| |
|
Back
to Rants and Raves
Horrifying
spirtuality vs. the spirituality of horror: two takes on Gibson's
The Passion of the Christ
The Passion of the Christ was a watershed film for
me in 2004, because it started what evolved into a year-long
reconsideration of my religious beliefs and lifestyle, something
that I had neglected since I completed my service as a missionary
in China back in 1999. For several months prior to the film's
release, the word was that it was a travesty, a gross and
horrific misrepresentation of the Gospels and distortion of
cultural and historical fact. My wife, a seminary graduate,
watched the film before I did and her reaction confirmed the
negative reports we had heard. I posted her review to the
IMDb Classic Film board, the text of which can be found below.
As I discussed my wife's reaction with others, I felt compelled
to see the film for myself -- and my own reaction differs
considerably from my wife's. It can be found further below.
-----
Original posting of my wife's review:
Reading the numerous posts on this film so far it seems that
no one has actually seen the movie as of yet (though I'm sure
a few will take care of that by the end of the weekend, Oscar
night notwithstanding). My wife saw it last night, and she
offered up the following thoughts. (reluctantly, as she hates
my being here). My wife was a seminarian so she approaches
the film with great interest. Her thoughts are summarized
as follows:
- First, aside from any theological issues, as a movie,
it wasn't quite her style. It basically takes the mindless
Hollywood action movie aesthetic and applies it to the last
moments of Jesus' life. The film gorges on extreme violence
and gore, and (literally) hammers its points relentlessly,
numbingly, using thunderous military music and excruciating
slow-motion shots of Jesus being flayed or falling under his
cross. The actors are all wooden, the characters lacking in
any depth, which admittedly is nothing new in the long history
of passion plays. The film's employment of Aramaic and Latin
dialects in the spoken dialogue gives the film a shallow veneer
of authenticity. The actors struggle to get the correct phonetic
pronunciations, leading to stilted, unnatural dialogues ("A-do-nai!
A-do-nai!"). This unnatural effect may work when Jesus is
saying something profound, but when Mary and Jesus are discussing
the dimensions of a table, the effect is laughably inept.
- As far as matters of scriptural accuracy go, the film takes
great liberties with the biblical texts, embellishing or even
inventing. For example, Gibson repeatedly inserts a Satan
figure who appears throughout Jesus' crucifixion. When Jesus
is praying, Satan appears with a snake coming out of his nostril.
When Jesus is presented to the mob who demands his crucifixion,
Satan appears among the crowd, holding an infant-like creature
who bears a striking resemblance to Gollum from THE LORD OF
THE RINGS. Now, even a scholar might not necessarily find
this objectionable, as the Gospels have always been interpreted
in strikingly diverse ways, from the very beginning as the
Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death. That's why
there are so many inconsistencies between the four Gospels
to begin with. What really matters then is HOW Gibson is taking
creative license with the scriptures, and to what end.
- There is a serious divide between how the Jews and Romans
are depicted in the film. The Jews in the film are depicted
as a bloodthirsty mob, the Jewish leaders portrayed as obsessively
intent on Jesus' destruction. The Jewish mob in the temple
judgement scene are flailing everywhere, as if they have lost
their minds in their desire for blood. The Jewish high priests
are even shown to be with Jesus at the Crucifixion, which
historically and culturally speaking is implausible as it
was Passover -- a time for Jews to practice ritual purity
and to avoid anything that could possibly defile themselves,
for example...blood spraying from the side of one they considered
to be a criminal.
(According to another source, the notorious Scriptural verse
spoken by the Jewish crowd: "His blood be upon us and our
children", the line that throughout history has been cited
as justification for the persecution of Jews, is left intact
in the film, BUT for some strange reason it is unsubtitled.
Hmmm...)
- In sharp contrast to the depiction of the Jews, the Romans,
especially Pontius Pilate, Pilate's wife and their upperclass
milieu, are depicted as being sympathetic to Jesus. Pilate
is portrayed as a hapless official placed in an unfair position
who does everything he can to free Jesus. He and his wife
are shown giving compassionate, longing, helpless looks at
each other as Jesus' fate is decided by the bloodthirsty mob.
Pilate's wife even comes in tears to give Mary a white cloth
which Mary uses to wipe up Jesus' blood from the ground. Gibson
contrasts Pilate's compassion with the cruelty of the Roman
soldiers; after the interminable scene where Jesus is flogged
almost to death, Pilate even seems apologetic about the degree
to which the soldiers beat him. In the way Gibson shoots the
two men standing together talking, Pilate and Jesus are put
on the same physical plane which gives the impression that
they are equals above everyone else. Clearly the film intends
for Pilate to come off as a noble official above the bestial
rabble that includes the Jews and low class soldiers.
