FanUnity B(uzz)log

I have entered few movies with such anticipation as I entered The Passion Of The Christ. Star Wars Episode One and The Return Of The King are really the only comparisons on that level. Return Of The King exceeded every expectation, while Episode One failed most. The Passion Of The Christ fell somewhere in the middle. Though I cannot say I was dissatisfied with what was in the film. Just with what was not.The film is extremely beautiful, with the use of color and the ethereal photography washing the film is an otherworldly mood. The costumes, the use of Aramaic and Latin, the rich sets, all contribute to transport you to Christ’s time and place. Of particular beauty are the opening sequence in the garden and most strikingly a shot at the end of the film from a lower angle, looking upwards at Christ on the cross, suffering before he dies. The latter shot is one of the most beautiful in cinematic history and rivals any painting of Christ I’ve ever seen.

In start contrast to the beauty, is of course the pain. Suffice it to say that there has never been more graphic and gruesome violence on film that what happens to Jesus for almost the entire running time of The Passion Of The Christ. It defines the word brutal.

The acting in the film is phenomenal, especially by Jim Caviezel. Working with little in the way of dialog and little material in the film that separates Jesus from just any man who might have utterly tortured in such a way, Caviezel infuses the love, gentleness and warmth of Jesus into his eyes in a way that is one of the core reasons why this film works at all. All of the other cast are excellent as well, with particular note to the character of Mary the mother.

What makes the film disappointing is not what is in it. It is certainly not anti-Semitism, which I did not find in the film — though I think one who looks at the film and wants to see anti-Semitism will see it in a Rorschach effect. What makes the film infinitely weaker than it could have been is the fact that Gibson fails to show enough of Jesus’ life. By only showing The Passion itself on the film, he is preaching to the choir, not telling the whole story of Jesus. Unless you are familiar with the story of the Last Supper, the story about Jesus saving Mary Magadelne, the Sermon On The Mount and the many other stories of Jesus’ kindness and love — unless you bring that baggage into the film — the movie has a limited effect. What is shown on the screen doesn’t tell those stories, just sparks recollection in those in the audience who already know them.

What is truly disappointing about The Passion is that Gibson is the exact filmmaker in all of history who could tell the whole story of Jesus on film in a way that is profoundly moving. His skill for storytelling and his religious devotion are a unique combination that make him perfect for the task.

Imagine, for example, if Gibson structured The Christ similar to Braveheart, another messiah movie he made. If he started with a brief bit in the childhood, and then moved forward to the growth of Jesus’ message. If he built this section up, showing Jesus righting wrongs, healing the unhealable and challenging the status quo for something better … imagine how powerful what he showed in the actual film would have been. True, many people in the theater were sobbing, shaking and weeping at the film Gibson did create. But imagine if Gibson reintroduced them to why they love Jesus so much just before showing his betrayal and brutal torture. Imagine if Gibson had only started Braveheart with the capture and torture of William Wallace … the impact of the film would have been stunted. That’s exactly how I think of The Passion Of The Christ. Had Gibson given it the full treatment, it would have been the most emotionally powerful cinematic experience ever.

What makes The Passion Of The Christ disappointing to me is the missed opportunity. Gibson had the chance to make the definitive cinematic telling of Jesus’ story, and all he focused on was the brutal torture. Had I not been exposed to Christian teachings, I would not have understood the significance of Jesus and of his sacrifice through the film. I believe it is an incredible work of Art. What Gibson did show, he did exceedingly well. It’s just that the scope of the film was too limited, and film Gibson should have made is The Christ and not just The Passion Of The Christ. I believe it should be nominated and strongly considered for the Best Picture Oscar. I believe Jim Caviezel should almost certain win Best Actor. It believe it is a 4.5/5 star film. It’s just that extra half star that Gibson failed to attain that bothers me about this movie.

4.5/5 Stars.