“The Passion” leaves lasting impression on viewers

“The Passion of The Christ” is, by no means, a tale of the life of Jesus Christ. Make no mistake before seeing it. The movie follows the rather treacherous ending of that life, the noblest life in history.
The movie entails basically two hours of whippings, beatings, nailings and other such tortures enacted upon the Christian savior of the human race. While at first it might seem inconceivable that people would want to see such brutality, as the movie’s gross revenue will testify, this is not the case.
People are going in droves to see this movie, not because they want to see Jesus tortured and killed, but because there is a natural obligation one feels to bare witness to this event. Perhaps by watching this graphic portrayal we can get a sense of how Jesus felt, and thus feel closer to him in his final hours.
As far as directing goes, the movie does have its moments. Judas’s death scene was particularly graphic and perhaps more horrifying than Jesus’ death simply because it doesn’t rely as heavily on blood and gore as it does mental tribulations and perhaps insanity. Jesus’ death isn’t horrifying. Bloody and painful yes, but not at all horrifying. Director Mel Gibson reminds us in small flashbacks why Jesus is dying. If I have any problem at all with these torture scenes it’s the slow motion shots. Countless scenes are shot in various slow frame rates, which unrealistically hold the audience in a particularly painful moment even well after its point is made. One or two slow motion shots may have been relevant, but to slow down the entire second half of the movie seems a bit extraneous.
The music was brilliant. I’m a big fan of movies that don’t need a lot of music to keep you in your seat, but when a movie is as strung out as this one, the music becomes the gratifier. It becomes that thing which keeps you calm while you are tearing up inside, like an anesthetic before painful surgery. If this movie really wanted to be realistic, it would have dropped the slow motion and the constant soundtrack, which I can guarantee would have made it twice as painful, but Mel Gibson’s point wasn’t realism. It was giving the audience a sense of presence, a sense of the pain and tribulation that the Bible covers in only a page or two. In this case it succeeds, hands down.
This movie isn’t “Titanic,” and it isn’t “Shindler’s List.” It doesn’t rely heavily on the events that led to the occurrence, nor does it envelope you in a thick line of subplots, which provide exposition to Jesus’ crucifixion. The movie is quite simple and easily explained. The majority of the story is told within the first hour. The second hour is only an astonishing mood piece that seems to go on and on and on. Consequently, this movie isn’t a movie that you have to see twice in order to pick up all of the little details.
I believe this movie has noble purposes and is a film worth seeing. However, given its lack of in-depth story, and its exhausting length, one hearty viewing should be all that is required of this film.

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Apr 9 2004. Filed under Other. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry