Doug Beaumont

I was not terribly excited about going to see this movie. I am used to going to movies to be entertained and this wasn't going to do that! As many have said, "It's not a movie you see. It's a movie you experience." On the one hand I was not looking forward to weeping for two hours, nor was I looking forward to having to evaluate all of the criticism I had already (unfortunately) heard about the film. I was wishing that I had been a "blank slate" so that I could do a more fair critique once I was in a position to do so (i.e. when I had actually seen it - unlike many of the critics). But I knew people would be asking me questions so I couldn't simply wait for the video release. I will also be evaluating the main categories of criticism that Gibson's film has drawn (these are introduced in bold itallics)

Note on Spoilers: I realize most moviegoers already know how the story ends of course, but there are other things in the movie that are "different from the book" and my commentary on these will probably influence how one views, or even notices, those elements. So if you want these details, keep reading. If all you want is my conclusion, skip to the end!

I think it was a very good film both in its quality and in its message. The main beef many had style-wise was with the violence (thus its "R" rating). One critic (who had not seen the movie) made the following accusations:

First, the very scenes this critic cites were not filmed in slow motion! In fact, the only reason we know Malchus's ear was cut off is because he is holding his head with his hand! Second, I don't see how "blood-splattering gore" in a movie about what Christ went through can be construed as a problem anyway. First critics nag about how inaccurate the film is, then they complain about its accuracy! The violence is not intended to entertain. I would certainly not let young children watch it (their imaginations are more than enough for this topic), but this is what ratings are for - and it is no secret why The Passion got "R".

I applaud the realism in Gibson's portrayal of Christ's sufferings. Evangelicals have customarily downplayed the passion of Christ - focusing instead on the resurrection (and, in many cases, rightly so - 1 Cor. 15). But I cannot imagine that a perfect and just God would add the sufferings of the passion on top of the cross if they were not necessary. Isaiah 52:14 and ch. 53 makes it clear that the passion was part of Christ's work. "It" was not "finished" until the cross, but it was included and should not be overlooked.

While we certainly do not want violence for violence' sake, I think Christian filmmakers have a lot to learn about realism in films, and until they do their movies will continue to have the almost nonexistent impact on the culture that they currently do. [Note: I am not here referring to the use of films, such as The Jesus Film, in evangelistic contexts, rather I am referring to a given film's ability to reach the masses on its own merits. (BTW, the writers for The Jesus Film Project gave an unequivocal thumbs-up to The Passion on the front page of their own website!)]

It might seem odd to give a biblical story a less-than-perfect score, but the movie taken as it is does not convey the big picture as well as I had hoped. Now, Gibson was not interested in filming the whole gospel which is fine, but I can't evaluate what wasn't there.

There are a lot of extra-biblical scenes in The Passion. If anyone does not think this is allowable in a film about a Bible story then there is no need to go on for this is the case here. It seems to me, however, that no movie can be made about any piece of literature that does not include embellishment. The nature of text is such that it simply cannot give every possible detail, and due to the nature of visual media a lot of details must be added. I do not consider this to be "adding to Scripture" any more than a Sunday morning sermon that includes some imaginative elements (see the homiletic standard Biblical Preaching by H. Robinson). All "Jesus films" are going to lean one way or another in their depiction of Christ. Christian screenwriter Brian Godawa notes the following:

I think that the dramatic nature of film (and art in general) requires that the artist have some leeway as long as he does not contradict the known facts (i.e. extra-biblical as opposed to anti-biblical). For example, in one scene in The Passion, Jesus is thrown over a bridge by Roman soldiers. Judas is plagued throughout the film by demons (eerily portrayed by children). After Jesus is scourged, Pilate's wife "Claudia" gives Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus towels with which to wipe up the blood that had been spilled during the flogging. Now, none of those things contradict the overall story or its significance. The gospels do not say that these things happened and I doubt that they did. But they do serve to heighten Jesus' poor treatment by the Romans, Judas's growing guilt, and Pilate's wife's fears of judgment - and these are all biblical ideas.

