Movie Review: Passion of the Christ
Alright, I’m a little, ahem, behind the curve with this one, but I finally sat down and watched Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. I gotta tell you, whatever it was I was expecting, this isn’t it.
First, let’s hit the biggie. I wasn’t expecting the much-criticized antisemitism to… not show up. Yeah, there are a bunch of uncaring, ugly, manipulative pharisees being all mean and bloodthirsty, but have you read the gospels recently? I hate to say it, but the depiction seems pretty spot-on to me.
I also wasn’t expecting the first half to come straight out of J-Horror, either. Judas was menaced by little possessed demon children, and one of the apostles gets spooked by some sort of evil spirit manifesting out of the darkness itself. Which apostle? Beats the hell out of me. The characterization in this film is so insubstantial I’m left with the impression that if someone isn’t repeatedly referred to by name or blatantly a somebody, it just doesn’t matter. Satan made more than one appearance, androgynous and serpentine, and bearing more than a passing resemblance to that other mythical baddie of late, Lord Voldemort. Totally wasn’t expecting that. Satan just sort of… floats through here and there, making sure everything is going to plan. But it wasn’t Satan’s plan, was it? The theology breaks down a little there.
Also? Satan was totally hot. It’s hard to tell if that was intentional or not — my tastes are a bit weird.
I wasn’t expecting the movie to be as technically excellent as it was, considering that I don’t know squat about film. Or film reviews, can you tell? Using Aramaic and Latin, and keeping everything as ugly and dirty as it probably was at the turn of the millennium was, frankly, an inspired move on Gibson’s part. I love big God movies as a rule, and The Passion manages to tell the story while at the same time stripping away all of those American, Hollywood vanities that plague the genre.
Overall, though, The Passion of the Christ comes off with the same fatalistic, cynical misanthropy we get with the torture porn slasher flicks that have rampaged across the scene lately. There is so little meaning given to explain why this pretty guy with the startling unblue eyes is going through all this. In fact, if you don’t know the whole Jesus story, you’re not going to get most of what’s going on.
Which reminds me. Jesus knows he’s going to die, we learn this when he prays in the garden at Gethsemane. And we’re foreshadowed pretty hard at the last supper, too, and let in on the why’s of it all. So, right before Jesus snuffs it, why does he cry “Father, why have you forsaken me?” and then follows it up with “It is accomplished.”? Someone with more learning than me, can you explain Jesus’s last words on the cross to me? Because I never really thought about it before, and now it’s not making much sense.
Oh, and? This must be said. I could totally follow the bloodshed and violence and beating and Jesus bleeding all over Jerusalem, but you lost me when he was being nailed to the cross, Mel. Out of everything he went through that day, getting the sharpened spikes pounded through his palms was not the most painful thing he had to endure, particularly if you’re going to tell us that the 40 lashes he endured flayed the flesh under his left arm down to the bone. Also? That particular wound wouldn’t have bled that much. The spike through his feet is a whole other story.
Since I’m on the subject of Jesus’s wicked woundage, at the very end of the film we see Jesus being released from his tomb, healed, clean, naked and as pretty as ever. When he was interred, he was missing flesh from all over his body, all of which was miraculously healed when he became miraculously not dead anymore. So why did the holes in his hands and feet persist? In his attempt to shock us into religious ecstasy, or whatever the hell Gibson was trying to do, he made the story just a little less plausible. Thanks, dude.
All in all, if you still haven’t seen it yet, check it out if you like blood, gore or religion. Better yet, you’ll get the exact same effect if you saddle up for a double feature of The Last Temptation of Christ and the weird-ass avant guard cult flick Begotten.
About Jesus’ last words, when He says “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” He is quoting the first line of Psalm 22. That Psalm is a prophesy about the agony of the Messiah’s death. When He says, “It is finished,” He is referring to man’s struggle to approach God. Because God is a Holy and Just God He cannot look upon sin. Before Jesus the Jews had to make animal sacrifices to make an atonement for their sins. But when Jesus died sacrificially on the cross He took on all of the sin that mankind ever had and ever will commit, and thus the need for an animal sacrifice was finished. In the original language “finished” meant the same thing as “Paid in full.” The debt that mankind owed because of its sin was paid in full by Jesus’ death. And about the holes still being in Jesus’ hands and feet when he rose from the dead, the Bible says that Jesus did still have these wounds. (Read John 20:24-29)
I don’t recall Christ saying “It’s accomplished” in the Bible, but the other phrase had something to do with that he had took all human sins upon himself and was therefore forsaken by God, who doesn’t like sin much. Ain’t it so?
