Vorlon Whispers

My Review of The Passion

Karol and I finally went to see Mel Gibon’s “The Passion” today. The following are my thoughts on this film in no particular order.

I have read extensively on the film and I think I was mentally prepared for the brutality of it. Although after the scourging, Jesus was lacerated and dripping with blood from head to toe, I don’t think the film portrayed the effects of the scourging accurately. When you look at the tools the Romans were using to beat him, the marks on his body UNDERSTATED the effects. From other things I have read, I would say the film UNDERSTATES just how mutilated his body was.

The acting was excellent all around. All the characters seemed believable. Part of the problem of reading so much about the film before going is I was mentally taking the film apart in my mind instead of completely experiencing it. I was also comparing my recollection of scripture with what Gibson was putting on the screen.

I thought the character of Satan was a nice touch. You can’t tell if he’s male or female. In addition, he looks so clean, almost innocent.

I didn’t understand why the two Mary’s were mopping up Jesus’ blood after the whipping. I think it has something to do with Jewish tradition, but I’m not certain.

I was looked for anti-Semitism, but I didn’t see any. Caiphas does not come across to me as pure evil. He more reminds me of some fire-and-brimstone Christians I have seen. It’s his way or the highway and God is on his side. He stands in self-righteous indignation and pushes Pilot to condemn Christ to death. I guess you could say what Caiphas did was truly evil.

The Roman soldiers come off the worst. They were beyond evil. They seemed like demented barbarians. They enjoyed Christ’s suffering. The more pain they could inflict, the better they liked it. They made the Nazi’s seem like pussycats.

Gibson did not make this movie to convert the agnostic or atheist and I don’t think it will. There is not attempt to prove the existence of God, man’s fallen nature, and his destiny to a very warm place. You really need to know the story in the first place to accurately follow the movie.

I thought the actor that played Jesus was a smidgeon on the plump side for Jesus. Jesus walked everywhere he went. He probably ate sparingly. I would expect him to be quite slender.

I have read that the Arabs have gotten wind that this movie shows Jews in a bad light and they are getting permission from the Arab governments to show the film. This could be one of the most serendipitous things to come out of this movie. Any Moslem that views this movie, if he looks hard enough, will find something for which to condemn the Jews. Just like the Bush haters blame Bush for bad weather. A warped mind will see what it wants to see.

However, they will also be confronted with several things the movie depicts.

1) There are no Palestinians in the movie. Why? Because there weren’t any back then. All you see in this movie are Jews and Romans. This movie gives the Jews claim to Israel substance. But the Arabs won’t see that.

2) Christ was crucified. Although the Koran accepts Jesus virgin birth, they deny he was crucified and they certainly deny his resurrection. This movie depicts in graphic detail his crucifixion. It also, briefly, shows his resurrection.

3) Jesus’ teachings. His message of forgiveness and love are powerful messages.

I hope that every Moslem sees this movie. It won’t make them hate the Jews any more than they already do. I think on a scale of 1 to 10, they're already at a 10.

But it will give them a message they would not otherwise get a chance to see. If this movie gets wide distribution in Arab countries, I believe it will be, to coin a phrase, “the camel’s nose under the tent.”

UPDATE: Does anyone have any idea why Gibson put the raven in the film? What was that all about?

Posted by Ted at April 10, 2004 8:57 PM