Mel Gibson's "Passion"

an agnostic's view

Published on February 28, 2004 By Angloesque In Entertainment

Saw "The Passion of the Christ" on Wednesday when it opened. Could have posted this sooner, but didn't because (a) I wanted to internalize the movie a bit more, and (

I'm at a place where the Internet is slower than my fiance's driving. Advance apologies for typos but the keyboard : monitor delay is a good three seconds sometimes, and I type really fast.

Entered the theatre wondering about the merit of the anti-Semitism claims. Figured I'd give the movie a fair shot since I have general respect for Gibson and no respect for racism. Was raised Christian, tend toward agnostic, like several things about buddhism and believe in evolution. Those are the claims I tried to put aside at the door.

I didn't find the movie to be anti-Semitic, and I looked. At one point Jesus says to Pilate, "The sins of the one who brought me here are greater than yours." At first I thought he was referring to the Jewish leaders, which would obviously be viewed as anti-Semitic by some (though, can a Semite be anti-semitic? can I hate white people even though I am one? or the french because I'm french? no; maybe?). Anyway, I think Jesus was referring to Satan as the one whose sins were greater than Pilate's, or else the sins of the world. If it was God's plan for Jesus to die that way (and I'm not going to get into that), then Pilate (or the Sanhedrin) didn't actually have a choice (also not going to discuss pre-destination). Perhaps that's why the Christianity I have known, which isn't Gibson's version, has viewed him so sympathetically, and the juxtaposition of his sympathetic character next to the Sanhedrin makes for a very stark picture.

As for the Jewish leaders, the Sanhedrin, at one point even Caiphas, the Jewish head honcho, turns away from the flogging because it was too much for him. So there was humanity in those leaders, particularly in the end where they enter the temple after the earthquake to see the curtain dividing the sanctuary from the most holy place rent into two; the looks on their faces are, "What have we done?" It's almost like their realisation of their actions came too late, but was there nonetheless.

I liked the movie very much; it felt real in that gritty way. The acting was well-done except, perhaps, for John the beloved; he seemed pretty flat. There were a few continuity issues from frame to frame, though noting compared to any of the LOTR continuity problems. Overall the story line and characters were very similar to the gospel story; there were some additions, including Jesus' dialogue, but it stayed pretty close. I didn't feel there was too much violence, and it was never gratuitious. Even when covered my eyes I could still hear it, and when the camera was focused on the crowd during the flogging, it was the sound that elicited the emotions in my brain more than the pictures. It was real; it was hard to grapple with; but it wasn't gratuitious. The character of Satan added complexity and intrigue. Didn't like the part where he was holding that naked child devil, or whatever that was; seemed unnecessary. Good acting. Good lighting effects in the Gethsemane scene. Even the extras were believable, and they're the ones that can ruin movies for me. Judas was complex, though not as much as I read into the story.

I would fault the movie on a couple things: I think Pilate could have been weak behind doors, but not in front of the crowd--not a man in his position. His character did seem too flimsy. Similarly, I think that two of the Roman guards (note: not Jews) were too vindictive about their task (if anything, the film is anti-Centurian). Both Pilate and those guards just went a little too far with their roles. The part with the crow or raven was sick and shouldn't have been there.

Phenomenal ending. Best. Panned. Shot. Ever. (the one in the tomb)

The bottom line: I see it reinforcing the faith of Christians. I don't see it evangelizing athiests, Jews, or Eastern religions to Christianity. Agnostics, maybe. The view Gibson's portrayed of Jesus, the Sanhedrin, and Pilate is a very traditional view the Christian church has held. I don't think it is anti-semitic nor was I ever raised to think so.

I once heard a rabbi say, "The Christians, they're looking for the second coming; us, we're looking for the first. Maybe it's the same thing." Maybe.

Comments (Page 1)

TeacherCreature

on Feb 28, 2004

Enjoyed your article.....i was agnostic too until i did the math. It is stated that as humankind, we possess MAYBE 10 percent of all knowledge in the universe. There are approximately 6 billion people on earth.....meaning I posses 1/6000000000th of 10 percent of all universal knowledge. Given the likelihood that my limited understanding of the universe was in error by questioning the existence of God, I took the rest on faith, studied the bible, talked to some friends and now, I am a minister. Who'd a thunk it?

