sophiaserpentia (
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-03-07 11:28 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
Thoughts on "The Passion" with spoilers
A full moon over the Garden of Gethsemane...
That embarassingly inaccurate image is the first shot of "The Passion of the Christ." (Well, maybe there was a full moon over the Garden during the night of Jesus' arrest, but if so, then it didn't happen during Passover...) Edit: The embarassing error is mine; my memory failed me, and after double-checking I found that the first day of Passover occurs on a full moon. I could erase the error, but I will leave it for posterity.
In many ways this movie was not at all what I expected. In other ways, it was exactly what I expected.
For one thing, the movie was slightly more anti-Semitic than the gospels themselves. Most problematic for me in this regard were three scenes in particular: one showing Satan drifting in a floaty way among the high priests; another showing Satan floating in the same way among a crowd of screaming Jews; and a gratuitous scene showing Caiaphas gloating at Jesus and ridiculing him while he's on the cross.
Actually though I think the movie is distressingly homophobic. Firstly I found personally offensive the depiction of Satan as androgynous; Gibson could have chosen any number of ways to depict Satan, but he chose this one. Secondly, Herod was shown as a sterotypical 'flamer,' leering sexually at Jesus while mocking him. Herod was, you'll recall, enticed into executing John the Baptist at the suggestion of a girl, "Herodias's daughter," traditionally Salome. Herod might have been a libertine, but this depiction of him as a morally-corrupt gay man is also gratuitous.
Next, I was surprised to see that while the imagery was vivid, even lush, there was an otherwordly feel to most of it. Many scenes have a detached, slow-motion feel. Then there are the demons, whose appearance veers in a dreamlike way back-and-forth between human and inhuman. This detachment surprised me because of the number of comments I've seen from Christians insisting that the movie is a "real" depiction of what happened. It is vivid, yes, but highly stylized. This is important because I think the movie is a reflection of a dehumanized flesh-hating death-cult, rather than the product of a life-affirming belief. Edit to clarify: by which I don't mean Christianity itself, but the version of it which Gibson intends to portray.
Then there is the violence. The movie can be described as an orgy of bloodletting, and I would compare the scourging of Jesus to the kind of "buckets of blood" violence you'd see in a slasher movie, meaning that it is so overblown it is unbelievable. (Not LJ-cut because the violence is hardly a spoiler.)
There is an awkward mingling of the two passion narratives in the gospels, the synoptic version which shows Jesus as terrified and angst-ridden, and John's version which shows Jesus in command. The blending doesn't work and Jim Caviezel is asked to go from lamenting forlornly on the cross, "Why have you forsaken me?" to immediately and authoritatively proclaiming, "It is accomplished."
The net effect is that while Gibson tried to portray Jesus as a human who was tortured and murdered, he actually portrayed events in a very unreal, otherworldly way.
I was, however, moved by one aspect of the film, and that was the portrayal of Mary's agony over seeing her son arrested, tortured, and executed. One scene shows her running to comfort him as he falls while carrying the cross, overlapped with her memory of Jesus as a boy, falling and scraping his knee, and her rushing to comfort him with motherly love. The scenes where he is interacting with Mary are the only scenes in which Jim Caviezel's performance has any real life to it; the rest of the time he seems barely more than an animatronic prop, unsure I imagine of how "human" or how "divine" to allow his portrayal to be. Several of the scenes with Mary had me literally in tears.
That embarassingly inaccurate image is the first shot of "The Passion of the Christ." (Well, maybe there was a full moon over the Garden during the night of Jesus' arrest, but if so, then it didn't happen during Passover...) Edit: The embarassing error is mine; my memory failed me, and after double-checking I found that the first day of Passover occurs on a full moon. I could erase the error, but I will leave it for posterity.
In many ways this movie was not at all what I expected. In other ways, it was exactly what I expected.
For one thing, the movie was slightly more anti-Semitic than the gospels themselves. Most problematic for me in this regard were three scenes in particular: one showing Satan drifting in a floaty way among the high priests; another showing Satan floating in the same way among a crowd of screaming Jews; and a gratuitous scene showing Caiaphas gloating at Jesus and ridiculing him while he's on the cross.
Actually though I think the movie is distressingly homophobic. Firstly I found personally offensive the depiction of Satan as androgynous; Gibson could have chosen any number of ways to depict Satan, but he chose this one. Secondly, Herod was shown as a sterotypical 'flamer,' leering sexually at Jesus while mocking him. Herod was, you'll recall, enticed into executing John the Baptist at the suggestion of a girl, "Herodias's daughter," traditionally Salome. Herod might have been a libertine, but this depiction of him as a morally-corrupt gay man is also gratuitous.
Next, I was surprised to see that while the imagery was vivid, even lush, there was an otherwordly feel to most of it. Many scenes have a detached, slow-motion feel. Then there are the demons, whose appearance veers in a dreamlike way back-and-forth between human and inhuman. This detachment surprised me because of the number of comments I've seen from Christians insisting that the movie is a "real" depiction of what happened. It is vivid, yes, but highly stylized. This is important because I think the movie is a reflection of a dehumanized flesh-hating death-cult, rather than the product of a life-affirming belief. Edit to clarify: by which I don't mean Christianity itself, but the version of it which Gibson intends to portray.
Then there is the violence. The movie can be described as an orgy of bloodletting, and I would compare the scourging of Jesus to the kind of "buckets of blood" violence you'd see in a slasher movie, meaning that it is so overblown it is unbelievable. (Not LJ-cut because the violence is hardly a spoiler.)
