In My Opinion
By L.N.P.

More About "The Passion"

Due to popular demand (well, four people, but they were very persuasive) I will join the multitudes writing about "The Passion of the Christ" this month. I'll make some observations, talk about the controversy, and express my opinion. After all, this IS my platform, so I might as well do what I want with it!

Probably my most satisfying observation is that Mel Gibson's movie has sparked a discussion of religion, opening a window that has made it possible-at least for a moment-to talk about Jesus and Christianity in the public arena without having people freak out or run away in horror. People who would normally NEVER discuss anything remotely connected to Jesus are having open and honest conversations, and yes, heated debates. But, they're talking, and that's got to be a good thing.

It seems to me the film is attracting an audience consisting of three main components. Obviously, the Christian market was targeted from the beginning, and the faithful have been attending in droves, beyond even the wildest predictions.

The second market are the ardent movie-goers who will go to the movie because of the tremendous buzz attached to it; it's simply the thing to do if you take your movie-going and pop culture seriously. Third, I imagine, are the curious. Perhaps some are seekers, hoping to find something to hang on to. Others want to see for themselves what all the controversy is about.

One hope, of course, is that some percentage of viewers from the second and third groups will be motivated to learn more, ask questions, maybe even attend a church service or pick up a Bible. Certainly that possibility exists, especially since the film focuses almost entirely on the last twelve hours of Jesus' life, leaving the curious with but a few tantalizing glimpses of his ministry. That alone could make them want to know more. Why did he have to die, and why was his death so brutal and so humiliating? What about him and his teachings so threatened those in power? And what caused others to worship and adore him?

Still, we must deal with the controversy. Obviously, the harshest and most troubling criticism of the film is that it's anti-Semitic. Some movie critics, some prominent Jewish leaders, and probably a whole bunch of regular people have attacked the film solely on this basis, fearing that it will bring to the surface the despicable prejudices that lie just below the surface of certain segments of society.

Well, the film isn't anti-Semitic, although I can understand why some might misconstrue it that way. Without question there were narrow-minded, mean-spirited, vengeance-filled Jews depicted in the film, with faces made ugly by their fear and hatred. Of course, there were other Jews in the film, like Jesus, his mother, the disciples, Mary Magdalene, Simon, who helped carry the cross and the woman with the braids to name a few. Fact is, there were two kinds of people in that part of town: Jews and Romans. Because Jews have sadly been victims of intolerable crimes doesn't alter that fact.

The most emotionally wrenching, and brilliantly designed museum I've ever been to is the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC., yet I never thought to accuse the designers of being anti-German because they accurately depicted the horrifying atrocities committed against Jews by the Nazis. Museums, films, TV programs about African-American history have never hesitated to show Caucasians, many of whom were, regrettably, church-going Christians, beating, torturing, lynching, and just plain hating black people. That's what happened, and as much as we'd love to re-write it, we can't. Mel Gibson couldn't re-write history either. A particularly devout, fundamentalist sect of the Jewish people, the Pharisees, faithfully followed the laws of Moses and waited for the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. Jesus was NOT who they had in mind; he challenged their laws and their beliefs with radical new ones; he preached that the meek would inherit the earth, while they craved a powerful king who would lead them to victory over the Romans. It's clear that some of them even preferred him dead.

Nevertheless, critic Robert Scheer wrote in the L.A. Times, "The Passion of the Christ" …… is a blood libel against the Jewish people that should have every prominent Christian minister and priest speaking out in opposition." It's not that at all (and he should know better) but it does reflect the attitude of those particular Jews at that particular time. More importantly, however, is that Gibson, quoting from the Gospels, makes it clear throughout the film that Christ's death was part of God's plan, and not the fault of anyone. In fact, when Pilate tells Jesus that he has the power to let him live or die, Jesus answers, "You have no power over me except that which is given to you from above." It's not about Pilate. It's not about the Romans or the Jews. It's about God's plan for humanity.

Now before you get all anti-religion on me, keep this in mind. "The Passion" is a deeply religious film, and if you're thinking that you'll go see it because you believe that Jesus was a great teacher and you want to see what happened to him, then you're in for a shock. This is a film about Jesus, taken from the Gospels. People who think they have a problem with Mel Gibson or his film really don't; they have a problem with the Gospels, with Jesus as the son of God, with Christianity. And that's their absolute right.

(Incidentally, my only dispute with those people is that they use a specious argument to deny the historicity of the Gospels: the fact that they were written decades after the fact. Decades? Do you realize that the majority of the history we are taught in school and accept as fact was written hundreds, even a thousand years after the events? The Gospels, which include eye-witness accounts, are the most reliable documents of ancient history that exist…..anywhere. You can believe they were written by lunatics or liars willing to be persecuted and put to death for their beliefs. You can simply not believe them at all. But you can't argue that they are inaccurate because of the time that elapsed between the events and the recording of those events, or we'd be forced to throw out our history books.)

But, back to my point. If this were a movie about a great teacher who was relentlessly flogged, humiliated, kicked, spit upon and brutally nailed to a cross, then only the hopelessly sadistic would go to see it. There is absolutely no reason for putting such violence up on the screen for 100 out of 127 minutes……..except one. And that's why Gibson chose to make this film, for that one reason.

The passion, or the suffering of Christ (as it's translated from the Greek) is the part even Christians tend to gloss over. The Gospels all say he was flogged, spit upon, mocked, cursed and crucified. But that's all they say, and most of us prefer reading about his teachings, his compassion, his miracles, and his resurrection. What Mel Gibson does is force us to focus on his sacrifice and his grace, the seminal issues of Christianity.

If you're a Christian, then you believe that Jesus had to take upon himself the sins of the world, to become a living atonement for our sins, in order to give us all the gift of eternal life. Imagine, knowing that you're God, knowing that you could put a stop to it all in a heartbeat, but letting the brutality continue, interminably, until the supreme sacrifice was accomplished. Imagine experiencing all that as a man and not as God, because that is what we are shown in the film: God as man, a man without sin, taking on the sins of mankind, and continuing to forgive, to be merciful, to show grace. And then imagine that you were there, and that you were one of the thousands who saw the resurrected Christ, the very same man whose life had gushed out of him, walking again among you until his ascension into Heaven. This is the very heart of being a Christian….to believe that "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

THAT is what this movie is about, and if you leave the film believing it's about the sadism of the Roman guards, or the overly sympathetic portrayal of Pontius Pilate, or the extremely unsympathetic portrayal of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (high court of Jewish priests) or, as Robert Scheer put it " …. an exploitation flick that serves up the body of Christ as an object of continuous sick torture while ignoring his life and thoughts," then you are totally missing the point.

Witnessing man's inhumanity to man is always a terrible thing to watch, even as it continues today. And yes, I personally would have much preferred about ten minutes less of the brutality and ten minutes more of the beautiful flashbacks. It would certainly have been more comforting. But Gibson didn't want to make me comfortable. He wanted me-us-to be in pain, to experience as much as possible the ultimate sacrifice made on our behalf, and to be eternally grateful for the debt that we can never repay, except, in part, by our faith. That's what the film is about. You don't have to believe a word of it. You can reject the message in its entirety. But don't reject the messenger, who created a film that defines what it really means to be a Christian.

Send me your opinions at LParis@netlistings.com