Mel Gibson's Controversial New Film The Passion

Article posted Thu Feb 26 09:06:07 2004

And God said, Let there be hype.

And there was hype surrounding Mel Gibson’s controversial new film The Passion of the Christ. Judging from news and entertainment reports, the film’s informal title is Mel Gibson’s Controversial New Film The Passion of the Christ. The media hype seems to have become part of the film’s name, taking place alongside such titles as Stephen King’s Thinner or John Waters’ Pecker (yes, that is the correct—but rarely-used—full title).

The underlying theme that emerged in the weeks and months preceding the film’s release was not anti-Semitism, nor dialogue between Jews and Christians, nor even religion. It was publicity. Mel Gibson and his film have appeared in dozens of magazines and news outlets. “Much anticipated, hotly debated,” crowed Entertainment Weekly in its February 20 cover story. “Gibson risks his career!” From many entertainment media accounts, Gibson, star Jim Caviezel, and the rest of the cast and crew are doomed. Anyone associated with the film, from the producers to the catering guy sent for extra Sprite, might never work in Hollywood again.

Perhaps the most prominent hype was Diane Sawyer’s February 16 Primetime special, “Mel’s Passion.” (It aired complete with typical news media incest: During commercial breaks, the local affiliate assured viewers that the 11 o’clock news would have “local reaction to Mel Gibson’s Primetime interview,” though I have no idea why the news director assumed that hastily-crafted commentary by various locals—not about the unseen film but about Gibson’s interview—would be of interest.) While there was undoubtedly some genuine controversy surrounding the film, much of it seemed to be a classic case of the news media hyping a story and then doing a story on how hyped the story is. Films about religion and Jesus have always generated controversy, and passionate reactions are nothing new. Sixteen years ago, Martin Scorsese endured (or enjoyed) similar controversy and criticism for his film The Last Temptation of Christ. All the hubbub will inevitably mask the basic question: Is the film any good?

The premise is as famous as it is simple: The last twelve hours of Jesus Christ are retold as he is betrayed by Judas and denied by Peter, sentenced to death, tortured, and crucified. The film is technically well done, and the performances are very good. Caviezel is believable and restrained in his performance, and the supporting cast (including Monica Belluci as Mary Magdalene) fill their roles admirably. The political context of Jesus’ capture and execution is informative, and helps the audience to understand the scripture—or at least Mel Gibson’s version of it.

As a film critic, I had to decide how to approach the film. Traditionally, most movies are either fiction or documentary (some—such as American Splendor and Adaptation—cleverly blend the two). Yet it’s certainly not a documentary, though Gibson has taken pains to assure authenticity and believes it is based on a literal and infallible description of true events. To call The Passion of the Christ entertainment seems a little unsettling; few people I’d want to associate with would be “entertained” by a two-hour depiction of a man’s torture and death. The film is perhaps best thought of as a rich zealot’s passionate pet project, a cinematic depiction of his beliefs.

The film’s supposed authenticity is its calling card, and a chief reason Gibson made the film. Exhaustive historical research was done preparing for the film, from the Latin and Aramaic dialogue to the details of a crucifixion death. (Though Gibson’s authenticity failed him in at least one obvious way: The film depicts Jesus being crucified through the palms of his hands, the traditional depiction in Christian iconography. Several years ago I had the opportunity to meet a stigmatic—a woman claiming to suffer from Jesus’ wounds—and her hands also showed the marks. Yet many scholars believe that Roman crucifixion victims were likely staked through the wrist bones because the hands wouldn’t be able to support the body’s weight.)

It was Mel Gibson’s fervid responses to (reportedly non-existent) accusations of anti-Semitism that made news about a year ago. Then Pope John Paul II saw the film and gave it a thumbs up, reportedly saying “It is as it was.” A few weeks later, the Vatican acknowledged that the Pope had screened the film but denied that he endorsed it. As before, the point wasn’t really about the Pope’s approval; it was about publicity. Gibson was quoted in The New Yorker as saying of all the controversy, “This is some of the best marketing and publicity I have ever seen.”

Much of the controversy has centered on whether or not the film blames the Jewish people for Christ’s death. A passage from Matthew (27:25) has historically been used to assign guilt for Jesus’ death. I recognize that this is a contentious subject, and one that I’ll pass on. Often these arguments come down to word nuances and minutiae regarding which version of events you emphasize and how what happened is depicted (or omitted). Those who look for elements blaming Jesus’ death on Jews will find them, as will those who look to blame the Romans. Like the Bible itself, the film is open to interpretation.

