Concept Art for Passion of the Christ

One of the things that is interesting about researching a subject such as this is how often you turn up something interesting whilst you're in the process of hunting for another thing entirely. Thus it was that, the other day, I came across the concept art pages for The Passion of the Christ by Miles Teves. In his resume, Teves dates his work on the film to 2002, so its interesting to see the extent to which his work made it into the final film.

It's good to see images such as this making into the public domain. Whilst I don't have a special features laden edition of the DVD, I imagine some of this material is there to some extent, but it's still interesting to see this part of the process evolve, particularly for such a visual film.

What to Make of the Latest Story in the Mel Gibson Saga...

A lot has been said over the last couple of weeks about the latest stories about Mel Gibson. I'm always nervous about believing something just because the papers say so, but with audio recordings being online for anyone to hear, its difficult not to take it all at face value.

So I'll try to restrict myself to considering how these latest incidents might affect how we read The Passion of the Christ. For example, Kim Masters, in an article for The Hollywood Reporter quotes an anonymous producer who claims that "if he [Gibson] were to make The Passion of the Christ today, it wouldn't do a dime less business".

That seems to be a fairly outlandish claim. Not a dime less business? Not one person who bought a ticket last time might be put off this time? Peter Chattaway takes it from there:

The Passion of the Christ owed a huge portion of its success to the churches that bought out entire theatres and gave the tickets away, all in the name of "ministry" -- and one huge reason why the churches did this was because they bought into the "narrative" of Gibson's life and career, i.e. he was a devout Christian who had lost his way during the early days of his Hollywood fame but he had begun to turn his life around about a decade or so before he made The Passion.
...whatever the film's merits, I find it hard to believe that Gibson could have sold this film to North American churches today the way he did six or seven years ago. I find it hard to believe that churches would have wanted to associate with Gibson in the absence of some major, major public apologies -- and even then, I would think these scandals are "too soon".

Part of the problem here is, I think, that its far from clear what scenario is being envisaged. It seems fair to assume that the producer in question isn't talking about Gibson making The Passion again - that would be absurd, but imagining a scenario whereby Gibson didn't make the film then but made it in 2010 is equally problematic. For one thing, it seems unlikely that these latest stories, and Gibson's anti-Semitic outburst in 2006, would have gained quite as much publicity as they did were it not for The Passion. Gibson wouldn't have had the money or the fame to make Apocalypto without the profit from The Passion and whilst he did appear in Edge of Darkness it seems unlikely that these stories would have been such major news if it was the only film he had done in 7 or 8 years. Furthermore, these stories are all the more headline grabbing not just because they were about a movie star, but because they were about a movie star with such strong religious convictions that he made the most successful religious film of all time. Hypocrisy always sells.

Not entirely unrelated to that is furore around Gibson's anti-Semitic outburst of 2006. Whilst most, if not all, racist remarks by movie stars would be disapproved of by the media, this story had extra legs precisely because The Passion had been so strongly accused of anti-Semitism. Gibson's outburst was perceived by many as clear proof of those accusations, making the story more newsworthy.

That said, it's possible that the '"narrative" of Gibson's life and career', as Peter puts it, could still be spun in a way that might garner church support. Gibson's life could be depicted as one where he has battled with his faith, but has felt God with him and as a way of saying thank-you he wants to make a film about Jesus with 'the power to evangelize". I don't think the take up would be anything like as great, but I could still see it doing well, albeit with the kind of 'public apologies' that Peter insists would be required.

However, in the light of the anti-Semitic outburst, any such film would have to be substantially different in its handling of the Jews than The Passion was in order for it to be widely embraced. In 2004, many Christians felt that accusations of ant-Semitism were trumped by Gibson's perceived fidelity to the gospels. But in the light of that outburst, and perhaps even the subsequent learning/counselling from Jewish groups that Gibson said he would undergo, it seems likely either that Gibson would make the film differently, or that at least some church leaders would have had second thoughts about embracing the movie so unreservedly.

The other major criticism of The Passion, of course, was that it was too violent, and this, also, looks a little different in the light of these latest allegations. For me, the most disturbing part of the tapes is when Oksana seems to ask Gibson "What kind of a man is that? Hitting a woman when she’s holding a child in her hands? Breaking her teeth twice in the face! What kind of man is that?" and rather than deny it he appears only to say that she "deserved it". Now it appears pretty hard evidence, but I'm painfully aware of how even something like this could be misleading, so what I'm about to say should be read bearing that in mind.

Nevertheless, in the light of all this, the violence in many of Gibson's film seems somewhat more worrying, whether it was in the name of revenge (Mad Max), against himself (the dislocating his shoulder scene in one of the Lethal Weapon films and Wallace's death in Braveheart) and his saviour (in The Passion).

The Passion gave us what is far and away the most violent depiction of the crucifixion to date. If Gibson has beaten Oksana, does it change how we read it? Is The Passion a sub-concious lashing out at Jesus. Is it a reflection of the horror that he feels at his own sin, such that he goes so over the top in depicting the extent to which Jesus had to suffer in order to atone for it, beating himself by proxy so to speak? Or does Gibson somehow let the violence sees God impose on Jesus justify his own violent outbursts? Furthermore, does this incident shed any new light on the long standing discussion about whether violent movies result in a more violent society?

