For the past
several weeks, there has been quite a buzz about Mel Gibson's new
film, The Passion of The Christ. As a Catholic priest
interested in media, I have been following some of the discussions,
the controversies, the accusations and of course the reviews. I felt
that since this film is being talked about by so many people,
especially in Christian and Roman Catholic circles, that I should see
it for myself in order to be informed for the discussion it is
generating. Yesterday, Ash Wednesday, the film opened for the general
public.
First and foremost, the film is very violent and cruel and will be
disturbing to the viewer. Having said that, I have been disturbed by
some of the film critics who have concentrated solely on the violence
of the film as a means of denigrating it. I have been to more violent
films and have often read reviews for violent, action movies where
the reviewer has either glossed over the violence or even praised it
with phrases such as "beautifully choreographed." So yes,
be under no illusions, this is a violent and cruel film. However,
beware of the hidden agendas and biases of some film critics.
Over and over again the question of historical accuracy has arisen.
There are a number of issues here that need to be discussed, the most
important of which is one's view of the historicity of the Bible. The
Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired word of God
but does not teach that the Scriptures are literally factual. In
other words, the Roman Catholic faith tradition and in fact that of
many of our Protestant brothers and sisters does not teach a literal
fundamentalism. That being said, each of the four Gospels is a
theological interpretation of the life and the teachings of Christ.
They are not biographies nor are they documentary accounts of the
life of Jesus. This is not my opinion, this is and has been the
teaching of the Catholic Church. Since The Passion of the Christ is
based on an amalgam of the four Gospels, which in themselves are not
"histories," one can say that Mr. Gibson's film is not an
accurate "historical account." It is based on facts that
are certain, such as, there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth, a
popular religious teacher, who was crucified at that time by the
Romans in the midst of political and religious controversy. It has
many historical elements to it such as the actors speaking in the
original languages of Latin and Aramaic (although Greek should have been included too). However, it is also a film
based on Christian faith and beliefs passed down through the four
Gospels and central to that faith is the importance of the suffering,
death and resurrection of Christ. There are a number of inaccuracies in the film such as Christ carrying the entire cross rather than just the crossbeam. There are also elements of the film
which are not found in the Gospel accounts but which come from a
number of sources; Church tradition, Medieval Passion plays and of
course from the creative imagination of Mr. Gibson and those
associated with the making of this film. This is any storyteller's
way of retelling a story and it is the right of Mr. Gibson to craft
the film in the way he chooses to advance the story. Mr. Gibson tends
to have a more fundamentalist approach to Scripture and he believes
he is presenting an historical account but even he admits that he has
brought his own interpretation as a movie director to the story.
However, simply because the film is not a documentary account of the
last few hours of Christ does not take away from the truth of the
film or its central faith message. Many secular film critics have not
taken the time to try to understand the Christian relationship with
Scripture and thus continue to get tied up in historical knots. A few
years ago, Canadian film director James Cameron made a movie about a
famous ship, but just because the characters of Jack and Rose were
fictional creations of Cameron, does not mean that the Titanic did
not hit an iceberg on April 14, 1912 and sink to the bottom of the Atlantic.
Is the film anti-Semitic? After careful consideration, I would have
to say no it is not. The film portrays some of the Jewish religious
leaders as plotting to get rid of Jesus. It also portrays dissension
in the ranks of the Jewish leaders and the people as a whole. Jesus
was Jewish and clashed repeatedly with some of the religious
establishment of the day. In the film, Jesus has his supporters and
his detractors. There is a particularly moving scene involving Simon
of Cyrene who is of course Jewish. The Romans are for the most part
portrayed as sadistic brutes. My one criticism is that the character
of Pontius Pilate seemed to be less brutal than history tells us. In
the film there is a personification of evil, the devil, who moves in
and out of the story and it is very telling that "Satan"
knows no partiality between the Jews and the Romans. I felt that at
the core of the film, the message was that all people are responsible
for the suffering and death of Christ. Given the sad history of
Christian / Jewish relations, and the outbreaks of persecutions of
Jews throughout history, it is understandable that a segment of the
Jewish population is anxious about this film.
Some critics have been harsh on the film because they say it offers
no hope and is taken out of the larger context of Christ's life and
teaching. One must be clear that the title and subject of the movie
is The Passion of The Christ not The Life of Christ. If
another filmmaker wishes to do an entire life of Jesus then that is
their prerogative. I feel that Mel Gibson need make no apology for
his editorial decision to highlight this section of the Gospels. In
1998 Shekhar Kapur made the film Elizabeth chronicling a few
months in the life of England's 16th century monarch as she ascended
to the throne. As far as I know, Elizabeth's reign was one of the
longest in England. Why did Shekhar Kapur not film the entire reign,
the whole story? I do not recall a single critic in 1998 bashing that
movie for those reasons. As for hope, it is true that at times it is
difficult to see the hope because of the brutal cruelty in The
Passion of The Christ. However, there is at the end indeed a
resurrection, albeit a rather brief one. Secondly, the movie is
punctuated by several scenes (some of which are very moving) which
flashback through the life of Christ. It was with these scenes that
Mr. Gibson wished to both show the hopeful and loving message of
Christianity as well as to contextualize the life of Christ. Some of
the critics of the film failed to make any reference to these
"life of Christ" scenes. Perhaps Mr. Gibson could have
included a few more flashback sequences.
To sum up, yes this is a very violent film. I do not see it as
anti-Semitic. Those who are predisposed to be anti-Semitic going into
the film will probably come out the same way. Yes, there are some
historical inaccuracies in the picture and there are some editorial
and directing choices with which I would beg to differ. I would not
recommend this film for children or for the squeamish. Overall
though, I was moved by the film and found it to be a thoughtful, well
crafted movie. I would only hope that people are allowed to make up
their own minds about it. If it does anything, I hope that it will
get people of all faiths and traditions talking with one another
honestly and openly.
I would invite your comments communications@spiritans.com
Welcome
to the site of the TransCanada Province of the Spiritans. We are a
Roman Catholic Religious Congregation of over three thousand members,
founded in 1703. Our missions are spread worldwide. While we may be
found involved in many diverse ministries, we have dedicated
ourselves to working with the poor and in those situations where the
Church has difficulty in finding ministers. We hope you enjoy your
visit to our site and that while browsing you will keep us in your
prayers. May God bless you.