Hey Dan, thanks for commenting. Since my database seems to have been caught in the california fires, I wanted to fire you off an email now, but I do plan on responding back on the blog and I hope you’ll come back and continue the conversation online, too.
As to Psalm 22, that’s fine if Jesus was quoting (he was always doing that), but it still doesn’t make any sense to me. Unless I’m reading it wrong, that sentiment runs completely counter to everything we’ve seen and read unless it indicated a tiny moment of Jesus’ faith wavering. If that’s the case, I’m cool with it, but everyone tells me that’s not what it means. I totally get the whole satisfaction of the covenant, torn-veil-to-the-inner-sanctum thing. It just puts “why have you forsaken me” in even starker relief. “it is finished”… that’s the whole *point*. So why in the previous breath is he… whining? Is that a little more clear? It’s like Jesus broke character for a very short moment.
As for the holes in Jesus’s hands and feet, that was a criticism against Mel Gibson and his relentlessly violent vision, not the Gospels (for once). From my atheistic point of view, messiahs and saviors were popping up and being killed and resurrecting like it was going out of style at that point in history in that neighborhood, and at bare minimum, Jesus needed a good calling card (and more than one non-canonical source says that he looked different — 3 days dead will do that to you, I suppose). That Jesus had nail holes, fine, but that Jesus was *that* messed up and everything got fixed but his hands and feet and side? Crappy storytelling, and the film loses credibility.
Kibrika, check out John 19:30. It’s also worth noting, I just discovered that the “forsaken” line is just in Matthew and Mark, and the “finished” line is just in John. Luke, as usual, is off in left field. This would be significant if I was doing a deep textual analysis, but I’m not.
Aaaand… I don’t think so. Jesus wasn’t a bearer of sin as much as a satisfaction of sin, if you take the view that Jesus was the last blood sacrifice under the old Jewish Convenant. This point of view, btw, puts “father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” in a whole brand new light.
God didn’t “foresake” sacrifices made in good order with good intent, though according to the old testament prophets, he didn’t appreciate when rich people used the sacrifices as a “get off of God’s Shit List Free” sort of thing.
So… no. I don’t buy it.
The Bible teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully human at the same time. He was God in the flesh. When he died on the cross and descended into Sheol for three days, he was separated from the Father. Jesus is showing His human side when he says “Why have you forsaken me.” Being fully human, He had human emotions. In other parts of the Gospel Jesus cries, gets angry, gets hungry, is tempted to sin – all human emotions. The whole process of being separated with God, of being utterly alone was so terribly agonizing that Jesus simply cried out in emotion. This isn’t the first time that he makes a comment like this either. In the garden of Gethsemane He prays, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.” He was in such agony that his “sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.” The task that he had to take on, bearing all of humanity’s sin, was terribly difficult. So I don’t believe that Jesus was breaking character, He was just showing a bit of His human side. As to how messed up Jesus looked after His resurrection, I’m not entirely sure. The scriptures don’t really describe His appearance. But Jesus appeared to Mary in the garden of the tomb the day He was resurrected, and she mistook Him for the gardener. If he had still been horribly mangled from His torture, I doubt she would have thought Him to be a normal gardener.
Thanks, Dan, that’s a huge help.
One more question? I’ve never seen evidence in the gospels that any part of this process required that Jesus be separate from God, but I’ve heard that in many secondary sources. Do you happen to have any chapter and verse lying around that will clear it up for me?
Aside from the fact that this film was
a) a very well planned and most beautifully executed manipulation of the fans of jesus to get their $$$ away from them and into Mel’s hands,
b) a snuff film – the most heinous type of pornography, and
c) a traumatic experience that jesus fans PUT THEIR LITTLE KIDS THROUGH by making them watch it – a six year old neighbor boy should not have been taken to this film – and I reported his parent for child abuse
who the fuck would go to see this film? and WHY?
