Passionate debate Gibson’s movie shows the perils and the pain of telling the Jesus story

loading...

In the beginning was the word. Then the word became flesh, and it has been up for grabs ever since.

For 2,000 years – from Dante’s crucified Christ to Albert Schweitzer’s devotions to Monty Python’s irreverent “Life of Brian” – the story of Jesus of Nazareth has been fair game.

And why not?

For some, the Jesus story as expressed in the Gospels is not only true, it is the ultimate truth. For others, it’s a brilliant archetype.

George Lucas and Peter Jackson played it out in “Star Wars” and “The Lord of the Rings.”

A father figure sends the young hero on a mission. Along the way there are helpers and obstacles, and just when defeat seems inevitable, the hero triumphs.

Now with Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” we get yet another version, albeit one that focuses on the hero’s darkest moment and brightest triumph.

With images of suffering, which is the pain of the body, and images of grace, which is the redemption of the soul, artists and writers through the centuries have used the Gospels to explore the paradox and mystery of existence.

The Bangor Daily News asked five people to watch Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” and to offer their responses.

Dr. Laurence Milder

Rabbi

Congregation Beth El

Bangor

The story of the suffering and death of Jesus deserves to be told with sensitivity, respect and historical accuracy. Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ,” however, includes interpretive material that is neither historically warranted nor present in the Gospels. As for sensitivity, Gibson has chosen to portray the Jews as vicious, venal and more guilty than the Romans themselves.

By presenting the movie entirely in Aramaic and Latin, Gibson suggests its historical authenticity. In reality, everything spoken in Latin in the movie should have been spoken in Greek. Greek was the language used throughout the Near East during the Roman period. That is why the Gospels were written in Greek, not Latin.

Many elements of the movie are drawn from medieval art, such as Jesus’ cross being taller than the two adjacent criminals’ crosses. The wrenching of Jesus’ arm out of its socket to fit the extended length of his cross is done so as to be consistent with the dimensions of the Shroud of Turin. The black raven over the head of the unrepentant criminal is another convention of medieval art; that it gruesomely pecks out the criminal’s eyes is Gibson’s own touch, suggesting the spiritual blindness of those who deny Jesus. None of these are historically warranted nor present in the Gospels.

Gibson has acknowledged that his interpretation is based in part on the visions of an anti-Semitic 19th century nun, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich. These elements, not found in the Gospels, include Jewish officials bribing other Jews to assemble to denounce Jesus. They include Pilate’s comment to the high priest, “Do you always punish your prisoners before they are tried?” intended to demonstrate Jewish contempt for due process, in contrast to Pilate, who is presented as a kind of moral exemplar.

Gibson’s most serious departure from historical reality is that he turns the tables on the power structure of Judea under the Romans. In the movie, the Jews are presented as if they could force the hand of their Roman rulers. We know from the 1st century historian Josephus that Pilate was a cruel, tyrannical despot. The high priest in Judea was appointed by the Romans and could be removed on a whim. But in Gibson’s movie, Pilate seems compelled to capitulate to the wishes of Caiaphas, the high priest. To emphasize Caiaphas’ power, Gibson’s Roman guards are unable to quiet the unruly mob standing before Pilate, while Caiaphas is able to bring them to order with a word. In contrast to the vicious chanting of the Jewish rabble to “crucify him,” Pilate is portrayed as emotionally torn, a sensitive soul, driven by circumstances to yield to the demands of the powerful Jewish leaders.

Gibson heightens the moral contrast through his animal-like depiction of Barabbas. To choose this grotesque monster to be freed, instead of Jesus, makes the action of the Jews seem all the more debased.

Though the Roman soldiers are depicted as exceedingly brutal, it is a pointless brutality. The Jews, however, are portrayed as intentional in their hatred. The viewer is led to conclude that, had it not been for the vindictiveness of the Jews, Jesus would never have been subjected to torture at the hands of the Romans.

Finally, there is the hovering presence of Satan, who walks among the Jews as they taunt Jesus. The Jews, then, appear to the viewer to be doing Satan’s work.

