The Passion Of The Christ by Roger Ebert

[Swanny]

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST / **** (R)

February 24, 2004






Jesus, the Christ: James Caviezel
Mary: Maia Morgenstern
Mary Magdalene: Monica Bellucci
Pontius Pilate: Hristo Shopov
Caiaphas: Mattia Sbragia
Judas: Luca Lionello
Claudia: Claudia Gerini
Gesmas: Francesco Cabras
Satan Rosalinda Celentano


Newmarket Films presents a film directed by Mel Gibson. Written by Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald. Running time: 126 minutes. Rated R (for sequences of graphic violence). Opening Wednesday at local theaters, but selected locations will start screening the movie at midnight Tuesday.


BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC


If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.

The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.

I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:


At the Cross, her station keeping ...

Stood the mournful Mother weeping ...

Close to Jesus to the last.


For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."

This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.

This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.)

If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts.

The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo.

In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous.

Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.

"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."

This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.

A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.

This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.

Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it).

It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.



Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.



Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.

[scott]

Wow,it has been getting good reviews.

Well I am seeing it tomorrow night,then I will post what I have to say...

[Brian]

i still don't know when i'm seeing it. but it's nice to know that it is receiving good reviews.

[simplybeingloved]

i wanna see it quite badly, since early last year when i heard jim caviezel was going to be in it. I'm going to see it on saturday i think. At least before I die.

[Swanny]

Here's a bad reviews



he gave it one star

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. With Jim Caviezel. Written,directed and produced by Mel Gibson. At area theaters (2:07). Rated R for sequences of graphic violence. In Latin and Aramaic with English subtitles.
No child should see this movie.

Even adults are at risk.

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.

It is sickening, much more brutal than any "Lethal Weapon."

The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here. And yet "The Passion" is also undeniably powerful.

Because of all the media coverage of this movie and the way it was shown only to handpicked sympathizers until yesterday's screening for movie critics, many questions hang in the air: Is it historically accurate?

Of course not. As with any movie, even a documentary, this one reflects the views of its filmmakers, who are entitled and expected to use their art persuasively. Gibson has been up-front about his own religious agenda.

But is it any good?

"The Passion" - once you strip away all the controversy and religious fervor - is a technically proficient account of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

The movie is sanctimonious in a way that impedes dramatic flow and limits characterizations to the saintly and the droolingly vulgar.

That said, there are many things in its favor - a heroic physical effort by star Jim Caviezel; stunning cinematography by Caleb Deschanel, and the chutzpah to have the actors speak in the dead language of Aramaic (with some subtitles).

Is Gibson devout, or is he mad?

Had Gibson claimed Napoleon helped him direct, instead of divine spirits, the answer would be clear. Even so, a touch of madness is often a good thing in a director.

But "The Passion" feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience.

Is it anti-Semitic?

Yes.

Jews are vilified, in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes.

Gibson cuts from the hook nose of one bad Jewish character to the hook nose of another in the ensuing scene.

He misappropriates an important line from the Jewish celebration of Pesach ("Why is this night different from all other nights?") and slaps it onto a Christian context.

Most unforgivable is that Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), the Roman governor of Palestine who decreed that Jesus be crucified, is portrayed as a sensitive, kind-hearted soul who is sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap upon his prisoner.

Pilate agrees to the Crucifixion only against his better judgment.

The most offensive line of the script, which was co-written by Gibson with Benedict Fitzgerald, about Jews accepting blame, was not cut from the movie, as initially reported. Only its subtitle was removed.

"Passion" assumes the audience already knows Christianity 101, and plunges right into the aftermath of the Last Supper. Taunted by an effeminate, seductive Satan and anticipating betrayal, Christ suffers.

Oh, does He suffer.

The movie is a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club. Gibson spares not one cringing closeup to showcase what he imagines Jesus must have endured.

The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill."

The Romans capture their prey with the help of a terminally regretful Judas, then haul Him around to be whipped, beaten, spat upon, mutilated and finally crucified - all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews. No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother (Maia Morgenstern).

Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities. "The Passion of the Christ" is a brutal, nasty film that demonizes Jews at an unfortunate time in history.

Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love?

[xenocide7375]

Passion of the christ may be the most violent movie ever, but be that as it be, christians should see it.
people take for grantite what jesus did for us. they say their prayers listen to the sermons and go home. never relizing the pain he went through. Th torture and brutality that endured for them is completly unknown. This movie will get people to finally wake up and relaize what it really means that jesus died for our sins. I for one would personally shake mel gibsons hand for making this film. I can notmake any real desicion on whether the film is anti-semetic since i have not seen it but i believe the main problem is that this portrays jewish people condeming somebody to torture. this might make peopel assume jews are blood thirsty and since there is already much anti-semitism in the world jewish people may be scard this film could have serius reporcussions. It is basicaly all interpretation.

[scott]

Ok just got back from seeing it,and wow.

