The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Starring: Jim Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Claudia Gerini, Maļa Morgenstern, Rosalinda Celentano, Francesco De Vito, Hristo Jivkov, Luca Lionello, Jarreth Merz, Mattia Sbragia, Hristo Naumov Shopov, Fabio Sartor, Giacinto Ferro, Adel Ben Ayed, Chokri Ben Zagdan, Luca De Dominicis, Pedro Sarubbi
Director: Mel Gibson
Running Time: 127 minutes
US MPAA rating: N/AUK BBFC rating: 18
Drama, Horror
"What is truth?" asks Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), and later he expands with his saintlike wife Claudia (Claudia Gerini) upon the problems raised by this question, as though it were a serious philosophical conundrum with which he struggles rather than just the flippantly cynical quip it seemed to be in the New Testament. Truth is indeed a central concern of Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ', which strives for authenticity by putting all its dialogue in Aramaic and Latin (with occasional quotes from the Old Testament in Hebrew), and which asserts itself as a testament to real events by obsessively showing Mary (Maļa Morgenstern), Magdalene (Monica Bellucci) and various disciples looking on as eyewitnesses to the extreme suffering and death of Jesus (Jim Caviezel). There is even, in this spirit of authentication, a (probably not intentionally) funny scene where a cloth used to wipe Jesus' bloody face is revealed to be the Turin shroud.
Pilate, it seems, is right to ponder the difficulties of arriving at truth. For the Gospel according to Mel picks and chooses as it pleases both from the four previous (and different) Gospels and from Gibson's own horror-film inspired imagination - all of which is contrary to Catholic instruction on the production of Passion plays, shows scant attention to historical fact, and is largely at the expense of Jews. Not only does the spoken Latin have an anachronistically medięval ring to its syntax and diction, but in any case the lingua franca in the east of the Roman Empire was not Latin but Greek. Pilate is portrayed, perversely, as a pensive, humane man in effect forced by the baying Jewish mob to send Jesus to crucifixion - yet in fact Pilate's notorious cruelty and corruption earned him a recall to Rome, and he would not have hesitated to crucify a troublesome Jew like Jesus. Here not only do the cartoon-evil Jewish priests, led by Caiphas (Mattia Sbragia), demand Jesus' death, but they are also shown gleefully escorting him to his execution on the eve of Passover - both unlikely given their obvious contradiction of Jewish law. The term 'Pharisee' is applied in the film to all those who 'hate that man', including the priests, apparently as part of a more general strategy to tar all Jews (besides Jesus and the disciples, of course) with the same brush - but in fact the priests were Sadducean, while of course Jesus himself was a Pharisee. More controversially, the notorious lines (from Matthew) in which Caiphas declares "His blood be upon us and our children" make a provocative appearance here (although Gibson has chosen to leave them unsubtitled). For millennia Christians have cited these lines as canonical proof of the 'blood guilt' of all Jews, until such anti-Semitic interpretation was officially overturned last century in the 'Nostra Aetate' of the Second Vatican Council - but Gibson himself belongs to a Traditionalist sect of Catholicism which rejects Vatican II's reforms. So in 'The Passion', the truth is very much up for grabs - and while Gibson has already amply demonstrated his indifference to history in
It's Got: A Jesus with gold-coloured contact lenses; exquisite cinematography (by Caleb Deschanel) that often resolves scenes into recognisable painterly tableaux (e.g. the Last Supper, La Pieta); demonic children and a brilliantly androgynous Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) that have much more to do with horror films than the scriptures; and a whole lot of scourging, flaying, beating and nailing.
It Needs: Either a greater adherence to historical fact, or else less pretension to authenticity; a little more soul to offset all the brutalised flesh; to achieve its sublimity without so often seeming so ridiculous; and enough already with the demonisation of Jewry.
Alternatives: 'The Last Temptation of Christ', 'King of Kings', 'The Gospel According to Saint Matthew', 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', 'The Miracle Maker' 'Life of Brian', and of course 'Mad Max 2'
Summary: Despite graphically portraying lots of nails, this film never really pins Jesus down. Beautiful, violent - and also funny for all the wrong reasons, and boring.