There is an awkward mingling of the two passion narratives in the gospels, the synoptic version which shows Jesus as terrified and angst-ridden, and John's version which shows Jesus in command. The blending doesn't work and Jim Caviezel is asked to go from lamenting forlornly on the cross, "Why have you forsaken me?" to immediately and authoritatively proclaiming, "It is accomplished."
The net effect is that while Gibson tried to portray Jesus as a human who was tortured and murdered, he actually portrayed events in a very unreal, otherworldly way.
I was, however, moved by one aspect of the film, and that was the portrayal of Mary's agony over seeing her son arrested, tortured, and executed. One scene shows her running to comfort him as he falls while carrying the cross, overlapped with her memory of Jesus as a boy, falling and scraping his knee, and her rushing to comfort him with motherly love. The scenes where he is interacting with Mary are the only scenes in which Jim Caviezel's performance has any real life to it; the rest of the time he seems barely more than an animatronic prop, unsure I imagine of how "human" or how "divine" to allow his portrayal to be. Several of the scenes with Mary had me literally in tears.
no subject
Perhaps the point of this is to show that Jews, like anyone else, can be influenced by Satan. I don't think Satan's presence there was to indicate that Jews are evil. The fact, however, was that evil was present there, among the mob and among the Roman soldiers. Satan was there to encourage the evil acts taking place. Remember that "satan" is a Jewish title meaning "the adversary." Satan deceives and it seems that those Jews were deceived and they were just vicitms of Satan's influence, just like anyone else can be.
So, I would ask, why was Satan not shown in the cell when the Roman brutes were mocking Jesus? Why was he not present at the scourging? I can think of no answer.
Satan had already influenced the Roman soldiers. And Satan WAS present at the scourging. He just watched from the sidelines. Remember the demon baby in his arms? That scene was meant to show how Satan's evil was influencing the Roman guards who were scourging Jesus.
Think of it this way. Gibson took poetic license with the way he depicted both Satan and Herod. His depiction veers close to being un-scriptural and, I do not think accidently, occurs at the expense of people who are GLBT. If anything, more people will leave the theater with anger towards gays and androgynes than they will with anger at the Jews. It is more homophobic than it is anti-Semitic.
I don't get this at all. I never got that impression. My thought and I'm sure the thought of most Christians who see the movie is that Satan is depected as androgynous because he is commonly seen as also being the fallen angel, Lucifer. I know someone else mentioned it, but I'll reiterite this. Lucifer was the most-love and most beautiful of the angels before his fall. If we are to see Satan in this movie as that same being, then he should have been depicted as beautiful and androgynous, because that is the common Christian perception of angels. I have not heard of a single case of anyone becoming MORE homophobic than they already are because of this movie. That idea is just absurd.
I also do not see the film as anti-Semetic. The fact is that the corrupt political heirarchy of the Jewish church at the time decided that Jesus was dangerous and wanted him out of the way. So they incited the people to move against him. If a bunch of highly respected public officials paint someone out to be a criminal, then you can bet that a good majority of the populous will believe it. That's using the ignorant masses for personal gain. It is something that happens, and it's evil (which makes sense why Satan was present so much in the movie). This movie doesn't make me hate all Jews. It makes me feel sorry for the ones who were led on by the corrupt officials and it makes me think a lot less of ANY religious heirarchy. I disliked Caiaphus becauseof how he acted. But one man does not speak for all Jews in the past, present, or future.
Satan
I agree with your view about Satan in the movie. I saw his presence as taunting and mocking Jesus, saying, "All you are doing is for naught, because I have already won." As if he was going to change Jesus' mind at the last minute.
The Satan character, visually, was disturbingly beautiful. But I never associated him with being homosexual.
I saw an interesting interview with Alfred Hitchcock recently where he talked about a killer who blamed his third murder on his viewing of 'Psycho.' Hitchcock said, "And what did he watch before he committed his second murder? What did he do before the first one, drink a glass of milk?"
Re: Satan
no subject
I'm a bit wary though of the subliminal long-term effects of the images I described. They do linger in the mind, which means that they can have subconscious effects that you are not even aware of.
And Satan WAS present at the scourging.
Yes, you're correct, he was present at the scourging, among the watching crowd (I don't recall whether or not the crowd consisted of Romans, Jews, or both.)
I don't get this at all. I never got that impression.
Again I'm nervous about the long-term, subliminal effects of the imagery. I might be over-sensitive about portrayal of GLBTs in the media and the effects thereof, I will admit that.
TBH, I actually hope I'm wrong.
However, I am a naturally androgynous person, and I feel personally put-out that Gibson went out of his way -- using a female actor with a dubbed male voice -- to use the image of an androgynous person as the embodiment of evil, deceit, and unnatural being. I suspect, actually, that he was influenced by Marilyn Manson.
Oversensitivity
I think you are oversensitive on this issue. Why can't you accept the possibility that Satan was depicted as androgenous because that's the common Christian perception of angels? Lucifer is a fallen angel, thus he would be depicted as androgenous. Why the male voice? Because Satan is often thought of as a "he" as are most angels.
I don't believe that the imagery in any way was meant to be homophobic.
Maybe there's something to your "subiliminal" theory, but Mel Gibson is nor more guilty of using subliminal messages in the way your describe than Judas Priest or Ozzie Ozborne were of putting subliminal messages in their music.