.. what does the controversy surrounding the passion of the christ tell us about the place of religion in contrast to the 21st century? ..

Throughout cinema history, the 'Jesus Film' as Hollywood terms it, has been one of much controversy. The early films of Christianity, such as the 'the king of kings' (Circa 1927) by Cecil B. Demile, up to more contemporary titles such as Martin Scorsese's 'The Last Temptation of the Christ' (1988) have all caused some amount of split between public opinion and academic thought. Scorsese's in particular; right wing protestors labeling it historically inaccurate, as it portrayed Jesus' human characteristics over his divine qualities and focused on the visualized temptation of the fornication scene between Mary Magdalene and Jesus.

Leading up to and on the 25th of February 2004, when Icon Entertainment was to release 'The Passion of the Christ', the controversy surrounding this film more than any other Jesus film before it, reached boiling point. This study looks at the controversy surrounding the film, how this film represents religion, and how it is viewed in contrast to today's society.

The passion of the Christ conveys the catholic biblical account of Jesus Christ's last twelve hours on earth and within this time has the visual depiction of his crucifixion. The script is in Latin and Aramaic to add a certain authenticity to the film, and the cinematography is in the style of what Mel Gibson wanted to reflect as being "like a Caravaggio painting". Already, we can ascertain from this, that it suggests the film is going to be a somewhat romanticized depiction of the last hours of Jesus' life. However, this juxtaposes the actual content of the film, which is extremely violent.

In addition to the scriptures, there are borrowed influences from artistic imagination and other Christian writings, namely that of Anne Catherine Emmerich, who wrote many teachings that were filled with Anti-Semitism, one of the other areas of controversy.

The Passion of the Christ opens with a credit from the book of Isaiah, Stating "He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; by his stripes we are healed". It seems a peculiar way to start a film, without credits or without any form of introduction or music. It breaks from the conventions of many films, and as such leaves the audience in a state of uneasiness.

When the film opens it is a somber mood. Ambient, menacing music plays over fog and mist-ridden forests. This reinforces the uneasiness, and throws the audience 'in at the deep end'. This correlates to the overall narrative of the film. The story of Jesus in the gospels is long and full of incident, whereas here, we are giving only the remainder of Jesus' time on earth, not the full story. We are literally thrown into the culmination of a story where much has passed, yet many people who have never encountered the gospels will know nothing about. There are a few flashback episodes, charting major moments in the life of Jesus, but these are few and far between and are very short in length, and no explanation is given for them either. Perhaps this suggests that as a society we are not patient enough to start at the beginning of a story. Perhaps getting to the action, is all that a paying audience want? This opening seems to reflect this.

Further on from this we get our first image of Jesus, the main protagonist. He is praying in the garden of Gethsemane; Distraught looking, sweating profusely and kneeling in submission. This is not the stereotypical depiction of Jesus within a Jesus film. In other films and in gospels themselves, Jesus is said to have prayed and angels come down to comfort and re-assure him of his faith and strength. Here, Jesus is seen frightened, tormented by his faith rather than calmed by it. The human characteristics here depart from the 'totally divine' and sometimes 'beyond human contemplation' ethos that Jesus in other films usually has, and as such gives the audience the chance to empathize with him, as we can understand what he is going through; fear is a emotion everyone is aware of or has experienced. It isn't surprising that Jesus, who in the bible is 'guaranteed victory' is show as being frightened. Within our western culture, there seems to be this ever-growing fear of the world. Since the 9/11 attacks, we have surrendered to media pressure that terrorists are all around us and we must always be aware and/or afraid. It's unsurprising then, in the way that the media has used religion itself to show Jesus as being scared and afraid. It echoes the society we live in. Compared to other Jesus films such as 'The Last Temptation of Christ' and 'Jesus: Man Behind the Millennium' which were made before these attacks, The Passion of the Christ makes Jesus look awfully vulnerable and as such, could give the audience a relation to Jesus that is Media produced, not spiritually produced. Todd May, in his article 'Religion, The election and the politics of fear' Re-iterates this point 'Since 9/11 the politics of fear has become the point of intersection between the political/corporate elites who run this country and the religious elites and their flock who offer them the mandate to do so'. This opening scene tells us much about the motives of the makers, and how this movie does run like a parallel of modern western society. This relation to Jesus is explored further when tabling the effects of the cast. Firstly however, the controversy of the film needs to be accounted for.