External Links
Official Web Site
The Passion of the Christ at the IMDB
Comments14 Comments |
| fascinating review - you've given me a much clearer picture of whether I'm interested in seeing this film than I'd been getting from just the headlines. Thank you. |
| Comment by:- jax | | 29 March 2004 | ip: logged |
| It is as it was |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 13 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| it is as it was?...shut up you retard lol...i hope you're not serious |
| Comment by:- nate | | 29 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| this movie sucked...that is as it was |
| Comment by:- nate | | 29 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| People who don't want to see the movie or think it sucked are scared of something more then a movie because to film standards it was extraordinary. Face Up to Truth! |
| Comment by:- Lori | | 07 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| I am facing up to truth ... the truth it was a terrible movie. If people wish to buy into the Jesus myth, that is up to them but I shalln't watch another film with either Mel Gibson or Jim Caviezel in, for as long as I live. This is nothing more than a Christian propaganda film and is heavily laden with Anti-Semitism. Avoid this like a dose of the clap! |
| Comment by:- Mitchell | | 08 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| I wouldn't say it was meant to be Anti-Semitic. In my opinion the Jewish wern't responsible for Jesus' death, politicians were. If anything, this movie was anti-politician (and/or lying bastard lawyers) On another note, it was, well, a perfect representation of what happened, an essential. But if you didn't like it, don't dis it because it is a religious piece, so attacking it is attacking Christianity, so if anything, only use constructive criticism backed by legitimate examples. It is sensitive topics like these that do call for political correctness. (Sorry if I seem like a total tool, I don't really like aspects of Christianity and/or organized religion in general, but I respect it) What I don't understand is why this is listed in the horror section, yes it's a bit gruesome, but not a horror movie. |
| Comment by:- Deaniver | | 10 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| I totally agree! people who don't like the movie are just scared of something more than a movie! and it's not meant to be Anti-Semitic at all! and it is a perfect presentaion of happened! |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 14 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| the fact is that you dont want to face the truth that there is a god and that he die for you twise the suffering from that of the passion.jesus is real ,he die for your sins so you wont had to take the penalty,so i said to all those outhere , repent of your sins and call upon the name of the lord and you sahll be save |
| Comment by:- edy | www.msn.com | 04 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| God cant die. He doesnt need to shed man's blood. He's God, whatever He wants, Is. God forgives whoever, whenever. Of course, repentence would be appropriate. i wish I read the review before watching the movie. Hoping to run through some stories about such a relgious MAN, i was disappointed that it was made to invoke emotional feelings in Christians rather than be a story. I just sat there and watched...nothing was going on or being said that was of importance. I do feel many details were left out, in order to really hit that emotional nail into some peoples' hearts. This kind of treatment was used in slavery, by Christians mind you, and some slaves were whipped to death, lets not get into lynchings and what not. Either way, bad movie. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous Muslim | | 05 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| A movie of the century. Historical relevance ? History is told by humans - is is truth ? More likely a mix. The movie was profoundly moving to me and for that I rate it as the best movie I have seen in the last 12 months if not the best I have ever seen. The review above by bitel is a joke as he usually is. Jesus' death was bloody and violent. As for demonisation of "Jewry", I saw it as a demonisation of ploiticians and trightly so. This comment alone by Bitel demonstrates his lack of understanding - did he evn wathc the film or just read someones review |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 04 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| this review is probably the least biased of 'passion of the christ' i have read...Thank you very much. You are right in what you asy about the film, and this film is definatly out for the blood and guts card. Fair enough the 'passion' is of christ suffering, but the film had no real point.....why not share his message? Why not give more of the story.....It felt more like a horror film than anything else, what's the point in that? I'm disappointed in mel gibsons decisions for the film, and i thikn that he cuold ahve done a much better job if he reasearched jesus' appreance, the historical content etc, rather than worrying how gory the next scene would be. Well done Anton for revealling 'passion of the christ' for what it really was saying, rather than what it should have said! |
| Comment by:- Wonderfish | www.opendiary.com/wonderfish... | 17 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Mel Gibson's rendition of the trial and execution of Jesus is by far the most violent and bloody ever made. But it also stands as one of the more artistic films to ever by produced. Gibson uses an abundance of cinematic devices to create the perfect rollercoaster of emotion for his audience. In the end, every viewer leaves having been effected in one way or another... |
| Comment by:- gilletbd1977 | www.thedvdreport.com/dvd_revie... | 19 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| Oh for goodness sake stop this stupid religious ebate. He didn't even get the historical facts right before plunging into this nosensical bloodfest. No man could take that sort of punishment before carrying the cross (which he wouldn't, they only carried the top bar, the rest was too heavy) and then push it into the ground where, after getting it in without falling over, it would be about 6 feet tall. |
| Comment by:- jomo99 | | 20 March 2006 | ip: logged |
