Review of "The Passion of the Christ"
By Fr. Donald Senior, C.P., President, Catholic Theological
Union
Reprinted with permission of the
Catholic New World: www.catholicnewworld.com
My first reaction after seeing "The Passion of the Christ" was a kind of
letdown. It is, after all, a film. (A few of my fellow viewers at the preview
had buckets of popcorn and soft drinks in case I forgot where I was). An
artistic film, certainly. Beautifully photographed in muted colors, with
impressive settings and costuming that far surpass most Hollywood efforts at
biblical epics. The acting was well done, too. For once Jesus didn't look like a
Breck shampoo ad and the other characters appear as one might imagine a first
century roster of Jews and Romans to be.
But I confess I was not overwhelmed by the film and felt an emotional
distance from it. There were moments when I could feel my emotions welling up.
The film does a particularly good job with flashbacks to key scenes in Jesus'
life: growing up in his Nazareth home, the Sermon on the Mount, forgiving the
woman caught in adultery (whom the film incorrectly identifies with Mary
Magdalene), and, especially, the Last Supper. These give context to why Jesus is
suffering and what his overall message was.
But some things in the film kept distracting me from being totally immersed
in it. For one, I discovered that, contrary to claims, it does not hew literally
to the gospel accounts. While it selects scenes from the four Gospels, it also
lets its imagination flow freely. For example, the mother of Jesus is in
virtually every scene, even encountering Peter after his denials and meeting
Pilate's wife. A poignant device, no doubt, but not based on the gospels. Many
of Jesus' lines and those of the other characters either freely recast the words
of the gospels or simply add material not found in any of the gospels. I have no
objection to this---it is the kind of imaginative work of piety that has
happened throughout Christian history. But why the claim made by Gibson himself
and so many enthusiastic Christian viewers that this is a literal rendering of
the gospels?
Secondly, the film is terribly and often gratuitously violent. I understand
that dwelling on the physical sufferings of Jesus is meant to show the extent of
Christ's love for us (the opening scene has a quote from Isaiah 53 that I think
is the key to the whole film: "He suffered for our iniquities..."). And no doubt
Roman scourging and the act of crucifixion were brutal beyond words. But the
film forces the audience to watch grotesque violence with streams of blood for
what seems an endless amount of time. And many of the violent scenes are not
found in the gospels (e.g., a crow pecks out the eyes of the criminal crucified
with Jesus just after he mocks Jesus---ironically following Jesus' own plea that
God forgive his executioners...). Why, we might ask, are the gospels themselves
so reticent about describing the physical sufferings of Jesus? In a world so
desensitized to violence, do we really need this in order to know the extent of
God=s love for us? Does such repulsive violence help or hinder the viewer from
thinking about the deeper spiritual meaning of the Passion? Before
enthusiastically endorsing this film and urging families to watch it, I hope
religious leaders will think twice about the impact of being exposed to such
vivid and terrible violence.
Finally, is the film anti-Semitic? I don't think that was the intent of the filmmaker. But I do worry about unintended side effects. The film portrays the Jewish religious leaders as one dimensional--relentless and cruel and obviously of bad faith. When Nicodemus raises his voice to protest the proceedings, he is thrown out with contempt. Pilate is no prize either but at least he is presented as wrestling with his decision. Why didn't the film, for example, pick up on the gospel portrayal of Caiaphas who arrives at his decision because of expediency, to protect the Jewish people from Roman retaliation? The leaders' unyielding hatred of Jesus is never explained in this film. Lurking behind them is a chilling demonic figure that appears in several scenes. Most Christians, I believe, will not interpret this film in an anti-Semitic manner. But for some already inclined to such toxic prejudice, these stereotyped images will be fuel for the fire. Maybe a filmmaker doesn't have to worry about misinterpretation by his viewers, but given this subject matter and the world we live in, a little more care would really have helped.