Entertaiment

Are you going to see The Passion of The Christ?

The decision is upon you. It opens in theaters February 25.

Mortality is little more than the endless process of making important choices – and surviving the consequence. Your decision to see — or not see — The Passion of The Christ may ultimately itself be one of passion.

Unless you’ve been in a coma — or care nothing for movies or popular culture –you know by now that The Passion of The Christ is Mel Gibson’s controversial feature film that focuses on the last 12 hours of Jesus’ mortal life.

I wrote about the film before I’d seen it. My perspective was professional. See “Shared Passion“.

This time I have seen the film. My perspective is personal.

Word of the film has spread primarily as a result of myriad private screenings with Christian clergy, Jewish critics, selected media, high-profile hosts including, Michael Medved, Bill O’Reiley, Opra and Keith Fournier. And from time to time guys like me.

My two sons and I were invited to a private screening of the film at ICON Production [Gibson’s company] in Los Angeles. Mel Gibson stayed for an hour after the screening to discuss the film with us. Needless to say it was a fascinating experience — in two parts.

Immediately following the screening of the film, I was anxious to write this article. My face-to-face dialogue with Mel Gibson about his film and my own efforts to portray the Christ in The Testaments was an exciting tale to tell. But I could not even discuss it with my wife. Before the screening, we signed a confidentiality agreement with a promise to say nothing of our experience, nor share our reactions in private or in press.

The long silence gave me time for the unforgettable images of the film to distill upon my mind. It gave me time to incubate my feelings and measure them against my understanding of the Savior. During the period of imposed silence, I gave much thought to what I would eventually say to you here. My feelings are conflicted. I wonder if I should write anything at all.

Meanwhile Meridian readers bombarded me with diverse criticisms of my comments in the earlier article. Some of you are hungry for more information about the film. Others demand that I tell them whether or not they should see the movie.

I was released from my “vow of silence” a few weeks ago. This is the moment of truth. What do I tell you about the film? Do I recommend that you see it or take it off your list?

Very little. Yes. No. Maybe.

Is the flurry over The Passion much ado about nothing as some have suggested? “It is only a movie after all,” a friend pointed out. I beg to differ. The Passion of The Christ is much more than “only a movie.”  In comparison to the movies of fantasy, escapism, hedonism, and even decadence that dominate our popular culture it is much, much more.

As a motion picture, The Passion of The Christ is a brilliantly-crafted piece of art. Gibson’s enormous talent as director was evident in Braveheart. In this film he is even better.  This film is distinguished by a personal passion that transcends his earlier work in significant ways. Gibson’s deep belief in the Catholic tradition and the passion of Jesus is evident in every frame.

Unlike almost every other feature motion picture spawned – one way or the other – by the Hollywood system, Gibson’s film is a very personal adventure. It was made without studio support and without major distribution.  Gibson made the film with his own money. Reportedly at a cost of $25,000,000 dollars.

On that basis alone The Passion of The Christ becomes singular among the motion pictures of our time. To see or not to see this film may merit more than a quick scan of simple criteria.

If you are browsing this article in search of a “notable quote” from Kieth Merrill on which you can hang your decision – or abrogate your personal responsibility — here it is.

I can neither encourage nor discourage anyone from seeing The Passion of The Christ.

Films can have a powerful impact on people, but no two people are impacted in exactly the same way. I liked it very much for a variety of reasons. Parts of it were difficult to watch. I plan to see it again.

I am grateful to Mel Gibson for his talent and his sacrifice. I am grateful that he created this intense vicarious experience as an emotional supplement in my quest to know the Christ and look upon his face. But that is me and you must decide for yourself. It is not a film for everyone by any standard.

The controversy swirling about Gibson’s film from its earliest beginnings has been focused on four issues.

 (1) No English is spoken in the film. The announcement that the dialogue would be in ancient Aramaic with English subtitles shocked Hollywood insiders and left audiences around the world trying to imagine the story of Jesus as a foreign language film.

(2) The film is accused of being anti-Semitic. Jews and others have condemned the film as “fanning anew the flaming plague of prejudice that has afflicted the Jewish people for 2000 years.” They express fears that the film could actually result in bringing violence to Jews. They are wrong.

