Will the reel Jesus please stand up.
This is a personal review with four sections: how does the film fare as
As personal, I have been prepared to see this film by personal detailed study of the Bible over 30 years with an emphasis on first century Roman history in the past 10 years. I have experienced some power through the death of Jesus. I am not a fundamentalist though I have been there. Faith does not require content but hearing and doing. You must know a bit where I am coming from so you can brace your mind against my words as you will have to brace it against Mel's if you see the film.
My conclusion: this is not a necessary film to see. There is enough information in the Scripture. And there is enough in the history of art. And there is enough in your and my life to live. Satis [enough], as the Roman guard was to say of the scourging.
As a work of art, I have a hard time giving it more than 1 star. Film is a suitable medium but Gibson has not achieved art except in one or two places. The final descent from the cross and the pieta are striking. The images from Rembrandt and Michelangelo can equally well inform the imagination. (Click images below for larger versions).
| | |
| REMBRANDT, Deposition from the Cross 1634 Alte Pinakothek, Munich | MICHELANGELO 1499 Marble, height 174 cm, width at the base 195 cm Basilica di San Pietro, Vatican | HOLBEIN, Hans the Younger, The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb, 1521 Öffentliche Kunstsammlung, Basel |
The intimacy and tenderness of Rembrandt is unmatched. Gibson cannot have realism, or history, or art without such tenderness. One image that stood out for me and spoke to tenderness is in the final pieta tableau. Michelangelo shows a symphony of tenderness well imaged by this marble. In Gibson's Pieta, Jesus is facing the other way. The beloved disciple sits to the right of Mary and holds the inside of Jesus' right knee. The lacerated body reminded me of Holbein's Dead Christ, the image that inspired Dostoyevski's The Idiot. Elsewhere, the film is so stereotyped that the possibility of tenderness is masked, a veil over all faces. I do not think the brutality that is exposed will necessarily have a positive effect. Art of course could bring out the worst in us rather than transform the worst into love.
As theology, the film is not as bad as Crossan's review (see link below) indicates. What Gibson portrays is human violence. The Isaiah passage [53:4-5,10] at the beginning of the film is a recognition that humans do not do well with tenderness. The theological statement that God is love cannot be seen if God is portrayed as requiring satisfaction. But the human need for destruction and self-preservation at all costs is not portraying this, but rather God's willingness to be abused. This is not a co-dependency, but an invitation to allow our violence and anger, our determination to be in charge, to be absorbed and transformed. I do not think the film succeeds in putting this across, but it equally does not portray God as requiring an oblation. That the oblation happened is then interpreted by us - not necessarily (again) with the mind of tenderness.
 | ANDREA DEL CASTAGNO, The Holy Trinity, St Jerome and Two Saints, c. 1453 SS. Annunziata, Florence |
Andrea del Castagno showing the Spirit as dove and Jesus in the bosom of the Father represents a stronger view: that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself - inviting us to stop the violence of the sacred. In this, the film does not touch on the cult of Israel. The passover sacrifices are missing as are many Scriptural images that illustrate escape, transformation, and so on. Too many to touch on here. This film is not the end of the cinematic possibilities in Christ.
As devotion, the film portrays the stations of the cross. I found this a bit confusing and did not recognize many of them. It is not part of my devotional discipline (as an Anglican). The film for me does not work at this level. I worry that it should especially if the tenderness of God is masked. The possibility for devotion was available, for example, in the foot washing scene. Gibson has portrayed this as a one-on-one encounter with the beloved disciple - possibly a nice touch. (One and a half stars maybe.)
Finally, as history, this the film is not. I do not think it sets out to be history, but rather devotion. Some of its additional images are extra-Biblical: the fall from the bridge early in the arrest sequence, Satan's parody of Madonna and child, Judas being chased by leering and violent children; the cleaning of the pavement after the scourging. Nonetheless, some of the Biblical images are not meant to be 'history' either, but commentary on the effect of the single event that is historical: that Jesus died. His death was more shameful than the film portrayed. Jesus was not clothed when crucified as he was in this film. That alone is condemnation enough of any pretense at history. Claudia's line to Pilate expresses the problem with history as truth: "if you will not hear the truth, no one will be able to tell it to you." No film or story will give us 'what actually happened'. And this film is filled with stereotypes from the imagined reconstruction of the Antonia fortress to the Patrician Pilate and the foppish Herod. Definitely not history - maybe politics.
I wrote many notes in the dark which I have not transcribed. I had a box seat in the Odeon theatre to see Christ publicly portrayed as crucified. Remembering that the coliseum was built with Temple spoils, I wondered what was the background of this theatre and whether it would do better than blood sports. I expected gore and got it. I have seen it in our religious and political life already. It is enough. I have watched with him one hour.
For additional resources see www.ntgateway.com/film/gibson.htm
Dom Crossan's review is available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hodos/message/9450
Bob Schacht's review and explanation of the devotional stations of the cross is available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/14862