THE PASSION: A Testimony Through Violence

Nearly a decade after winning an Academy Award for Best Director in 1995 for BRAVEHEART, Mel Gibson made his directorial followup with another period epic, and while BRAVEHEART may have earned quite a bit of guff for its copious historical inaccuracies, his new film would go on to be considered one of the most controversial films of all time and spark a seemingly endless series of heated debates.
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, however, did make a very handsome profit, perhaps in part due to the priceless publicity that a certain type of controversy brings with it, but mostly because it pleased its target audience of Catholic and Evangelical Christians, resulting publicity from the pulpit, church group viewings and a relentless word of mouth campaign.  After being unable to find a studio to produce or distribute the film, due to its provocative nature and commercially-unproven (as of then-recent) religious subject matter, Gibson had to finance the whole thing through his company, Icon Productions, and out of pocket.  Produced on a budget of $30 million and with a $15 million marketing campaign, the film went on to gross over $600 million worldwide, making it the highest-grossing independent movie ever made and one of the most profitable films of all time, as devout Christians showed they were a viable and under-appreciated market for the film industry.
THE ANTISEMITISM
While technically an adaptation of the events of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the four Gospels of the King James Bible, THE PASSION is as much, or moreso, a cinematic version of the ancient, and fairly controversial, Catholic tradition of the Passion play, "the Passion" being a theological term for the sufferings of Jesus from his suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane through to the Crucifixion at Golgotha, derived from early translations of the four Gospels in Greek wherein the verb πάσχω (paschō) means "to suffer".  The Passion play tradition is controversial for its historical role in encouraging antisemitism and, in turn, antisemitic violence, especially in the Middle Ages, in the form of pogroms, in which Christian mobs would violently attack Jewish settlements and massacre the Jewish inhabitants in a sadistic form of recreation.  This connection has been made to the film and resulted in a great deal of its controversy, and the film has been frequently accused of antisemitism in its own right.  Not being Jewish or of Jewish descent, I can't truly empathize with how this film effects Jewish persons, although I don't think the film, in itself, is an antisemitic piece, at least, not by any intention of the filmmakers.  My reasoning is centered around the presence of sympathetic characters clearly identified as Jewish, including Simon of Cyrene and some quickly silenced priests who protest on behalf of Jesus during the trial before Caiaphas.  I personally do believe that Mel Gibson most likely has some antisemitic sentiments, but I also believe that he made a conscious effort to avoid injecting that into his film.  That said, when dealing with the Passion story, you're playing with fire, and it's not always clear what certain audiences will take away from a film.  Caiaphas and the other Jewish priests who arrest Jesus and campaign for his demise are far too venomous for my taste, and though I see it as more noteworthy as a detriment to the cinematic storytelling, persons already inclined to antisemitism may be encouraged in their feelings by associating their characters with their prominently Jewish identity.  I think the film would have been served better if context had been provided involving the motives of the Jewish authorities, such as the precarious position of their power and threat of Roman retribution for troublemakers that could involve confiscation of their sacred temple traditions.  I do think it's also worth noting that the Jewish priests are not portrayed as better or worse than most of the Roman soldiers either, but like I said before, I don't actually feel the brunt of the alleged negative impact, so my opinions on the matter cannot bear much weight.
THE VIOLENCE

One of the more family-friendly moments in THE PASSION.

