This page was created on January 16, 2003
This page was last updated on March 11, 2004

—Review
—Mel Gibson Posters
—More Reviews
—News
—Trailers, Photos
—About this Film w/Links
—Spiritual Connections
—Forum

Reviews on this page
1. Brutal Passion by Steve Beard
2. The Passion by Rev Dr Robert Driver-Bishop
3. Through Jewish Eyes by Jeff Niems
4. Rough Cut by Darrel Manson

A few weeks ago, my wife took our seven-year-old son John Paul to the movie theater. When he saw a marquee announcing the movie The Gospel of John, he noticed that it was rated PG-13. "That can't be," he said with incredulity. "The Bible is not PG-13." Michelle had to explain to him that the Bible was not only G, but that it was PG-13, as well as R. I would add that there are a few spots that are even NC-17.

The Good Book is filled with betrayal, greed, lust, murder, sex, and excruciating violence. As parents, we edit, censor, and sanitize to wisely respect age-appropriateness. Nevertheless, this interaction was a great opportunity to remember that our faith was born out of blood, sweat and tears-far more gritty than a Thomas Kinkade® painting or a Precious Moments® nativity scene. In our contemporary culture, however, our crosses are studded with diamonds instead of splinters.

Perhaps that is why my son may not be the only one who is surprised by the PG-13 rating. The Gospel of John is a $20 million movie that was produced by the American Bible Society as a verse-by-verse dramatic portrayal of the New Testament book. The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and even garnered positive reviews from unlikely media outlets. "Though I approached The Gospel of John with some trepidation, I've now seen the film twice and consider it to be an extraordinary achievement," wrote Scott Foundas in the avant garde LA Weekly. "Extraordinary for the way it casts its oft-told events in such a fresh light that they do not seem so familiar at all."

The film has successfully been able to avoid controversy, let alone being labeled as anti-Semitic, for two very good reasons. First of all, the executive producer, producer, and director are all Jewish. The second, and perhaps more important reason, is that the movie is never going to produce the kind of cultural fireworks that will have tongues wagging with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ-perhaps the most-debated, yet-to-be-seen film in the history of cinema.

It is impossible to be unaware of the media attention devoted to The Passion. Is the film anti-Semitic? Will it incite violence against Jews? Did Pope John Paul II say, "It is as it was"? Who speaks Aramaic anymore? Why in heaven's name would Gibson pour $25 million of his own money to focus in on the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ? Why does it have to be so gruesomely violent?

Gibson and his movie have been under a flurry of ferocious attacks from The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, The Los Angeles Times, and The New Yorker. These broadsides have been fueled by the Anti-Defamation League and a handful of liberal Catholic and Protestant theologians.

"When violence breaks out," Paula Fredriksen breathlessly declared in a hyperventilated article for The New Republic, "Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to." In the article "Mad Mel," Fredriksen, a professor at Boston University, went on to dismiss the movie she had not seen as an "anti-historical, anti-intellectual, anti-Semitic film about the crucifixion." This judgement was based on the fact that she simply does not believe that the New Testament is reliable. End of story.

In their coverage of The Passion, the predictably contrarian website Salon.com turned to the Rev. Mark Stanger, one of the pastors at the trendy Grace Cathedral, an Episcopal church in San Francisco. "100 percent Hollywood trash," is how he described it. What was his advice to moviegoers? "I'd say don't bother. I think it's a big bore. I think a 5-year-old who has to get cancer surgery and radiation and chemotherapy suffers more than Jesus suffered; I think that a kid in the Gaza Strip who steps on a land mine and loses two limbs suffers more; I think a battered wife with no resources suffers more; I think people without medical care dying of AIDS in Africa suffer more than Jesus did that day. I mean, I don't want to take away from that, but this preoccupation with the intensity of the suffering, I think, has no theological or spiritual value."

Good grief, say whatever you want about The Passion, but calling it a bore is nothing more than fever-swamp ruminations.

Stone silence
I saw the movie in the boardroom of Gibson's Icon Productions last November with a handful of rock musicians and artists. For a group who makes their living with microphones and electric guitars, they were stone silent at the end of the film. We all were. This is definitely not a date movie; it is a think flick. You need a cup of herbal tea and a handful of those aromotherapy candles to chill out and process afterward.

