Review
The Passion of the Christ
- Director
- Mel Gibson
- Year
- 2004
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- Review date
- Monday, March 29, 2004
If this movie has provoked anything, that’s discussion. That’s nearly inevitable in a movie about Jesus that states unforgiving points of view in an almost radical way. That’s the way this movie plays. The characters are clearly defined and delineated, always with an edge toward the goodness or evil in them. Caiphas’ morbid hatred against Jesus has caused accusations that this film is anti-Semitic, for instance. Others don’t see so much into that, but accuse Director / Co-writer Mel Gibson of being arrogant and self-indulgent in presenting such a personal point of view of the so-called greatest story ever told, and bragging that it’s the way it happened because the Holy Spirit dictated it to him (watching the movie somehow you get the feeling that the man responsible for it behind the cameras really believes he’s some kind of authority in the matter, which is confirmed by his saying so in interviews).
Despite all this, the film is good as a film. It’s masterfully done, gorgeously photographed by Caleb Deschanel, and featuring fitting music by John Debney. The editing by John Wright is also good, though the film’s pace slows down at times and loses momentum. That’s not a very recurring problem though, as most of the piece is unbearably intense.
The performances are uniformly flawless. The standout is Maia Morgenstern, whose eyes carry all the pain of the role of Mary. Caviezel is a perfect Jesus, who shows enormous sentiment and strength and wisdom in every phase of his awful torment, and a couple of flashbacks of important moments in his life. Other members of the cast are Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, Francesco De Vito as Peter, Hristo Jivkov as John, and Rosalinda Celentano as Satan. The latter role seemed quite unnecessary to me in a film that played in such a realistic way. If they were to add supernatural elements, I would’ve preferred many other things…
See, I have a problem with this movie. I am not a religious person but I am a man of faith, and I do believe in Jesus, and have read the Gospels, and many more texts about the Master. Yet, as a man who knows the story pretty well, and believes in it, and understands its relevance, I found the exposition a bit unfocused in the way that it concerns only the torment and death of Jesus and almost ignores his overall work. Gibson no doubt made it impossible to not feel Jesus’ pain at all times, the violence being almost unbearable, and arguably excessive, but it would’ve been great if he had told us why we should care more about that man than any other tortured man in the world (as many as there have always been). Why has Jesus transcended time and place after so many centuries? Many viewers might miss the point and to me it’s a problem, also because the beauty of Jesus’ work and words is sorely missed, even though it is featured in a couple of flashbacks (that only left me wanting more).
Make no mistake, I like this film very much. Realized as realistically as possible (even spoken in Latin and Aramaic, with subtitles), it manages to create a period piece so credible that it’s almost like watching the real thing, one would think. The story and the way it’s played make up for a unique experience, rarely seen before on film, which requires an open mind, even from those who defend it like it’s a window into the very Gospels. Isn’t that the story of the world concerning Jesus Christ?
Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook
Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter
Other reviews of The Passion of the Christ (2004): Morris
Comments
New comments are temporarily disabled
Review
The Passion of the Christ
- Director
- Mel Gibson
- Year
- 2004
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Thursday, April 08, 2004
The movie tells the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ (James Caviezel) as he is arrested by the Jews, taken to Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), and crucified. All of this while his mother Mary (Maia Morgenstern), Magdalene (Monica Belluci) and John (Hristo Jivkov) witness in awe and despair.
It is so difficult to talk about this movie. It is until you see it that you realize this isn’t just a movie, it’s something else. An experience in the truest sense of the word, The Passion of the Christ isn’t even something I can easily rate. Why isn’t it perfect, why isn’t it a train wreck? I don’t know, the movie is bigger than that kind of reasoning. And that’s something I find particularly remarkable.
I think it’s ridiculous to be mentioning this in my review, but it has been so talked-about that I just can’t ignore it: the movie is not anti-Semitic people. There are “bad” Jews in the movie and there are “good” Jews in there as well. In no way is director Mel Gibson expressing that, for instance, Caiphas represents the entire Jewish population. I mean, even the Romans are portrayed in a more barbarian way!
Opting to watch The Passion of the Christ you know it’s going to be a difficult and violent thing to go through. Mel Gibson pushed all boundaries and made an extremely bloody movie. And with that I’m saying it’s almost unbearable at times. The most difficult scene to watch is the scourging, which goes for so long and is so brutal that you can’t be the same after you watch it. Of course, what follows is still as shocking. Fact is, that’s the way crucifixions happened, and Jesus went through even more punishment than usual. It’s a strong message the one he, and Gibson, delivered. And it cannot go unnoticed.
For people, the movie will have different meanings. Some will be shocked by the violence, others will have a profound spiritual experience, others will find themselves repentant, others will be moved to tears. For me the most impressive thing about it was not the violence, which sure as hell left me paralyzed; what ultimately stayed with me were the words Jesus spoke, whether at the Last Supper, the Sermon on the Mount, the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem or the Cross. The message he left, the strength of his soul, the willingness to go on…
I’d also like to pinpoint Mary’s role in the movie. It’s so heart breaking to watch how she follows her son throughout the whole punishment. She’s at the scourging, where with just one look Jesus regains the force to stand up. And then she’s with him at the cross, where she asks him to take her with him. As a matter of fact, it is through her that we understand the whole magnitude of the Passion, and it’s admirable how well she controlled herself, although we could see the excruciating suffering in her eyes. Mary is also responsible for the best scene of the movie, and one I actually consider a classic: when Jesus falls and she goes to the aid while remembering when he was a young boy and something similar happened. I dare you not to shed a tear during that sequence.
