The Passion of the Christ

The Passion of the Christ (2004) is an independent film about the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ. Mel Gibson financed and directed this film adaptation of the traditional Passion play, which is a Roman Catholic tradition during the season of Lent. However, the film is also very popular with non-Catholic congregations.

After months of controversy that led to more pre-release sales than any film in history, the movie opened in the United States on February 25 (Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent), 2004. It earned $25 million per day in its first five days of release and in short order became the highest-grossing R-rated film ever made. As of July 13, The Passion of the Christ had the 8th highest all-time domestic gross ($370 million) [1] and the 23rd highest all-time worldwide gross ($609 million). [1].

Table of contents
1 Motivation
2 Overview
3 Cast and crew
4 Title changes
5 Reactions
6 Trivia
7 See also
8 References
9 External links

Motivation

Mel Gibson said:

"This is a movie about love, hope, faith, and forgiveness. He [Jesus] died for all mankind, suffered for all of us. It's time to get back to that basic message. The world has gone nuts. We could all use a little more love, faith, hope, and forgiveness." [1]

"It was me that put him on the cross. It was my sins [who put him there]." Thus Gibson took a cameo role in the film: it is literally his hands that nail Jesus to the cross (seen in close-up only).

Overview

Gibson's film was produced in Italy, on scenic locations that were selected to evoke Caravaggio's paintings.

In a departure from previous films depicting the life of Christ, the dialogue is spoken entirely in Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew. After a lengthy internal debate, Gibson finally decided to include subtitles, except for one controversial line of crowd dialogue: "His blood be upon us" (see blood curse) and a few bits of soldiers' dialogue.

Great attention was paid to historical detail such as the traditional clothing of the period and Jewish dietary customs. The scourging and crucifixion sequences are exceptionally violent and graphic, earning the movie an R-rating in the United States. These scenes required Jim Caviezel, who portrays Jesus, to endure seven hours of makeup sessions daily. He even had his shoulder dislocated at one point during the filming of the scourging scene.

Gibson's religious beliefs, which inspired the film, are those of traditional Catholicism, which rejects most of the pastoral reforms set by the Second Vatican Council, commonly referred to as Vatican II. Many scenes in the movie are inspired by Catholic tradition and iconography, and are not present in the New Testament. A few scenes in the movie have no traditional source whatsoever, and are purely Gibson's poetic license. Gibson intended the movie to be faithful to the New Testament texts as well as Catholic tradition, but some religious scholars [1] state that it departs from the New Testament in a few minor areas. See the end of this article for a listing of scenes either not in the Bible or in conflict with it.

Some reviewers who had read early drafts of the script charged that significant parts of the movie would depart from the New Testament by incorporating material from The Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda (a 17th century nun), and the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich (a 19th century stigmatic). The latter is a highly controversial work, as it contains material that is considered highly violent and, by many, both Jews and non-Jews, anti-Semitic. Emmerich's authority within the Catholic Church is probably evident by her beatification, which is a preliminary step to sainthood.

Cast and crew

The film's principal cast and crew are as follows:

Cast:

Crew: The film was shot at Rome's Cinecitta Studios and various locations in Italy on a budget of $25 million, financed entirely by Gibson.

Title changes

On October 17, 2003, Gibson's film production company announced the name of the film had been changed from The Passion to The Passion of Christ, because the title The Passion had already been trademarked by a different motion picture. This was then further amended to The Passion of the Christ. The following week Gibson announced a distribution arrangement had been reached with the independent Newmarket Films.

Reactions

Columnists who had previewed the film

In Newsweek, David Ansen wrote:

Caviezel gives an eloquent physical performance, but he has little opportunity to show the Messiah's spiritual charisma; this Jesus' most noteworthy trait is his ability to absorb pain. [1]

Sharon Waxman of the New York Times wrote:

The film features agonizing passages as Jesus, played by Jim Caviezel, is mercilessly beaten by Jewish and then Roman guards, and jeered and hounded by a Jewish mob on his way to his Crucifixion. It is unclear how close this version is to Mr. Gibson's final film.

In this version, the Roman leader Pontius Pilate is depicted as being reluctant to harm Jesus, who Pilate's wife warns is holy. Largely to mollify a restive Jewish mob outside his window, Pilate agrees to a severe lashing and scourging of Jesus, but the crowd and the high priest demand more.

