|
The Passion of the Christ Martinson, SJ |
| This is the English version of a contribution published in a slightly abridged version in “Renlai monthly”, May 2004. The
Passion of the Christ—A Viewing I
watched Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ in my
hometown of San Diego, California three weeks after the film
opened in the United States.
Controversy was running high.
The Jewish community alleged that the film was anti-Jewish.
Catholic theologians complained of theological and historical
inaccuracies. Evangelical
Christians were delighted that people who had never been to
church were filling the theaters and learning about Jesus Christ.
Audiences were either repulsed or fascinating by the
spectacle of a good and innocent man being beaten and tortured
to death. Some
left the theaters wiping their eyes; others left on the verge
of getting sick. The
group of Taiwanese friends that had invited my Mother and me
to see the film were all Catholics.
They had instructed my mother to bring lots of facial
tissue and to look away if she began to feel chest pain.
At the end of the film, they all seemed stunned and speechless.
My Mother whispered to me, “That was a horrible movie.
I don’t know why anyone would want to see a movie like
that!” She had
not needed the facial tissue; she had not cried.
She had been disgusted by the blood and violence.
The lady on my right, however, had let out a heartrending
sob as Mary, Jesus’ mother, held her dead son in her arms while
staring, almost accusingly, at the audience.
Personally,
I found the film’s violence gratuitous and so extreme that it
weakened, rather than strengthened, the credibility and dramatic
impact of the film. Still,
I was moved by the depictions of Mary (whose suffering was presented
with subtlety and restraint); and with the character of Simon
of Cyrene who was forced to help Jesus carry his cross.
His character showed human compassion overcoming his
fear and changing his life. The
strong, diverse and conflicting reactions to the film are, of
course, just what the media loves.
And so, once again, the controversy and blanket media
coverage surrounding a film has made a work of questionable
artistic merit into an outstanding commercial success. The
Film and the Filmmaker
The
Passion of the Christ
is Mel Gibson’s personal meditation on the final hours in the
life of Jesus Christ made into a film.
Each Christian’s meditation on the Passion of Jesus is
understandably unique in its selection and focus on details.
It is also somewhat different at each stage of one’s
life—changed by one’s life experiences, new perceptions of scripture,
and a developing understanding of theology. In the spiritual
journey of many a Christian, there are moments when the suffering
and death of Jesus Christ exercises great prominence and influence.
In
the larger historical context of Christian spirituality, Catholics
in many parts of the world from the late Middle Ages until the
mid-20th century probably identified more with Jesus’
passion than with any other aspect of his life.
Crucifixes could be found in the home, workplace or on
the person of most Catholics. Pious practices, common prayer, liturgy and Catholic art all
gave great importance and attention to Jesus’ passion. This
was not the case, however, before the 12th century.
During those centuries, much less emphasis was given
to this aspect of Jesus’ life.
If he was shown nailed to a cross, he was generally depicted
not as a pitiful victim but as a victorious ruler. Some
people find Mel Gibson’s depiction of Jesus’ suffering and death
to be extreme and even sadistic.
There is some foundation for this judgment.
As a filmmaker and actor in many violent films, Gibson
instinctively knows the powerful morbid attraction that cinematic
violence has for many filmgoers.
I believe, however, that there are additional reasons
for his choice to focus only on Jesus’ passion and death.
Some
scholars attribute the Christian attraction to Jesus’ passion
to the extreme suffering experienced at various times in their
lives, both as individuals and sometimes (as in the case of
wars and plagues) as whole groups or societies.
During times like these, Jesus’ passion can be a powerful
solace and support. Mel
Gibson admits that he underwent deep psychological suffering
that led to some serious addictions.
These addictions increased his misery to the point where,
at the height of his career, they brought him dangerously close
to suicide. Extreme
addictions and the emptiness they lead to often require powerful
cures. People recovering
from addictions or facing serious illness frequently require
some extraordinary force to sustain them.
Often this force is one’s religious faith, which can
suddenly take on new value and meaning.
It can also lead a person to the opposite extreme.
It can, in a sense, become a new, albeit less harmful,
addiction. In
Gibson’s case, it was the mystery of Jesus’ suffering and death
that helped him overcome his personal crisis and find new meaning
in life. As a highly
successful figure in the world of cinema, he felt compelled
to share this experience through the medium most familiar to
him; and to use his personal financial resources to do so.
