1

It is not great art. But it is art, among the finest that the Counter Reformation has offered. It is a superbly crafted piece of Counter-Reformation propaganda.

2

Thanks for being honest, Joe. (I agree, but most people look at you like you are committing blasphemy to say that it isn't the Gospels or great art).

3

I also had the same experience. I was really moved for a couple of days, but it began to fade.

As I look back I see that at first I selectively ignored things that worked against the film. After a while they began to stand out like sore thumbs in my mind: The crow plucking the thiefs eye, or the demon-children chasing Judas for example. They were like something from a cheesy horror flick. I thought Satan was pretty effective, but then that stupid baby destroys it. And him screaming in that desert--there have go to be more effective ways to show his defeat.

All the corny things are what I remember most now that weeks have passed.

4

"While watching “The Passion” I felt a sense of detachment even as I was being emotionally pummeled by the images on the screen. "

And yet you consider The Mel to be a talented director? I mean, I felt those emotions when I watched the Fugitive's wife get killed by the One Armed Man. Mel makes a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus which brings forth the same emotions and somehow that's an indication of Mel's "talent" as a director?

Mel's movie made a lot of money only because he exploited and fueled the controversy of its alleged anti-semitism and its bizarre goriness, then timed it to be released near the appropriate Christian holidays.

As a film, it doesn't even come close to Passolini's, Ray's, Zefferelli's, or Scorcese's renditions of any aspect of Christ's life. These four directors (with the possible exception of Zeff) have more talent in their pinkie fingers than The Mel has in his entire body.

Please take the time to watch movies by artists such as Dreyer or Bresson (available now on DVD). These movies have much more to offer Christians (and non-Christians and agnostics and atheists) than the sensationalist tripe that The Mel just foisted on us.

5

I had a slightly different reaction. The last scene, Jesus at the tomb, the nail prints in his hand, off to see his followers.

A classic image to beg the viewer to see the nail prints in his hands.

6

Joe:

I have a much more critical take on the film overall than you do, but, strangely, I wonder if you're not being too harsh in asking whether it's "great."

As a voracious movie-goer and a real lover of the medium, I'm still not sure I can say what a "great" film is, or how many films I would rate as "great" (not in the sense of "really good," or "very enjoyable," but in the sense that I would call Beethoven's 9th Symphony or "The Merchant of Venice" "great art"). By some standard of transcendant artistry, I think most films - including "great" ones like "Casablanca," "Metropolis," "The Blue Angel," or what have you - come up lacking. There's something about the medium - too ephemeral (the image lasts only a moment) - too mundane (the figures are too ordinary) - that makes it often very good, but rarely "great."

What films do have is impact. I don't regard "Gone With the Wind," "King Kong," "The Caine Mutiny," or "An American in Paris" as "great" in the larger sense, though all were very good movies. But they left us with indelible images - the burning of Atlanta, the ape on the Empire State Building, Humphrey Bogart gibbering and fingering his balls, Gene Kelly's Impressionism ballet - that both remain in the mind and iconize the moments they represent. Movies create memories, even when they aren't "great" - and that, I think, is what I expect movies to do.

By that standard, Gibson's film certainly ranks. It's got impact in bucketloads. In fact, its weaknesses - the unsubtle anti-Semitism, the kitschy Catholic freak-o-rama excesses, the parodistic characters - are its strengths. With its visual impact and cartoon storytelling, it's a kind of steampunk Star Wars - not great art, but rousing and unforgettable. I think I will carry more "iconic moments" from this film than from any other single movie I have seen recently. The Kabuki-Darth-Maul Satan, the drooling Barabas, the snuffling goonish Romans, the massive "clunk" when the cross hits the ground with Jesus suspended under it, the Monty Python spew of blood when he is stabbed with the spear, Mary literally bathing in blood . . . it's weird, but it won't go away easily.

I am not interested in the film as a statement of Christianity (other than to the extent that it reveals a very ugly streak in Gibson's personal version of it), and I don't expect it to change the world in any way (because I don't expect that of any film). But on visual terms alone (plot and character are weak) it stands with the most influential films we know. It will be remembered for that long after the furor over its subject matter has died out.