Pilate says in Latin: "Ecce homo"—"Behold the man"—displaying the broken and bleeding Jesus to the crowd. But the high priest insists, in Aramaic, "Crucify him." Pilate responds, "Isn't this enough?" The mob roars, "No," and only then does the Roman leader agree to the Crucifixion. [1]

Peggy Noonan wrote:

It is the story of a Jew who was the Messiah; it is the story of his loving Jewish mother, his ardent Jewish followers, and his Jewish opponents, who saw him as heretical and dangerous. He is brutally put to death by non-Jewish Roman soldiers, who are portrayed as sadistic in a businesslike way, on the acquiescence of a tired, non-Jewish cynic who then sought to wash his hands of culpability. It is a film that leaves the viewer indicting not Jews and not Romans and not cynical bureaucrats. It leaves you indicting yourself: it leaves you wondering about what your part in that agonizing drama would have been back then, and what your part is today. [1]

Mark Savlov wrote in the Austin Chronicle:

...they (those involved with the film) render Jesus’ final hours in a wholly new light, albeit an almost unbearably horrific one. Historical accuracy was clearly the directorial watchword throughout, and this is where problems creep in: The Passion of the Christ trumps The Greatest Story Ever Told but comes perilously close to being The Greatest Snuff Film Ever Made. Knowing the incendiary passions surrounding the film and its subject, I do not say that lightly. This film is ultraviolent in the extreme – beyond the extreme, even – and Gibson, in his own passion for unflinching realism, almost short-circuits his production through sheer gory bravado. [1]

The Catholic Church

Msgr. Kevin McCoy, the rector of the Pontifical North American College, arranged for the movie to be shown to hundreds of seminarians at the school after attending a screening by one of the movie's producers, Steve McEveety

Mr. McEveety also succeeded in getting a copy of the movie to Pope John Paul II at the latter's request. Shortly thereafter, writer Peggy Noonan in a column for The Wall Street Journal Web site, quoted Mr. McEveety as saying that the Pope had declared to him regarding the movie that depicted Christ's death, "It is as it was." "Inside the Vatican" quoted Mr. McEveety the same way. Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, secretary to the Pope, denied that the Pope offered a personal endorsement of the movie: "the Holy Father told no one his opinion." Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the Pope's spokesman, neither affirmed nor denied the quote, saying, "After consulting with the personal secretary of the Holy Father, His Excellency Mons. [sic] Stanislaw Dziwisz, I confirm that the Holy Father had the chance to view the film 'The Passion of the Christ'. The film is a cinemagraphic [sic] representation of the historical fact of the Passion of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel account. It is customary for the Holy Father not to express public judgments on artistic works, judgments that are always open to differing valutations [sic] of an esthetic character."

In France, the information Committee of the Roman Catholic bishops' Conference said in a statement [1] that the film "could be used to support anti-Semitic opinions" and that "the face of Christ shows through less than the obsessions of our times: the dread of evil, fascination with violence, and the search for the guilty". It also stated that the film obscures the meaning of the Passion and the Person and message of Christ.

Praise

Those who have seen the film before its official release have responded in different ways as the film has evolved.

Some evangelical Christians considered the release of the movie to be a crucial moment for evangelism. Marta Poling-Goldenne, Minister for Outreach of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Grand Canyon Synod said in a 2004 email to pastors:

Seize this mission moment, friends! God is providing "the best outreach opportunity in the last 2,000 years" [sic] for us to witness about the gospel story to people for whom it may be very unfamiliar or unknown.

Also Rabbi Skobac from the antimissionary Jews for Judaism:

For the 75 million evangelical Christians the film is the greatest thing they've had in 2,000 years to convert people to their faith...

Charges of anti-Semitism

As much as a full year before the film's projected release, a heated controversy arose over whether it would depict Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, thus inspiring anti-Semitism. There are two elements that many Jews, and others who have faulted the movie, take issue with.

First, many Jews, such as the High Priest, are portrayed as physically ugly, perhaps drawing on stock anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews.

Gibson has explicitly stated that the movie assumes, and is meant to portray, all humanity as sharing guilt for Jesus's torture and death, which leads to the second, more subtle point. Gibson is not the first artist who has hoped to communicate this shared burden. Johann Sebastian Bach was presumably aware of anti-Jewish uses of passion plays, and when he composed the St. Matthew Passion he chose to have the entire chorus, rather than one group, cry out for Jesus's crucifixion.

Gibson's movie, however, highlights the role of the Jewish leadership, and portrays Pilate as a thoughtful, temperate man who ultimately agrees to crucify Jesus because he does not want to risk a Jewish rebellion on the one hand, and a Christian rebellion on the other. Pilate shares in guilt, but his guilt is more that of a moral coward than an active persecutor of Jesus. There is support for this in history, however, in that Pilate had been in trouble twice before with his superiors for improper management and cruelty; he could well have not wanted to risk getting into trouble again.

