Directed by Mel Gibson
Screenplay by Benedict Fitzgerald and Mel Gibson
Produced by Mel Gibson, Bruce Davey, Stephen McEveety
Starring Jim Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Claudia Gerini, Maia Morgenstern, Hristo Naumov Shopov, Sergio Rubini, Toni Bertorelli, Roberto Bestazzoni, Francesco Cabras, Giovanni Capalbo, Rosalinda Celantano, Hristo Jivkov, Francesco de Vito, Jarreth Merz, Pedro Sarubbi, Fabio Sartor, Luca Lionello, Mattia Sbragia, Luca de Dominicis.

Opening with a night sky lit by the full moon, the dark, blue-misted garden of Gethsemane and a background of portentous music soon joined by wordless human voices, The Passion of the Christ sets the tone of a work of art of beauty and power. The inscription from Isaiah 53:5 which prophesies the coming of the Messiah: ‘He was wounded for our transgressions…and with his stripes are we healed’ summarises the director’s intention in portraying the last twelve hours of the life of Christ. Though the film is beyond brutal, soaked in blood and savage cruelty, the whole is undeniably an extraordinary experience not just of what it must have been like for those who lived at the time, but also a polished distillation of the essence of its subject, an inherent comment, as a work of art should be, on the ultimate sacrifice at the heart of Christian religions. It is also a moving portrayal of betrayal and remorse, of fear and cowardice, and of love and compassion and courage.

In the darkness of Gethsemane as Jesus (Jim Caviezel) prays in great distress at what is about to befall him, the Tempter comes. You may never have seen Satan portrayed quite like this, in a casting masterstroke and played with inspiration by Rosalinda Celantano. The face is inhumanly beautiful, the eyebrows shaved to give a subtle serpentine look, and the body moves in slow glides which themselves are chilling and seemingly other-dimensional. But it is the expression in the eyes which grips. Utterly cold and detached, calculating and assessing with a predator’s cynical knowledge of its prey, it is repellent. The voice, however, is male and the confusion this initially brings fits well with the Father of Lies. Fascination is held further by its apparent nakedness beneath the robe, and a tiny, writhing worm in the nostril. At various points in the film it is a cold, maliciously evil presence that nevertheless spreads fear, hot hatred and violent anger among those whose hearts are susceptible, among the crowds in which it moves. The repulsive child it carries echoes the juvenile glee of child-demons tormenting the hapless Judas as well as the insane, bloodthirsty relish of the scourging soldiers.

Soon the Jewish soldiers come with torches and weapons to arrest Jesus, led by Judas (Luca Lionello). A quick eruption of violence as Peter (Francesco de Vito) defends his master with a sword, cutting off the ear of Malchus (Roberto Bestazzoni). Jesus heals Malchus’ wound, in a last effort to teach about pacifism before he assumes the mantle of the silent, willing sacrifice and is led away in chains. Malchus’ stunned reaction shows a man whose life has been changed in an instant.

Jim Caviezel demonstrates depth and transcendent presence in the role of Jesus Christ, ably portraying the struggle with temptation in the Garden, his dignified, patient silence in the courts of Pilate, Herod and Caiaphas, his suffering throughout his ordeal. In flash-backs we see his heart-filled teaching to his disciples at the Last Supper, and earlier, light-hearted moments with his mother in Nazareth. Caviezel convincingly shows both the weaknesses of the human vehicle Jesus and the undeterred acquiescence of the Christ spirit in fulfilling the will of God the Father to redeem mankind. Using Aramaic, his voice become a credible tool for the Word.

Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern is powerfully resonant as Mary, Jesus’ mother, suffering with her son and unable to do anything with her love but watch in deep compassion. Similarly, Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene gives a performance filled with gratitude and despair. Pilate’s wife, who dreams about Jesus and warns her husband not to be involved in his death, is played by Italian actress Claudia Gerini with similar pathos and compassion.

Other potent performances are by Hristo Naumov Shopov as Pontius Pilate, the Roman Procurator and Fabio Sartor as his second-in-command Abenader, ostensibly in charge of occupying forces, who nevertheless will not risk a violent uprising by upsetting the Jewish leaders. Pilate’s judicial fairness and compassion for Jesus is nullified by the inexorable destiny of the Christ, his quest for truth painfully unresolved. In contrast to the Roman’s austere hardness, the Jewish king Herod is portrayed as an effete, decadently indulgent and petulant fop by Luca de Dominicis.

