The Passion of the Christ: A Film by Mel Gibson
Some call it a beautiful historic epic that brings back faith. Some call it a blasphemous, immoral, inaccurate portrayal of the Son of God. Others call it a violent, gory, brutal, bloody, grotesque Hollywood horror film. Still others say it fuels anti-Semitic feelings and depicts Jews as bloodthirsty and responsible for the death of Christ. One thing is certain: The Passion of the Christ is the highest grosser of all independent films, and is the most successful religious film to date, expected to gross about $400 million. It has also brought about the most controversy of any film in the last few years.
On February 22, 2004, The Passion of the Christ was screened for the first time in over 3,000 theaters in the United States. The movie is an interpretation of the final twelve hours of Jesus Christ’s life. The brutal, violent R-rated film has attracted regular viewers, and large Christian audiences, many of which were horrified at the gruesome violence. Before the movie was publicly shown, arguments about its possible anti-Semitic depiction of Christ’s death were continually breaking out. People remembered past anti-Semitic Passion plays after which Jews and people who did not follow the teachings of Christ were killed or tortured. The fear that this movie might ruin years of unification of Christians and Jews haunts many people. And there are many Catholics who believe that having an actor portray the Messiah, the Son of God, in a film, is blasphemous.
Mel Gibson, who co-wrote, directed, financed and produced the film, claims he is not anti-Semitic, although he is a fundamentalist Catholic. He may have been influenced his father, even more of a conservative Catholic, who denies that the Holocaust occurred. Although he strongly denies any personal anti-Semitism, Gibson believes in the “traditionalist Catholic Church” which rejects the Pope’s second Vatican Council edict which desired to restore harmony in Christian-Jewish relationships and clear Jews of responsibility for Christ’s death. Gibson was inspired to make The Passion of the Christ a decade ago. He wanted to make a movie that would remind people all over the world of the horrific torture Jesus Christ suffered for all of mankind. And he achieved this goal in the first few weeks after the movie was released. He based the movie on the book The Dolores Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. At age 48, Gibson was too old to play Jesus Christ in the film, so he cast 35-year-old Jim Caviezel in a role that will inevitably make him famous. Caviezel and the co-director were struck by lightning while filming the crucifixion scene, and Caviezel also dislocated his shoulder. He did not suffer any severe injury. The movie was filmed in Italy. The Catholic actor had to learn Aramaic, since the dialogue in the film was in the ancient languages Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin. The film has English subtitles. Most people say that the ancient languages spoken in the movie give it more authenticity. However, others say that the Latin spoken in the film is not actually Roman, but the Church Latin that Gibson learned as a boy. And the Aramaic, since the actors had a short time to learn it, sounded muddled.
The religion of Christianity is all about the birth and life of Christ and his teachings. Mel Gibson chose to only show the torture and the crucifixion of Christ. Many Christians believe that Gibson’s interpretation of this was dominated by his passion for making violent, gruesome movies, and not his inspiration to make a truthful religious film. Some critics believe that Gibson dramatized and exaggerated everything, as if he thought viewers would not be satisfied with what actually happened.
After the film’s release in February, some people said that the negative portrayal of the Jews in the film and its overall stereotypical depiction of Jews during Christ’s crucifixion have caused a lot of anti-Semitism among Americans. Jewish leaders spread throughout the United States have accused the film of depicting Jews in a negative way. German church leaders have expressed concern that the film’s portrayal of the Jews could reignite anti-Semitic prejudice. According to Jonathan Bernstein, director of the San Fransisco office of the Anti-Defamation League, on some school campuses, Jewish children have been ostracized and labeled “Christ-killers” because of the impact of the movie and its controversial negative images of Jews. Don Lattin, a journalist for the Chronicle Religion Writer, did a survey to see whether the film actually sends out an anti-Semitic message. He was concluded that Gibson’s movie may have actually lessened blame on Jews for Christ’s death. Only two percent of Americans said that the film made them more likely to hold the Jews responsible. Nine percent said the film made them less likely to blame the Jews, and eighty-three percent said it had no effect on anti-Semitism. Gary Tobin, president of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research in San Francisco, in an article that was published on March 18, 2004, said of the film “people have had to think and reflect on their beliefs. This film was absolutely healthy for religion in America.” Also, Yassir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, sparked even more controversy after he said he found the film “moving and historical” and in no way anti-Semitic. In the United States, if not in many other nations, the movie is not provoking any major anti-Semitism.
