Rees' Pieces - Jesus Christ: New movie star

(Originally published March 2005)

I have a confession to make.

When I wrote last week’s news story about “The Passion of the Christ,” I wasn’t being totally objective.

Don’t get me wrong, I did my best and essentially did a good job.

But the bottom line was that, to me, the subject matter that the movie dealt with — the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ’s life — was the most important truth a person could know.

Judging by the killing it made at the box office (pardon the pun), I’m not alone.

In its first five days, the film pulled in a staggering $125 million.

With subtitles, extreme violence, and no stars, how did director and co-writer Mel Gibson pull it off?

He put in at least a dozen appearances before preview audiences of thousands of Christian evangelical church and media leaders.

Smart, considering Christianity is easily one of the most organized sub groups in America, with bookstores, radio networks and TV stations. By opening night, at least $10 million in opening tickets had been sold.

It is driven by people who are passionate about “The Passion.”

But hyping the message is not what this column is about.

The hype and controversy aside, how is “The Passion of the Christ” as a movie?

In two words: Violent and powerful.

The largely international cast is generally solid, all around.

I concede that the movie did not have much to offer in regard to story or character development.

Although sprinkled with several flashbacks of Christ’s life, I can see how a viewer who is unfamiliar with the Gospels might get lost with the who’s who and what’s what.

At first glance, it appears critics are possibly justified in their allegations that the film is anti-Semitic. At times, the Jewish high priests are depicted as a snarling bloodthirsty lot.

But then again, the Roman guards are disturbingly nasty as well, taking obvious delight in the pain they inflict in the blood bath leading up to the crucifixion.

I read an interesting point of view from a People magazine interview with Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern, who played Jesus’ mother Mary.

Herself a Jew, Morgenstern says she would not have taken the role if she felt it was anti-Semitic.
Of the movie, she said, “The Jewish people aren’t blamed. It’s the political, religious leaders who are awful.

It’s easy to manipulate a poor people,” she said.

Morgenstern grew up under Romania’s totalitarian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

“Ceausescu was mad,” she said. “Who’s guilty because we were starving? (People said,) ‘The Gypsies!’ So we have to be very careful, and the film speaks very clearly for me about manipulation.”

Several issues have been bought up over the accuracy of the story. Yes, Gibson took several dramatic liberties with some scenes in the film, but in a film like this, pinpoint accuracy isn’t so much important as the act itself.

With nearly half the film devoted to the torturing and crucifixion of Christ, Gibson certainly delivered on his promise.

“I wanted to impress on the viewers the enormousness of this sacrifice, the willingness — and the horror of it. I wanted to overwhelm people with it,” Gibson said in an interview with Readers Digest.

Mission accomplished.

It will most certainly be too violent for some, and I wouldn’t recommend the film to anyone under 13 years of age.

For viewers, it will either be a “sickening death trip” (The New Yorker) or “a very great film” (Roger Ebert).

In this case, the violence is the strength of the story.

I would argue that regardless of religious affiliation, the film’s theme of hope, love and forgiveness would resonate within almost anyone.