Gibson’s outspoken father has publicly denied aspects of the Holocaust, though Mel Gibson said he disagreed with that in the Dateline interview. Even if one or both Gibsons do hold anti-Semitic views, the implications for the film are unclear. Work produced by racists have sometimes been publicly embraced despite their creators’ ideologies: Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, the 1934 Nazi propaganda film, is considered a masterpiece, and one of Oprah Winfrey’s favorite books, The Education of Little Tree, was written by a racist. So in one sense Gibson’s real or imagined anti-Semitism is irrelevant.

I’m a little surprised at the lack of faith displayed by many of Gibson’s critics, who seem to assume that Christians will take to the streets and attack Jews because of what they see in this film. Then again, the complaint that cinematic violence can spur real violence is nothing new. (In 1880s London, the play “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” was blamed for encouraging Jack the Ripper in his crimes.) There’s no doubt that the film can evoke strong passions, but I suspect that those holding their breath in fear of a new religious clash between Jews and Christians will have wasted worry. If such hatred can be created over the release of a film, religious relations in America are far worse than anyone imagined.

Aside from the alleged anti-Jewish tone, the film has also raised eyebrows over its startling violence and blood. This, to me, is a far more interesting topic from a cinematic standpoint. The final hour of the film is essentially nonstop violence and brutality. Violence and suffering are to be expected; the title and topic is of course the passion (“suffering”) of Jesus. But there’s violence and there’s violence. As Gibson told Diane Sawyer, “I wanted it to be shocking and extreme.” He got his wish: Jesus is whipped, flayed, stabbed, pummeled, kicked, spat upon, tortured, and beaten. We see oozing wounds, ruptured welts, and strips of flesh sliced from shallow channels of crimson blood. Not just glimpses but close-ups and plenty of slow motion.

Though clearly different in tone and kind, the only other films that come close to such spectacle are horror or slasher films. In those, however, the violence and bloodshed are softened. The film’s religious gravitas sinks the lighthearted bouyance usually seen in slasher films or even mainstream horror. When horny teens get their blood-spattered comeuppance, or when Hannibal Lecter feasts on a living man’s brains, there is an element of underlying silliness to it, a Grand Guignol theatricality that winks at us even as it scares us. There is, of course, no such comedic intention in Jesus’s passion, and (aside from two brief scenes of levity) Gibson’s film takes itself very seriously.

Is this film suitable for children? I would say definitely not, and the MPAA’s R rating seems to agree. It will be interesting to see how it is received among devout families. There is a deep irony in the fact that some religious and conservative parents who would never let their children see violent video games, television, and film will be tempted to bring their children. Surely a two-hour film focusing on a man’s excruciating torture and death is more harmful to children than far less bloody, special-effects laden spectacles such as Natural Born Killers and The Basketball Diaries. Jesus may be the son of God, but on-screen it is a real, live human being abused and killed. I understand the principle behind Christ’s passion, but children may be horrified by what they see, and confused by the fact that Jesus is enduring the abuse willingly.

If the same violence—all so lovingly and realistically photographed—was visited not upon Jesus but instead on a female character, Gibson would be accused of promoting rape and violence against women. The difference, of course, is that in the film Jesus is the son of God and willingly endures the violence done to him because he loves mankind and chooses to die for our sins. Gibson defends his film’s violence by saying that the source material is itself violent, and he has a good point. While the more benign parts of the Bible (such as Proverbs) are often discussed and focused upon in churches and discussion groups, the text is also littered with stark accounts of brutality, torture, rape, violence, babies’ heads smashed against rocks at God’s command, and so on. Gibson is indeed brave for tackling the project, and deserves credit for sticking to his convictions. But his vision of the passion may end up alienating some viewers.

Mel Gibson is in good company in being accused of going over the top with the violence, brutality, and gore. Many directors, such as Brian de Palma, Quentin Tarantino, and Oliver Stone, to name only a few, have been criticized for gratuitous bloodshed. If there is perhaps a trace of sadism in The Passion of the Christ, it would not be unprecedented from the director. Indeed, the film has Gibson’s fingerprints all over it. His 1995 epic Braveheart included some very graphic violence and ends with an excruciating and prolonged torture scene that many found difficult to watch. Just as Braveheart was criticized by some gay activist groups, I suspect this film’s depiction of a terribly fey King Herod will create comment. The king’s court is ornate and effeminate, and his palace seems only a few bottles of wine away from a gay bathhouse.

In the end, Mel Gibson’s Controversial New Film The Passion of the Christ will likely end up a tempest in a teapot. The faithful will see the film as an affirmation of their beliefs; the anti-Semites will read anti-Semitism into it; and the average filmgoer will buy a ticket to see what all the fuss is about. Which is probably all Mel Gibson was wanting all along.