MyViewsAndMuse

on Feb 28, 2004

Insightful review. As a Christian I found it to be a strengthening factor and a painful reminder. I agree with your assessment that the movie is not a evangelizing tool for strictly non-Christians. Agnostics maybe if their background is Christian and and maybe others who have been looking into Christianity.

GemCityJoe

on Feb 28, 2004

Enjoyed reading your view Angloesque, Was just wondering if the picture did anything to change your agnostic ideas? I have to agree with you about John. I was saying the same thing on the way home. What you wrote confirmed exactly what I was thinking. I thought the actor could have put more into it. As for the crow part. There was no scripture for that. I also agree with you that this part could have been deleted. The Satan and the baby scene. Hmm... My interpretation of this was perhaps showing that this was Satan and the anti-Christ (which is the son of Satan) preparing to make the world their kingdom now that they got Jesus out of the way. Thats all I can figure it out to be. It would be interesting to hear other opinions on this. I also did not thing the movie was in the least anti- Semitic, thats exactly the way the story went in the bible. If anyone is guilty it is all of us, for we all have sinned. GCJ

Larry Kuperman

on Feb 29, 2004

The best thing that a religous film can accomplish is to encourage debate. Lets face, movies are not a replacement for worship. Debate is good, whatever the milieu. GemCityJoe and I, for example, have very different ideas. We have discussed them on Joeuser many times and, while we have disagreed, I think that we are better for sharing our ideas. I hope that Joe agrees.
The Passion of the Christ has certainly stirred discussion. All to the good. At the very least, it encourages people to think about their own beliefs and to hopefully examine those beliefs in light of what others think.

The worst thing that can come of a movie, is that it discourages debate by presenting a position so forcefully that people either accept it or don't. My sense is that the only people who want to discourage debate are those that labeled the movie ant-semitic without even seeing it. Bad idea. I am frankly ashamed of some people's response.

Happy Sunday to all!

Randy Spire

on Feb 29, 2004

Thanks for the review. i have been debating whether or not to see it, your comment help.

SUE

on Mar 01, 2004

I seen an interview with Mel Gibson and he was talking about that part. I missed some of it, but what I caught was in that scene only Mary could see satan and they made eye contact. So I think the devil was mocking Mary because her Son was going through so much. I think the devil knew he would never get Jesus out of the way thats why he didnt want Him to go throug with the crucifiction because then everyones sins could be forgiven then.

Angloesque

on Mar 01, 2004

GCJ,

Was just wondering if the picture did anything to change your agnostic ideas?

Well, in short, no. I still wonder if the writers of the gospels glamourized Jesus and what he was doing (I believe in his historical character, but am undecided on whether or not he was the Son of God). It doesn't quite make sense to me that this was God's big plan for redemption--I have to wonder if there was a better way (and that's assuming that there is a God--I wonder if there are more gods but one uber-God). I still think that since religion is fundamental to all cultures, there has to be some sort of God or myriad gods. Who they are and what they're like is where I'm agnostic. It's a crappy position to be in, too; I miss the nice fundamentalism that was much easier to believe in. Stupid education.

Also, I was intrigued by your analysis of that baby or anti-Christ. I've always thought that just Satan was the anti-christ.

Larry,

The best thing that a religous film can accomplish is to encourage debate.

I quite agree. That's why I hate to see disparaging comments made towards creation/evolution, a pet interest of mine, because it's the debate that keeps both sides constantly checking themselves. Good perspective.

-T.

whack

on Mar 01, 2004

fff

OFFBASE

on Mar 01, 2004

I like the book better. Mr. Gibson's interpretation is far too bloody and EASY (despite Mel's claims) to get away with in this day and age. Mel has said that if you have problems with his movie, it's not his fault...you must have issues with the Bible. Wow, what an egomaniac to say that what he portrayed on film was a story from the bible...NOT so much! The basis for his movie was in the Bible, but not the bloodfest. Which Gospel was the story of Jesus inventing the dinner table in? After reading accounts from various sources (non-biblical) I get the sense that his portrayal of the whipping and crucifixion was correct (though Mel must not buy the wrist and ankle placement of nails; demonstrated in archeological specimens). But that doesn't make his story biblical. I only felt one thing leaving that theater. Boy, am I glad that's over. What I gather from this movie and Mr. Gibson's other bloodfest specials (Braveheart, The Patriot, LW1-4) is that he believes the only way to influence beliefs is through violence...isn't that what Jesus's executioners were attempting to do? At least I can put my mind at ease knowing that Gibson can't make a sequel...or can he?