7

A couple of comments...

First, I do not consider movies to be art, with the possible exception of a vanishingly small number of movies like Citizen Kane. Yes, cinematography can be fine, scripts can be good, but Shakespeare or Williams they ain't. And actors claiming themselves to be "artists" is, to me, vulgar self-aggrandizement. So, no, the "Passion" isn't great (or otherwise) art.

Second, my experience with the movie was similar to some of those offered here and elsewhere. My first viewing of the movie was basically behind defenses against the violence on the screen. However, a Catholic friend of mine was in town for some turkey hunting. He had not seen the movie, and I agreed to go with him. The second viewing, in my opinion, was much better than the first. I noted many things I had not seen the first time (and I liked the movie very much the first time), and I like it even more now.

8

"Mel's movie made a lot of money only because he exploited and fueled the controversy of its alleged anti-semitism and its bizarre goriness, then timed it to be released near the appropriate Christian holidays."

I observed nothing but repeated denials of anti-semitism from Mel, and he patiently explained why the gospels and his movie are not anti-semitic. Does this constitute exploitation of controversy? No. As The Passion is now among the best-selling movies of all time, do you really think it would have done poorly if released in July? Please.

9

I agree, a year of criticisms, commentaries and critical reviews, plus now 2 mos. of intense e mail dialogs, debates and discussions have had a much greater impact for me than the Mel G film itself, which i only saw now on Good Friday, an open air showing, plus I have cataracts.
I missed many details, did not find it bloody (but lots of tomato paste or dyed cocoa), because I have seen a much bloodier "missionary film" of West African babies being tattooed live, the real blood running and the babies screaming (at which I fainted away and got VERY sick. No strong impressions, no strong feelings about THE PASSION.
Obviously THE PASSION is art, if art is a human attempt to portray goodness, truth and beauty. I leave it at that. lester

10

mel gibson brings the emotion of martydom in any film he does. see any of his martyr films of the past and you can see where he was going with this one. he said God brought him out of alcohol addiction to do this film. whatever. instachristians unite.

11

Kevin,

Forgive me, but I just saw the film last weekend.

I agree with most of what you said, but I am mystified by your view that the film was antisemitic. Maybe I am atypical, but it struck me that the Romans were worse than the Jews. The Jews were hard men, but they honestly thought that Jesus was leading a rebellion and needed to die. Pilot thought Jesus was innocent, but he still scourged and crucified him because it was convenient. Pilot was the district's judge and he found Jesus innocent and pronounced a sentence of death. Have we gotten so PoMo that we cannot even see how terrible a thing that is? Pilot was a weak little man who did what was in this best interest while the High Priest thought he was protecting his people. The Romans not the Jews were portrayed as enjoying tormenting Jesus.

I don't get it.

Jery

12

Andy wrote:

"I observed nothing but repeated denials of anti-semitism from Mel, and he patiently explained why the gospels and his movie are not anti-semitic. Does this constitute exploitation of controversy?"

Um, heck yeah. He "patiently explained" himself for about six months, in magazines, in newspapers, and on TV. I said that he "exploited the controversy." And he did.

"As The Passion is now among the best-selling movies of all time, do you really think it would have done poorly if released in July?"

I never said it would have done poorly. But if Mel hadn't exploited the controversy surrounding the movie and released it in July it surely would not have made as much money as it did.

Please -- people are being bussed by their churches to go see The Mel's film. Were people bussed to see the Cannes winner "Rosetta" several years ago, a movie which (again) has so much more to say about Christianity than Mel's "Gore Christ 2000"? No.

Mel's *movie* will be remembered only for being the bloodiest movie about Jesus ever. Big whip. The fact that busloads of Americans went gaga over it is also fascinating, but says less about the merits of the movie and more about the hypocracy of Christians when it comes to violence on screen.