As Judas, Luca Lionello’s remorse-driven descent into a hell of his own judgment and self-execution also, interestingly, ultimately inspires compassion. Judas has always been a figure of some controversy as Christ’s betrayer – is he not fulfilling a required, predestined role in Christ’s sacrifice? However, this film illuminates how his traitor’s kiss, his bringing of the soldiers to Gethsemane and his acceptance of the thirty pieces of silver are all unnecessary in Christ’s capture, a consequence of Satan’s obfuscation of the truth. ‘I am he,’ says Jesus when the soldiers and chief priests tell him whom they seek in the middle of the night. Judas’ fall is almost collateral damage here, a small victory for Satan.

Much has been made of the potential for anti-Semitism in this film, and certainly the film highlights the quote from John 19:11 which expresses that Pilate’s only power has been given him by God, and the ‘greater sin’ is in ‘he who delivered me to you’, It also shows the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia) as a vengeful, jealous and blood-thirsty man who wishes others would do his dirty work.

However, the film as a whole gives more emphasis to the ancient prophecy being fulfilled, and that it is God’s will that Christ atone for the sins of a generalised mankind – not just those who are the instruments of His death - by suffering a cruel death, and that it was a willing sacrifice made from love. Director and devout Catholic Mel Gibson’s stated intention was to show how we are all culpable, not just for His death, but for the evil in us which necessitated the sacrifice in the first place. That evil is also amply demonstrated.

The gleefully sadistic Romans are astounded when, having scourged Jesus to shreds and to his knees and briefly stopped to gauge his condition, he struggles once more to his feet. They then take his punishment to a wholly new level of intoxicated blood-lust. Jesus, however, endures it all as an inevitable part of his accepted role. His transcendence even in the midst of the brutality is shown by his effect on Simon of Cyrene (Jarreth Merz), chosen for his size and strength from the crowd to help Jesus carry his cross. In a beautiful example (among many) of the lives Jesus touched briefly and transformed by his presence through his suffering, Simon is at first reluctant, then by the end literally carrying both the cross and Jesus.

No doubt there will be a resurgence of religious devotion as a result of this film. Some will arise from guilt and a need to atone for Christ’s suffering in a bizarre and twisted reflection of what His sacrifice was meant to achieve. Some will return to the Church, reminded by Christ’s statement that none come to the Father but through Him, though of course the Church did not exist yet, then. Nevertheless, the film is a powerful demonstration of love as well as hate and of a sacrifice made by a compassionate God for His imperfect creation.

Adding to the impact of the film is the music of composer John Debney and the stunning cinematography of Caleb Deschanel whose light and shade techniques amply mirror the director’s love of the Baroque artist Caravaggio. All through there are tableaux reminiscent of great masters, especially near the end, of the Pieta and others.

If the film is excessively violent, it also accurately portrays the brutality of the times. And yet, walking away from the film, in the end its very excess had a kind of purifying effect. As if something was restored, something was balanced and something received at last. If we resist and deplore the violence shown in the film we might miss the point: that acceptance allows its message to penetrate to levels of deep realisation and the possibility of inner transformation.

© Avril Carruthers, 25th February 2004

Review by Scott Spicciati    Grade: A
(truncated to avoid repeating plot information)

If there was ever a doubt regarding Mel Gibson's ability as a filmmaker behind the camera in creative control, The Passion of the Christ is the apex and will win converts. If not to the Christian religion then to the belief that Gibson is knows how to make movies. From the opening shot in the dense, foggy forest to the closing scene that ends with a ray of sunlight, The Passion is an uplifting experience.

The Passion is simply a masterpiece of a film on all technical levels: James Caviezel is brilliant as Jesus and his costars also give notable performances as well. John Debney's musical score is at par with Hans Zimmer's track to Gladiator, a similar time that predated the English language. Caleb Deschanel's cinematography is amazingly surreal and brings the surrounding environments to life. Mel Gibson seals the deal with skilled, artistic direction--knowing exactly how to set up the next scene and when to cut to a flashback.