He is certainly to be commended for this. According
to Jesuit priest Fr. William Fulco, who translated the film’s
script into Aramaic and Latin and accompanied Gibson during
production, Gibson’s motivation was sincere.
He felt a compelling call—a mission—to show the world
those aspects of the life of Jesus Christ that had made it possible
for him to overcome his personal problems.
He was willing to spend millions of dollars of his own
money to accomplish this.
He was not motivated by profit.
He knew he risked alienating the Jewish community, so
very powerful in the film industry, but had no intention of
hurting them or of making an anti-Jewish film.
He was saddened by their violent negative reaction to
the film. It
was this strong reaction from the Jewish Anti-defamation League,
however, that started the “buzz”—the public discussion and debate—that
led to the enormous publicity and made the film a surprising
international success. The
Film and the Critics
In
addition to the debatable claim that the film is anti-Semitic,
The Passion of the Christ has also been criticized for
being historically inaccurate.
This, of course, can be said of most historical films
and novels that make use of artistic license for dramatic effect.
Take, for example, the depictions of Mozart and Salieri
in the film Amadeus.
Gibson, however, is in error if he thinks (as he has
stated) that his film is an historically accurate account of
the events of Jesus’ final hours.
He has mixed together elements of the four Gospel accounts
and added in details taken from writings attributed to a German
woman, Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) who is said to have
seen them in her mystical visions. This is not a scientific
approach to putting together an historically accurate account
of Jesus’ suffering and death. Another
criticism is that the film shows only a single part of Jesus’
life, a very narrow slice—in fact only a few hours--that cannot
be understood outside of the context of Jesus’ entire life and
teachings. There
are very few glimpses (“flashbacks”) into Jesus’ life before
his passion began, and they do not provide us with much information
or insight. While
a film is not a comprehensive encyclopedia of events—the filmmaker
must pick, choose and condense—still events must be motivated.
Motivation
for the diabolic wickedness of Jesus’ persecutors and for Jesus’
willingness to endure this abuse comes, not from events in the
film itself, but from Gibson’s a priori perception of
a dualistic mortal battle between personifications of good and
evil. This results
in the Jewish high priest Caiphas and the Roman soldiers appearing
totally evil, sadistic and one-dimensional, rather than as the
complex human beings they most certainly were.
Nor are we shown where Jesus and his super-human strength
and patience comes from.
We must we supply this from our own prior knowledge and
understanding of the Bible. Finally,
there is the theological criticism.
The film’s subtext seems to be “the more Jesus suffered,
the more our sins are forgiven.”
This is an overly simplified and theologically problematic
statement of Jesus’ mission.
It was not the amount or degree of Jesus’ suffering that
“saved” us or wiped away the effects of our sins.
Jesus was not a sacrificial offering necessary to appease
an angry God and stave off our destruction. Personally, I do believe that Jesus “died to save us,” but not just by having his body beaten and crucified. I believe he lived and died to save us from our hatred, our inhumanity to others, and our reluctance to forgive and show compassion to others. His greatest miracle was forgiving those who tortured and crucified him. Others may have suffered more than Jesus in their lives, but Jesus’ ability to forgive and to completely live what he taught is truly saving. It saves us from the darkness of error, untruth, prejudice, and selfishness. It saves us from becoming less than the open, generous and giving human beings we were meant to be. Jesus didn’t just save us from damnation by suffering; he saved us from our very selves by exemplifying of an entire life of love, pursuing the truth, and liberating those enslaved by intolerable burdens and legalistic chains. He did all this knowing clearly that it would arouse the jealousy and enmity of those who would eventually punish and kill him; and that his death would not put an end his life and enduring presence in the world. Conclusion A
film is an artistic creation that invites us to suspend belief
and enter into the imaginary world the filmmaker has constructed
for us. The world
that Mel Gibson has created in The Passion of the Christ
intends to show only a brief moment in the life of Jesus Christ--a
moment highly determined, embellished, and inflated by Gibson’s
own personal spiritual journey.
Without this background, as well as a knowledge of the
historical and theological context of Jesus’ life and the Christian
tradition, audiences may be mystified—or worse, misled--by this
gory account of Jesus’ suffering and death with its obsessive
attention to bloody details.
Hopefully, the interest and discussion it generates will
lead viewers to search for and eventually grasp the fuller meaning
of Jesus’ life and mission. ©copyright 2004 by Taipei Ricci Institute |