Lastly, I feel its important to state that I'm troubled by the way that so many of the areas around this discussion have become completely polarised: racist/not racist, violent/not violent, anti-Semitic/not anti-Semitic. It seems to me that we are all made up of the various influences on our lives. Some of those influences might encourage us to reject other ones, but it's not always easy to totally purge oneself of such negative influences.

Gibson's father is on record as a holocaust denier, and it's hard to see how Gibson Jr. won't have been influenced by that. At the same time, he clearly knows that it's wrong - he said as much after his 2006 outburst and there are signs of him curbing the excesses of Anne Catherine Emmerich's work in his adaptation of it, even if he wasn't able to do it to the extent that he should have. It's significant, to me at least, that this outburst happened when he was drunk and therefore the controls that he might place himself under in ordinary life weren't there. That doesn't excuse such comments or actions, but at the same time, the idea that it exposed 'the real Gibson' is too simplistic a take for my liking. Our self control is a part of the real us. Similarly, whilst the conversation with Oksana is horrendous, it's significant that Whoopi Goldberg has appeared on record saying he's not racist, and then had to defend herself because of her comments.

Now just because Whoopi Goldberg says something it doesn't mean it's true, but I do think that racism has become such an inflammatory topic these days that it's holding back our society from truly freeing ourselves from it. Even the British Nationalist Party says its not racist, whereas, in truth, I suspect that most of us harbour some unhelpful influences that we know are wrong and thus suppress. Until the term becomes less potent, I think it's going to be difficult to completely purge racism from our society.

The Atonement in Jesus Films

I've been struck recently by how few of the many Jesus films offer any kind of theological interpretation of the crucifixion. In a sense this makes sense for the big Hollywood films such as King of Kings and The Greatest Story Ever Told which needed the broadest possible appeal to recoup their production costs, but even in films made by Christians this is relatively rare. In saying this I am, of course, setting aside the sayings of Jesus relating to his own death - aside from Mark 10:45, these are usually fairly cryptic.

Brief examples are found in From the Manger to the Cross (1912) and Jesus (1979) which both end by citing John 3:16 (thus offering a brief interpretation of the crucifixion as an act of atonement).

Only three films really stand out for me. The first is Jesus of Nazareth (1977) which obviously has a great deal more time to explore such issues. As Jesus is dying, the camera cuts to Nicodemus (played by Laurence Olivier) who quotes from the suffering servant portion of Isaiah 53 as a commentary on the events that are unfolding.

We also find Isaiah 53 in The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). Throughout the film Jesus is unsure of which path he is to take, but then the prophet himself (played by the film’s director Martin Scorsese) appears to him and shows him the suffering servant part of the passage and Jesus is persuaded that he has to sacrifice himself.

The film also uses the colour red a great deal, evoking blood as well as power. When Jesus is tempted in the devil he bites into an apple and ends up with blood on his face. Shortly afterwards is the infamous scene where he pulls his heart out of his chest, and to underline the point the scene is captured with red lighting. Later, during Jesus’ first visit to the temple, blood red smoke billows up around a statue of Caesar, whilst blood flowing from a nearby sacrifice is licked up by dogs. Then as Jesus throws a money-changer's stall into the air a Roman coin lands next to blood dripping from a different sacrifice. Here the old system is depicted as mixing the blood of Jewish sacrifices with Roman idolatry, whereas Jesus’ quickly actions mark "the end of the old law and the beginning of the new". In addition to all this, is the instigation of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Not only does the film portray the cup of wine literally becoming blood, but blood is also shown on Jesus' palms as a nod, not only to the stigmata, but also to Jesus own fate.

The film which explores the blood of Jesus in greater depth than any other to date is, of course, The Passion of the Christ (2004). The film also quotes Isaiah 53:5 this time just before its opening scene. This is the lens that the rest of the film should be viewed through, and the penal substitution theory of the atonement is present throughout. That said, as Mark Goodacre has pointed out:

There is no question that The Passion of the Christ focuses in a major way on a substitutionary theory of the atonement, but as I argued in my article in Jesus and Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ (38-9) ...it is not the only perspective on the atonement in the film, which also makes a great deal of Christus Victor and exemplary ("no greater love") atonement theories.

Whilst many have criticised the film for it violence, in many ways such objections miss the point - at least from Gibson's point of view. The film is intended to be a contemplation of the suffering that Jesus underwent in order to reconcile humanity with its creator, it's an extension of a long held Catholic tradition. Even the question of whether or not the violence is realistic is not strictly relevant from that perspective.

I have a worrying feeling that in posting in this I'll be reminded of numerous other films that give a far more detailed exploration of the theology of the cross earlier in the film, but for whatever reason, they are not coming to mind right now.

Slant Magazine on Passion of the Christ and Last Temptation

There's a great piece comparing and contrasting The Passion of the Christ and Last Temptation of Christ over at Slant Magazine. Essentially it's a conversation between Jason Bellamy and Ed Howard who disagree on various issues, in particularly the weightiness of The Passion.

