HondaReport.com Movie Review
Title: The Passion of the Christ
Pupule’s Rating: * * * * stars

MPAA Rating: R
Date of Viewing: Monday, February 23, 2004
Location: Ward Theaters

By Paul Honda
Editor
HondaReport.com
Tuesday, February 24, 2004

It took a true maverick to put the final hours in the life of Jesus Christ to film.

For that, we can be thankful. In The Passion of the Christ, director and producer Mel Gibson spared nothing—absolutely nothing—to make the quintessential verbatim motion picture based on the historical Jesus.

What makes this film not good, but great, is not in anything Gibson added. Certainly, his draws from his artist’s palette with the use of effects to covey God’s omnipotence through a single raindrop, the image of the devil in a very unusual form, and even splashes of split-second shots.

It is in what Gibson chose not to dwell on that raises this film to the highest plateau.

Gibson, who exerted full control over this project, went to pains—including lead actor Jim Cazievel’s torment—to make this a historically, biblically accurate work. He finds ways to make this well-known story riveting, relentless and revealing, which is saying quite a bit in a world jaded by billions of dollars worth of shock-effect media.

A screening Monday night at Ward Theaters for pastors and church-affiliated servants allowed me a chance to see the film among the saved. How it will interest the secular world remains to be seen. To a man—and woman—the watchers I interviewed after the film were simply awestruck.

The only question I have is whether the masses take to this film. If they do, they will get more meaning out of gore and violence than any combination of all other films made.

It is that powerful.

The Hype: The vision began in its purest form. Gibson, one of the film world’s largest icons, has been part of the action film genre’s elite for two decades. That alone gives his projects drawing power. So is his rep as one of Hollywood’s leading sex symbols, far more during the ‘80s and ‘90s, of course. But his convictions about the crucifixion, as well as his Catholic faith, drew plenty of attention over the last six months of 2003.

His faith, as many know now, is not an ordinary Roman Catholic belief. It is one that borders on rebellion against the Pope and the church hierarchy. Whether this is good or bad, it certainly opens a door of opportunity for Gibson to delve into his own ‘passion,’ to tell the story of Christ’s final hours. Would it be worth seeing, let alone producing? That question fell by the wayside as Jewish leaders stepped up and questioned the ramifications of this film, i.e. its portrayal of Jews. Controversy doesn’t begin to describe the media scrutiny over this film.

Strengths: Though the arrest and execution of Christ are woven through a web of complex political and fiscal agendas, Gibson manages to squeeze through to the crux of this subject. He keeps he story simple as possible, sticking to the sheer, graphic details of His pain, suffering and death. Yet, the story doesn’t lose its sense of relationships and the complex, almost impossible suffering required of Jesus, his family and followers. Could anyone else have pulled this off? Certainly, but I think only Gibson would have the kind of tenacity needed to leave no stone unturned.

The casting is remarkable, if understated. There are no big-time stars in this film, but Gibson was wise to steer clear of distraction that would’ve been caused with celebrities. From Mary to Pontius Pilate to Herod and even Cassius, the compassionate Roman soldier, we are left to contemplate their actions and words rather than the actors themselves.

Cazievel is remarkable both on and off camera, having endured bizarre incidents during the making of this film. His command of Aramaic, as well as his countenance as both the human and divine Jesus, was perfect.

Maia Morgenstern as Mary is an oddly intriguing pick. The Mary who wails at her son’s cross is not quite what The Passion offers. Instead, Morgenstern’s Mary is stoic, almost numbed with pain. But the flood of tears that Morgenstern releases in the midst of her stoicism is breathtaking. Anyone who has been in a position of helplessness and willing compliance with horrible fate will almost be able to walk in the shoes of Morgenstern’s Mary.

Weaknesses: I can be the ultimate nit-picker, but this is not the kind of storyline that is open to debate. This one of the few films I’ve viewed that is without flaw.

