The Passion of the Christ ««««
R, 126m. 2004
Cast & Credits: James Caviezel (Jesus), Maia Morgenstern (Mary), Christo Jivkov (John), Francesco De Vito (Peter), Monica Bellucci (Mary Magdeline), Mattia Sbragia (Caiphas), Toni Bertorelli (Annas), Luca Lionello (Judas), Hristo Shopov (Pontius Pilate). Screenplay by Benedict Fitzgerald and Mel Gibson. Directed by Mel Gibson.
The key to embracing Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of the Christ" will have to depend on whether or not you will be able to see past the much talked about graphic scenes of torture and bloodletting, problems with the storyline and undeveloped lead character. You will have to rely on, as I did, your own personal beliefs about forgiveness and sacrifice, Heaven and Hell, the battle between good and evil, and whether or not when we do leave this world if death is really the end. That’s the only reason I award "The Passion of the Christ" the highest rating, four stars, versus a lower rating it really deserves.
If I were to agree with more than half the critics who responded negatively to the film commenting how excruciating it was to sit through (The New Yorker’s David Denby in their March 1, 2004 issue called it “a sickening death trip”), then judging by what they’ve written or said, I should award it two and a half stars because on certain levels, I do see their point.
"The Passion of the Christ", while being the most graphic, is by far not the best film adaptation about Jesus to date. When the film opens with Christ (James Caviezel) alone in the Garden of Gethsemane asking for God’s help shortly before he is betrayed by Judas, it’s like walking into the third act of a play without having seen the first two parts. It’s an R rated version of the Stations of the Cross that lasts 126 minutes.
I found it hard to feel sorry for Caviezel’s Jesus, whose life story is told briefly in flashbacks while on that treacherous final journey to his fate, as opposed to some of the big screen biblical epics of decade’s past. In movies like "King of Kings" (1961), "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965), and Franco Zeffirelli’s television mini-series event, "Jesus of Nazareth" (1977), Christ’s death and resurrection was not the main part of the story.
Because Gibson’s version is based on the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life, we are forced to rely on what we’ve read about him in the scriptures or have been taught in either Sunday school or religion classes.
It’s easy to see how such torture scenes in "The Passion of the Christ" would probably make one wince, or be so sickened by the sheer brutality that he or she walks out of the theater during the film (one woman suffered a heart attack and died while viewing it opening week). Such scenes are effectively heightened by showing the horror in slow motion as when the long steel nails are hammered into Christ’s hands; drops of blood spattering out among the dirt and rocks. All Gibson has done is show us exactly how it happened, or as Pope John Paul II was quoted saying recently and whom Vatican officials later recanted, “It is as it was.”
Those scenes, to be honest, never got to me. I have seen so much violence and death in movies and on the evening news for the past thirty years that it’s gotten to the point I am now numbed by it.
It wasn’t until near the end that I realized the point Gibson was trying to get across. His hope was that audiences who see the film would react emotionally to it based on their personal beliefs and being able to relate to various scenes of religious symbolism. Where some critics might call it ghastly, seeing a black crow pecking out the eyes of an unrepentant criminal dying on the cross, I see it as a warning to those who reject Christ.
The most hauntingly powerful sequences are of Jesus being taunted by Satan (Rosalinda Celentano), who is seen as both an enticing combination of male and female. The best scene symbolizing Jesus’ resistance to evil is when he looks at Satan, posing as a snake, with disdain stepping on it with a pounding thump. That early scene alone just five minutes into the film drew some gasps among the audience. Are such scenes memorable because evil is, in many ways, more seductive?
The flashback scenes, for example, of Jesus telling his apostles at the last supper to love one another as they have loved him could not be just a look back on Christ’s life. It could also be a dying relative’s last wish to their loved ones, as well as a message, that if he or she lives their life the way God wants, then death isn’t necessarily the end. That’s the point behind "The Passion of the Christ."
It just depends on how you look at it. If the film gets to you emotionally in some way as was seen by the 2004's media’s coverage of audience members walking out with red eyes and Kleenex in their eyes, then "The Passion of the Christ" did its job.
It took time but the movie eventually got to me. It’s that powerful.
©3/1/23
R, 126m. 2004
Cast & Credits: James Caviezel (Jesus), Maia Morgenstern (Mary), Christo Jivkov (John), Francesco De Vito (Peter), Monica Bellucci (Mary Magdeline), Mattia Sbragia (Caiphas), Toni Bertorelli (Annas), Luca Lionello (Judas), Hristo Shopov (Pontius Pilate). Screenplay by Benedict Fitzgerald and Mel Gibson. Directed by Mel Gibson.
 |
| 2005 Academy Award Nominations Best Achievement in Cinematography Best Achievement in Makeup Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures - John Debney |
If I were to agree with more than half the critics who responded negatively to the film commenting how excruciating it was to sit through (The New Yorker’s David Denby in their March 1, 2004 issue called it “a sickening death trip”), then judging by what they’ve written or said, I should award it two and a half stars because on certain levels, I do see their point.
