Of biblical proportions: ‘The Passion of the
Christ’
Sean Hennen / Reviewer
It has happened more than once in Hollywood that the hype
surrounding a film ends up being more interesting than the
film itself. These unfortunate instances, like last
year’s “Matrix” sequels whose
shrouded-in-secrecy-production was a better story than the
plots of either film sweep into the public zeitgeist with the
subtlety of a wrecking ball and completely snatch up
everyone’s attention. Adding to this list is the
release of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the
Christ.”
Anyone not living under a rock for the last six months is
sure to know at least a few bits and pieces of the making of
“The Passion.” Gibson, a steadfast-Christian
zealot, wanted to bring the most accurate and realistic
depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ to the silver
screen. His plans were to tell a story that spanned from
Christ’s arrest to ultimate crucifixion, utilizing a
no-holds-barred style of filmmaking via the most graphic
visuals anyone has ever seen.
Gibson financed $25 million of the film’s $30 million
budget from his own pocket, shot it, and then spent months
defending the finished product. The gory violence,
potentially anti-Semitic storyline and debate over the
film’s source material (mostly the Bible) were all
problem areas even before the movie’s release. Advanced
screenings of the film only further fueled the fires as
arguments raged over all of the controversial topics relating
to the movie.
“The Passion” opens with Jesus’ betrayal
and imprisonment at the hands of the High Priests of
Jerusalem and follows him through his persecution and
condemnation by a sympathetic, but hands-tied, Pontius Pilot.
The agonizing sequences of Jesus’ torture by sadistic
Roman guards is some of the most explicitly gruesome imagery
ever put to film, as the horrific set of events is
unflinchingly documented step by step. Subsequently, only the
courageous will avoid averting their eyes during the
horrendous half-hour long march to the hill of Golgotha as a
blood-drenched Jesus (crown of thorns painfully forced upon
his head) drags his cross through enraged crowds.
The conclusion of “The Passion” is as well-known
and cruelly upsetting as the rest of the film. And throughout
the proceedings is Gibson’s unwavering camera which
forces the viewer into a position of helpless onlooker at the
sight of such horrific and lingering images. It becomes
almost a challenge on the part of Gibson as filmmaker, daring
the audience to look away but criticizing them if they do. By
the time the movie reaches its last reel, “The
Passion” has become a masochistic experience.
When the film hit theaters Feb. 25 (appropriately Ash
Wednesday), the hype surrounding “The Passion”
sent hundreds of thousands of movie-goers to their local
cineplex to witness the spectacle for themselves. Seeing as
the film made $23.6 million opening day, Gibson will
comfortably make back all that he invested and more. The real
question is whether or not “The Passion” will go
down in history as a cinematic masterpiece or misstep.
One thing is for certain: Mel Gibson has created a dreadful
exhibition that is also utterly disheartening. It’s a
shame to see a film made with such apparent and profuse
religious sincerity that is so entirely absent of any grace.
Upon exiting the theater, there is a feeling of
desensitization where a feeling of emotional catharsis or
religious inspiration should be. The fact of the matter is,
Gibson may have titled his film “Passion” but
that seems to be the one department in which the film is
lacking.
| 