When The Passion of the Christ was put on general release, its director Mel Gibson, wanted people to respect it as a work of art, he himself, describing it as "His masterpiece". The reaction he got however, as Brian Godawa (Author of 'watching films with wisdom and discernment') puts it, was ' …Cries of "foul" from liberal religious scholars and left-wing Jewish activists.' Its interesting to compare this complaint to the vilifications experienced by the 'The Last Temptation of the Christ' which was blamed for being historically inaccurate as it used fictional moments to entertain, whereas Gibson's film, complaints were made because of the historical accuracy of the film. The main bodies of protestors against The Passion of the Christ were predominantly Jewish, and this raises the first point of controversy; The Passion of the Christ divided opinion over charges of Anti-Semitism. There are a few instances in the film with references to this, initially when they put Jesus on trial. People are asked to give witness. When Jesus speaks, and says '…coming on the clouds of heaven…' chants of 'blasphemy' reverberate around the court. This show of anti Judaism has coaxed many to see the film in this way. Secondly, during the scourging scene, Satan walks through the crowd smirking at Jesus. It is an interesting point that he starts his walk nearest to the Chief rabbi's of the Jewish council. They all have the same kind of blank expression, having connotations of no remorse, and this could be seen as an implicit message, portraying the Jew's as committing the biggest sin. This is reiterated later on, when Pontius Pilate and Jesus exchange words;

Pontius: 'What will you have me do, I have the power to condemn or free you?'
Jesus: 'You have no power over me than what is given you from above, therefore it is he that delivered me to you that has the greater sin'

Furthermore, after the scourging scene, when Jesus is beaten into a bloody pulp, showing hardly any characteristics of being a human being, the Jewish leaders start a cry of 'Crucify him', which eventually leads to the decision of Jesus' demise. The Times Online states that 'The Atmosphere is one of sharks in a feeding frenzy'. It is interesting to note, that the Jewish Rabbi's are at the forefront of 'the mob' that is trying to condemn Jesus. It suggests that everybody is just following them, handing a real Anti-Semitic message over to its audience. This scene, which is arguably historically accurate, caused a lot of conflict to the writers Benedict Fitzgerald and Mel Gibson, as before production, they were asked by Jewish officials to revise this scene and others as it 'contained Ant-Semitic messages that might be damaging'. On watching the film, Abraham H. Foxman, of the anti-defamation league said 'The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus…' This point is challenged by Godawa, himself saying"Foxman, and others like him, appear to be more concerned about cultivating their own preconceived cultural agenda than historical accuracy…Imagine the Jewish activist outrage that would occur if an Egyptian leader said about the film the ten commandments, `The film unambiguously portrays Egyptian authorities and the Egyptian mob as the ones responsible for the decision to enslave the Jews`"

This split in public opinion of the movie is hardly fuelled by artistic merit of the film, but rather as Godawa puts it, '…political and religious chauvinism. The left wing prides itself in supporting freedom of expression and tolerance of religion - except when that religious expression is conservative biblical Christianity. Then it should be censored with extreme prejudice'. It appears that in today's society you aren't allowed to express your feelings on religion at all, this also echoing the film quite closely as Jesus himself wasn't allowed to express his feelings on religion, and furthermore the Jewish rabbi's themselves adhered to strict roman constraints on how to worship. This shown by a Jewish guard telling the roman soldiers that they had brought in a prisoner who had 'broken the temple laws'. The way he says this however is in a tone of obedience and he fears and respects the guards by his facial and body movements.
Godawa's complaint holds its own, when over 80% of the time any Jewish people are displayed in a positive light. For instance, the protagonist, Jesus', is a Jew himself, hence the term 'the king of the Jew's'. Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face and other Jews in the crowd cry out against his condemnation. The disciples are portrayed as honest, if but scared men. Even Judas to an extent is shown to have a conscience, battling with the devils he has after betraying Jesus in the opening scene.
The exclamation that the film is Anti-Semitic is argued again by the fact that most of the beating and pain Jesus suffers is at the hands of the roman's. When they torture Jesus, or as the film inadequately puts it 'Chastise' him, the roman soldiers are blood thirsty and barbaric, The Times Online saying that 'The Roman soldiers were drunk on sadism'.

The whole point of the film that many people have failed to categorizeand that the controversy surrounding the film has clouded so that many cant see it, is that Jesus Christ was sentenced to death because of all mankind. 'All our sins combined sent him there is what the film is trying to get across' says Gibson. In the crucifix scene, it was Mel Gibson's hand we see knocking in the nails. He said of this 'It was me who put him on the cross. It was my sins.' Most of the so proposed Anti-Semitic messages are backed up by another controversial element to this film, and that is the violence.

You can be forgiven for thinking that a film about Jesus, the most peaceful man that may have ever to lived, would be a peaceful celebration of his life. The Passion of the Christ however doesn't gloss over the front of its biblical sources. The mainstream 'Jesus film' throughout history has barely ever received a certification above (PG) rating. This is because there seemed to be an over reliance on the directors who took on such projects, not to offend or harm anybodies beliefs or customs. The passion of the Christ received an (18) certificate. Why the need for all the violence? Perhaps in the society we live in violence is part of our everyday existence. We are barraged with limitless programming and advertisements of things that promote violence everyday. Noam Chomsky said 'Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state'. Maybe this has more literal crossover applications than intended. Our propaganda on TV is full of violence. Perhaps in this democratic society, which is so desensitized to violence, that the only avenue left to explore was the one that is considered taboo and sensitive. Pluralists could argue that to bludgeon religion with violence is a natural step in giving the people what they want. The people want to be shocked. But why religion? It seems that the only thing left to consume our society with is violence. Movies, books, video games. It was only a matter of time before it spilled into religion and with so much emphasis in the western world on violence (strange for a 'civilized' society) it shouldn't come as much of a surprise. There is the question of why not concentrate on the bibles more descriptive sections on the shame side of the crucifixion, the total embarrassment of it. Although it seems quite plausible that we in the west are not very alert to understand shame, with shows like 'Trisha', 'Big Brother', 'Wife swap' etc.

Over many years, Christian images of the crucifixion have become somewhat decorative; sanitized for mass marketing. In the bible there is hardly any reference to that actual torture experienced, Bruce Fisk a leading professor of the New Testament at Westmont University said, "-Watching it felt almost voyeuristic, perhaps because the grisly details of Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion received such scant attention in each gospel. Pilate 'took Jesus and scourged him,' we read. Soldiers 'put on' the crown and 'struck him' (John 19:1-3). Even more restrained are the hushed descriptions of Golgotha: 'there they crucified him' (Luke 23:33)-". The reality of the film is that it takes these minimal accounts of the torture, and exposes them for what they could have been. In the film, the crown of thorns is placed upon Jesus head tightly, and then lowered to his head with a stick, thorns crushing into his head exposing blood. The scourging scene is unrelenting, whips and spikes dig into Jesus' back, and when you think it's all over, the Roman soldiers flip him and continue on his front. The reality of the film, makes it much more shocking after so many years of desensitization. Even though it is so graphic, and a testament to what Jesus may have endured, it will affect different people in different ways because we live in a society of many different cultures. Initially, on the day of its general release, Ash Wednesday, Peggy Scott, a woman from Kansas collapsed of apparent heart failure while watching the crucifixion scene. Where does this leave religion in society? Religion is supposed to heal and calm people. It seems that in this particular case, The Passion of the Christ is going some lengths to doing the complete opposite.