Church folks should be warned, this is not a family-friendly "Christian" movie such as Chariots of Fire or The Ten Commandments. The Passion is the most brutal movie you will probably ever see. People will be sobbing in the theaters or running out to get sick in the lobby.

This is the Sunday school flannel board lesson for a generation that grew up on violent video games, skipped church, and stood in line to watch Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, Volume 1-a gratuitously bloody movie with no redemptive purpose. The Passion has an unmistakable gothic and art house feel, with touches of the ghoulish and grotesque. There is one unforgettable scene of Mary, the mother of Jesus, kissing her son's bloody feet as he dangles from the cross. She then turns around and looks into the camera with his blood on her lips.

Is there too much gore and violence in The Passion? Probably. It made me turn my head. I just kept whispering, "Dear Jesus," to myself throughout many of the scenes. It is the most sadistic and simultaneously holy thing I have seen.

This is not the kind of movie that you merely watch, it is one you experience. Think back to when you first saw the movie Roots on TV-seeing a white man whip a black man's back. It wreaks havoc on your gut. All of the high school history lessons about the Civil War changed in a dimension of your comprehension-moving from your head to your heart.

It is painful to watch as Jesus stumbles through the Via Dolorosa-the path of pain-on his way to Golgotha, as his beloved mother watches helplessly from the sidelines, flashing back in her memory to a time when she could still cradle her son in her arms. As Jesus is nailed to the cross, you know you will never view communion the same way again. The same could be said for the way you conceive of Mary (Maia Morgenstern) or Satan (Rosalinda Celentano-say goodbye to the red cape and pitchfork caricature).

Anti-Semitism
As our group talked with Gibson after watching the movie, it was very clear that he was most vexed about the charges of anti-Semitism leveled against the movie. He spoke of venting his frustrations on his spiritual counselor, who simply would remind him that Jesus turned the other cheek. "I am good 8 out of 10 days," he joked, referring to the cheek turning.

As to the movie, you could not help but watch it through the prism of the accusations. You looked at every character to see if he or she were unfairly called upon to portray an anti-Semitic stereotype or if a disproportionate amount of blame was laid upon one person or group. Ironically, Maia Morgenstern, who plays Mary, is the Jewish daughter of a Holocaust survivor. Furthermore, the only appearance that Gibson makes in the movie is when his hands are seen driving the nails into Jesus on the cross-simultaneously driving home the point of his own culpability in the death of Christ. "There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish about Mel Gibson's film," said Augustine Di Noia, a theologian at the Vatican. "What happens in the film is that each of the main characters contributes in some way to Jesus' fate: Judas betrays him; the Sanhedrin accuses him; the disciples abandon him; the crowd mocks him; the Roman soldiers scourge, brutalize, and finally crucify him; and the devil, somehow, is behind the whole action."

From my perspective, the film makes it clear that there were righteous and unrighteous Jewish and Roman leaders who played a part in the drama unfolded around the crucifixion of Jesus. It is fair to say that anyone leaving the movie theater with anti-Semitic fervor would have to be deranged and morally warped-or they didn't watch it.

According to Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus, Gibson would say, "Maia, tell me about your [Jewish] traditions. Is this OK to do?" Part of the frustration surrounding the accusations against the movie is that it was meant to be "very Semitic," according to Caviezel. "Instead of having an Aryan, blue-eyed Jesus, [Gibson] wanted to have a very Semitic Jesus," Caviezel told Newsweek. "Our faith is grounded in our Jewish tradition. We believe we're from the House of David. We believe we're from the House of Abraham, so we cannot hate our own. That crowd standing before Pontius Pilate screaming for the head of Christ in no way convicts an entire race for the death of Jesus Christ any more than the actions of Mussolini condemn all Italians, or the heinous actions of Stalin condemn all Russians. We're all culpable in the death of Christ. My sins put him up there. Yours did. That's what this story is about."

