The film is graphic. The film is rated R, and with good reason. Roger Ebert, film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times argued that it should have received an NC-17 rating. The film is gripping and it is difficult to take your eyes off of what is happening, The drama is played out tensely and the pace really moves. As a film, it is a very good piece of movie making. Some of it is absolutely beautiful.

            Many criticisms had been brought forward on this film, and I will attempt to at least lay out my opinion on the criticisms. Many of the negative things were said about the film before its release. It is important also to try to discern Gibsons intent in making the film. He claims that it is a story he feels passionately (no pun intended) about. It is a film he mostly financed on his own and a film that the major studios have refused to release. I'm going to try to look at three things when talking about this film. First, the Biblical question will be explored. Secondly, I will look at the charge that it is an anti-Semitic film. Lastly, I will try to make some sense of the violence and try to answer the question, Was it really necessary to show strips of flesh being ripped off a mans back and the buckets of blood?

The Biblical Question

            One of the claims that Gibson makes is that the film is very Biblical. What this did is make me run to the Gospels and re-read the Passion story in all three of them. I have come to the conclusion that technically, many of the things that happened in the movie have a Biblical basis. What it really comes down to is where Gibson puts his emphasis in the film. There are also some areas where there are added things. What comes to mind mostly is the Satan-like guy who seems bent on pushing for Jesus crucifixion.

            There are other scenes where Jesus is being led from the Garden of Gethsemane and he is pushed off a bridge and since his is chained to the guards, he stops just before hitting the ground. At the bottom of this fall is Judas hiding under the bridge. There is a nice dramatic moment where eyes meet and Jesus looks at Judas meaningfully before he is hauled up. Nice touch, but not Biblical.

            The Satan-guy evil creature seems out of place to me. Here he is, pushing for the crucifixion of Jesus. He is portrayed as out in the crowds riling them up and pushing for Jesus death. I tend to think that if one does believe in a personified devil, he would be a little smarter than that. I would think that the last thing he would want would be Jesus sacrifice. He would be doing all he could to prevent the crucifixion. However, at the end of the film when Jesus is resurrected, we see Satan as one unhappy camper, as if he had been duped into letting Christ die. I'm sorry, as a dramatic and Biblical device this does not work for me. Satan tempted Jesus in the desert to turn him away from God's mission. Biblically, Satan used Peter to try to talk Jesus out of letting bad things happen to him. Biblically, Satan knew what was going on. This clueless, though thoroughly creepy Satan (when you have the occasional maggot come out of your nose and you can make snakes at will you are creepy!) is to me what Christians would hope to see of the Evil One, powerless and clueless.

            Satan also tempts Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane as well, and this is an added dramatic device. This theme also was explored in the movie Jesus which was aired by CBS. Where as The Passions Satan is more subtle in his temptations here, in Jesus he uses every device, tempting Jesus with power, showing mankind as a violent stupid race, and finally appealing to Jesus saying that he would not have to go through this as his Father would not make him. The Satan in the CBS movie sounds rational, concerned, well informed, and tricky - everything you'd expect of the Devil.  I don't remember, however,  seeing  Satan tempting Jesus in the garden, so though these are nice dramatic devices, they are hardly Biblical.

            As I said, this movie made me go back a lot to see what was there. I was a little appalled when Jesus was brought before the Jewish leaders and they kept hitting him.  I didnt think that that was biblical, but in checking the Gospel of John, he is hit in the face and Jesus asks why they hit him. In John, it goes like this: "Jesus answered, I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. ²¹Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said. ²²When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, Is that how you answer the high priest? ²³Jesus answered, If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"

            The Gospels are unclear as to when Jesus was beaten by the Romans, and in some cases it is not clear at all. In Gibson's movie, he is beaten to punish him severely and this is done before Barabbas is released. In Matthew, they release Barabbas and then flog Jesus. In Mark they release Barabbas and then flog Jesus. In John, Jesus is flogged before Pilate, and it is in this book more detail is given as to the Romans mocking him. In Luke, it is unclear whether Jesus is flogged at all, as the the Gospel reads: ²⁰Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again; ²¹but they kept shouting, Crucify, crucify him! ²²A third time he said to them, Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no What troubles me most is that Gibson proclaims pure motives on wanting to get the Passion story of Jesus sacrifice out, yet the marketing blitz of actual sized crucifixion nail necklaces and t shirts and soundtracks that are selling like wildfire bothers me. It seems that Gibson understands that Jesus sells. Ultimately, it is just another Hollywood movie. ground for the sentence of death; I will therefore have him flogged and then release him. ²³But they kept urgently demanding with loud shouts that he should be crucified; and their voices prevailed. ²⁴So Pilate gave his verdict that their demand should be granted. ²⁵He released the man they asked for, the one who had been put in prison for insurrection and murder, and he handed Jesus over as they wished.