- Ultimately, the film is about the bodily suffering of
the Christ, which Gibson presents with an extreme fascination
that can be described as morbidly sado-masochistic. The fixation
doesn't stop with Jesus; in the scene where Judas hangs himself
we see Judas looking at the carcass of a donkey, with maggots
crawling out, a gratuitous and excessive image in a film that
seems already gratuitous and excessive in its depiction of
Christ's bodily torture. Or maybe not; if this is what Christianity
comes down to for a viewer, then certainly that viewer will
have no complaint with this film. However, other Christians
(not to mention non-Christians) miss the other side of Christianity:
the teachings, the moral enlightenment, the message of love
and hope to go along with the hate and suffering amply proffered
by Gibson's movie. The few moments when Caviezel attempts
to pass on a kernel of "truth," the lines are hollow recitations
of text rather than meaningful spiritual messages. In some
cases, the lines are in bizarre contexts (for example, the
bloodied Jesus falls on his cross and Mary approaches, he
looks up and quickly tells her "I make all things new." It
was disturbingly incongruous). In a jarring and manipulative
moment, the ONLY time Jesus directly addresses the camera,
he tells the viewer to remember that when they are persecuted,
he was persecuted too. This above all else may be what it
is all about for Gibson's film; it's certainly been the implied
rallying cry of his act of making this movie, and it may be
the rallying cry for many Christians who feel compelled to
embrace this movie because they perceive it being unfairly
and maliciously attacked, just as Jesus himself was attacked
two millenia ago.
Some will argue that the film's depiction of Jesus' suffering
can be viewed as the burden of everyone in the world for their
sins, regardless of their ethnic or cultural background. On
the other hand, a newcomer to Christianity would certainly
get the message that the Jews are to be blame for Jesus' death
as there is little emphasis placed on the universal relevance
of the Passion.
As to whether to see this film or not, my wife recommends
that if people are going to continue discussing it, they should
see the film so that they can make an informed opinion and
not rely on hearsay. She considers the subject simply too
important to risk discussing it using information got second-hand.
As for me, going along with her advice I would like to see
this film, but if it's as bad as she makes it out to be, I
don't know if I want to give my money to it. Maybe I'll just
buy a bootleg from Chinatown. May God forgive me for my sin!
---------------------------------------------
A few days later, I was able to see the film, on a bootleg
DVD (I didn't want to give Gibson my money in the event that
I hated the film). I posted the following:
Random thoughts that I'm trying to pin to the cross in order
to sort them out...
- absurd, despicable, dubious, hilarious. I found myself
reacting to this movie in jaw-dropping disbelief. I laughed
out loud sometimes, other times I shook my head, but by the
end I raised up my hands (and not because I identified with
the protagonist). I'll be damned if this doesn't become a
classic. critic Jaime Christley calls this film "dogshit on
fire" and I agree, though I would perhaps add emphasis: "dogshit
-- ON FIRE!!!"
- As much as I nod my head at my wife's and howard's and
Lee-109's substantive complaints as to Gibson's willful distending
of Scripture and near-total disregard of historical context
-- and the potentially damaging and divisive effect it may
have in instilling hatred towards certain communities -- the
one point made over the past week that I agree with the most
may be from whoever it was (quickstepper? though whoever it
was didn't have the guts to see their insight through) who
said that this movie may best be viewed as Mel Gibson exorcising
his demons. This film goes so far beyond the pale of what's
expected of it by anyone, Christian or non, that it achieves
a kind of psychotic epiphany. So for me personally, the issues
over anti-semitism and the scriptural inacuracies just didn't
stay one third of the way through because it's so obvious
that Gibson is totally consumed with something else, the bodily
destruction of the Christ, one of the most unbelievably disturbing
and unforgettable on-screen obsessions I have witnessed in
a while. I find myself wanting to say the things sprockets
said on behalf of KILL BILL VOL 1, because this really is
Gibson's equivalent: KILL JESUS, where all his sick fetishistic
fantasies that long festered in the shrine inside his head
finally get to play out on the dream screen, and he's thumbing
his nose at those proverbial schoolmarms who tell him he should
know better. And this is certainly a matter of personal taste
(as if we didn't know that by now), but I found Gibson's bloody
wet dream to be more compelling in its single minded, relentless,
go-for-the-jugular Crucifixion convictions, and his whip,
saw and sledgehammer dismembering of the Holy Savior, than
Tarantino's dandyish effete redecorating of obscure fim references
and silly firehydrant decapitations of live action-ized Japanese
cartoon characters. This may be one of the most memorable
horror movies I've ever seen.