Jews and Jesus
Christian leaders might find it wise to defend The Passion as well as use this controversy in order to speak out clearly against the heinous and lingering sin of anti-Semitism. "Of course, even the most responsible, well-intentioned movie treatment of the last hours of Jesus will provoke concern in the Jewish community, because so many millions of Jews have suffered and died over the centuries due to Gospel-based charges that they are 'Christ killers,'" writes Michael Medved, the popular movie reviewer and Orthodox Jew, in USA Today. "But the fact that persecutors and bigots have distorted teachings of the New Testament for their own cruel purposes doesn't mean that those Gospel texts, sacred to all Christians, must be scrapped, revised or ignored in a serious work of cinema."

Respected Orthodox scholar David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish magazine Forward and author of The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism, wrote a very courageous and persuasive article on the subject for The Los Angeles Times. "Like the Christian Gospels that form the basis of Gibson's screenplay, Jewish tradition acknowledges that our leaders in first century Palestine played a role in Jesus' execution," he wrote. "If Gibson is an anti-Semite, so is the Talmud and so is the greatest Jewish sage of the past 1,000 years, Maimonides."

Klinghoffer quotes Maimonides, writing in his "Epistle to Yemen" in the 12th century, as saying, "Jesus of Nazareth.interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him."

Klinghoffer closes his article with a plea that rings with the wisdom of Solomon. "Considering that Gibson's portrayal coincides closely with the traditional Jewish belief," he writes, "it seems that leaving him alone is the decent, as well as the Jewish, thing to do."

The accusation of anti-Semitism has been an unjust albatross around Gibson's neck. "To be certain, neither I nor my film are anti-Semitic," he said in a statement published in Variety. "Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs; it is also contrary to the core message of my movie.[which is] meant to inspire, not offend. My intention in bringing it to the screen is to create a lasting work of art and engender serious thought among audiences of diverse faith backgrounds.

"If the intense scrutiny during my 25 years in public life revealed I had ever persecuted or discriminated against anyone based on race or creed, I would be all too willing to make amends. But there is no such record."

I have always believed

"I have always believed in God," Gibson told us. "From age 15 to 35, I was a hell raiser. In many ways, I still am," he said jokingly. He then went on to tell us that he had "come to a difficult point in my life and meditating on Christ's sufferings, on his passion, got me through it." Christ's passion became his obsession-and ultimately a healing balm. "I'm not a preacher and I'm not a pastor. But I really feel my career was leading me to make this," Gibson has said. "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize."

That should not be a problem. I have been a Christian for 20 years and after seeing The Passion I wanted to sign up all over again.

Steve Beard is the editor of Good News.
http://www.thunderstruck.org/

—Forum

I had the opportunity to preview the movie “The Passion of Christ” a few weeks ago. We gathered for an exclusive showing with church leaders from all fifty states. I can see why so many people have said this is the most powerful film they have ever seen. The two-hour film includes a 45-minute brutal beating of Christ by Roman guards. Many times I had to turn my eyes away to deflect the pain and violence. I would not recommend the film for any child or those sensitive to violent scenes.

Mel Gibson was present at the screening. He said that he spent three years consulting one thousand Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Medical experts. He wanted to get it right. He spoke from the heart and came across as a humble servant sharing a profound story of faith. He shared that making the film has changed his life. It has improved relationships and his marriage of 24 years. He stated he could never go back to making “Lethal Weapon” type movies.

The dialogue is in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. The languages add a sense of authenticity to the film but I must admit Aramaic sounds a bit like Klingon. Subtitles translate portions of the dialog but also reflect relevant Bible passages. The film is best described as an artistic interpretation of the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life rather than a historical docu-drama.

The film is uniquely sensitive to Gibson’s Catholicism. The scenes play close attention to the sacred nature of the blood sacrifice. Mary also plays a pivotal role in the film. The film uses flashbacks to reveal a hallowed montage of private moments between mother and son. You actually feel the pain of a mother caring for her condemned son. Mary deserves a best supporting award from the Oscars and all of history.

