Criticism has been passed in the form of parody from College Humor to South Park and as passing remarks from a majority of critics in comparison to other films. But, Mel Gibson has, however, recovered surprisingly well (you know, until he messed that up and proved to everyone that he was a lunatic).
Strangely enough, we begin on the night Jesus was captured, as he is betrayed by Judas, brought before the high priests and people of Jerusalem, flogged and tortured and finally crucified. Along the way we are presented with gruesome images of Judas hanging himself and Jesus being rebuked by his flock, the seductive Satan, flashbacks to previous events and the conflict of Pontius Pilate. To tell the truth, there is little else other than that, the film develops from it's starting point and spends it's time examining each aspect (some more than others).
When you think about, a majority of films revolving around Jesus are poorly received, with literally every popular critic disregarding it as bringing nothing new to the history of Jesus. But one of the main criticisms for the passion is the antisemitism, that the film was basically there to criticize the Jewish people for their part in the death of Jesus. To quote a comedian
"Weeelllllll...It wasn't the Mexicans"-Tommy TiernanI mean in all honesty, back then the Jewish people were responsible, mostly the high priests, but that doesn't mean anybody need feel guilty or angry about an event that happened many years ago. Back then, many were lost and merely sheep, they looked to anyone to lead them. If they were unsure of who was leading them or if their "messiah" was the chosen one, they looked elsewhere. But a clever addition is the presence of Satan in the scenes of Jesus being abused. It could be implied that this is Satan trying to seduce Jesus so as to avoid any more punishment, but it could also represent the seduction of the innocent, that the guards who took relish in torturing Jesus or the High Priests who condemned Jesus where under the powerful influence of rage, envy and confusion, demons and sins of the Devil itself. That in my opinion provided a better insight to the seduction of the innocent.
Another aspect is...the violence, that it was too glorified and that it took away from the viewing experience and emotional attachment to the characters. To be honest, it's not as bad as Saw or Human Centipede or Hostel or Cannibal Holocaust (No, I did not watch these movies, thank you very much). But the flashbacks help portray his more humble and familiar side to the audience, as well as the abuse inflicted on Jesus showing a more sacrificial side. While the torture segments didn't affect me or attract me, I don't feel they contributed much to the film. In fact, I dare say it would have been more effective if we see him dragged away and then reappear as a mangled, tattered mess. I would also like to make the point that it shows the Romans showing intense relish in their sadistic torture, so it doesn't shy away from the involvement of the Roman Empire in the Crucifixion.
Now I must give credit where credit is due. That being Jim Caviezel, who portrayed Jesus, and I tell you he does a bang up job. It's not easy to survive as an actor when portraying one of the most holy men in history, let alone survive on the set. He was struck by lightening, caught hypothermia and dislocated his shoulder, talk about dedication. Seeing him, I don't see an actor, I see the man. Not spiritually, but I felt his power and humility, as well as his intellect and despair. I also give credit to the rest of the cast, especially Maia Morgenstern as Mary and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene. What was also very well done, was the set design and costumes, it actually felt like I was in Jerusalem. I am still amazed at the script. Oh I am sure that it's inaccurate and takes many liberties, but I am no theologist, so that doesn't matter, but the entire cast speaking Latin and Hebrew, nicely done. What I give most praise for is the fact that there are some characters who sympathize, pity and even regret their decision to accuse Jesus, including the Centurion, the guards, Pontius Pilate and Simon of Cyrene, just to name a few. It is also good to note how the film shows the turmoil of Mary and the closest friends of Jesus. In most times I attend church on Easter, the reading of the Crucifixion often includes the two convicts who are simultaneously being crucified. I prefer the version where one thief begs for forgiveness and is told by Jesus that he he will join him in paradise.
Yes the mutilation can be quite distracting. For example, my vision of Christ on the cross is drastically different to the mangled corpse that was just dangling there. Also the cinematography can be irritating in that there is too much slow-motion, close-ups and shaky cam. I had similar problems with Les Miserables as you remember and I know what they were trying to achieve with the slow-mo, it's a serious, dramatic moment in the life of Jesus and so must be taken slowly. Problem is, it's Jesus, everything he does from literally his birth to his death is important. And you know what, those are my only gripes
Does it have some problems, of course. Are there too many who base their beliefs on the film, most definitely! But I always maintained a strong faith before watching this movie. It's an intriguing watch and one that should definitely be checked out. Not a cinematic landmark and to say I enjoyed it would make me sound masochistic, but if we can look back now at Clockwork Orange and say that film is one of the greatest films of all time, then with time and a pinch of salt, maybe we can look back on the hype that surrounded this movie and have a good laugh.
I hope you enjoyed my review, please comment to tell me what film review you would like to see in the future and please share to your friends. Thank you for reading and belated Happy Easter!
No comments:
Post a Comment