Gibson has cited themes of "love, hope, faith and forgiveness" as the central focus of THE PASSION, but there's a distinct flavor of the sensibility that has been with the Passion play ever since the Middle Ages, and that is a human fascination with violence.  THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is certainly amongst the most violent films ever made, and I highly doubt that a significant portion of the Evangelical audiences that lent so much support to the film had ever seen movie that had violence around that level.  The shock of that kind of violence can be interpreted as an emotional impact, and it could have thus been a more affecting experience for such audiences, but the film goes to places that prompt you to wonder exactly when that kind of thing is justified, how far a film should go regarding such matters and basically, what the real point of all that is.  The Passion story has always given much focus on the brutality of its topic, but cinema takes it to a whole other level.  Gibson said in interviews that it was is intent to shock, in order to emphasize the enormity of Christ's sacrifice, and also that the "actual crucifixion was more violent than what's shown on the film".  Now the wording in the Gospels is largely simplistic, only getting into the bare basics of Christ's crucifixion, but Gibson and his co-writer Benedict Fitzgerald also drew heavily upon The Dolorous Passion, an alleged but disputed account of a visions attributed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), a German-born Catholic nun; but I have no idea from where Gibson is getting the idea that he didn't take as far as he could have.  Considering all his reported sources, THE PASSION is still well more violent than it needs to be, bordering on the absurd.  Film critic Roger Ebert said about the film, "The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen."  I'd say his guess of 100 minutes is a bit conservative.  From beginning to end, Jesus is beaten, maimed and mutilated endlessly, although there are a couple moments when he's merely spat upon.  The flagellation scene, in particular, wallows in the brutality.  Of the four Gospels, only three mention the whipping, and in no more than a single sentence, and in Luke it is not noted, but it is a major scene in THE PASSION, lasting around 11-12 minutes, beginning with birch sticks that leave horrible welts and culminates with scourges knotted with jagged metal that are applied to his back and front, and in one explicit shot, the metal barbs become lodged in Jesus' ribs, at which point the soldier yanks the whip out, ripping out chunks of flesh and splattering blood.  By the time Jesus is nailed to the cross (quite explicitly and bloodily I might add), nearly half the skin on his body has been flayed off and that which remains is covered in blood.
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a prime example of the distorted MPAA rating system.  Although the rating system was never intended as a 'what-you-should-and-shouldn't-watch' system, the combination of misinterpretation by parents and major retailers twisted into that, so that movies that are better suited to an R rating are carefully edited to squeeze into a PG-13, and movies that should be rated NC-17 are edited in order to squeeze into an R, or, as in this case, exceptions are made in order avoid editing or other such hassles.  As such, a movie like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST receives an R rating by way of the supposedly mitigating factors of religious and historical context, when, according to the system's original intent, wherein the NC-17 ratings was designed as an 'adults only' rating (as in, most parents would only consider it suitable for adults), THE PASSION would be far more appropriately NC-17.  Unfortunately, the strongest rating became associated with lurid material, and while strong lurid material would be included as reason for an NC-17 rating, there are many stories that are not lurid, while not being suitable for minors, and that's where rating reasons come in handy.
THE EXPERIENCE

Rosalinda Celentano as "Satan"

The story is very simple and already well known to most; it is a mostly linear narrative, depicting the night of Jesus' (Jim Caviezel) arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, his subsequent trial before a Jewish tribunal, after which he is turned over to the Roman authorities, tortured and crucified.  If you don't already know the story, shame on you, and I'm gonna go ahead with 'spoilers' anyway.  Basically, it's the story of Jesus' suffering and death, contrasted with his compassion toward his persecutors, and then, in less than a minute before the credits roll, the actual point of the whole Christian faith, the Resurrection.  It's not Mel Gibson's best film (my vote's on APOCALYPTO), but it has great moments.  Unfortunately, it's a film plagued with problems (and I'm not referring to the hilariously bombastic case of irony in production wherein Jim Caviezel (playing Jesus) was struck by lightning, and an assistant director was struck by lightning twice!), particularly Gibson's medieval approach, one that is often off-putting, such as the recurring appearances of Satan, played by Rosalinda Celentano.  I do get that Satan is supposed to be off-putting, but this portrayal is too weird, what with the contrived dialogue ("Do you really believe that one man can bear the full burden of sin?") and especially a demonic Madonna moment during the flagellation in which Satan walks past with bizarre old man/baby which turns and grins, risking audience laughs.  In a similar department, the storyline of Judas (Luca Lionello) involves too many bizarre and grotesque elements, especially a few demons who torment him in the form of children with bloated, elderly faces. 
A more prominent medieval element of course is violence, and for many viewers, the copious explicit violence becomes a distraction.  I can't really explain why, but movie violence/gore almost never affects on a gut level, that is, I recognize it for its part in movies, but it doesn't make me sick or cringe the way it does for most people, so I see the excessive nature of the violence in a different way than some might.  It hinders anything else happening in the film because Gibson cannot simply allow a respite, even when the violence is not necessary, such as the Jewish priests who randomly slug Jesus as their marching him to trial, or the outrageous moment when they push him off a bridge and his fall is stopped by the chains with which he is bound.  Related to that detrimental excess is the makeup that grows thicker and heavier with every scene; all too early on, Caviezel's power of expression is limited by an eye swollen shut, and when on the cross, so much skin is gone and there is so much blood that his humanity has been obscured to the point of causing horror instead of sympathy.  I recognize the obvious need to show impact and results of violence, but "realism" becomes harmful when it limits the viewer's ability to sympathize.

Maia Morgenstern as the Virgin Mary

There are some really wonderful moments though, mainly involving a couple of the several non-linear scenes related into the narrative, such as Mary (Maia Morgenstern), mother of Jesus, as she sees Jesus collapse under the weight of the cross, which is contrasted with a memory of Mary running to comfort the child Jesus after he falls; and the scene where Jesus is nailed to the cross, intercut with moments from the Sermon on the Mount, where he speaks of loving your enemies.  Also, while it's startlingly brief, the Resurrection is a great scene.
Overall, it's never really a bad film, but it never really ascends to where it could, and should be.
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
2 out of 4 stars
Directed by: Mel Gibson
Starring: Jim Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern, Monica Bellucci, Rosalinda Celentano, Hristo Shopov
Rated R for sequences of graphic violence.