Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,685
    Credits
    1,085

    Unhappy The Passion Of Christ not all I was promised.

    Cinematic violence is a subject that has been discussed a lot lately, mainly though it's been more of an argument between the factions of Religion Vs art, the Religious people reeling in horror over the release of <b>Dawn Of The Dead</b> for its portrayal of graphic violence as funny and cool, the Artistic people adamantly demanding that any director be allowed to put forth his own artistic vision and those that don't like it don't watch it, unless that film is <b>The Passion Of The Christ</b> which many of the <b>Dawn Of The Dead Fans</b> have criticized as being too violent for release. Personally I couldn't disagree more as while <b>The Passion Of The Christ</b> is a very violent film and one that no children should be present for, it's also a film that never backs away from the fact that its on screen violence is something ugly, it's designed to shock you and it can even be said that the violence has a purpose.

    Let me just set one thing straight though, I am saying that the violence has a purpose, not a message. This is certainly not another <a href="http://www.epinions.com/content_118641102468"><b>Kill Bill</b></a> type film designed to glamorize violence as being cool and fun. Watching the film and being faced with the visceral shock of actually seeing the suffering of Jesus, having my own religious beliefs and witnessing the things portrayed here in such a brutal, realistic manor has resulted in an undeniably powerful film. However that power came largely from my own beliefs being confronted by certain moments within this film, it wasn't anything the film achieved alone and it certainly wasn't anything that the film as a whole achieves, it literally is just in those controversial moments.

    Therein lies the problem with <b>The Passion Of Christ</b>, while it certainly holds a degree of power for anyone with a Christian belief; it ultimately fails at anything genuinely religious and certainly fails at being a well made film.

    Other critics have said this and on seeing the film I have to agree, the lack of any real story is a definite problem. It simply opens in a garden with a man named Jesus praying intensely for some reason, he's upset because a group of friends are sleeping and some Devil woman seems to be trying to talk him into suicide. After that a group of militia show up to arrest him for some reason, some man he apparently knows gives him a kiss and then a fight breaks out wherein one of the soldiers loses an ear and this Jesus magically fixes it. The rest of the soldiers then beat him for this before handing him over the Romans demanding his death.

    However anybody not intimately familiar with the story of Jesus is going to perceive the film as far fetched, confusing and not very emotional at all. If you're hoping to learn anything about who Jesus is then you're limited to a few confusingly placed flashbacks of him talking about peace and love. Who his family is gets limited to a few flashbacks between Jesus and his mother followed by a lot of scenes of her crying, and if you're hoping to get any explanation as to why these people want to kill him for preaching peace and love then it's just not going to happen. Most of these characters are not even named in the film, you need to observe their actions so that you can figure out who some of them are while other people of significance merely fill out the head count.

    Gibson tries to make up for the lack of a story by using all of the technical tricks at his disposal. Sadly those technical tricks inevitably involve both the horrible overuse of slow motion shots and an overly theatrical soundtrack designed for a single purpose, to force an emotional reaction that his version of the story is not achieving. I honestly felt that not only did his slow motion camera work get annoying when used for everything from beatings to money exchanges, and not only did I find that the soundtrack lessened the sense of realism that was so prevalent, but I also found that both areas cheapened the brutality, made it feel more distant and so even the emotional reaction I described at the beginning wasn't a constant.

    You see while there was a lot of points in the film where I (<i>and I'm stressing that this is me I'm talking about here</i>) was on the verge of tears, there was almost as many scenes where I desperately had to suppress myself from bursting into laughter inappropriately. On top of the constant slow motion sequences there was also the films treatment of the Devil as being a sinister, grey skinned, dark eyed witch like creature with maggots in her nose, snakes between her legs and deformed feet. While I can readily believe that the Devil may have tried to tempt Jesus into ending his life early I still have to laugh at anybody who would believe that taking a form so obviously evil would be likely to trick Jesus. Yet I have to remember that Gibson was probably intending to scream at the audience that this was the devil, really evil and nasty and scary merely by appearance alone. Still it was clearly obvious that Gibson wanted to make his story more commercially viable by turning it into a horror flick since he also included a completely unnecessary side story involving Judas being tormented by demonic creatures that resembled the cave troll in <b>Fellowship Of The Ring</b>. What's even more disturbing is that none of this is even close to the cheesiest stuff in the film since Gibson decided to conclude the films most emotionally resonant moment (<i>when Jesus asks John to look after his mother</i>) by literally throwing a giant tear from heaven into the mix.

