Chronic Murmuring

AO Scott Reviews the Passion

The NYTimes' excellent film critic, A.O. Scott, has reviewed The Passion. His criticisms of the movie are that it is indeed too violent and gory, to the point of actually harming the narrative Gibson is telling. But he also criticizes Gibson for what I think might be best described as Gibson's cinematic conservativism. He writes:

"What makes the movie so grim and ugly is Mr. Gibson's inability to think beyond the conventional logic of movie narrative. In most movies — certainly in most movies directed by or starring Mr. Gibson — violence against the innocent demands righteous vengeance in the third act, an expectation that Mr. Gibson in this case whips up and leaves unsatisfied.

On its own, apart from whatever beliefs a viewer might bring to it, "The Passion of the Christ" never provides a clear sense of what all of this bloodshed was for, an inconclusiveness that is Mr. Gibson's most serious artistic failure. The Gospels, at least in some interpretations, suggest that the story ends in forgiveness. But such an ending seems beyond Mr. Gibson's imaginative capacities. Perhaps he suspects that his public prefers terror, fury and gore."

While critical of the movie, Scott struck me as actually giving a balanced critique. He notes the excellent performances of the main cast - Belluci, Caviezel, and the actors playing Pontius Pilate and his wife. Scott is the second person I've read who notes that the most psychologically developed character, apart from Jesus, is Pontius Pilate, and possibly Caiphas. Scott hints that more could have and should have been done with these characters.

The purpose of the film, in Scott's eyes, seemed to be this extended meditation on the violent death of Christ. I suspect that it's because of Gibson's preoccupation with the passion of the Christ that the movie does may not provide much in way of narrative arc. But, this is not necessarily a criticism - if anything, it notes the ballsiness of Gibson. Scott writes, "By rubbing our faces in the grisly reality of Jesus' death and fixing our eyes on every welt and gash on his body, this film means to make literal an event that the Gospels often treat with circumspection and that tends to be thought about somewhat abstractly. Look, the movie seems to insist, when we say he died for our sins, this is what we mean."