When I first heard that Mel Gibson was going to direct “The Passion of the Christ” I really got excited. It had little to do with the fact that I consider myself a Christian, or even the fact that I knew it was going to stir up controversy. Nope, it was little more than the fact that Gibson was involved. I had complete faith in him as a director due to his work on “Braveheart”, and to a lesser degree “The Man Without a Face.” With every little tidbit of news that hit the Internet about the production, I would get a little more excited. It seemed the project was going to break all the rules. First off, it was going to be simply titled, “The Passion.” Then I learned that it was going to be filmed in the languages of the time. It was also reported that the film was going to be released with no sub-titles. This one really got me going, because it presented such a strong challenge to the actors and Gibson. They had to be able to reach the audience through their body language and expressions, not to mention counting on prior knowledge of the final 12 hours of Jesus’ life.

I knew it would work from all ends. Everyone knows the story, regardless of their belief of lack thereof.

As time went on, the studios (I would assume) forced Gibson to include sub-titles since they didn’t have faith in the audience’s willingness to watch a film in a foreign language without them. Then there was a worry about name recognition. A film called “The Passion”, sounded more like a romantic Merchant Ivory film. The title was lengthened to “The Passion of the Christ”, and it was marketed to church groups like no big budget film ever had.

Even before the film opened, the controversy began. There was a buzz in every conversation I had with friends and colleagues for months. Some felt Gibson had no call to make a film like this, considering the types of films he had been in before. Then, once the early screenings started all…ahem… HECK… broke loose. There was a strong divided line between those who thought the film was an accurate portrayal of those final hours, while others denounced the film as anti-Semitic. Then there were the splinter groups who claimed the film was too bloody and gory, more gratuitous that glorifying.

More and more I couldn’t wait to see “The Passion of the Christ.” It had gone way past my own personal curiosities, to almost more of a professional necessity. Since all my peers know me as ‘that guy who writes reviews’, I was bombarded almost daily with questions. Did I like it? Did I hate it? Was it good/bad/indifferent? I had to see the film just so I could answer the mass of inquiries that were coming my way. (It may sound like I’m exaggerating, but I ain’t!!)

Finally, the film hit theatres. Guess what happened? Every attempt I made to see it, every plan I put together… fell by the wayside. Everything from last minute appointments to sick kiddies kept me away. It almost seemed like a divine intervention telling me I wasn’t supposed to see it. So “The Passion of the Christ” came, it blew out the box offices, and then it went. I never had the chance to see it in the theatre. You cannot imagine the frustration.

So, when the film finally made it into my hands (and that is a whole other story of apparent D.I.), I had to watch it, come he… I mean heck… or high water (almost did it again!). Now that I’ve finally seen it, I’d have to say in my estimation; “The Passion of the Christ” almost delivers everything it promises. It is bloody and extremely violent; sparing no opportunity to make you feel the pain and agony Christ went through in his final hours. I could spend days talking about the effects in this film, but I will not. Suffice to say, if you watch the film, prepare to have to turn away often.

As for the controversies surrounding the film, they are without merit. The very idea that “The Passion of the Christ” is anti-Semitic springs from the minds of those whose only knowledge of anti-Semitism is how to spell it. Yes, the film portrays Christ’s death at the hand of the Jewish people. But… well… that’s what happened for crying out loud! Saying “The Passion of the Christ” is anti-Semitic is like saying “Schindler’s List” is anti-German because it portrayed the Nazis in a bad light. So, to those who are slapping the film with that label, get a grip (or better yet, get a job).

There are also a few Christians who are knocking the film for the presence of an ethereal ‘evil’ moving through the film as well as the bloodiness of the film. On that first complaint, those of the religious persuasion should welcome this presence in the film. And I don’t mean welcome in a good way, but be glad that this presence is used as an acknowledgement of the existence of ‘evil’. The film is meant to be a visual representation of the events, so how else can you visualize this presence? It works well within the context of the film.

As to those with comments about the gratuitousness, I can only relay a conversation I had with a very religious co-worker before the film came out. She wasn’t complaining so much because the film was supposed to be so bloody, but because she didn’t think she could stomach it. Her concerns were different, but I’ll make my point in a second. I simply asked her if Christ had to endure all that physical pain and suffering, would it not be hypocritical of a Christian to not be willing to suffer the pain of only watching it. Wouldn’t that be considered a small price to pay compared to the price He paid? My view is that a part of Gibson’s point was to make viewers feel the anguish Christ went through, and how else can you do that without being so graphic? Sugar-coating the film would be an injustice to the real events.

Now, sharp-eyed readers will notice that I used the term ‘almost’ earlier when I said the film delivered what was promised. Here I where you will find my only nitpick of the film. If the intent of the film was to convert lost souls to Christianity, I don’t think it will do it. In order to reach that audience “The Passion of the Christ” needed to tell more of the story. There was too much focus on those last 12 hours and not enough on the events of His life. What made him so special (depending on what you believe), was the idea that he was the son of God, and we weren’t shown enough of that.

Christians who have spent their lives reading the Bible, or at least familiarizing themselves with His life will be moved by the film, but I’m not so sure it will emotionally move those who aren’t. Of course, in order to do this it would have had to have been a longer movie and financially it probably would have been self-defeating to have filmed it as such. Three and Four hour movies aren’t doing as well in theatres these days, and releasing it as a Volume 1 and 2 might not have worked as well as it did for “Kill Bill” considering the subject matter.

Aside from that observation, I cannot recommend the new DVD of “The Passion of the Christ” enough. The transfer more than does justice to the magnificent cinematography, bringing the imagery (visceral though it may be at times) to life on the TV screen. There are no extra features at all on this release, and I have mixed feeling about that. On the surface I have to ask myself if a film this emotionally powerful needs to say any more, yet the ‘film guy’ side of wants to see more on the technical side of things. I also want to hear what Gibson would have to say on a commentary, hoping he would share his thoughts on the all the controversy. I imagine it would extremely enlightening.

Directed by: Mel Gibson
Starring: Jim Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Claudia Gerini, Maia Morgenstern, Sergio Rubini, Toni Bertorelli
Extras: None
Specifications: Widescreen, Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Release Date: 8/31/2004
Region 1
MPAA Rating: R (For Scenes of Graphic Violence)
Website

We'll give The Passion of the Christ an A.