Defense against charges of anti-Semitism

When Gibson was asked if his movie would be offensive to Jews today, he responded, "It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But when you look at the reasons Christ came, he was crucified—he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."

In an interview in The New Yorker, Gibson charges that he trimmed a scene from The Passion of the Christ involving the Jewish high priest Caiaphas because if he did not, "they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come to kill me." In response, Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a Jewish civil rights group, publicly charged Gibson with anti-Semitism, and New York Times critic Frank Rich openly accused Gibson of "Jew-baiting".

In an apparent effort to stem the tide of criticism, Gibson arranged for screenings of the film; yet these merely caused more criticism, as his audiences included prominent Christians and Jews known for their political and social conservatism. Requests for a screening by the ADL were declined. American film reviewer, Michael Medved—an Orthodox Jewish author, columnist and film reviewer—praised the movie's Biblical accuracy; although a February 16, 2004 Newsweek cover story by Jon Meacham suggests that there are numerous inaccuracies in the movie. Similarly, one statement by the ADL read:

"For filmmakers to do justice to the biblical accounts of the passion, they must complement their artistic vision with sound scholarship, which includes knowledge of how the passion accounts have been used historically to disparage and attack Jews and Judaism. Absent such scholarly and theological understanding, productions such as The Passion could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews." [1]

The ADL recently made a web page providing examples of anti-Semitic responses to the ADL's criticism of this project. [1] Critics of the ADL retort that it couldn't possibly be the film that caused any hateful e-mails to the ADL because the film isn't in theatres yet; it is, instead, the ADL's attacks against a film on the life of Jesus that was the motivation. The Catholic League has responded to the ADL by accusing the organization of "seeking to poison relations between Catholics and Jews," contending that the "attacks on Mel Gibson have little to do with some off-the-cuff quips and everything to do with waging a frontal assault against all those people—Catholics, Protestants, Jews et al.—who have seen 'The Passion' and love it." [1] Other commentators who have seen the film—such as Cal Thomas and Roger Ebert—have also categorically denied that the film contains anti-Semitic material. [1]

Support for the ADL position was far from unanimous. Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, religious leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey, attacked Jewish critics of the film and even referred to them by the word rodef, a term used in rabbinic jurisprudence to describe an assailant who threatens Jewish lives and may be killed to preempt the danger. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, head of the Seattle-based Toward Tradition organization, declared that the ADL and its allies were "dangerous organizations, organizations that are driving a wedge between American Jews and Christians." Referring to ADL national director Abraham Foxman, Lapin said that by calling Gibson's film antisemitic, "what he is saying is that the only way to escape the wrath of Foxman is to repudiate your faith." [1]

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, a senior Vatican official who has seen the film, addressed the question at length:

"Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, distorts the truth in order to put a whole race of people in a bad light. This film does nothing of the sort. It draws out from the historical objectivity of the Gospel narratives sentiments of forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation. It captures the subtleties and the horror of sin, as well as the gentle power of love and forgiveness, without making or insinuating blanket condemnations against one group. This film expressed the exact opposite, that learning from the example of Christ, there should never be any more violence against any other human being." [1]

FOX News talk show host Bill O'Reilly charged that much of the criticism of the film was from "secularists" attacking Gibson because of his faith. As identified by O'Reilly, these include the New York Times, and Andy Rooney of CBS. (No prominent American secularist organization—such as the Council for Secular Humanism, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or American Atheists—has issued any statements to the media expressing a position on the film, either for it or against it.) Most of the criticism appears to have arisen from Jews and extremely liberal Christians.

Gibson's own view on whether the film is anti-Semitic

In an interview in the Globe and Mail, February 14 2004, Gibson said:

"If anyone has distorted Gospel passages to rationalize cruelty towards Jews or anyone, it's in defiance of repeated papal condemnation. The Papacy has condemned racism in any form".

"Jesus died for the sins of all times, and I'll be the first on the line for culpability"

Further social criticism

In November 2003, The New York Post screened the film for a handful of reviewers including Robert Levine, vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis; Mark Hallinan, a Catholic priest [1] with the St. Ignatius Loyola Catholic Church; Elizabeth Castelli, a professor of religion at Barnard College; and others. This marked the first time the film had been screened for viewers not hand-picked by Gibson himself. For the most part their reactions to the film were extremely harsh.

