February 25, 2004 -- The Fox Theatre in Laramie was packed. I got there half an hour early to get a good seat (having bought my ticket several days earlier). I was surprised that the crowd was made up mostly of young people. Somehow, I had expected an older crowd for a religious movie like this. I steeled myself against the violence of the film. Famed critic Roger Ebert said it was the most violent film he had ever seen. Thanks to stubborn opposition to this film from those who claim it is anti-semitic, the show was a sellout, as it was across the country. The controversy has generated a billion dollars in free publicity for this film. The film's producer, director, financier and co-writer, Mel Gibson (“Braveheart”) turned this opposition in his favor, jujitsu-like. Consequently, he will make a financial killing on a film that was considered very risky by Hollywood insiders. It just goes to show you how gutless Hollywood is when it comes to controversy.

The film was not as violent as I thought it would be, but it is certainly very violent, especially the very graphic scourging scenes and the crucifixion scenes. The story follows Jesus Christ through the last 12 hours of his life from the night of his capture at the Garden of Gethsemane and ends with his resurrection (a very brief scene following the crucifixion). The “Passion” in the film's title means not only suffering, but transcendent love, as well. I've heard that some adults can't handle the violence in the film, either. I guess I'm tougher than some, or I had steeled myself effectively. To me, movies like “Reservoir Dogs” and some slasher and military films are more disturbing, maybe because the violence there is more pointless. Here, the violence has meaning.

As a Christian myself, a believer in the literal truth of the Gospels, I was impressed that the movie did follow the Biblical accounts fairly well. However, there are a number of scenes which do not come from the Bible, such as a scene were Mary tries to get help from Roman soldiers when Jesus is seized by Jewish priests, Judas is attacked by demons who appear in the guise of children, a creepy, androgynous Satan lurks in the background in several scenes, a raven attacks one of the thieves being crucified on the cross next to Jesus, and the wife of Pontius Pilate brings a pile of fresh linens to Mary to wipe Jesus' blood from the ground after he is violently whipped. The movie also shows Mary Magdalene being saved by Jesus from being stoned to death for adultery, when the Gospels indicate this was an entirely different woman. Some of these, and other scenes in the movie not found in the Gospel may have been inspired by the mystical writings of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) and Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). One scene I was surprised to see missing from the movie was the one where Roman soldiers gamble to divide Christ's unusual garments at the crucifixion.

Is the movie anti-semitic, as its critics often claim? Not really, but there is some material in the movie that provides support for those predisposed to anti-Semitism. It does portray the roman ruler Pontius Pilate very sympathetically and it does portray the Jewish priests, especially the high priest Caiaphas, very negatively. It also portrays Caiaphas as being more politically powerful than he really was. One scene, not found in the Gospels, has Pontius Pilate saying, “If I don't condemn him (Christ), Caiaphas will start a rebellion; if I do, his followers will.” There is no evidence in the Bible or history that the high priests were a threat to start a rebellion at that time. In fact, the priests tried to prevent the rebellion of 66, only a little over 30 years after the events depicted in the movie. Some have suggested the film would have been more even-handed in its depiction of Caiaphas, had it included the following Biblical passage: John 11:47-51, “Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, 'What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him alone, all men will believe on him; and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.'

“And one of them, Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, 'Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.'

“And this spake he not for himself; but being high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.”

This passage indicates that Caiaphas thought Christ had to be killed to save his people from the Roman army. It also emphasizes that Caiaphas, like Pilate, had no real power over Christ at all. He was but a player in a script written long before he was born. Christ was a willing participant in his own death, and this is made clear in the film. Caiaphas, like Pilate was a mere instrument of God's own plan to die to redeem humanity's collective sins. The movie makes it clear, in a one-on-one scene between Christ and Pilate, that Pilate had no power over Christ. The movie doesn't make this case nearly as well for Caiaphas. We are all equally culpable in Christ's death. Anti-Semitism is anti-Christian as well.

The real power in that situation was Pilate, a cruel man, history teaches us, who ruled with an iron fist. However, the Bible portrays Pilate as a man who personally found no fault with Jesus and did not want to crucify him. He did so only after the high priests threatened to go over Pilate's head and complain to Rome. This is an area where history and the Gospels do not seem to agree. The Pilate of history would have had no qualms about crucifying Jesus, but the Pilate of the Gospels did. The film falls on the side of the Gospels. As one Jewish scholar said in a TV interview, the film is no more anti-Semitic than the gospels themselves.