It's quite long though so I hope to have time later onto read it in its entirety. Thanks to Ron Reed's Soul Food Movies for the tip off.

Reel History on Passion of the Christ

On Wednesday I linked to some recent pieces on The Passion of the Christ by Juliette Harrisson and Alfonso Méndiz, and now The Guardian's Alex von Tunzelmann has posted her own views on the film. Despite the similarity in subject of von Tunzelmann's Reel History to Pop Classics, the two writers come to opposite conclusions on the film, which is kind of fitting given that it has always provoked similarly strong and yet similarly divided opinions.

Interestingly one of the things von Tunzelmann dicusses is how Satan's costume makes her look like a Jedi. I'm reminded of the post I made back in September 2007 that noted other similarities betwen this film and Return of the Jedi.

Pop Clasics on Passion of the Christ

As part of reflecting on Palm Sunday, Pop Classics' Juliette Harrisson has reviewed Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. As an expert in the classics, as well as a Catholic, it's nice to have her perspective on the film, and she doesn't disappoint with a good proportion of the article taken up discussing the film's use of language. Juliette says the film was recorded in Hebrew and Aramaic, which I'm not quite sure is the way I remember it, unless the use of Hebrew is for a couple of Torah quotations or something. But there's then a good deal of talk on the film's Latin as well including a couple of interesting new observations (which is quite an achievement given how much I have read about the film over the last decade). And whilst I've read several Catholic perspectives on the film the something about the combination of Classics expertise and Catholic faith that means she really gets this film on a level I, perhaps, do not.

There have also been a number of posts on The Passion of the Christ at Jesu Cristo en el Cine recently.

Repphun, Goodacre, Rosson on The Passion of the Christ

Eric Repphun of The Dunedin School, a blog I've not read before, has posted his list of the Top 11 Religiously Themed Films of the Decade. I've been toying with the idea of doing a similar list myself, particularly as this morning I sent one of my editors my Top 10 films of the decade article. There are some good choices on there including a few I've not yet seen, but it's the 11th that has caused a bit of comment elsewhere. Repphun includes The Passion of the Christ as "the worst", listing many of the usual objections.

Quick off the mark as always, Mark Goodacre has posted a response, noting a few errors along the way. The one that left me somewhat gobsmacked was his assertion that the "primary source material for the idea that Jesus was crucified with nails going through the wrists is the Turin Shroud". I'd thought it was tied in with the research related to the find of a crucified man's ankle bone, but apparently not.

One of Repphun's objections that Mark counters is the general charge of historical inaccuracy. Mark's contends that a claim for historical accuracy "was not part of the publicity for The Passion of the Christ". Here I'd disagree. To quote what I wrote in Mark's comments:

Gibson did claim at least twice that he was trying to be historically accurate. Firstly in an interview with Raymond Arroyo in the Wall Street Journal on March 7th 2003 ("I'm trying to make it as authentic as I possibly can, right down to the clothing, right down to the eating customs of the Jews of the old law") and then later with Andrew Gumbel for The Independent on 16th August 2003 ("(the film) will show the passion of Jesus Christ just the way it happened... like travelling back in time and watching the events unfold exactly as they occurred")

Unfortunately neither of these articles appears to still be online, I don't have either of them to hand either, but recorded them and their source in an article I wrote previewing the film back in 2004.

Mark's response draws a line "between interviews before the film and the film's own publicity". I can see his point, but I personally I don't think such a line exists, particularly in this case where the director is trying to build grassroots support for his film. Indeed I seem to recall that Peter Chattaway went as far as to say that even Gibson's claim "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film...I was just directing traffic" was a pitch (though I can't find Peter's quotation so I may be wrong).

It's interesting though that Mark has found his involvement with the BBC's Passion has brought The Passion of the Christ down in his estimation, particularly with regard to the anti-Semitism issue.

Anyway Loren Rosson also discusses this and includes a link to his own thoughts on the film.

MSN's "19 Actors Who Really Should Play Jesus"

Thanks to Joseph Hollies for pointing me towards this one.

MSN Movies has come up with a list of 19 Actors Who Really Should Play Jesus. It's a fun list and there are a couple of amusing choices (Sacha Baron Cohen for example). Just a few comments from me. Firstly, one of the names on the list is Christian Bale, but he of course has already played Jesus in 1999's Mary the Mother of Christ. Secondly Johnny Depp was one of the names talked about in relation to Anne Rice's Christ the Lord. Lastly Mel Gibson clocks in at number 14, along with the claim that his foot stood-in (see what I did there) for Jesus in The Passion of the Christ in the John 8 footage. I'm fairly sure this is a mistake. It's possible that after the hundreds of thousands of words I've read about this film that this fact has eluded me, but I figure it's more likely that MSN got confused between that and the oft repeated claim that Gibson used his own hands as those belonging to the soldier who hammered the nails into Jesus' hands.Edit: I've now had two comments from people verifying MSN's claim, so there you go. It looks like it is Mel's foot that we see in that scene (and of course the trailer).