    Still it's not entirely fair to slate the film for being completely bad either. Visually alone the film works in that when everything is not all slow motion you are able to appreciate the scarily authentic costume designs. Whether they were the exact same clothes that people wore I couldn't say but in terms of getting the feel right they do. You wont see a single character wearing their brighter than bright, clearly uses new Daz automatic outfits that were obviously designed in the 21st century like you get in other Christian films. Instead the duller colours and slightly more ragged look has been recreated perfectly.

    In terms of acting the film is also uniformly excellent. Seeing as how the cast are required to speak all of their lines in Latin, a dead language, they do manage to get some remarkable performances using their body language alone. As Jesus James Caviezel has the sense of tenderness and anguish perfected yet also managing to get his eyes burning with intensity whenever offered a way out. Monica Bellucci sensitively handles her role as Mary Magdalene despite being one of those head count characters. Yet it's the moments involving Mary, Jesus mother, that I found to be the most impressive as Maia Morgenstern's tears were so authentic, her portrayal of the anguished mother so believable that she alone managed to get a lot of the audience tears. It was her character that you ultimately found yourself empathizing with and this is largely due to what Morgenstern does with such an underwritten role.

    It's just a shame that the authenticity of those 2 areas couldn't have continued on into the films writing. For all his talk about using Latin and telling the story as it happened Gibson has still shown that both biblical and historical accuracy comes second to his own religious beliefs. It's a shame because by designing the crucifixs in the shape of the letter T he shows that he did do his homework into what they really were, yet still he insists on placing Jesus on a cross without ever explaining why the Romans would keep such an unusually shaped crucifix for a person they had no idea they would be crucifying, nor why the beaten Jesus embraces this object of his own torture and talks to his father through it even though A/looking up would be easier, and B/it would have held no religious significance before his death. Other things such as the Jewish council mentioning Elijah's ascension to heaven (<i>which is another recent teaching and again would have been impossible before Jesus death</i>) prove to negate the film of any spiritual worth beyond taking in the more powerful scenes and tracing them onto your own beliefs. It's a shame because, as I said, the visceral shock of this violence should have an effect on anybody with a Christian belief and if you can stomach the violence then I assure you that the impact is undeniable. However as a film in its own right <b>The Passion Of Christ</b> is not on the better end of the scale so I can not justify recommending to anyone not of a Christian religion.

    One final note would be aimed at the claims that the film is anti Semitic. This is something I would wholly disagree with since I saw the film as being as anti semitic as the average World War 2 film is anti German. The Jews that tormented Jesus were portrayed largely as they appear in the bible, including the information that everything they do is against the Jewish religion anyway. There are also instances, such as the man that helps Jesus to carry his crucifix, of Jews that were disgusted by the events. For me personally I found that in removing certain dialogue for the sake of Jewish relations Gibson has proven to take away any of the selfish motives that caused the event to happen in the first place.

    <b>2.5/5</b>

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    389
    Credits
    1,105

    Post

    Thanks for the review, Carl. I found it very interesting. Most of the people who I've to talked to about the film are practiving Christians (as am I), and I suspected, as do you, that those unfamiliar with the Jesus story would have trouble getting into the film.

    Here's my review if anyone's interested.

