It's a story that has captured Western imagination for centuries, one that has inspired more productions and retellings than can ever be counted.
Hailed upon his return to the holy city only days before as his people's chosen messiah, a religious teacher is betrayed by one of his followers and sentenced to death by crucifixion. The innocent man suffers and dies for the sins of the masses, setting off a religious revolution which transformed the Roman world and still plays a major part in our society today.
Such is the premise of "The Passion of the Christ," which fittingly premieres today on Ash Wednesday at theaters across the nation. The film follows the final few hours of Jesus' life, from Judas' betrayal of him until the ultimate crucifixion.
The film came under early fire because its director, actor and filmmaker Mel Gibson, chose to draw upon apocrypha that is not traditionally included in the Biblical version of the story. Members of various religious communities were concerned that it would inspire a wave of anti-Semitism by depicting Jews as bearing the sole guilt for the death of Jesus Christ.
Taking such a famous and fundamental story and turning it into a cinematic production is clearly no easy task considering the numerous interpretations already available.
Gibson, working only behind the camera for this film, chose to portray the story as realistically as possible. All filming took place in Italy to match as well as possible ancient Jerusalem. All the dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic, the languages spoken at the time. Though a last-minute concession granted subtitles for most of the film, several scenes were left un-translated; leaving it up to the audience to decipher what is taking place.
Rather than detracting from the story, the archaic languages add to the flavor of the film. This is clearly a foreign time, a foreign place, and it's not always necessary to understand the mocking shouts of the Roman soldiers or the cries of the crowd to get the point across. Body language communicates far more than anything else, and in the scenes in which selected translation occurs and only a few lines are subtitled, the bits of dialogue that are translated are given far more dramatic weight and importance than they would have received otherwise.
James Caviezel rises to the task of portraying Jesus Christ. His portrayal of the Christian Messiah is surprisingly human; leaving no doubt that the suffering is being inflicted upon a real man rather than just an inhuman religious figure.
Gibson still obviously takes some creative liberties with his approach to the famous story. Satan is present in the garden when Judas Iscariot betrays Jesus, and he lurks in the crowd when Jesus is beaten and forced to carry his cross down the road to the hill where he is to be crucified.
The additions serve to strengthen the cinematic story by introducing obvious supernatural elements and by creating an added depth to many of the characters, including Claudia Procles (Claudia Gerini) and Mary, the mother of Jesus (Maia Morgenstern).
The depictions of the violence and cruelty inflicted upon Jesus throughout the film are so over the top, so incredibly vicious, that they becomes mind-numbing, nearly impossible for the average viewer to take even in this age of head-on movie gore. Jesus is beaten, whipped, beaten again, forced to drag a gigantic cross for miles in the hot sun, crucified, and then left to hang until he is dead. Gibson spared no detail in the graphic recounting of the violence that the religious leader suffered, and the result seems nearly too much for a single man to go through.
Respite comes through a series of flashbacks. Though these interludes no doubt make perfect sense to Gibson's intended audience and provide a break from the unceasing violence that makes up most of the rest of the movie, they detract from the overall dramatic impact of the film. The flashbacks often are used in such a way that the result of an action is shown before the scene which establishes it. For example, Peter, one of Jesus' disciples, is shown denying his association with Jesus three times before a flashback explains the significance of the event.
Much of the early controversy with the film regarded the portrayal of Jews in the movie. There is little doubt after viewing "The Passion of the Christ" that this interpretation of the story puts the responsibility for Jesus' execution on the shoulders of Jewish leaders. Pontius Pilate repeatedly tries to talk the leaders out of killing Jesus, conceding only after he realizes that rebellion is imminent if he does not give in. King Herod dismisses Jesus as a fool who should be freed.
Whether in a misstep or because it did not translate well to the screen, Gibson does a poor job of communicating the fact that the leaders of the church -- and not the crowd -- were the ones who originally wanted to crucify Jesus. Dissent is shown between the leaders of the Jewish temple over what to do with Jesus, but the focus of the movie is clearly on the single man and his followers, not the people who want to see him dead. An extended explanation for their insistence on his execution is not given.
"The Passion of the Christ" is a cinematic production -- a grand attempt to communicate one director's vision of an ancient story to a very particular audience. Its story does not necessarily follow the Biblical version of events and the incessant violence may occasionally seem overwhelming, but in the end, the experience may make it well worthwhile.
More from The Tufts Daily
