![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/227\/2014\/01\/passion-lastsupper.jpg\" "\\"passion-lastsupper\\"")
<\/a>EVERYTHING you know about The Passion of the Christ<\/a><\/i> is wrong. For over a year, the film\u2019s most vocal critics have said Mel Gibson\u2019s movie about the death of Jesus is anti-Semitic, while its most vocal supporters have said no, it\u2019s only an accurate representation of scripture and history. In truth, the film is neither.<\/p>\nFirst, the charges of anti-Semitism. It is true that Gibson\u2019s film tends to divide the Jewish race into those who follow Christ and those who try to have him killed; and it is true that The Passion<\/i>, like many other films in this genre, is too soft on Pontius Pilate (in contrast to the callous, vicious figure<\/a> portrayed by Luke and Philo), which has the unfortunate effect of making the Jews seem just that much more responsible for Jesus\u2019 death.<\/p>\n But Gibson also goes out of his way to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus and his followers. The first time we see his mother and Mary Magdalene, they recite a key passage from the Passover seder<\/i> about being set free from slavery; and when the Roman soldiers force Simon of Cyrene to carry Jesus\u2019 cross, one practically spits the word \u201cJew\u201d at him. While Gibson could have gone further with this than he did, he never lets us forget that the Jews at this time were the victims of oppression.<\/p>\n In addition, a look at Gibson\u2019s earlier films reveals he is anything but anti-Semitic. In his 1993 directorial debut, The Man without a Face<\/a><\/i>, Gibson plays a classics tutor who feels dehumanized by his community, partly because one side of his body is covered in burn scars, and the first Shakespeare passage he recites is Shylock\u2019s \u201cHath not a Jew eyes?\u201d speech from The Merchant of Venice<\/i>. Thus, Gibson draws an implicit link between his marginalized character and a Jewish character who also feels cut off from society.<\/p>\n So both Gibson and his film are a lot more complex than their critics give them credit for. But The Passion<\/i> is also more complex than its supporters seem to recognize.<\/p>\n It is quite telling that the only way many Christians know how to defend a work of art is to assert that it is an \u201caccurate\u201d adaptation of scripture, as if to minimize its artistry or creativity. It is even more telling that many Christians make this assertion even when the work of art in question contains several elements that are quite definitely not<\/i> accurate.<\/p>\n In his portrayal of the crucifixion, Gibson rejects modern historical scholarship<\/a> wherever it interferes with the details of his medieval vision. He also erroneously identifies Mary Magdalene with the woman caught in adultery; and where Luke tells us an angel visited<\/a> and strengthened Jesus in Gethsemane, Gibson has Satan pay Jesus a visit and taunt him instead. There isn\u2019t necessarily anything wrong with these sorts of artistic decisions \u2014 but they are not exactly \u201caccurate\u201d.<\/p>\n And of course, Gibson puts a lot of violence in his film that is nowhere to be found in the gospels, or even in the visions of Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich, the stigmatic nun whose Dolorous Passion<\/a><\/i> partly inspired this film \u2014 so much so that you can\u2019t help wondering whether Gibson, who won Oscars for producing and directing the gory medieval revenge epic Braveheart<\/a><\/i> (1995), is indulging his more sadistic side.<\/p>\n As Hollywood Worldviews<\/i> author Brian Godawa rightly points out, every film about Jesus is a product of its time, and that is as true of The Passion<\/i> as it is of the others. But The Passion<\/i> is also a highly personal film on Gibson\u2019s part, so it also reflects his own artistic and theological inclinations. And in order to fully appreciate this film, we will have to talk about it in those terms.<\/p>\n This column is not a review of the film, which will be released to theatres across the country February 25. But to help put the film in some sort of broader artistic context, here are a few points to consider.<\/p>\n First, recent war movies like Saving Private Ryan<\/a><\/i>, Black Hawk Down<\/a><\/i> and the Gibson-starring We Were Soldiers<\/a><\/i> have gone out of their way to be more violent than the movies that came before them \u2014 but why? Is a film more truthful just because it is bloodier than the others? Martin Scorsese\u2019s The Last Temptation of Christ<\/a><\/i> and the Visual Bible\u2019s adaptation of Matthew<\/a><\/i> were also once hailed for their grisly crucifixion scenes; does the law of diminishing returns apply to the violence of Jesus films, too?<\/p>\n Second, just as Braveheart<\/i> was about nothing if not the definition of masculinity, Gibson seems to want his Jesus to be more manly than the others \u2014 that is, to be more tough. Jesus commits the film\u2019s first violent act, as he crushes a snake underfoot, and he practically invites a second round of flogging by standing up straight and showing the soldiers he can take their abuse. Has Gibson perhaps reinvented Jesus in his own masochistic image?<\/p>\n Third, as Thomas Hibbs argues in his excellent book on nihilism in pop culture, Shows About Nothing<\/i>, recent films have tried to find a sense of meaning by boldly proclaiming the existence of evil. If evil exists, then good must exist too, right? Gibson\u2019s film, with its vivid depiction of human and demonic cruelty, seems to fit that pattern, but should a movie about Christ settle for that sort of message?<\/p>\n Fourth, the film\u2019s poster says, \u201cDying was his reason for living,\u201d and there is some truth to that. But did not Jesus rise from the dead? Did he not say he came that we might have life abundantly? Frederica Mathewes-Green<\/a> notes that the church fathers tend to speak of Jesus\u2019 death within the broader context of his Incarnation \u2014 so might it not be more accurate to say that living was Jesus\u2019 reason for dying?<\/p>\n Finally, note this film\u2019s use of flashbacks and point-of-view shots. Traditionally, films about Jesus have protected his divinity by objectifying him and keeping him at a distance; more recent films have explored his humanity by treating him more subjectively \u2014 we see his dreams and hear his thoughts \u2014 but they have also tended to lose sight of his divine authority. How does The Passion<\/i> deal with these matters?<\/p>\n It is by asking questions like these that we can go beyond merely \u201cusing\u201d the film as a ministry \u201ctool\u201d and truly engage with both the art and theology of Mel Gibson\u2019s disturbing, inspiring, and always challenging cinematic vision.<\/p>\n