Reviewing the Passion -Mar 23, 2004

The Passion of the Christ is a well-made film. The acting, direction, cinematography and score are all very good.

But the film is far from perfect. The violence is overdone to the point where it seems unrealistic and often unnecessary, unless one assumes the audience has been so desensitized to violence on screen that this amount of blood was required to make the audience cringe and actually feel the pain.

I can’t believe any man who was beaten and whipped as Jesus was in this film could possibly remain conscious, let alone walk and carry a heavy cross.

And the dialogue was largely unimaginative, most of it taken straight out of the gospels. Where some imagination was used (e.g. the horror elements connected to Judas and Satan), I, for one, did not appreciate it.

But my biggest complaint is that those who are not familiar with the gospel story will not make sense out of a number of the scenes, from the opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane to the scenes of the last supper to the woman caught in adultery.

Still, there are moments of creative and moving beauty, as when we follow a drop of rain (God’s tear) to the ground beside the cross when Jesus dies. And the film is well worth watching if you’re looking for a gut-wrenching, agonising and deeply disturbing, if somewhat morbid, depiction of the suffering of Jesus. Taken on its own terms, The Passion of the Christ really is quite a good film.

Unfortunately, the subject matter of the film, and its treatment by the media and the church, make it difficult to review this film strictly as a film.

The Passion of the Christ has become an evangelistic tool and is even being marketed as such, with previews aimed at church leaders who can encourage their parishioners to go see the film.

Leaving aside the question of whether the marketing campaign is an attempt to use Jesus to make countless millions of pounds (what would Jesus think about that, I wonder) or to genuinely bring the gospel story to the masses, the use of the film as an evangelistic tool must be challenged.

Yes, the film’s language and setting, and even the depiction of suffering, provide a far more accurate depiction of the last hours of Jesus than most of its predecessors. One can taste the dust and the blood and feel the poverty and oppression.

However, when viewed theologically the film becomes quite dangerous.

Primarily this is due to the complete absence of a context for Jesus’ suffering and crucifixion. Why did Jesus suffer and die so horrifically? The film provides no clear answer.

Accusations are made by the Jewish leaders but they can’t mean much to anyone not familiar with the whole story. And that’s the problem. It is not the whole story. By focusing entirely on Jesus’ suffering and death, we get no sense of Jesus’ life, no reason to think his life was necessary except as a prerequisite for his death; no reason to connect the way Jesus lived and taught to his crucifixion.

Not that this is new to Christian theology. From the development of the creeds to what has become the standard atonement theory (which views salvation in terms of Jesus dying on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins), the life of Jesus has been neglected. Jesus lived so that he could die for us – end of story. If one accepts this traditional view, then perhaps the film is right in failing to provide a context for Jesus’ death. All we need to know is that he was sent to die.

The fact that this makes it look like God willed and orchestrated the horrific death of God’s own innocent son is generally overlooked, except by atheists. But to overlook the role that Jesus’ life had in his death is inexcusable.

Jesus died the way he did because of the way he lived. It was Jesus’ challenge of the powers of evil and oppression around him that brought him to the attention of the Jewish and Roman authorities. Jesus exposed and challenged the oppressive structures around him (including violence, exploitation of the poor, sexism, racism, etc.) and made visible the reign of God, a kingdom of peace and justice. The powers that be could not let such a man live. But God raised him from death and thus vindicated the life and ministry of Jesus.

The Passion of the Christ repeatedly makes the point that Jesus loved and forgave those who were torturing and killing him. Jesus’ way of nonviolently challenging the powers went all the way to his dying breath on the cross. The film is on solid theological footing here, but how will it connect with those who watch it? Nothing in the film seems to relate to the life of the average man and woman, either then or now. It is a spiritual experience between God, the Son and the devil that might reveal how much God loved us but doesn’t say much about how we are to live our lives or how we are to live in a world full of violence, war, poverty and oppression.

Despite the accusations of anti-Semitism (the film is no more anti-Semitic than some of the gospels), the film does not make clear who is to blame for Jesus’ death. It doesn’t suggest that we are all complicit in the horrific suffering and death of Jesus when we fail to follow Jesus in challenging the powers; when we continue to live in a world where a few (us) live in luxury while countless millions suffer under oppression and poverty, without acting daily to change that world and witness to the reign of God.

Do I recommend watching The Passion of the Christ? If you have a strong stomach and want to reflect on the intense suffering of Jesus in his last hours, then yes. If you want to introduce someone to Christianity or see what Christianity is all about, then no.

Vic Theissen is director of the London Mennonite Centre