[REVIEW] The Passion
Mar. 22nd, 2004 12:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldI didn't go to see The Passion entirely of my own volition; I was at least that correct. Rather, I went to see The Passion as part of my medieval devotional literature class. I met up with five other fellow students at downtown Kingston's Indigo a half-hour before we walked down to meet up with the professor and two other students at Famous Players just down the street.
Why did I go? After all, viewing The Passion wasn't mandatory--most of the students showed up, but I could have explained my intolerance for gore and gotten off. I suppose that I went because The Passion is an important film. Margaret Wente, writing in The Globe and Mail, made some interesting points to this end, particualrly inasmuch as it will affect religious Christians as opposed to jaded agnostics and non-believers such as myself. I've written myself about the potential of The Passion to start off a round of global culture wars. (I'd also like to mention in passing how it's cool how The Passion might start off a revival of Aramaic, just because.)
I don't think so. As I understand anti-Semitism, it relies on the trope of "the Jew," a person distinguished by his religion, operating at moral cross-purposes to good people of a different religion (Christian, Muslim, or other). Often, the adult Jewish male is raised as the epitome of "the Jew"; women and children, because of their diminished capacity, can be considered salvageable, though this can change depending on the virulency of the anti-Semitism. Certainly the reports of Gibson's father's anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial--however poorly connected to Gibson himself they might be--were disturbing, and the old canard that Jews are deicides is too well-known to merit comment.
Happily, The Passion doesn't use "the Jew." In fact, the thing that struck me about Gibson's portrayal of the Jews of early 1st century CE Jerusalem--apart from the fact that Gibson showed Jesus as a Jew--was the moral diversity evident in the Jewish collectivity. The meeting of the temple priests who condemned Jesus, for instance, was disrupted by the expulsion of one of their member who criticized the trial as being a travesty of justice (not as being a trial of the Messiah.) The angry mob that condemned Jesus in the temple seems to have been assembled from people woken up in the middle of the night, these people probably being naturally upset at being awoken in the middle of the night because of a damnable heretic. The reaction, on the streets of Jerusalem, to the sight of Jesus' torn and bleeding body, was generally one of horror, not pleasure. Throughout the film, Jews reacted in any number of ways to the torture and execution of Jesus; most of these Jews (Jesus' disciples and family aside) did so out of simple human compassion.
To be sure, the Roman characters--Pontius Pilate, his wife Claudia, some of the soldiers who accompanied Jesus during his scourging and crucifixion--were shown as more strongly feeling sympathy for Jesus' suffering as that of a persecuted holy man. Roman imperialism in Palestine is portrayed interestingly, with a strong sense being conveyed that the Romans doing service in Jerusalem are doing so mainly because they have to, and that they aren't interested in the customs of the local religion. Despite this, though, Pontius Pilate is shown as someone who gives in to his fears of a Jewish rebellion despite his moral qualms, and it is the Romans who administer first the scourging then the crucifixion.
Could The Passion be used to reinforce pre-existing anti-Semitism? Certainly. In fact Arafat is already doing this. I doubt very much, though, that it will make any converts to anti-Semitism. In fact, according to the article "Poll- ‘Passion’ good for the Jews" from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, it's doing the contrary. So, no need to worry on this front.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
serod's review touches upon the main problems that my more theologically literate classmates raised in the post-movie discussion, over drinks. The Passion focussed almost entirely on the suffering of Jesus at the end of his life. There were flashbacks to previous points in his life, when Christ was enunciating some of his basic doctrines. The effect of seeing Jesus' torture and death, though, outweighed these occasional theological moments. I freely admit that The Passion made me feel quite sympathetic for Jesus, and understand why believers could be so moved by the Passion (and, of course, The Passion). It didn't make me familiar with Christian religious doctrines, though. This, I suspect, will be The Passion's main problem as a tool of evangelization--it can preach only to the converted.
One other theological point of note to Protestants might be the depiction of Mary. A Protestant student noted that many of his co-religionist friends thought that the depiction of Mary verged on Catholic Marianism. He disagreed, as do I. The depiction of Mary seems to be much more than of a mother horribly rent by witnessing her son's suffering and being unable to help him than that of Mary co-redemptrix of humanity. Protestant believers, though, might disagree.
I liked the film, but it didn't stand out as an exceptionally good film. The film may have been (more or less) faithful to the Gospels, but I didn't get a sense of it being exceptionally innovative.
As for the acting, I have to admit that I wasn't particularly impressed with Jim Caviezel's portrayal of Jesus, since on the whole his was simply the matter on which the signs of his torture were inscribed. Efforts at characterization seemed secondary, perhaps inevitably given the expectation that Jesus' central role in Western and other Christian cultures would allow the film to bypass characterization. Maia Morgenstern, though, playing the Virgin Mary, was excellent, successfully communicating the pathos of a woman forced to witness her son's death. Monica Bellucci gave a nice portrayal of Mary Magdalene, as did the actors playing Pontius Pilate and Claudia.
The Passion is inherently a dangerous film, given the centrality of the events it depicts to the Christian tradition and the potential for damage had the fears of so many about Gibson's intentions been realized. As things stand, fortunately, what film audiences have is a moderately gory and workmanlike depiction of the last hours of the central figure in the Christian religious tradition. If you're a practising Christian, I'd encourage you to see it. Even if you aren't, though, it won't hurt you to watch, whether now in the theatres or later on DVD. I can say that I'm happy that I saw it, and not only because it dispelled my fears.