13

It's all relative. Is it a better film than many of the others that beat it in box office gross? - Spider-Man, Titanic, Jurassic Park, CERTAINLY The Phantom Menace - yes. But it does not compare to Michelangelo's Pieta.

14

Janet Jackson's breast. Paris Hilton's video. These are examples of controversy by design for the sake of personal gain. MG did nothing more than make a low-budget movie about something that was important to him. The 'controversy' was manufactured by the press in an attempt to destroy Gibson's public image. I suppose you expect him to be silent as he and his family are branded hate-mongers and racists. I'm glad he's making extra money because of it. He deserves every penny.

MM, you indeed did claim that it would have done poorly, but I'm glad to see you're backing up on that. Maybe you'll eventually admit that millions of people want to see a movie that takes the gospels seriously, rather than a Scorcese fantasy or the like. Who are you to tell Christians what they should consider good art?

As I see it, The Passion is not artistically adventurous or notable. The overwhelming reaction is due primarily to the story itself, a story which has always evoked strong reactions. MG does nothing more than transfer the age-old story into the medium of the day. Kudos to him.

15

That last post was me.

16

JBP:

Your remarks are focused on the question of "guilt" for the crucifixion - whether it was Pilate or the Pharisees who caused it. This goes to the question whether blaming the Jews for Jesus's death is correct or not, which wasn't my point. (And, note that your defense of the Jews on this question is weak. You say that they wanted him dead - for reasons they considered sufficient - and Pilate complied - because he was too weak not to - so the blame goes to Pilate and not the Jews. That doesn't work. If there's blame to be attached, it has to attach to those who instigated the killing and threatened the authorities to make it happen, at least as much as to the authority who resisted unsucessfully. Pilate can't be guilty of doing something wrong that others pressured him into doing if the others aren't guilty of pressuring him into doing something wrong. You need another approach. The standard Christian anti-anti-Semitic defense - that we are all guilty - is stronger, though it makes no sense. [I'm not guilty of killing Jesus, at any rate. You'll have to get your own alibi.] Another defense is simply to point out that what one group of Jews did 2,000 years ago attaches no guilt to any other Jews today.)

What I was saying in my post, though, is not that the story of the events is anti-Semitic (still less that the anti-Semitic interpretation of it is correct). The movie is anti-Semitic - in its action, staging, dialogue, and other aspects. I don't want to go through the whole thing here - it's been hashed out many, many times in many places - but a few examples will illustrate:

- The Jews who accost Jesus in Gethsemane engage in bizarrely vicious persecution from the very first moment - scenes that appear nowhere in the Bible, and are apparently taken from Gibson's controversial mystic text, which itself is regarded as harshly anti-Semitic.

- The Satan character mingles with the Jewish crowd in several scenes, but is never shown in direct proximity to Romans.

- The Jewish children chasing Judas (another scene nowhere in the Bible) turn into deformed figures like the demonic child the Satan character carries.

- The Jewish leaders are shown as scheming, malicious, and decadent- they physically throw the defenders of Jesus out of the hearing against him (also not in the Bible) - they beat him viciously (an exaggeration of the scene in the Bible) - they wear gaudy gold and silks and strange makeup.

- With the exception of a few individuals who have been elevated by Catholics as informal saints (Simon, Veronica), and the disciples - who at that point were Jewish apostates anyway - all the Jews in the movie are bloodthirsty, violent, and malevolent.

Add to that Gibson's sly manipulations - refusing to let Jewish critics see the film, then demanding that reviewers promise not to write negative reviews, then hand-picking a small number of conservative Jews to write positive things about it, plus his deceptive treatment of the infamous line "His blood be upon us" (in flat contradiction of the Bible he puts it in the mouth of the chief priest, not the crowd of commoners; then, when Jewish critics objected, he agreed to take it out of the movie but in fact simply removed the subtitle translation - the line appears in Aramaic and you can clearly see the priest delivering it) - and you get a deliberate, determined effort to bend the story in a particular way at particular points. Gibson puts things in that do not appear in the Bible, rewrites things that do appear in the Bible, and slants everything from costuming to makeup to vocal inflection to make the Jewish characters appear almost inhumanly brutal, vicious, and depraved, and in some places literally Satanic. Given the extreme attention to detail throughout the movie, there has to be a reason for this slant, and there's only one name for it.