Furthermore, the violence raises even more questions and adds to another area of controversy. Money. Before the film was released, people in academic circles were already talking about the Passion of the Christ, because of its violence. The media spin put on this film was fierce, and could have been planned all along by the director and executive producers to get notoriety and to get its product sold. 'Any publicity is good publicity', or should that be 'god publicity' in this case? Speculative as it may be, it happens more than one might think, just recently Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' gained public interest by being controversial, censored and slammed by critics. It cannot be underestimated, as the Passion of the Christ went on to make over 260 million dollars, more than any other Jesus film. Does this show the place of religion in society? That of a money wanting cult that exposes its followers rather than relieve them. Churches don't even pay tax on the land that they own, and hold considerable power ideologically and politically. Maybe with this film, religion has found a new way to make money, by exerting its power through the media.

In the film James Caviezel - A white, American Christian, plays the protagonist. Taking into consideration that the rest of the cast is European and know the basics of the Latin language, why did the producers go to such great lengths to ensure a white American actor played the lead role? If it were for commercial purpose to get star power to fill seats then why not choose a Brad Pitt or Tom cruise. People with track records. Is there an ulterior motive? Does the film in any way reflect today's society, in which the iconography of Jesus being a white American actor, connotates that America, as a super power will free and liberate you, and give you redemption? This is put into further deliberation, when you consider that terrorist attacks on America were not but three years ago, and as a result America has gone to great lengths to 'Free' corrupt regimes within the east. Are they trying to legitimate these acts within the subtext? Additionally, the so-called 'Bad Guy's' within this film are of an Arab Disposition, one that is attachable to today's western idea of the image of a terrorist. It seems to be saying that Jesus is only accessible to western culture at the moment, even though religion started in the east anyway. And with Jesus getting thrown into a barbaric blood bath, this could be seen as saying to its audience 'look what America is doing for you! Our sacrifice for your well being!' There are yet even more instances where this kind of comparison between east and west can be drawn. Take the meeting in the temple. Jesus acts calm and passive. Much like a civilized person. His hair when we see him first in the garden of Gethsemane is straight and beautifully kept. Also in the garden of Gethsemane he extorts a line of dialogue that fits in with western cultures idea of perceptions.

Jesus: 'Don't call them, I don't want them to see me like this'

All these things and more, seem to suggest that Jesus is a righteous man, he is the son of god of course, but implicitly, go to state that as an 'American' his is righteous and civilized. In contrast to the Jewish, who have badly kept hygiene and hair, who act like barbarians, punch and kick Jesus for no reason. This gives the audience a sense of 'Us Vs Them' and as such is a dangerous mechanism for the producers to use.

The passion of the Christ shows that with all the exposure we have to pretty much everything in society, religion it seems, is safeguarded by the western worlds political correctness. It raises questions about religion, more than it answers them: can differing religions really tolerate each other, posed by the fact that Anti-Semitism is claimed here in a film that is by all accounts, a powerful film, one that will shape and determine many peoples views on the way that Christianity is. Can violence be justified on all levels? We have so much of it already, is it time to open the religious gates to the public arena of the media. Will we just become desensitized to religion? Perhaps this could result in it being far less special to people if this were to happen. Far more important however, is the idea that this film goes to legitimate western involvement in eastern affairs. With so much backlash to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, this film looks to quell the opposition clandestinely it seems through the ideology that the film gives out. However, as long as people come to the realization that this is a film, a film that is a construction of the faith based beliefs of Mel Gibson, supplemented with a few patriotic ideas, it can cause little harm, than to re-affirm a current Christians faith, and get others interested in the bible and the word of god. If taken ideologically though, it could be a potentially dangerous film, one that sets to belittle the mouths of critics to war, and set everybody onto a path that nobody would rationally choose to go.

.. back ..