The movie does touch upon Christ's teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, and at The Last Supper in flashback scenes. Christians will find much in this movie that is familiar. There is even a bit of humor in the film in one flashback scene to the days when Christ was still a carpenter. It is not Gospel, but it is a welcome relief from the movie's otherwise grim nature. Overall, however, Christ's teachings take a back seat to the beatings, the torture and the crucifixion. I was hoping this movie would be inspirational, but it did not seem so. There is little in this film showing either the human, or the divine, side of Christ. Any beliefs regarding the true nature or teachings of Christ must be supplied by the viewer. This material is not provided by the film itself.

One thing the film does do very well is to graphically demonstrate Christ's suffering. Despite the portrayal of Christ as a victim, the movie does carry a religious message. The movie does do what it sets out to do, and that is to show how Christ suffered for our sins, including the traditional Catholic stations of the cross. It accomplishes this goal because it is so focused on that one message. It does not deviate from it. That is both the film's strength and its weakness. Rather than a literal Gospel interpretation, or a historical epic, it is more Mel Gibson's personal interpretation of the Passion. Gibson's interpretation is a conservative Catholic interpretation, which differs from the Protestant interpretation. The Prostestant view of the Passion of Christ is more oriented to Christ's teachings, and less to his suffering.

The production values in the film are very high. Although it was not filmed on location in Jerusalem, the sets, built in Rome, look very authentic. Portions of the film were shot in the 2,000-year-old city of Matera, near Rome. The cinematography by Caleb Deschanel (“Anna and the King”) is excellent. Gibson does a good job directing the film, and the acting is solid by a diverse cast. James Caviezel of “The Count of Monte Cristo” stars as Jesus. He does a good job in a very physically demanding role, and has the scars to prove it. Both Caviezel and assistant director Jan Michelini were struck by lightning during the production (was this a sign?). Monica Bellucci of “The Matrix: Revolutions” plays Mary Magdalene, Maia Morgenstern plays Mary, mother of Jesus, Rosalinda Celentano of “The Order” plays Satan, Mattia Sbragia of “The Order” plays Caiaphas, Hristo Shopov plays Pontius Pilate, Francesco De Vito plays the disciple Peter, Hristo Jivkov plays the disciple John of Zebedee, Luca Lionello plays Judas and Jarreth J. Merz plays Simon of Cyrene, who helps Jesus carry the cross to Golgotha.

This is a powerful film. Although it is over two hours long, it went by fast for me. It is the most graphic depiction of Christ's suffering ever filmed, and I certainly would not recommend it for children, but most adults should be able to handle it. I'm not sure if anyone besides a Christian, or a person with a Christian upbringing, would get much out of this film. It seems to me you have to know the background of the story to really appreciate what is happening on the screen. Part of the film's power comes from its similarity to a silent movie. The only spoken languages in the film are Latin and Aramaic (some argued Greek would have been more appropriate for some scenes). These are “dead” languages spoken by very few people now. There are some subtitles, but not many. That makes the audience concentrate more on the images. Again, it helps if you already know the story in advance. For instance, Gibson cut one controversial subtitle where the Jewish crowd yells, seeking Christ's death, “His blood be on us and our children!” One scholar who saw the film, and who speaks Aramaic, said the controversial dialogue is still in the film. Only the subtitles were removed. On February 25, the day the film opened, a minister in Denver put up the following message on a church sign next to one of the city's main streets, in order to promote peace and love, “The Jews killed the Lord Jesus,” paraphrasing a Biblical passage, First Thessalonians 2:14-15. With Christians like that, who needs Nazis? It is clear this controversy, which has been around for 2,000 years, persists. This film rates a B.

Click here for links to places to buy or rent this movie in video and/or DVD format, or to buy the soundtrack, posters, books, even used videos, games, electronics and lots of other stuff. I suggest you shop at least two of these places before buying anything. Prices seem to vary continuously. For more information on this film, click on this link to The Internet Movie Database. Type in the name of the movie in the search box and press enter. You will be able to find background information on the film, the actors, and links to much more information.

Copyright © 2004 Robert Roten. All rights reserved.
Reproduced with the permission of the copyright holder.

Robert Roten can be reached via e-mail at .