17

The movie moved me a great deal at the time, maybe a little less later, but it was defeinetly moving, better than most popular movies, and didn't receive the drubbing it received from secular critics.. "sado-masochistic, etc."

Check out this link for a comparison of reviews of "Passion" vs. "Kill Bill."

Here's a sample -

"Relentlessly savage, "The Passion" plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade." -- David Ansen, Newsweek

"Let’s talk about the violence. Now, I had no problem with the violence—it’s all so stylized. But there’s a lot of blood in the movie. There’s a whole motif of spraying, spurting blood."

"People get their arms hacked off and their heads hacked off. It’s borderline comedy—I mean, it’s a form of slapstick at times."

David Ansen., Talking to Quentin Tarrantino about his movie, 'Kill Bill, Vol. 1'

flashbunny.org

18

Marge - If I say, "You are an anti-Christian bigot and your posts are hate speech designed to foster anti-Christian feeling," does your denial/defense/explanation of yourself constitute "exploitation of the controversy?"

Your argument re: some Christians' opposition to violence in movies is a straw man. Was there widespread conservative Christian opposition to "Private Ryan?"

For those of you who are interested in the reality of Gibson's pre-release interactions with Jewish critics, read Michael Medved or Rabbi Lapin. (I know, Kevin, they're "conservative Jews.")

19

You say that they wanted him dead - for reasons they considered sufficient - and Pilate complied - because he was too weak not to - so the blame goes to Pilate and not the Jews.

No not really. The point of my post was not to exonerate the Jews, but that my initial reaction was that the Romans "were worse than the Jews." Both were darned bad, but the Romans come off worse. The Jews are clearly misguided and willing to say and do whatever is necessary to kill Jesus. The High priest used illegitimate means to what they thought was a justifiable end. Pilot realized what they were doing and realized that Jesus was innocent and still tortured and killed Jesus, but the Jews, at least, thought they were doing the right thing in killing Jesus. And, the Jews don't grin when Jesus is scourged. The movie portrays them as thinking Jesus is a false and blasphemous messiah.

You have misunderstood the standard anti-antisemitic rational. It is not that all people are culpable but that the reason Jesus needed to die is for all our sins. Jesus went meekly to his fate, even though he could have avoided it, because we need a messiah. Therefore, if we were not sinful and in need of a messiah, Jesus' death would not have been necessary. Think of a father who sacrifices himself to save his child. The child may have disobeyed and went out into the road, but the child is clearly not culpable in the father's death. Nonetheless, the child will feel guilt because his sin led to his father's death.

The Jews who accost Jesus in Gethsemane engage in bizarrely vicious persecution from the very first moment...

That is pretty much how all Jesus' persecutors acted including the Romans. In addition, you fail to mention that they were lenient with Peter. He did attack them.

The Satan character mingles with the Jewish crowd in several scenes, but is never shown in direct proximity to Romans.

I must confess that I think this is kind of silly. But, what about when Satan watches the scourging? A few Romans were there. In fact, if I recall correctly, we see him watching over a Roman's shoulder.

The Jewish children chasing Judas (another scene nowhere in the Bible) turn into deformed figures like the demonic child the Satan character carries.

Possibly, I confess that I thought this scene a little weird and unnecessary. On the other hand, what type of children do you expect to chase Judas? The events, after all takes place in Judah. It would have been rather anachronistic to show Viking children chasing him.

The Jewish leaders are shown as scheming, malicious, and decadent- they physically throw the defenders of Jesus out of the hearing against him (also not in the Bible) - they beat him viciously (an exaggeration of the scene in the Bible) - they wear gaudy gold and silks and strange makeup.

Well, what would you expect from people who crucify an innocent man? They are not going to be enlightened, reasonable, and kind people.

