Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ: a critical review

By Tomás De Los Santos & Percy Nadeau

 

(Percy Nadeau and Tomás are comrades. Percy joins Tomás in this review of Mel Gibson's The Passion.)

Tomás: After watching Gibson's obscene flick, it would seem that all that mattered about Jesus was His death. Except for watching Jesus get tortured to death for two bloody hours, virtually nothing about him or his ministry was even mentioned! On top of that, His resurrection -- that bedrock of Christianity -- was given but scanty treatment at the end of the film. These are major flaws with the film. Consider what kind of god is Gibson is portraying. Around here, in Laredo , many claim to already know that god, but for those who don't, what kind of god would one be introduced to? After watching the film one would have to conclude that Gibson's god is a grossly sadistic, violent god on a par with Hannibal Lector or Attila the Hun! There is almost nothing in the movie about Jesus' ministry, His message, and hardly anything about his resurrection -- it's all blood, torture, pain, and death!

Percy: Calm down, Tomás, what are you getting so excited about -- in case you didn't know, it is a common belief among Christians that Jesus was ransomed for our sins and that he had to die in order for our sins to be forgiven. Only then could we be redeemed from original sin and its consequence, which is death.

Tomás: Yeah, but some Christians believe that his resurrection and the message of his ministry are more important than his death -- if all that mattered was his death, then why did he spend three years teaching and preaching?

Percy: Obviously Mel appreciates the church's doctrines of redemption and original sin, both of which are called into question if Jesus didn't die for our sins. That's the idea that Mel is pushing. That's why he is so focused on the agony and death of Jesus.

Tomás: Well how very Catholic of Mel! And maybe that's enough for him but it just doesn't make sense without some further explanation. This movie takes a lot for granted, including that Jesus was God, that the viewers know all about redemptive theology, and, more importantly, that the viewers share in these beliefs. If this film was all one knew, one would have to ask, Why would God -- any god -- need to satisfy himself by sending his son -- or rather himself disguised as his son -- to be killed as payback for sin? At Gibson's simplistic level, it appears to be bad theology reeking of pure vengeance. That is the message I get after two hours in Mel Gibson's chamber of horrors.

Percy: To be honest, I don't think I have ever seen a bloodier movie. I almost puked. It certainly makes God appear to be rather bloodthirsty. I suppose Mel is telling us that the level of agony endured by Jesus is a measure of the depth of God's love for humanity. It seems twisted, somehow.

Tomás: Well, the Aztecs would have certainly gone for it -- they loved human sacrifice for the sake of their gods. I still think Mel should have devoted more than a few seconds to Jesus' life and resurrection. Take for example Jesus' supposed divinity. By not going more deeply into that aspect of the Jesus story, we are made to assume it as a given. Assuming Jesus' divinity without some substantiation is to reduce it to dogma. Gibson and his movie are doing nothing more than using Hollywood sensationalism to push his religious agenda to as many people as he can. He's merely proselytizing.

Percy: I question the accuracy of the film, and Gibson does fill in a lot of blanks with Catholic tradition. For instance, the gospels say nothing about Jesus being nailed to the cross. All the gospels say is that he was crucified and they leave it at that. Mel apparently felt called upon to fill that blank in with the standard Catholic version of three nails having been used -- thank you for sharing your catechism with us, Mel!

Tomás: That's a point. Although many Christians, and Catholics to be sure, believe that Christ was in fact nailed to the cross, there is absolutely no proof of this. From what I have read about what is known about crucifixions, there were no standard procedures -- some were nailed, and some were not, and then, if they were nailed, not through the hands.

Percy: "Standard crucifixion procedure," that's a laugh! We're talking about sadistic barbarians here, not administering bureaucrats! In the movie, the Roman brutes are just having at the guy in a sadistic frenzy, and Mel loves it. Let's face it, Mel's Passion is nothing but another action movie indulging the crowd's passion for gore.

Tomás: You said it. The movie reminds me of those Nuevo Laredo newspapers that show horrible pictures of mangled bodies. Gibson is merely exploiting a voyeuristic curiosity that all people have to some degree or another. It's like people slowing down at a car wreck just to see the blood and guts. That's all this movie is cashing in on.

Percy: It is a bit of carnography, though, isn't it? And yet you hear of churches buying up all the seats, and people coming out of the movie feeling a sense of spiritual awakening after having seen, in vulgar detail, the gruesome torture that Christ is said to have gone through. Did you see how people were coming out of the movie theatre? Many of them had this saintly look on their faces. They seemed strangely at peace after having watched a serious slaughter.

Tomás: They really did, didn't they? It was spooky. Compare that to how people reacted at having seen Janet Jackson's breast for a couple of seconds. Somehow, watching a torture up close makes people feel holy, while looking at a breast makes them feel insulted, like they were exposed to an act of perversion. I don't get it.

Percy: It's the god thing. Catholics have been known to promote all sorts of atrocities in the name of God. I did, however, like the movie's use of Aramaic and Latin. That was a nice touch, I thought. It gave the movie a sense of realism.

Tomás: Realism? Is that what the foreign languages did for you? The language bit was nothing but a sideshow at best. No matter what little details Mel provided for our viewing or listening pleasure, one could not get away from the main attraction, which was the scourging and crucifixion. I mean, Gibson really gets off to it -- he goes there again and again and again.

Percy: That's why I say it is carnography. It's like pornography but instead of being about sex, it's about violence, blood, and gore.

Tomás: Well, I will say one thing. If Jesus was human, and suffered like a human, then the movie has really got it wrong: no human could survive that kind of whipping. If Jesus had been beaten and whipped with the cat o'nine tails that many times, he would have been dead long before carrying any cross.

Percy: No kidding. In trying to be so real, it appears Mel got into the violence a bit too much and forgot about reality. I think Mel Gibson has secret, sadistic inclinations. He probably likes S&M.

Tomás: After the beating Jesus got, it's no wonder He hasn't come back here for more than 2,000 years. I wouldn't come back here either. Gibson has made a movie about the most violent God of love I've ever heard of.

Percy: It is a bit of an irony, isn't it?

Tomás: Oxymoronic. The movie is crazy and the underlying premise is insane -- and by "underlying premise," I mean the god Mel would have us believe in. Think about it. Here is a God who, having taken the flesh and appeared on earth as a mortal man, felt compelled to sacrifice himself, in order to appease himself so as not to destroy his own beloved creation, namely, us, the human race. It's sheer lunacy. And the sad thing is that it has not worked. As far as I can tell, sin is still very much around, and people are still dying.

Percy: Mel Gibson's Passion is pure proselytizing hype.

Tomás: You mean crap. It is, indeed, fitting that it comes to us from Hollywood -- the land of make believe.