MOVIE REVIEW:
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
Writing a review of this film is an enormous challenge because there are so many different ways of looking at Mel Gibson's controverisial film, "The Passion of the Christ," which hit movie theatres yesterday. Many of us who saw (and who will eventualy see) this movie will enter theatres with preconceived notions about the political and historical significance of the crusifixion of Jesus Christ and the enormous social fallout that exists to this day -- which is obvious from the great debate this film has inspired amongst theologians, historians, and those with dubious hidden agendas.
I confess to going into the film very sympathetic to Mel Gibson's plight as an artist and filmmaker, a position which may have influenced the way I saw this film. However, as an agnostic (non-Christian) I conclude that I could view the film in an objective way, since I was not overly sensitive to the faith-based reactions that many (believers) will have towards this film. Now, on to the review.
Director and co-writer Mel Gibson's stated goal was to depict the story of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus. Nothing more, nothing less. To that end -- he succeeds in capturing the final hours of the life of Jesus in a way no other film has ever done. In fact, this film version makes all other Biblical films before it seem saccharinized, by comparison. You'll never be able to look at "Jesus of Nazzareth" on TV again and find it the least bit believable.
From the film, we learn and see that these were EXTREMELY violent times when a man named Jesus roamed the Holy Land preaching the gospel. Gibson's graphic use of violence has been criticized by some detractors, but I found the public bloodbath to be a powerful and just representation of the times and the painful death of a man. Whether you are a believer or not, the film hits the audience on all cylinders -- as no one can possibly not admire and appreciate the tremndous sacrifice and excruciating pain of this "Messiah." I looked at the movie as a historical transcript (rather than a faith-based testament) and was moved to tears on at least two occasions. I wasn't alone. Many in the audience were openly sobbing.
If your idea of a movie is "a good time," then stay away. This is not a film to "enjoy." However, if you think beyond just yourself and want to truly "experience" a dramatic moment in history as a first-hand witness, then this movie is a must-see -- regardless of your religious beliefs or preconceptions about the film.
One of the brilliant devices used by Gibson is to break away from the slow ceaseless torture with assorted flashbacks, and slow-motion connections to his followers. For example, after Jesus is nailed to the cross, we see the giant wood upright flipped over and Jesus' body is practicaly lifeless as he struggles to survive through the mind-boggling pain. At that instant, he sees his mother's face in the crowd, in tears. It's a slow-motion scene which perfectly captures the complexity of the suffering beyond physical pain, which extends to the mother (Mary) and his followers. In essense, Jesus' pain is "our" pain as we come to identify not only with Jesus, but with his sacrifice )foe us). Without the "reprives" from the violence, the gore of this film might have been too much to handle. But, the device is very effective here and gives Jesus a more human dimension, that simply a victim of the Romans and the Jews.
Which now brings up the controversy regarding the depiction of Jews in the film. No one is the least bit sympathetic in this film, except Jesus (and mother Mary). The audience is shown that Jesus was the victim of very cruel times a-- nd a great amount of IGNORANCE and FEAR. In this regard, the Romans, the Jews, his disciples who betrayed Jesus, and the screaming masses in the streets calling for blood were collectively complicit in the execution. I'm not sure why this film created such hysteria amongst some critics, given the shared blame that is portrayed in the film by everyone.
I cannot comment on the historical accuracy of the movie, but I tend to give Gibson the benefit of the doubt, knowing his religious commitment and personal background which demonstrates strong faith and affiliation with traditional Catholicism (prior to Vatican reforms). He clearly "took a chance" on this movie, and risked alienating much of Hollywood, and his adoring public when he made this bold picture. For that alone, he should be commended.
The performances are flawless. The cast is mostly unknown actors -- which probably helps get the message across to a wider audience, without the baggage of dsitrations (such as William Defoe's Jesus, or Ernest Borgnine as the Roman soldier, as in other Jesus films). The anonymity of the actors allows us to concentrate more on the story and the real meaning of the movie, and in this regard, Gibson made another wise decision.
The movie is bloody. brilliant, and bold. Oddly, given Hollywood's steady output of slasher films, overuse of special-effects, and brainless Adam Sandler movies, this film was a refreshing change and a beacon of hope that MORE filmmakers will have the courage to follow their convictions and make movies that make people think, and talk, about what is important in life and what role man plays in the galactic universe.
Whether you believe in the teachings of Christ, or not -- Jesus was arguably the bravest and most selfless man ever to walk the earth. It's shameful that some people are so blind that they will fail to get Mel Gibson's message.
