Despite, or perhaps as a result of, the waves of controversy and criticism, the “Passion of Christ” surpassed the revenue generated from the hugely popular “Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” in its second week in release. Although I found myself initially hesitating to join the masses in “witnessing” the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life (as told by Mel Gibson), curiosity and scholarly interest nudged me along into the plushy theater seats.
Reflecting back now, I feel there is a need to take tremendous precaution in presenting to common lay-people a story that is, at best, one-sided and at worst, self-serving. There are numerous instances in the movie that are clearly speculation, possibly “artistic liberties,” supporting dogmatic beliefs that vilify those who cannot defend themselves. In addition to this, there is a certain amount of dissonance between doctrine and the portrayal of supposed historical events. I did not enjoy nor find the movie to be historically accurate, and feel there is, in fact, an underlying anti-Semitism that results from the anti-Semitic sources which the movie draws upon.
The opening scene is in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus is in tears, clearly a man struggling with his failings as a man, crying for “this chalice to pass from me,” yet at the same time is selfless in declaring, “but not as I will, but as You Will.” I was uncomfortable with the scene, not simply because of Satan’s mysterious and inexplicable presence, but because I felt it was a sloppy attempt to patch together conflicting ideas. Jesus was perfect, as his Father was perfect, but he had human failings (?). While this increases the appreciation that we might feel for the sacrifice Jesus, the man, made for our sins, it makes us question his divinity and perfection. Even though I personally like this more intimate, human portrayal of Jesus, from a doctrinal perspective, it leaves too many gaps that are never really filled throughout the movie. This was one of the many times I felt that irreconcilable ideas were stitched together in an effort to include pieces of the story of Jesus that have become vital to the Christian faith. Other events include the accounts of the last words of Jesus on the cross, the role of the Jewish people in the decision to have Jesus crucified, etc.
I found unlikely the mob scene where, despite Pontius Pilate’s best efforts, the blood thirsty Jewish mob chanted for Jesus’ crucifixion, despite his suffering and apparent innocence. In the Bible, there are numerous stories attesting to Jesus’ popularity, which was in fact the reason for the Pharisees to take notice of him in the first place. This may very well have been the reason why Jesus was taken and brought to trial in the middle of the night, when there would be the least amount of resistance by the crowd. There were great efforts made to clear the Romans’ part in the crucifixion, much like the Gospels, which were written under foreign Roman occupation. We should ask ourselves, if the early Christian church had laid blame on the Roman leaders, would there have been a Christian faith today? Can one clearly assume that the Gospels, Anne Emmerich’s “Dolorous Passion of Christ” etc., are objective in their portrayal of events that they probably did not witness first hand? Dr. Rubenstein has pointed out that placing a soft-hearted general in the most troublesome region, at the heart of the Roman Empire, would be a ridiculous decision. Claudia or not, it’s likely that it was Pilate’s decision to have the one who they referred to as the “King of the Jews,” a likely candidate for revolution, to be crucified for sedition to Rome.
Even until the end, it was not clear to me the nature of the crucifixion. If Jesus clearly knew the imminence of his death, why were the bringers of his fate, an event which is supposed to be ultimately good (in that it redeemed us of our sins), wracked with guilt (in the case of Judas) and colored with blood (the Pharisees/Jewish people)?
The film is based on “the diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich” that are collected in the book “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ”, on Mary of Agreda’s “The City of God” and on the New Testament Gospel of Luke, John, Matthew and Mark” (http://aztlan.net/thepassioncrucified.htm). The film’s supporters claim that the movie is a historical documentation of actual historical events recorded in Christian literature, yet evidence supporting its historical accuracy is dogmatic, appealing to scriptural authority. In fact, St. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s account of Jesus’ death is based on visions that may very well be simply hallucinations or delusions. In the realm of religion where emotions run deep, I think one must understand the tremendous impact that the medium of film in today’s world carries and take that responsibility seriously. Makers of the film probably understood the impact it would make, but I feel they didn’t take it seriously enough to present an objective account. The scariest part for me is that many people accept the story presented in the movie to be the actual historical recounting of the last hours of Jesus of Nazareth.
University of Bridgeport
Thursday, July 17, 2025