            Gibson's portrayal is Biblical in the sense that it follows one Gospel or the other. However, there is still Satan lurking in the background through the beatings, through all of this, urging those around on with his influence to kill Jesus. This does not seem right to me, though it is a very effective dramatic device.

            There are some things that Gibson leaves out at the crucifixion, and some things that are added. Ciaphas mocking Him at the cross is added. The crow picking out they eye of the criminal that mocks Jesus as they are all crucified is added. Jesus is not offered a mixture of wine and gall in the film as he is in Matthew. His ending words are a mixture of the two Gospels that have Jesus speaking at the end in which he states that into your hands I commend my spirit (Mark) and It is finished which is from John. In fact, in Matthew and Luke, Jesus says nothing at all, but cries out and dies. The blood and water comes from his side after the Centurian pierces it (John) among other things.

            Gibson seems to borrow heavily from John who seems to go into more detail as to the Passion story.

            In conclusion, I would say that there are enough Biblical elements in the film to satisfy me in stating that it is technically Biblically based. Yet, all these things are open to interpretation, and that comes down to Gibsons use of extreme violence and a rather sympathetic view of Pilate and a somewhat unflattering look at the Jewish leaders and priests. This will lead into the anti-Semitic question and some other areas.

            The telling of the Passion is drenched in a violent history in earlier days. Often times, this story would be told to those in the church, in minute detail, and it would enrage early Christians, who then would see it fitting to go out and persecute and kill Jews. This has always bothered me, as to why the need to blame the Jews for Jesus death was there. Many of the Evangelicals and Conservatives who flock to this film see Jesus death as all part of a pre-ordained plan. In other words, many believe Jesus had to die. If that were the case, then if the Jews did, in fact, kill Jesus, they did is a favor. Also, the Jews would have had no choice if you follow conservative theology. Therefore, they would hardly have been to blame for any of this. 

          I only bring up the conservative theologies because those sometimes tend to be the ones that spout anti-Semitism today. The day the film came out there was a chuch called Lovingway that put up on it's marquee : "Jews killed the Lord Jesus. !Settled!" Unbelievable. "It's settled," said Maurice Gordon, Lovingway pastor, "The word of God is the final word." Although the Jesus killed the Jews line comes from First Thessalonians, second chapter, verses 14-15, most Christian scholars state that Paul was referring to certain Jews who opposed Jesus teachings and not all Jews. This seems logical, because the early Christians still considered themselves Jews. In fact, Christianity was originally seen as a reform movement of the Jews. Jesus disciples were Jews. Jesus was a Jew. A more liberal interpretation would be more like "some Jews killed Jesus." If you take Lovingway's pastor's logic as it is, you see anti-Semitism in it's modern form. There's no logic to it at all. I don't see the film as anti-Semetic because I understand that the people in power were Jewish priests as far as the church and the Romans. If anyone was going to kill Jesus, it would be them. However, it does not indict the whole Jewish population as being responsible. Jesus was not a victim. He walked into what happened to him with his eyes open. He openly did things that annoyed the powers to be. However, when you have unbalanced minds like Pastor Maurice Gordon out there, you can see how Gibson's film might fuel their anti-Semitism

            Therefore, we must be sensitive as to how others will view this film. If I were Jewish, I might be a little uncomfortable with the portrayal of the priests and those who are against Jesus. The High Priest and others there seem to exude evil. They are very darkly portrayed. Some have bad teeth. Whether this is blatantly anti-Semitic or a theatrical device is left up to the audience members interpretation. Also, since we are only dealing with the last twelve hours of Jesus life, unlike many of the other Jesus films I've watched, we dont get any background, and we do seem to catch the priests on a bad day. There are, however, some of the priests present that defend Jesus, so it seems a mixture of good and bad. 

            Pilate also comes across as pretty sympathetic. He comes across as a man stricken by conscience and who really wants to set Jesus free, but is defenseless against the powerful Jewish priests. This is blatantly wrong, from what we know about Pilate. Pilate, from what I've been able to glean, was a ruthless dictator who would have thought nothing of dispatching someone to the cross. Yes, the scriptures say that he feared a rebellion so he sent Jesus to be crucified, but this was a practical decision. Not a decision that he would have agonized over. Better to dispatch one radical Jew and keep the peace.

