A Critique of The Passion of the Christ

Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is one of the most controversial films of our times. Even apart from the fact that this film deals with the already touchy, religious subject of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, many have raised objections to alleged anti-Semitic themes and excessive depictions of brutality. Questions about the blood and gore in relation to Jesus' flogging, more often than not, are really questions about the purpose of the movie, and questions about the inclusion of any anti-Semitic themes often seems to deal more with Gibson's stylistic depiction of world during the first century. In the end, the purpose of this film seems to be to evoke an emotional response to a manipulated and stylistic depiction of last 12 hours of the life of Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the ever popular Gospels of the New Testament.

The very choice to make a film that is inclusive of only the last 12 hours of Jesus' life is only the beginning of the deception of this film. According to Philip A. Cunningham, executive director of the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning Boston College, the fact that this movie is "in ancient languages gives the film the veneer of historical verisimilitude that may mislead some viewers into thinking they're watching a documentary." That is one of the central problems. The choices of ancient languages and realistic special effects are only the tip of the iceberg of things that can mislead unwary viewers. Religious beliefs and affiliations aside, the production of the film in this manner makes it very, very easy for the uninformed viewer to suppose that the film is rather like a documentary of the first century Middle East during the events described in the Gospels, when, in fact, this film is closer to the formalistic side of things. The cinematography itself bears witness to the telling manipulation. From the beginning of the film, Jesus is often shown near or on the ground. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus is shown on the ground as Satan hovers above him with a snake nearby; when he is being beaten and flogged, Jesus is shown from a high angle as he lays on the ground and clutches the post; Jesus also cannot seem to carry his cross more than a few feet without falling to the ground as he is taken to Golgotha, the site of his crucifixion; there is no shortage of high angle shots as he is nailed to the cross, and, even when he is on the cross, most of the camera angles look down on him from above (and there are also plenty of close shots that doubtless aid in getting the audience to sympathize). It is no wonder that people sympathize with Jesus as he is portrayed here. And, certainly, crucifixion is not something to be taken lightly, but this just goes to show how easy the nature of the film medium makes it for viewers to develop an emotional connection to the Jesus of this movie. Therefore, this makes it plainly obvious that the purpose of this film is not to move people emotionally through the actual content of the film (like a documentary), but to move people through filmic manipulation (a thoroughly formalistic technique). Again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with formalist film techniques as opposed to realistic film techniques, but it is a problem when a film is purported to be the most accurate depiction ever of such a controversial event as the crucifixion of Jesus. Mary C. Boys, one of several scholars who reviewed the film's script early on, cites examples of emails where Christian fans of the film were enraged at their criticism of the film because it is "a visual representation of GOSPEL truth." Finally, besides the fact that the film is not so faithful to the "truth" that is portrayed in the Gospels, it would still be ultimately difficult (if not impossible) to glean the "truth" about Jesus of Nazareth from the film since it crams all this into the last 12 hours of his life and virtually ignores the rest of the historical context and the rest of his teachings.

Furthermore, for a movie which is often said to be a realistic depiction of the events described in the Gospels-again, religious beliefs aside-this film has a rather significant amount of anti-Semitic elements. Many of these stem from extensive blatant historical inaccuracies, something which one would think to be inexcusable for such a big-budget movie. Andrea Berlin and Jodi Magness, archaeologists specializing in Ancient Palestine, point out the fact that there were certainly not any Jewish temple guards or soldiers (the Romans would never have allowed it) that would have arrested Jesus (2). However, they have a large role in the beginning of the movie. They come to Jesus wearing fantastical costumes and arrest him. These Jewish characters, which historically never existed, then proceed to do horrendous things. Firstly, they beat him so severely while bringing him to the temple that they throw him off of a bridge and drag him back up in chains. Before they even reach the temple, several of them are shown as agents of conspiracy with the Jewish leaders when they try to hire false witnesses. When Jesus finally reaches the temple for what can hardly be called a reasonable trial, these same Jewish soldiers are shown lying to Roman soldiers, trying to keep Jesus' trial in the temple a secret. They repeatedly and senselessly beat him while he is being questioned by the priests and Pharisees. They beat him to the point that he cannot see out of one eye and walks with a limp by the time they bring him to Pontius Pilate. All of these things that were never in the original Gospel accounts that this film supposedly follows were done by imaginary people who never existed. Additionally, Cunningham points out that the filmmakers completely changed the historical roles of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect in Judea, and Caiaphas, the high priest. In the film, while Caiaphas is shown as scheming to get Jesus killed by threatening Pilate with a riot, Pontius Pilate is shown as a tender, yet troubled man who honestly struggles with putting Jesus to death. History, however, has revealed that Pontius Pilate was actually a "violent despot" (Boys). Caiaphas was actually dependent upon this terrible ruler for maintaining his position as high priest (Cunningham). This shows that the film's images of the Jewish high priest inciting a violent riot just for the sake of getting Jesus crucified are rather ridiculous.

