He Has Risen

For the most talked-about movie event since, well since that one about hobbits, we sent not just one writer, not just two writers, but yes, three writers to see Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Our lead reviewer Josh Bell applies his critical skills while Associate Editor Stacy J. Willis, and Jeffrey M. Anderson, recently of the San Francisco Examiner, chat via e-mail about the film's religious merits.

From: [email protected] Sent: Mon 2/23/2004 2:53:25 PM

Hi Jeff,

I just got out of the theater and my first reaction is not good. I didn't much like it on either a movie level or a religious level.

As far as the religious stuff goes, I didn't feel like the Christian message came across fully, unless the message is solely martyrdom (and in this case, going strictly on the movie's presentation, inexplicable martyrdom). Although we get bits of flashback about the teachings of Jesus, I don't think it was enough to explain or give weight to the lengthy focus on his torture.

Also I don't know if this is a religious commentary so much as a story criticism, but I didn't think Gibson gave enough dimensions to the mob or rabbis; simplistic villains make us question the validity of the whole story.

And that leads to the anti-Semitic question. I didn't think it was so much actively anti-Semitic as just poorly explained. But Gibson did go way out of his way to make Pontius Pilate extremely clean of Jesus' blood, moreso than many religious scholars would agree with, I feel sure. Also, what was that bit about Pilate's wife, Claudia, giving towels to Mary? Was that in the Bible? Or was that extra insurance that the Roman leaders weren't portrayed as bad guys?

The Jewish high priest Caiphas, on the other hand, came off looking blithely evil, and again, I think it doesn't ring true. I wanted some sort of deeper understanding of where he was coming from.

So I think it's clearly Mel Gibson's take on the death of Christ. If I were a teetering Christian, or someone with untapped potential as a churchgoer, this movie would not make me want to run to church. It would make me want to wash my hands of the whole thing. Why did Gibson focus so exclusively on the long, drawn-out death and so little on the resurrection, which completes or gives purpose, to the Christian story?

What's your religious background? (I come from a fairly secular Christian background, but am interested in religions generally.)

From: [email protected] Sent: Mon 2/23/2004 3:26 PM

Hi Stacy,

My mother was Christian and my father was Mormon, but neither one forced me into any kind of religious training. And my wife is Jewish, so I've learned a lot about that.

I feel mixed about the film. On an artistic level, it's interesting to portray Pontius Pilate as a well-rounded character with a conscience, unwilling to send Jesus to death without a good reason. That's the best kind of movie villain, not one who sneers and cackles. But, you're right. There's no opposite character on the Jewish side, really.

The Christian message is implied, but not fully embraced. Ultimately, it shouldn't matter who sent Jesus to his death. The point was that he had to die in order to absolve us all of our sins. But by stripping away everything but the torture, and showing us the good stuff only in snippets of flashbacks, Gibson has made a movie about martyrdom. He's been doing that all along. I just looked at a scene from Lethal Weapon, where he's being tortured, hanging by his wrists from a water pipe and suffering electric shocks.

You make an excellent point about not showing the resurrection. By focusing on the suffering, the film didn't make me want to join any church or affect me on a spiritual level. It made me want to be nicer to people, which I think was Jesus' ultimate point. I don't think he ever envisioned a power structure like the Catholic Church pushing people around, and he certainly never wanted anyone to hate Jews. I think he just wanted everyone to be nice to each other. One of my colleagues pointed out that the movie was the best argument against organized religion that he'd ever seen.

From: [email protected] Sent: Mon 2/23/2004 3:55:59 PM

I agree that as far as the faith is concerned, it shouldn't matter who killed Jesus because Christians believe he died for all of mankind's sins. But you'd have to know that idea going into this movie; without some sort of Christian background, a viewer won't get that.

It's interesting to consider the mix of Jesus stories we're drawing from: There is a historical story based on the Bible and archeological sources, a religious story based on the Bible and years of interpretation, and a Hollywood story—and a marketing story. On which of these levels does the movie succeed? I think Gibson scores high on pre-movie hype, and medium-to-low on Hollywood filmmaking, low on a religious scale, and lower still on a historical scale. In the end, I don't think it gives any fresher or clearer or deeper understanding of Christ.

From: [email protected] Sent: Mon 2/23/2004 4:15:42 PM

I was thinking, too, that you can't be a blank slate coming into this movie. You need to have some kind of religious or historical knowledge. I re-read Matthew over the weekend and I'm glad I did. It helped a great deal. But still the movie expanded upon certain things, like making Pilate a sympathetic character and giving his wife a bigger role. Also that demon-like evil being that kept popping up with the shaved eyebrows. That's certainly not from the Bible. Neither is the earthquake that immediately follows Jesus' death.

It's funny when you consider all the pre-movie hype. None of it has anything to do with Jesus' message. Everyone is angry about something and pointing fingers at everyone else. Every word Gibson says is scrutinized and he has to defend himself at every turn. It's almost as if, if Jesus came back today, we'd crucify him again.

I do admire Mel's decision to film it in period languages. However, I would agree with your ranking. Taking The Passion of the Christ as a historical document would be as silly and as irresponsible as taking JFK as one. As a religious document, it's entirely possible that some people will be able to sort through all the gore and violence to see a message, but whether it will cause them to enter a church is another question.

As a movie, it will probably be pretty much forgotten five years from now. It's not good enough to stand up to much scrutiny. Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ stirred up just as much controversy in 1988, all of it negative, but it was a great movie and continues to be a great movie. It didn't change the world or destroy the Church. Probably a handful of people watch it from time to time, maybe a few of them converted, and life goes on.