|
The Passion of the Christ
"Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ is a difficult movie to critique."
By Jordan Monroe
Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ is a difficult movie to critique. When I first started hearing about The Passion of the Christ, I was somewhat reluctant to go see it. There was so much hype about the movie and I didn’t want to approach it with any prejudgments or biases. You see, you can say I’m somewhat of a film connoisseur, and I realize the importance in viewing each film openly.
So, I waited a few weeks to hear all the different opinions. Members of the Jewish community disliked the film because it portrayed them as the main party responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Others simply felt it was too graphic. And some just couldn’t stop raving about the movie. When I finally saw it, I really felt something come over me. It started deep inside then spread through my body like bad gas. I felt…disappointed. Why was I disappointed? Well, it wasn’t that the movie was all that bad. It just wasn’t up to par with the publicity it received.
On one hand, it is a powerful reenactment of the brutal execution of Jesus Christ, the son of God. However, on the other hand, I realize it is easy for many to sympathize with a movie that is highly concentrated with emotional religious content. We live in a Christian society, and so, are taught from a young age to take Jesus, God, and religion with the utmost respect. Part of this respect means we must not use any negative comments or even possess negative thoughts with anything relating to religion. This includes art. And so, it is very hard for many to criticize a movie starring “Jesus Christ.” It seems almost sacrilegious.
I have no doubt that Gibson was well aware of this, and I am curious as to what extent he used this to his advantage. Furthermore, the fact that this is a film based on historical events, I felt that there should have been fewer historical inconsistencies. For example, in the film the Roman leader, Pontius Pilate, was portrayed as kind and hesitant to convict Jesus, while the Bible describes a merciless leader who was known to execute prisoners without a trial. This inconsistency may have been interpreted by the Jewish community as suggestive to them having a primary role in Jesus’ death.
From a technical point of view, I felt Gibson did fairly well with his use of the visual effects including flashbacks, slow motion, and close-ups. He creatively personified Satan, or at least what seemed to be Satan, and the little demons that drove Judah to suicide. Of course, with a movie like this, you can’t really go ballistic with special effects without drifting away from its historic ambiance, and I felt he stayed within his limits very well.
I also found the way he alternately used two languages, Aramaic and vernacular Latin with English subtitles, within the movie very interesting. It made it easy for someone to adapt to the gap in time and feel as though they themselves are observing the events as they happen. And, because the only English available involved reading, viewers had to pay more attention than they would have if watching an English film.
Mel Gibson pulled in over 300 million for this film, so my opinion could very well be misplaced. However, though the amount a movie makes may be a valid way of measuring its economic success, it can hardly measure that film's artistic value.
Though the film was not a complete disaster by any means, I award much of the success to the skilled advertisers and marketing geniuses who mesmerized and captured the masses through negative and positive publicity before the film was even released.
|
|
