..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

March 14 , 2004

From Brazil's Cinema em Cena
REVIEW - THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
by Pablo Villaça

____________________________________

When I wrote about The Birth of a Nation a few years ago, I stressed that it should be evaluated from two very distinct aspects: technical and moral. Cinematographically speaking, Griffith's movie is admirable and is responsible for many of the narrative resources that are so fundamental to today's Cinema; but, at the same time, its message is truly despicable in its professed racism. The Passion of the Christ, directed by Mel Gibson almost 90 years later, demands a similar analysis although, this time, the moral issue is far more complex and delicate, since it includes another explosive element: religion.

So lets begin with the easy part: Gibson is a talented director; one that's capable of creating powerful images and a plausible universe that can draws the audience to the story. Keeping the camera close to the actors, he allows us to share their pain and feelings without having to resort to dialogue (which, by the way, are spoken in Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew, lending an enormous verisimilitude to the narrative). At some times, its like we've been transported in time and are, in fact, witnessing those incidents (a sensation that would be ruined if we listened Jesus speaking in English, for instance). And, although Gibson occasionally gets carried away by his techniques, overusing slow motion, he lets the story flow without many interventions, which is a sign of his maturity as a director.

The same technical refinement can be observed regarding the wonderful art direction, which recreates old Jerusalem with richness of details; the elaborate costumes; the evocative soundtrack by John Debney; and, specially, Caleb Deschanel's photography, which always uses colors in significant ways. Observe the initial sequence, that shows an afflicted Jesus in the Getsêmane garden: immersed in beautiful tones of blue (referring to the character's divine nature), the moment is finally stained by the red-orangish reflective light of the torches carried by those who came to arrest Christ. This represents an elegant and intelligent choice by Deschanel.

But what is the final goal of such great technique? Why and for what Mel Gibson used the talents of such a talented crew? Just to recreate the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, from his arrest to his crucifixion and death? It is a central incident to the emergence of Catholicism, obviously, but that ignores the most meaningful and beautiful stories of the Messiah. What is, after all, the message of The Passion of the Christ? That he died on the cross to rid us of our sins? Any Christian knows that without having to witness the sadistic spectacle promoted by Gibson, who makes a point of showing every blow on Jesus' body. Where are the lessons of love and compassion taught by the "Son of God"? Is Jesus' death the most important thing about him?

To prevent the spectators to realize they're watching a snuff film, Gibson introduces a series of flashbacks that show (as my OFCS colleague Dawn Taylor brilliantly put it) "Christ's Biggest Hits", like the Last Supper, the near-stoning of Mary Magdalene and the sermon on the mount. The problem is those scenes are very short and never add more dimension to Jesus, the character, whose only human moment happens in Getsêmane. (Caviezel, with his kind eyes and peaceful look, does his best to beat the limitations of the script and his ability to show the character physical pain is astounding, making us consider the possibility of a real beating.) Interestingly, the only moment in The Passion of the Christ that made me feel something (besides the shock) happened when Mary, trying to help her son, remembers a time when he, still a child, got hurt. But I guess that my compassion was directed to the mother, and not to the man carrying the cross.

As if it wasn't enough, Gibson's insistence on showing Jesus' suffering in an extremely graphic and violent way finally has an opposite result: after the first hour of torture, we start to become numb by what were seeing and its impact fades away, being replaced by a mere blood festival. And what's worse: on a narrative aspect, the movie becomes repetitive, since Gibson just has to show us every fall of the character along the way.

Regarding the central issue discussed about the film: has Gibson created an anti-Semitic manifest? Who, according to the movie, were the main responsibles for Christ's death? That's a clear issue to the feature: the Jewish high priests, especially Califás. They were the ones who bought Judas' treason, arrested Jesus and took him to Pôncio Pilatos, insisting that he condemned Christ to death. The high priests even manipulated their follower's opinions in order to make them request Barrabás' release from prison and Jesus' crucification. That's unambiguous, there's no question about it: that's the version The Passion of the Christ presents.

Now, is that enough to consider it anti-Semitic? Not necessarily: you just have to read the Gospels to realize the high priests' actions are described in the writings of Luke, Matthew, John and Mark. The problem is Gibson, as the co-author of the script, lifts different parts of each Gospel in order to present his particular vision: and so, Mark (the most moderated of the four) is left aside and, in his place, the accounts of the other three are reinforced including Matthew's, the most incendiary of them (he wrote the infamous phrase "Let his blood be on us and on our children" a remark that would lead to the tragic persecution of Jews. Its important to notice, by the way, that Gibson deleted the subtitle that translates that phrase, but let the line in the movie which clearly indicates a worrying dishonesty of his).

The Passion of the Christ also portrays Pilatos as a man who tries, in all conceivable ways, to save Jesus he's the only character in the film that manifests his inner conflicts about what to do with the Messiah, and it becomes very clear that he only condemns Christ because of the pressure of the Jewish priests. He tries to transfer the responsibility to Herod whom, by the way, Gibson portrays with clear hints of homosexuality, which also indicates his prejudices. In this case, a double prejudice. And, although some of the legionnaires are seen as barbarians who have a blast while torturing Christ, Gibson includes many shots where we see many other Romans showing discomfort about the whole thing. But let's cut the point: imagine if Gibson had replaced all the Jews seen in the movie by black actors, and that, instead of Christ, they were killing (say) Martin Luther King. Would you hesitate on considering the movie racist? I doubt it.

But is it possible to watch The Passion of the Christ without being carried away by its anti-Semitic message? Yes: unlike The Birth of a Nation, the director's prejudices don't contaminate all the movie. For starters, even if some Jewish priests did got Jesus killed 2,000 years ago, I can't see how their current descendants could be blamed for it (it would be the same of condemning all the Germans, for the next two millennia, for Hitler's actions). And I may not be a catholic (I don't have any religion, actually, although I believe in God), but I guess I'm right when I say that, if Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins, then no one can be "blamed" for his death, which would have been "programmed" by God himself.

It's true that Mel Gibson could have avoided throwing all the responsibility for Christ's death on the Jewish priests shoulders. Believing that anti-Semitism is a thing from the past is an illusion. However, The Passion of the Christ will not disseminate the prejudice although it won't help to stop it either. The fact is Gibson, as a devout catholic, did the movie he wanted and had the right to do it (the hand that holds the nail on Christ's hand is his, indicating his involvement with the story). But, in the same way, the Catholics should understand that not everyone who points out the movies dangerous elements are attacking their Faith. It's a simple matter of mutual respect and good sense.

And so were back to The Passion of the Christ's main problem: with so many relevant and beautiful messages in Jesus' story, Gibson decided to focus on one that totally ignores compassion and love two feelings that I believe were very precious to a person who, according to the Bible, died for our sins.

Pablo Villaça - Editor
Cinema em Cena (www.cinemaemcena.com.br)
Membro da Online Film Critics Society