Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ:”
Yet another review . . .

Dr. Alexander Roman alex@unicorne.org

If Hollywood were truly innovative, one might expect that the next Academy Awards presentation would include nominations for the “Most Controversial Films” category. Should this ever occur, there is no doubt that “The Passion of the Christ” would win Oscars all around . . .

Although Mel Gibson has talked about the millions of dollars he has personally invested in his movie about the suffering and death of Christ, there is no doubt that he will more than make up for his investment as the film is truly a box-office hit – and we are barely through the movie’s first week on the big screen.

Hollywood, in general, is ignoring this movie, while Mel Gibson and the movie’s fans are generally ignoring the Hollywood naysayers.

What is of particular interest here, however, is the way in which religious or irreligious perspectives are being expressed in opposition to the film through the medium of artistic criticism.

One movie critic went public as saying that he hated the movie. After affirming that he was not a Christian, as if that should matter when dealing with the supposedly dispassionate job of movie reviews, this individual went on to condemn the movie for its lack of . . . Christian theological content (?!).

There was no explanation, he said, anywhere in the movie about the theological underpinnings of what people were seeing. And why, he asked, were Catholics so supportive of Mel Gibson when Gibson belonged to a schismatic RC group that was not in union with Rome?

The movie also promotes anti-Semitism, he said. Did not a Pentecostal group somewhere in Kentucky put up a sign that read, “The Jews killed Jesus?”

The critic then went on to discard the movie because of its scenes involving the gruesome scourging of Jesus.

This was “proof positive” that the film’s director was probably letting his own “homo-erotic” issues come to the surface . . . not to mention the tremendous violence exhibited throughout the movie!

There are also similar reviews of this movie by those who openly admit they had not seen it – nor had any intention of ever so doing.

They refuse to engage in the controversy surrounding the Passion for fear of adding to the overall interest in it that contributes to its already great viewership.

After all, which movie director/producer doesn’t pray for the kind of pre-screening controversy that Mel Gibson has garnered?

There is no doubt that Christians of all stripes in North America, including entire church congregations and parishes, feel they should stand shoulder-to-shoulder in supporting this movie and Mel Gibson’s person against the kind of vitriolic attacks that he has been subjected to.

There are entire parishes that go to see the movie together and continue to do so. Other individuals go simply to see what all the controversy is about, whether or not they have a strong interest in the subject that is depicted in the film.

And there are people, sincere Christians, who come away from the film with all sorts of mixed reactions. Some come away in tears, ready to amend their lives in a radical way. Others come away from it shocked by its horrific depictions of torture and suffering.

What is certain is that Hollywood is powerless to stop the phenomenon represented by the interest in “The Passion of the Christ.”

Hollywood’s representatives appear quite silly in attacking this particular movie for its “undue violence,” “lack of theological content,” “controversial subject matter” and even for its alleged “homo-eroticism” – as if Hollywood has ever been above actively promoting all of the preceding, time and again, with its regular film productions.

But Hollywood has, by now, exhausted any moral high ground it ever had in the first place with which to come up against this movie.

It is a fact that the public opposition to this movie has contributed greatly to its popularity. Many Christians (and, truth be told, there are very many Christians in North America) go to see the movie not only because of what it is about – but also because of a sense of a moral responsibility to support it within the context of what has become a “Christianity versus the World” paradigm.

Christians are voting with their dollars and purchased movie tickets in favour of Mel Gibson and The Passion.

As for the movie’s potential to evoke anti-Semitism, that is a real issue, to be sure. The European Passion plays of medieval times certainly did promote hatred against the Jews.

But, as some Jews have said, Mel Gibson is no enemy of the Jewish people. There are, to be sure, some very real enemies of Jews in the world – but Gibson is not one of them.

In fact, if this movie provokes Christians into actually reading the Gospel accounts of the Passion of Christ, they can actually see (in many cases, for the first time) that Christ’s suffering was voluntary and that He Himself affirmed that NO ONE could take His Life, but that He laid it down Himself. And, as He said, He also had the power to take His Life back up again.

As a matter of fact, the Gospel of John emphasizes Christ’s total power over those who wished to kill Him.

As Judas approaches Jesus in the Garden together with the armed band that came with him to arrest Him, Jesus “knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth and said to them: Whom seek ye?

“They answered Him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I am He . . .

“As soon therefore as He had said to them: I am He; they went backward, and fell to the ground . . .” (John 18:4-6 Douay-Rheims Bible).

Clearly, the idea that Christ was somehow at the mercy of anyone during His voluntary Passion can only be had in direct opposition to the New Testament that affirms the contrary. It also affirms that Christ’s suffering and death were God’s Will for our salvation and sanctification.

And Christ was put to death, according to God’s Will as the New Testament affirms it, by Jews and Romans, both of whom represented the fullness of humanity, which includes all of us, that had and have fallen short of the glory of God by sin, and by Adam’s rebellion in particular. St Paul’s writings confirm that the Jews lost nothing of their primary status as God’s Chosen People and that they continue to hold that status under the New Testament as well.

The movie’s graphic depiction of Christ’s sufferings is certainly part of Gibson’s movie genre as anyone who has seen Braveheart will readily recognize.

In addition, Gibson is a member of a traditionalist and break-away Catholic group where great emphasis on Christ’s Passion in all its horrendous detail has always been its hallmark.

The Christian East has tended to emphasize the Resurrection and Glory of Christ, on the other hand. The Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem is, at the same time, called the “Church of the Holy Sepulchre” by Roman Catholics.

While Roman Catholics tend to begin meditating on the Passion of Christ throughout Lent (the movie itself was released on Ash Wednesday), the Christian East limits the veneration of Christ’s Passion to the week before Pascha or Easter.

Lent or the Great Fast is regarded as a kind of personal conversion period to a more intense spiritual life, an entry into a real catechumenate where we join with those preparing for Baptism in reigniting the fires of our inner Love of God.

Some Orthodox leaders have, quite legitimately, critiqued the movie for its lack of similar emphasis on the Resurrection.

Others have expressed their concern for the feelings of those of the Jewish community for the potential of anti-Semitism showing itself in response to the movie.

Ultimately, time will tell what this movie’s legacy will be for cinematography (if not for Hollywood) and for Christianity in North America.

But no movie or film may ever add to our understanding of Christ that we, as Christians, and as Orthodox Christians in particular, should always be nurturing through our own Life in Christ through the Church – the scriptures, the liturgy and the mystical/sacramental life, especially via prayer.

If those attending this movie in theatres somehow think it may do for them what they’ve refused to let the latter do for them in their lives until now – they will be sorely disappointed indeed.

If the movie does not lead one to a more intensive Life in Christ – and that alone – then the movie will have failed to live up to the expectations of many in that regard.

Ukrainian Orthodoxy