Chronic Murmuring

Review of the Passion

Here is an interesting, in-depth review of The Passion. A dispassionate review of The Passion you might say (hah! I'm so witty!). Lots of coverage over what was and was not in the Bible in the review is interesting. He also contains numerous references to what may have happened, historically, had Jesus been condemned to die before or after he was flogged. Apparently, that matters, since the flagellum (the whip which shred Jesus's flesh) was normally used only on condemned men. It was used, but from what this author notes, it was normally used only on men who were condemned to die because it pretty much almost killed them as it was and the Romans wanted their death on the cross to be speedy. But the gospels, according to this author, don't agree on the context of the flogging. He writes:

"If the flogging was done after Jesus was condemned by Pilate, then using the flagellum would have been expected, because the Romans generally wanted prisoners to die quickly on the cross. The scourging alone would half kill a man. But if a man was not condemned, just sentenced to be punished, a flagellum would not have been used because it was potentially lethal itself. Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus was flogged before being sentenced to die, but John says he was condemned after being flogged. Gibson's movie goes along with John, but he has to account for the discrepancy of the Gospels. Hence, when the soldiers see that Jesus isn't properly subdued by the rods, they turn to the flagellum. The centurion enters and halts the flogging precisely because Jesus was not condemned. By then, however, Jesus has been flogged to a bloody rag of a human being."

He also recommends a prequel be made. He says the movie begs for it. Hadn't really thought of it that way. I suppose if Gibson is ever in the need for another $350 million, he might want to make a prequel to this movie. Think about that - doesn't it seem likely that Gibson has a virtual lock on this audience? A lot of the people who have come out of the woodworks to see this film were people who hadn't stepped foot in a theater in years. They didn't know about the multiplex, or the DTS, or the stadium seating. But this phenomenon is so strong it makes me believe that Gibson has successfully branded himself as a director much the way Spielberg has, and that were he to make another movie like The Passion, he could probably pool these people in again. While we may witness a plethora of religious films in the ensuing months and even years, I doubt that they will do as well as this one. Previous religious films did relatively poorly at the box office. I think the highest grossing religious film had been Jonah and the Whale (ie, Veggietales), and even it did badly. What I think people are identifying with is the sincereity of Gibson's vision and the intensity of the film itself. There's a certain amount of reputational capital that Gibson has accumulated in the minds of his audience that is not easily transferrable to simply any other director making a "religious film." Gibson may have the Midas Touch, if one exists, for at least a while longer, and one might expect him to strike the iron while it was still hot and consider making at least one more biblically-themed movie. If only to firmly establish Icon as a signfiicant player in Hollywood.

One last thing - the writer makes several good points about the two-dimensional presentation of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The most complex characters in the film, in my mind, were Pilate and Mary. Pilate especially, though. Yet the Sanhedrin was disappointing because Gibson doesn't really adequately portray why the death of Jesus was important to them. I think had Gibson designed their characters, and the drama of the trial, better, he could've made this film much better. Had we come away genuinely able to see the power and the tension pulling in different directions, and had we really understood and felt that the Sanhedrin was so enraged over this man's blasphemy and failed political efforts, it would radically improved the movie in my opinion.

This reviewer notes, though, that what Gibson presents to us is a theological justification for Jesus's death; not a historical, political one. He focuses on the necessity of the atonement and what that atonement accomplished for God's people. Just as Jesus told Mary, his death made all things new, and this paradox is captured well by the movie. Our good shepherd laid down his life for us, his sheep. His power was best conceived on the cross when he submitted to the rule of Rome, the injustice of the Sanhedrin, and the perfect will of his Father. So the fact that Gibson omits more historical detail surrounding the causes of the Jews' anger towards him may be because, given his soteriological and Christological objectives, that was outside the scope of the story he was telling. But arguably, it's not. Truthfully, to what degree can we really understand Christ's mission without understanding the political environment and the messianic expectations of Jesus's day? Having that would improve the story immensely.