Well this is a big theological issue that has many different ways to interpret. Your question was something that I hadn’t really thought about before, so I asked a few people and did some research. What I found is this. First of all, regardless of whether or not Jesus was separated from God he succeeded in His mission to bear the sin of the world. I found that what I said about Jesus being totally forsaken by God for three days in Sheol might not be true, my apologies for stating that without scriptural evidence. Here’s what I came up with for a possible answer as to Jesus being forsaken. First of all the 22nd Psalm is a prophesy, so that is some scriptural evidence of Jesus being forsaken. According to Genesis and Romans the penalty for sin is death. Now obviously we all die in this current world, and that is the first death. Revelation speaks of a second death as well, hell, for all of those who don’t accept God’s gift of salvation through Jesus. It is reasonable to assume that if Jesus is to fully pay for sin he must experience both of these deaths. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 describes hell as “eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power.” That would certainly qualify for being forsaken by God. The only problem with this is that it is “eternal” destruction, and Jesus rose from the dead three days later. Possibly because of Jesus’ infinite divine nature paying an “eternal” penalty is different than it would be for a normal human, or perhaps this little argument I’ve just presented isn’t the right interpretation of the scripture. Personally I’m not going to take a strong stand either way on this issue, because scripture is unclear, and like I said before, Jesus accomplished His mission regardless of how this whole “forsaking” business went on. The Bible teaches that God’s ways are beyond human understanding, and that’s where faith comes in. From my perspective one has to accept that there isn’t always a clear answer to every mystery out there, and you have to accept that. Don’t get me wrong, I think that logic and reason are extremely important; as a matter of fact I believe that their existence point to God, but that’s off topic. There are some other interpretations of this forsaking issue as well, but I don’t want to make this too ridiculously long.
Dan: I’ve heard of Jesus spending his 3 days in Sheol, but only from Satanists and other Lucifarians.
“According to Genesis and Romans the penalty for sin is death.” Hmmm… so therefore, the old covenant was satisfied at Jesus’s death, not his birth? Makes sense, just never occurred to me before.
“The only problem with this is that it is “eternal” destruction, and Jesus rose from the dead three days later.” That could possibly be explained as part of the miracle of the resurrection, and makes sense if the Christian concept of Hell is consistent with the Jewish concept of Sheol(literally, the grave, or dwelling place of the dead).
Assuming everything else is correct in our assumptions, and accepting that the second death occurs at the End Times (and assuming they haven’t happened yet, I’m looking at you 7th Day Adventists and Jehova’s Witnesses), then we can reasonably conclude that the only person to have ever gone to hell so far is Jesus. Interesting.
“Possibly because of Jesus’ infinite divine nature paying an “eternal” penalty is different than it would be for a normal human” I’ll buy that, based on my interpretation of Genesis 1 and my conclusion that human time and God time are not equivalent.
“The Bible teaches that God’s ways are beyond human understanding, and that’s where faith comes in.” Agreed, and it annoys the snot out of me when people conveniently forget that when they’re trying to swing the Big Giant Hammer of Holy Vorpal Smiting at science. I’m working on a post about that very topic as we speak, the whole earth-orbiting-the-sun-heresy thing and how that seems to have not stopped.
richbh: Have you seen it?
1. It’s an excellent response to the rampant ethnocentrism that has plagued the Big God Film genre in particular, and Christianity in general.
2. It’s totally kinky. Mel is spot on in when he depicts his sadistic Romans laughing. Real sadists laugh. Also, trustworthy sadists warm up their victim first, which they did.
3. It’s fun to subvert the dominant paradigm and slip it into a movie marathon between Saw and Hostel.
4. It’s good art. Challenging, interpretive, and technically excellent.
5. For the same reason I watch the Superbowl every year: so you know what the hell everyone else is talking about.
Just keep in mind that that is only one theory on how this could all work. The story of the rich man and Lazarus depicts the rich man in a very Hell-like environment. And also, Hell and Sheol/Hades are different places, because Revelation 20:14 says, “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.” Like I said, simply keep in mind firm decisions cannot be made from subjects such as this, where scripture isn’t entirely clear.
Mer – No, I have not seen it and will not see it.
1. I find it disturbing that you equate this pornography as a response to ethonocentrism. The Holocaust was also a response to ethnocentrism, wasn’t it?
2. I’m not into kink.
3. I like the idea of subverting the dominant paradigm – that’s good. Subversion is wholly underestimated and appreciated. (Although I found “30 Days of Night” a waste of $10. Lots of blood, no scare.)
4. Art has many definitions, but a snuff film is excluded from any definition I will accept. I’m glad Mel kept the production values high – but this film, like the madonna in urine – was unnecessary in the pantheon of “art”.
5. I have never felt constrained to be a single sheep in the herd of “everyone else”.
But – I’m glad you enjoyed the film.
Rich:
Dude, if you wanna bash xtians, you are more than welcome, but there is one requirement: do it in an informed manner.
You’ve also violated Godwin’s Law. Please shush now.
Good enough, Dan. Thanks!
I saw a text “If it disturbs you, it’s art”. I’m still thinking about it though. I figure it was not ment in the literal sense, but it could apply to this movie (which I’m not going to see because the only “God movie” I’ve seen so far is “The Life Of Brian”).
Here’s another text for you to think about: Art is most itself under dispute.