Before Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ even opened, it was already fodder for watercooler conversations all across the country and much of the world. The film, which centers around Jesus Christ's final twelve hours on Earth, is brutally graphic in its depiction of Christ's punishment, and the talk surrounding the film was as much about that graphic brutality as it was about its religious subject matter. But perhaps even more interesting than either of those topics on their own is the way people responded to the film. Reaction to The Passion was so strong that while thousands of Jews protested the film's release without seeing it, thousands upon thousands of Christians bought tickets before the film even opened. Why does this movie have such an effect on people, viewers and non-viewers alike? The answer is ideologies. People's personal ideologies often affect
the way they respond to films, particularly films that are steeped in ideology.
In the film's depiction of Christ's final hours, Gibson is single-minded in both his approach and his purpose. The Passion of the Christ is the first film to show Jesus' beatings and scourging in this kind of graphic detail. Renowned film critic Roger Ebert called it `.the most violent film I have ever seen,' and indeed most of the film's 126 minutes are filled with horrific images of torn flesh and flowing blood. The film is unrelenting in its presentation of the scourging, and it is unapologetic; it does not attempt to understand Jesus' emotional pain as a human, nor does it offer any ounce of spirituality or love. Gibson wanted to make a film that would show the true brutality of the Crucifixion and the events that led up to it, and he has done that. Anyone who watches the film should agree without much haste that the Jesus Christ portrayed here goes through as much physical punishment as any other character in the history of cinema.
And yet while this surface message is obvious, the film divides its audience with its subtext, the `so what?' that must be answered while watching the movie. Why is Gibson telling this story, and why is he telling it in this way? What is the purpose of scene after scene of torture? The reason for the overwhelmingly divided response to the film lies in that subtext. As a devout Christian, Mel Gibson believes that Jesus died for all of mankind's sins. To Gibson and other Christians, Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice by remaining true to his word despite the extreme pain and suffering inflicted upon him. Showing the violence at such an extent allows Gibson to say `See, this is what we're talking about when we say that Jesus died for us. This is what he went through. This is how much he loves us.'
But if showing how much Jesus suffered were Gibson's only intention, the negative reaction would not have been as strong. After all, this is not the first movie that has depicted an incredibly violent true story so that people would understand that it happened. Platoon, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Boys Don't Cry, and Elephant are all examples of films from the last twenty years that violently but accurately portrayed a horrible event. Each one of those films centers around a 20th Century event, and the purpose of each film's gritty realism was to show the viewer that something terrible happened, and hopefully we will keep it from happening again.
That is not the purpose of The Passion, as Mel Gibson and other Christians are not worried that another son of God will come to earth and be brutally tortured and killed. By focusing the entire film on Jesus' death with little insight into his life, teachings, or personal struggle, Gibson is not simply showing us how awful Jesus' death was. He is also leading us-intentionally or unintentionally-to the question `Who killed Jesus?' That question is what sparks such a negative reaction along the ideological line because the film is saying: `Look at how brutal Jesus' death was. Somebody is to blame for this.for the physical nature of this beating. For the actual carrying out of this terrible murder.' For the people who make this argument, that `somebody' has almost always been the Jews. Is it possible that Gibson made the film without intending to blame the Jews? Absolutely. But regardless of his intentions, the fact remains that many Jews will not be able to view this material without feeling blamed due to the history involved in similar arguments about Jesus' death.
The blame factor led to most of the protests from Jews who had not yet seen the film because they were nervous that it would lead to anti-Semitism. And while it is possible that Gibson did not intend to blame Jews for Jesus' death, it is well known that Gibson does believe that anyone who does not take Jesus as their personal savior will go to hell. If the movie's purpose is to show how much Jesus sacrificed for us, then it is assumed that the film would want us to pray to Jesus. Since Jews aren't going to do that, it is then assumed then that they are going to hell. Thus, to many Jews, The Passion of the Christ is nothing more than a two hour snuff film that blames them for Jesus' horrific death and thinks that they are going to hell.
