Wednesday, March 10, 2004
The Passion
Wow! - Where do I start?
I am pretty much going to paste in the notes I took through the movie (Yes I am a tech geek and used my iPAQ to take notes as I watched!) and comment further on each. Then I will summarise my thoughts and impressions at the end. Note: This is my opinion only. If you don't agree fine - feel free to comment by clicking on the comments link below. I am interested in responses to my thoughts and opinions and also to alternative impressions.
I recognized the humanity of Jesus in the garden
I think this was the first time I ever connected with Jesus' humanity - the human struggle with the terrible decision and the willpower it took to determine to go through with it. The temptation to quit must have been horrendous - and to not do his Father's will. The 40 days of temptation in the desert must have paled into nothing beside this. In perspective, our struggle with sin, that point of temptation where we know we can back out, or go ahead and sin anyway becomes petty beside the discipline of this man who was truly God.
I related to Peter when he denied.
The pain and "unworthiness" of Peter knowing he gave into the temptation to deny and then the realisation of what he did. I am going to re-read the passage in John where Jesus forgives him.
I felt for Mary in the whipping scene - that she didn't yet understand how the promised salvation would come, just that it would come.
Mel's direction indicated to me that her belief was unshakable, in spite of not knowing. Whether this is artistic licence with the passages about her witnessing the event, or catholic tradition I don't know. He certainly gave her a very human touch later. Note to non catholics. There is very strong catholic symbolism in Mary wiping up the blood on the floor. Correct me if I got this wrong but to a catholic, the sacraments (bread and wine) actually transform into Jesus' body and blood when blessed by the priest. An accidental spilling is reverently wiped up. This is an example of artistic licence and panders to Mel's Catholicism. I can not find any reference to this in the gospels. It doesn't affect the movie at all. If anything it helps to develop Mary's character well.
And what is with the ugly hairy grinning baby?
The character development of Jesus was shallow.
Admittedly I wrote this just after the whipping scene. At this point the only real character development I had noted was through the use of the flashbacks. As others have noted this is very skilfully done, and it does help to fill out the story a bit. It also breaks up the brutality. Once again this is a movie construct, and artistic license. Of course there is no way we can actually know what Jesus was thinking of during this time. Thus it is very hard for character development to occur. I think the couple of times he tried to rise up and "take the lashes like a man" and the fact that he didn't break mentally was the extent of the attempt to depict the courage and unshakeable resolve. I felt this was a little lacking and that Mel had to resort to the flashbacks to attempt to generate some "reasoning behind actions". Thinking about this afterwards, I realise just how hard a project this was. How do you show the character of a man who suffers this event when he only speaks 6 or 7 times during the whole thing? Especially when all the accounts of the event are written by onlookers and barely describe emotion or facial expression etc. In Mel's favour I would have to say that his character development of Mary was awesome and also Simon of Cyrene. To me these two characters were the main characters (besides Jesus).
Once again I related to Mary's emotion in running to Jesus' side when he fell.
This scene is an intertwined flashback for Mary of a time when Jesus as a boy of about 5-6 tripped and fell and Mary ran to his side as any mother would. At the same time in the movie she is running to Jesus' side as he falls under the weight of the cross. I cried as I recognised the parent's emotion in me here. Mel has children also, and I am sure this was a natural construct to add to the movie. It certainly worked with me.
The physical damage was such that he was half dead from loss of blood by the time he got to the cross
If the depiction of the treatment to this point was accurate - and it must be close at least, then Jesus was physically not far from dead before he actually got to be crucified. There is an obvious contrast with the two other criminals who are much stronger and fitter, and need their legs broken in order to hasten their death.
The connection to love those who persecute you was extremely contrasting to a situation from where he was surrounded by those who loved him to where he was surrounded by enemies
This note was written during when they were preparing to nail to the flashbacks of his sermon on the mount. He acts his sayings here by loving those who hurt him as they were hurting him. What a lesson for us.
The nails were horrible
That's all I'm going to say.
The Romans were pretty immune to this. It was just a job. Hurry up so we can get out of the sun and back to the barracks for a cool drink.
To the roman soldiers brutality was a part of life. For hundreds of years their history as soldiers had been a series of long bloody brutal campaigns of conquering nations and then putting down uprisings. Sure there were some sadists amongst them, particularly during the whipping, but you got to put this in context. This was no special person to them. He was just another stupid criminal silly enough to make claims of kingship and then be made a public spectacle of. Most of the officers were above getting involved, but they understood that to humour the men and give them something to lash out at when they were in a very sensitive political situation where they couldn't afford to make mistakes with the normal public makes a lot of sense.