Gibson Makes Passion Settlement

Mel Gibson appears to have settled his lawsuit with Benedict Fitzgerald, the screenwriter for The Passion of the Christ. The BBC website is claiming that Fitzgerald and Gibson have settled on an undisclosed sum after Fitzgerald claimed that Gibson told him the cost of making the film was substantially lower than it actually was. Last month he had demanded to see the accounts for the hit film. Fitzgerald is currently working on Mary, Mother of the Christ due to star Al Pacino as Herod.

Telford Reviews Passion Books

Durham University's William Telford is someone who's been studying the Bible and film for a long, long time. He first published on the subject as long ago as 1995 when his essay "The New Testament in Fiction and Film: A Biblical Scholar's Perspective" was included in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed. Essays in Honour of J. F. A. Sawyer and the text of his lecture on Jesus films - Images of Christ in the Cinema - has been around in one form or another for practically as long as I can remember.

So I was interested to see that the recent Review of Biblical Literature carried his reviews of not one, but two of the books that were written about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ - "Mel Gibson's Passion: The Film, the Controversy, and Its Implications" edited by Zev Garber and "Mel Gibson's Bible: Religion, Popular Culture, and The Passion of the Christ by editors Timothy K. Beal and Tod Linafelt. Garber's book has been reviewed at SBL twice before, (first by Mark Goodacre and then by Timothy D. Finlay) and I think it's fair to say that Telford's review falls somewhere between the two.

Incidentally, Telford's staff pages at Durham reveal that he has just signed a book contract with Blackwell's to combine edited versions of his "published and unpublished work on Jesus in film".

The Anti-Mary in The Passion

I received a number of interesting comments on my podcast on The Passion of the Christ, but there was one in particular that I've been meaning to mention here, as it's not something I've heard talked about elsewhere. Scott Knick made this point:

More interesting to me is the very high Mariology of the film, particularly in light of its passionate acceptance by American conservative Protestants. This movie is almost as much about Mary as it is about Jesus. The provocative image of the female Satan carrying the deformed, leering baby quite clearly positions Satan not as the Antichrist but the anti-Mary. That’s elevating the figure of Mary pretty darned high in the Christian cosmology, something I’ve never seen in a Jesus movie, and yet you never hear a peep about it in most commentary on the film.

It's interesting that whilst both that particular scene, and the film's generally high Mariology (her sensing Jesus through the floor for example) have both been talked about at length that the two have rarely been put together.

There are a few further points I'd like to make here. Firstly, whilst the Satan character is meant to be androgynous, the role is performed by a woman, perhaps also emphasising this point. Secondly, it's interesting that Mary Magdalene is portrayed as a follower of Mary as much, if not more, than she is a disciple of Jesus. Yes, there's the scene where she crawls towards him to touch his feet, but the film gives no indication of any relationship between the two, whereas the two Marys are clearly very close. In a way Mary Magdalene corresponds to the only one of Jesus's followers to remain faithful throughout the film - John. Whilst this is, I suppose, largely based on John's gospel, the link between the two Marys is certainly heightened. Jesus has a disciple, Mary has a disciple. I doubt that's what Gibson intended, but there's perhaps something in it.

Having said all that, it's unclear from scripture who or what the anti-Christ actually is, so equating he/she/it with Satan is certainly not a given. There's a modern tendency to picture Satan as the opposite of God, whereas he is nothing of the sort. So making Satan the anti-Mary rather than the anti-Christ could theoretically be about emphasising the lowliness of Satan's status rather than heightening Mary's. Nevertheless, this is certainly one aspect of the film I'll be watching very closely next time I watch it. I remember a number of shots from Mary's point of view and I'd be interested to see how these compare to those from Jesus's vantage point.

The Final Inquiry (L'Inchiesta)

For many people, Ridley Scott's Gladiator is the film responsible for the recent resurgence in epic films. Grand battle scenes, larger than life characters, yet at the heart of it, it's about one man's solitary quest. Others point to the influence of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Braveheart may have been the film that really set the epic wheels in motion, but it was The Passion which inspired a legion of movies that were linked to the Bible.

There are elements of both films in The Final Inquiry starring Dolph Lundgren and Monica Cruz - two actors who, for very different reasons, it's best not to cross in case you ever met them in person. Like Gladiator the action starts in Germania as a noble Roman soldier (Titus Valerius Taurus) leads his troops into victory against the local scraggy-blond Barbarians. There's a dying and noble emperor, double dealing enemies, and a muscular sidekick all crammed in to a whistle-stop tour of the Roman Empire.The film's link to The Passion is more direct. Set just a few months after the death of Jesus, Emperor Tiberius sends Titus to get to the bottom of what exactly happened on the day when, all over the empire, the sky clouded over. So Titus heads to Jerusalem where he talks with various characters who crop up in the gospels.

The continuity with The Passion is further enhanced by Hristo Shopov reprising his role as Pontius Pilate. Much has changed for Pilate over the last few months - he's gained a few pounds, slipped into something more comfortable and learnt to speak English. But there's also some discontinuity as well. Christo Jivkov played John in The Passion, but here he appears as St. Stephen.