There is a limited use of special effects to portray the presence of demons mentioned in the gospel narratives. Personally; I did not feel the need for synthetic emphasis on demons in the movie. There was enough true evil portrayed in the hearts of those who condemned, beat, and punished him. The film condemns any who stand by and watch as innocent victims are punished. All humankind needs to acknowledge it’s own limitations and demons.

There has been significant controversy about the film. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League was also at the screening and has posted a comprehensive response at http://www.adl.org . The Roman Catholic Church has also responded. A 150-page booklet, "The Bible, the Jews and the Death of Jesus," will be released this week to every diocese in the United States, instructing Catholics on the Vatican's position: “That Jews were not collectively responsible for Christ's torture and death”.

Mel Gibson mentioned that he made “The Passion” because he was tired of seeing amateur or sugar coated religious films. He was surprised by this films acceptance by many non-believers. He realized that they appreciated the honesty and intensity of the production. It was also mentioned that some churches skip from Palm Sunday to Easter. They ignore the events of Holy Week and any significant references to the cross. This film helps us all to hear the whole gospel message and the true meaning of sacrifice. This is a comprehensive Theology of the Cross rather than a simple Theology of Glory.

At the conclusion of the film, Mel Gibson said that he plans to make other religious films if this one is successful. Ironically, no one in Hollywood thought the film had a prayer of a chance. Gibson had to finance the 25 million dollar cost on his own. CNN reports that churches scheduling private presentations have already sold 30 million tickets. That would render some $200 million in ticket sales before the film even opens. This film may set many records. I look forward to his next “spiritual” production. Would “Moses” be considered “Lethal Weapon 5”?

—Forum

As far as "The Passion of the Christ" is concerned, I believe it is the best cinematic portrayal of Jesus I PERSONALLY have ever seen and is probably the best portrayal ever. I only leave myself some wriggle room because I have not seen EVERY Jesus movie ever made, though I have seen more than my fair share.

I knew that Jim Cavaziel was going to do a good acting job based on his other work. What surprised me was how strong his Jesus was. Not only physically, but also in his demeanor. And yet not TOO strong.

Most of the Jesus movies I've seen make you wonder what Bible the filmmakers have been reading and what historical context they think these events took place in. What Mel Gibson has done is give us as fine a "Jesus in His own time" movie as I can imagine.

Being Jewish, I really appreciated hearing certain phrases in Aramaic that I am familiar with in Hebrew. Hearing Him called "Yeshua" was powerful to me or hearing Him called "Adonai". These are examples of what I mean when I say a "Jesus in His own time" movie.

When I saw the film "Bruce Almighty" I was able to point to Morgan Freeman's portrayal of God and say, "That's the kind of God I believe I serve." I feel even stronger about Gibson's/Cavaziel's Jesus. I still can't get over how wonderful it was to watch the movie unfold, to see them present the events as I've seen them presented in other films countless times before, and yet to feel that what I was seeing was fresh.

Why? Because we don't have a Jesus speaking with an "oh, so proper" British accent. We have a very human Jesus who can get boo-boos when He falls down as a child and who has a loving relationship with His mother. I think Mr. Gibson's portrayal of Mary (Miriam!) was reverential and yet not overly so in a way that would put off non-Catholics.

We have a Jesus who doesn't go through the events of the Passion in some detached "I'm an alien from another world" kind of way, but rather a Jesus who clearly feels what we would feel if it were us. I LOVE the use of flashbacks as the Passion unfolds and was very glad to hear from the gentleman during Q & A time that there were going to be more "back story" scenes added.

Between you and me, I wish I had another 25 million dollars to give Mr. Gibson myself and ask him and Jim Cavaziel to go back and shoot what I will refer to as "The Complete Gospel According to Mel." As stirring as seeing the Passion events was (and I know this is the core of why Mr. Gibson wanted to make this movie) I found myself wishing they had done "the rest of the story" because of the great job they did with the few sequences they do show.

I think the first time I began to weep rather uncontrollably was when Jesus rescued Mary M. from "the Stoners". Jim Cavaziel showed the strength blended with compassion that I personally believe was the essence of who Jesus was in the flesh. Once Jesus stomped on the serpent's head in the Garden of Gethsemane, I knew we were not in for "our Father's Oldsmobile"!

