The Passion of the Christ Update

More reviews, and now some stills, about the Mel Gibson movie.

Yet another review from the Ain't It Cool News movie site, this one from a self-professed devout Christian who also works in the graphic arts and media business.

The Christ pictures of recent can?t just tell the story. They seem to need to fix things, make Jesus not raise from the dead, make him the lover of Mary Magdalene, make him whatever. But Gibson leans on the simplicity of the original story. He?s not shackled to the scriptures, because he boldly throws in details here and there that blend with the original story. He?s respectful, but he?s not afraid. This is a movie that secular Hollywood could not make, but it?s also a movie that the Christian community could not make either.

The Christ pictures of the 40s and 50s were too busy glorifying the spectacle of Jesus. Every time he turns around he?s doing this neato miracle, like it?s a magic show. The Passion of Christ downplays the miracles to focus on Jesus' terrestrial dilemma. This is a story about the son of God stuck on Earth with only one way out and he knows it?s coming.

Warning! This review mentions a couple of spoilers from the film, but the author does give clear notice before he gives them. Just keep your eye out.

I also found David Limbaugh's review, which is really more of a summary of the controversy around the movie and some of the pains Gibson went to in making it. Oddly, it ends up making Gibson look bad, as it mentions a lot of the overt religiousity around the set.

I'm throwing in this link to an older Mike Rose article because it follows up (or preceeds, I guess) the Limbaugh article's comparison of The Last Temptation of Christ, which was critically acclaimed, with Passion. That film was also covered from the "controversy" angle, but it got sympathetic coverage for its "courageous" stance against fundamentalist anger.

Speaking of coverage, I caught a short Passion piece on the NBC "Today" show this morning. Apparently working from some video taken from an interview done by a religious network, Katie Couric unsurprisingly framed the piece in "controversy." Gibson was shown talking about how this movie was his "career-killer" and a rabbi was shown mentioning the film's supposed anti-Semitism. They did show some clips from the movie, and warned viewers of their intensity.

Boston Globe columnist James Carrol did a piece early last year which fed from and passed along the "anti-Semitism" line. You can read it here. Here's some of his liberal twaddle:

Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred. ''Crucify him! Crucify him!'' Matthew has the Jewish crowd shouting. ''Let his blood be upon us, and upon our children!'' The murderous Jews force the hand of a compassionately reluctant Pontius Pilate, who then, famously, washes his hands, saying, ''I am innocent of this man's blood. It is your concern.'' (Matthew 27: 23-26).

A momentous challenge confronts the Christian conscience faced with what scholars now assert with near unanimity -- that the death of Jesus did not happen as the Passion narratives recount. ''The Jews'' did not sponsor the death of Jesus. The dramatic trials are unlikely to have occurred. Control-obsessed Romans would have instantly smashed anyone drawing restive crowds in the volatile Passover season. Pilate, no humanitarian, was noted in non-Christian sources for brutality surpassing even the Roman standard. The Gospels tell the story as if Jesus, in conflict with ''the Jews,'' was not himself a Jew. The Gospel of John goes so far as to characterize the Jewish people as allies of Satan, a slander to which Jesus of Nazareth could have in no way given his assent.

You can find some excellent pics and stills from the movie here, at a British movie site. Some of these stills are breath-taking. The framing, lighting and composition resemble medieval and Rennaisance paintings. On purpose, I'd guess.

Lastly, the Anti-Defamation League managed to raise a ruckus with a press release. Much piousness and finger-pointing, as you'd expect on their part. While they mention attending a screening, they don't admit that they snuck in under false prentenses, with false intent.

After two of its representatives attended a screening of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of The Christ" at a religious gathering in Florida, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today renewed its concerns about the film's potential to promote anti-Semitism through its "painful portrayal of Jews" as being responsible for the death of Jesus. The film is scheduled for national release on Ash Wednesday, February 25.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, who attended the screening at the Beyond All Limits Conference in Orlando along with Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, ADL Interfaith Consultant, issued the following statement:

[SNIP]It's sad that we could not see this film at the invitation of Mel Gibson, but instead by finding an opportunity to be part of an audience.

You have to go to NewMax.com to get the full story:

In their press release, ADL National Director Abrahama Foxman and another ADL official said they saw the film while attending a "religious gathering" in Orlando, Fla., called the Beyond All Limits Conference.

As it turned out, Hirsen informs us, the religious conference is organized by the Global Pastors Network.

Sources at Icon Productions were surprised to learn that the uninvited ADL officials had registered for the Christian conference under the name "The Church of Truth."

It makes for good media circus for the ADL, but tarnishes their purpose, which I will admit some sympathy to. It will be interesting to see if any incidents happen (I hope not.) and how they are reported.

Last item: The Reverend Donald Sensing, of One Hand Clapping and a fellow Rocky Top Brigadier, has his own post on the film, noting tongue-in-cheek that the film has already been reworked to avoid controversy. I'm eager to read his take on Passion after he sees it. Should be thoughtful and detailed of course, and I suspect somewhat surprising.

If you know of any reviews from movie fans, or folks who are mildly religious or irreligious, I'd like to know about them. I'm most interested in reactions from those approaching the film from a cinematic angle, not so much from the faith angle. Their response to the religious message in the movie they see is what fascinates me. That will be the measure of how the broad American public will react to the film. I still think this will be a $300 million blockbuster, and that the press will label that success a "surprise."