"The Passion of the Christ"

Directed by: Mel Gibson

Starring: Jim Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern, Monica Bellucci, Hristo Jivkov, Mattia Sbragia

Rated: R (for brutality, bloodshed and strong, strong violence—should be NC-17)

Running time: 128 minutes

Best suited for: The curious, the devout—who choose to regard the film in the context of understanding and improving their lives, not degrading those who might disagree

Least suited for: Children (under the age of 16 or so), the weak-stomached, the squeamish, the chronically argumentative, adamant fanatics who don’t understand the meaning of "artistic interpretation"

I’m blissfully agnostic—hence I found myself immune to the religious fervor surrounding Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of the Christ." Having been born and raised Roman Catholic, I’m familiar enough with the material not to be shocked by the atrocities. And, as a cynic, I entered the theater fully expecting to trash the film as Mr. Gibson’s self-serving homage to his extremist beliefs.

But the film is not what I expected.

"The Passion" is one man’s interpretation of the last 12 hours of Christ’s life on earth. I’ll be candid: this movie is horrifically brutal—perhaps even gratuitously so. While I didn’t find the violence misplaced, given the context of the story, I do believe some will disagree. There are scenes extremely difficult to watch.

However, will viewing "The Passion" alter your current beliefs? I doubt so. Will the film move you, even to tears, regardless of your faith? Probably. Will it make you think? Most assuredly. And that, in my opinion, is the most compelling reason to see "The Passion."

I could talk about lighting and plotting and nuance, but most viewers aren’t likely to focus on the technical aspects. Many have questioned the film’s accuracy in portraying Christ’s final hours—yet nobody knows the exact details of that day. We have biblical accounts, although after 2,000 years of translations and interpretations, how much of the scriptures remain verbatim? Even biblical scholars don’t claim to know with absolute certainty.

According to those same theologians, the earliest writings of the New Testament were not penned until some 50 years after Christ’s death. Even the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John slightly differ. And only the Gospel of Thomas is thought (by some) to deal with the authentic translation of Jesus’ words. Yet shouldn’t all religion be open to moral and spiritual interpretation? Christianity is not a science.

Some wonder if the "The Passion" is anti-Semitic. It isn’t. The film depicts Jerusalem’s high priest, Caiaphas, as vehemently opposed to a prophet’s (one of probably many during Caiaphas’ reign) proclaiming himself as the Messiah. Yet, if not for 2,000 years of historical and religious hindsight, would we have behaved any differently? How many wretched souls even today are locked away in asylums, heavily medicated and forever isolated because they’ve proclaimed themselves to be Christ’s second coming? Have you ever stopped to wonder—what if one of them actually was?

But, as Christian doctrine teaches, if Christ died for the sins of humanity, then his death was necessary for our eternal happiness. To quote the source: ". . . Jesus, knowing that all things were accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled. . . ."—John 20:18

Aren’t those who condemned and executed Christ not only irrelevant, but preordained? Christ was Jewish, as were His people. If it makes one feel better to blame the Romans, blame the Romans. Historically, the buck stopped with Caesar. (If this offends Italians, I extend my apologies.)

And consider this: How different would Christianity be—would it even exist?—had Christ died naturally, unsymbolically, of old age?

Is "The Passion" a good film? Technically, it’s decent. Unlike earlier religious films—"Jesus of Nazareth," "The Robe," "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and "King of Kings"—this one does not overwhelm us with its implied reverence. It depicts Jesus’ last hours as a mortal, a man who’s both fearful and uncertain of his own destiny. The soundtrack tends to be overly lush—as if a soundtrack is even necessary to punctuate the events unfolding onscreen. But I can overlook this. And although the film is lacking in traditional plot structure, capturing only the final act of a very complex epic, it certainly illuminates the most important act. Under the circumstances, I can overlook this as well.

Also relevant (and remarkably unnoticed by many critics) is the depiction of a mother’s love for her Son. Mary, played with dignified desperation by Maia Morgenstern, is a fundamental element of Gibson’s interpretation. While resigned to subplot, Mary’s relationship with her Son is the most moving, perhaps most inspirational piece of the film. When men die, for beliefs either foolish or noble, it’s the mothers who suffer the most. Mary represents the torment of ages.

Jim Caviezel is outstanding as Christ, undoubtedly playing the most complex and unconventional role of his career. Much has been made about Charlize Theron’s Oscar-winning portrayal of a serial killer in "Monster." Caviezel’s physical transformation is no less astounding. The actor literally disappears in the first scene—no easy feat, under the circumstances.

The film, by the way, is voiced in Aramaic and Latin, with English subtitles. While next year’s Academy Awards may well ignore Caviezel’s performance for a variety of reasons, I believe to exclude him from nomination would be—well, a sin.

One last comment about Gibson’s vision. I’m disappointed with those who don’t understand the meaning of "artistic interpretation"—who complain because this film doesn’t conform with their particular vision. Controversy can be an occasion of thoughtful discourse, not merely blatant dismissal. And I’m disappointed with critics who condemn the film not for what it is, but for what it isn’t. "It should have been more joyful," said one critic recently on NPR. "It should have been less stylized." And, of course, "It should have been more Biblically accurate."

"The Passion" is what it is. And isn’t that how each of us should be judged?