All that being said, I do understand the concerns being expressed by the Jewish community. As in most movies of this genre, the Jewish people end up coming across as the "guys in the black hats". Please understand that I know very well the historical truth of the complicity of the Jewish leadership in the crucifixion of Jesus, and of the Romans, and of the whole world for that matter. However, whether it's because of the costumes or the casting or I don't know what, the bad Jews still come out looking like the "baddest of the bad" while the good Jews (take the Apostle John as an example) don't look nearly as Jewish. Still Cavaziel is one of the most Jewish looking Jesus' I've seen.

I wish the clear fact that the followers of Jesus were JUST AS JEWISH as the Jews who were going OUT OF THEIR WAY to kill Him could have somehow been emphasized more.

I think there are a couple of key things that can be fixed that would help. I have done a tremendous amount of studying the cultural, historical, linguistic background of the New Testament, especially the Gospels. One of the subtleties I think was missed is that while there certainly were "Pharisees" involved, as the subtitles in the film indicate, the "Sadducees" were never mentioned. My historical understanding is they were the chief priests at the time and in fact the group with control of the Temple and High Priesthood. Grouping all the Jews as "Pharisees" is somewhat reductionistic and misrepresents the historical facts.

Another "tweak" that could help not show the Jews in the worst possible light would be to show Caiaphas and the rest of the leaders having to work a little harder to stir up the crowd against Jesus, rather than it looking like "all the Jews" were there just waiting to "get Him". Some believe that the crowd gathered before Pilate might have included a great number of Barabbas' supporters who really were not concerned about Jesus' fate. Mark 15:8 is an example of why some believe this might have been the case.

From some accounts I've heard, part of the reason the "Council" held their meeting in the night was to try to get Jesus before Pilate as quickly as they could, before most of Jerusalem had even woken up from their Passover Feast induced slumber. See Matthew 26:3-5 and Luke 22:1-2 for the rationale behind this thinking.

Another Historical factor that could help would be to emphasize the Passover as the backdrop against which these events are taking place and the urgency of getting Jesus' body in the tomb because it was about to be the Sabbath. Showing the veil being ripped in the Temple and seeing Caiaphas understand the significance of that happening would have been a nice touch while I think having Caiaphas' prophecy from John 11:47-52 would have helped establish God's role in bringing this event to pass.

Showing that in many respects it was the activity of Satan in the background of these events, that it was Satan spurring the various parties, both Jews and Romans, to do what they knew not what they were doing, helps give those who will be mouthpieces for this film something to point to. As I think the film also shows, Jesus LAID DOWN HIS LIFE. I think it's clear He could have stopped it had He chosen to. But oy the mess we'd be in if He had!

Having said all that, I was glad to hear during the Q & A that they are going to add in a couple more scenes of supportive Jewish voices and also the BRILLIANT move of darkening Jim Cavaziel's beautiful but nonetheless WAY TOO BLUISH eyes.

This is an extremely great example of sensitivity on the part of Mr. Gibson and whoever else is involved in making those kinds of decisions.

Mr. Gibson proved to me that he is sensitive to the Jewish people in a couple of ways. One was his emphasizing Jesus praying "Father forgive them" from the cross as Caiaphas walked by Him. Or pointing out the Jewishness of Simon the Cyrene and the beautiful depiction of Simon and Jesus baring the cross together. And make no mistake about it, the Jews have borne the cross of Christ in what they have suffered at the hands of so-called Christians in the name of Jesus since that fateful day.

As I stated in the Q & A, it is too bad that throughout its history Churchianity has neglected to recall that prayer (Father, forgive them) and has instead persecuted the Jews with such vengeance that it is almost impossible for them to even consider that this man, Yeshua, might indeed have been their Messiah.

I hope you understand the motivation behind these ideas is to help this movie reach its broadest possible audience and to make it accessible to the Jewish people without removing their historical involvement.

All that being said, as a child of Israel, I have finally seen a movie in which the One I believe is, was, and will be the Messiah of Israel was not portrayed as a Blonde Hippy from California or a Robed Neo-Nazi or an Anorexic Englishman. And I am beyond happy for that!

