Excuse the scattershot nature of these thoughts:
? First off, it’s unusual for one to know so much about a film before opening night. Apart from the ridiculous controversy, which already broke down several aspects of the film (it’s violent, it’s “anti-Semitic, it’s in Aramaic and Latin, &c.), the story itself is already known. So artistically for Gibson, the challenge was to find a way to tell a familiar story in a compelling way. And I think he did. The subtitles were not distracting, in part because spoken dialogue did not drive the film. Unspoken dialogue does, and there are many powerful moments where not a word is said ? communicated by penetrating, searching gazes from the Christ, anguished looks on the faces of the disciples, Mary’s pain, occasional glimmers of humanity (and compassion?) from the guards, Simon of Cyrene interlocking arms with Jesus around the cross.
? The violence. Yes, it’s gruesome, and there’s no escaping it. And yet it doesn’t seem gratuitous. Some reports said it could be numbing ? perhaps for some it could be, but it was not so for me. As Jesus progressed through the castigation to the crucifixion, each vividly recreated atrocity was an all-too fresh new horror.
? The portrayal of the Jews. Yes, Caiaphas and the Jewish religious leaders come off badly, and yes, the crowd yells for Jesus to be crucified. But these “defamations” must be viewed in context. Gibson shows some among the Sanhedrin vocally objecting to their treatment of Jesus, as well as many in the crowd reacting with shock, sadness and horror at what is happening. That is, Gibson does not depict anything approaching consensus among the Jews. Furthermore, the context of the film also makes it clear that political control is behind the crucifixion ? the Sanhedrin to regain and fortify it, and Pilate to stave off an insurrection.
? The portrayal of the Romans. Pilate gets an almost sympathetic treatment. Politically, as he sees it, he faces risk of insurrection no matter his decision. But he knows Jesus to be innocent, so his feckless washing-the-hands moment doesn’t come across at all as exoneration, and if that point is too subtle, Gibson uses the character of Pilate’s wife to judge him with her bewildered horror at his decision. The Roman guards are monstrous, sadistic beyond description, occasionally arrested by momentary stabs of conscious before plunging back into viciousness. Even Judas gets more sympathetic treatment from Gibson than they.
? Gibson makes it clear, through timely flashbacks of select moments in Jesus’ ministry, that the movie is about Love. In my opinion, whatever hate someone finds in “The Passion,” that someone brought it with him, because it’s not on the screen.
? Others have reported this at their viewings, but the somberness pervading the theater at the film’s conclusion was striking. I have never heard weeping at a movie as I did tonight. There were those who were just not of the constitution to take it all. I feel for the woman two seats across the aisle from me who was heaving sobs ? I don’t know if she finished the movie or not. But there were others.
? The movie itself, all things considered, is remarkable.