But Jews are not the only people whose ideologies heavily affected their response to The Passion. The film set a few box-office records by making $117.5 million during its first five days of release, and much of that advance interest came from churches and other faith-based groups that bought out entire theaters. For them, the film represents an affirmation of their faith and beliefs, and a popularized affirmation at that. Because the film gives very little character depth, the film's Jesus Christ is not a character viewers will be able to grow to love. Most viewers, regardless of ideology, will cringe as chunks of Christ's flesh tear off, and in turn most viewers will feel sorry to some extent for the character on screen. But since that character is not fleshed out as a human, where does the empathy for Christ come from? Well, it comes from each viewer's own personal tie to Christ. If a person enters the film with that tie, their love for Christ could very well increase, as seems to be the case based on the overwhelming response from Christians who saw the movie. But if a viewer enters with no tie to Christ, what will that viewer get out of the film? Not much, because the film is not designed to take new people into the fold; it is a classic example of preaching to the converted.
But while the ideal viewer of The Passion is already in the fold as far as Christianity is concerned, most viewers are not in the fold with the violence. When Ebert called the film the most violent he'd ever seen, he wasn't kidding. For most of its running time, the film carries out its brutal and savage beatings and crucifixion in the name of religion, and many audiences who would normally rally against this kind of violent filmmaking instead fall in love with the film due to its subject. Had Jesus Christ been just some guy, how would audiences have reacted? For starters, there would have been as much protest over the film's violence as there was over the film's subject matter. Because the film gives no insight, explanation, or character depth, we are simply left with a stark portrait of a horrible murder.
Usually when a film presents a horrific true-life violent story with no insight or explanation, a certain number of people come away from the film upset. In 2003, Gus Van Sant made a movie called Elephant. That film was near-documentary in its approach, and was based on the Columbine shooting. Unlike Michael Moore's documentary Bowling for Columbine, Elephant does not attempt to understand the shootings or offer an explanation for them. Instead, Van Sant's film is just a fly-on-the-wall account of what the day may have been like. Many viewers and critics came away from that film feeling abused. People generally don't like to see unblinking, realistic violence without some kind of purpose or message.
So why was that rarely discussed when people talk about The Passion? Why was the film's controversy centered on the subject matter rather than the approach? The reason is that the film's religious subtext and backstory fills in all of those questions. The Passion is not simply a straight forward account of Jesus' last hours, because if it were there would be a lot more negative response concerning the film's exploitation of violence. On the surface it is a straight forward account, but the heavy ideological response from both Christians and Jews comes directly from the film's religious subtext, the unspoken assumptions about blame, responsibility, heaven, and hell that figure heavily into all passion plays. Without those assumptions, many people would have responded to The Passion in the same way that they responded to Elephant: angry over the use of excessive violence without explanation. That those assumptions exist and are so well known is the reason why there was such intense reaction on both ends, and the reason why people understood the purpose of the violence. If a person were to watch The Passion with absolutely no background as to who Jesus was historically or Biblically as well as no background into the history of passion plays, that viewer would be confused and upset, and would not take much away. Mel Gibson says that his film is simply an account, but being a man of such faith and a filmmaker and actor of such experience he had to know the kind of assumptions that people would bring into a movie like this. And if he knew, then he was consciously playing on those assumptions in order to get an effect.
And of course, Gibson the filmmaker has his own beliefs and ideologies. Many of Gibson's most popular films-Braveheart, Mad Max, Lethal Weapon, The Patriot-are violent, and as a director and filmmaker he has used history to justify that violence. In 1995, Gibson won the Oscar for Best Director for his film Braveheart, which also won Best Picture. That film was about William Wallace-or the myth of William Wallace-as he led the Scots into battle against England. Like The Passion, Braveheart is a film filled with graphic violence, blood, and medieval tortures. Both films use history as a mask for violence, though the subject matter of Braveheart is obviously not as controversial as the subject matter in The Passion, and while the former gives explanation and meaning to its violence, the latter doesn't.