Which brings me to the box office issue. I am so pumped up by the film's having gotten (in my opinion) "right" what so many other Gospel-based films have gotten "wrong", that I wish it were playing nearby TONIGHT. I would grab my wife and see it as soon as possible. I want my kids to see it so they can understand the price that was paid. That aspect alone has left an indelible mark on my own soul. Thank you Mel Gibson for finally giving us a "real" image of what Jesus went through during the Passion. What haunts my thinking is that as brutal as this film showed the Passion was, the reality had to have been even worse.

I don't see any reasons why the Christian community will not and should not flock to this film. I don't know what that should mean for y'all in the numbers game, but I'd think it would have to be pretty significant. Oh sure, you'll have some drop outs from those who won't go see movies at all, or those who won't go see anything rated R (will this film be?) even if it's a quality film like "Braveheart", or those who just can't handle reading subtitles. But by and large, you should get a huge percentage of the faithful to see this when it is released. Ash Wednesday and all that is perfect.

I will admit I finally had to leave my seat during the Q & A from some of the questions today! It was all I could do not to get up and shout, "Would you please stop trying to make this BEAUTIFUL HOLY WORK OF ART into "Left Behind" or "The Omega Code"?!?" I for one thought the Resurrection was handled subtly and powerfully. Rather than teaching, like Jesus, in parables, Christians tend to S-P-E-L-L everything out. Especially in so-called "Christian Art". Nevertheless, I think any self-respecting Believer will absolutely HAVE to and WANT to purchase the DVD when it goes on sale. I'm sure the marketing folk are already hard at work putting together educational materials, etc., for churches, Christian bookstores, etc., that can be released when the film's theatrical release is over, right? 'Cause y'all ought to be able to sell a whole bunch of that kind of merchandise when that time comes.

The area I have less confidence in is "the unbelievers". For those of us who watched this film or will watch this film with a "vested interest", it is an unbelievable event. Many may not be able to handle seeing it more than once because it is so graphic. From a strictly cinematic point of view, I just don't know if there is enough "story" here to appeal to those who are "just looking for a good movie". That's why I'm on board with adding more and more back story and more and more context to The Passion. All it will do is make the story being told that much more powerful and possibly a more gratifying movie going experience for the "general populace" while still accomplishing Mr. Gibson's vision.

Yours Gratefully, Jeff Niems

—Forum

I recently attended a screening of the rough cut of The Passion of The Christ. Because it was a rough cut, this shouldn't be considered a true review. There is still work being done, including music and perhaps even some scene additions or deletions. So any true judgment will have to await the finished work.

The film does do a decent job of portraying the biblical events. It does tend to combine the various accounts, but we often do that in our own minds, rather than treating the Passion narrative of each gospel separately. The film is designed to focus on the biblical events, and does so well. It should be noted that the film includes some traditions and legends that are not part of the biblical account, such as stories involving Pilate's wife and St. Veronica.

It needs to be noted that this is a very violent and gruesome film. It will be rated R and rightfully so. The scenes of the scourging, the carrying of the cross and the crucifixion are long and intense. The scourging lasted at least five minutes, the crucifixion at least twenty-five. The intent of this film is to show the Passion as serious suffering.

The controversy around this film. Anti-Semitism (as a form of racism) is often a matter of subtlety. What Jews will see as anti-Semitic may differ from what others think is anti-Semitic. In a post-Holocaust world, we need to be sensitive to how things will be perceived.

That is not to say that Mel Gibson has set out to make an anti-Semitic film. In fact, there are ways that he has tried to make it clear that is not only the Jew leaders involved. Most of the violence, and the most severe violence, takes place at the hands of the Romans.

In an interview after the screening, Gibson made a point of noting that he is not blaming the Jews for the crucifixion. Rather, all humanity and each individual shares the blame for what Jesus went through on our behalf.

—Forum

—Links

BULLETIN BOARD (Rules)
Post your thoughts in the forum
View or post comments -click here.

Your Private Comments.
I will not post these comments. What are your personal thoughts?  I also welcome your spiritual concerns and prayer needs.  I will correspond with you, usually within two weeks. Click here