JWL.Freakwitch.net

The Passion of The Passion of the Christ

I saw The Passion of the Christ last night. I was sucked in by the hype; though I am interested in historical portrayals of the Christ, part of me was interested to see what kind of crowds would be there on opening night. I wanted to see what sort of energy would be at the Nickelodeon in Portland. Nothing out of the ordinary at all was there. It wasn't even all that crowded, to my surprise. I keep forgetting that I no longer live in the midwest, particularly Cincinnati. :-)

It's apparent that many people didn't like the movie. But I have to wonder if they've given it a fair chance. I made a conscious effort to rid myself of preconceived notions before seeing the movie. I try to be a freethinker as much as possible, and rarely if ever heed "the critics" in my movie opinions.

I grew up Catholic, and did my time in Catholic school. I have memories of the nuns describing to me, in awful vivid detail, the images of Christ's "passion" (along with many, I have a problem with the way the word "passion" has been corrupted to mean extreme violence and power-over...but that's another story). In particular, I remember one Sister Vincent Marie telling us, with something disturbingly close to a gleam in her eye, that Roman whips had metal hooks on the end of them, and that when used they would dig into the skin, only to be ripped out again by the overzealous soldiers. I remember her descriptions of dislocated shoulders during crucifixion, and how breaking the legs of the crucified asphyxiated the victims because they could no longer push their chests up with their legs to breathe. These descriptions that I heard as a child in the late 70s could have been of Gibson's movie. Yes, the movie is violent, perhaps unnecessarily so; but on the other hand I almost prefer it to some sanitized, watered-down version of the story. Every "civilization" in history has its brutal side; the Romans were no exception. It seems to me that the movie just portrayed this brutality. And this brutality is nothing new; I heard vivid, graphic descriptions of it in school as a nine-year-old in fourth grade.

Remember, the area in question was under Roman occupation. In order to participate in an army of occupation in an area that doesn't want to be occupied, one must to a certain extent become blind to suffering. And if you are blind to suffering, it becomes easy to fetishize suffering. The Romans weren't nice to the Jews; they beat them with ropes, clubs, and swords to keep them under control. But what army is nice to the rebellious population they are ordered to control? Furthermore, these are not elite Roman soldiers; they are most likely freed slaves or mercenaries hired to do a nasty job nobody particularly wants to do. Look at Pilate's distate for his situation, as the governor of a hostile occupied territory.

I did keep an eye out for anti-Semitism. After seeing the movie, I'm not convinced that the movie is anti-Semitic. There are some Jews portrayed as sadistic, malicious, or downright evil, but the same can be said for nearly every group portrayed in the movie (Jews, Romans, Women, etc). If anything, the movie is anti-non-Christian, which of course as a pagan is something I am concerned about. On the other hand, we must also remember that this film is a portrayal of the fundamental Christian legend, which is also widely regarded as a highly privileged text (ie, "THE word of God"), so of course we should expect the Christian worldview and its adherents to be lifted up above non-Christians. Indeed, there were Jews who were malicious, as well as Jews who were outraged by the whole thing. You can't condemn all Jews for the death of Christ, any more than you can condemn all Germans for the holocaust. Anyone who leaves this movie believing that All Jews Are Evil Because They Killed Christ is just simply not thinking clearly.

I've seen reviews that claim the characters in the film are "cardboard" cutouts. Remember, these characters are among the most familiar in our civilization, so there was "nothing new under the sun" really possible in their portrayal, unless Gibson were to take liberties with the well-known story. I thought Mary, Yeshua's mother, was quite good. The most touching moment of the movie for me (speaking as a parent, and a double-Cancer at that *grin*) is when Mary sees Yeshua fall while carrying the cross, and flashes back to the boy Yeshua who falls and skins his knee. Her maternal instinct takes over, and she wants to comfort the broken, tortured, exhausted Yeshua as she did when he was a wailing child.

Despite the gore, there were some very beautiful, provocative images in the film. One in particular was at the moment of Christ's death. There is a wide shot from above of Golgotha as the clouds darken and the wind picks up. The picture distorts, and we realize we are seeing the reflection of the scene through a raindrop. The drop falls to earth (symbolic of Christ's mortality at that moment), and lands at the foot of the cross. I was immediately reminded, in the symbol of the water drop, of the dawning of the Age of Pisces at the moment of Christ's death. I thought it was a very powerful and evocative symbol.

Another interesting image was that when Christ is erected on the cross, the Magdalene pulls her hood over her head, shroud-like, in a slow, deliberate, and dramatic fashion. This action evoked in me an image of the suppression (or literally, the covering) of women -- and of female Goddess divinity -- that would take full force over the next two millenia. Ironically, another image with the Magdalene is when Christ "rescues" her from the stoning, with the famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line (though this line is not spoken in the film). Christ reaches his hand down to the Magdalene, and lifts her up. There is an interesting subtext here; it suggests that perhaps Christ himself would lift up female divinity (and possibly his consort, according to some lesser-known Christian legends), whereas his subsequent followers would repress the Goddess.

I was on the lookout for other Christian myths and artifacts. Though the Shroud of Turin made an appearance, I was disappointed that the Grail did not.

Also, I find it funny that so many people think Satan is portrayed as a gay male, when in fact the part is played by a woman (Rosalinda Celentano); indeed Satan-the-character seems to be female (despite her androgynous appearance), as at one point she is suckling a bizarre, deformed "baby" as she walks through the crowd.

Some final thoughts: I think the movie is worth seeing, if you are movie fan or if you are interested in a particularly graphic portrayal of the death of the Christ. I don't believe for a minute that Mel Gibson made this movie out of any sense of duty or devotion as a Christian. Obviously, this film will sell a lot of tickets. I wonder if Mel will be donating his considerable profits to his church, a conservative subsect of Roman Catholicism that still says mass in Latin?

And while we're on the subject of Mr. Gibson, he seems to have a thing for pain, dislocated joints, and torture. I'm thinking of so many of his movies -- all the Lethal Weapon movies, the Mad Max movies, and the numerous military movies he's been in, not to mention the three movies he's directed, Passion, Braveheart, and Man Without a Face -- have graphic depictions of violence, pain, and torture.

This film isn't really all that original. Obviously, the story is well known, and the only thing even close to a new spin on it is the graphic violence. So from that perspective, it's kinda been-there, done-that. But it did have its moments. All in all, I urge everyone to decide for themselves; many reviews I have read are quick to condemn the movie, and miss some of the more interesting aspects of it.

posted by JWL at 12:52 PM |