In the end, Gibson's claim that The Passion of the Christ is an objective, unbiased account is a half truth. The viewer's ideologies play heavily into their response to the film as do Gibson's own beliefs and ideas as a filmmaker and as a man of faith. It is impossible to remain objective with so many outside influences, and so The Passion of the Christ is a controversial film not so much because of what is on screen, but because of what is not.
the way they respond to films, particularly films that are steeped in ideology.
In the film's depiction of Christ's final hours, Gibson is single-minded in both his approach and his purpose. The Passion of the Christ is the first film to show Jesus' beatings and scourging in this kind of graphic detail. Renowned film critic Roger Ebert called it `.the most violent film I have ever seen,' and indeed most of the film's 126 minutes are filled with horrific images of torn flesh and flowing blood. The film is unrelenting in its presentation of the scourging, and it is unapologetic; it does not attempt to understand Jesus' emotional pain as a human, nor does it offer any ounce of spirituality or love. Gibson wanted to make a film that would show the true brutality of the Crucifixion and the events that led up to it, and he has done that. Anyone who watches the film should agree without much haste that the Jesus Christ portrayed here goes through as much physical punishment as any other character in the history of cinema.
And yet while this surface message is obvious, the film divides its audience with its subtext, the `so what?' that must be answered while watching the movie. Why is Gibson telling this story, and why is he telling it in this way? What is the purpose of scene after scene of torture? The reason for the overwhelmingly divided response to the film lies in that subtext. As a devout Christian, Mel Gibson believes that Jesus died for all of mankind's sins. To Gibson and other Christians, Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice by remaining true to his word despite the extreme pain and suffering inflicted upon him. Showing the violence at such an extent allows Gibson to say `See, this is what we're talking about when we say that Jesus died for us. This is what he went through. This is how much he loves us.'
But if showing how much Jesus suffered were Gibson's only intention, the negative reaction would not have been as strong. After all, this is not the first movie that has depicted an incredibly violent true story so that people would understand that it happened. Platoon, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Boys Don't Cry, and Elephant are all examples of films from the last twenty years that violently but accurately portrayed a horrible event. Each one of those films centers around a 20th Century event, and the purpose of each film's gritty realism was to show the viewer that something terrible happened, and hopefully we will keep it from happening again.
That is not the purpose of The Passion, as Mel Gibson and other Christians are not worried that another son of God will come to earth and be brutally tortured and killed. By focusing the entire film on Jesus' death with little insight into his life, teachings, or personal struggle, Gibson is not simply showing us how awful Jesus' death was. He is also leading us-intentionally or unintentionally-to the question `Who killed Jesus?' That question is what sparks such a negative reaction along the ideological line because the film is saying: `Look at how brutal Jesus' death was. Somebody is to blame for this.for the physical nature of this beating. For the actual carrying out of this terrible murder.' For the people who make this argument, that `somebody' has almost always been the Jews. Is it possible that Gibson made the film without intending to blame the Jews? Absolutely. But regardless of his intentions, the fact remains that many Jews will not be able to view this material without feeling blamed due to the history involved in similar arguments about Jesus' death.
The blame factor led to most of the protests from Jews who had not yet seen the film because they were nervous that it would lead to anti-Semitism. And while it is possible that Gibson did not intend to blame Jews for Jesus' death, it is well known that Gibson does believe that anyone who does not take Jesus as their personal savior will go to hell. If the movie's purpose is to show how much Jesus sacrificed for us, then it is assumed that the film would want us to pray to Jesus. Since Jews aren't going to do that, it is then assumed then that they are going to hell. Thus, to many Jews, The Passion of the Christ is nothing more than a two hour snuff film that blames them for Jesus' horrific death and thinks that they are going to hell.