The closest thing to a flaw is the fact that the historical Jesus was likely short, kinky-haired and dark—similar to the Jew who helps Christ carry the cross in one of the final sequences. Cazievel resembles the Jesus of anglo appearance, like the one in picture frames across America. This is a very minor observation; the power of Cazievel's performance washes away everything else.

Best Scene: There are several scenes worth note, but Gibson allows himself artistic license only in a few instances. His use of a pale, haunting, black-hooded figure—think of “The Scream” and you’ll get the visual—is mesmerizing. Whether this symbol of the devil is walking or actually rolling (with the use of a dolly, probably) laterally, Gibson affects tempo and mood with the insertion of this visual. It is masterful, foreboding and seamless.

I could go into a half-dozen and more scenes, but that would be overkill. I will offer this as perhaps the most powerful scene. In books like “The Case for Christ,” the contemporary world has access to the details in their full gore about the suffering doled out by the hand of the Roman soldiers.

When the flogging ensues, it is bad enough. When pieces of rock, glass and metal pierce the front and back of Christ, even worse. But Gibson allowed for a shot of metal that actually pierces, and then catches into the flesh of Christ for seconds before being yanked out.

That visual said more than a million words of documented evidence.

My favorite scene may be the haul up the hill. Jesus, nearing death, inflicted with hundreds of wounds and bruises—his head pierced by a crown of thorns—is forced to carry his cross up Golgotha hill. He is unable, of course, and the Roman soldiers command a bystander to assist him.

The bystander, a Jew who is with his wife and daughter, refuses vehemently. He has no choice, of course, and after swearing to all who would listen that he is a true Jew and wants nothing to do with this “criminal,” goes about with this monumental task.

Along the way, up the path, he sees the abuse—stoning, whipping, flogging from soldiers and onlookers alike—that Christ endures. The bystander eventually defends Jesus from the abusive soldiers. And when they reach the top of the hill, the bystander is no longer the same man, having seen Jesus rise up over and over again to carry this cross willingly.

This is a scene that puts the controversy about anti-Semitism in its place. It is possibly the most powerful sequence in the film, not necessarily more important than the relationship between Mary and Jesus, but certainly more universal and applicable to the scrutiny surrounding this film.

Visually, there are so many remarkable scenes. One quick shot—it lasted no more than three seconds—still lingers in my mind. A close-up of Christ, who is close to crucifixion, on his knees and covered in blood and dirt; the crown of thorns, just for this shot, was manipulated to have thick droplets of red, dewy blood at every point. It is a picture of incredible, unimaginable pain and glory, and if I could have that shot framed, I certainly would.

Worst Scene: Again, even in a film whittled down from 150 minutes to two hours, this is a concise film considering the details involved. There’s not a scene without meaning.

That being said, anyone who can’t stand reading subtitles will not like this. All lines are spoken in Aramaic and Greek, and if Gibson had his way, there would be no subtitles, period. Or that’s what he said a year ago, anyway.

Summary: If this is the kindest review I’ve ever penned, it is because there is little more to be said. The Passion needs to be seen to be understood. As one viewer said, a movie still doesn’t substitute the actual life of Christ. For the watcher who has little recognition of Christ’s suffering and ultimate glory, this film gets the point across like few preachers can.

What Gibson did wasn’t just hunky-dory. He exacted tremendous demands upon his crew and cast. Cazievel was struck by lightning during the production. He was also accidentally flogged, opening a wound that required dozens of stitches on his back.

Gibson has a relationship with pain that translates incredibly to the big screen. That was evident in another great film, Signs. To his credit, Gibson has stepped up and walked the walk in his faith.

If this is a turning point in Christian filmmaking—all due respect to fans of Left Behind and Joshua—I would not be surprised.

Discretionary notes: No swearing or sex, but an awful amount of gore. Not for children under 15, unless they are reasonably mature.

Previous Article: Boys' Basketball: Maui, Kealakehe move into Top 5 of HondaReport.com Top Ten poll
Next Article: Boys' Basketball: State tournament, opening-round wrapup

Comments