The Passion in fashion?

The Passion of the Christ, a graphic cinema account of the last hours of Jesus's life, opened in America on February 25 and was shown the next day at a media preview in London.

Both here and across the Atlantic the film has generated a variety of extraordinarily intense reactions. On the one hand, Christians in many churches have hailed the epic as a spiritual experience of enormous proportions. On the other, the film has not only been accused of being overly bloodthirsty and violent, but also of being an incitement to anti-Semitism.

This month, as the UK release date approaches, EN asks: What's the truth about The Passion and should we go and see it?

Elisa Beynon went to the London screening and gives us her view.

A biblical basis

Beautifully shot, sensitively acted and incorporating an array of impressive technical effects, it is impossible to watch The Passion without being emotionally drawn in. The film starts with Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, praying with feeling and fear about the events that lie ahead. Meanwhile, the disciples lie sleeping and Satan, depicted as an androgynous, prowling figure, tries and fails to tempt Jesus to forego the way of the cross. When his captors arrive, Jesus willingly comes forward to meet them.

The film is largely faithful to the biblical texts. Huge chunks of dialogue, spoken in subtitled Aramaic, are quotations from the gospels. There is also some attempt to convey not just the events themselves but also the meaning behind them. During the scenes of Jesus's sufferings there are flashbacks to past conversations - for instance, during the washing of the disciples' feet and the Last Supper - where Jesus explains what he is about to do and what it means.

Other devices are used to try and convey the cosmic enormity of Jesus's achievement on the cross. As Jesus dies, the camera pulls away from the scene and we look down from above through what seems to be a blurry, distorted lens. However, just as we wonder why things appear quite so watery, a huge teardrop falls down below us, symbolising God's pain at the death of his precious Son.

Distracting violence

Gibson does not flinch from portraying the gruesome horror of Jesus's suffering and execution. The long flogging scenes, in particular, are extremely difficult to watch.

Indeed, I found the violence and drawn-out nature of the scenes prior to Jesus's execution far more disturbing than the actual crucifixion itself. Gibson says he 'really wanted to express the hugeness of the sacrifice, as well as the horror of it'. He certainly succeeded in conveying the latter. However, I felt Gibson's strong emphasis on the physical suffering of Jesus failed to convey the enormity of Jesus's sacrifice for us. This was undoubtedly due in part to this focus on the pain suffered prior to the cross but more generally, the preoccupation with physical torture actually distracted us and detracted from the greatest suffering that Jesus had to face. The Bible teaches that the biggest and unique horror of Jesus's death was not the physical pain he endured, but rather the fact that he was taking upon himself the wrath of God and being separated from his heavenly Father. While the medium of film is, of course, inherently visual, the focus on physical suffering meant that this was masked. When Jesus uttered the phrase, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' I feared that many viewers were left feeling merely sorry for the bereft and battered Jesus, with no understanding of all that lay behind these words.

Catholic overtones

There are many Roman Catholic overtones in the film. Gibson has stated that the posthumously published work of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, was his primary inspiration for making the movie. There are several ways in which the influence of this book and of Catholic theology in general are seen in Gibson's film.

* Catholic theology and Emmerich's text are both characterised by an extreme preoccupation with Jesus's physical pain: Catholic crucifixes depict Jesus still suffering on the cross, for instance. As I said, the film majored on the terrible physical suffering of Jesus and the sorrow it caused to his mother and friends.

* Unsurprisingly, Mary is given an unnecessarily elevated role in the film, with John addressing her as 'Mother' even before he is asked to do so by Jesus.

* There is a very strong emphasis placed on Jesus's blood. In one scene just after the scourging, Pilate's wife gives white towels to Mary and Mary Magdalene. They carefully and solemnly wipe up Jesus's blood from the stone floor. In another scene, when Jesus hangs on the cross, Mary kisses his feet and his blood covers her mouth and face. While we would want to assert the power of Jesus's blood in redeeming us from our sin in substitionary sacrifice, these scenes seem to lay a mystical, unbiblical importance on its inherent quality.

* The action of the film incorporates the majority of the so-called Stations of the Cross, some of which are based purely on Catholic tradition rather than the gospel accounts. Catholic theology states that there are 14 such stations, the first being Jesus condemned to death and the last his burial. Seven stations are taken up with his journey to Golgotha. This explains the huge length of time given to this in the film, which made very dull cinema! During this time, Jesus falls over three times (Stations 3, 7 and 9), meets Mary (Station 4) and has his face wiped by a woman, known traditionally as Veronica (Station 6).

An anti-Semitic film?

Jewish leaders have been outspoken in their criticism of the film. Lord Janner, vice-president of World Jewish Congress, said that the film 'would fan the flames of anti-Semitism'. If we put ourselves into Jewish shoes, it is easy to see why they might be offended by the movie: as Christians we may forget that much anti-Semitism has been engendered by the Jews being labelled 'Christ-killers'.

However, while accusations of anti-Semitism have been compounded by a statement made by Gibson's father, saying that he thought the holocaust was mostly fiction, Gibson denies such leanings. Indeed, the film's depiction of Jesus's treatment at the hands of the Jews does not depart from the biblical accounts. To the Christian, these scenes are in no way anti-Semitic propaganda, they are merely telling it as it was. Jonathan Dawson, in a review for A.C. Press (Spanish Evangelical Alliance) said: 'To say this is anti-Semitic would be like saying a World War II film critical of Nazism is anti-German.' However, while Gibson's accusers have no problem accepting the historicity of Nazism, they obviously do not accept the historicity of God's Word upon which the film scenes are based.

What they also fail to see is that while the Bible and Gibson's film do implicate the Jewish council and baying crowd in Jesus's death, no one is depicted as innocent. We see Jesus's own followers run away, Judas betray him and the Gentile Roman soldiers reduce him to a pulp. Gibson's aim was not to promote anti-Semitism but to show that, when it comes to Jesus's death, all of us are guilty. The actor/director tried to convey this by having a shot of his own hand holding the spike as the nails are hammered into Jesus. When asked on ABC Primetime: 'Who killed Christ?', Gibson replied: 'The big answer is, we all did'. In such an answer Gibson recognises rightly our common human responsibility in Jesus's death. Maybe he felt prime time TV was not the place to explain that Jesus died because God himself willed it for our salvation!

A useful tool?

So then, what should we make of The Passion? Is it a must-see, or should we steer clear? I came away from the film having found it compelling but ultimately flawed. This is unsurprising - God's perfect Word is God's primary means of teaching us about Jesus. No visual, cinematic experience can or should compete with that. Indeed, many would argue that to try and present Jesus in this way is to disobey the Second Commandment.

While I would not put it so strongly, it is clear that to see God's perfect revelation of himself, we need to meet the Jesus that, by God's Spirit, is revealed in the Bible. Nevertheless, Gibson's film has certainly aroused much controversy and many non-Christians will see it. Whether we choose to or not, it is worth thinking through how we use conversations about it to point to the real Jesus. According to research, more than 60% of all cinema-goers are under 35 years old. This is the age group which is so often missing from churches.

The Good Book Company is producing two tracts in response to the film, one called 'The Passion of Jesus Christ - its meaning for today' and the other, 'Who killed Jesus?' Both would be ideal to hand out to people who have seen the film or are talking about it. So, as we chat about The Passion in the weeks ahead, let's not just make vague comments about the special effects or the make up. Instead, let's point unbelievers to the actual, historical, atoning death of the Lord Jesus. Now that's something to really get passionate about.

For free samples of the two tracts mentioned above call The Good Book Company on 0845 225 0880.

© Evangelicals Now - April 2004
Please consider supporting this ministry by subscribing.