Risen, But Not Gone

Controversy about The Passion Of The Christ continues, not just world-wide, but here in the Café itself. Pete seems to share my view,¹ Fran has offered a slightly warmer review, Brian is curious, and most surprisingly, Ms Macmillen has offered her commentary on the film and my review of it, and takes a sharply contrary position. Reading over all this I feel there's much more to be said... Note: herein be spoilers.²

I've read a fair few comments from people that begin, "As a Christian, I do/don't want to see this film because..." I have to concede that if you go to see this film approaching it As A Christian, then it has something to offer. You've already got an understanding of Christ's life, His message, the context of His death and the subsequent effect on history. And, if you're a Christian, you probably begin to understand the meaning of His sacrifice.¹ And what you'd probably lack is an understanding of how horrific a death He suffered. How badly He died. Well folks, Mr Gibson can provide a very, very vivid impression. You'll be left in no doubt at all. It is intensely emotional and visceral to a degree that very few directors could manage. Well done, Mel.

Laura argues that the film is that violent, because the actual event was that violent, and I spent most of the film gladly extending Mr Gibson that much credit, but he lost me toward the end. Carrying the cross to Golgotha, Jesus falls hard to the ground, and we feel His pain. Later He falls again, just as hard, and it is just as hard on the viewer. And then He falls again. And again. And again. And again, and again, and again. It becomes the cinematic equivalent of whining. Mel has lost the control of the wheel, and the violence is out of control. Later, at the crucifixion itself, one of the thieves taunts Jesus, and right away a crow flies down and rips his eyeball out with its beak. This is not the wrath of God, it is the wrath of Mel. Mel's anger is running the film, and his cup overfloweth.

I'm reminded of the other recent, massively violent film, Kill Bill. Both directors have used violence as the means to telling their story, but without question Quentin Tarantino is in control of the violence. A scene is violent because he has decided it will be, and the result is shocking, but skillful. Mel on the otherhand shows no such control. The film is violent wherever it can be, and the result is shocking, and sloppy.

And the sloppiness is all the easier to spot in the places where the violence lapses. The 'invention of the table' scene is silly, 'Satan pets His baby' is bizarre, 'creating the Turin shroud' was a vanity shot, 'Herod was a bit like Boy George' is just about fun, but there are two particularly bad scenes.

The first is 'let's all be a renaissance painting'. It's the scene where Jesus' body has just been brought down from the cross, and Mary is holding his body. Mary's boy has just died, and she doesn't understand why. It should be a tender moment. Instead Mel sets the characters up in a set of stiff poses, a wind machine suddenly starts up, and a dry-eyed Mary attempts to stare-down the camera.⁴ Very weak, even cheesy art direction.⁵

But in my opinion, The Worst Scene In The Entire Film, is 'Mary's reaction to her scourged son.' Here's the setup: Mary has heard her son being sourged by the Roman Soldiers, but hasn't seen it. Now Jesus is carrying His cross through the streets, and Mary is about to see her brutally wounded child. Mary sees, and hesitates, barely able to face the horror in front of her. And that alone would have been a powerful scene. Sadly, Mel fluffs it. He interlaces this scene with another one of his flashbacks, and we see a 6 year old Jesus fall over in the street while Mary has an absolute sh*t-fit. She freaks, she runs, she knocks over overthing in her path, and goes to him with all her soul. The scene weaves between scourged-Jesus/lukewarm-Mary & tripped-up-boy/woman-in-severe-panic-attack. The completely inverted reaction is ridiculous. I couldn't help but think that if I'd grown up with a freakishly over-protective mother like that, I'd end up with a God complex and a death-wish. It actually belittles the meaning.

But, to conclude, I'll say it one more time - I'm sure that Jesus' death was truly this horrible. Portraying that on film is a great artistic contribution. But a more skillful and controlled director wouldn't have filled the film with so many howlers and indulgences. And in a time when audiences are content to watch a three-hour epic, a more skilled screenwriter could have expended the canvas, and given the brutality the context and meaning that made it a genuine sacrifce.

¹Yes, Pete agrees with me on a film review! There will now be a brief pause before the universe unravels...

²No, not just the fact that he dies at the end.

³Begin, I say, because you could meditate on it's meaning for a lifetime. I'm reminded of a quote that I think is attributed to Lao Tzu: "Had I but a single year added to my life, I would spend it all in contemplation of the [mystery of the] Yi."

⁴Hey, maybe that's why she's not crying - her eyeballs have dried out.

⁵It reminded me of Eddie Izzard's sketch about Jesus and the disciples posing for DaVinci's Last Supper: "We can't all do 'big arms'. I'll do 'big arms', and you all stare at me and go, 'Ooh, he's doing 'big arms'.'