In fact, there were some embellishments that I thought were quite good. Jesus' smashing of the serpent's head in the garden gave me shivers! (see Gen. 3 if you don't see the significance of this act). Also, Judas's continual abuse of his lips after his betrayal kiss (and their subsequent condition at the end of his life) was a very powerful image. Gibson even managed to add a touch of light humor to one flashback scene where Jesus is trying to explain to Mary how a "tall table" works with chairs. She concludes, "It will never catch on." He ends up playfully splashing her with water. I can tell you it was nice to have a brief moment of levity in a two hour emotional rollercoaster.

However, there are indeed far more serious charges to face with regard to Gibson's choice of material. One is that many embellishments are based on the visions of sister Ann Catherine Emmerich, an 18th century mystic, and from sister Mary of Agreda, a 17th century nun. This is not only possible but quite probable considering that Gibson admitted to using Emmerich as a source and even carries a relic of her on his person. The question is, does the source of embellishments matter if in and of themselves they are not problematic? While the controversial, mystical, and anti-Semitic aspects of some of these sources should call them into question, we need to avoid the genetic fallacy which states that a thing is true or false based on the source. The scenes in question can and need to be judged on their own merit, not on where they came from.

Now, I am uncomfortable with the biblically illiterate person (Christian or non-Christian) that will absorb these images as though they were part of the true story. In one scene the unsaved thief on the cross has his eyes pecked by a crow. The only message I can see in this is that God was "getting even" with him for his blasphemy. I don't think that message squares with the story and is unnecessary. Some of the scenes featuring Satan seemed to be included for nothing more than creepiness (e.g. the "baby-of-satan" vision which mocked the virgin birth), and these could have been left out as well. (BTW, a woman plays the role of Satan, but is presented as androgynous, not as a woman. I don't see this as much of a problem for a sexless spirit creature. Gibson was trying to portray evil as somewhat alluring and I think he accomplished this.) So I would definitely not recommend this movie to someone who wanted to know "what the story was all about" if this would be their only source.

Beyond mere embellishment there is also the issue of falsehood. Now, many of the inaccuracies in the film can be downplayed as they are quite minor and do not contradict the true message. For example, Jesus' trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin takes place in the temple, not at the high priest's house. There is also a scene that implies that the cross was made in the temple. These do not have massive doctrinal effects, but they are wrong.

Some have a problem with the fact that the movie is in Aramaic and Latin (with English subtitles) when the gospels were written in Koine Greek. Koine Greek was the trade language of the time and so made for better literary dispersion, but this says nothing of the languages the Jews or the Romans actually spoke. Also, there is some question as to the use of "street Latin" in that time and its use by Jesus in some scenes. Most people will probably not even notice this and I don't really see any significance in it anyway.

The crucifixion was not portrayed very accurately. When Jesus is put on the cross, his arm it too short to reach the correct spot on the cross where the nail is supposed to go, so a rope is tied around his wrist and his arm is pulled out of its socket. Further, archeology and modern medical theory agree that the nails were through the wrists, not the palms (the Greek term translated "hand" can mean either), and the feet were turned sideways to go through the ankles. And after Jesus is nailed to the cross, the cross is pushed over so that He hangs face down while the nails are bent back on the back of the cross. It is doubtful that this was the method used. Finally, the actual cause of death by crucifixion is suffocation - in that position the victims had to continually push up with their feet to breath. Eventually, exhaustion and the excruciating pain (the term "excruciating" actually means "from the cross") would become too great and they would no longer be able to breathe (which is why their legs were often broken to speed things up). This aspect was not depicted in the film.

The resurrection scene was also not portrayed accurately. Jesus came out of His death wrappings in His body. He did not vanish and then appear in a body at the foot of His slab. In fact the gospels say the linen was folded up! This was a dramatic scene, but I think in this case it could really send a bad message (e.g. a "spiritual" resurrection). Having said that, the nail holes remaining in His resurrected body were a welcome touch.

Another example of this was Jesus' carrying of His cross - it is possible that He, like the other two, only carried the crossbeam. But that would also ruin the image most people have, and that would have been more distracting to the message. I believe Gibson knew most of this (he specifically mentioned his decision about the nails in the palms) and made a conscious decision to depict these scenes according to the common image in most people's minds so as not to create unnecessary distraction from the story.