Caiaphas resolve and apparent cruelty and disinterest in the earlier scenes becomes clear when he has Jesus on the cross and as a parting argument in a theological debate tells him to come down. He thinks he has won and restored his threatened position as the religious benchmark.
I initially though Caiaphas was portrayed fairly cynically as the bad evil dude, something I found hard to understand, in spite of my knowledge of the story. This final scene where he verbally confronts Jesus changed this for me, and shows insight into Mel's development of the character of the High Priest. Politically and theologically Caiaphas had a huge amount to lose by Jesus being who he said he was. He had tried several times before this to get rid of Jesus, once even with an attempted stoning. Now he finally has him - on trumped up charges and by skillfully publicly manipulating a compromised Pilate. His final sum up from a debating perspective is this. "You prove you are who you say you are and come down from there." Man that must have been a temptation for Jesus, though interestingly Mel doesn't use Satan in this scene or use this to further show Christ's resolve. (I thought a cut to a legion of angels standing by for the word to go would have been appropriate, as well as thought flashes of what Jesus would like to do to Caiaphas - presented by the devil as an alternative to staying on the cross - would have really strengthened this moment.) However it does allow Caiaphas a dramatic exit stage left as he stalks off having won his debate. Unfortunately he doesn't understand that he is debating the wrong supposition. Christ is there for much higher purposes than arguing a theological point with Caiaphas.
The effort displayed to ensure his mother's wellbeing was incredible
This scene was very moving for me as Christ expended valuable energy to make two statements to ensure that his mother would be looked after. Sadly John is a very two dimensional character throughout the movie.
The ending was just surreal.
I didn't like the ending. Don't know how it could be done different - but it left too much unsaid, unexplained, and it left you with no understanding of the hope provided by the resurrection.
Summary
First of all the violence. This was not a violent movie. Sure I wouldn't take kids to it, and it deserved the MA15 rating that it got here in Australia. I cannot for the life of me understand the R rating it got in the States. The only thing that I could suggest was the nails, but even then you didn't actually see the nail penetrate the flesh.
I know this says something about the movies I have watched in my life that I am not altogether proud of but I can think of several movies way more violent than this.
I think that the movie is brutal, and at times gory, but it is realistic. I believe that a movie that deliberately sets out to shock the senses with graphic (pornographic in a non sexual way) violence though the use of sadistic deliberate torture for mere entertainment purposes, even if that is intended by the movie makers to force the viewer to think in some bizarre twisted way is far worse than viewing a dramatic recreation of an established historical event, where we have plenty of evidence about the methods employed.
Movies that recreate the violence and horror of modern day war are far more graphic, Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers Once and Young are two that spring to mind. They graphically illustrate the depravity of man, and the barbarism that is employed to "resolve" conflict. Sometimes this is necessary but the subject of another debate. Point is I didn't find this movie violent beyond what I felt was realistic. To me it was more brutally realistic than gratuitous movie violence.
I believe that people who argue this is violent are probably saying that to avoid the guilt trip that comes from recognising that their sin is what placed Jesus there in the first place, and the inability to own up to and confess their fallen nature and surrender to the grace of God. The gospel is a stumbling block and offensive to those who don't want to hear.
Regarding the talk about anti-Semitism. This movie is about as anti-Semitic as a bowl of milk. I simply cannot understand how someone could say that, unless it was once again in an attempt to assuage their guilt and take the spotlight off themselves.
One small criticism. There is some inconsistency in the cross scenes that got my critical movie goers goat. The soldiers have to stretch Jesus arms to get the second nail in. Shortly after there is a camera angle looking up from about his waist where he is hanging down from the cross bar, hands conveniently out of the picture, but to get this picture his arms would have to either be longer or his hands were no longer where they were nailed. The very next camera angle cuts to a face view where his arms are very clearly in line with the bar again. Not sure whether this was simply camera angles playing visual tricks or an attempt to show the way that a crucified person has to thrust themselves up to breathe or a mistake.
Just me being picky.
Recommendations
See the movie. Be convicted. Find a Bible. Read Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Decide whether you want to live your way or God's way. Seek help. Email me if you want.
