Write Or Wrong 70

Passionate

NOTE: I am not religious at all and, as such, the views and interpretations in this article a merely seen from the dissection of this film and it's religious roots. There are no religious beliefs being endorsed, just my views on the film and what exactly the whole fervour around the film had caused.

So, unless you've been living in a cave for the past few months, you've heard about "The Passion of Christ". From Christian religious groups, to Jewish groups, to the media in general, this film has generated more controversy than any movie in recent memory. In fact, I even wrote a column on this topic a few months back. You can read it at here. All of this has stemmed from the apparent depiction of Jews as the cause of Jesus torture and crucifixion at the hands of the Romans in a manner that would cause "anti-Semitic sentiment" and, to a lesser extent, the brutally graphic portrayal of the aforementioned torture of Jesus. Many groups decided to boycott the film and blindly continue to denounce without any first-hand knowledge of what occurs in it. But we can leave the judgment of stupid, judgmental people for another time.

And unlike those narrow-minded folks, I decided to go see the film with a group of friends. Incidentally all of them were named Michael, which means judged by god. Funny how things work out. But I digress. As we all stood on line, waiting to purchase our tickets, one of the Mikes mentioned how people were taking the movie so seriously. Too seriously, in fact. And as such, we decided to lighten the mood and make some Jesus jokes. Suffice to say our brand of humour was met with some of the angriest glares and grimaces I've ever seen. But we kept on. As we approached the ticket window, we all asked for tickets to 10:10 showing of the films using some ridiculous title. Mike #1 asked for a ticket to "The Messiah Revolutions". Mike #2 asked simply for "one ticket to Jesus, please?" Mike #3 got rather ridiculous and called it "X-Jesus: Hebrews Divided". As I got to the ticket window I wanted to be clever, but all I could muster was "uh, one for Ultimate Jesus Smackdown." The ticket-guy got a chuckle out of it, but when I turned around and, unbeknownst to my pals, we were all being looked at with even more disdain. In that one second, I realized how deadly serious people were about this movie.

Now knowing how truly serious people were about the movie, I sat in my seat and contemplated why people would feel such powerful emotions in regards to this situation. It's plain to see that when the topics of religion and politics are broached, along with racial/ethnic matters, people tend to get very sensitive. And when groups of people get overly sensitive, the special interest groups join the fray. So I look at it as a situation where a group of Jewish folks were upset about supposed "anti-Semitism" in the film and turned to some Jewish lobbyist group which, in turn, began the whole rant about anti-Semitism." But I guess we'll never really know what started it all. And what about the supposed plethora of graphic violence? Well, people should not be strangers to massive amounts of physical carnage and mayhem. Movies like "Black Hawk Down", "Saving Private Ryan", and "Gladiator" have gone the extra mile to add some semblance of realism to the blood, guts, and gore of violence. Not just having explosions and bombs going off, but showing the immediate traumatic results of physical violence. Yes, it's not real, but it aims for realism.

And as the lights dim, my thoughts turn to the film. The film begins almost immediately, as there are no trailers, and it begins with a shoot of the night sky. A full moon, glowing with a magical radiance shines. In a dark, fog-laden forest, we see Jesus of Nazareth standing. He is praying yet he seems scared. Almost terrified. (WARNING, IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS FILM WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ANY SCENES, PLEASE STOP READING NOW!) And as Jesus prays to his father, God, he seems to be aware that something bad is going to happen. Guards (or soldiers) sent by high-ranking Rabbis come upon Jesus and three of his Apostles in the forest and a fight ensues. One apostle, the traitor, Judas, identifies Jesus for the guards with the infamous kiss on the cheek. Another apostle, I'm not sure which, runs. Another stands and fights the guards, to defend Jesus. Through it all, Jesus remains eerily calm and calms the apostle that was fighting the soldiers. Jesus even heals a soldier who suffers a knife wound inflicted by the defendant apostle. And from here we see Jesus chained and taken to stand before the Rabbis who were after him. After denouncing him as not being the "Son of God", they take him before the local Roman authorities for punishment. The leader of the Romans, Pontius Pilate, seems sympathetic towards Jesus. Now, as I've read it, and seen in various interpretations of this story, Pilate was portrayed as a cruel and ruthless enforcer of the law. He was painted primarily as the cause of Jesus' torture and ultimate crucifixion. But Mel Gibson changes things around by making Pilate a more sympathetic character that will go to almost any length to spare Jesus. And through it all, one overly vocal Rabbi heckles Pilate into a point of embarrassment where he must torture Jesus to save face amongst his constituents.