            The washing of the hands is open to interpretation. I am going to show you this clip from Jesus, where Pilate does it all mockingly. He's playing a game. Essentially, this is Biblical, and open to interpretation. Pilate gets off easy in Gibson's film.

The Violence

            Gibson's film is drenched in blood. Blood drips, oozes, flows, and puddles on the floor. Blood flies as whips and gouging instruments tear flesh off Jesus in 2 inch strips. I kind of joked, if you could joke with this film, by saying that you need to finish your popcorn before the first half of the film.

            The question is, is this an accurate portrayal of what happened? The bible merely says that Jesus was flogged. We don't know, and this was left open to Gibson to interpret. He obviously feels this was typical. It is also known at that time that they would flog those who were to be crucified so they would bleed and become weaker. This would not jive with this beating however, as Pilate in this film meant only to punish him severely but not kill him. And remember, that this flogging was pre-Barabbas release, so it does not, in this context, seem correct it would be so severe. If it has been after they released Barabbas, it would be in context. Therefore, I can only conclude that it is gratuitous, un-necessary, and merely a theatrical device. This is, after all, a Mel Gibson film, and Gibson has always liked the blood.

            I also will argue, after they flogged Jesus, he was strips of flesh hanging from him, and rips in his flesh every two inches or so over his whole body. He ceased, in this film, to appear human. I felt it was over the top. I really dont think I need to see the nail go through the hand and watch the blood go Poosh in order understand that being crucified hurts. A lot.  

            So, in closing, yes it is Biblical, yet Gibson seems to want to expand on the violence, and he takes every possibility here to show pain and suffering.

            With so much emphasis on the pain and suffering, it begs the question tha the only way that Jesus could be the perfect sacrafice was to suffer more than anyone ever did before. His death had to be so horrible and so painful and so awful in order to make him worthy. It was brought up in one of our Sunday School Discussions that as mostly affluent Americans, we could never really fathom being as physically abused as this. Yet, if we just go back 150 years or so, those held in slavery were whipped severly, and had those in power over them who could inflict physical torment and suffering on a daily basis. Jesus suffered a horrible death, but there are those in this world who suffer equally if not more horrible deaths every day. The manner and the severity of Jesus' suffering ultimately is not that important. In fact, the Bible spends very little time discussing it.

          Another point that makes some sense to me is that this intense suffering brings forth the theology and belief that if Jesus suffered more than anyone ever did for us, the terrible and bad things that happen to us are nothing compared to what Jesus suffered. This brings forth a whole line of garbage reasoning that says to women who are in abusive situations with their husbands that they should pretty much grin and bear it, because Jesus suffered so much more than they did. Yeah, right. And that ultimately is what is wrong with this film.

            Gibson focuses so much on the pain, the suffering, the torment, and the agony, that we lose really what Jesus message is. I was asked if I thought that it would be a good film to take someone to that knew nothing about Jesus. I ultimately have to say that as a conversion device, no it is not a good film for that. Jesus continues to live everyday in us. The film does not support that. Jesus hope what that things would transcend his pain and suffering and his message of love would live on. The film stops at the resurrection, and shows none of the results of Jesus suffering or his message.

            Lastly, the intense violence and focus on that is just bad history. Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post writes that this film deliberately distorts historical facts and presents them as if they are true. Gibson "made it very clear that the bloody scenes of beating and crucifixion are intended not merely to inspire devotion but to evoke a sense of reality, which is why the actors speak in street Latin and Aramaic, and why the make-up artists used so much fake blood. This may work cinematically, but it is also what has gotten Gibson into trouble. For it is precisely the film's purported authenticity that has lead so many New Testament scholars to publish lists of various distortions and to pronounce upon what their significance might be. Gibson behaves as if the attacks on him are anti-Catholic; in fact, they are anti-bad-history."

            Gibson's film follows as many Hollywood epics do, distorting reality into fiction. In the movie U-571 the Americans are shown as the ones capturing the German submarine and getting the secret code machine, when in reality it was the British. In the early days, D. W. Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION was a "historical" drama, but made the KKK look like angels. As I stated earlier, Gibson's portrayal of Pilate is anything but accurate as to who Pilate was. In fact, if my memory of history serves me, Pilate was removed from his post because he was so ruthless. The point is, the violence cannot be for sure determined to be historically accurate, because all we know is that Jesus was flogged. Yet, in Gibson's film, he portrays it as accurate. This is the basic problem I have with the violence in the film.

            Well, did I like the film? Yes, I actually did as a piece of entertainment, although it wont appear on by DVD shelf soon. As a historical document, it is pretty much like any other "historical" movie - it is based on facts and about 75% accurate with the rest embellished and made up.