This is why the one person whose opinion I most want to
hear on this film is Chris-435. Chris has spoken before about
the unique powers of movies to tap into what he calls "the
collective massmind", the psychic state of humanity (and the
$117 million they have to offer on an opening week). I think,
like Chris' favorite horror flicks, this movie achieves that.
On the other hand, what differentiates it, for better or worse,
is a total absence of camp (well, intentional camp) and an
extreme sense of self-importance that doesn't jibe with the
B-movie credo. I know he shares my disgust of BLACK HAWK DOWN,
one of the most self-congratulatory works of manipulative,
jingoistic war-as-spectacle hypocrisy ever made, and he may
very well derive a similar view of Gibson's film being an
unwitting presentation of all the hypocrisies laden in the
religious beliefs being presented here. I guess for me the
difference is that unlike Ridley Scott and his clammy, robotic
coordination of a military tragedy for maximum entertainment
value, Gibson is a lot more passionate about his material,
and it shows. And this is exactly what makes his film powerful
-- because it doesn't let the viewer off the hook with knowing,
winking satirical ironies, that is unless the viewer decides
to disengage altogether, which has and is going to happen
with a lot of viewers who can't find their way inside Gibson's
mind and moreover don't really want to and I don't necessarily
blame them. But for the rest of the audience, they are confronted
front and center with what's presented, and the utter earnestness
of its over-the-top presentation is unsettling. For me the
best and most original parts of KILL BILL were the ones that
were the sickest, but there was all that "look how cute and
clever I am" pedantic crap getting in the way that viewers
shamelessly wanting to prove their hipness readily cuddled
up to because it let them off the hook, it was a fat pitch
to swing at. Here there is no such distraction, no such reprieve.
In tapping uncannily and nakedly into a psychic nightmare
that may be lurking in the minds of many a Christian living
in the USA, I think this movie is the 2004 equivalent of INVASION
OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD or THE TEXAS
CHAINSAW MASSACRE. I believe I saw one critic scolding the
film for owing its aesthetic to Tobe Hooper's film, but I
don't think this is necessarily a flaw, not at all.
- But getting back to that massmind idea: it may be that
Mel Gibson has reclaimed debauchery from the low-budget ghetto
of Vivid Video and John Waters and the artsy-fartsy ghetto
of Takeshi Kitano, Catherine Breillat and Gaspar Noe, and
has made the scandalous vision of oozing bodily fluid safe
and acceptable for millions of decent Christians to experience,
with his crucifixion envisioned as a bloody, pornographic
snuff film. Some may call this a symptom of deep-seated social
hypocrisy, to which I would concur-- though whether it is
Gibson's or America's hypocrisy is debatable -- I guess it's
more of a complicit pact of acceptable depravity, ushered
in with the blessing of the MPAA's ridiculously insufficient
R rating. It's amazing how church groups who have long cried
out against the excessively graphic sex and violence in Hollywood
are now defending this movie because, as one pastor on TV
said, "there is much brutality in the world and we must face
it." Nevertheless, by exploiting the state-sanctioned channels
of depravity, Gibson has achieved more in one film than Tarantino
or even Scorsese ever will, in validating the perverse pleasures
of B-movie sin for the masses. (I think this is the Jesus
movie Scorsese in his deepest groin of hearts was dying to
make before he decided to go the highbrow route with the Kazanzakis
novel). What Gibson has made can certainly not be called Art,
but it's a Movie -- it speaks in Movie terms -- insisting
on the literal, visceral qualities of the movie Image,speaking
in huge, monumental hyperbolic gestures, insisting that the
viewer be overwhelmed and amazed as if they were experiencing
cinema for the first time. This is movie making at its basest
and yet most powerful, most dangerous, most ethically deplorable.
Sprockets is right: this IS Birth of a Nation, not to mention
Triumph of the Will, The Wild Bunch, Taxi Driver, Star
Wars, Saving Private Ryan. The cinema of shock and awe,
that preys on the innocence and trust of the audience and
blows them away, partly because that's what they wanted in
the first place; a cinema that testifies to why such innocence
and trust and complicity is ultimately not enough, no matter
what perverse pleasures are to be had, if we're to evolve
as a civilization. And yet this bestial, primal pleasure always
beckons to us, insisting that if we don't come BACK to it
we are somehow less than human...
|