With the exception of a few individuals who have been elevated by Catholics as informal saints (Simon, Veronica), and the disciples - who at that point were Jewish apostates anyway - all the Jews in the movie are bloodthirsty, violent, and malevolent.

First, I simply do not think this is accurate. What about all the women who were crying during the march to Calvary? What about the Jews who try to defend Jesus in the trial? Frankly, if Gibson is antisemitic, why show any Jews in a good light? Sure, most of the Jews look bad, but that is because this movie is not supposed to be a documentary about the virtue or vices of the Jews, but a story about how people railroaded an innocent man in Judah. Therefore, one expects the story to focus on the suffering of the man and his tormentors, not all the people who were on Jesus' side. War movies focus on the fighting, not the quite countryside where peace reigns. To expect Gibson to have parades a good Jew in front of the camera for each bad Jew is silly and would have spoiled the film.

Saying the Jews killed Jesus is like saying the Americans killed Lincoln. The high priest is a Jew, but so is Jesus; the crowd are Jews, but so are the disciples; etc. The events happened in Judah, except for a few foreigners, the actors, both good and bad, are going to be Jewish. If the Messiah had been Greek, the bloodthirsty crowd would have been Greek.

20

Joe,

You are correct that The Passion was effective for existing Christians. Yet how easy is it to detach ourselves from that connection we have with the movie in the hopes of critiquing its artistic quality? The image of the Ex Nihilo sculpture is certainly profound but I hardly feel a connection with it in the same sense as I do with the images of Christ's suffering (in the movie).

Were there images from the movie that had an impact on me? Yes, here are but a few:
Pilate's wife bringing the clean linen to Mary (regardless of historical accuracy).
Christ on the cross as the cross was flipped over.
Peter's face upon the realization of his denial.
The scene, from Christ's viewpoint, as he fell in a circular motion while carrying the cross.
Mary holding Jesus at the foot of the cross.
Pilate presenting the scourged Jesus to the crowd.
The Centurion's face as he realized who Christ was.
The thirty pieces of silver being flung to Judas.
Jesus' discourse with his disciples at the Last Supper.
Christ crying out "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani."
Christ telling Pilate that no one takes his life, but that he gives it.

21

[F]rom the first moment I saw Frederick Hart’s sculpture Ex Nihilo, the form was burned into my mind’s eye.

I didn't even catch this reference until I followed the link. My reaction was the same as Joe's, though perhaps not for the same reason!

The first moment I saw the sculpture was in the "temptation" scene in Devil's Advocate, where Keanu Reeves is tempted by the Devil (Al Pacino) with the spectacular naked body of the woman Pacino wants Reeves to impregnate so as to give birth to the Antichrist. While the woman writhes naked on a table in front of the idiotically immobile Reeves, the carving - on the wall of Pacino's breathtaking New York penthouse - comes to life and the figures in it swirl orgiastically. All in all, quite a scene, though I think I would have handled things a bit better than Reeves.

The sculptor sued the producers of the film for using his artwork in a blasphemous manner, but lost.

For my part, I lived for years only blocks from the National Cathedral, but never went inside, missing my chance to see both that carving and their renowned flower garden, and to take the popular "gargoyle tour" of the cathedral roof. I never heard of the carving until years later. Now I regret not having visited.

22

My mistake.

The movie had already been released before Frederick Hart sued for copyright infringement. He won the suit, and the studio was forced to alter scenes in the video release (though some videotapes had already been released in the original form).

23

Apparently, the only ones who should be allowed to make movies about Jesus are non-Christians.

What rules did Gibson break, either one of which would have doomed the film, had the naysayers in Hollywood any clue what they were talking about:
1. NEVER begin shooting until you have a distributor;
2. NEVER release a foreign-language film in the US to wide audiences;
3. NEVER market Rated-R movies to Christian audiences--most of us won't even see PG-13 films;
4. NEVER use no-name actors--God almighty, you're Mel Gibson, can't you play SOME character in the film?;
5. NEVER use your own money for marketing advances.

Terrible. No wonder Mel's lost so much money on the movie.