March 09, 2004

There was no question that, with all of the hype surrounding Mel Gibson's controversial offering, I would see the film on its opening weekend. Despite my best resolve, I almost didn't; although I live in a relatively small town and arrived at the theatre an hour and a half early, several shows were already sold out. (By the time the showing I was finally able to see let out, all eight of the scheduled showings were sold out.) I had planned ahead for a relatively long wait, and so I had a book with me to occupy my time as I took my seat more than an hour before showtime. By the time we reached the half-hour-to-go mark, the theatre was entirely filled. Needless to say, this both piqued my interest and my anticipation to see the movie.

At long last, The Passion of the Christ opened, beginning with Jesus' lonely night of prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane The setting was superlative - misty, dense with olive trees, and clearly in the dead of night with a full moon overhead to slip in and out of cloud cover. Jesus (Jim Caviezel) muttered in Aramaic as several of his disciples slept nearby. The physical and emotional atmosphere was primed for action. And then...well, and then the movie utterly failed to live up to either its hype or its significant promise.

It appeared to me that each scene was disjointedly tacked onto the next, and had been created merely as an excuse for one character or another to speak a carefully chosen phrase from a Gospel or, in some instances, to state boldly what Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Gospels made him think the character might have said (lines spoken by Pontius Pilate, as played by Hristo Naumov Shopov, were almost entirely imagined outside the words of the Bible). The obvious manipulation and choppy connections between scenes ended up showing me that the fact actors were speaking in either Aramaic or Latin turned out to be not so much to lend authenticity to the story but rather to cover up the fact that the script is truly awful. Had the actors been speaking English, the audience would likely have stood up and left because the lines were just that sparse in both impact and incidence. And the surreal intrusion of a feminine Satan (probably meant to be androgynous, but clearly a woman in that the character was played by a woman) into scenes here and there seemed to me to make the movie even more a patchwork quilt of scenes and concepts that clashed with each other and failed to come into a cohesive story.

The cinematography did live up to the promise of the opening scene throughout the movie, and the set and costumes were very good and appeared quite authentic. Make-up effects, including a scourging scene that's quite graphic, were amazingly realistic. Interesting camera angles abounded, and some were enhanced by creative and well managed edits. But those instances didn't make up for the fact that the editing as a whole left much to be desired. Again, I suspect the script's shortcomings are largely to blame. Was the script anti-Semitic as some have suggested? Well, yes, to some degree it was. But it was certainly no more so than are the Gospels themselves. It's fair to say that Gibson himself may or may not be prejudiced, but it's also true that the Gospels make it clear that Jews both demanded the Romans execute Jesus and that other Jews were Jesus' most devout followers. Gibson merely kept that dichotomy intact.

Jim Caviezel was very, very good. In flashbacks, he mastered the benevolent and patient look one would assume such a person as Jesus would have exhibited. And in the present hours depicted by the film, his suffering was patently clear not merely from extensive make-up but from the wounded look in his eyes and the defeated posture of his body. Other actors might have been better had they been given anything other than a highly stylized and shallow presence. Jesus' mother Mary (Maia Morgenstern) was teary-eyed but stoic in her scenes, and that's about all she had the opportunity to be. Mary Magdalene (Monica Bellucci) did even less on screen. Both women are capable of much, much more. This is a significant flaw of both the script and the direction. In other words, it's Mel Gibson's fault (he co-wrote and directed the movie along with his duties as producer).

I spoke with the 13 year-old son of a friend of mine about The Passion of the Christ who told me that he thought the movie was "awesome" and that it was "so much better than any of the other movies about Jesus' life." He told me that he felt that way because of the interpretation and the settings, and that he also thought the fact it was performed in Aramaic and Latin made it "like the real thing." Although he was able to handle the violence in the movie, he also indicated he thought that "sometimes it was a little much." (When asked, he said that the movie was unsuitable for young children, and that only those who were mature should see it - such as those age 10 and up. For the record, I agreed with him up until he specified the age.)

A girlfriend of mine told me that she considered the movie to be "powerful, with a powerful message" and said that it had started her rereading the Bible. She agrees that the movie was violent, and that all of the violence might not have been necessary. But she also said she understood what Mel Gibson was trying to do with the violence and so she was not offended by it. Although she agreed that the movie wasn't without its flaws, she also felt it deeply enough to tell me that it had showed her "where I am in my life, where I'm going in my life, and what it's all about."

So Gibson's movie is having at least some of the effect he intended despite its obvious shortcomings. I continue to lament, however, that this is one movie that could so easily have offered so much more.

I strongly suspect that those who already have a devout faith will find the film moving; those who don't, won't. And certainly this version of the story of the death and resurrection of the Christian savior won't result in any conversions of non-Christians. The emotional impact that could have - and frankly should have - been there simply wasn't. Some years ago, I crossed picket lines to see The Last Temptation of Christ. By the end of the movie, I was quite literally sobbing. By the end of The Passion of the Christ, I was just glad it was finally over so I could go do something - anything! - else. I did speak with a theatre manager on the way out, and commented that he must be very pleased with the business being done because of such high ticket sales for The Passion of the Christ. He quietly told me that he personally calls the movie "The Passion of the Hype". It's too bad that his title is more accurate than Gibson's violent, detailed, and all too often strangely passionless movie.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: The Passion of the Christ is rated R, largely for extreme violence. Although certainly bloody, the film is nowhere near as graphic as I'd been led to believe by early reviews filled with histrionics over the violence. Even so, the movie is not suitable for young children in any way, and even older children will probably have difficulties given that the movie is entirely subtitled and not terribly exciting (it's not like we don't all know how it ends). If you must see this movie, then know that those 16 and older will likely be able to handle the blood and subtitles alike. But for those who would like to experience a genuinely emotional and impactful story of Jesus' sacrifice, I recommend you forego The Passion of the Christ and see a truly passionate rendering of the roots of Christianity in Martin Scorcese's brilliant The Last Temptation of Christ.

I give "The Passion of the Christ" one and a half out of four stars...

Lady Liberty is the pseudonym of the Internet political activist behind the Lady Liberty’s Constitution Clearing House web site. Through her web site, her goal is to educate and motivate others to activism by offering Action Alerts, current news and original commentary, and a significant listing of online resources for activists.

Lady Liberty was a part of the highly successful Boycott Delta Internet campaign last year, and is currently working with the online effort to stop the CAPPS II and MATRIX programs. Lady Liberty is one of the first signed members of the web-centered Free State Project, and has produced various print advertising and marketing pieces for the group; she is also affiliated with the Free State Wyoming Project. She is currently a featured editorial columnist for Internet publications Opinion Editorials, The Price of Liberty, and The Sierra Times.

Lady Liberty has a degree in communications, and she worked as a radio news journalist before gaining certifications in various Internet disciplines. She is a member of several political action groups including The Planetary Society, National Space Society, National Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Sisters. She now works as a graphic and web designer in the Midwest.

E-mail Lady Liberty at ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com

Archives

The Constitution Con

Thanks and Giving

Life, Death, and the Arbitrary Line Between

History Lessons

Rises and Falls

I Have a Dream

Trolling for Government Programs

Warning Signs

Hunter for Justice

An Ounce of Prevention

Who's Scary Now?

Smoke and Mirrors?

Pick Your Pill

What's Freedom Worth?

Freedom is My Religion

Complete Archives for Lady Lib