Titus is joined on his mission by an enslaved German called Brixos, played by Dolph Lundgren. Lundgren largely sticks to what he does best - roaring and swinging his axe around as he watches Titus's back. Meanwhile Titus also sparks up a friendship with Tabitha, a beautiful Jewish Christian.If all that sounds rather cliché-ridden, then, this is probably isn't the film for you. From the opening title sequence when a group of galloping Roman soldiers come to a halt just to hear Titus say "Forwards" and ride on; through to Tiberius's informant just managing to squeeze out the last vital bit of information before he dies; through to the slave who stays on as his master's friend even though he has just been freed, there are clichés aplenty.

However, clichés aside, the film is actually fairly watchable. There's enough interest in the first half of the film as Titus turns detective and tries to get to the bottom of the story, and there's sufficient chemistry between him and Tabitha (Cruz) to make the love story believable. And the film's use of flashbacks to tell the story of Jesus through Titus's eyes is an interesting approach to the material. It reflects the situation we find ourselves in today unable to meet Jesus face to face we have to put together the facts about him from the various pieces of evidence.

It's also interesting to see a pre-conversion Saul of Tarsus unashamedly played as the bad guy. Usually films that deal with Paul at this stage of his life portray him as a sort of hero in waiting. He may be misguided, and a little hotheaded, but generally he's noble in his own sort of way. Here, however, he lays into the already prostrate Stephen with such relish that it's easy to see why it required nothing less than a vision of the risen Jesus to cause him to convert. The portrayal of Peter (below) is also unconventional, although in this case it's less satisfying as Peter is shown as still living in Galilee.Overall though, the history's not too bad. There's no reason to believe that the sky turned black as far away as Capri, of course, or that if it did Tiberius would somehow link it to the death of Jesus. But otherwise it is true that Tiberius retired to Capri, where he did become somewhat reclusive, and that, as a result, his people held him in fairly low regard. The film does view him through somewhat rose-tinted spectacles though. It's no surprise when it turns out that the reasonably unhistorical reason for his final voyage to Rome is in order to convert the empire to Christianity. Unsurprisingly when his heir (Caligula) finds out about his uncle's plans, the film reverts back to more widely accepted historical territory.

By then, the elements that made the earlier parts of Final Inquiry work have long since been suffocated by the film's underlying agenda. Attempting to demonstrate the rationality of Christian belief, the second half of the film resorts to far fetched storylines. For example, at one point Caiaphas, Saul and Pilate attempt to persuade Titus that the resurrections of both Lazarus and Jesus were faked by poisoning him.

So overall, Final Inquiry is a mixed bag. Whilst it's never quite as bad as it could have been, a relatively promising start deteriorates rapidly as the story heads towards it's conclusion. The evidence Titus Valerius Taurus may have been enough to convince him, but it's unlikely to cause many people to seriously reconsider their previous conclusions.

The Eyes Have It Demonic Similarities Between The Passion and The Miracle Maker

Over the years there have been various people who have spotted similarities between Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and other Jesus films. Some of them are very well known, for example the fact that Gibson shot his film in Matera, Italy - the same place where Passolini shot his Gospel According to St. Matthew. Others were apparent on the film's initial release. For example, Jeffrey Overstreet noticed so much similarity between this soundtrack and that of Last Temptation of Christ that he claimed that composer John Debney "turned in something that sounds like musical plagiarism".

Visual similarities have also been noted. Last year I had the pleasure of interviewing director Lance Tracy whose 2001 film The Cross had used flashbacks to punctuate the violence, and who claimed that one of GIbson's associates had seen his film. And Peter Chattaway has also noted various similarities with DeMille's 1927 The King of Kings such as the raven on the cross, and the difference between Jesus's cross and those of his disciples.One of the more unusual bits from The Passion is the scene following Judas's return of the money to the high priest (a hot from which is above). As he hides, tormented by his own actions, two Jewish boys stumble across him, and their initially friendly banter, turns into mockery, before the boys' faces distort and it appears that now Judas is being tortured by a demon or some such thing.

Last week I came across a very similar moment in The Miracle Maker (1999). This time it is Mary Magdalene who is disturbed, and the film is even more explicit, albeit in a later scene, that she is being tormented by demons. And this time rather than it being two Jewish boys, it is two Roman soldiers whose faces distort and terrify her, as shown below.I find this interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, because Miracle Maker was distributed by Icon, the company founded by Mel Gibson. Whilst he may have had nothing to do with it, it's hard to imagine he's entirely unfamiliar with it.

Secondly, I have a vague, and quite possibly incorrect, recollection that Gibson claimed he hadn't really paid much attention to the other entries in the Jesus films canon. We know he'd seen a few before as in the run up to the release he mentioned other Jesus films such as Pasolini's and those where Jesus had "bad hair", although that's no reason to doubt that he steered clear of them during filming. What's interesting, though, is that if he didn't directly copy these visual ideas, that they nevertheless appear to have entered his psyche and come out subconsciously.

Thirdly, it's interesting how this scene changes from one film to another. Obviously the way Mary and Judas are characterised in this film required that particular change, but it's interesting that the later film also changes the perceived persecutors from Roman soldiers (where there would be good reason to be fearful) to Jewish children. I don't think this changes my thoughts on the anti-Semitism question that I outlined in my recent podcast on this film, but it's certainly an interesting observation in that regard.

Bible Films and the Two Halves of the Brain.

I've just finished reading Walter Wink's book 'Transforming Bible Study'. Whilst it's primarily equipping its readers to facilitate a specific type of group Bible study, it also discusses the relationship between the right and left hemispheres of the brain, which, in turn, got me thinking about where Bible films fit into the picture.

Wink's main points are that the fields of academic study of the Bible and of personal transformation by it are growing ever further apart; that, very loosely speaking, these two fields map to the split that has been found between the two halves of the brain; that if we only use one hemisphere of our brain when we approach the Bible we are ultimately being "halfiwits"; and, thus that we should be seeking to re-integrate the two.

Wink also outlines the advantages of doing so, particularly for those approaching the issue from the academic (left side) side of the divide. He cites evidence suggesting that re-allocating time spent studying maths to music and art actually improved scores in maths, and goes on to cite various stories of scientists who have made their breakthroughs, not whilst hard at study but whilst engaged in something else entirely, such as Archimedes's bath, Newton's apple or Kekule's benzene ring. The theory is that once the right brain is given the chance to work on such problems it uses it's intuition and creativity to find a solution that the right brain would not have found. The final part of the argument is that the best situation is when both halves of the brain are working together.This got me on to thinking about a couple of examples where watching Bible films has been significant in increasing understanding. The first relates to my own experience. Perhaps seven or so years ago, I was still trying to make my mind up over whether Genesis should be taken more literally, or more symbolically. I swayed towards the latter, but still felt some sympathy with the former position. However, the decisive moment for me was watching John Huston's The Bible. That film takes a very literal approach, but at the same time its dark and primitive feel undermines its handling of the text. For me, for reasons I'm still not sure I can explain, the penny dropped, and these stories have remained firmly mythological for me ever since.

The second example I can think of is during the release of The Passion of the Christ. At the time I remember being amazed at just how many people said that this had made them understand more clearly how Jesus had suffered and so on. Shortly afterwards I was in a talk where the speaker really over did it on describing a crucifixion and I remember feeling it was all a bit over the top so soon after that film.In both cases there was a certain amount of critical understanding and academic engagement with the text, but looking at a more creative exploration of it enabled the viewers to "get it" on a whole new level. The penny dropped as the right side of the brain was brought into it.

And this, I guess, is one of the reasons why Bible films can be important, especially for those studying the text. Anyone who is studying a given text has a good knowledge of it, primarily from using the left half of their brains. By watching that text depicted on screen, the right half of the brain is brought into the equation and the two can work together towards more innovative solutions.

The Passion Without Subtitles

In preparation for yesterday's podcast on The Passion of the Christ I watched the film again. Although I've watched many bits and pieces of the film recently, I think this was actually the first time that I'd watched it all the way through since it came out on DVD.

Remembering that, prior to the film's release, Gibson wanted to release it without subtitles (before church leaders apparently convinced him otherwise) I've long thought it would be interesting to watch the film in this way.¹ Would it be able to "transcend the language barriers with... visual storytelling"?²

So I did it, and I think the answer to Gibson's question is that it depends on how well you know the story. I know the story very well, in fact I even know his version of the story very well, so I certainly had a good general idea about what was going on. But I was also aware that there was greater depth in the dialogue that I was missing out on. Indeed for anyone who was totally unfamiliar with the story the question may well arise as to why this prisoner is of particular significance. Sure he's treated brutally, but if he's ultimately going to die what makes this story special?What was good about the exercise was that it did enable me to watch the visuals more closely instead of trying to quickly read the words as soon as they flashed up and then have a look around. It enables you to enjoy the lighting, the atmosphere, the detail and the camera angles a great deal more. In other words it brings out the film's strengths.

At the same time, however, it also highlighted some of the film's weaknesses. In particular the frequent use of slow motion soon became tedious. It takes you right out of the moment and reminds you that this is only a film. "Look here's another camera effect", and so on.

The other thing that removing the subtitles did was enable me to focus more on the languages. I did a year of Latin at school (and hated it. How many 12 year old boys wouldn't?) so I'm vaguely familiar with that, but know nothing of Aramaic other than "Eloi, Eloi lama sabbacthani". Without the words being translated through subtitles the differences between how the two languages sound was much more apparent. Of course, many have pointed out that it's likely that conversations between the Romans and the Jews would have taken place in Greek, which would have changed things somewhat, but it was still interesting to be able to tell which language was being spoken when.Three further observations: firstly I don't recall noticing before that the shot of Satan screaming after Jesus dies takes place on the top of Golgotha. In fact this is the same camera angle (the God shot) and camera movement (pan back / zoom out) that we see when Jesus dies, only now none of the human characters are on the set, and everything is shot using a red filter. This also suggests that this is God's view on things.