What follows is some of the most brutal and graphic violence ever committed to film. What sets it apart from the violent films I mentioned earlier is that the violence is so personal and visceral. The Roman soldiers who beat Jesus do so with an utter glee resembling the bloodlust of a predatory animal. They chain Jesus to a post, beat him with long thin sticks and watch him writhe in sheer agony, all while enjoying it. But these scenes show something else. The way you see Jesus move, the way his eyes deaden and his posture seems both defiant and submissive, is a message sent by the filmmaker as to Jesus' feelings about this beating. And what comes after the beating with the sticks is even more heart wrenching. Just when Jesus is slumped on the ground, apparently succumbed to the pain, he stands again. That's when the guards grab the "Cat O' Nine Tails", a whip-like instrument of torture with multiple lengths of whip that have hook-like bones on the end. This weapon, wielded by the Romans, tear into Jesus and rend his flesh with vicious force. And through this, I sat and realized the message that Mel Gibson was trying to get across to the audience. He was illustrating that Jesus was receiving this punishment for humanity. He was being punished for humanities sins. And the fact that he was deathly afraid of this, and could have fought his captors to escape shows two things. The first is, that while he is of a divine birth, he is also human. He feels fear and sorrow, but is willing to go through with the torture because of its importance to the rest of humanity. The fact that he gets up after the first beating just shows how committed he is to see that humanity is cleansed of sin. As such, Gibson gets this through with a disturbing clarity.

And through the rest of the film, we bare witness to Jesus hauling his crucifix through the streets while many weep for him. And as those around him weep, the soldiers escorting him to the area where he will be crucified continue to viciously pummel him. When he can no longer carry the crucifix by himself, an onlooker is drafted to assist Jesus and the dramatic results are plainly beautiful and painful. While this is going on, we see Mary, Mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene weeping and trying to follow along and help Jesus. We witness flashbacks to focal points in Jesus' life or his teachings. And in one beautiful scene, we are shown cross-cutting edits of Jesus falling with his crucifix and of him falling down while playing as a child. In both scenes, his mother rushes to his aid. Only this time, she is powerless to help him.

And at the end, we witness Jesus being nailed to the cross and set for the masses to behold. What follows is something I don't want to ruin for any potential viewers. And I've neglected to mention, the Devil. Throughout this film, the incarnation of the devil appears to Jesus at multiple times. He seems to taunt Jesus and show him that is suffering is all for naught. But, to be honest, I wondered exactly what purpose this served in telling the story. Of all of Gibson's decisions about this film, this one confused me the most.

But judging this movie from the standpoint of a fan of cinema, this film is truly amazing. Being based on the gospels from the Bible, which I have little more than a passing knowledge of, this film seems accurate. But since it is a film interpretation of holy text written years after the death of Jesus, there are bound to be some inaccuracies or artistic changes. And the film is shot with visual brilliance by cinematographer Caleb Deshanel. The colours of the scenery and simple camera work get the story across the screen and don't overshadow the plot with stylistic camera shots. And I have to say, if you're Christian then I would think this would be a watershed film for your faith. It's respectful of the source material and retains a savage realism not seen in many films today. The actors performances were simple, elegant and heartfelt and the direction was economic. What I mean is that it did what it needed to tell the story without letting style get in the way. But the major sticking point for me about this film is the fact that it is spoken using Aramaic and Latin, the pre-dominant languages of that era. It gives a sense that we're not just viewing a movie, but that we're somehow eaves dropping on those events without anyone being wise to our presence.

