What Mel Gibson has achieved with "The Passion of the Christ" goes beyond any sort of personal belief system. This will not stop its crusaders nor its detractors from doing everything they can to promote their agenda of his film. How else can you explain the whopping number of 10's and 1's that the film has concurrently received so far in the Internet Movie Database's voting system? The people have let their religious beliefs get in the way of judging the film.
We've seen this before. The roles were reversed when Martin Scorsese did his own "The Last Temptation of Christ." The secularists loved it and many Christians thought it was blasphemy. But Hollywood, and many who study it, are hardcore secularists eager to trample out any sort of movie that might, Heaven forbid, put Christ back at the forefront of American culture. Their agenda is threatened by this because they don't want their belief system changed particularly if it makes their practices look questionable to the majority of people. You don't believe me? Let's just wait and see if the Criterion Collection attempts to get DVD rights for Gibson's film. And please don't hold your breath while you wait.
But history has a strange way of treating movies. "Citizen Kane," largely ignored in its own time because people simply could not grasp what Orson Welles had accomplished is now viewed as the greatest film ever made. "How Green Was My Valley," which all but swept the Academy Awards that year is now no more than a footnote in history. Many people today have not even seen it and probably never will.
It is not what people will say about "The Passion of the Christ" this year that will determine this film's place in history but how long they will say it. The magnitude of Gibson's vision in creating not just the last hours of Christ but the volume of pain and suffering that he experienced in giving his life for all man's sin has earned this film a place in the top 10 films ever made. Those are strong words. But it is an even stronger film.
It is difficult to even find a flaw in the film. Gibson should get props, even with Hollywood's secularist agenda, for best picture and best director. Jim Caviezel will get a sure nod for best actor and Maia Morgenstern should be considered for supporting actress as well for playing the misery stricken mother of our Savior. Caviezel in particular plays the son of God with such charisma, radiance, strength, and tenderness that his place as the greatest Jesus of all time to grace the silver screen is solidified. Screenplay, cinematography, and especially makeup and visual effects should all get Oscar mentions for 2004 as well.
Many critics have said the violence of Christ's sufferings is too over the top to merit this film much more than a bloodbath on par with a decent horror flick. These are the same critics who liked "Natural Born Killers" and "Kill Bill." As I said, they have an agenda and you can throw their comments out. Carnage of this sort, to express a point and show man's inhumanity, has not been seen since "Schindler's List" (also in the all-time top 10) and no one rode Steven Spielberg's back for that monumental effort. The film IS extraordinarily violent but to be fair to Christ (which previous films could not do because of the time they were made in) it must be so to express exactly how great his sacrifice was.
Even with the violence, where Mel Gibson truly succeeds is in his minimalism. The film is not bogged down in text, a possible pitfall considering it was made in Aramaic and Latin. One can actually say that the film could have lived without text at all. Gibson also shines in displaying the political turmoil that existed between the Pharisees and their followers, Christ and his followers, and the Romans themselves. True historians will note that Pilate was on Caesar's hot seat even before Christ came along, explaining his rather sympathetic character when the uprising begins. Gibson also added a Satan character to the action that pushes the film forward and I think it was a stroke of brilliance on his part to do so. The film's best scene, which I believe is arguably one of the most beautifully crafted scenes in motion picture history, is Christ's resurrection. Ironically, it is comparable to the way Spielberg brought "Schindler's List" to a conclusion with Liam Neeson's fateful goodbye to the Jews he helped save ("I could've got more.") There is simply not a dry eye in the house. Mel Gibson knew exactly what he had in mind to bring us this vision and it is a feat of true directorial craftsmanship.
But at the end of the day, "The Passion of the Christ" will give most viewers exactly what they bring into it. If you are a Christian you will see your views expressed better than they ever have been before. If you are a secularist your belief system is going to be threatened and you will probably not even be able to judge the film with any rationale because having Christ at the forefront of American society again (a feat this film could possibly pull off) would be the worst thing for your views and lifestyle. If you are prejudiced against Jews, you too will find things to encourage your already ridiculous notions...even if you have to make them up yourself because the film certainly doesn't. Mel Gibson is not out to change our world but to show us his world and he has succeeded beyond belief. And if he and Christ pick up followers on the way, the film will not only have done its job but have acted as a messenger and this is what true cinematic masterpieces do in the first place.
