The film The Passion of the Christ has caused many discussions all over the world and that is why it is considered to be controversial. Many critics of the film sometimes show their disappointment, that film describes sufferings, not giving hope for catharsis, enlightenment, clarification. They accuse Gibson of excessive forcing passions, in gloom atmosphere. It is necessary to note, that Gibson’s film language differs by the special static character of the characters from that before took place at screen version of the Gospel. However, it is impossible to bypass the silence and those miscalculations which have been admitted during shootings at a reconstruction of “historical and archeological reliability”. Unfortunately the author’s interpretation and reconstruction of the events departs from the valid historic facts and real details. Certainly, the most important and impressive example is a stage of the Crucifixion.
So, the aim of this work is to analyze the views of different authors of the articles dedicated to the film The Passion of the Christ. These articles are “Seeing Different Movies, Talking Past Each Other” by Mary C. Boys and “Passionate Blogging: Interfaith Controversy and the Internet” by William J. Cork.
It should be mentioned that the views of these authors are completely different. According Mary C. Boys all the events in the film are shown in the way they are described in the Bible. Here it would be appropriate to quote the words from the article: “Whether or not the film is intentionally anti-Semitic there is the danger that it can be used in the sense of anti-Semitic propaganda. It does contain signs of differentiation in its portrayal of Jewish figures, but overall it gives rise to an impression of overdrawn negativity in the Sanhedrin and large sections of the Jewish population. The portrayal in the film conceals the danger of the revival of anti-Semitic prejudice. This is especially explosive given the situation in Europe where growing anti-Semitic tendencies are discernible”.[1]
The film by M. Gibson The Passion of the Christ is a terrestrial life narrating about the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life, according to Mary C. Boys it is a worthy result of rather diligent work of the master with an evangelical material, and Mel Gibson, certainly, – the gifted artist of the present. Of course, the film can not be considered as an easy one. But any time has the art that it deserves. Art is formed in public consciousness and it reflects it. Obviously, cruelty and hatred have fulfilled the world that there was possible so rigid perusal of the Gospel by means of cinema.
It is possible to hear the Aramaic and Latin speech that gives an unexpected depth. The picture is extremely correct concerning an evangelical narration: It is pleasant, that Gibson did not set as the purpose his own targets. Gibson has meaningly rejected a doubtful opportunity of self-expression due to the Gospel. A problem of film was to show the spectator (in that measure in what it in general is possible) the greatest tragedy and the greatest pleasure of the world.
William J. Cork described the bloggings and shows the system of views on the film. To my mind the main thought of his article is: “I was still pretty neutral before I saw the reactions to the trailers and to this screening,” I wrote; “now I’m worried. This film is showing the capability of stirring up raw emotion, emotion which is convinced that it is right and that those who question are ‘demonic.’”[2]
The picture of the crucifixion far departing from historical reliability could be dictated to Gibson by the western cultural tradition, and also Catholic experts among which the professor of theology doctor Willi Burgheimer is mentioned. Such picturesque masterpieces as ” the Raising of a cross ” (Nuremberg, 1480/1490) from National Gallery of arts, “Crucifixion” (1617) Peter Breigel younger from the Museum of the fine arts in Budapest, ” the Raising of a cross ” by Rubens (1620-1621) from the Louver, ” the Raising of a cross ” great Rembrandt (1632), and also a number of book miniatures follow the same traditional scheme of the image of the Crucifixion, as in Gibson’s picture.
Some bloggings have hastened to treat the genre of the film as ” passionate action ” which, say, is inherent in mainly western Christian (Catholic) mentality of founders of film where the is emotional-sensual perception of evangelical plots is postulated. Thus critics absolutely overlook, that revealing of a passionate part of human soul was one of the main art principles of the eastchristian cultures during an epoch paleological revival.
The statement of one of the most authoritative Byzantian seminary students of the XIV century of Grigory Palamy is remarkable in this connection, whose works are about a monastic practice of silence and are nowadays demanded by intellectuals all over the world. Just in polemic with the representative of western spiritual schools it is approved that ” impassivity is not in killing a passionate part of soul, and in its translation from a harm to goods “.
Certainly, in film there are some discrepancies, deviations from the Gospel, rather doubtful moments introduced by the director, as, for example, an image of the devil tempting the Savior in the garden of Gethsemane.
But not only this became the moment of discussion and disputes around the film. On the foreground as it seems to me, there was a question: whether “such naturalism, documentaries in the image of the Passions of the Christ is admissible?” Certainly, the film has made upon me huge impression and I consider, that it is a great event of the Christian sermon, but, having left from a hall, I could not leave the feeling of the protest against such naturalism and blood. And if to aim to make film even more natural and shocking, it is possible to maximize and even more frankly to show all the physiological details of human flesh suffering. But whether it is necessary? The theme of Passions and Crucifixions in Catholic Church always differed by the underlined and in details developed naturalism.
It seems to me that it is better to not read at all any comments before viewing this film, bad or good. The nobility suffices, that film is Christian, is as much as possible approached to the Gospel and Gibson really here was engaged not in self-expression, and has shown the sincere belief. Even in positive comments as it seemed to me, the authors simply hesitated or slightly were afraid to tell directly – the film is magnificent both from the Christian point of view, and from the point of view of film industry. Probably it is caused by several reasons: the majority of critics watched the film before it has left in mass, secondly, many went with an internal bias, that Hollywood basically is not capable to show something spiritual. This film has appeared a pleasant surprise. As for the naturalism, in my opinion, all was moderately.
The main thing, and in film it is well shown, this humility and a pardon with which this cruelty was perceived by the Christ. The look, intonation in a voice extinguished this cruelty. As a result film at all does not raise people to the feeling of revenge, cruelty, and, I would tell, there is a feeling of shame.
- [1] Boys, Mary C. “Seeing Different Movies, Talking Past Each Other.” In On The Passion of the Christ: Exploring the Issues Raised by the Controversial Movie. Ed. Paula Fredriksen, 147-63. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
- [2] Cork, William J. “Passionate Blogging: Interfaith Controversy and the Internet.” In After The Passion Is Gone: American Religious Consequences. Ed. J. Shawn Landres and Michael Berenbaum, 35-45. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004.