I think in most of these cases the inaccuracies were minor enough that they would really only come to bear in an apologetic discussion. I would want the opportunity to "debrief" anyone who was not biblically literate regarding the inaccurate areas. Perhaps an analogy would be the slack we give Sunday school cartoons of Noah's ark being the size of a small house. Sometimes the message is not threatened by inaccuracy, although it needs to be dealt with at some point.

Some say the movie is out of context with the overall story of the life of Christ, that it barely depicts the resurrection, and does not clearly show the reason Christ died. This is somewhat accurate but I think we need to remember that the title of this movie is The Passion. This is not a movie version of The Gospel According to Luke, it is a film about this particular part of the story . . . about one particular time period in Christ's life.

Further, Gibson includes several flashback scenes that serve to make the purpose of Jesus' suffering clearer. Had Gibson wanted to take the passion out of context he could have just left those scenes out. In fact, had he been "more biblical" in his portrayal of the gospel accounts we might have known almost nothing of the reason for Jesus' suffering because Jesus did not say very much about it during that time period.

Would I have liked to have seen more of the resurrection and the reactions to it? Yes. Would I have liked to see 1 Corinthians 15 acted out to better explain it? Yes. Is any of that necessary in a movie that was specifically made to highlight Christ's sufferings? No.

The movie requires no suspension-of-disbelief as it portrays real historical events (although not always accurate). However, concern over the movie's assumptions include alleged anti-Semitism and Roman Catholic overtones.

Mel Gibson is a Roman Catholic. Obviously some of the images he chooses to depict will come from what he pictures in his mind when he thinks of certain scenes. That is to be expected, and forewarned is forearmed. One might expect more though - perhaps some Roman Catholic doctrine communicated through the script. However, I would argue that none of the criticized scenes would have even been noticed had the director not been a known Roman Catholic, and none were out of place with what one might expect from a dramatic version of the story. Greg Koukl, an evangelical apologist who was raised as a Vatican I Catholic (Gibson's version of Roman Catholicism), said that the only clear Roman Catholic nod was the scene where a woman on the Via Delorosa allows Christ to wipe His face with a piece of her cloth. The cloth ends up with an image of Jesus' face in the blood stains. The woman is known as "Veronica" in this non-canonical story and Roman Catholic tradition holds that the image of Jesus' face being transferred to the cloth was a miracle (even they admit the strong possibility that the story is apocryphal). That's it. Would anyone have noticed this scene as being overtly Roman Catholic that did not know the story? No. Did it communicate any Roman Catholic dogma? No.

There is an emphasis on Mary in the film - but not more than it would have been in a secular movie about a mother's reactions to witnessing her son's death, and she is certainly not venerated. I can honestly say that I don't think this emphasis would have even been noticed by anyone who was not already suspicious or told to look for it. In fact, if this film was made by an evangelical or secular director I don't think there would have been any outcry at all (this reminds me of the complaints against Harry Potter books for their use of sorcery by people who would not hesitate to hand their children The Chronicles of Narnia!). I think that Gibson could have done a lot better than this if promoting Roman Catholic doctrine had been his goal.

Some have said that it exalts Mary as having equal suffering. Only someone who has not seen the movie could make such an absurd claim. Mary clearly does not go through what Jesus did, and is actually pictured suffering less than I think a mother might in reality.

Others complain that Mary lends the Messiah significant support throughout the whole ordeal. This might lead one to assume that if she had not been present Jesus might not have been able to go through with the sacrifice. Well, she does indeed lend Him support, but this seems natural in the film and in reality. What is subversive about Jesus looking to His mother for strength at the time of His greatest suffering? If she was there are we to suppose that He would have just ignored her? I suppose the wrong message could be sent; however, if Jesus needing support is such a big problem, then the same could be said of Simon who carried Jesus' cross.

Others see hints of the co-redemptrix doctrine when during the time of the crucifixion Mary utters the words, "Let me die with you." Yes, she does say that in the film, but she doesn't die with Him, nor does Jesus say she should (wouldn't this be an example of Mary not being co-redeemer?).

