After shopping for a distributor for almost two years, The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson’s first film since 1995’s Braveheart, explores the final hours of Jesus’ death before and including his crucifixion. Although Gibson (who also co-wrote the screenplay) tries to be painstakingly accurate in his representation of Jesus’ last 12 hours, controversy becomes embroiled when history and faith become intertwined. For instance, it is easier to accept, on the whole, Cecil B. DeMille’s epic 1956 classic, The Ten Commandments, as an interpretation of a classic story. The Passion however, follows more along the contentious lines of Martin Scorsese’s 1988 The Last Temptation of Christ, which attempted to show the human side of Jesus. Where religious teachings and historical fact end is where human interpretation begins.

The Passion begins in a forest, where Jesus (James Caviezel) is praying to G-d for forgiveness and deliverance. We then cut to a scene where Judas (Luca Lionello) is shown accepting a bribe for informing the Roman officers of the whereabouts of Jesus. When the Romans come upon Jesus, they seize him, while a struggle between the disciples and the guards ensues. Through the fighting, slow-motion shots show Jesus as recognising that it was Judas that was the informant. Malchus (Roberto Bestazzoni), whose right ear is cut off in the struggle by Peter (Francesco De Vito) is healed by Jesus, who reattaches the ear, leading us to believe that Jesus is all-powerful.

Thus the scene is set, quickly dividing those who believe in Jesus as the King of the Jews, from those who view him as a blasphemer mocking the traditional messianic teachings. Although not inaccurate, Gibson has an opportunity to point out that Jesus’ condemnation comes at the hands of one specific sect of Jews at the time, the Pharisees. However, this is just one of the ways that Gibson leaves the anti-Semitic tendencies of this movie to be the focus of political discussion. It is not always the case that Gibson is inaccurate so much as some facts are omitted to ‘preserve the integrity of the movie.’

From the capture of Jesus, we see that he is tormented by Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) and demonic children—the same children who later torture Judas. Jesus is brought to Jerusalem where the Pharisian clerics argue to the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov) for Jesus’ crucifixion, in accordance with Jewish law prohibiting murder. In another gesture of interpretation, Gibson depicts Pilate to be of mixed resolve, and seemingly willing to ‘cave in’ to the demands of the Jews. This becomes another hot point for anti-Semitic debate. But the rest of the story follows with the punishment of Jesus, all the way through to his crucifixion, death, and very briefly, his resurrection.

As a cinematic piece, The Passion is seemingly vacant however, with not much in the way of telling the story, so much as showing the story. The screenplay provides little backstory on which the viewer is left to draw, which narrows the scope of the movie and the potential relevance of the story. Flashbacks to Jesus’ childhood and The Last Supper help fill in some of those gaps, but are insufficient to make this movie what could be.

In addition, the violence in the movie is rather harrowing, even if realistic, whereupon Gibson spares no detail in showing the viewer Jesus’ flagellation by the Romans and relies heavily on slow-motion and close-ups even when showing the blood spurting from Jesus’ hands as he is being nailed to the cross. And although John Debney’s score adds to the tension of the movie, and the screenplay is realistically written in Aramaic and Latin, Gibson tries to show the aesthetic value of the story through visuals, rather than expanding its potential.

The end result is that The Passion of the Christ lacks on the whole. Even as a cinematic piece of art based on one man’s interpretation, The Passion is not remotely convincing as a story; its redeeming qualities derive largely from appearing like the cinematic equivalence of a religious painting. Anti-Semitic and historical inaccuracies aside, the movie shows itself to be nothing more than a two-hour glorification of the physical torture and crucifixion of Jesus.
**1/2 out of *****

26.02.04