The Passion of the Christ

Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but when he is making a serious movie, he knows what he's doing. I thought "Apocalypto" was not very good, mainly because of its ridiculous violence and its quite one-dimensional portrayal of an entire culture. What was the point? Mel Gibson seemed to be saying "boy, these people were violent and wrong." But this sort of unipolar viewpoint, which did not serve "Apocalypto" at all, fits this film to a tee. Gibson is clearly a committed Christian of the Catholic stripe, and he has created pretty much the ultimate cinematic portrayal of the story of Christ's crucifixion. I can't imagine a film which would better indicate the depth of the physical suffering that Jesus of Nazareth must have endured, and the emotional pain this would inflict upon his relatives and best friends. The sets are all very detailed and ring quite true to the period. The actors in lead "good guy" roles are perhaps a bit too European looking, but given the film's production in Italy, some of this is forgivable. Either way, people have cast these characters with their own ethnicity for eons, so I'm willing to give that a pass. I kind of wish some of the more mystical elements had been left out. Jesus heals a roman soldier during his capture. Judas is attacked (in his mind at least) by little hobgoblin demon children. Christ is also tempted by Satan - who is played and visualized quite well by a spooky-looking actress, but nonetheless this feels like a bit of a tacked on element, despite mentions in the Gospels at various points. These elements are at worst a minor annoyance, but they strain credulity, which probably runs counter to Gibson's purposes. I guess I would have preferred that the human elements of the story stand on their own, because, frankly, that's all we have access to at this late date. We simply can't trust miracle stories and talk of mystical happenings. We don't have access to them. But by meditating on the human aspects of the story, we have something we can relate to and which may inspire faith in the other, less tangible things. To display them openly is to assume their existence before we are faithful. But this is just my opinion, I suppose, based on my reading, studies in philosophy, and my general skeptical bent. I've never seen a miracle, and no one I've trusted has ever reported one to me. Things handed down from 2000 years ago, re-translated dozens of times, do not strike me as reliable sources for amazing stories, none of which seem to happen in modern history and with the benefit of all the technology we have available to us to record such events. I mean, given all the cell phone cameras out there, where are all the indubitable miracles? Anyhow, I digress (my apologies to David Hume...). Even with its mystical trappings, this film in its immediacy and its viscerality certainly succeeds in forcing the viewer to ponder the human aspects. The mystical stuff is a sideshow, so to speak. For those with faith, this film should offer a potent meditation on a story which has been ingrained into the psyche, practically since birth. For a non-believer, this film offers a valuable insight into the passion that believers have for this story and for the man himself. Like a Socrates, Jesus of Nazareth seems to have been a singular man, the like of which is rarely seen. Contemplating this can deepen a non-believer's appreciation, if not deliver them into a completely faithful orientation to the material. To put it briefly, it's a brilliant film. Each shot is lovingly composed, and the visual impact and beauty of the images can't be faulted. The performances all feel very real and there is no actor who takes the viewer away from the time period. Gibson, similar to some of the other great directors such as Kubrick, Scorsese, Stone and he like, excels at creating "scene." You really feel like 'you are there.' ******* The Blu-Ray: The picture is quite beautiful. Black levels are solid, detail is quite good (though perhaps not the absolute best, I would say "Dark Knight" and "Alexander" top it), and color is very naturalistic. There is a bit of "posterization" in some shots of the sky (i.e. a sort of digital distortion or dot-crawl), but it only intrudes on 10 or 20 seconds of the film, and is probably in the source material. The DTS audio mix offers some nice directional effects, with crowd taunts and bird chirps in the rear sound field. Technically, it's about as good as I can imagine it looking. I did not see the film in the theater, so I cannot compare the level of fidelity. Extras include commentaries, and a "recut" version, which apparently is actually a bit shorter than the theatrical release. This version also cuts a bit of violence. A word to parents - cutting five minutes of gruesome violence leaves about, oh, 120 minutes of gruesome violence remaining in the movie. So plan accordingly insofar as your children can tolerate these kinds of things. Other extras: There are several commentaries on the main disc. The extra disc has many short documentaries on both production issues and historical context, though none are in HD, unfortunately. ********* So should you buy it? Well, that's a tough question. If you're a devoted Christian who enjoys pondering these mysteries, and you also have a good HD setup, then sure, I can't see any reason not to. If you are not a Christian but are curious about what the hub-bub is about, then this is definitely worth at least a rental. Fans of historical fiction/docudrama will certainly find much to appreciate. Whether or not you buy it, this is definitely a film everyone should see at least once. It is a great film, like it or lump it. It is a vivid and very impactful telling of one of the very few central stories of our global culture. Keep in mind I do not want to put a Christian gloss on humanity here - if there were comparable films on Mohammad (a bit of an issue given the icon prohibition), Buddha, etc., I would recommend seeing those as well. On the whole, by any standards, this is a five-star release. It may not be for everyone's permanent collection. But those who add this Blu-Ray title to their shelf will not be disappointed.