The story is painstakingly accurate to the Gospels with minor deviations. Roman leader Pontius Pilate is a lot more conflicted in the film and comes off more empathetic than he probably was as a known Jew-slaughterer, and Caiaphas along with the other Jewish high priests pushed a little harder for Jesus' crucifixion with no compromise. To balance possible anti-Semitic feelings, Gibson glorifies the role of Simon of Syrene, a Jew who helps Jesus carry the cross.

For the folks not interested in the religious contexts, Gibson creates a deliciously evil Satan character, and the scene with the demonic children is something right out of a horror film.

Gibson knows just when to resort to brief flashbacks to provide us a temporary escape from the brutal torturing. We get a glimpse of the Last Supper and the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus preaches messages of hope to his followers. Even as the Roman soldiers tear into every inch of his body with their instruments, we never get an impression that Jesus regretted his destiny.

It amazes me how critics could praise slapstick/comical violent films such as Kill Bill which celebrates every type of torture and disembowelment possible, while calling The Passion unnecessarily violent. In Kill Bill, a head gets chopped off and we rejoice with applause. A woman loses her arm and rolls around in her own blood and we laugh "cause it's funny."

There's nothing to laugh about in The Passion of The Christ. The pain and suffering feels real. It is real. To endure it is to prove you can stand the test of pure filmmaking in its finest form. When a movie accelerates your heart-rate and its content has you feeling uncomfortable and uneasy, it is no longer a movie.

Roger Ebert wrote in his review that it's the most violent film he's ever seen. I find that hard to believe as he's seen many more movies than I have, and I know there are more violent films out there.

What makes The Passion so graphic isn't the actual violence that we see but the prolonged suffering that Jesus endures. But this is Jesus we're talking about! This is the guy who tells his followers to love your enemy. At the point in the film where he was being brutally whipped and nailed the cross -- when critics cried "brutally relentless" -- Jesus was asking his Father for their forgiveness. "They don't know," he cried out. "They don't know."

To be sure, the film is intense. We see whips and canes strutting shards tearing through skin in real-time, and only during the most excruciatingly painful moments does the camera shy away. I was personally looking forward to seeing the spike go through Jesus' foot, but the spike going through his hand was more than enough. No one ever said the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ was a birthday party.

But it's a message that was apparently not received by dissatisfied critics and moviegoers. "How dare Gibson concentrate so much on the violence! Why did the torturing take up most of the film's running time?"

To say The Passion is a depressing film or will leave you 'restless' is ridiculous. The critics who’ve lambasted the film for being overly gory are foolish. The last shot of Jesus isn't one of pain, suffering or blood-soaked carnage. He's clean, convinced and determined. It's a happy ending. It's a feel-good happy ending.

Scott Spicciati
Grade: A

Review by David Trier   Grade: C-

Movies surrounded by controversy generally get seen by everyone and then are unfairly praised or rejected by one’s political views and not by the actual quality of the filmmaking. Well, I’m not falling for that trap. I’m going to review this intense and heartbreaking film solely on its merits as a work of modern cinema. That being said, this movie is a piece of crap. Not that anyone would notice, but the book didn’t have much of a plot either.

When Jesus (Jim Caviezel), the spiritual leader of a small cult of Jews in the early first century, is betrayed by his friend Judas (Luca Lionello), he hides out in the forest with some of his remaining disciples. The Devil (Rosalinda Celentano) pays him a visit here and several times throughout the film. The Jewish high priests, lead primarily by Caiphas (Mattia Sbragia), orchestrate his capture and bring him in for questioning. It appears he’s been going around claiming to be the son of God. But their invisible man in the sky doesn’t go around impregnating people and the claim is considered blasphemous.

Normally, this is a sin probably repayable by roasting a goat or something, but the priests won’t tolerate a challenge to their authority and certainly won’t tolerate any risk to the sweet deal the Jewish elite had from Caesar. So they plead with the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov) to have him crucified. Although he slaughters innocent Jews on a daily basis, he is reluctant to kill Jesus. He refers them to the authority of King Herod, who’s rather silly and sees no reason to kill Jesus either.

Well, the Jewish high priests are gonna get this guy killed if it’s the last thing they do. So they return to Pontius Pilate and beg him again to please, please crucify Jesus. Finally, the good and decent daily Jew killer submits to the evil pressure of the high priests and agrees to at least torture Jesus for a bit. So the Romans whip him, then flog him, then mutilate his body for about forty minutes while he’s chained to a rock.