The nutshell: Absolute required viewing and an immediate entry into the top 10 films ever made. Considering that "Braveheart" also notches a place in the all-time top 20, if Gibson stayed behind the camera more his status as director could be on a par with Hitchcock, Griffith, and Scorsese...10/10.
We've seen this before. The roles were reversed when Martin Scorsese did his own "The Last Temptation of Christ." The secularists loved it and many Christians thought it was blasphemy. But Hollywood, and many who study it, are hardcore secularists eager to trample out any sort of movie that might, Heaven forbid, put Christ back at the forefront of American culture. Their agenda is threatened by this because they don't want their belief system changed particularly if it makes their practices look questionable to the majority of people. You don't believe me? Let's just wait and see if the Criterion Collection attempts to get DVD rights for Gibson's film. And please don't hold your breath while you wait.
But history has a strange way of treating movies. "Citizen Kane," largely ignored in its own time because people simply could not grasp what Orson Welles had accomplished is now viewed as the greatest film ever made. "How Green Was My Valley," which all but swept the Academy Awards that year is now no more than a footnote in history. Many people today have not even seen it and probably never will.
It is not what people will say about "The Passion of the Christ" this year that will determine this film's place in history but how long they will say it. The magnitude of Gibson's vision in creating not just the last hours of Christ but the volume of pain and suffering that he experienced in giving his life for all man's sin has earned this film a place in the top 10 films ever made. Those are strong words. But it is an even stronger film.
It is difficult to even find a flaw in the film. Gibson should get props, even with Hollywood's secularist agenda, for best picture and best director. Jim Caviezel will get a sure nod for best actor and Maia Morgenstern should be considered for supporting actress as well for playing the misery stricken mother of our Savior. Caviezel in particular plays the son of God with such charisma, radiance, strength, and tenderness that his place as the greatest Jesus of all time to grace the silver screen is solidified. Screenplay, cinematography, and especially makeup and visual effects should all get Oscar mentions for 2004 as well.
Many critics have said the violence of Christ's sufferings is too over the top to merit this film much more than a bloodbath on par with a decent horror flick. These are the same critics who liked "Natural Born Killers" and "Kill Bill." As I said, they have an agenda and you can throw their comments out. Carnage of this sort, to express a point and show man's inhumanity, has not been seen since "Schindler's List" (also in the all-time top 10) and no one rode Steven Spielberg's back for that monumental effort. The film IS extraordinarily violent but to be fair to Christ (which previous films could not do because of the time they were made in) it must be so to express exactly how great his sacrifice was.
Even with the violence, where Mel Gibson truly succeeds is in his minimalism. The film is not bogged down in text, a possible pitfall considering it was made in Aramaic and Latin. One can actually say that the film could have lived without text at all. Gibson also shines in displaying the political turmoil that existed between the Pharisees and their followers, Christ and his followers, and the Romans themselves. True historians will note that Pilate was on Caesar's hot seat even before Christ came along, explaining his rather sympathetic character when the uprising begins. Gibson also added a Satan character to the action that pushes the film forward and I think it was a stroke of brilliance on his part to do so. The film's best scene, which I believe is arguably one of the most beautifully crafted scenes in motion picture history, is Christ's resurrection. Ironically, it is comparable to the way Spielberg brought "Schindler's List" to a conclusion with Liam Neeson's fateful goodbye to the Jews he helped save ("I could've got more.") There is simply not a dry eye in the house. Mel Gibson knew exactly what he had in mind to bring us this vision and it is a feat of true directorial craftsmanship.
But at the end of the day, "The Passion of the Christ" will give most viewers exactly what they bring into it. If you are a Christian you will see your views expressed better than they ever have been before. If you are a secularist your belief system is going to be threatened and you will probably not even be able to judge the film with any rationale because having Christ at the forefront of American society again (a feat this film could possibly pull off) would be the worst thing for your views and lifestyle. If you are prejudiced against Jews, you too will find things to encourage your already ridiculous notions...even if you have to make them up yourself because the film certainly doesn't. Mel Gibson is not out to change our world but to show us his world and he has succeeded beyond belief. And if he and Christ pick up followers on the way, the film will not only have done its job but have acted as a messenger and this is what true cinematic masterpieces do in the first place.
The nutshell: Absolute required viewing and an immediate entry into the top 10 films ever made. Considering that "Braveheart" also notches a place in the all-time top 20, if Gibson stayed behind the camera more his status as director could be on a par with Hitchcock, Griffith, and Scorsese...10/10.