On Saturday, March 6, 2004, I attended a showing of The Passion of the Christ with a group from Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church. We had decided to make this an evangelism event with a discussion following the movie followed by a chili fellowship. A group of 50 (half guests of Salem) attended the afternoon matinee. Flyers announcing the discussion were distributed and several viewers joined us for the discussion. All in all it was a good afternoon and all involved were able to sort out thoughts and feelings following the watching of this movie. In a word, the movie was breathtaking. Some scenes the audience literally jumps. The theater was quiet-one didn't hear the munching of popcorn! Artistically the movie portrayed the suffering as no one has seen it portrayed before. Many at the discussion admitted that it got to a point where they said to themselves, "Enough already!" One person even left the movie (but did re-join us for the discussion). My advice is to know yourself. If you feel you cannot handle violence or blood, don't go. If you do desire to see it, consider waiting until the movie is released on video or DVD and rent it-you can always stop the tape if the action becomes too intense. Mr. Gibson remained for the most part close to the Gospels. There are some Catholic add-ons, such as I believe Veronica wiping Jesus' face which is not found in the Gospels but is part of the chronology of the Stations of the Cross. Some thought Mary may have played too prominent a role, but she was the mother of Jesus; what mother wouldn't be there to comfort her child? Amazingly, I was able to understand about half the spoken dialogue (all that Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic training finally came in handy). The scenes with Pontius Pilate were interesting. Sometimes the dialogue between Pilate and the Jewish leaders was in Latin, other times in Aramaic/Hebrew. I will try to watch it again to try and detect a pattern. The subtitles were somewhat close to the Scriptures. Not knowing what translation of the English Scriptures Mr. Gibson used I cannot verify if the passages were verbatim. I did enjoy the opening scene of a black background with a verse from Isaiah in white text. It set the tone for the movie. There was, indeed, violence. How can there not be when a man is whipped and then crucified? Here the movie did disappoint. Having studied the Roman methods of torture and crucifixion I believe Mel Gibson held back in this area. And this might be the right call. The horrific violence that was on the screen was too much for some. Add to that the fact that the mental and emotional suffering Jesus endured weren't portrayed. (If you can stay awake through it, watch The Last Temptation of Christ and keep in mind throughout that this was a temptation as envisioned by the artist. This might give you a taste of what Jesus endured internally in this suffering.) The scene at the cross was a tad short. Mr. Gibson could have had Jesus pushing himself up gulping for breath just to give the audience a taste of the cruel discomfort on the cross. The arm being pulled did add realism to the effect just before the nail being driven through the right hand. The role of Pilate brings a new dimension for Christians who haven't thought too much about this man whom they name in their confessions. Mel Gibson adds a soliloquy by Pilate on truth where he asserts what he believes to be truth as he sees it. His wife, Claudia (not named in Scripture) does play a more prominent role than she does in Scripture. In the Gospels we are told she sends a messenger to her husband; in Passion she is right there through the trial giving her husband disapproving looks. You will not soon lose the picture of the gleeful Romans whipping Jesus. Again, in our discussion it was pointed out that the Roman culture loved blood. All in all, this is not a movie you will enjoy (even if the ticket taker says, "Thank you. Enjoy the movie."). But you will leave thinking about it and pondering it. You will want to talk to someone about it. If you do go to see it, try to go with a group planning to discuss it afterward, or schedule time for reflection afterward. One patron we met took a flyer disappointed she had to go to work. We assured her she could come anytime if she wanted to discuss the movie. Don't cheat yourself of this opportunity!

