Thoughts on "The Passion" with spoilers

[sophiaserpentia]

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.

Comments

[mlfoley.livejournal.com]

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.

I'm not so sure that I'd agree with your assessment of the first two scenes. If Satan was involved, then that, to me, would absolve the Jews in a sense. They were being deceived by the devil - maybe even possessed. They were not doing it out of their own free will.

The scene about Caiaphas makes sense to me according to the Gospels which say that people "wagged their tongues" at Jesus, mocked him etc.

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.

In Catholic tradition, I believe, angels are frequently seen as being androgynous. The same would apply to fallen angels.

Herod might have been a libertine, but this depiction of him as a morally-corrupt gay man is also gratuitous.

Not not sure where people got this depiction of Herod from. I recall Jesus Christ Superstar had Herod as a ridicuously flaming gay man. On the other hand, many versions of Pilate - including JCS's - have Pilate as effeminate (of course, JCS's Pilate WAS gay irl...). I'm not sure why they'd depict Roman officials in such a way.

[imaginaryfish.livejournal.com]

Does Mary Magdalen make an appearance? If so, how is she portrayed? The film doesn't come out over here until the 26th, so for now I'm stuck with the melodramatic trailer I see every time I go to the cinema.

[sylverspring.livejournal.com]

I didn't make the same observations as you about the movie. I found the antisemitism was exaggerated by some. Frankly, I viewed it as an angry mob, under the influence of corrupt leaders (corrupt by our current social standards), which could happen in any culture, in any mob scene. People get stirred up when they are in a mob, to a pitch. When this happens, any mob turns to animal, beastly behavior. I don't think this is behavior exclusive to the jews. And I think that many of those who would choose to view it as such, are probably already deeply antisemitic, and thus are reading into it what they want to see.
I also didn't see it as homophobic. I didn't even perceive Herod's leers as being sexual, as much as they were just glorying in someone elses pain. As for the depiction of Satan as being androgynous, I think that came from the Bible saying that he was the most beautiful of angels, before his fall. I never really perceived Satan as "Masculine" OR "Feminine" to tell the truth..just as Evil. And angels, anyway, are supposed to be devoid of sexuality. They are depicted in Art as rather .. androgynous, for lack of a better term.
As for the violence, I didn't find it gratuitous. The scourging would have done, exactly what was depicted. IMO. I think the human consciousness wants to gloss over alot of the implied violence in the gospels, because it doesn't want to deal with it. I think that we have no reason to believe that those who tortured Jesus, would not have shown such animalistic behavior. The Romans were a warring people. They were used to torturing, and maiming. I don't think they would have been any more gentle with Jesus than the movie depicted. (By the way, another reason I don't think the movie was antisemetic, was because the Roman soldiers were depicted as every bit as blood thirsty as the mob).
There is one thing I agree with you on, though. Mary's torment was heartbreaking. I was incredibly touched by the portrayal of her in the movie. The scenes where I cried the hardest, were the scene where she runs to him when he falls, and the scene where she mops up his blood with the towel.

[sylverspring.livejournal.com]

Digby..sorry, I had to add something. I am quite aware that the Bible, as it stands, and as it is preached in almost every church in the world, both Catholic, and Protestant alike, is an incomplete work. I'm well aware of the gospels left out, and the gnostic gospels. Unfortunately, the religion that Christianity was at its conception, was put into the hands of Imperfect humans, greedy humans, and powerhungry humans to "Sort Out" at the Council of Nicea, Council of laodicea..etc. So what we have is a "Rendered" version of the true Gospel of Christ. The thing is, the Catholic AND protestant religions, as they stand today, are BASED Upon the rendered version. There are few, in any denomination, who see the differences between what they read and hear from the pulpit, and what Jesus himself taught. The thing is, by the same coin, if you are to follow jesus teachings by the letter..Jesus taught that law, doctrine, and all else was secondary to loving God. Catholics, Protestants, there are those who "Love God" in each of these religions. I'm just confused as to where you're coming from, since I don't know you. I don't see Catholicism as being very different throughout the world, from what it is here.

Another point of view

[beowulf1723.livejournal.com]

Let me throw something out here just to stir the waters a bit.

I went to a play last night that was presented in a manner like those espoused by Bertolt Brecht. Brecht wanted to keep the audience from identifying with the characters in the play and so devised various techniques to to this, such as using placards held by people in the play.

All of these things that people are objecting to in Gibson's film -- the grim flogging scene, the sexually ambiguous Satan, Herod's lasciviousness, etc., may (inadvertently?) function like this. In the end, viewers won't identify with anyone, even Jesus, because the way the story is presented keeps the viewer from identifying with the characters.

I certainly don't think that this was Gibson's intention, but it may be the ultimate effect that the film has on a lot of viewers. The exception will be Lefebreites like Gibson and the Fundies, who have such a load of guilt that this is the only way they can imagine the events having taken place ... assuming that they took place at all as recorded in the Gospels, of course.

HMMMMM

[kittenkissies.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the "Mommy" scenes were meant to serve otherworldly purposes, also. Kind "Woman's Day" meets "JasonX"...

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Mel Gibson on his depiction of Satan:
That's what I tried to do with the Devil in the film. The actor's face is symmetric, beautiful in a certain sense, but not completely. For example, we shaved her eyebrows. Then we shot her almost in slow motion so you don't see her blink—that's not normal. We dubbed in a man's voice in Gethsemane even though the actor is a woman...That's what evil is about, taking something that's good and twisting it a little bit.
We report, you decide. :P