| "The
Passion of the Christ": Screen Daily Review.
It
has become difficult to think about The Passion Of The Christ
without being influenced by the storm of passion it has stirred
up over the last six months, and some of the questions raised.
Is it an act of hubris on the part of Mel Gibson? Is it anti-semitic?
Is it a dangerous tool designed to incite hatred? Is it a monumental
error of judgement of the politically sensitive times we live
in? Well the film is finally here to assess - as a film - and
the (earthly) good news is that Gibson has delivered a genuinely
startling and traumatic vision of the final 12 hours in the life
of Christ filled with the directorial flourishes and command of
craft which weren’t so readily on show in Braveheart.
It's a very
unambiguous focus which Gibson has steered to the screen. He doesn’t
give us anything but the most cursory of glimpses into Christ's
life or teachings before the betrayal at the Garden Of Gethsemane
where the film kicks off. He is here to bring us the Passion -
the excruciating, pre-ordained physical suffering and humiliation
undergone by Christ on the way to the cross and on it. And that
is what he shows - excruciating suffering.
Early press
screenings have divided audiences, not so much by faith, as by
who can stomach the violence and who can't. And it is that issue
which will become the film's newest controversy, as hordes of
the faithful start paying to see it across North America this
week.
Ironically
it is this very relentless violence inflicted on Christ in the
film which infuses it with a primeval power rarely seen in cinema
these days. Gibson's goal - to show the level of abuse endured
by Christ for the sake of man -– is realised with no small
amount of success and he erases the respectful Passions previously
put to celluloid in moments.
Is it more
than a one-trick-pony? Perhaps not. It risks monotony in a couple
of stretches, it rarely attempts characterisation and it follows
the gospels, dare one say it, religiously. But there is something
compulsive in watching the spectacle of Christ's agonies, rather
like a public execution in days of old, especially when you know
that the ending, finally, will be a happy one. Christ, does, after
all, rise from the dead, so how bad can it be to watch him being
brutally beaten and savagely killed?
Assuming that
believers embrace it, the film will be a significant box office
success. And embrace it they will, for Gibson’s open-hearted
belief in his subject is in every frame, even if parents will
be wary of exposing their children to such an intensely visceral
experience.
In addition, there will be few non-believers who are not already
intrigued by what Gibson has to say on the subject, especially
in the light of the blanket press coverage across the world. Its
longterm value in ancillary media is potentially gigantic; this
is a timeless piece which has religious and educational applications
for many years to come. (…)
The Passion
Of The Christ is a director's film and, while the three principal
actors – Jim Caviezel as Jesus, Maia Morgenstern as Mary
and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene – are fine, they come
second to the religious fervour at the film's heart. For that
reason, the myriad images of sadistic attacks on the body are
what sticks in the memory more than individual performances. Gibson
choreographs these assaults with such care and authenticity that
the scenes possess a savage beauty and, uncomfortably, unusually
for film in general, they evoke the agony of actual physical pain.
The $27m film,
which was shot in Matera in Southern Italy and on soundstages
at Cinecitta Studios in Rome, looks the part thanks to the design
of Francesco Frigeri and the camerawork of Caleb Deschanel, who
work in striking hues of muddy browns into which the red of the
spilled blood blends. The score by John Debney has a percussive
middle Eastern flavour reminiscent of Peter Gabriel's music from
The Last Temptation Of Christ while also including the more traditional
heavenly chorus.
Mike Goodridge,
Screen, February 23rd 2004
Back
|