A great Easter movie

This is a great movie and everyone should watch it.

I've seen this movie several times, but just felt like watching it again last night before Easter. It is truly a brilliant movie, difficult to watch at times perhaps, but artistically and creatively brilliant nonetheless. Jim Caviezel is simply remarkable as an actor. In much of the movie, all of his emotion, back story, intentions were revealed through his eyes, in fact one eye. And it all came across with intense clarity. To me, He is remarkable also as a Christian, allowing himself to endure intense physical agony for a piece of film about His Savior. It was a true labor of love. I thought he was perfect for the role, portraying a manly, kind, strong, humble, and gracious Jesus rather than a one dimensional characterization of this blandly perfect person. This time as I watched the long journey of Jesus carrying the cross, I was struck by a few critically beautiful moments that I think Mel Gibson and/or Jim Caviezel captured perfectly: Through the agony and torture of what He was experiencing as He walked, evil literally surrounding Him, this quiet moment of Mary coming to Him, showing Him that she would be there for Him, it seemed to almost physically strengthen Him, bless Him. He was on a mission and He knew what He was doing as God and yet He was still human enough to receive encouragement from his mother. He says to her "I make all things new!" which in turn serves to strengthen her with her own suffering. The same beautiful moment with Veronica who came to wipe his face and give him a glass of water. Such intensely beautiful moments because we can see a tiny bit of goodness amidst the human capacity to hate and destroy. After so many of His friends deserted Him, the growing connection between Simon, who helped carry His cross, and Jesus was also extremely touching. Then there was the scene on the cross when the thief professed faith in Him, Jesus looked almost relieved, like in that moment, despite the pain He was enduring, He remembered why He was doing this and who it was for. The love in his (Caviezle's) eyes was almost palpable. I am very familiar with this story and I am very moved by the extent that Jesus went to stand between me and God's wrath toward sin, especially MY sin. Several times during the trial and torture and beating scenes, I would whisper "I really don't know how you did that." I wanted to defend, to fight back, to shout, "You don't understand!!" but He withheld for the purpose of displaying true Love and providing a way for those very people to be forgiven and given new life. The movie is definitely an emotional experience, not one I would lightly choose to undergo. I respect Mel Gibson's decision to focus only on the "passion" of the Christ, but I really wished we could have seen more about the resurrection and the excitement and joy of seeing Him alive again and the implications of that for us. It is this miracle of new life and a new beginning, that is freely offered to us. Jesus literally did/does make all things new! The movie challenges me, reminds me, encourages me, as I move forward in my own life, fulfilling the purposes God has for me. I am so glad they made this film.

DVD is prefect. Packaging is perfect. This is a movie that is in another language that has subtitles -this is the way they are all made- just to remind anyone buying it. It’s a movie that shows Jesus’s crucifixion. It is brutal and not meant for small kids to watch. I like to watch this on Ash Wednesday before I give up things for lent and again on Good Friday before Easter. Praise God. Definitely recommend.