Rabbi Levine wrote that "It hurt me as a Jew to watch it. It was the most appalling depiction of Jews in a film in my recollection. It was painful and inaccurate. My eyes burned. My hair fell out. Never mind that Toledoth Yeshu behind the curtain!" He stated the film "undermines the 1965 Vatican II declaration that the human element of the Church is no longer Catholic and no longer believes that Jews were anywhere near the crime scene as they were much too busy at the time debating whether walking around with a mote of dust on your coat constitutes carrying something on the Sabbath."

Father Hallinan, perhaps facetiously, claimed that the film focuses too much on Roman responsibility. "Unsophisticated people viewing the film will see Romans as cold, heartless people. Italians everywhere should be on guard and report anti-Italian sentiments immediately. I wouldn't be surprised at all if anti-Italianites started burning down Italian restaurants and randomly attacking anyone whose name ends in a vowel, and when they do, it will be Mel Gibson's fault," he seethed. No other Christian or Jewish group takes such charges seriously, however; there is currently no evidence of anti-Italian hatred being stirred up by the movie.

Professor Castelli added that "[Gibson] had an opportunity to reflect on the long history of the theology of suffering, and he got a greater opportunity when he dared make a Gospel-true movie about Jesus in today's world."

The Post's report drew cries of outrage from Gibson's representatives, who accused the Post of stealing their copy of the film, and the FBI announced it would begin an inquiry into how the newspaper obtained a copy of the film to begin with, hinting that its doing so could constitute an act of piracy. Gibson's lawyer George Hedges said, "Our biggest concern here is that a major media organization would become involved with pirates to concoct a news story to sell newspapers."

Details in the film not present in the Scriptures

  • During Jesus' period of intense psychological distress in the Garden of Gethsemane, a personification of Satan is shown speaking to him. Although some believe this is in the spirit of the scriptures, no Gospel relates anything like this in the Garden.
  • The Temple guard (Jews) sent to apprehend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane drop him from a small bridge suspended from a chain. No Gospel relates this.
  • Judas is tormented by "children" whose morphing facial features suggest they are demons. The Gospels merely report that Judas committed suicide by strangulation (presumed to be hanging, Matthew) and that his body also fell, causing him to burst open and spill out his bowels (Acts).
  • The movie depicts some Jews as opposing the absence of the Sanhedrin's quorum, thereby challenging the very legality of the trial and intimating that Jesus was not being treated fairly by Jewish leadership. Some even leave in protest. No New Testament text explicitly suggests any such opposition. However, this may be implied by the Gospel of Luke 23:50-56 and the Gospel of John 3:1-21; 7:50-52; 19:38-42.
  • When Jesus is first brought before Pontius Pilate, Pilate beholds his bloody, bruised condition and asks members of the Sanhedrin (the high council of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) if they always beat prisoners prior to trial. No Gospel has Pilate saying these or similar words.
  • Herod is portrayed as a mincing, lisping, effeminate homosexual, complete with a "boy-toy". Although this was a common caricature of Herod in medieval Passion plays, it does not appear in the Gospels and is contrary to the historical record regarding Antipas.
  • Mary Magdelene is shown as "the woman taken in adultery" saved from execution by Jesus' famous "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" statement. Although some church traditions identify Mary Magdelene as this woman, she is unnamed in the Gospels and the weight of modern scholarship supports her anonymity.
  • Pilate is shown discussing with his wife the fragility of his relationship with Tiberius Caesar, emphasizing orders Caesar gave him to avoid uprisings in Judea. No such discussion is found in the Gospels, although the Gospels do record that Pilate and his wife discussed Jesus after she had a dream that Jesus was innocent and should not be killed. The discussion in question appears plausible given that Pilate had been in trouble with his superiors twice for mishandling affairs in Jerusalem, and that he feared backlash on the part of the Jewish leaders for letting Jesus go, and on the part of the Christians for killing him .
  • During the extended scourging scene Jesus is nearly flayed alive, back and front, by a variety of whip implements, some with embedded shells, glass and nails. The Gospels state only that he was scourged. An explanation for this passing reference in the Gospels is that, in Roman practice, scourging was the normal prelude to crucifixion, and the severity of Jesus' scourging may have been far from unusual. Then again, the two criminals who were crucified with Jesus in the film were not apparently scourged. Jim Caviezel has implied that the extent of the wounds was inspired by the image on the Shroud of Turin.
  • Along the Via Dolorosa, Jesus is repeatedly rope whipped by a trailing Roman soldier. No Gospel mentions this.
  • Simon, who helps Jesus carry the cross and puts his arm around him, is debased, treated poorly by a Roman soldier, and called "Jew" with a sneer. Simon's name and the fact that he helped Jesus carry the cross are in all three Synoptic Gospels, but the rest of the event is not in the Bible.
  • Along the Via Dolorosa, the image of Jesus' face is transferred to a cloth given to him by a woman. This event does not appear in any Bible narrative, but is a depiction of the Catholic tradition of Veronica's Veil.
  • When Jesus' right arm does not extend far enough to reach a nail hole on the cross, a Roman soldier seems to dislocate the arm at the shoulder by pulling it with a rope until the palm is over the hole. No Gospel relates this.
  • After Jesus is nailed to the cross but before it has been raised, Roman soldiers flip the cross and Jesus over so both land with high impact on the ground. No mention of this is in the Gospels.
  • The names assigned to the thieves crucified with Christ, Dismas and Gesmas, are traditional but are not given in scripture.
  • The crucified criminal who mocked Jesus was shown being pecked at mercilessly by a raven. The Gospels do not mention this.
  • In the film Jesus builds a table in a rather modern style -- one that one would sit at using chairs, but his mother tells him that "it'll never catch on."
  • The devil is shown carrying an "Ugly Baby" during Christ's flogging No mention of this is in the Gospels, and Mel Gibson is reported to have said "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."