The Jewish community and anti-defamation league is fearful that the film emphasizes the role of Jews in the death of Christ. They are right. The Jews are depicted as culprits in the death of Jesus, but their fears ignore historical reality. In the version of the film I saw, the role of the Jews is not unduly “emphasized,” but they are clearly and accurately implicated according to the Biblical history. 

Commentator, David Limbaugh said it perfectly. “How ironic that when a movie producer takes artistic license with historical events, he is lionized as artistic, creative and brilliant, but when another takes special care to be true to the real-life history, he is vilified.”

(3) The film is extremely graphic in the depiction of the torture and death of Jesus. Whatever other issues you may consider in your decision to see or not see the film, it is important that you become fully aware of (a) the intensity of the experience and the gripping, painful realism of the torture and merciless treatment of Christ and (b) Gibson’s merciless graphic window on those awful events. Your sensitivity – and tolerance — to the graphic realism of the events surrounding the capture, trial, torture and death of Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament must ultimately be your primary consideration. For your and for your family.

(4) Mostly for Mormons. The film is rated R.

Some of you have said that the MPAA rating board has made your decision for you. “If the film is rated R, I am not going.” Others wonder how we can ever expect to depict with realism the greatest of the Book of Mormon stories on the big screen without the blood of battle – and the inevitable R-rating from the distorted “make love not war” morality of MPAA – and not support films like The Passion of The Christ.

Let me address this R-rated issue first. I think it would be sad if you relinquished your agency to the MPAA and miss the film only on the basis of the collision between “rated-R” and Mormon doctrine.

Obedience is better than sacrifice. I encourage no one to do anything inconsistent with their faith. I believe in following the prophet. In 1986 President Benson told the Aaronic Priesthood, “We counsel you, young men . . . don’t see R-rate movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive or pornographic.”  Every prophet since has reiterated that inspired advice.

The doctrine of R-rated evolved in the 2001 Strength of Youth Pamphlet.

“…choose only entertainment and media that uplift you. Good entertainment will help you to have good thoughts and make righteous choices. It will allow you to enjoy yourself without losing the Spirit of the Lord. Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way.  Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable.”

This doctrinal document does not include any reference to R-rated movies or the MPAA rating code. The responsibility is no longer carried on the shoulders of the anonymous men and women who rate the movies in Encino California. It is squarely upon us.

We can no longer say, “R it is bad”. “PG-13 is OK.” We must apply a different standard. It is easy to define the criteria. It is difficult to measure ourselves against them.

If you are tempted to attend The Passion of The Christ out of some sense of morbid curiosity or to be “entertained,” don’t go!

Consider seeing the film only if you are sincere in your quest to gain greater insight into the death of Christ. I say “death of Christ” because that is what the film is about.

Consider seeing the film only if you seek a deeper and historically detailed appreciation of the last 12 hours of a life that changed the world.

Consider seeing the film only if you can glean from the brutality of the images a better understanding of the ultimate purpose of His life.

Consider the film only if you are confident it will engender good thoughts, inspire righteous choices and allow you to retain the Spirit of the Lord. The graphic nature of the images notwithstanding, nothing I saw deprived me of the spirit of the Lord. To the contrary, seeing the Savior through the eyes of his mother touched the deepest part of my soul.

People experience films differently. Some are enveloped and engaged. Some are entertained. Some are objective observers. Some are consumed by the subjective power and vicariously experience feelings and emotions otherwise impossible. You must know thyself in facing the decision.

While most of the articles written by those who have attended private screenings have been positive there are many detractors. There follows two opposing views and very different perspectives. I present them without comment to help you in your choices.

The first is from: Most Rev. Stefan Soroka, Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in U.S.A., Archbishop of the Archeparchy of Philadelphia

“I would not recommend the movie to my friends nor to the faithful (and particularly the young), because the film, while interesting in the way some things are portrayed (particularly evil), lacks content to really engage my interest.

If you want to see over two hours of cruelty, intense torture, and lots of blood, with tidbits of informing scenes of who this Jesus is, you might want to sacrifice your time and money to see this movie. The Passion makes an extraordinary effort at presenting the horrific effects of a crucifixion, a very cruel punishment inflicted by the Roman Empire on its subjects. Roman soldiers are depicted in long and lingering scenes of enjoying the scourging, whipping with instruments that tear at the flesh, and exercising their authority harshly and without mercy. The film offers very few flashback scenes of Jesus in his lifetime, and ends sharply with just an indication of his resurrection. There is very little offered to help the viewer to come to know and appreciate Jesus in his humanity and in his divinity.”