And on the topic of "anti-Semitism", I got no sense of any such sentiment in the film. The movies portrayal of Jews seems authentic in that some were supportive of Jesus and some weren't. One of my friends who I saw the film with, who just happens to be Jewish, summed it up best when he said, " I didn't see any anti-Semitism in that flick. You either gotta be really stupid or really racist to see that message in that movie!" And I completely agree. All of those allegations were baseless and now I look back and see what utter idiots those people were to assert such claims. But I guess this world is full of idiots and when they have something that the media finds interesting, we're going to hear all about it.

So now you know the truth, or at least my version of it. Tossing aside the religious and controversial aspect of this film, it will amaze you. It's truly a triumph of film making, in a very traditional and simple way, but it will let you know the passion of filmmakers and power of movies, and for some of you, the Passion of Christ. Until next week, folks.

Note: For those of you that want to read my previous column on this topic, it is just below this one. Enjoy.

Belief of Expression vs. Expression of Belief

"How we were all connected t'one another by the stars an' wind an' seasons. How each livin' thing were intertwined like some great quilt. An' how ignorance were nae limited by borders or oceans alike." - The Witching Hour

About a month or so ago I was online doing some random web surfing as many of us do from time to time. I happened upon a movie website and noticed that they had a viewable trailer of The Passion, the Mel Gibson-directed biblical epic that had been generating some major buzz in the movie community for a few months. The buzz came for quite a few reasons. First off, Gibson decided that for authenticity and general realism the whole film would be spoken in Aramaic and Latin, the two major languages spoken in the films topic region at the time that Jesus walked the earth. Now, in hindsight, this really doesn't seem all that big a deal when people learned more about the film. The second major buzz generator was that the film is `graphic'. When I say graphic, I mean realistic and generally unrelenting. The blood caused by violence flows as it does in the real world and the causes of those traumas are depicted with an eerie eye for realism. Stonings, bodily assaults, and the ultimate biblical violence, crucifixion, are shown without regard for the faint of heart. Now I applaud this decision by Gibson. The fact that he is striving to make a biblical film and keep with the reality that truly horrible atrocities occurred in that deeply religious tome makes for a compelling story. He's not shying away from all those things that every other Bible-based film from The Ten Commandments to The Prince of Egypt did. And that bothers people. They seem to want to be enlightened, inspired and entertained by these type of films yet are willing to ignore the fact that, if these stories are true, some truly awful things happened. For the films to truly have their full and desired meaning then this should not be a problem. Sometimes, for good things to come about bad things must happen.

And while I'd love to conclude this column with those thoughts I just can't ignore the fact that even more controversy has arisen about this film. It seems that Jews, Catholics and Protestants alike have taken a great dislike of the film due to the nature of certain scenes that are thought to depict Jews in a negative light in regard to the death of Jesus, and therefore might cause a rise in anti-Semitic sentiment. And do you know what happened when this information hit the media? Yes, you are correct, the story became a major media blitz. Information surfaced about how Mel Gibson belongs to a sect of the Catholic Church that does not recognize the authority of the Pope and the Vatican. Word of how Gibson's father, a minister, stated publicly that he didn't believe that the holocaust happened. And to add even more fuel to the fire, when people heard the aforementioned information about the two Gibsons, they realized that it added up that because of his disregard of the Vatican's authority, the younger Gibson rejected the 1965 decision by the Vatican to clear Jews of `deicide'. For those of you not in the know, that means that the Vatican pretty much put out a press-release stating that the Catholic Church didn't hold the Jews responsible for the crucifixion and subsequent death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

But this doesn't really mean anything except for the fact that in addition to all these negatively perceived personal beliefs and facts about the film, there was an even larger problem. One of the aforementioned scenes that are thought to be over the top and in support of anti-Semitic sentiment was a scene where the amount of Jews in public went against another Vatican decree. As stated by the accord set by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1988, for films involving the death of Christ, the rule went so far as to advise against making the scene at Roman Governor Pontius Pilate's one were the Jews present were a small crowd and not a large mob. This was intended to portray Jews as people in a crowd and not those truly responsible for Jesus' death. Gibson went against this by having a large amount of Jews in said crowd and this truly angered Jews and Christians alike. And while everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and each faith has their own beliefs, does that mean that people that are attempting to express themselves through a creative medium like film should be stunted.

Now, as a creative person who expresses my beliefs through writing I completely understand that all creative undertakings should be done in a manner that makes no effort outright to push any obviously hateful or hurtful point of view as the truth. I understand, that while many don't like it, there should be censorship for certain things. But what is occurring in this situation is just ridiculous. Here is a film depicting the events of one of the holiest texts in the world in a realistic and respectful way. The director has a certain vision of the film. His take on the reality of things, if you will. And because his beliefs and overall views differ from the majority who share his religion and those of a faith so closely historically intertwined with his own faith, his project is being attacked. Not because it is hateful. Not because it is in anyway outright disrespectful to the faiths depicted in the film. But because it goes against the norm. It goes against those `rules', spoken and unspoken, that govern our global society.

A creative person exercises their point of view and beliefs through their works, whether they admit to it or not. And generally people accept this. It allows us to question things that we might not agree with. It allows us to go back and forth and discuss our beliefs and spread our knowledge so that we have a greater perspective on life. This is what people say, anyhow. But it's the expression of belief and how it is truly stifled in this world. If your beliefs or those expressed by a creative work are not those that the general public or large groups of power believe in, well, you're out of luck. Most likely you're out of luck. But if you create a work that is artfully crafted and reverent to the material in the manner that others wish it to be, then you're as good as gold. It's the belief of expression, the one that is unspoken and dictates that we say all those things that people will accept or at least tolerate, but keep our more `radical' thinking to ourselves. But I guess that translates into `political correctness'. But I guess this is the type of situation that has arisen before. When The Last Temptation of Christ made debuted in theatres, it was met with harsh criticism. An even greater backlash occurred when popular writer-director Kevin Smith released Dogma. People attacked these two very different yet religious-themed movies to no end. The Last Temptation of Christ was a brilliant film, exploring many concepts and characters set forth by the bible. It just so happened that it was done so in a manner that the Vatican and most Catholics were uncomfortable with. And the fact that Dogma poked fun at the obvious shortcomings and generally acknowledged awkwardness of some of the Catholic Church's belief system only served to anger people more. And even though most of the people who protested the film hadn't even seen it, they claimed to know what they were talking about. Kevin Smith, a professed Catholic, stated that there was no disrespect intended by the film, as it was just his way of exploring his faith. But that didn't matter to people. I remember one news segment that aired around the time of the films release where an old man made a statement that truly awed me. And not in the good way. The man said something to the effect of, " People are allowed to say what they feel, but not if it's like this. Things that people don't like." Yeah, well, ignorance is bliss, isn't it? But I guess that's what this boils down to; ignorance and closed minds.

People naturally accept only those things that they want to believe in and this doesn't stray from that mindset. It's a futile thing to discuss anyhow because most people have their beliefs and won't even accept that other people expressing opposing ideas might have some validity. Hopefully, one day we can all open up and be ready for to deal with those things that were uncomfortable with. Those concepts and ideas that aren't exactly the ones we use to view the world. Hopefully, one day, the Belief of Expression can coincide Expression of Belief. People won't have to be afraid of `radical' beliefs and people with `radical' beliefs don't have to be afraid of the vocal majority. Is that too much to ask?