The Passion Of The Christ review

It's impossible to offer a defining view on Mel Gibson's graphic depiction of Jesus Christ's last hours on earth. Everyone, depending on their religious, secular or philosophical background, will come at it from their own vantage point. The only unifying consensus binding audiences is with regard to the film's unrelenting brutality. Much has been made of Gibson's blood lust and not without due cause. The act of Jesus dying for man's sins is central to the Christian religion. It is presumably why Gibson chose to devote the whole film to it. The problem is it then leaves no time for establishing who Christ was and why he engendered such devotion and fear. By focusing on the final twelve hours of his life, The Passion Of The Christ is judged as much on what Gibson chose to leave out as what he put in.

Without placing Jesus in religious, sociological or political context, and by eliminating all but the barest information, Gibson, along with fellow screenwriter Benedict Fitzgerald, makes a lot of assumptions of behalf of the audience's Biblical knowledge. There are few examples of Christ's teachings and for those who have scant familiarity with the 'greatest story ever told' there is little in the way of help identifying key elements such as the stations of the cross. To exclude sections of the audience from critical facets is denying them an informed viewpoint and diminishing the film's effectiveness.

The Passion Of The Christ is a powerful drama, but because there is little sense of who the central figure is, the suffering he undergoes solicits more pity than respect. Watching anyone undergo such torture would garner the same reaction. Gibson was criticized for having gone too far in his desire to convey the savageness of Jesus' death. It's a charge the director rejected, declaring he hadn't gone far enough. How it would have been possible to be more explicit is difficult to imagine. The unrelenting brutality makes for uncomfortable viewing, but with little respite its impact becomes dulled.

The occasional use of flashbacks offers welcome if fleeting glimpses into Jesus' past. Their inclusion suggests Gibson recognized the importance of providing some context for the story. Having conceded to this need, however, it was frustrating it wasn't used more.

Much of the controversy surrounding the film stems from accusations of its anti-Semitic stance. Although the Romans who inflict and witness Jesus' punishment clearly revel in the spectacle, their governor Pontius Pilate is bathed in a more sympathetic light. It's the Jewish high priest Caiaphas who is cast as the villain as he insists only Christ's death will satisfy. It's this slant that has fuelled the film's critics.

It's hard to recall a film where the performances have commanded less attention. Jim Cavaziel offers a convincing likeness of the commonly perceived image of Christ and he does his best to convey a palpable spirituality, but with a role that consists primarily of grimacing while trying to retain a stoic grace, he is afforded little to work with. The casting of unfamiliar actors helps maintain the illusion, which is why the choice of the very identifiable Monica Bellucci as Mary Magadelene seems all the more grating.

What should be remembered is that this is not the definitive story. It's one person's interpretation. That that person happens to be one of Hollywood's leading action heroes with a penchant for violent stories shouldn't be forgotten. Ultimately The Passion Of The Christ invites mores questions than it answers. The most immediate one being, how does eight pints of blood go so far?