The intense violence in the film caused Reverend Jose Geraldo Soares, a Brazilian Presbyterian minister, to die of a heart attack while viewing the movie in theaters. This is not the only heart attack suffered during the film. In other news, a couple was arrested because of a violent fight they had over the movie on March 20 in Georgia. They were debating whether God the Father in the Holy Trinity was symbolic or human.
Though anti-Semitism may be the main issue with the film at present, there is also another argument, and that is whether or not the movie is true to the actual historical Jesus, or whether it is blasphemous. Some people say that to see it, other than to critically review it, is a sin. Some Catholics who follow the teachings of Christ, the gospels, and the disciples are horrified at the way Christ is portrayed in the movie. Some say that a Hollywood actor cannot portray the real Jesus. They say that this Catholic movie violates the Second Commandment (“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain”), presents another Jesus, and they condemn its massive influence. Using the Bible as their argument, these people use the word of God to try to expose Mel Gibson as presenting a fake Jesus and brainwashing people into thinking that the real Jesus was just like the one in the movie.
As of March 24, The Passion of the Christ has earned $329 million and is on track to gross about $400 million. It has topped the box office for the three weekends in a row, and is making millions, not just in the United States, but in many other countries as well. Presently, the hype over the film is dying down, and its popularity has been overshadowed by Dawn of the Dead, a remade horror film that topped The Passion at the box offices. However, despite the fact that it has been topped by Dawn of the Dead, The Passion of the Christ is a phenomenal success, the highest grossing R-rated film ever made, and 18th on the all-time domestic gross list. In 2005, it is likely to at least be nominated for, if not to win, the Best Picture Oscar.
Despite the intense debate he started over The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson is planning to make another religious film. This one is about the Maccabees and the coming about of the Jewish festival of Hanukkah, which is a celebration of the Maccabees’ victory over King Antiochus of Greece. This takes place in about 165 BCE. The dispute about this impending film is over Mel Gibson’s idea about what actually happened, and also what he said about it: “The Maccabees’ family stood up and made war. They stuck by their guns and they came out winning. It’s like a western.” Many people do not think that such an important event in Jewish history should be portrayed as a Western.
Mel Gibson showed bravery in making such a powerful and controversial film, The Passion of the Christ. He financed the movie himself, which is risky because he might not have made back what he spent. Whether he expected it to or not, the movie has become one of the biggest successes ever, a historic epic that depicts horrific images that are intended to remind people about the suffering of our savior, Jesus Christ.
My Opinion:
It’s just another violent, bloody Mel Gibson Hollywood horror film. Except this time it’s religious. People always debate over religion. Religion is one of the prominent causes of wars in the world. It’s hard to imagine that Mel Gibson would make a film without expecting –or even wanting- an outburst from the public. This film is one of the most controversial films ever made. People have argued about it endlessly. But, sometimes they forget that it’s just a movie. It isn’t the word of God, it isn’t a holy work that has been passed down to us from the Heavens, so we shouldn’t take it so seriously and trust it. It may be blasphemous, or anti-Semitic, or overly violent, but it isn’t real. It isn’t necessarily what actually happened, either. It’s Mel Gibson’s interpretation of what happened in the last twelve hours of the life of Christ. It’s ridiculous for people to have such heated, vicious arguments about it. Anyone else with money and fame could have made the movie, and it might have been different. Everyone can have his own opinion. It’s sad that some people actually blame the Jews for the death of Christ just because of this film. If someone does not agree with the way Mel Gibson portrayed Jesus Christ, or Mary, or anyone else in the film, he doesn’t have to see it. He is not being forced to see the movie and agree with it. It’s a movie. It’s entertainment. It is not supposed to be taken as a profound truth and written into the Bible. It is simply there for people to see if they want to, and to ignore if they don’t want to. To write a 50 page essay on why you don’t think Mel Gibson’s movie is like the actual last 12 hours of Christ’s life is a waste of time. It is unlikely that it will change anyone’s mind about the film. Eventually the movie will end up in a box on a dusty shelf in the video rental store, just like all the other movies we see. It has made more money, it’s true, than most movies, and it has been a smash hit and will probably win an Academy Award, just like hundreds of other films before it, but it’s just a movie. I’m sorry to see that Americans are so dependent on films to inform them of history. Hollywood has been turning out its own version of history for decades. People should know now that it is not meant to be taken seriously. To see humans fighting over a graphic interpretation of an event that occurred over 2,000 years ago is pathetic. It is hard to believe that the impact of the film is powerful enough to bring back prejudices based on something that happened so long ago. And they are not fair prejudices either. Jews were not the only ones who conspired to crucify Christ. But we don’t see any prejudice against the Romans, do we?