And so it begins - Well, reviews are sprouting up all over the place now and they are following pretty much the same path as all discussion about The Passion of The Christ has taken up to this point; Left or Right, but no Middle. In other words, a Great Separation. And I suppose that is how it should really break down when it comes to this subject; You either believe that Christ is God made flesh, The Messiah, The Redeemer of all mankind, or you don't believe at all.
Following in that suit, the reviews are either panning Mel Gibson's movie about Christ's sacrifice for mankind or are praising it.
I've compiled a list of some of the reviews I've read throughout the day. The first grouping are the negative reviews and they all hold the same vein, that the movie is a sadomasochistic orgy of violence. I think that has become the new talking point because the anti-Semitism charge has had a hard time getting traction, which isn't to say that some of the reviewers aren't still beating that drum. Anyway, here we go:
The Hollywood Reporter begins well enough saying that Mel has gone the literal route in interpreting the Gospels, but I think that is intended as a slant because the Reporter dares to compare "The Passion of The Christ" with Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ". Here's a snippet:
Pity anyone though who comes to this movie without a knowledge of the New Testament. For them, a handful of brief flashbacks to earlier days will fail to do the trick. Yet even a Bible student might wonder why Gibson would choose to downplay the self-sacrifice and love that went into Jesus' submission to torture and death. The spiritual significance of the Crucifixion gets swamped in an orgy of violence visited upon Jesus' body. Indeed, it's doubtful any human being could remain conscious for his own execution were he to endure the level of physical abuse graphically depicted here.
Next in line is David Ansen of Newsweek. He carries on the theme of sadomasochism. Here's a snippet:
I have no doubt that Mel Gibson loves Jesus. From the evidence of "The Passion of the Christ," however, what he seems to love as much is the cinematic depiction of flayed, severed, swollen, scarred flesh and rivulets of spilled blood, the crack of bashed bones and the groans of someone enduring the ultimate physical agony. This peculiar, deeply personal expression of the filmmaker's faith is a far cry from the sentimental, pious depictions of Christ that popular culture has often served up. Relentlessly savage, "The Passion" plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade. The film that has been getting rapturous advance raves from evangelical Christians turns out to be an R-rated inspirational movie no child can, or should, see. To these secular eyes at least, Gibson's movie is more likely to inspire nightmares than devotion.
At least he is honest about the "secular eyes" and I wonder about that myself as an aside, what with some hoping to use this movie as a means of evangelism.
Moving from Newsweek we journey over to The New Yorker and David Denby with his review titled, "Nailed." David didn't like the movie and brings forth the anti-Semitism argument with the violence argument:
As a viewer, I am equally free to say that the movie Gibson has made from his personal obsessions is a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminating procession of treachery, beatings, blood, and agony—and to say so without indulging in “anti-Christian sentiment” (Gibson’s term for what his critics are spreading). For two hours, with only an occasional pause or gentle flashback, we watch, stupefied, as a handsome, strapping, at times half-naked young man (James Caviezel) is slowly tortured to death. Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagrely involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate.
Now to the positive reviews:
Let me start with my favorite: Christopher Johns, a criminal defense lawyer writing for azcentral.com, an arm, from what I can tell, of Arizona Republic. His review is titled: Real to reel Jesus. Johns deals with the art side and the humanity side. I suggest you read it fully, but here is a snippet:
The Passion is neither propaganda nor documentary; it is instead an aesthetic experience about universal humanity. Gibson's gift is to see beyond the veil of the Gospel in a medium created two millennia later.
How is the viewer to feel? I suspect the same way we feel when seeing any atrocity. The movie is in essence about the most famous Roman lynching enlarged with cosmic overtones.
I think he is also my favorite because he ends with a great quote from Emily Dickinson, one of my favorite poets.
From Christopher Johns we can take a look at Charlie Peacock of CCM Magazine printed on Crosswalk.com. His review is simply titled, The Passion of the Christ:
His [Gibson] movie is loaded with “shock and awe” after the fashion of his other films, "Braveheart" and "The Patriot." This is a hard film to watch – as it should be. Finally, someone has created a film that does not trivialize what Messiah Jesus did for the people of Earth so that we’d have a new opportunity to be truly human. As Revelation 7:10 says, “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” Mel’s film holds true to this important fact. It’s all about God’s saving ways through the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God.