Good movie, love it

I wrote a paper on this movie and thought it may be helpful to some... Introduction The Passion of the Christ, directed by Mel Gibson, is a film which presents the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life, largely according to the Gospel accounts found in the Bible, yet drawing on some extra-biblical materials. These last hours recount Jesus’ distress in the garden of Gethsemane, his capture, his various trials before the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate, his scourging, followed finally by his crucifixion and briefly his resurrection from the dead. The Passion of the Christ was met with commercial success, grossing more than $600 million worldwide. It is the highest grossing foreign language film, religious film, and R-rated film in US box office history. However, the film received polarized reviews within various spheres of society, including evangelicals. For example, one film critic called it “big, bold, nightmarishly beautiful”,1 while another described it as a “primitive and pornographic bloodbath.”2 It was also particularly controversial in being charged with antisemitism and containing excessive violence. Evaluation My evaluation of The Passion of the Christ will be set out in two sections. Firstly, the film will be evaluated as a piece of art – cinematically, this will take into account elements such as cinematography, transitions, historicity, acting, sound/music, direction, and story. Secondly, theological reflections will be made on the content to evaluate it as a piece of Christian cinema. Cinematically Cinematography The Passion of the Christ is visually stunning, not only because the film is impressive and extraordinarily well produced, but because of the content which leaves the audience reeling and shocked. The film was nominated for an Academy Award for best cinematography, and it uses clever techniques to weave the story together and allows the audience to see the story through different sets of eyes. An example of this is the opening shot of the film which is of the night sky, where the camera descends and moves through some trees and bushes to reveal a distressed Jesus fervently praying in the garden of Gethsemane. At other times the audience is given the point of view of Jesus, and this is particularly poignant when he is looking on the crowds around him who are jeering or laughing at his torment, or when he is falling over in exhaustion and pain from the physical punishment he has and is enduring. In the last moments of the film when Jesus has died on the cross there is a beautiful shot from above, a birds eye view of the hilltop at Golgotha, covered in darkness and cloud, before a drip forms and then descends from the lens of the camera, almost as if from the point of view of God the Father. Whether one dislikes the theological implications of shots like these, visually they are both stunning and creatively designed. Transitions One of the ways that The Passion stands out visually is in its transitions. Though the film primarily covers the events of the last 12 hours of Jesus life there are a number of flash backs to major events in Jesus life and ministry. Each of these scenes is strategically placed in the film with beautifully crafted transitions between. The first of these transitions takes place when Jesus is dragged through the city to the court of the High Priest, and from a distance Mary sees that her son has been arrested and asks the Roman soldiers to stop it. Then the scene shows an old man at work with a tool look up from his work and his eyes meet with Jesus, he turns back to his work and the scene changes to Jesus working with a similar tool on some wood. The following scene develops the character of both Jesus and Mary, showing their love for one another and relieves the tension as the audience is given a window into the playful relationship between Mary and her son, as she teases him and he splashes her with water. Scenes like this in the film function as a brief respite from the central narrative of the film which is relentlessly intense. One of the most powerful sections of the film takes place when Jesus is at the High Priest’s house and Peter looks on while Jesus is questioned. The High Priest questions him as they seek to find him guilty before he is asked if he is the Messiah, the Son of God, Jesus responds, “I AM, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then as he is struck and dragged away Peter is questioned in the courtyard whether he knows and follows Jesus, when he denies Jesus for the third time their eyes meet and the scene transitions to Jesus and Peter sitting alone and Peter promising, “Wherever you go Lord, I will follow, to prison, even to death.” Jesus responds that he will deny him three times and the scene cuts back to the present, Peter cries out and flees. The way these scenes are edited together is done so powerfully. In addition, as Peter flees, a broken Judas who has betrayed Jesus returns to the religious leaders to return the money he had been given and to request Jesus’ release. He throws the purse of coins back at the High Priest in a similar fashion to how it had been thrown to him, but he cannot undo what he has done. In this way the film flows seamlessly from scene to scene, keeping the action going and propelling the audience along. Another example of clever transitions is in the scene when Jesus is being scourged, it has fallen to his knees with all the torment that is taking place and the camera shows a shot from his vantage point of the soldiers feet who are whipping him, which are sprayed with his blood. The scene transitions to Jesus taking off John’s shoe and washing his feet. He says, “If the world hates you, remember that it has hated me first. Remember also that no servant is great than his master is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you.” (John 