The second is from: Keith Fournier, well-known author and constitutional lawyer

“From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of filmmaking and an artistic triumph, The Passion evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children.

Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this “invitation only” gathering of “movers and shakers” in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.”

My experience in watching the film was much more Keith Fournier than the Reverand Sorokan. For me it was a positive experience. Powerful, Memorable. Something I would not wish to delete from my mind or memory.

 I look forward to seeing The Passion of The Christ when it opens on 1200 screens across America.  I am told there have been changes. I worry that the addition of digital effects will accentuate the brutality rather than enhance the positive aspects of the story. I wish Gibson had shown more restraint in the portrayal of violence.

There is much to like about this film. The depiction of Mary, mother of Jesus, and the powerful connection so artfully presented between the suffering man struggling beneath the cross and the carefree boy of youth touched me deeply.

For all that is lovely and praiseworthy in the film my enormous disappointment with The Passion of The Christ is that the film is only about His death. There is no glory in the resurrection. No appearance to the apostles to affirm the great miracle. No triumph over death. No light to give meaning to the horrors of the pain and suffering that went before.

The film I was hoping to see was obviously not the film Gibson set out to make. Mel Gibson’s focus was intensely set on the authentic recreation of the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life. He chose to put emphasis on the brutality and torture and death. It can be disturbing or like one painting in a great gallery of Christianity add a meaningful perspective to the broader understanding without presuming to be an expression of totality.

I felt a bit betrayed. After enduring the brutality of torture and the emotions of the crucifixion Gibson does not reward us with the ultimate victory of Christ over the grave. I should have been prepared. Having traveled the world and visited hundreds of Cathedrals and Holy Sites including the Vatican, I am accustomed to the Catholic emphasis on the pain, the suffering and death.

Latter-day Saints are blessed to know Jesus Christ, as few other Christians understand Him. To us the story of Christ – even his death – is ultimately about life and hope. From the darkness comes the light. From His death comes life everlasting. There was none of that in Mel Gibson’s film.

You could argue in fact that the film ultimately misses the whole point of Christianity. The prelude to Christ’s death and the death itself is dramatic, but the message of the Gospel is not that Christ died. The ultimate good news is that he defeated death. He rose from the grave. He is alive and in drinking from the bitter cup – which Gibson captures brilliantly – he gave mankind immortality and the possibility of eternal life.

There is only a fleeting impressionistic glimpse of the resurrection in the version of the film I saw. In our conversation following the screening, I asked Mel if he didn’t think it would be a good idea to make more of the resurrection. In movie terms, use the reality of the resurrection as the ultimate “pay off and resolution” to the central question of the film. He told me that there was some special affects to be added that would enhance the final scene. I have not seen the final version but based on the handling of the resurrection in the version of the film I saw I do not expect that added effects will be sufficient to make the resurrection what I so desperately wanted it to be. 

During the incredible emotional journey that Gibson planned for us, I prayed that he had used his enormous talent to depict the resurrection in a way that would lift us from our sorrow and allow us to experience the emotional exaltation that Christ’s victory over death deserves. He did not. At least, not for me.

Is The Passion of The Christ a film that you should see?

Yes. No. Maybe.

“It is only a movie for goodness sakes,” according to my friend. It is only two hours in a lifetime. It is not the beginning, middle and end of the Christian expression, nor is it intended to be. For those who believe in Christ and who have “taken his name upon them,” the film may be interesting or worthwhile or colorful bits of glass in the mosaic of our lives.

I cannot recommend this film to you.

I cannot NOT recommend this film to you.

It was for me an uncommon experience that transcended most of what we have come to expect in the movie theater. I will see it again on the big screen when it comes to this area.

It is graphic. It is intense. It is brilliantly crafted. It is enlightening. It is difficult to watch at times. It is something I would not want to miss.

Not everyone will be able to watch it. Not everyone should. But for those who go prepared and abandon themselves to the experience, it can be remarkable. As a follower of Christ, I am grateful that Mel Gibson gave so much to give me the experience of walking beside the Savior in his final hours.