The Passion of the Christ

Amidst all the controversy over Mel Gibson's latest film, Kernowyouth sent Phil Hadley to see it. Here is his review...

“Unrelentingly anti-Semitic, excessively grotesque and overly narrow in its scope.” Mac Verstanding, The Badger Herald.

“A very dour, pedestrian picture.” Stephanie Zacharek, Salon.com

“The Passion of the Christ is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus’ final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it.” A.O. Scott, The New York Times

Despite being a box office smash in the United States, the venom of the film critics made me wonder just what Mel Gibson had created in his latest film, The Passion Of The Christ. I had been inundated with emails for months telling me of its progress in production, of miracles on the film set, of the lead actor struck by lightening and its final release. There was only one thing for it, I would have to see it myself.

I sat with 350 others in Plymouth’s Vue Cinema’s largest screen. The audience was older than most cinema audiences I was used to, but the 18 rating and the nature of the content probably ensured that.

Was it anti-Semitic?

I arrived with a number of questions I wanted answered during the two hours I sat with the huge screen filling my vision. Firstly, was it anti-Semitic? I have to say, a resounding no. It told the story how it was. Jealous Jewish leaders handed Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified. The film did not whip up anti-Jewish sentiment. After all, the one the audience feels the most sympathy for, Jesus, was a Jew. It was the Romans who were shown to be the most brutal in their flogging and methods of execution. And that’s history, and you can’t change that. There were no calls of anti-Britishness when Amistad was shown in the same week on TV. After all, we did put black peoples in appalling conditions on slave ships. It wasn’t right, then or now. But it’s history and we can’t change it.

Was it true to the Gospel accounts?

Secondly, was it true to the Gospel accounts of the last 12 hours of Jesus life? Yes it was, to the extent that any imagination could re-create the events of Good Friday. Much of the dialogue was lifted straight from the pages of the New Testament. Hearing it in its original languages, and reading the English sub-titles added to its authenticity, rather than detracted from it. There were some additional scenes that you don’t find in the Gospel accounts, but within various Catholic writings. These included Mary, the mother of Jesus, mopping up the blood after Jesus had been scourged, and giving him a drink of water on his journey to Golgotha. Both are possible. Was Mary one of the women of Jerusalem who mourned and wailed for him as he passed by?  Neither scene detracts from the validity of the historical record.

A third scene that has no basis in the Gospel account is the appearance of Satan tempting Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Gospel writers place the emphasis of Jesus’ words on the disciples not falling into temptation, rather than himself. Yet Luke describes him as “being in anguish”, Matthew as “exceedingly sorrowful” and with John recall his prayer as being “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Yet not my will, but yours, be done.” Perhaps Satan’s last temptation was to try and steer Jesus away from the cross? Again, this is not a scene that contradicts the Biblical record, and I am happy to accept Mr Gibson’s interpretation of it.

Was it violent?

My third question asked was it violent? The answer is yes. However, I have to say I was not shocked by the violence. I had been brought up hearing the Easter story told in all its graphic detail. I had seen my father’s preaching on the sufferings of Christ move an adult audience to tears on numerous occasions. My own studies as an historian had taught me how brutal a Roman beating was. Crucifixion is well documented as being one of the worse forms of execution mankind has created. Mel Gibson’s film merely tells it how it was. Perhaps in the 21st century we have sanitised crucifixion and turned it into a fashion accessory, so The Passion of the Christ may bring home the reality to a new generation.

Was it good cinema?

Finally I wanted to know, was it good cinema? The fact that the audience sat there spellbound for over two hours suggests it was. There were some strong performances. Jim Caviezel gave a powerful portrayal of Jesus. The use of flashbacks to earlier episodes in the life and ministry of Jesus was effective and a welcome break from the rising tide of torture. The use of colour and lighting made for an atmospheric visual experience. As the credits rolled I sat, both reading the credits, and listening to the comments of the audience as they filed out of the auditorium. It was obviously a film that had moved them and made them ask questions. That has got to be good cinema.

Most teenagers will have to wait for parental permission to view it when it comes out on dvd and video. It is not a film for the squeamish, and not the ideal video for a friends sleep over. Yet I am sure many youth leaders will use extracts sensitively in the years ahead to enhance the telling of what really happened that first Easter. And if it’s put the death and resurrection of Jesus at the centre of everyone’s conversations this Easter then Mel Gibson has done something a lot of preachers have failed to do for a long time.

And finally, yes, the film does show the resurrection. It’s only 12 seconds at the end, but it is a full bodily resurrection of Jesus. And the film starts with the quote from Isaiah 53 “He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities: the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.”

Home Search Youth Groups Games Features Questions? MyPlace

Kernow Youth is powered by Chocolate Now!
Create your own chocolate selection from a range of over 40 luxury Belgian Chocolates.
Free gift-wrap, and a fast chocolate delivery service to UK and Europe.