    Passion of the Christ
    The Passion of the Christ is a great sequel. Its characters have already undergone some of the most amazing, life-changing events possible: Mary, though a virgin, gave birth to a child; John, a simple fisherman, found a person in whom he could place his trust even during the most dangerous of storms; Peter, a faithful follower, discovered that faith is so powerful that he too could walk on water. But Jesus’ story which seems to culminate in the climatic triumph of Palm Sunday is followed by a completely new type of event. Jesus' passion story is a sequel writer's dream. Mel Gibson was fortunate that all the best characters returned for The Passion, allowing him to build off those established characters' strengths and not have to develop many new ones. Much like George Lucas when he made Empire Strikes Back, Gibson made his movie, assuming his audience already saw the original.

    Just look at the opening scene. The movie starts abruptly in the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus literally was crying out to God asking for deliverance. With few exceptions, starting a movie with an intimate, character-building scene like this only really works if the characters have already been established. Otherwise it comes off like starting Miracle with the argument between the coach and his wife, or starting LOTR with the scene between Gandalf and Frodo in Moria.

    For scenes like these to have emotional power on a personal level with the audience, we need to be already familiar with the characters. This carries over in real life as well: when you run across a person begging on the street you probably don't feel very emotionally attached to the person, even though you know that there is probably a sad story behind the person's situation. It is not until we get to know a person that we begin to get emotionally drawn into the person's circumstances. No background; no emotional impact. That why murder mysteries can get away with starting movies with a brutal murder and not have the audience tearing up when the young lady is killed; the audience simply doesn't know enough about the victim to actually become emotionally attached to her.

    For Christian moviegoers (this movie's primary demographic), not introducing Jesus prior to his prayer in Gethsemane isn't too much of a problem. They've read the book and know exactly what Jesus has gone through, artificially hastening the emotional connection with Jesus. Other moviegoers, however, are left stranded-especially since there is no parallel archetype in contemporary American film to Jesus' character (i.e., the suffering servant). What other film has the central person not functioning so much as a character with thoughts, aspirations, and ideals, but rather as an object of atrocities? I'd wager that those who don't know Jesus prior to seeing the film, will most likely walk out with a very one-dimensional view of Jesus.

    Once Jesus weathers a good shot to the head the film quickly snowballs into a brutal blood fest. There are movies that are more gruesome than this film, but I have never seen a film more violent. The difference between Passion and, say, Private Ryan, is that in Ryan you see gory images of dozens of anonymous people while in The Passion you witness pain afflicted to a single human being. People, in general, have a hard time identifying with gore; pain, however, has been experienced by all. There may have been several images in Ryan that forced people to look away because of the blood, but there where very few scenes where people cringed as a reaction. During the scourging scene everyone in my theater seemed to recoil and wince as though in pain themselves.

    For those who didn't close their eyes during the scenes of torture witness the Jesus character tolerating this afflicted pain quite well. Gibson has good, historical justification to show Jesus surviving the torture. While the vast majority of people who underwent this type of brutality prior to crucifixion went into shock and were incapacitated by the time they were actually crucified, the gospel accounts say that Jesus was conscience enough while hanging on the cross to speak to-even converse with-those around him. Gibson, however, displays Jesus going one step further; Gibson's Jesus not only bears what must have been incredible pain, in two occasions he makes bold acts of defiance.

    The first such portrayal occurs after the initial round of beatings by the Romans. Gibson's Jesus is left lying on the ground; but once they stop the whipping, Jesus musters all his energy and stands up again. Standing at this point is not an act of submission; it is an act of heroic defiance, akin to what Americans have come to expect from their heroes when portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Cruise, or (not coincidently) Mel Gibson.

    The second is not quite as much of a break from the character, but still note-worthy. When Jesus gets to Golgotha he falls down next to his cross. After walking an excruciating quarter mile or so one would expect this man to simply lie there until the Romans pick him up and nail him to the cross. Instead, the music crescendos as Jesus heroically crawls onto his cross. I believe that this scene is totally unnecessary since the director had made it clear in an earlier scene that Jesus was embracing his crucifixion sentence. Instead, this scene undermines the struggle that Jesus articulated in his prayer in Gethsemane and his quotation of Psalm 22, changing Jesus' character from one who is willing to accept the fate given to him by God into a character who needlessly wants to demonstrate to the Romans that they would not be able to keep him from being crucified—a ridiculous notion.