15:18, 20). Juxtaposing the meekness and love of Jesus in this scene towards his disciples with the brutality of the scourging scenes only moments before and following is spectacularly striking. The punishment is abruptly stopped and Jesus’ body is dragged away, the shot is inverted as we see through Jesus’ eyes again as his head hangs back and the viewer sees the scene upside down. Mary, Jesus’ mother, and Mary Magdalene soon enter and see the aftermath of the vicious punishment. Both Marys drop to their knees and begin to mop up Jesus’ blood with a white cloth given them by Pilate’s wife. The shot shows Mary Magdalene on her knees weeping and the film makes another beautiful transition to a scene with the religious leaders casting down their stones as Jesus writes in the sand with his finger, then Mary Magdalene, on her knees weeping, reaches out to touch his feet. The combination of well crafted transitions and smoothly flowing scenes draw the viewer in, paired with technically ambitious cinematography makes The Passion visually masterful. Perhaps the most powerful of these transitions was during his long walk to Calvary, following the long, vicious treatment by the Romans, he looks up the hill to where he will shortly be crucified and the scene transitions to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says, “You have heard it said you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. For if you love only those who love you, what reward is there in that?” (Matt. 5:43-44, 46a). Only moments later he is praying for them from the cross to which they have nailed him. The inter-splicing of these scenes together makes for powerful cinematic story telling. Historicity The script was translated into Latin, reconstructed Hebrew, and Aramaic, which brings the audience one step closer to the world of first century Israel under Roman rule. The dialogue did not seem strained or clunky as a result of this, and reading the subtitles does not take away more from the film than is added by the authenticity of the ancient languages being used. Gibson explained this decision by saying that if the lines were in English they would have been so familiar to the audience that the power of Jesus’ words would have been lost on the audience, which I think is true. The film was shot in Italy and the sets were brilliantly designed, they have an authentic feel and never seem artificial or constructed. Shots of the landscape, as well as built sets, such as the temple, the Roman procurator’s home, and Herod’s palace, felt realistic and believable, helping to bolster the films credibility and not distract from the story being told. The actors, though from diverse backgrounds including America (Jim Caviezel, Jesus), Bulgaria (Christo Jivkov, John), Romania (Maia Morgenstern, Mary), and Italy (Monica Bellucci, Mary Magdalen), to name but a few, also fit this genuine style far more than many of the characters in previous cinematic versions of Jesus and his disciples. A large part of this is due to the fantastic makeup and costumes used in the film, which is why it was nominated for an Academy Award for achievement in makeup. Together, each of these elements serve to make the film believable and draw the audience back to first century Roman occupied Israel. Acting Jim Caviezel’s performance of Jesus is powerful and stands out in this central role. While I would argue that too much of the film is given to his physical torture and suffering, the few brief scenes in which he is interacting with Mary, his mother, or some of his disciples, serve to draw the audience to this man. Particularly in the flashback scenes where Jesus is teaching or playfully relating to his mother the audience is endeared to him. These serve as a refuge from the onslaught of violence being done to him in the over arching narrative of the film and make those moments even harder to watch. The relatively unknown Maia Morgenstern (which incidentally means Morning Star, a title which has been attributed to the Virgin Mary) stands out in the role of Mary the mother of Jesus. This is in part because Mary takes on a key and central role in Mel Gibson’s retelling of the crucifixion story in comparison to the Gospel accounts. Morgenstern’s success in this role is also helped by her relative unfamiliarity, which is true of many of the actors/actresses in the film. In fact, the most known performer in the film was likely Monica Bellucci as Magdalen, because of her role in the Matrix franchise, but her role is so minimal it is not noteworthy. Sound and Music Another Academy Award nomination was given for the film’s original score. The music, and lack thereof, was used to powerful effect through the film. In the scene of the scourging of Jesus there is no music and the only sounds which can be heard are the chains holding Jesus jangling, the continuous counting of the soldier, the thud of the blows landing and the groans of Jesus. This use of minimal sounds is haunting, and only occasionally interrupted by the laughter of the soldiers or someone in the crowd. Finally, the camera pans away to Mary who has walked away from the scene as the sounds of whipping and counting can be heard distantly and moving music is introduced increasing the dramatic effect. Direction Mel Gibson, while foremost known as an actor, has established himself as a proficient director and filmmaker. He has directed and produced other historic epics such as Braveheart and Apocalypto, both of which were met with critical acclaim, particularly Braveheart, which won 5 Academy Awards. Apocalypto, like The Passion of the Christ before it, also successfully employed a modern approximation of the ancient language of the setting. His direction of Passion is no different, it is a well made film and well directed. However, it is very obvious that his Catholic background influenced his telling of the passion