The Passion of the Christ

Okay. I admit. My main impetus for creating this blog was to self-publish my review of "The Passion of the Christ." With the exception of the Village Voice, none of the reviews I read of the movie got at the central point---that this is a poorly made film hiding behind the scrim of 'importance.' So here is my take on it:

With “The Passion of the Christ,” Mel Gibson has created a masterpiece. A work that will be studied and admired for years to come. No, not the film. I’m talking about the genius of Gibson’s marketing plan. By focusing the world’s attention on the flashpoints of violence and anti-Semitism, Gibson has averted all attention away from the fact that this movie is just plain bad. Forget historical and biblical accuracy (Gibson certainly did). Forget political correctness (ditto). This is just another case of an over-inflated Hollywood ego believing that box-office returns equal actual talent. Indeed, if it weren’t for the media-fueled controversy preceding the film’s release, “The Passion” would have been quickly shuttled out of theaters and filed under ‘Ill-Conceived Vanity Projects’ along with “Waterworld.” Because the movie is just bad.

We start the film with an agonized Jesus in the garden. And just in case James Caviezel’s overwrought anguish and sweat-soaked brow don’t convey enough of the drama of the film, Gibson films the scene in murky blue and grey tones and splices it with multiple shots of a foreboding night sky of the sort you would expect to see in a B-level horror flick. From there, the movie quickly descends into action so chaotic that I struggled to follow the plot---and I think I know the story well from 27 years as an active Catholic. I pity the poor agnostic who hasn’t heard the story twice a year (Palm Sunday and Good Friday), every year for his entire life and therefore doesn’t know what is supposed to be happening.

The key word with this film is ‘over’---overwrought, overdone, overemphasized, overplayed. Why drop a meaningful look after five seconds when holding it for ten will make it just so much more meaningful? And why show it only once when you can repeat it over and over again? Why use regular speed when you have slow motion which makes the action so much more dramatic? Why stick to biblical or historical record when making it up is so much more fun? Every cinematic cliché is used and abused---dramatic sky shots, sweeping crowd shots, slow-motion heroics, a sweeping orchestral soundtrack. And just in case you are too dense to pick up from these production cues that this is a dramatic story about good triumphing over evil, Gibson packs in the symbolism---a snake getting squashed under Christ’s sandal; a ghoulish, Gollum-esque Satan sliding through the shadows; a white dove hovering overhead; a black crow descending on a non-believer. Again, why limit yourself to yourself to one or two powerful yet subtle motifs when you can use so many obvious and shallow ones?

This isn’t a movie about good and evil; it is about ego and excess. What this film could really use is some restraint and originality (although Gibson’s interpretation of the Passion story is certainly creative). Unfortunately, once again, ego triumphs over art and marketing overshadows merit.