"The Passion" Redux

Now that "Da Vinci" has been released the debate over Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is pretty passe. Problem is I never saw "The Passion." I refused to see it when it came out because of what I'd heard about it.

Being one Jesus movie behind and not up on the current debate, I decided to catch up, so yesterday I rented and watched "The Passion."

It's a very, very good film. Mel Gibson is an intelligent, film-wise, hard-working director, and his attention to detail -- costuming, architecture, the gruesome and intimate physical special effects, and especially his decision to script in Aramaic and Latin, give the production an atmosphere of authenticity, and convey the impression of witnessing the actual events that's lacking in all previous Jesus movies.

Creating the illusion of reality is what drama and film are all about. Why are critics so upset then, when Mel Gibson has succeeded so admirably in his purpose?

They're upset, of course, because the story and the message are the straight Christian Gospel version of the history of these events, which is to say propaganda and speculation instead of real history. But that's another debate and another issue, and has nothing to do with the quality and integrity of the film itself -- of the medium by which the propaganda is delivered.

Film buffs don't knock Leni Riefenstahl because she was a Nazi. So why should they attack Gibson for being a devoted and passionate Christian?

Criticism of "The Passion" has tended to confuse the two issues, with people saying, "Oh, that's a lousy movie" because they don't like the ideology. I'm with them in disagreeing with the ideology, but I think this is a terrific movie.

It's not for the faint-hearted. This is a splatter flick, and the emphasis is on the torture and sadism inflicted on Yeshua, the physical details of his death, and the effect these things had on both his tormenters and those who loved him.

It's an emotional film. The viewer can't help but come away saddened and upset from seeing this kind of physical and psychological torture, but that's necessary to Gibson's and Christianity's message: Jesus's suffering is by extension the suffering of every innocent person who has ever been physically abused, mocked, spat upon, and killed by an enraged and frightened authority, terrified by the very innocence of its victims.

And that's appropriate, because Christianity's appeal, at bottom, is emotional, not intellectual. The Christ cult is based on mystery, and not intelligible by rational analysis.

I recommend "The Passion," but only if you've got a strong stomach and only if you're willing to accept it on its own, and Gibson's terms, rather than criticizing Gibson for not making the movie you would have preferred to see.

Gibson, naturally, will tell you that he has presented the proven facts, but that's the same old debate we've been having about the Gospel "truth" for two hundred years, and it has nothing to do with the integrity of this film. The problem with Christianity is it can't be authenticated by neutral sources, and therefore remains an assertion, not an argument. "The Passion of the Christ" is the latest and most skilfully designed version of this assertion.