I'll start by saying I was one of the youngest kids there,but I guess it is for the better as most people my age wouldn't get the true impact of it.Yes,it was bloody,you could even see Jesus' rips through his skin,but it had to be that way.People say 'la de da Jesus dies on the cross',but they don't know how it really went.I don't think anyone left the theater dry eyed,and I will say I cried more than once,very very emotional.Also the actors did a very good job,you could really feel the emotion.The movie was shot very well,lots of cool slow motion effects and such,and the music was very well done.

If it's your religion or not,I still think you would enjoy it,amazing movie.

This review=3/10
Movie=10/10

[JadeGriffon]

xenocide7375 said:

Passion of the christ may be the most violent movie ever, but be that as it be, christians should see it.
people take for grantite what jesus did for us. they say their prayers listen to the sermons and go home. never relizing the pain he went through. Th torture and brutality that endured for them is completly unknown. This movie will get people to finally wake up and relaize what it really means that jesus died for our sins. I for one would personally shake mel gibsons hand for making this film. I can notmake any real desicion on whether the film is anti-semetic since i have not seen it but i believe the main problem is that this portrays jewish people condeming somebody to torture. this might make peopel assume jews are blood thirsty and since there is already much anti-semitism in the world jewish people may be scard this film could have serius reporcussions. It is basicaly all interpretation.

I think one of the problems with the anti-semitism issue in this movie is when some Jews supported the tortue, people think they all did, or that Gibson is saying they all did. Their are bad Jews, Christians, Buhdists, Muslims, etc. You can not generalize all the people who follow (or pretend to follow) a religion. Thats the problem. They think since there are some bad Jews in this movie Gibson is trying to portray all Jews as bad people. Their are good Jews in this movie too, like Jesus. I want to see this movie, even though it is extremely violent. I wonder if they will ever show it here, Kevin. I hope. I hope this film opens peoples eyes to the sacrifice Jesus made for all of us. Sure people know he died on the cross, but most don't grasp the true magnitude (for lack of better word at this time) of his sacrifice. You're absolutely correct, Kevin, people do take Jesus's sacrifice foregranted.

EDIT: And that second review Some people just don't get it.

[bob]

i cant wait to see this movie. i hate the media for portraying it so badly, but well, i hate the media anyway. i have deep respect for mel gibson doing something like this, and keeping his head high while shouldering all the scrutiny.

[scott]

Yea,I like how Mel thought at the start no theaters would show it,and now it is sold out everywhere.Word.

EDIT:Satan is creepy in it too...

[William]

Man i wanna see it, someone take me...lets go tomorrow...jeesh i wanna go...


and the idea of the anti sementism, what "passion" movie over the last century hasnt gotten that...anyone seen Ben-Hur? that was considered horrible to see! contreversy over Jews is way overrated...

someone take me to see it!

[xenocide7375]

JadeGriffon said:

I think one of the problems with the anti-semitism issue in this movie is when some Jews supported the tortue, people think they all did, or that Gibson is saying they all did. Their are bad Jews, Christians, Buhdists, Muslims, etc. You can not generalize all the people who follow (or pretend to follow) a religion. Thats the problem. They think since there are some bad Jews in this movie Gibson is trying to portray all Jews as bad people. Their are good Jews in this movie too, like Jesus. I want to see this movie, even though it is extremely violent. I wonder if they will ever show it here, Kevin. I hope. I hope this film opens peoples eyes to the sacrifice Jesus made for all of us. Sure people know he died on the cross, but most don't grasp the true magnitude (for lack of better word at this time) of his sacrifice. You're absolutely correct, Kevin, people do take Jesus's sacrifice foregranted.

EDIT: And that second review Some people just don't get it.

Probably wont come here because of all the mormons. they dont like watching r or pg-13 movies. I hope it comes though. and the we can go see it. if my parents say i can go because of the rating i will just give them a guilt trip

[Wilshire]

It seems like a powerful movie from religious and secular standpoints. Im gonna see it pretty soon.

I would say that Christians, if they believe in Jesus' death on the cross, SHOULD go see it. How innacurate can a movie be that follows the gospels and 14 stations of the cross - only as accurate as they are themeselves. I doubt its anti-semitic, and most likely people are just saying that so they can carry on the usual crap about racism sexism etc... And i think its good that the movie portrays the violence accurately. It is was REALLY happened, and as a Christian, you can choose to believe it or not. And all the violence isn't half of it! Christ endured all of the physical pain, and the worse spritual pain which can't be portrayed effectively in any visual media such as a movie, even this one.

If Jews are getting such a bad rap from this film, imagine how anti-Roman is must be. Those evil centurions!

[JadeGriffon]

Wow, today I turned on the news and saw that some lady had a heart attack while watching The Passion and died. It was while Jesus was being crucified. Of course they are saying maybe the movie caused it. I doubt it.

[Wilshire]

Yeah, i heard that too. Of course the first thing you hear is about the violent nature of the movie. Who is to say she had a heart attack because of the movie? I don't think the lady was all that old either.

I wonder how many people die in movie theaters? They probably just jumped on this theater death because the movie's violence and subject are so "sensitive".