It is all so sad. For the last 40 years, mainstream Christian denominations have rejected the very culpability which Gibson assigns to the Jews. Gibson’s movie is not the historically honest, sensitive portrayal of Jesus’ life and death that builds understanding and mutual respect. Gibson has ignored all that. Instead, he has applied the most sophisticated tools of cinematography to do what was done for hundreds of years: Present a Passion play that makes the Jews guilty of deicide.

Adam Kuykendall

Stage and film director

Winterport

If you know the story of Christ and the Crucifixion, Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” will be incredibly moving and powerful. If not, the torture of this man, which spans the entire film, could be confusing and extremely disturbing.

Gibson has restrained himself from broad cinematic visuals and allowed the story to speak for itself. The camera stays tight on our main character and we’re forced, relentlessly, to endure every blow. For those who know the characters and events surrounding Jesus, the film is very poetic, allowing the viewer to move through the story quickly, but not painlessly.

On the other hand, for those not as familiar, the film takes unfair advantage. And anyone of conscience would agonize over the inhuman brutality brought upon a character without explanation. The film is an excellent companion to the story, but lacks the legs to stand on by itself.

Krishna Akilesh

Student

Harvard School of Dental Medicine

Bangor resident

Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” is an evocative rendering of the last days of Jesus, including graphic depictions of not only his physical suffering, but also the emotional and spiritual hardship of both himself and his followers.

Although the subject of the movie, and Gibson’s rendering, are both remarkably graphic, the movie stands as a work of art, and at many points verges on being a cinematic incarnation of the famed Northern Renaissance masterpiece by Mathias Grunewald known as “The Isenheim Altarpiece,” a painting noted for both its gruesome yet emotionally charged depiction of the Crucifixion. At points in the movie, I wish Gibson had given viewers more of a chance to view Jesus’ life prior to the Passion (although Gibson claims that this wasn’t his intent for this movie).

This movie is a must-see for anyone who is interested in a movie combining art, religion, spirituality and humanity, or … simply just an intense movie-going experience.

Krishna Akilesh designed 15 porcelain tiles at Redeemer Lutheran Church in Bangor that depict biblical stories.

W. Lyman Phillips

New Testament scholar, president

Grace Evangelical Center for Undergraduate Studies & Seminary

Bangor

“See, Mother, I make all things new.” Jesus speaks in “The Passion” through bloodied, blistered lips from a body flayed and broken by Roman punishment. New? What’s new? The cruel inhumanity of Rome’s violent, intimidating oppression? The political tension engendering hopelessness and hatred in both oppressors and oppressed? The uncompassionate glee on the faces of soldiers inflicting destructive pain on another? No sanitized, romanticized portrayal is this. Rather, we see the human reality necessitating the Cross: the way we marginalize others, minimizing the value of life itself.

“The Passion” isn’t then. It’s now! Nothing but the incredible cost of Jesus’ Passion offers any escape from the circle of hatred and violence. Nothing but the grace of Jesus and the Father saying in the way of sorrows, on the way to yet more sorrow and pain and, yes, terror, “See, Mother, I make all things new,” right when we see nothing new or hopeful. And then comes Resurrection!

W. Lyman Phillips is a New Testament scholar and president of Grace Evangelical Center for Undergraduate Studies & Seminary in Bangor.

Tammy Lacher Scully

Political columnist with an interest in film

Belfast

I feel sorry for anyone who saw this movie out of a sense of duty, whether they were Christians bearing witness to Christ’s suffering, theologians analyzing its content or citizens concerned about racism.

I can respect a director determined to film his vision, but I wonder how many people share Gibson’s need to see every excruciating detail of Christ’s torment in order to appreciate his sacrifice. I’m reminded of the Penitentes of the American Southwest, a religious sect that re-enacted the Passion of Christ each year by literally crucifying one of its members.

Showing approximately 100 minutes of torture in a 126-minute film just doesn’t work – not as religious inspiration and not as cinematic art – because it lacks context. Theatergoers unaccustomed to public executions (particularly children) are ravaged by its excesses. And Christ’s message, perhaps the most profound the world has known, is dwarfed by violence. How is that a good thing?