events, including his use of source material other than the biblical texts, such as pious accounts which emphasize the sorrow of Mary and The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which recount the visions of the stigmatic German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich, who claims to have had visions of the passion in the late 18th Century. As a result, the Passion elevates Mary’s role to the degree that she appears in almost every scene, unlike the biblical account where she is only in John’s account of the passion events. Gibson has a controversial personal life including charges of homophobia, because of derogative comments he has made against homosexuals, racism and antisemitism, alcohol abuse, and domestic abuse. Issues like these have influenced how people have received this film with great controversy being generated over claims that the film is anti-semitic. While it is hard to determine the validity of these claims, they have influence how The Passion has been received. The reason it is hard to validate these claims is because the biblical story intrinsically portrays many of the jewish leaders and people in a negative light, as those who drove the Romans to arrest and crucify Jesus. This is particularly interesting because Jesus is, I would argue, the most controversial figure in all of history, eliciting the widest range of responses. Story The story of The Passion is perhaps the weakest aspect of the film because the events leading up to Jesus crucifixion are largely removed from any context of the life and ministry of Jesus. While the film remains gripping and powerful, and what character and relational development depicted is done well, the audience is still left with the vast majority of the film presenting only his physical and emotional torment. Context is crucial for establishing the significance and meaning behind these events and The Passion was virtually contextless. The flashbacks provide small windows into Jesus’ life before these 12 hours and were done so well that it leaves the audience desiring more. These scenes also help to develop the character of Jesus and make his suffering more significant to the audience. However, these scenes are not in appropriate proportion to the ongoing physical torture and punishment of Jesus which significantly burdens the viewer and almost makes the film unbearable to watch. Perhaps this was the intended affect but this could have been done with greater impact had further time and emphasis been given to Jesus teaching and life, allowing the audience to be drawn to this man, his message, and his mission. Theological Reflections Humanity and Deity The Passion struggles to handle the complexity of Jesus. Of course this is understandable since the incarnate divine Son is beyond full comprehension. While great emphasis is made of the humanity of Christ, depicted from the beginning through his emotional struggling in the garden of Gethsemane and continuing through his physical suffering and death, the accent given to his identity as the Son of God is lacking. For instance, Satan questions, “Who is your father? Who are you?” This seems out of place with the accounts of the New Testament which clearly show that every demon Jesus confronts knows his identity exactly, “I know who you are – the Holy One of God.” (Mark 1:24b). In addition there are very few miracles depicted in the film, with the exception of the healing of the Roman soldier whose ear is cut off by Peter, again in light of the Gospel accounts this is out of proportion. Even the resurrection is revealed only in the closing seconds of the film and therefore it’s significance is downplayed, and it’s meaning left ambiguous, in drastic contrast to the great emphasis given to Jesus flogging and crucifixion. In the one scene with a claim to deity the meaning would be easily missed by any viewer with limited biblical knowledge as the reference to I AM or YHWH would be lost on most. Physical vs. Spiritual Suffering The physical suffering of Jesus is shocking even by today’s standards in 2016, and the film was criticized for its excessive violence. Several major critics were troubled by the extensive, detailed violence of the movie, including the late Roger Ebert who described it as “the most violent film I have ever seen.” This illustrates the emphasis that the film places on the physical suffering of Jesus at the hands of the Romans over the spiritual reality of Jesus Christ bearing the weight of the sins of the world and being forsaken by the Father with whom he had enjoyed eternal perfect communion. Peter, picking up the language of Isaiah says, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” (1 Peter 2:24). Though the opening frame was a quote from Isaiah, “He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; by His wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53, 700 BC,” this idea is not picked up again throughout the remainder of the film. Gibson articulates this emphasis himself during an interview with Diane Sawyer, I wanted it to be shocking; and I wanted it to be extreme. So that they see the enormity – the enormity of that sacrifice; to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness, even through extreme and suffering and ridicule. The actual crucifixion was more violent than what was shown on the film, but I thought no one would get anything out of it. Clearly Gibson misses the significance and meaning behind Jesus’ death on the cross, and his view seems to be a mere “Christ as example” understanding. An imbalanced or misunderstood view of the identity of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Son of God, as mentioned above, tends to result in a misunderstanding of the work Jesus accomplished at the cross. While Jesus is a great example of love and forgiveness for us to look to, ultimately Jesus displays God’s love and forgiveness by