Review of Passion Of The Christ, The

Introduction

This is a movie made by a man with a passion. Every frame of Mel Gibson`s remarkable picture shows that he takes the question of his faith very seriously. That faith has inspired him to make a movie expressing the basis of that faith in a very visceral, emotionally raw way. His belief in the movie - making it with his own money when no studio would touch the project - has been rewarded in the admittedly controversial movie becoming the 8th highest box-office of all time.

Performed in (as near as possibly accurate) Aramaic Hebrew and Latin, the film takes no liberties with the source material - the Gospels. If you have problems with the story, you might want to take issue with two-thousand years of the Christian church and the articles of faith the church is founded on rather than castigating Mr Gibson. As an article of Mel Gibson`s faith, I don`t think it`s up to me (or anyone for that matter) to be critical of it. He`s really only upholding a long-lived tradition of the theatre in telling the story of The Passion. Since the dawn of Christendom in Europe, re-enactments of the story have been a staple of Easter celebrations.

Jim Caviezel plays Jesus, portraying a figure of immense dignity even under intolerable suffering. His part is almost entirely suffering (but otherwise it wouldn`t be The Passion). Some of the suffering was for real; Caviezel was accidentally whipped twice during the flagellation scene (leaving a 14-inch scar), and making the sermon on the mount was struck by lightning. Flashbacks provide occasional breaks from the brutality, concentrating on his teachings rather than his miracles. He does perform one in the garden of Gethsemane, an act of quiet kindness that the rest of Caiaphas` goons miss but is obviously a religious experience to the man affected. Maia Morgenstern plays his mother Mary. The tragedy of The Passion is that a mother should see her child suffer so. The Romanian actress was herself pregnant during the shooting of the movie and only confided in Jim Caviezel late on in the shooting schedule. Special mention should be made of the malevolent presence of a post-synched (or at least I hope so) Rosalinda Celentino as Satan. Very creepy.

The film is frequently very uncomfortable to watch. The processes of scourging and crucifixion are sadistic in the extreme - but only reflect the creative inhumanity of Roman civilisation at the time. The makeup effects literally turn Jim Caviezel into mincemeat. Whether you believe in the divinity of Jesus or not, this is the account of the suffering of a man at the hands of the Roman war machine of the 1st Century. On a level of individual human tragedy, the Passion is without peer. One man finds himself with his entire society against him because of intolerance of his religious views. He is destroyed by that intolerance (although Christian teachings tell us that was a purely temporary condition.)

As Mel Gibson considered pointing out in a pre-end title card, thousands of Jews died similarly horrible deaths during the Roman occupation of what became the Holy Lands. Crucifixion was one of the standard forms of state execution, and as with most things lethal the Romans had it down to a fine art.

As to the issue of anti-Semitism the picture has been accused of; I think Caiaphas and the people of Jerusalem get off pretty lightly compared with the vilification that past generations might have levelled at Jesus` contemporaries. The Romans - specifically the soldiers charged with carrying out the flogging and subsequent execution - come out of the story with the least dignity. Caiaphas` machinations are purely based on the religious law of the time, which clearly labelled Jesus as going against the teachings of Judaism. If there is any dispute to be made with the characterisation of Caiaphas, it is portraying him as a rabble-rouser likely to be behind any uprising in the region, rather than a senior figure of the establishment trying desperately to head off further Roman military intervention if the followers of Jesus start any trouble. If one idea could be exposited in the subtitles, why not the other?

Video

Presented in the original anamorphic widescreen 2.35:1, the movie is epic in scale and spectacle. Beautifully photographed by Caleb Deschanel ASC, colours are vibrant and contrast is very pleasing. There are no film or digital artefacts, as one should expect from a recent release.

Audio

Whoa! In the sound stakes, Mel Gibson has pulled out all the stops. Every moan, every crack of the whip, every thud of nail through flesh is rendered in Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS - extremely lively soundstages with a high level of ambience. Crowd scenes bombard you with voices from all angles. The picture is magnificently scored by John Debney, a haunting soundtrack worth the separate purchase.

Features

This is a barebones release in spite of the price-point and the high profile of the movie. There are full English subtitles which default on, but can be switched off to see the movie with only the Aramaic Hebrew/ Latin dialogue. There is also an audio description soundtrack for the visually impaired which can be an aid to following the thread if you`re not familiar with the New Testament.

Conclusion

Mel Gibson has every right to be proud of his achievement with this movie. He`s made a film that by Hollywood received wisdom should have tanked at the box office. It`s a million times the picture that Braveheart was, and that movie established him as a director-producer of more than eye-candy pictures. The Passion Of The Christ is an expression of the man`s faith, and in this age of cynicism is an act of breathtaking honesty. As a portrayal of the events of the Gospels, the movie is assured of a place among the great tellings of the story. For its uncompromising revelation of the brutality of the Crucifixion, it has no peer. I wouldn`t have any qualms accepting - to use a certain five word review of the picture - "It Is As It Was".