But Jews are not the only people whose ideologies heavily affected their response to The Passion. The film set a few box-office records by making $117.5 million during its first five days of release, and much of that advance interest came from churches and other faith-based groups that bought out entire theaters. For them, the film represents an affirmation of their faith and beliefs, and a popularized affirmation at that. Because the film gives very little character depth, the film's Jesus Christ is not a character viewers will be able to grow to love. Most viewers, regardless of ideology, will cringe as chunks of Christ's flesh tear off, and in turn most viewers will feel sorry to some extent for the character on screen. But since that character is not fleshed out as a human, where does the empathy for Christ come from? Well, it comes from each viewer's own personal tie to Christ. If a person enters the film with that tie, their love for Christ could very well increase, as seems to be the case based on the overwhelming response from Christians who saw the movie. But if a viewer enters with no tie to Christ, what will that viewer get out of the film? Not much, because the film is not designed to take new people into the fold; it is a classic example of preaching to the converted.
But while the ideal viewer of The Passion is already in the fold as far as Christianity is concerned, most viewers are not in the fold with the violence. When Ebert called the film the most violent he'd ever seen, he wasn't kidding. For most of its running time, the film carries out its brutal and savage beatings and crucifixion in the name of religion, and many audiences who would normally rally against this kind of violent filmmaking instead fall in love with the film due to its subject. Had Jesus Christ been just some guy, how would audiences have reacted? For starters, there would have been as much protest over the film's violence as there was over the film's subject matter. Because the film gives no insight, explanation, or character depth, we are simply left with a stark portrait of a horrible murder.
Usually when a film presents a horrific true-life violent story with no insight or explanation, a certain number of people come away from the film upset. In 2003, Gus Van Sant made a movie called Elephant. That film was near-documentary in its approach, and was based on the Columbine shooting. Unlike Michael Moore's documentary Bowling for Columbine, Elephant does not attempt to understand the shootings or offer an explanation for them. Instead, Van Sant's film is just a fly-on-the-wall account of what the day may have been like. Many viewers and critics came away from that film feeling abused. People generally don't like to see unblinking, realistic violence without some kind of purpose or message.
So why was that rarely discussed when people talk about The Passion? Why was the film's controversy centered on the subject matter rather than the approach? The reason is that the film's religious subtext and backstory fills in all of those questions. The Passion is not simply a straight forward account of Jesus' last hours, because if it were there would be a lot more negative response concerning the film's exploitation of violence. On the surface it is a straight forward account, but the heavy ideological response from both Christians and Jews comes directly from the film's religious subtext, the unspoken assumptions about blame, responsibility, heaven, and hell that figure heavily into all passion plays. Without those assumptions, many people would have responded to The Passion in the same way that they responded to Elephant: angry over the use of excessive violence without explanation. That those assumptions exist and are so well known is the reason why there was such intense reaction on both ends, and the reason why people understood the purpose of the violence. If a person were to watch The Passion with absolutely no background as to who Jesus was historically or Biblically as well as no background into the history of passion plays, that viewer would be confused and upset, and would not take much away. Mel Gibson says that his film is simply an account, but being a man of such faith and a filmmaker and actor of such experience he had to know the kind of assumptions that people would bring into a movie like this. And if he knew, then he was consciously playing on those assumptions in order to get an effect.
And of course, Gibson the filmmaker has his own beliefs and ideologies. Many of Gibson's most popular films-Braveheart, Mad Max, Lethal Weapon, The Patriot-are violent, and as a director and filmmaker he has used history to justify that violence. In 1995, Gibson won the Oscar for Best Director for his film Braveheart, which also won Best Picture. That film was about William Wallace-or the myth of William Wallace-as he led the Scots into battle against England. Like The Passion, Braveheart is a film filled with graphic violence, blood, and medieval tortures. Both films use history as a mask for violence, though the subject matter of Braveheart is obviously not as controversial as the subject matter in The Passion, and while the former gives explanation and meaning to its violence, the latter doesn't.
In the end, Gibson's claim that The Passion of the Christ is an objective, unbiased account is a half truth. The viewer's ideologies play heavily into their response to the film as do Gibson's own beliefs and ideas as a filmmaker and as a man of faith. It is impossible to remain objective with so many outside influences, and so The Passion of the Christ is a controversial film not so much because of what is on screen, but because of what is not.
Tell Your Friends