Angloesque

on Mar 01, 2004

Was trying to figure out what "fff" means. Among the nicer things I came up with are the following from acronymfinder.com:

Family Friendly Forum
Fast Forward Financial
Fast Forward Flight
Federation Française de Football
Federation of Flyfishers
Feed-Forward Filter
Fehntjer-Fußball-Fruend
Fight for Freedom
Final Fantasy Fans
First Frame First
Fit for Fight
Flicker Fusion Frequency
Form, Fit, Function
Forte Forissimo
Fortisissimo
Fortune 500 Index
Forum for Fåreskaller
Freeze Frame Fun
Frequency Flat-Fading
Fuel Fabrication Facilty
Fun Fearless Female
Future Fighting Force
Future of Freedom Foundation

I'm sure the anonymous guy meant Family Friendly Forum.

-T.

BulbousHead

on Mar 01, 2004

The basis for his movie was in the Bible, but not the bloodfest.

Mr. Gibson's other bloodfest specials

his portrayal of the whipping and crucifixion was correct

So the violent parts were accurate, but the movie was too violent? What do you want?

OOFBASE

on Mar 01, 2004

Dear Mr. B. Head,
If I was too vague or, as I see by your highlighting prowess, too contradictory in my opinions, then I will re-state: Mr. Gibson's interpretation of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus adds nothing to the already well done story in the Bible. If you want a lesson in torture and crucifixion, go read historical accounts of it. But SEEING rubber skin and red jello flying across the screen does not affirm my faith. Does it yours? If you think, that because He endured hours of torture that this must be the King...if He were just a man, what choice would He have had and how would that make Him different from the thousands that suffered that same fate? What made him different was His love for us and forgiving nature ...MG misses the point of His story of love, teaching and forgiveness in favor of a shockumentary of Jesus's execution. Is that better or am I still too babbling for you?
...noticing your flare for splicing comments, have you considered working for the Factor?

booboobear

on Mar 01, 2004

So, because you're a minister now, you must be right in your 1/60000000000th of knowledge or what is the probability that you're STILL wrong. Maybe you should try ski instructor?

BulbousHead

on Mar 01, 2004

If you want a lesson in torture and crucifixion, go read historical accounts of it.

Officially the most stupid thing in your paragraph. "Reading about it is plenty; you shouldn't need a visual presentation!" If you've ever seen a movie, you're a hypocrite. Just read the script.

But SEEING rubber skin and red jello flying across the screen does not affirm my faith. Does it yours?

Since I have no such faith to start with, no.

If you think, that because He endured hours of torture that this must be the King

I think the point is to convey, vividly, Jesus's willingness to suffer (terribly) for the sins of humanity. If you believe in that sort of thing.

Is that better or am I still too babbling for you?

It's better, but you're still babbling.

noticing your flare for splicing comments

I don't take them out of context. You said what you said; stand by it or admit your error.

OOFBASE

on Mar 01, 2004

If you've ever seen a movie, you're a hypocrite. Just read the script.
>>I'm talking about those pop-up books...not actual reading. I never do that. That's why my paragraphs are so silly;->
the point is to convey, vividly, Jesus's willingness to suffer (terribly) for the sins of humanity
>>I believe in the ability of one's imagination to carry that moment. If a director doesn't trust his audience to know the horrific nature of the told events...what does that say? One need not see a murder to know that it is a horrible event. There are many well done films that do much with a story without having to portray every detail- I think it is an art to do so- to witness what Mel did is spectacle. Yes, I did go see it (I also rubberneck at accidents and love WWF;-)-so that makes me a hypocrite to 'preach' that there should be a better way to tell the story, but if someone decides not to see it because I THOUGHT the movie awful, then maybe that's good.
I have no such faith to start
>>I did not mean for you to state your beliefs, nor am I making a statement of my religious beliefs.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!