Summary
The story of Jesus of Nazareth’s 12-Hour Passion modeled after the 12 Stations of the Cross.
My Viewing
I hadn’t seen “The Passion of the Christ since I first saw it twice in theaters back in 2004. At the time, I heartily recommended it to all of my church going friends and found myself weeping for the better part of the 2 hour run time.
15 years later, older, more discerning, and, hopefully, wiser I wasn’t sure if I would still find the film as moving as I once did. My years of experience have definitely contributed to a general disillusionment with modern Christian film and even more so the way that Christian movies brand themselves with trinkets and doodads like keychains and lapel pins as well as devotionals and even Bibles (is there a Left Behind branded Bible? Get on it Zondervan.)
Back in the day, I certainly got caught unaware by the hype train. Now, without the hype but 15 more years of spiritual growth would the film still move me?
My Thoughts
“The Passion of the Christ” is a remarkable work of art and from what I understand from the press at the time and since, a spiritual one. The stories of people working on the film and finding something in it that they had never connected with before are numerous and Jim Caviezel’s (“The Count of Monte Cristo”) personal stories of his process in portraying Christ lead me to believe that many of these were genuine despite the skeptic in me which wishes to doubt every one of them as simply a well done marketing ploy.
One of the reasons I don’t doubt them is that I have worked on and made films myself. I think that it is obvious when a producer, director, or writer is coming from a jaded place, focused more on raking in the cash and getting butts in seats than on moving hearts. On top of that, Gibson being a Catholic (albeit a strange one) as well as Caviezel leads me to believe that, unlike their Protestant counterpart filmmakers, the film was seen, in their eyes, as primarily an act of worship rather than and evangelistic endeavor. The reason for doing the film was not to make money (that was the marketing and producers goal once it was made.) It was to show their God how they know and see Him and praise Him for what He did. That alone sets this film apart from the average “Jesus-film.”
The film itself is incredibly done. Eschewing the typical stained glass and iconic depictions of Biblical events, Mel Gibson (“Braveheart”, “Apocalypto”) focuses more on the reality of the suffering. He grounds it in the empathy we can’t help but feel when we see another human suffering, and takes us on a journey that transcends that physical torture by demanding that we watch that which we would rather turn away from in order to force us to confront the reality. Jesus could have saved himself by just answering Pilate and didn’t. He did this willingly. Why?
Unfortunately this is where the movie loses some of its punch for me. As much as Gibson focuses on the pain he does let the supernatural creep in periodically. Some of these moments, the devil tempting him in the garden and the torment of Judas, work really well. Others, God’s single raindrop tear and Satan crying out from Hell, simply do not and distract from the main themes of the movie because of their visual style which is a departure from the rest of the film’s style.
Despite these few moments, Gibson’s choices visually are remarkably confident. He uses the medium to its full potential by using the edit to cross thematically linked events for the audience and for the characters of John and Mary the Mother of God. Two of the most powerful moments of the film, for me personally, are such moments where Mary sees Jesus as the child he once was and as John recollects the words of the Last Supper as Christ is raised up on the Cross. Both of these moments draw out deep truths that would be otherwise lost. In fact, I’ll say now that seeing that moment with John was one thing that kicked off my search for true communion rather than a simply symbolic one.
None of this has tarnished with age. In fact, I would say the film has benefited from age. As controversies that surrounded it and seemed to dominate the entertainment news industry when it released fade, the film endures and still moves. It has its excesses such as when the one thief has his eye plucked out by a raven but it certainly deserves its place in the pantheon of great spiritual films mostly because it endeavors to be an experience the audience engages with on a visceral and spiritual level and not just on the level of adrenaline or their wallets.
I may not want to watch it every day but I expect that I will watch this film many more times in my life as opposed to “God’s Not Dead 3.”
Review Written By: