Mel Gibson's Rants: My Review of Gibson's Passion of the Christ Film (revisited)

(Movie review on Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ) THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST: That Blood-Soaked Mel Gibson Film (my movie review originally written in March 2004) By SDG DiamondHead Tonight I joined the thousands of Americans who have made what has almost come to be, a pilgrimage to see the new highly praised and very controversial film by Mel Gibson The Passion of the Christ. And after seeing this Mel Gibson spectacle,  what I'd like now to know is, exactly what was I supposed to get out of this film? What I got was a two-hour "Let's watch ‘Jesus’ get beaten" film--oh and yes, I also got to see the "she-devil" (the character of "Satan" played by a white woman) lurking about from scene to scene like some sort of "satanic" movie director.  And what, in Mel's mind, was the little bald-headed, evil-eyed midget that the  "she-devil" was holding, meant to symbolize?  But never mind that for now. There are much more important matters to address about this film. From nearly beginning to end, The Passion takes you on one of the bloodiest, most brutal, slowly agonizing, jaw-dropping cinema rides you've ever been on. Much of the film is centered around the fact that Jesus Christ  was brutally beaten and whipped just before his crucifixion. Looking at this film, one might be tempted or even deceived into believing that it was Jesus' "beating" that saves people rather than his actual death and resurrection. So much time and “special” attention in The Passion is given to this hard to watch,  tortured side of the cross, that were it not for the sake of historical accuracy, the entire film might have more appropriately been set in the ancient Roman Coliseum (hold back the hungry lions and bring on the sadistic, meathead Roman guards!). In The Passion the character of "Jesus" is beaten (Mel Gibson-style) and I'd just bet that while watching this Hollyweird cinematic torture feature, the gospel of salvation is the furthest thing from anyone's flabbergasted mind--which leads me back to my original question which was, exactly what was I supposed to get out of this film? Just how sensible is it to watch two long hours of the very multidimensional person of Christ, being presented in such a limited, one-dimensional way? Was his beating so much more important than his message of repentance and salvation? And do we really need to sit and see a long, two-hour depiction of this very evil moment visited upon his life? YES God intended for this to take place.  And YES, HE intended the outcome of this moment in history to be for good...the good of all mankind. And YES, through Jesus Christ we are called to a personal accountability, convicted or compelled to ponder weighty issues of life, death and eternity. We are called upon to make decisions and in one way or another we all ultimately do. We are the ones who must come face-to-face with our final destiny some day. And we are the ones who God is long-suffering for. Yet, in his film Gibson focuses nearly no attention to these all-important facts of life. Not for God's sake or man's is the more weighty issue of man's redemption given the starring role that it deserves. In Gibson's Passion, the issue of redemption not only does not even take the back seat, it is kicked out of the car and  altogether hurled to the curb. Instead, the energy, focus and strength of his film, are given over to one single, solitary theme: the brutal, bloody and sadistic beating of Christ due to Jewish insistence.   Then there is also that ever-present white female she-devil.   I'm still trying to figure out Gibson's need for a white female “Devil” and "Evil Midget". Why did Gibson portray Satan as a white woman? Doesn't the Bible clearly describe Satan as male? Yes it does! Does Gibson care only about scriptural accuracy when it comes to "beating up Jesus" scenes? Why the departure from accuracy when it comes to the person of Satan? Moreover, how are women--especially white women--suppose to feel about this bizarre, inaccurate use of their gender and race? Does Gibson feel that the female is somehow more "demonic" than the male? One has to be careful with a thing like that.  I'll just assume here that most females seeing this as sexist were properly offended by it and they should be. Rosalinda Celentano (as "Satan?") JEWS The depiction of certain Jewish figures in The Passion one could argue was of scriptural accuracy, but I was left with the depressing feeling that much was also INCOMPLETE--dangerously incomplete.  It seemed that much of the bad that the ancient Jews did was shown, but nearly none of the good that they did was shown. Peter was an excellent example of this. In The Passion, Peter was shown denying Christ three times as had been foretold by Christ himself in an earlier scene.  