    These and other scenes need to be pointed out, not for the sake of nit-picking or criticizing the film, but to combat the myth that is popular among Evangelicals that Gibson's movie allows moviegoers the ability to see what happened as though someone had a videotape and actually filmed Jesus' crucifixion 2,000 years ago. Rather, Gibson's movie is an artistic representation of the crucifixion. Although its historicity is commendable and as accurate as one could hope for, one cannot say that this portrait is "more real" then previous depictions of the passion story. Mannerism, inflections, and the tone of every character was determined (necessarily so) by the writer/director, and had no historical basis.

    Saying that watching The Passion is like watching video actually shot 2,000 years ago would be like saying that looking at Da Vinci's "Last Supper" is like looking at an actual photo of Jesus' and his disciples. We may have a good idea of what happened in terms of a timeline, but we don't really have much historical evidence on other matters. For example, when Pilate asked, "What is truth?" was he reflective, argumentative, or sarcastic? None of the historical records say. Gibson decided to have Pilate ask the question reflectively. Is Gibson correct? He very well may be. But those of us who want to maintain a level of historical integrity must acknowledge that Gibson's portrayal of these events is merely his best, faith-filled guess.

    I, for one, was glad to see Gibson play fast and loose when interpreting events in Jesus' life. Some of the best scenes were those where Gibson filled in the gaps left in the historical record. These scenes were often intimate, and always gripping. I thought Judas' torment, for example, was excellent and contained depictions of evil that I have only seen matched in The Exorcist. Also, the flashback when Jesus fell while carrying the cross is another awesome scene. These are just two of the film's exceptional scenes; scenes that rightly belong to the canon of great American filmmaking.

    For the most part, these scenes were the ones where Gibson clearly felt comfortable allowing his imagination to fill in the gaps. Most of the flashback “exhortation” scenes, conversely, seemed too short to serve any real purpose. I doubt any of them were longer than a minute long, not allowing audience any time to emotionally invest themselves to Jesus or his teachings. Although Gibson seemed comfortable flying fast and loose with the rest of the movie, it was almost as though Gibson was afraid to do so here. Unlike his portrayal of the passion, these scenes showed a real lack of imagination. The exhortation scenes were as dry and impersonal as I have seen in a Jesus movie. The flashbacks with Mary, however, were much more effective and delightfully imaginative (and longer).

    Perhaps, Gibson wanted these scenes to come off that way. Gibson certainly hoped to manipulate his audience into seeing Christ as he does, and perhaps Gibson feared that a charismatic teaching Jesus would lead the audience to identify more with the God-man than the people whose lives Jesus changed. Hopefully, the DVD's commentary will reveal the true motive.

    All-in-all, The Passion was quite good. It had some serious flaws, most of them relating to Gibson’s self-limiting, last-twelve-hours-of-Jesus’-life screenplay, but considering that limitation Gibson really made an incredible movie. Like Ron Howard, it is becoming apparent that Gibson was not put on this earth to act; it appears as though his acting career was only intended to open the door for to allow him to make powerful films. The Passion might end up being Gibson’s most successful film, but it won’t be his best one. That is yet to come.
    8/10
    "34 million American adults are obese. Putting together that excess blubber would fill the Grand Canyon two-fifths of the way up. That may not sound impressive, but keep in mind it is a very big canyon."

Similar Threads

  1. The Passion of the Christ teaser music
    By Sidious in forum Trailer Music
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-28-2006, 07:45 AM
  2. The Passion Of The Christ – Clips (QT)
    By Rufus in forum Movie News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-09-2004, 10:00 AM
  3. The Passion Of The Christ - TV Spots (QT) (3)
    By Rufus in forum Trailer News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2004, 11:54 AM
  4. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST posters
    By trailergod in forum Movie News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-22-2004, 04:32 PM
  5. The Passion Of The Christ offical teaser trailer
    By movieweb in forum Trailer News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-07-2003, 03:32 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •