On Sunday, March 07, 2004, my father and I went to the 1:45 showing of The Passion of the Christ.  Over the period of two hours, the audience sees the betrayal, the illegal late-night trial, and then the crucifixion.  The movie is ok, but while I could see that Mel Gibsons emphasis is on Jesus being the sacrificial lamb for humanity, he appears to take reality too far, pushing it into unreality.  In addition, I found the contrast between the Roman guard and the Jewish Sanhedrin disturbing.  However, the movie did have a few very emotionally positive points.  The following examples illustrate my point.

            The movie opens in the garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus is seen praying to God for guidance and strength during his upcoming trial and crucifixion.  Then Judas comes with a multitude of soldiers from the Sanhedrin.  A brief fight between them and the disciples ensues, and then Jesus is bound in chains and led away.  Without waiting for the trial, the soldiers immediately begin beating Jesus over the head with the ends of the chainsat one point forcing him to fall off a precipice with only the chains to hold him up.  The Scriptures do not record such an instance.  Gibson could have made the point without such excess violence in this scene.

            After the trial (where more violence takes place), Jesus is bounced back and forth between Pontius Pilate, who doesnt want to take any responsibility for judging Jesus, and King Herod (who looks like a hippie from the counter-culture of the 1960s) who is more interested in taunting Jesus than questioning him.  Then Pilate has Jesus flogged in order to appease the Jews desire for justice.  First, regular whips are used, and then deadly-looking cat o, nine-tails are used.  As the audience watches, deep slices are gouged into Jesus body as the sadistic Roman soldiers whip him.  They do this for approximately ten minutes, blood flying all over the set.  A human being can only stand to lose so much blood before he or she passes out.  With the amount of beating Gibson decided to depict in this scene, Jesus should have died right thenor at the very least, passes out.

            Next comes the most disturbing part of the entire movie.  Jesus is marched from the flogging yard, with wounds, scrapes, and lacerations everywhere.  The camera focuses on Caiaphas.  When he sees Jesus, his eyes go wide, and he says SE VE LU! (Crucify him!) in a loud, screaming voice.  When I saw this scene, I was reminded of the documentary I saw on the History channel about Caligula.  It was stated that Caligula enjoyed watching people get tortured as breakfast entertainment.  I find it inconceivable that even a man in a political position such as High Priest of the Sanhedrin at the time could be so cruel as that.  The Jewish faith, where Christianity came from, was certainly severe in its form of punishment, but not to the point of seeing someone already excessively tortured and wanting more blood.  The expression on Caiaphas face looked like a sociopaths.

            Lastly, the contrast between Pontius Pilate, his bodyguards, and the Jews is also very disturbing.  When Jesus is dragged into Pilates court, he offers him a cup of water, whereas the Jews appear to want him dead immediately.  Then he repeatedly tells the Jews that Jesus has done nothing wrong; that the chastisement was enough.  However, the Jews scream and caterwauler, wanting Jesus crucified regardless.  I now see where the critics are coming from when they accuse Gibson of making the film seem anti-Semitic.

            The film did have its strong points, however few and far between.  The slow close-up of the camera to Jesus silhouette in the opening scene is very captivating.  It gives the viewer a feel of finality and venture into the unknown.  In fact, this is when I started forming my positive impressionwhich quickly dissipated.  The flashbacksthough they could have occurred more oftenprovides the viewer a brief escape from the tribulation of Christ and a little comic humor in the carpentry scene in which Jesus is seen making a table.  Other flashbacks include the Last Supper, the Sermon on the Mount, and the end of Jesus saving the adulteress from the priests.

            But despite these positive points, the negative outweighs the positive.  Gibson takes the violence to the realm of fantasy, having Jesus scourged to the point in which he should not have survived.  The Romans, with the exception of those conducting the scourging, appear benevelont compared to the Jews who appear as psychotic vampires, far more interested in bloodsport than in justice.  While I believe Gibsons intent was to depict Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God, he went too far, excessively portraying the scourging and misrepresenting the role of the Jews in Jesus crucifixion.

  Out of four stars, I give this film two and a half.  If this film continues to offend the Jewish community, they are rightfully offended.