Following the crucifixion, Mary cradles the body of the Messiah in a pose that is very similar to that of Michalangelo's Pieta. A friend of mine (who was not looking for Roman Catholic conspiracy theories) saw this as one of the most dramatic scenes in the movie. Here we see Mary holding her dead son and looking right into the camera - at us. This is powerful! And isn't this what we would expect a mother to do? Would she just let Him lie in the dirt? The sculpture may have some doctrinal significance attached to it by some (although The Catholic Encyclopedia does not even have an entry for this piece), but the film does not convey any kind of "mariolotry" here. In fact, this type of death scene has been included in so many movies it is practically a standard feature.

Some have even said that Mary is dressed in nun's attire. This is extremely doubtful. My (messianic) Jewish professor did not even know what I was referring to when I questioned him about it. In fact, if Mary was dressed like a nun then so was everyone else. Mary's dress does not stand out from that of the other women in the movie nor, for that matter, from most of the men! Again, I don't think anyone not looking for a Roman Catholic conspiracy would have made this claim.

The disciples called Mary "Mother" (as if it were a title), but did not venerate her. The use of this "title" did bother me - but at least Jesus did not address her in this manner. I have also been told that for a group to address the "matron" of the group in this manner was traditional, not religious.

I think the main point to all of these examples is that no one who was not well-versed in Roman Catholic tradition would have noticed any of them. And even those that reflected Gibson's view were not problematic in a doctrinal sense. I do not think that any scene so vague that it would not be noticeable, or that lent itself so well to standard film theatrics or non-conspiracy theory interpretation, should be judged as trying to undermine the truth. If Gibson was trying to push Roman Catholic dogma on the audience he did a terrible job in communicating it.

Many of "The Passion's" critics have opinions that seem only to show that they have not viewed the movie. One circulating piece opens with the following admission of willful ignorance:

Is this sound Christian judgment? If Matthew 7:1 were applied to this critic then he would be judged on what others said about his life and not on what God knows about it. I doubt he would appreciate that! Here are some of these criticisms that I think fail, some of them miserably.

False. Even Gibson's top critic, the leader of the Jewish anti-defamation league said in a nationally televised interview that he thought neither the movie nor Gibson were anti-Semitic. He only said that the movie could fuel the fires of anti-Semitism (see ADL for more). Well, maybe we need to stop making accurate movies about the Jewish Holocaust in WWII so that we don't "fuel the fires" of anti-germanism! "To be anti-Semitic is a sin," Gibson said in the interview with Diane Sawer, "It's been condemned by one Papal Council after another. To be anti-Semitic is to be un-Christian, and I'm not."

The movie clearly pictures the Romans as the sadistic killers they were, and shows several Jewish religious leaders protesting Jesus' trial and treatment. Not only that, but Gibson left out some of the more troubling biblical statements regarding the Jews such as their cry during His trial "His blood be upon us and upon our children" (Mt. 27:25). He also left out Jesus' response to the women weeping for Him during His walk to Golgotha concerning the coming judgment: "Do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children." (Lk. 23:28). So had Gibson's goal been to make the Jews look bad he could have done much more to show this - even without sacrificing biblical accuracy.

Further, the Gospels do in fact clearly include the masses in Christ's trial, not just the leaders:

Obviously the significance of Christ's death and resurrection could not be overstated and I thought The Passion was well done as a movie that forces us to deal with what Christ went through due to our sin.

In conclusion, I did have minor problems with some parts, but none that would exclude the movie from receiving my cautious recommendation (the same could be said for just about any movie claiming to represent the Bible). Christians are known for producing and endorsing low quality work when it comes to the arts (the success of the Left Behind series comes to mind). Yet at the same time they are known for being extremely critical of Hollywood's products. I think we need to realize that it is not protests but box office dollars that get things done in Hollywood. I agree that there are more accurate gospel movies, but the fact is that these movies have had little impact on the culture at large. For example, The Gospel of John (which was excellent) only showed in theaters for a few weeks and generated almost no public interest. The Passion, on the other hand, has continued to be sold out after several weeks. You do the math. If we want to reach those who we constantly complain are being bombarded by the evil Hollywood empire then we need to get a product into Hollywood that is of such quality and generates so much interest that it cannot be ignored. I think that at least here The Passion has succeeded.