Secondly, I was involved in a conversation a while back at Arts and Faith about the way the cross seems to levitate when the Roman soldiers turn it over to hammer the end of the nail round. I'd missed this on my initial viewings, but in watching again this week it was clear that the cross does indeed appear to levitate. Not only does it not slam into the ground (and this, remember, is a film where everything slams relentlessly into everything else all of the time) but also when the cross first begins to be tipped Mary Magdalene looks horrified, but then her reaction changes to a mix of relief and confusion. It's a strange moment in the film, and not one that is often discussed.

Finally, Peter's denial occurs in the actual room where Jesus is tried and amongst a frenzied crowd. This serves to make his fear at this point a little more understandable.

=================
1 - "Mel Gibson's Passion", Holly McClure - New York Daily News, January 26, 2003 - Now available at crosswalk.
2 - "Mel Gibson's Passion", Holly McClure - New York Daily News, January 26, 2003 - Now available at crosswalk.

Podcast: The Passion of the Christ

Why do these things always take until the last minute? Having tried to do everything well in advance, I've had a 'mare this month. The computer's been playing up, I've been absolutely exhausted everytime I sat down to re-watch the film and so on, but I've finally posted this month's Jesus Films Podcast. This month it's on The Passion of the Christ (my review).

There are twelve other talks in this particular podcast.

Caiaphas and Jabba the Hutt

I've commented before on the problematic visual elements of The Passion of the Christ, and wondered how differently the film would have looked (and been perceived) if the actors who played Caiaphas and Pilate had swapped roles, either with each other, or with the soldiers who scourged Christ. But I was writing an article for The Reader Magazine recently when an association popped into my head that I'd not made before. Wait for it... Gibson's Caiaphas holds an unnerving number of similarities with Return of The Jedi's Jabba the Hut.

Now before you dismiss this as the most ridiculous slur yet on Gibson's movie (and there have been many) let me just outline the facts. Both Caiaphas and Jabba are in positions of power. There shown initially in their respective lairs surrounded by sycophants who play along with their leader's general mood. Both are overweight and unattractive. Both are shown first and foremost in the dark of their hideouts. When they later come into the light they are clearly out of place. Both interview the hero (a Christ figure) and sentence him to death.

There are also a few similarities in composition. Consider for example these two examples:

Luke is in the light here, whereas Jesus isn't but otherwise the composition of these figures is very similar. As is the lighting, and the general atmosphere.

Now contrast these two pictures the reverse shot from behind the "seat of power". Since both films were very poorly lit, I've had to alter the brightness on these to make the background more visible (which of course it is when you watch these films in the cinema). But you can still make out how the architecture is somewhat similar, and again the composition of the shot with the characters on the stage in the foreground, the hero alone in the middle with an anonymous, yet hostile, crowd in the background. Of course Gibson was a little limited in his options here, but nevertheless it's an interesting point.

Finally (and definitely less significantly) note the similarities between these two guards.

Now I'm not saying that Gibson consciously modelled Caiaphas and his supporters on Jabba, but it does seem to have had some kind of subconscious effect (OK I admit I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat). Of course it could also be due to him simply dipping into the bigger frame of visual references that have been used in the visual arts to depict the detestable villain. The real question is though, why is that how Gibson mentally pictured it in the first place?

2nd Review for "Mel Gibson's Passion" Book (Garber)

Back in May, I linked to Mark Goodacre's review of a new book about The Passion of the Christ - "Mel Gibson's Passion: The Film, the Controversy, and Its Implications" edited by Zev Garber. Mark has now posted a link to another review of the same volume by Timothy D. Finlay. Both reviews now sit alongside one another on the Review of Biblical Literature website.

Together, these reviews are testament to the diverse range of approached there are to critiquing a book, particularly a 'dual-substance' work such as this. Mark's review treats the book as a single volume and deals with the various authors' collective faults. Finlay, on the other hand, takes the time to write a brief précis of each individual contribution. Finlay is more positive than Mark, although that is perhaps because summarising all 18 essays only leaves a little space for critical reflection.

Mark has offered some comments on the differences between his review and Finlays:

The review of Mel Gibson's Passion sits alongside my much more negative review of the same book. I received an email from the editor of the collection not long after my review was published suggesting that I did not give the reader a sense of the essayists' articles. My response is that I attempted to characterize the collection as a whole, drawing attention to the common themes and general thrust of the book, at the same time as pointing to the book's difficulties. Finlay's review therefore compliments mine to the extent that he provides a brief summary of each of the essays individually.

The two reviews work well together, although I, personally, find Mark's more interesting to read. And I can't say that Finlay's review makes me any keener to look at Garber's book for myself.

Mark Goodacre Reviews a New Book on Mel Gibson's Passion

Mark Goodacre has reviewed one of the many books about The Passion of the Christ for the latest Review of Biblical Literature. Like the majority of the other books released about this film thus far, "Mel Gibson's Passion: The Film, the Controversy, and Its Implications", is a collection of individual essays by a range of authors. This one, however, is a little different as twelve of the twenty chapters appeared in the special spring 2005 edition of the Shofar journal. Shofar's editor Zev Garber has also drawn in eight new articles, and ensured that each chapter has discussion questions.