Why did I go? After all, viewing The Passion wasn't mandatory--most of the students showed up, but I could have explained my intolerance for gore and gotten off. I suppose that I went because The Passion is an important film. Margaret Wente, writing in The Globe and Mail, made some interesting points to this end, particualrly inasmuch as it will affect religious Christians as opposed to jaded agnostics and non-believers such as myself. I've written myself about the potential of The Passion to start off a round of global culture wars. (I'd also like to mention in passing how it's cool how The Passion might start off a revival of Aramaic, just because.)
I don't think so. As I understand anti-Semitism, it relies on the trope of "the Jew," a person distinguished by his religion, operating at moral cross-purposes to good people of a different religion (Christian, Muslim, or other). Often, the adult Jewish male is raised as the epitome of "the Jew"; women and children, because of their diminished capacity, can be considered salvageable, though this can change depending on the virulency of the anti-Semitism. Certainly the reports of Gibson's father's anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial--however poorly connected to Gibson himself they might be--were disturbing, and the old canard that Jews are deicides is too well-known to merit comment.
Happily, The Passion doesn't use "the Jew." In fact, the thing that struck me about Gibson's portrayal of the Jews of early 1st century CE Jerusalem--apart from the fact that Gibson showed Jesus as a Jew--was the moral diversity evident in the Jewish collectivity. The meeting of the temple priests who condemned Jesus, for instance, was disrupted by the expulsion of one of their member who criticized the trial as being a travesty of justice (not as being a trial of the Messiah.) The angry mob that condemned Jesus in the temple seems to have been assembled from people woken up in the middle of the night, these people probably being naturally upset at being awoken in the middle of the night because of a damnable heretic. The reaction, on the streets of Jerusalem, to the sight of Jesus' torn and bleeding body, was generally one of horror, not pleasure. Throughout the film, Jews reacted in any number of ways to the torture and execution of Jesus; most of these Jews (Jesus' disciples and family aside) did so out of simple human compassion.
To be sure, the Roman characters--Pontius Pilate, his wife Claudia, some of the soldiers who accompanied Jesus during his scourging and crucifixion--were shown as more strongly feeling sympathy for Jesus' suffering as that of a persecuted holy man. Roman imperialism in Palestine is portrayed interestingly, with a strong sense being conveyed that the Romans doing service in Jerusalem are doing so mainly because they have to, and that they aren't interested in the customs of the local religion. Despite this, though, Pontius Pilate is shown as someone who gives in to his fears of a Jewish rebellion despite his moral qualms, and it is the Romans who administer first the scourging then the crucifixion.
Could The Passion be used to reinforce pre-existing anti-Semitism? Certainly. In fact Arafat is already doing this. I doubt very much, though, that it will make any converts to anti-Semitism. In fact, according to the article "Poll- ‘Passion’ good for the Jews" from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, it's doing the contrary. So, no need to worry on this front.
serod's review touches upon the main problems that my more theologically literate classmates raised in the post-movie discussion, over drinks. The Passion focussed almost entirely on the suffering of Jesus at the end of his life. There were flashbacks to previous points in his life, when Christ was enunciating some of his basic doctrines. The effect of seeing Jesus' torture and death, though, outweighed these occasional theological moments. I freely admit that The Passion made me feel quite sympathetic for Jesus, and understand why believers could be so moved by the Passion (and, of course, The Passion). It didn't make me familiar with Christian religious doctrines, though. This, I suspect, will be The Passion's main problem as a tool of evangelization--it can preach only to the converted.One other theological point of note to Protestants might be the depiction of Mary. A Protestant student noted that many of his co-religionist friends thought that the depiction of Mary verged on Catholic Marianism. He disagreed, as do I. The depiction of Mary seems to be much more than of a mother horribly rent by witnessing her son's suffering and being unable to help him than that of Mary co-redemptrix of humanity. Protestant believers, though, might disagree.
I liked the film, but it didn't stand out as an exceptionally good film. The film may have been (more or less) faithful to the Gospels, but I didn't get a sense of it being exceptionally innovative.
As for the acting, I have to admit that I wasn't particularly impressed with Jim Caviezel's portrayal of Jesus, since on the whole his was simply the matter on which the signs of his torture were inscribed. Efforts at characterization seemed secondary, perhaps inevitably given the expectation that Jesus' central role in Western and other Christian cultures would allow the film to bypass characterization. Maia Morgenstern, though, playing the Virgin Mary, was excellent, successfully communicating the pathos of a woman forced to witness her son's death. Monica Bellucci gave a nice portrayal of Mary Magdalene, as did the actors playing Pontius Pilate and Claudia.
The Passion is inherently a dangerous film, given the centrality of the events it depicts to the Christian tradition and the potential for damage had the fears of so many about Gibson's intentions been realized. As things stand, fortunately, what film audiences have is a moderately gory and workmanlike depiction of the last hours of the central figure in the Christian religious tradition. If you're a practising Christian, I'd encourage you to see it. Even if you aren't, though, it won't hurt you to watch, whether now in the theatres or later on DVD. I can say that I'm happy that I saw it, and not only because it dispelled my fears.