Another very interesting aspect of the movie lies in the way humans can be so mean to each other. Mel Gibson shows no restraint in his depiction of cruelty towards others, which says a lot about the human condition. The saddest part of it is that civilization after civilization our race doesn’t change. Technology advances, but our inner-nature lies intact, which is something I’m constantly amazed by.
The Passion of the Christ is an impeccable production in every technical level. Caleb Deschanel’s photography is so beautiful, and I don’t think I’ll hear a more miraculous score in any movie this year than John Debney’s. It’s heaven-sent, I tell you. Then there’s the production design, the costumes, the editing, every detail given special attention.
Playing Jesus must not be an easy feat, but James Caviezel does a remarkable job in his portrayal. We never for one second doubt that we’re seeing the Man himself, and every quiet or agonizing moment is portrayed by Caviezel with a lot of passion and dignity and honesty. Maia Morgenstern, as Mary, is also something to behold. Her work in the movie is breath-taking. After watching the movie all I could think about was Maia’s look on her face when holding her dead son in her arms.
Lending extraordinary support as well are Monica Bellucci and Hristo Naumov Shopov. Rosalinda Celentano’s work as the Devil is very creepy and well-handled. And they all had to learn their lines in Aramaic or Latin!
An extraordinary achievement in every way. One of the most important movies of all time!
“It is accomplished.”
CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook
Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter
Other reviews of The Passion of the Christ (2004): Groucho
Comments
Groucho wrote at 3/29/2004 3:00:00 AM:
...and I've got SO MUCH to say about it! Will do it soon. Pollescu wrote at 3/30/2004 7:14:56 PM:
have you guys noticed the symbols along the movie? I must say when I first saw the movie, I thought they were only uncommon details, but my girlfriend taught me that they were actually symbols used by Gibson for some reason. There are some of them, and what I've come up about their meaning.1.- Crow on Cross: Obviously the crow is absent on the four Gospels, so it must mean something. I believe it has two meanings. First of all, it represents what really happened. Historically romans account the fact that crows and other birds ate and bit thieves on the crosses. Nevertheless, the ssecond meaning is way much profound. I believe the crow eating the thief's eye represents the spiritual blindness of this guy, even being killed beside God's son. (Just my opinion)
2.- Childish Demons with Judas: I believe that these children exist only in Judas mind, and I heard a catholic priest saying they represent every little sin commited by Judas; that finally pushed him into suicide. The explanation is simple, Judas didn't treason Jesus one day, he grew hate in his heart from some time before he actually did what he did.
3.- Snake in Devil's foot: I really believe this has something to do with Adan's and Eve's first sin. It may mean that Jesus is about to redeem all sins even includin the first sin.
4.- Worm in Devil's nose: I really have no clue in this one. But after searching the Bible, I found on Isaias 14:11 a "similar" description of worms.
5.- Drop of Water from Heaven: Water is often a sign for the Spirit in the Bible, we can say the drop of rain, was like a tear from the Father, grieving over the loss of His Son. That tear began the destruction of the old form of worship that separated man and God. I believe that the drop cleans everything and beggins a new era, thus the Old Testament and the New Testament are defined.
6.- Rotten Donkey: Probably the weirdest of all the symbols. I belive it's the same donkey Jesus used when entering Jerusalen four days before that. Nevertheless, the Bible says the donkey was borrowed and returned after that day, so it has no logical explanation on why it was found dead, conviniently beside Judas suicide place. One detail is that the rotten animal was covered with lots of worms and flies!!! Remember Satan is sometimes called "The Lord of the Flies"????
7.- Baby in Devil's arms: This is another discussed symbol. This is what Gibson 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." I thought it was an anti-image of Raphael's Sistine Madonna. As a mock mirror image or even the Anti-Christ. I've also heard people saying that it is Satan mocking God, by saying "I would never let this happen to you if you were my child"
That satan is saying to Jesus "Only say the word and I will end your suffering and you can be my child, and I would never let this happen to you".
Morris wrote at 3/31/2004 7:11:44 PM:
Very interesting indeed Pollescu. I had heard about some of these symbols and thought they were very interesting! Thanx a lot for pointing them out here!Oh, and by the way, I have something to add to that last symbol you mentioned. I read that the face in the baby the Devil is carrying is actually the face of one of the Romans who is beating Jesus at the moment. I've seen the movie two times and the second time I gave the baby a close look and what I just mentioned was absolutely true. I guess there are some conclusions we can take from that...
Pollescu wrote at 4/27/2004 3:48:33 PM:
I´m not saying Gibson CHANGED the gospels. He simply added symbols: images, sounds, words; with a spiritual goal. He didn't change the Gospels, he represented them as truth as he could, but he did added symbols to work you through the story and to point out certain topics like faith or the devil itself. If you analize the Gospels and Gibson's movie you'll probably find out that none of these symbols appear, but they never contradict the Gospels. So I'm just saying that Gibson did add symbols but never affecting the story itself. Groucho wrote at 4/27/2004 7:34:06 PM:
Then again, his work IS based on the Gospels...Thanks.
Jackie wrote at 5/20/2004 8:02:20 PM:
i love the whole movie. I went to the movies with my boyfriend, who weeped even more than me. The picture, the story, the director, the actors, the music, the lenguage, the whole production made the perfect movie!New comments are temporarily disabled
Groucho wrote at 4/8/2004 6:04:55 PM:
Nice analysis, man... Just a quick comment...You mention changes from the Gospels in Gibson's movie, but you trashed those in 'The Last Temptation of Christ' (though it's been made clear since that that is a work of fiction).
So these changes are allowed, as opposed to those in 'The Last Temptation'? I thought you said the Gospels couldn't be changed, not a little, and not much... Could you explain the difference please?