Also on Crosswalk.com is an article by Phil Boatwright of the Baptist Press. His article is titled "Mel Gibson: 'Passion' Will 'Bring People Closer Together'" and he looks more at what some of the people instrumental in the making of the movie have said.
Asked if his involvement in the production had influenced his spiritual walk, Caviezel replied, "I know Jesus in a more personal way than I ever have. I'm proud of this film because it is under attack. It is the truth. And I'm proud that people of all denominations of the Christian faith have been able to see beyond their differences."
Many Protestant readers may be concerned that the film is dominated by Catholic doctrine. "The Passion of the Christ" is not about denominational dogma, Gibson said. Rather, it is a portrait of the brutality Jesus endured as the sacrificial lamb, then it testifies that Jesus as Messiah arose from His tomb.
Doctor Dobson had this to say:
I can say that, in addition to being faithful to the essentials of the biblical account, it is easily the most heart-wrenching, powerful portrayal of Christ's suffering that I have ever seen. Shirley and I were deeply moved by the stark depiction of the brutality and humiliation that Jesus endured on our behalf. Other preview screenings have had a similar effect, leaving audience members either weeping openly or hushed in reverent silence.
Finally, Ebert and Roeper gave the film gave the film two thumbs up. Roeper said:
"This is the most powerful, important and by far the most graphic interpretation of Christ's final hours ever put on film," said Roeper, a Sun-Times columnist. "Mel Gibson is a masterful storyteller, and this is the work of his lifetime. You have to admire not just Gibson for his vision and his directing abilities, but Jim Caviezel [as Christ] and the rest of the cast."
And Ebert said:
"It focuses relentlessly on the price that Christ paid for redemption," Ebert said. "And it emphasizes that Jesus wanted this to happen. His death was the instrument of his purpose, and we should be grateful to him instead of critical of those who were the instruments of his will."
A couple of other news items I hit on of interest, to me at least, was one by Neil Cavuto of FoxNews. Neil's article is titled, "Now they're threatening Mel Gibson," deals with the some of the attacks that seem to be coming Mel's way and why. He writes:
Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" (search) rightfully commands respect. Tom Hanks' portrayal of an AIDS-ravaged patient in "Philadelphia" (search) rightfully wins kudos. But Mel Gibson talking about the most scrutinized death in history ... That's a different standard?
Why?
I don't think it's the violence or the subtitles. I think it's the subject. I think ... it's Jesus. Too religious.
And then there is a man named Andy Rooney. WorldNetDaily™ has the story on this "wacko." On "60 Minutes" last night, Rooney tried to make fun of Mel Gibson's statement about feeling led by the Holy Spirit to make this film. To do this Rooney attempts satire and claims to have had a conversation with God, himself. He began his segment with:
"It doesn't seem right, but religion has been in the news a lot recently."
Gee. I wonder why he feels that way? Here's some of his attempt at satire:
"'Andrew, you have the eyes and ears of a lot of people. I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos. I believe that's one of your current words. They're crazy as bedbugs, another earthly expression. I created bedbugs. I'll tell you, they're no crazier than people,' said God...."
“As far as Mel Gibson goes, I haven't seen his movie, 'The Passion of the Christ,' because it hasn't opened up here yet. But I did catch Gibson being interviewed by Diane Sawyer. I did something right when I came up with her, didn't I,” added God. “Anyway, as I was saying, Mel is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? Listen, we all make mistakes."
No Mr. Rooney, He doesn't make mistakes. So it wasn't God you were talking to.
As for me, I purchased 27 advance tickets today for myself and other Church members.
The Great Separation continues.
UPDATE - 2004-02-25.
Russ at Coffeehouse at the End-Of-Days has his impressions after viewing the movie with his fourteen-year-old son:I'll start here. If you're looking for a recommendation, you're coming to the wrong guy. I'm not even sure if my own family, taken one by one, will love this movie, hate it or find that it leaves them numb.
(I did bring my fourteen-year old. He was moved by it and thought it was superb.)
That said, this is hands-down the most significant, not to mention ambitious and interesting movie ever screened about Jesus of Nazareth. By comparison, The Last Temptation of Christ is rendered trivial as are the more devout 'Sunday School' style renditions. Only the older 'Gospel According to St. Matthew' bears some comparison in quality.
