Thought provoking - The Passion of the Christ Reviews

It is not that other movies haven't been made about the suffering of Jesus Christ. They have, and have been received with hardly a ripple in the ocean of media opinion. It is that Mel Gibson, a devout Roman Catholic, has made such a depicition that is fueling the controversial fires. Having read many of the "professional" film critics unfavorable reviews, I have come to the conclusion that they are not really finding fault with the film itself, but they object to Mel Gibson's audacity in bringing a realistically brutal version of the story to the cinema. The film based on its technical merits is breathtaking. The cinematography is genius, the acting is sublime, and the musical score is haunting. Maia Mortensen's Mary grabs at the viscera of most mothers as we suffer through seeing her son hated and brutally executed with her. She's does it mostly with her eyes. (One scene shows her memory of Jesus as a child and snaps back to him in the present in a parallel device. It is particularly gut-wrenching.) It is a work that is larger than life, and it needs to be given the subject. The violence is extremely graphic and brutal, and it must be. There has never been a visual rendering of the absolute pain that Jesus Christ underwent. It is not over the top, however. I have seen worse: "Pulp Fiction" comes to mind. I have dubbed it "Violence with a Purpose." Its purpose is to remind us about the enormity of Christ's sacrifice for humanity. Also it shows his absolute humanness. He bleeds, whimpers, cries out, and stumbles like we would all do given the same harsh punishment. Earlier representations of his execution leave one feeling that he was more than human, for they show him enduring it stoically rather than how a true human would react. Jim Caviezel is Jesus the way he was meant to be seen -- as one of us. Some reviewers have stated that the central message of Christ's teachings -- to love -- is obliterated through the excessive gore and omission of his earlier teaching. They did not see the same movie I did. It shows flashbacks to his Sermon on the Mount challenging his followers to love their enemies. Time after time even during his most intense suffering Jesus asks his Father to forgive those involved in his torture and death. What is that, but love? The fact that he underwent such extremes of pain and yet still willingly laid down his life for all people, even those who hated him is the point of this movie. It was evident to me. Accusations that the movie reflects any one group in a bad light are completely baseless. No one in the film is cast in the most positive light. Peter denies him, Judas betrays him, Caiphas wants to get rid of the threat to his position and the status quo, Pilate just wants the whole thing to go away, the apostles scatter, the Roman soldiers act like animals, and even his mother hesitates before going to him. The only unblemished person is Jesus. It illustrates Gibson's claim that we all are to blame for his death. Yes, the Jewish high priests call the most loudly for his death, but not all of them do. Several attempt to defend him. This movie will not provoke violence. It should steer us away from it, cringing to think that humans are capable of inflicting such horrible atrocities against each other. Gibson's broken and bloody Jesus shows us God's ultimate love for us. And we do not deserve it. This movie was not pleasant to watch. It does not entertain. It provokes thought and self-reflection. It begs the viewer to ask herself if she can do better to live the way Jesus asked us to. Can we all show each other the same love Jesus showed to us in suffering so greatly and so graphically? Any movie that inspires such soul-searching deserves the greatest accolades available. I urge all adults and teenagers to see this movie. It is unsuitable for children under 14 because it requires an understanding of the story and civilization in general that is quite complex.