FIVE STARS (out of five)
-- Nolan Dalla
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
Writing a review of this film is an enormous challenge because there are so many different ways of looking at Mel Gibson's controverisial film, "The Passion of the Christ," which hit movie theatres yesterday. Many of us who saw (and who will eventualy see) this movie will enter theatres with preconceived notions about the political and historical significance of the crusifixion of Jesus Christ and the enormous social fallout that exists to this day -- which is obvious from the great debate this film has inspired amongst theologians, historians, and those with dubious hidden agendas.
I confess to going into the film very sympathetic to Mel Gibson's plight as an artist and filmmaker, a position which may have influenced the way I saw this film. However, as an agnostic (non-Christian) I conclude that I could view the film in an objective way, since I was not overly sensitive to the faith-based reactions that many (believers) will have towards this film. Now, on to the review.
Director and co-writer Mel Gibson's stated goal was to depict the story of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus. Nothing more, nothing less. To that end -- he succeeds in capturing the final hours of the life of Jesus in a way no other film has ever done. In fact, this film version makes all other Biblical films before it seem saccharinized, by comparison. You'll never be able to look at "Jesus of Nazzareth" on TV again and find it the least bit believable.
From the film, we learn and see that these were EXTREMELY violent times when a man named Jesus roamed the Holy Land preaching the gospel. Gibson's graphic use of violence has been criticized by some detractors, but I found the public bloodbath to be a powerful and just representation of the times and the painful death of a man. Whether you are a believer or not, the film hits the audience on all cylinders -- as no one can possibly not admire and appreciate the tremndous sacrifice and excruciating pain of this "Messiah." I looked at the movie as a historical transcript (rather than a faith-based testament) and was moved to tears on at least two occasions. I wasn't alone. Many in the audience were openly sobbing.
If your idea of a movie is "a good time," then stay away. This is not a film to "enjoy." However, if you think beyond just yourself and want to truly "experience" a dramatic moment in history as a first-hand witness, then this movie is a must-see -- regardless of your religious beliefs or preconceptions about the film.
One of the brilliant devices used by Gibson is to break away from the slow ceaseless torture with assorted flashbacks, and slow-motion connections to his followers. For example, after Jesus is nailed to the cross, we see the giant wood upright flipped over and Jesus' body is practicaly lifeless as he struggles to survive through the mind-boggling pain. At that instant, he sees his mother's face in the crowd, in tears. It's a slow-motion scene which perfectly captures the complexity of the suffering beyond physical pain, which extends to the mother (Mary) and his followers. In essense, Jesus' pain is "our" pain as we come to identify not only with Jesus, but with his sacrifice )foe us). Without the "reprives" from the violence, the gore of this film might have been too much to handle. But, the device is very effective here and gives Jesus a more human dimension, that simply a victim of the Romans and the Jews.
Which now brings up the controversy regarding the depiction of Jews in the film. No one is the least bit sympathetic in this film, except Jesus (and mother Mary). The audience is shown that Jesus was the victim of very cruel times a-- nd a great amount of IGNORANCE and FEAR. In this regard, the Romans, the Jews, his disciples who betrayed Jesus, and the screaming masses in the streets calling for blood were collectively complicit in the execution. I'm not sure why this film created such hysteria amongst some critics, given the shared blame that is portrayed in the film by everyone.
I cannot comment on the historical accuracy of the movie, but I tend to give Gibson the benefit of the doubt, knowing his religious commitment and personal background which demonstrates strong faith and affiliation with traditional Catholicism (prior to Vatican reforms). He clearly "took a chance" on this movie, and risked alienating much of Hollywood, and his adoring public when he made this bold picture. For that alone, he should be commended.
The performances are flawless. The cast is mostly unknown actors -- which probably helps get the message across to a wider audience, without the baggage of dsitrations (such as William Defoe's Jesus, or Ernest Borgnine as the Roman soldier, as in other Jesus films). The anonymity of the actors allows us to concentrate more on the story and the real meaning of the movie, and in this regard, Gibson made another wise decision.
The movie is bloody. brilliant, and bold. Oddly, given Hollywood's steady output of slasher films, overuse of special-effects, and brainless Adam Sandler movies, this film was a refreshing change and a beacon of hope that MORE filmmakers will have the courage to follow their convictions and make movies that make people think, and talk, about what is important in life and what role man plays in the galactic universe.
Whether you believe in the teachings of Christ, or not -- Jesus was arguably the bravest and most selfless man ever to walk the earth. It's shameful that some people are so blind that they will fail to get Mel Gibson's message.
FIVE STARS (out of five)
-- Nolan Dalla
