The four gospels do not go into much detail about Jesus' beating and crucifixion. Mel Gibson expands greatly on John 19:1 (`Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged'). If Pilate really had believed in his innocence, his failure to release Jesus is one of history's greatest failures. The film supposes that he had him whipped in order to calm the crowd, thinking that if the beating were severe enough the crowd might not ask for his execution. Instead, Jesus' flogging (by far the most brutal scene of the film) is added to his crucifixion at a time when a prisoner would suffer either one or the other but not both.
Pilate is made to be too humane in his portrayal here. Jesus was handed over to the mob as a form of crowd control. Roman laws forbade the people from executing their own. The Roman officers crucified Jesus under Pilate's orders, so Pilate's `hands clean' claims have always been empty. Crucifixion is a way of punishing insurgents and publicly proclaiming Roman authority over its conquered people. Why did the mob want Jesus crucified? Could it be because he wasn't an insurgent (and Barabbas was) and did not appear to be the king he claimed to be? If he were the king of the Jews, if he were their savior, they wondered, why wasn't he leading his people to freedom? Scripture even seems to show Pilate firing up the crowd to make himself appear less culpable in Jesus' death. `Shall I crucify your king?' he asks them, also from John 19 (but not in the film). Jesus would later pray to God the Father, as he was being crucified, `forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.' (Luke 23:34)
Gibson takes many liberties with the gospels, though, expanding the proceedings to fulfill his cinematic vision. Not enough has been said about Gibson's weird idea of Satan, who reminded me too much of the Grim Reaper from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey (a character based, of course, on Death in Bergman's `The Seventh Seal.') nor the demonic children (whose facial transformations is stolen straight from `Devil's Advocate') who torment Judas into hanging himself. If any one thing ruined `The Passion' for me, it has to be these sorts of film school flourishes interwoven into historical events. If the Beelzebub character had been given any thought or imagination I could at least have given Gibson credit for trying. It's as if Gibson had two Passion films in mind, one surreal and one real, and never divorced the two in his mind as he wrote the script and shot it.
I'm surprised at how Christian believers have embraced this film. Yes, it does basically endorse the purpose and message of Jesus Christ and (briefly) features his resurrection in the end. To have said, yes we endorse the film. Christians, it's okay to see it because it basically reflects our beliefs' would have been enough. But they wrapped their arms and words around it until it became more than just a film. It had to be an event.
In that way, the now-phenomenon of `Passion of the Christ' has become political. Evangelists who previewed rough cuts of the film earlier in the year adopted the film for Christians everywhere, making sure they did not squander the rare opportunity to bring Jesus' message (in the form of a `gift' from a big-name Hollywood star) to the offices, kitchens and living rooms of Christians and non-Christians alike. They made sure that the voice heard loudest about the film was theirs.
But here's the thing: it is just a film (and not a very good one). It's one man's vision, which has every right to be expressed. The film's brutality is the rare unique aspect of this latest passion play (as well as the aforementioned pasted-in depiction of Satan and his demons). Otherwise it has nothing new to say about Christ's ministry and message. Unfortunately many Christians have embraced it as an evangelism tool. As a Christian, my hope is that non-believers will want to know more about who Christ was and is, whether they enjoyed the film or not. I cannot recommend anyone see `the Passion,' but do highly recommend its source material.
Rating: 5 of 10
Postscript: An Entertainment Weekly reviewer wrote that he thought that Pilate's wife was an invented character. But she's there in the gospels. Matthew 27:19 reads, `While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.'
Pilate is made to be too humane in his portrayal here. Jesus was handed over to the mob as a form of crowd control. Roman laws forbade the people from executing their own. The Roman officers crucified Jesus under Pilate's orders, so Pilate's `hands clean' claims have always been empty. Crucifixion is a way of punishing insurgents and publicly proclaiming Roman authority over its conquered people. Why did the mob want Jesus crucified? Could it be because he wasn't an insurgent (and Barabbas was) and did not appear to be the king he claimed to be? If he were the king of the Jews, if he were their savior, they wondered, why wasn't he leading his people to freedom? Scripture even seems to show Pilate firing up the crowd to make himself appear less culpable in Jesus' death. `Shall I crucify your king?' he asks them, also from John 19 (but not in the film). Jesus would later pray to God the Father, as he was being crucified, `forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.' (Luke 23:34)
Gibson takes many liberties with the gospels, though, expanding the proceedings to fulfill his cinematic vision. Not enough has been said about Gibson's weird idea of Satan, who reminded me too much of the Grim Reaper from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey (a character based, of course, on Death in Bergman's `The Seventh Seal.') nor the demonic children (whose facial transformations is stolen straight from `Devil's Advocate') who torment Judas into hanging himself. If any one thing ruined `The Passion' for me, it has to be these sorts of film school flourishes interwoven into historical events. If the Beelzebub character had been given any thought or imagination I could at least have given Gibson credit for trying. It's as if Gibson had two Passion films in mind, one surreal and one real, and never divorced the two in his mind as he wrote the script and shot it.
I'm surprised at how Christian believers have embraced this film. Yes, it does basically endorse the purpose and message of Jesus Christ and (briefly) features his resurrection in the end. To have said, yes we endorse the film. Christians, it's okay to see it because it basically reflects our beliefs' would have been enough. But they wrapped their arms and words around it until it became more than just a film. It had to be an event.
In that way, the now-phenomenon of `Passion of the Christ' has become political. Evangelists who previewed rough cuts of the film earlier in the year adopted the film for Christians everywhere, making sure they did not squander the rare opportunity to bring Jesus' message (in the form of a `gift' from a big-name Hollywood star) to the offices, kitchens and living rooms of Christians and non-Christians alike. They made sure that the voice heard loudest about the film was theirs.
But here's the thing: it is just a film (and not a very good one). It's one man's vision, which has every right to be expressed. The film's brutality is the rare unique aspect of this latest passion play (as well as the aforementioned pasted-in depiction of Satan and his demons). Otherwise it has nothing new to say about Christ's ministry and message. Unfortunately many Christians have embraced it as an evangelism tool. As a Christian, my hope is that non-believers will want to know more about who Christ was and is, whether they enjoyed the film or not. I cannot recommend anyone see `the Passion,' but do highly recommend its source material.
Rating: 5 of 10
Postscript: An Entertainment Weekly reviewer wrote that he thought that Pilate's wife was an invented character. But she's there in the gospels. Matthew 27:19 reads, `While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.'