Christ was possibly one of the most talked-about films on the big screen months before it opened on Ash Wednesday, last week. With interest propelled by accusation of anti-Semitism from the Jewish caucus, movie-goers and film critics have been on edge to finally see what the hoopla was all about.
Contrary to preceding films on Jesus, Gibson's focus on the last 12 hours of Christ's life was unique. The movie opens in the Garden of Gethsemane, and moves from the kangaroo court trial before Pontius Pilate to the brutalisation on the Via de la Rosa and the climactic crucifixion at Calvary.
Gibson's greatest challenge was how to engage the audience's interest in a film whose plot, from beginning to end, was already public knowledge. The answer: give them blood, the people always want more blood. And movie buffs flooded the amphitheatres for the spectacle of death.
MARKS
Gibson gets top marks for his portrayal of Jesus (James Caviezel) a down-to-earth, unsanitised scourging of the Christ. Audiences will either shriek in disgust as the merciless Romans kicked, boxed, spat on the 'vanquished' star or be stunned into silence of a religious catharsis. But there is no apathy to this film.
Jesus, the Saviour of the world, is a broken man. The film brilliantly explores the humanity of the Christ, the fragility of the Lord, the loneliness and desperation of an ostracised leader. There are no miracles here, no castigation of the influential Pharisees and none of the arrogance of the man who chased the sellers out of the temple. As Pilate said, "Ecce homo (Behold the man)".
The blood-letting in The Passion is unrestrained. And in contemporary Hollywood cinematography, why not? To highlight Christ's pain, the thorns are rammed into Caviezel's skull, his right eye cannot be opened because of the battering, the bones in his hands crunch as massive nails are driven into his hands... need I say more? But the film's portrayal begins to lose its focus and engagement as the gory scenes drag on too long. The punishing beating along the road to Calvary and the cold-hearted brutality which is meted out to him when the Roman soldiers were instructed to rough him up lose their power and meaning by outliving their time.
But there are stirring moments in the film which have greater power than the R-rated scenes. The visuals in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus' prayer is interrupted by Judas' betrayal are well executed. The dark, misty cyan atmosphere which shrouds the garden is a perfect metaphor for setting the tone of the film and enforcing the imagery of desolation and betrayal which define Jesus' destiny. The director's focus on eyes such as the eye-battle between Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) and Mary, mother of Jesus (Maia Morgenstern), certainly adds to the eeriness and personality of the film.
However, what pervades the film most poignantly is the relationship between Jesus and women, especially his mother. Though he spent most of his time with his 12 male disciples, they were the ones who denied, betrayed and deserted him. It was the power of love and
compassion which Jesus had towards women, both in life
and on his way to death, that cemented this bond.
JESUS FALLING
His forgiveness and acceptance of Mary Magdalene (Monica Bellucci), his mother Mary wiping up his blood which was splattered over the courtyard and a nameless woman who ran out in the midst of the Romans to comfort him were touching scenes. The flashback juxtapositions of Jesus falling as a child and his mother running to his aid with the real-time anguish of his mother with her bleeding, broken son was also brilliant.
However, there are some elements Gibson failed to cover. The film could have done more in exploring the possible behind-the-scenes experiences with Christ's disciples apart from Peter and Judas, and the massive following that he had. Did they disappear? Did they change allegiance? Were they there but intimidated by the rabble? And what of the soppy, spineless, disappointing portrayal of Governor Pontius Pilate? The film did nothing to show the psychological struggle of a brutal Roman who was cautious about having Jesus executed. His presence was weak, too weak, and not consistent with history's record of a stoic Roman leader.
Did Gibson overdo anything? It's a movie for heaven's sake! But objective audiences will find that the anti-Semitic claims by Jews worldwide do not hold water. If The Passion is anti-Semitic, then the Synoptic Gospels are anti-Semitic too.