Most of these details have been taken from Catholic "Sacred Tradition" and the visions of venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, who vividly described Jesus' passion in the book "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich" (Sulzbach, 1833). Without touching the question of the veracity of her descriptions, for Traditionalist Catholics like Gibson it is not necessary to have all details of the film in the Bible because the final revelation of God is taken from both the Bible and the oral Apostolic Tradition (till the death of the last Apostle). The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, however, are not considered part of the oral Apostolic Tradition and aren't something that Catholics must accept as true lest they be outside the faith; Catholics are free to accept or not accept her visions. Details beyond primary textual sources are to be expected in dramatizations of historical events, but the trend and tenor of non-source material can assist in understanding the general tendencies of the creators.

Details in the film present in the Gospels

Public reaction

On December 7, 2003, The Passion of the Christ had its first public screening in Austin, Texas at the annual 24-hour movie marathon "Butt-Numb-a-Thon 5", sponsored by Harry Knowles and his website Ain't It Cool News. Gibson was in attendance and followed the screening—which reportedly drew a five-minute standing ovation—with a 90-minute Q&A session. None of the attendees who have written about the event believe the film is anti-Semitic, with some taking the view that its critics are promoting "agendas".

The movie took the top spot in box office takings in its first weekend, taking US $76.2m from Friday to Sunday (and US $125.2m from Wednesday to Sunday), the seventh highest weekend takings in US cinema history. The following weekend, the film grossed another US $51.4m, pushing the 12-day total to over US $212m in the U.S. and Canada. This performance has stunned Hollywood, where Gibson attempted to attract distributors for the film to no avail. Industry observers now say Passion is on a course to break into the top ten U.S. box office movies of all time and perhaps the top five of all time globally.

Several criminals went to police to admit their crimes after seeing the movie, many of them claiming the film had some influence over this decision. [1]

No anti-Semitic incidents, at home or abroad, have been directly linked to the movie, and based on the ADL's own research, there has not been an increase in anti-Semitic incidents overall, in the months following the movie's release. Independent research by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research [1] found that those who viewed The Passion were three times less likely to blame today's Jewish people and institutions after seeing the movie.

Promotion

Gibson departed considerably from the usual formula for marketing a film: no TV campaign, no press junkets, etc. [1]

Some bloggers claim that the film's promotional campaign has used blog spam [1] [1], mainly on LiveJournal, in an attempt to increase the Google ranking of the film's web page. No one has identified the source of such spam, which could be the studio, Christians who see the film as a means of evangelism, or someone deliberately trying to cast the film in a bad light. [1] Bloggers who conclude this to be a commercial device by the studio are debating the morality of seeing the film and supporting spammers [1], and even to attempts at retaliation [1].

Trivia

Jim Caviezel, who played Jesus Christ, was allegedly struck by lightning during the shooting; while the assistant director, Jan Michelini, was allegedly struck by lightning twice. [1] and [1].

See also

References

  1. Gibson breaks Hollywood's 10 Commands - The Hollywood Reporter
  2. Official site - The Passion of the Christ
  3. http://www.passion-movie.com/english/
  4. http://www.adl.org/presrele/mise_00/4275_00.asp
  5. http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/anti-semitic-responses.asp
  6. http://www.catholicleague.org/03press_releases/quarter3/030918_adl.htm
  7. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20030805.shtml
  8. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gaspari091803.asp
  9. Apologetics Index entry on The Passion of the Christ
  10. A critique of special effects used and factual accuracy

External links


Google
Home   Alphabetical Listing   Quote


This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.