"The Passion of the Christ", while being the most graphic, is by far not the best film adaptation about Jesus to date. When the film opens with Christ (James Caviezel) alone in the Garden of Gethsemane asking for God’s help shortly before he is betrayed by Judas, it’s like walking into the third act of a play without having seen the first two parts. It’s an R rated version of the Stations of the Cross that lasts 126 minutes.
I found it hard to feel sorry for Caviezel’s Jesus, whose life story is told briefly in flashbacks while on that treacherous final journey to his fate, as opposed to some of the big screen biblical epics of decade’s past. In movies like "King of Kings" (1961), "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965), and Franco Zeffirelli’s television mini-series event, "Jesus of Nazareth" (1977), Christ’s death and resurrection was not the main part of the story.
Because Gibson’s version is based on the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life, we are forced to rely on what we’ve read about him in the scriptures or have been taught in either Sunday school or religion classes.
It’s easy to see how such torture scenes in "The Passion of the Christ" would probably make one wince, or be so sickened by the sheer brutality that he or she walks out of the theater during the film (one woman suffered a heart attack and died while viewing it opening week). Such scenes are effectively heightened by showing the horror in slow motion as when the long steel nails are hammered into Christ’s hands; drops of blood spattering out among the dirt and rocks. All Gibson has done is show us exactly how it happened, or as Pope John Paul II was quoted saying recently and whom Vatican officials later recanted, “It is as it was.”
Those scenes, to be honest, never got to me. I have seen so much violence and death in movies and on the evening news for the past thirty years that it’s gotten to the point I am now numbed by it.
The problem with such sequences in "The Passion of the Christ" is although one might feel pity for seeing Christ go through such painfully agonizing moments, the screenplay written by Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald doesn’t give us a chance to fully get to know the man. It’s like seeing a condemned person being put in the electric chair where the execution takes an unexpectedly gruesome turn and the wretched soul becomes a sitting pile of flames. I won’t deny seeing someone horrifically executed like that would be enough to make one be against the death penalty. But how do you shed a tear for someone you don’t even know?Ironically the characters with the most depth happen to be the most flawed like Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov) who, despite being known as the Roman leader most responsible for putting thousands of Jews to death, comes off as someone who tries his best to keep Christ from being executed. Even Judas, who is hounded by black furred, glow-eyed monsters and demonic children to the point he hangs himself above a rotting, fly infested animal, is briefly portrayed as a betrayer with a conscience. While the most hated are the high priests, in particular Caiphas (Matio Sbragia), who can’t come up with any justifiable reason for condemning Christ other than seeing him as a threat to their teachings and way of life.
It wasn’t until near the end that I realized the point Gibson was trying to get across. His hope was that audiences who see the film would react emotionally to it based on their personal beliefs and being able to relate to various scenes of religious symbolism. Where some critics might call it ghastly, seeing a black crow pecking out the eyes of an unrepentant criminal dying on the cross, I see it as a warning to those who reject Christ.
The most hauntingly powerful sequences are of Jesus being taunted by Satan (Rosalinda Celentano), who is seen as both an enticing combination of male and female. The best scene symbolizing Jesus’ resistance to evil is when he looks at Satan, posing as a snake, with disdain stepping on it with a pounding thump. That early scene alone just five minutes into the film drew some gasps among the audience. Are such scenes memorable because evil is, in many ways, more seductive?
The film didn’t get to me emotionally until near the end. I don’t know if it’s because at the time I saw it I recently lost a loved one, but I compared Jesus’ ordeal on the big screen to that of watching a relative, whose body has been ravaged with cancer, go through severe pain in their final hours.You are so numbed by the horror you are seeing wishing the person lying on the death bed wasn’t racked with such pain that the grief of it all doesn’t hit until the final moments.
The flashback scenes, for example, of Jesus telling his apostles at the last supper to love one another as they have loved him could not be just a look back on Christ’s life. It could also be a dying relative’s last wish to their loved ones, as well as a message, that if he or she lives their life the way God wants, then death isn’t necessarily the end. That’s the point behind "The Passion of the Christ."
It just depends on how you look at it. If the film gets to you emotionally in some way as was seen by the 2004's media’s coverage of audience members walking out with red eyes and Kleenex in their eyes, then "The Passion of the Christ" did its job.
It took time but the movie eventually got to me. It’s that powerful.
©3/1/23
No comments:
Post a Comment