Thoughts on The
Passion of the Christ
Nigel Lee
December, 2006
The Passion of the
Christ is unlike any other movie I
have ever seen. It focuses on the
central figure of the Christian faith, Jesus Christ, and the central event of
Christianity, Jesus’ death and resurrection.
With the exception of a few flashback scenes (all beautifully and powerfully
incorporated – see below), the movie only portrays the last twelve hours of
Jesus’ life. Thus, there is no character
development in the traditional
moviemaking sense. We see glimpses of
Jesus’ character in the way that He responds (or does not respond) to the
events that unfold before Him (and that eventually lead to His death), but by
the time the movie begins in the Garden of Gethsemane, He has already made His
mark on the world. His actions, His
teachings, and His miracles had already touched many, and one could proclaim
Him a great figure of history based solely on His life to that point. But it was His death and resurrection that
would transform and save humankind.
Many Christians
observe communion as a sacrament to commemorate the broken body and shed blood
of Jesus that enable our justification before God and the forgiveness of our
sins. In doing so, I believe that most
of us – myself included – give thanks for Jesus’ laying down of His life but do
not often think about the extent of His suffering prior to His death. The Passion of the Christ brings the
viewer face to face with that suffering in unrelenting fashion from beginning
to end. From the initial blows outside
the garden to the cruel lashes by the Roman soldiers (many of them shown, in
sometimes gruesome detail) to the continued beatings on the Via Dolorosa, truly
this was Jesus as the Lamb of God, wounded for our transgressions, bruised for
our iniquities. While I believe Jesus
suffered just a much (if not more) emotionally and spiritually from being
forsaken by God the Father on the Cross, our human response to His physical
suffering is more visceral. To the
non-Christian, the movie’s portrayal of Jesus’ suffering is probably a pointless
exercise in gratuitous violence. To the
believer, the realism of the suffering gives new meaning to the oft-quoted “By
His stripes we are healed” (Is. 53:5) and evokes an even deeper appreciation of
the depth of His sacrifice. No longer
can we glibly sing, “lead me to Calvary” ….
As mentioned above, we
do see glimpses of Jesus’ life through several well-placed flashback
scenes. Most powerful of these are the
ones involving Mary, mother of Jesus, interacting with Him as mother and son. There is a heart-wrenching flashback when
Mary remembers Jesus as a little boy, helping Him up after He had fallen. She had probably done this many times
throughout His childhood, in the way that all mothers instinctively protect and
comfort their sons. But now she can know
longer protect Him from the hands and whips of the Roman soldiers, and we
empathize with her helplessness. Of all
people, Mary knew who Jesus was, so we resonate with her fervent plea to Jesus
after he had endured the lashes of the soldiers: “When, where, how will You
choose to be delivered of this?” Later,
Jesus responds to her after being beaten again, “Mother, see how I make all
things new?” Here, we are reminded of an
earlier flashback to Jesus as a carpenter’s son, carefully working on a table
and proudly displaying the finished product to Mary. In the present, while He is suffering, the
phrase “make all things new” makes no sense, but we know from the book of Acts
that Mary lived to see her son resurrected, bringing new light to those and many
other words of Jesus.
One other powerful
flashback is Jesus’ remembrance of the adoring shouts of the crowd as He
entered Jerusalem on a donkey just one week before, to the cries of
“Hosanna!” In the present, the crowd is
still shouting, but only for His harm, viciously and without mercy. In this we see an unflinching depiction of
two aspects of human nature, how fickle we are (quickly moving from love to
hate) and how easily misled we are (especially as one of a crowd). Because of human nature, we can also relate
to the guilt (if not the actions) of both Peter and Judas for their parts in
the passion play. For Peter, thankfully,
godly sorrow brought repentance and, ultimately, restoration before the risen
Lord.
Much has been made
about the ending of the movie and its brief depiction of the risen Lord. From a moviemaking point of view, I can
understand why Mel Gibson might have chosen not to film the resurrection
scenes: in moving from the physical to
the supernatural, he would have risked the visceral connection of the viewers
to the experiences of Christ. The title
of the movie, after all, refers to the passion (i.e., suffering) of
Christ, not necessarily His supernatural victory over death. Yet, another part of me wishes that Gibson,
as skilled a filmmaker as he is, had at least attempted to film the
resurrection scenes, because after portraying the grief of Jesus and all those
around Him in such painstaking and realistic detail, there would have been a
tremendous emotional payoff in watching Jesus and His followers (especially
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Peter) rejoice in His
resurrection, with the accompanying realization by Jesus’ followers of the
wisdom of God’s plans. Christians know
how the story ends, though, and in a sense the emotional payoff is there
whether the scenes are depicted on film or reside in our imaginations. In the end, the power of the film is its
ability to draw us into the experiences of Christ in those last few hours of
His life, helping us to understand how great a victory it truly was on the
other side of the grave.