sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-03-07 11:28 am
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-03-07 11:28 am
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.
Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.
Secondly, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG about the accuracy--Biblical OR historical--of Mel's version of Christ's crucifixion. In Sacred Scripture there are no priests leering at the foot of the cross, no little demons scampering after the suicidal Judas, no implication that Herod was some sort of sexual pervert (you colour it as you will: sado-masochist, or effeminate homosexual), just because he gave his daughter what his wife wanted, as a reward for dancing.
In terms of historical accuracy, he ignores the evidence of the Shroud of Turin--which is surprising for a "Traditionalist" (i.e. heretical) Catholic--and gives us nails in palms and a loincloth. He also confuses two different death penalties, because flagellation to the extent he has it in his version was MEANT TO KILL, and it usually DID. It is unbelievable that any human body could have lasted three to six hours on a cross, after being subjected to THAT. (But, of course, as one of my younger friends said, "This is Super-Jesus!")
Sorry, but the whole thing smacks of decadent American culture, and I'm absolutely certain that people all over the world, who come from healthier religious and cultural traditions will be able to label this garbage as precisely what it is: sado-masochistic pornography, filled with anti-Semitic visual references POSING as a religious effusion.
Re: Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.
Re: Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.
Actually, a very great deal of the "Jesus story" can now be "validated" with historical documents, with archaelogical findings, etc. For instance, we now know that the picture of Pilate given in the Gospel of St. John is wholly incommensurate with what is recorded by Roman historians about his governancy of Palestine, leading Biblical scholars--even some of the most orthodox--to conclude that the "Passion Narrative"--or parts of it were interpolated later. But, of course, Mel and people like Mel--whose faith is wholly imbued with heretical fundamentalism--will have no truck with "scholarship." This has been the tendency of Protestantism from its inception, starting with that egregious anti-Semite Luther, who said, of the Letter of St. James, "It is a text of straw, and I will have none of it!"
To me, the movie was made to shake the complacency out of those who have already decided to become Christian, and who take it casually.
I don't think that Zeferelli's version--or even The Last Temptation of Christ--inculcates spiritual "complacency." I KNOW that that mastepiece Jesus de Montreal is FAR more effective than Mel's bloodbath in encouraging the faithful to update their spirituality and USE it in THIS world--rather than pining for "pie-in-the-sky-after-death"--the fulcrum of the Prot Fundos' faith.
I think "The Passion" managed to do this in a way that prior movies about the same topic, haven't.
I doubt you've seen Pasolini's Gospel of Saint Matthew, which comes out of a religious culture far saner than that which prevails in Protestant America.
Ultimately, of course, there will be no agreement between myself and the supporters of this film. However, I DO think it's instructive to draw out the differences. I think it's particularly instructive to my fellow Catholics in America, about whom I feel it is very important that they NOT confuse what Mel is doing with the shreds of his Catholicism and real Christian orthodoxy, which MUST find this film to be a travesty, if it's to remain true to the temper and spirit of original Christianity, and not become bedeviled with American and Protestant perversions.
Re: Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.
Re: Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.
Re: Mme. Serpentia is right, the rest are crazed by religious fanaticism.