dying in our place and satisfying the wrath of God against our sins, not simply praying for his enemies while enduring great physical pain and emotional anguish. As a film depicting the events described in the biblical Gospels this is where Gibson goes most noticeably wrong. While the Gospels emphasize the identity of Christ and his determination to accomplish the work given him by going to the cross, Gibson’s Passion over emphasizes Jesus’ humanity and the pain he endures. Role of Mary The Synoptic Gospels don’t mention Mary at all in their accounts of the last hours of Jesus’ life, and John’s Gospel only briefly mentions that she was at the crucifixion with John and some other women. However, Gibson essentially makes her a co-lead with Jesus. She is present in almost every scene and her role is almost as significant as his. For instance, when Jesus has been arrested and taken away, Mary wakes abruptly from sleep as if she miraculously knows what has happened. She also seems to supernaturally sense Jesus’ presence below her as she walks through the courtyard and falls to the floor, the camera pans down through the earth we see Jesus below looking up as if he can sense or see her too. Perhaps the most shocking of all is the scene immediately following Peter’s denial of Jesus when he sees Mary, drops to his knees, and confesses his denial. Mary reaches out to touch and comfort Peter but he shouts, “No, I am unworthy! I have denied him Mother!” (emphasis added) Together these scenes paint a dangerous picture which seems to elevate Mary to something other than a mere woman, and certainly beyond what the Scriptures teach. Throughout the film Mary seems to be bearing the weight with Jesus, suffering along with him. At one point she even prays, “so be it” as if giving consent. Obviously all of this stems from Gibson’s Catholic theology and the various sources which were used other than the biblical texts. Depicting the Demonic As demons are usually unseen, depicting them in film can be challenging to do well. While it was also absolutely under God’s sovereign control and according to his foreknown plan (Acts 2:23), clearly what is happening in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus is evil and demonic (John 13:27, Luke 22:3). Throughout the film Satan is portrayed by the actress Rosalinda Celentano. She appears first in the garden, robed in black, without hair or even eyebrows. The appearance is chilling and yet the woman is somewhat striking. Gibson explains, “I believe the Devil is real, but I don't believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good—but not quite.” This vision to show the role of Satan in the temptation and torment of Christ is effective. While this deviates from what’s explicit in the biblical narrative, it works to convey the spiritual realities of Satan and the activity of demons in the world. In the garden of Gethsemane, Satan is shown discouraging Jesus at his most distressed hour. Satan questions Jesus and then we see a worm writhe in his nostril, and as Jesus prays, visibly distressed, a snake slithers out from under Satan’s robe and moves towards Jesus. Abruptly Jesus stamps on the snakes head, killing it. This is a powerful allusion to opening chapters of Genesis and the fall of man, as well as the protoevangelium, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (Gen. 3:15). Another scene where striking spiritual imagery is used is the scene which shows the anguish and suicide of Judas Iscariot, who has betrayed Jesus. First, he returns to the High Priest and throws back the silver given him to deny Christ before running away weeping. Then, grieving, he is confronted by a number of children whose faces are distorted and they continue to chase him shouting “Cursed!”, as the camera shot changes we see Judas swiping at the air, as if tormented by invisible evil forces. Eventually, Judas is chased out into the wilderness by these children, covered in wounds which have seemingly just appeared. The children suddenly vanish and he is left alone, lying next to the rotting carcass of a donkey. Using the bridle from the dead donkey he hangs himself. In my opinion, these scenes which depict the demonic, while demonstrating artistic license, help to portray to the reality of the spiritual world which is unseen. Conclusion In conclusion, there is much good to be said about the film: it is visually stunning, the actors perform well, and it has an authentic feel, as well as being technically ambitious and successful. Certain aspects of the film are done quite brilliantly, like the flashback scenes and how they have been inter-spliced with Jesus sufferings. However, there are a number of issues with the film. As far as telling the story of the crucifixion the film loses some of the powerful impact which it could have had, had it developed more of the life and ministry of Christ which make up much of the Gospels. Focusing so heavily on the punishment Jesus received makes the film virtually unbearable to most viewers and does not succeed in presenting Jesus in a compelling way. Had the film given more time to the well presented flashbacks I think that the story would have benefited and Jesus’ death would have become more significant in the context of the film. More importantly, due to some of Gibson’s Catholic influence and theological confusion, the film fails to develop and/or find a balance for the reality of Jesus Christ’s identity as the Incarnate Son, fully God and fully man, particularly in presenting his deity. Not having a right understanding of Jesus identity impacts the way the viewer understands the meaning of the crucifixion and the significance of the resurrection. As a result, the film fails to show the glorious depth of the person and work of Christ on the cross and its significance for humanity, both those who have put their trust in him and those who have not.