Tempting as it may be to dismiss Mel Gibson as a glorified pain freak, dressing up a martyrdom fantasy in Aramaic and Latin, it would be more accurate, I think, to say that the filmmaker, a Catholic fundamentalist, presents his torture-racked vision of Jesus' last 12 hours on earth as a sacred form of shock therapy.
As a scholar with a strong background in World History, specializing in the Roman period, I found "The Passion of the Christ" to be a profoundly well-thought-out and realistic portrayal of Christ's life. This movie presents a vivid and authentic view that aligns closely with the historical context of the era.
One of the standout features is the use of Aramaic, the native language of Jesus. This choice added a layer of realism and contributed to an accurately portrayed cast of Middle Eastern-looking characters. In terms of physical portrayal, it ranks alongside the animated classic "The Prince of Egypt" in representing the characters authentically.
A common criticism aimed at the film is its violence, but we must remember the context in which it's set. The Romans were inherently violent, and the world of antiquity was brutal and unapologetic. The depiction of violence serves to provide a realistic portrayal of the suffering endured by Christ, which aligns with the historical accounts of Roman-occupied Judea.
Moreover, we must recognize that the spread of Christianity, as symbolized by Christ, has played a significant role in shaping the relatively gentle and passive world of today. The violence depicted in the film should not be seen as gratuitous, but rather a reflection of the time, setting the stage for the positive change that came after.
Concerns regarding anti-Semitism within the film are, in my view, unfounded. The movie's heroes, including Christ, his disciples, and other prominent figures, are Jewish. The portrayal of certain individuals as antagonists does not generalize to the entire Jewish community but represents specific groups within the complex society of Roman-occupied Judea.
Whether you view Christ as the Messiah or a historical figure who has shaped humanity, "The Passion of the Christ" offers a powerful and immersive experience that warrants appreciation and critical examination. It's not just a religious film but a historical representation that merits a broader audience.
I highly recommend this film and encourage viewers to approach it with an open mind, examining its content critically instead of relying solely on the opinions of others.
There's one raw, pure emotion that I took away from this film, and that's my undeniable faith in Christ, in God.
Even before I experienced what my friends and I called a miracle, I chose to believe. No one in my family EVER pushed religion on me. Of course Jesus would seem like a threat. The best part is that He got the last laugh, yet he forgave and prayed for some of the most evil humans in the history of this planet.
Too much Good Friday and not enough Easter Sunday. Emphasizing Jesus' agony over His ecstasy, Gibson has delivered a blood-drenched epic more stunning for its brutal violence than for its depiction of the calvary.
What I do know is that I was gripped for a while by the strength of Mr. Gibson's filmmaking, only to be repelled and eventually excluded by his literalist insistence on excruciation. There is watching in horror, and there is watching in horror.
While it fails to shed significant new light on its subject, Gibson's film and the all-Jesus-all-the-time attention from the media it's attracted do tell us something somewhat disconcerting about the state of American culture: That the way to make a religion based on love and forgiveness relevant today is to turn it into violent entertainment.
This movie only gets as high of a rating as I have gave it because cinematicly its beautiful and very well done. As for the film itself its too much probably sits around a 4/5, overly drawn out and boring, very hard to get invested in unless you are a true believer I imagine.