More than once, I've heard Mark warn against the use of polemic so his extensive criticisms of this volume deserve to be taken seriously. The body of the review comes under two headings: Inaccuracies; and Overstatement and Hyperbole. In both sections there is little that could really be argued with, and assuming these are correct then this is fairly damning. There are a couple of points on which Goodacre praises the book, but even then it is fairly faint ("Within this framework the collection makes a valuable contribution to the debate", "in strongly revoicing some of the academy's concerns...it has some success" - italics mine).

It's disappointing to see yet another book about The Passion which is so one sided. There are already a score of books from church leaders lavishing praise on the film, or from academics damning it. Few step into the middle ground, or place essays by those in favour of the film next to those against it. Goodacre is one of the few academics who have discussed the film's pros as well as its cons so he is perhaps best suited to fight the cause for a more balanced discussion of the film. (See his essay "The Passion, Pornography and Polemic", an expanded version of which featured in the book "Jesus and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ").

See also my review of "(Perspectives) On the Passion of the Christ".

Text and Interpretation in The Passion of the Christ

I've been preparing for a talk I'm doing on Saturday looking at the historical information about the death of Jesus. As it turns out I'm making a few brief comments on The Passion of the Christ so I thought I'd post them here, and flesh them out a little. There's actually been very little written on this site about The Passion of the Christ (my review) directly, as it's only been mentioned in reference to other films, or its release on DVD.

=======

In the run up to Easter 2004, there was tremendous controversy about alleged anti-Semitism in The Passion of the Christ. Most lay Christians, and a good proportion of church leaders, were left slightly confused by all this. On the one hand they found the idea of anti-Semitism abhorrent, yet on the other hand they felt this was what they perceived to be an attack on God's word. After all Gibson was only portraying what he found in the gospels.

However, from a film-making point of view, the translation from a written text, to a film requires a huge amount of interpretation. Particularly when it is an ancient text; particularly when it isn't written for entertainment like say Shakespeare. And when you are trying to make one film from four different, ancient, non-entertaining sources, which have been sifted through 2000 years of theological reflection and artistic interpretation, then the amount of interpretation, creation and deviation is massive, even for those seeking to be as historically accurate as possible.

========

That, of course, doesn't even take into consideration that The Passion set itself the target of being a particularly visual film. Whilst, eventually, the film was released with subtitles, Gibson's initial vision was for The Passion was that it would rely on "visual storytelling" and the power of his images to convey the story. Admittedly, he was also able to draw on a general level of familiarity with the story, but even so this is a far heavier reliance on images than is standard. As a result, the level of interpretation is perhaps even greater in this film than in most.

Take, for example, the scene which depicts the trial in front of Pilate. We have no record of how Pilate really looked. Gibson portrays him as a noble, clean cut, philosophical type. He pauses in between the lines that are spoken to ponder their meaning, as if he is so carefully weighing the immense judgement he is making that he is caught in indecision.

How differently would Pilate have come across if he had been portrayed by one of the actors who played a Roman soldier in the film, perhaps one of the two who is responsible for carrying out the brutal flogging? What if he had barked out his orders and decisions, and his acting had reflected disdain, or disinterest in what was happening, or even a sadistic pleasure in seeing Jesus suffer?

The differences in physical resemblance between this philosophical Pilate, and the pudgy, ugly actor with bad teeth who plays Caiaphas has been commented on numerous times. What if Pilate's costume was adorned with tacky looking shiny objects, and Caiaphas was dressed fairly plainly. What if the two actors swapped roles but acted the part in exactly the same way. Would we feel more for this noble Caiaphas who has, after all, huge responsibility for the fate of the Jewish people, and has to deal with this power hungry Roman.

Then consider the size of "the crowd", leaving aside the motive Mark supplies for them being there (Mark 15:6-9), how big exactly is a crowd? A crowd in a football stadium might be 100,000 people. A crowd in my living room might be only 10 (it is a small living room). Pilate's house would, no doubt, have been a great deal larger than mine, but from there on in the way the crowd is depicted is straight from Gibson's imagination.

This crowd numbers around 300 people, packed into a massive space, as if Pilate frequently hosted such numbers when trying potential political revolutionaries. What if the space was smaller, the crowd looser and less animated? 50 to 100 people could still be called a crowd a such a situation. Either way, if Sanders' estimate that the Passover time population of Jerusalem was between 300,000 and 400,000 then even a crowd of a 1000 would be a drop in the ocean.¹ What if the film had showed that the vast, vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem at that time were not present, and urging the governor to execute Jesus.

There are, of course, numerous other points that can, and have, been made about this scene, and indeed the historical reliability of the accounts it claims to be based in. My point here is simply to show just how much translation is present in a couple of aspects of a particular scene. It also shows what a shame it is that many church leaders lined up so enthusiastically to inform those who listen to them that this film was historically accurate.

See also: Why is the Historical Jesus Quest so Difficult?

Sanders, E.P., The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.249