These anti-Semitic elements run deeper than just unhistorical representations; many of them stem from cinematic manipulation. In the first scene we encounter Satan hovering over Jesus as he is praying. Satan is depicted with evil and corruption coming from within; Satan is a depicted as a woman (perhaps saying that evil is seductive?), albeit a creepy one; Satan has some type of worm or maggot crawling at the edge of his/her nostril; a snake crawls out from underneath his/her cloak. This seems to define evil for the rest of the movie. A disgusting, and presumably evil, Jewish man with rotting teeth is seen cackling next to Judas during Jesus' trial in the temple. Demon-children (obviously Jewish, yet not surprisingly absent from the Gospel record, according to Cunningham) that have similarly rotting teeth are the cause of Judas committing suicide with a rope found on a rotting donkey with maggots all over it. Satan is often seen floating among the Jewish leaders that conspire against Jesus; he is among them as they watch (which is also unbiblical material, according to Cunningham) Jesus' brutal scourging; he also floats among the Jewish crowd following the procession to Golgotha. Also, when Pontius Pilate gives the Jewish mob a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, the murderer, the filmmakers make the Jews look worse by showing their choice of Barabbas, who is shown as practically an animal, even worse than what is supported by the Gospel record. The culmination of all of this is in the end of the movie, when an earthquake triggered by Jesus' tears completely destroys the Jewish temple. Ironically, however, the brutal Roman soldiers are not identified with these other thematic representations of evil. Satan is not looking over their shoulders as they scourge Jesus, nor when they put him on the cross. Though the soldiers certainly seem brutal, vicious, and stupid, they seem to be just that; they are not portrayed as fellow conspirators with the Jews. They are a sort of foreign presence that exists out of place from the beginning when they are presented as uninformed bystanders as Jesus is dragged to the temple. In scourging Jesus, they certainly are vicious, but they have no hidden motives; indeed, it seems as if they would do the same thing to anybody. Abenader, one of the Roman leaders under Pontius Pilate, is continuously shown as having a form of compassion on Jesus along with Pilate. Near the end of the movie at Golgotha, as the Jewish leaders snicker and ride away in pride on their donkeys, the Roman soldiers are no longer vicious, but seem to be pondering what they have done to Jesus. This uncalled-for contrast between the Jews and Romans seems to point to at least some form of anti-Semitism.

Excessive depictions of blood, gore, and brutality have also been the subject of much debate. While an American audience that considers horror and blood-and-guts movies such as Saw a staple of the national film diet should not care too much about comparatively mild movies such as The Passion, it seems that much of the criticism is not directed at the gore itself, but at the purpose of the gore. Slate's film critic, David Edelstein, in "The Passion, Mel Gibson's Bloody Mess," wonders "what...this protracted exercise in sadomasochism...[has]...to do with the Christian faith." That is not too far from the truth. Berlin and Magness claim that, despite the claims that the film makes to historical accuracy, there is no evidence that such weapons were used in scourging anybody in Roman Palestine during the first century, and the Gospel record certainly does not describe that level of or any level of excessive brutality in scourging Jesus, who is only mentioned as being beaten with a "reed" (2). This is enough to make anybody wonder about the purpose of the gore in this film. Though Edelstein at one point describes the movie as "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" (emphasis Edelstein's), it is unlikely that the purpose of the movie is to entertain in the same manner as other popular, gory movies since, doubtless, there are few in America or elsewhere who would wish to be entertained by images of such an important religious figure as Jesus of Nazareth being torn to shreds. Instead, the level of gore seems to fit in with the point made earlier about creating an emotional experience concerning an artistically and historically manipulated version of Jesus for viewers.

In the end, the purpose of The Passion of the Christ does seem to be to evoke an emotional response to Gibson's portrayal of Jesus. It would seem, then, that the anti-Semitism is merely a byproduct of the goal of this film; after all, there must be somebody to blame for the death of Jesus. The blood and gore must also be in support of this goal since it would seem natural for audiences to sympathize even more with a victim of such unexpected brutality. The key scene that ties up the emotional response theory is when Jesus is being nailed to the cross; after he has underwent such incredible torture and as he is being nailed to the cross, he cries for God to forgive his executioners. This clearly supernatural response, while biblical, is likely to move even the most bitter skeptic viewer of the film (New American Standard Bible Luke 23.34). This, combined with the manipulation spoken of earlier, creates a message of some form of forgiveness that, in turn, creates an emotional experience that plays on the religious background of many viewers.

Sources:
Berlin, Andrea, and Jodi Magness. "Two Archaeologists Comment on The Passion of the Christ." The Archaeological Institute of America. 13 May 2009.
Boys, Mary C. "'I didn't see any anti-semitism,' Why Many Christians Don't Have a Problem with The Passion of the Christ." Cross Currents. 13 May 2009.
Cunningham, A. Philip. "Gibson's The Passion of Christ: A Challenge to Catholic Teaching." Boston College: Center for Christian-Jewish Learning. 13 May 2009.
Edelstein, David. "The Passion, Mel's Bloody Mess." Slate.com. 14 May 2009.
New American Standard Bible Update. The Lockman Foundation, 1995.