The importance of Passion
If there is one thing you can say about Mel Gibson’s The Passion Of The Christ, it's that it's shocking people into debate, and some back into their faith.
Shocking because of the blood, gore and violence. Shocking because of the subject matter. Shocking because of its emotional intensity and the effect it has on people.
The Passion of the Christ was directed and financed by Mel Gibson himself and tells the story of the final 12 hours of Jesus’ life. The film starts out skillfully but intensely in the moonlit Garden of Gethsemane.
Here, we experience a genderless Satan tempting a stressed man. We see Jesus as a strong being, performing a miracle and the effect it has on people.
But the film quickly changes pace, and it's not long (26 minutes later, to be exact) before the bloodletting starts. (Hold on to your guts because the crimson tinge on the screen doesn't vanish until the last four minutes of the film.)
There's no doubt that the film is a fest of violence, and whether the brutality is justified has sparked a passionate debate. Considering the anti-Semitism argument doesn't hold much relation to our society in general, the violence will probably be the most prominent issue to surface in South Africa. Or will it?
As Daniel Johnson said in the UK Telegraph, “It is difficult enough to come to terms with the death of Jesus in the abstract, to be confronted with a simulacrum of its physical reality is bound to be an ordeal.”
Some people would argue that the bloodletting is necessary because it's the ‘truth’. They feel showing what Christ went through is the point of the story. This might also explain why Gibson decided two hours of bloodletting was the way to go. For the crucifixion to have true meaning he had to prove it was the worst pain inflicted on anyone in all of creation. The violence then becomes one of the central points of the film.
From a film point of view we have to approach violence from a different angle. Today no one believes violence on film will have a brainwashing effect and spur people to commit atrocities. Yet, it's been proven by sociologists that if you're exposed to violent behaviour in your day-to-day life, you might find violence in film reinforces such behaviour. To that extent, violent films may be a bigger problem in SA than, say, in Sweden.
From this perspective it's unacceptable to depict the goriest of detail just because it might be based on the truth. Can you imagine what Monster would have been like if they depicted ‘the truth’? If the director included the gruesome detail of the rape scenes and made the camera linger on them for a moment too long, never mind two hours?
Yet, the artistry of the film is striking. The set design and costumes are brilliant and the actors easily convince you the crucifixion is really taking place right in front of you. Some reviewers feel James Caviezel (who certainly looks the martyr but can't act to save his life) underplays the role of Jesus and comes out too flat. But then, how convincing do you have to be to pass as 'a piece of flayed meat', which, some critics have argued, is what Jesus is reduced to in the film. Interestingly, the devoutly Catholic caviezel was apparently so keen to do the movie, he has said that he didn't care if it was his last.
Whether James’ acting did Jesus any favours aside, he definitely paid his dues: he was struck by lightning during a recreation of the Sermon on the Mount; he accidentally received two blows from the Roman torturer (one of which created a 30-cm gash across his back); he dislocated his shoulder while carrying the cross, and caught pneumonia and a lung infection while on set.
Although well directed, Gibson does not give much context to the film. If you don't know the Bible well, you may feel lost. As Sieraaj Ahmed, a Muslim journalist from You magazine, asked after the preview “What were the Romans doing there?”. He also found it difficult to distinguish between the Jews and Romans because he didn’t know the intricacies of the crucifixion. But don’t worry, the state of confusion never lasts long as you are quickly distracted by the flinching.
If you do indeed know your Bible you'll realise not everything is according to scripture. Like most literature it has been adapted to suit the vision of the director. Elements of fiction and symbolism are also incorporated to strengthen the message Gibson wants to bring across.
There’s much speculation why Gibson made the film. Some reports say it was an attempt to investigate his own Catholicism at a low point in his life. The Guardian reports he frequently went on drinking binges during the 80s and had to join Alcoholics Anonymous in 1991 to clean up his act. Gibson admits he was stuck embracing the secularism of the film industry. To fill the spiritual void he felt an urge to retell the gospels and so The Passion of the Christ was born. But it was only 10 years later that the film actually saw the light.
What effect The Passion of the Christ will have on you, you will have to find out for yourself. Regardless of how you interpret it, my guess is it will be one of the most shockingly violent films you ever see.
Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ opens at Ster Kinekor and Nu Metro cinemas countrywide this Friday, 26 March 2004.
Image: Jim Caviezel (JC - get it?) as Jesus Christ, copyright Icon Distribution Inc.
- Women24