This is in accordance with what the Bible states. But Gibson's film did not bother go beyond that, to show Peter repented of denying his friend Jesus Christ, crying bitterly over what he had done. I felt that this was way too important to have been overlooked by the film maker. What exactly was the point of showing that Peter denied Jesus, yet not show that Peter went on to repent of his sin? Maybe if Gibson had used less time showing that "she-devil" with that revolting maggot crawling around on her nostrils, he may have had time to show the importance in the act of Peter's repentance . This was too important to leave out. Gibson does take precious film time to show Judas Iscariot (the betrayer) being tormented and chased by demons--curiously who happened to possess, of all things, little Jewish children!  Tell me Mel, just where did you find THAT in the Bible? Mel also made sure we'd see the sure-fire "faith-building" act of Judas committing suicide by hanging himself. And how disappointing to this reviewer that “Mad Max” did not take the time to show the kind-hearted Jewish member of the high counsel, Joseph of Aramethia, who donated his burial tomb to Jesus Christ and petitioned Pilate for Jesus' body. This was a righteous act done by...guess who, Mel? A JEW! In scene after scene, members of the Jewish high counsel (Pharisees) are given center-screen in The Passion and are presented to viewers with their unflinching demands for Jesus' death. Even after Pontius Pilate (Roman procurator of Judea) has had the character of "Christ" beaten severely and presented covered in blood before the Jewish leaders, they still insist upon his crucifixion. "Crucify him!", the crowd of Jewish characters shouted in unison. I looked for characters depicting Christ's disciples and for the other Jews of that day who believed in Jesus Christ. But I saw only the two Mary's--one being the character of his mother (who’s expression by the way, never changed throughout the movie. Was she really portraying a Michelangelo statue?) and the character of his brother. Regardless of Gibson's handling of this point, there were Jews of that day who believed in Jesus Christ (called "Yeshua") and who followed him. The first church of believers were Jewish--comprised of Jews who believed in Yeshua.   Some of them such as Peter and Stephen, and later Paul were killed because of their belief in Yeshua.  BALANCE Even in a movie centering around the crucifixion of Jesus Christ the Jewish Messiah, more time and attention could have been given to those on earth at that time, who were closest and most important to him--his disciples. So where did the other ten disciples go in Gibson's Passion? Just so you won't stay awake all night trying to figure it out, they were given brief cameos. To depict Judas as the Betrayer, Peter as the Denier, the Pharisees as the Instigators of his death, and a mob of screaming, angry Jews as Rejecters of Christ, may be spiritually accurate enough to some, but is it BALANCED enough, FAIR enough, GOOD enough for Christians and Jews alike? What is the good of showing the unrighteous acts, without showing the righteous acts? What do we gain from this?  Why tell of Judas, without telling of John? Why tell of Peter before the cock crows, without telling of Peter after the cock crowed? Why tell of the evil Pharisees, without telling of the righteous Pharisees? Why depict the Jews who rejected Yeshua, without also depicting the Jews who accepted and believed in Yeshua? Do we not owe recognition to the very first church of Jews? Dangerously incomplete? That's what I think. IN CONCLUSION   To some, it could be easy, way too easy to come away from this movie with a kind of negative, one-sided impression of the ancient Jews of Christ's time on earth. "Christ Killers!", some of the more ignorant might exclaim, regardless of the whole true story. And just how important is it to watch a depiction of only this part of Jesus' story-- two long hours building to a climax of this horrific, bloody depiction of the character of Jesus Christ getting beaten so incredibly viciously? This brings me full circle to my first and original question which was: Exactly what was I supposed to get out of this film?                  I already know what Mel got ($$$). Sorry Mel, but all that blood and gore in your Passion was just not sensible or edifying enough for me. Earlier, I had seen the remake of Dawn Of The Dead which is a much better well-written, acted and directed blood & gore film.   Please Mel, do us a favor and leave the darn bloody sensational films to the horror film makers of the world. They're better at that sort of thing. Maybe that's because they’ve obviously got more RESPECT for the stars of their films--ghoulish though they may be.