He’s then offered back to the Jews, who still want him killed. Pilate nearly wets his pants when the Jewish priests choose the release of a murderer over the release of Jesus. Finally, he shrugs and sighs and sends Jesus to be crucified, muttering under his breath something like, 'Crazy, crazy Jews.' As Jesus, his body a complete mess, carries his cross to his final destination, he is beaten regularly. A Jew is forced to help him carry the cross, and like any good Jew in Mel Gibson’s world, is willing to help when forced to by armed soldiers. After falling about a dozen times in slow-motion, we all finally make it to the end of the film. Here, Jesus is nailed to a cross and dies. Immediately, an earthquake ensues, which is odd. The Romans stab him to make sure he’s dead and a few days later, we find him in a cave and he’s, uh, not dead. The end.

Or in other words, a religious prophet is rejected by his community and tortured for an hour and a half by Romans until he dies.

Traditionally, a screenplay has a beginning, a middle and an end. There is also character arc, in which our main participants are influenced by the story and grow as a result. Occasionally, there are a series of relationships that begin, run their course and result in something. The Passion of the Christ has little, if any, of these elements and in fact is more of a directorial vanity convention in which a man is gruesomely mutilated for a really, really long time than an actual contribution to the world of cinema. This is all done without any context and a complete rejection of the possibility that some audience members don’t see a messiah dying for our sins, but see instead a man. We are given occasional glimpses into the back-story, but only as it pertains to these final hours. We don’t see the history that lead up to the Jews living under Roman rule and the relationship between Caesar and the high priests. We don’t see Jesus develop into the messiah, but instead are to immediately accept him as our savior in the first shot.

If Gibson made a film about the Holocaust, would it only involve children being mutilated by Nazis? Wouldn’t there still have to be a story? A plot? Something worthy of a two-hour film? And if his father made a film about the Holocaust, I imagine it would only qualify as a short. But I digress.

The Passion is not a complete waste. Gibson is certainly competent with screen imagery, some of which is beautiful, some indulgent and gross, but all vivid and convincing. The music does its best to add drama to situations that are less dramatic than they are gruesome. Caviezel is a talented actor, no doubt, but does more wincing and blood-gurgling than speaking. Maia Morgenstern delivers well as Mary, but does next to nothing in the story to help her son or further the elusive plot. Rosalinda Celentano is excellent as the Annie Lennox-like devil. Monica Bellucci plays Mary Magdalene, who is simply around in every other scene, but not a real participant. Again, we see Gibson’s assumption that everyone appreciates the significance of the New Testament’s supporting cast. Hristo Shopov is excellent as the fictionalized Pilate. Mattia Sbragia is strong as the blood-thirsty high priest of the Jews and I have no doubt the Jewish priests in power at the time were less than humanistic. Y’know, like those great big pious Catholic priests we keep reading about in the paper.

Is the film anti-semitic? No. Ok. It’s settled. For the Jews of today to take offense at the unflattering portrayal of Jews from nearly two thousand years ago, is a little silly. Especially since this portrayal is based on accounts from a testament Jews do not even believe in. Plus, why would anyone blame the Jews for what happened to Jesus? It seems to have worked out pretty well for the Christians in the end and they should be thankful they even have a religion.

Do I agree with Gibson’s choice to make the Jews generally look blood-thirsty and unreasonable while glorifying a Roman butcher like Pontius Pilate as a conflicted do-gooder? No. It’s silly and historically inaccurate, not unlike the earthquake at the end of the film, which I don’t remember getting recorded into history and the presence of a two-humped camel that doesn’t exist in that region of the world.

But then does a film rooted in history have to be historically accurate? Or can it just be fantasy like the films Pearl Harbor and Pocahontas? And then of course, is making it accurate to the Bible the same thing as making it historically accurate? No, no it isn’t. Gibson has every right to make any kind of movie he wants, even if it doesn’t have a plot.

In the end, it’s too easy to criticize this film simply because it’s about Jesus. Where The Passion of the Christ truly fails is in its own objectives. Gibson would like the world to understand the way he does that Jesus Christ, the son of God, suffered and died because of our sins and the suffering was great and so must be our sins. But without a script that develops this very idea of sin and in the context in which this story takes place, we are left with nothing but Gibson’s obsession with violence – something Jesus himself might not have appreciated.

Oh, and where all the brothas at?

David Trier
Grade: C-