Film Review: The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Films are supposed to be universal. In the beginning, during the silent era, they were, because the lack of language barriers meant that they could be understood by audiences in different countries, cultures, or social classes. Later, that universality was maintained for commercial reasons, with Hollywood providing the most obvious example with its attempt to sell its product to the broadest audience possible. However, there are some instances when such universality can’t be achieved – films that will always mean different things to different people. One such example can be found in The Passion of the Christ, a 2004 biblical drama directed by Mel Gibson, which is considered to be one of the most divisive films of the 21st century.

The plot, based on the New Testament and The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, an 1833 book by German Catholic nun and mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich, is set in 1st-century AD Judea and depicts the last twelve hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth (played by Jim Caviezel). It begins in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus prays with his disciples before being tempted by Satan (played by Rosalinda Celentano). Soon afterwards, he is betrayed by Judas Iscariot (played by Luca Lionello), arrested, and brought to the Sanhedrin, where Jewish high priest Caiaphas (played by Mattia Sbraglia) presides. After being condemned to death for blasphemy, Jesus is sent to Roman governor Pontius Pilate (played by Hristo Naumov Shopov), who, at the urging of his wife Claudia Procles (played by Claudia Gerini), is reluctant to impose punishment but later succumbs to the wishes of the crowd. Jesus is flogged and sentenced to death by crucifixion. He carries his cross, being followed by his mother Mary (played by Maia Morgenstern) and Mary Magdalene (played by Monica Bellucci), and arrives at Golgotha, where he is crucified.

Jesus has been depicted on the big screen many times by various filmmakers, ranging from Cecil B. DeMille to Martin Scorsese. The most memorable of such depictions were the very personal works, clearly inspired by their authors’ deep religious beliefs. Mel Gibson wasn’t any different, and The Passion of the Christ was a very personal film, motivated by his own struggles and the way they reflected through his traditional interpretation of Catholicism. Hollywood, for one reason or another, had very little understanding of Gibson’s vision, and despite him being one of the biggest stars at the time, he didn’t find a major studio willing to finance his project and had to pay for its production out of his own pocket, later relying on a network of clergy, various churches, and religious sectors of the public for advertising and distribution. The gamble ultimately paid off, making The Passion of the Christ one of the most commercially successful films of its time, but the crucial element of this success was controversy.

Part of that controversy was created by Gibson’s decision to make his film both faithful to its religious source while also providing a realistic and authentic portrayal of 1st-century Judea. That, among other things, meant that Jim Caviezel, the actor portraying Jesus, had to use contact lenses to make his eyes look brown and himself more like an average inhabitant of Palestine at the time. Gibson also decided to have all the dialogue in Latin and Aramaic, the actual languages spoken at the time. But the most memorable element of realism was the gruesome reconstruction of the physical abuse Jesus received from his captors before his death. The abuse is depicted in great detail, using extensive makeup, fake blood, prosthetics, and even some CGI to make Jesus’ wounds look as horrific as possible. Gibson’s idea was to remind the audience of the sacrifice Jesus made to redeem the world from sin. Many critics argued that he went too far, and that those scenes were too uncomfortable and shocking, making The Passion of the Christ resemble a snuff film rather than a serious religious drama. Some of those complaints were acknowledged by Gibson, who in 2005 released a new version of the film with five minutes of the most problematic scenes edited out. An even worse source of controversy, which arose even before the film actually came to theatres, was the alleged anti-Semitism, with many critics interpreting the seemingly sympathetic portrayal of Pilate as the most human of all characters as Gibson absolving the Romans of guilt for Jesus’ death and placing it all at the hands of the Jews. Those accusations, which gained further weight a few years later after Gibson’s infamous drunken rant, fell on fertile ground in the heated political atmosphere in the months before the 2004 US presidential election, in which the mobilisation of evangelical Christians played an important role, just as the increasingly bloody aftermath of the Iraq invasion provided ample examples of how religious passions, if stirred enough on a page or screen, might inspire apocalyptic deeds in reality.

Those viewers who manage to ignore the controversy and attempt to approach The Passion of the Christ with some degree of objectivity would find it to be a well-made film. Gibson honed his directorial skills well in the previous decade, handling the plot effectively, maintaining good tempo, and putting the talents of cinematographer Caleb Deschanel to good use, especially in the scenes inspired by Caravaggio’s paintings. The same can be said of the cast led by Jim Caviezel, who, as a devout Catholic, had very personal reasons to take on this project and deliver a standout performance as Jesus. Hristo Naumov Shopov is very convincing in the role of Pilate, while Monica Bellucci appears a little too Hollywood-like for Mary Magdalene. Composer John Debney delivers a serviceable, but not particularly memorable, musical score.

Those talents, however, can’t solve the film’s main problem. The Passion of the Christ is a film made by Christians for Christians, and it is only that segment of the audience that can properly understand or, more importantly, emotionally connect with its content. A good example is provided by Roger Ebert, a critic who, despite being socially liberal and opposed to right-wing Gibson on many issues, praised the film on account of his own Catholic background. Non-Christians are likely to appreciate Gibson’s skill but are unlikely to be particularly moved by his work, just as a visit to a museum with classical art isn’t likely to convert people into worshippers of ancient Greek gods. Despite that, The Passion of the Christ is a remarkable piece of cinema that should be admired despite its real or alleged faults or the faults of its author.

RATING: 6/10 (++)

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com
Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/
InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo
Unstoppable Domains: https://unstoppabledomains.com/?ref=3fc23fc42c1b417
Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax y
Bitcoin Lightning HIVE donations: https://v4v.app/v1/lnurlp/qrcode/drax
Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax
1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG
ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7

Posted using CineTV