2008 Woodie Awards
The Last Word: Gibson's The Passion
Stacy Smith
Issue date: 4/21/04 Section: Arts and Entertainment
Between takes on the set for what may soon become the largest-grossing religious film of all time, during the director's zealous attention to visual effects and accurate scriptural translations, it is surprising and unfortunate that not a single member of the cast or crew of The Passion of the Christ reminded Mel Gibson that, very often in art as in life, "less is more."
By depicting Christ's agony in painstaking detail, the film attempts to whip and scourge its way to the viewer's heart, but most of the emotion we feel throughout is eventually only skin deep. Simply put, Gibson created violence that was graphic and brutal and, overall, not very interesting. It must be said that sometimes restraint can be more moving than disclosure. Subtlety can evoke more feelings than pools of blood or pounds of makeup. And yes, nuance is more thought provoking than pop-up demons or androgynous devils. Silly me, I thought these things go without saying ...
There are a few moments in the film, though, that redeem it from itself. Ironically, they were the scenes with little or no violence that roused the most feeling. Let me tell you- these aren't very many. One particularly touching moment is a flashback of Jesus as a young carpenter with Mary, his mother. Mary tells her son to remove his apron before coming into their home and he, in turn, playfully splashes her with water, kissing her on the cheek. This is the Jesus I would have liked to seen more of.
I also would have liked to see James Caviezel's acting during the cross-carrying scene, but it was difficult to see anything but the makeup and blood. Oh well. I bet it was pretty decent, too. The acting was generally well done, but this is not saying too much. I can just picture Mel Gibson on the set, shouting out directions to the actresses playing Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus. Take one: "Okay, ladies, now, umm, act sad!" Take twenty-two: "All right, more sadness." Take 506: "Uhh, okay. Now really seem distraught!" Of course, I understand that the actors are not going to tap dance at the crucifixion, but I felt that by the final scene the overwhelming sadness of the entire film was, well, overwhelming.
Maybe I am expecting too much. After all, this film only portrays the last twelve hours of Christ's life, so the lighter elements will obviously be absent. But it was those moments that I kept yearning to see more of, only glimpsing them here and there in short flashbacks of Jesus' childhood, ministry and Last Supper. It would have been these moments, the lighter ones, which would have really inspired. Christians would say that Jesus died for us, but I would add that he lived for us as well. It is his mission in its entirety, life and death, light and dark, that make any motion picture about him truly compelling.
For those of you that feel similarly and would like to see a truly great film in this vein, rent Jesus of Nazareth. Made for television in 1977, this version is by and large the best adaptation of Christ's life ever filmed. Director Franco Zeffirelli created a motion picture with such passion, intensity, and obvious sincerity, that it has become the standard against which all other Jesus movies are judged. Robert Powell brings a sensitivity to the role which, at the time, was something like a revelation compared to all previous on-screen portrayals of Christ. Every pause he makes while speaking, every word he emphasizes when preaching, every glance, every gesture, is simply perfect. The guy IS Jesus. (Well, that sort of blue-eyed, European Jesus we all have catalogued in our brains). And, best of all, the way in which the crucifixion and scourging scenes are presented is more creative and intriguing than anything seen in The Passion. If you want Hollywood, buy a ticket and see The Passion of the Christ. If you want heart, rent Jesus of Nazareth.
By depicting Christ's agony in painstaking detail, the film attempts to whip and scourge its way to the viewer's heart, but most of the emotion we feel throughout is eventually only skin deep. Simply put, Gibson created violence that was graphic and brutal and, overall, not very interesting. It must be said that sometimes restraint can be more moving than disclosure. Subtlety can evoke more feelings than pools of blood or pounds of makeup. And yes, nuance is more thought provoking than pop-up demons or androgynous devils. Silly me, I thought these things go without saying ...
There are a few moments in the film, though, that redeem it from itself. Ironically, they were the scenes with little or no violence that roused the most feeling. Let me tell you- these aren't very many. One particularly touching moment is a flashback of Jesus as a young carpenter with Mary, his mother. Mary tells her son to remove his apron before coming into their home and he, in turn, playfully splashes her with water, kissing her on the cheek. This is the Jesus I would have liked to seen more of.
I also would have liked to see James Caviezel's acting during the cross-carrying scene, but it was difficult to see anything but the makeup and blood. Oh well. I bet it was pretty decent, too. The acting was generally well done, but this is not saying too much. I can just picture Mel Gibson on the set, shouting out directions to the actresses playing Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus. Take one: "Okay, ladies, now, umm, act sad!" Take twenty-two: "All right, more sadness." Take 506: "Uhh, okay. Now really seem distraught!" Of course, I understand that the actors are not going to tap dance at the crucifixion, but I felt that by the final scene the overwhelming sadness of the entire film was, well, overwhelming.
Maybe I am expecting too much. After all, this film only portrays the last twelve hours of Christ's life, so the lighter elements will obviously be absent. But it was those moments that I kept yearning to see more of, only glimpsing them here and there in short flashbacks of Jesus' childhood, ministry and Last Supper. It would have been these moments, the lighter ones, which would have really inspired. Christians would say that Jesus died for us, but I would add that he lived for us as well. It is his mission in its entirety, life and death, light and dark, that make any motion picture about him truly compelling.
For those of you that feel similarly and would like to see a truly great film in this vein, rent Jesus of Nazareth. Made for television in 1977, this version is by and large the best adaptation of Christ's life ever filmed. Director Franco Zeffirelli created a motion picture with such passion, intensity, and obvious sincerity, that it has become the standard against which all other Jesus movies are judged. Robert Powell brings a sensitivity to the role which, at the time, was something like a revelation compared to all previous on-screen portrayals of Christ. Every pause he makes while speaking, every word he emphasizes when preaching, every glance, every gesture, is simply perfect. The guy IS Jesus. (Well, that sort of blue-eyed, European Jesus we all have catalogued in our brains). And, best of all, the way in which the crucifixion and scourging scenes are presented is more creative and intriguing than anything seen in The Passion. If you want Hollywood, buy a ticket and see The Passion of the Christ. If you want heart, rent Jesus of Nazareth.
Be the first to comment on this story