A credible Jesus

The
Catholic Weekly
Online

Sydney
15 February 2004

Birthday wishes for Aloysius

SA parishes merge

Focus on family

Gregorian Schola offers singers big chants

Gibson’s Passion ‘work of faith’, says cardinal

How to help create a ‘culture of peace’

Pregnant pause: The joy of showing our baby the way

There is a doctor in the house

Wollongong diocese buys site for high school

Boree log bush bash

Work in Catholic education brings honour for four

Bishop launches ‘significant’ new faith courses

$80,000 boost for drug fight

Editorial: Greatest story

Letters: Something special

Conversation: Fr Aiden Kelly, prison chaplain - Helping souls in a captive Congregation

On a walk with God ...

A credible Jesus

A biblical-based Mary

A life of Mercy with music

Care, prayer still very much in order

The Polding legacy

‘Catholic-only’ order denied

US-bound on the pitcher’s mound

A credible Jesus

TERRIBLE SUFFERINGS: Jesus carries his cross to Calvary ... Caviezel was the same age as Jesus when the film was shot, a believable human Jesus, a big, solid workingman able to stand up to the awful ordeal of the Passion

By Fr Peter Malone MSC

Mel Gibson’s long awaited movie The Passion is scheduled for release on Ash Wednesday, February 25, after a year of worldwide discussion and controversy about its content.

This has been based on apprehensions about how the film would be made, as well as on sensitivities about Jewish-Christian history, anti-Semitism and current dialogue between Judaism and the Churches, especially in the United States.

Some of the discussion, held on a high level, especially among theologians, biblical scholars and religious leaders was based on reports of initial drafts of the film.

The Passion of Christ has been a long-cherished project of actor-director, Mel Gibson. His Catholic affiliation and support of traditional Catholicism was another controversial factor in the discussions.

Early screenings of The Passion as a work in progress offered opportunities for Church leaders and

Christians involved in media to see the actual film, offer their opinions and dialogue with Mel Gibson.

There seemed to be a consensus that it was not anti-Semitic. Some Jewish leaders and reviewers like Michael Medved spoke positively about the film. Several heads of Vatican offices saw a show-reel of the film and spoke positively, including Archbishop John Foley, head of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and Cardinal Dario Castrillon, of the Congregation for the Clergy, who issued a statement urging all priests to see the film.

Cardinal Walter Kasper received comments from Jewish leaders and issued a statement that the Vatican at large was not recommending the film and that any recommendation would depend on people seeing the completed film.

As regards the Jewish-Christian issues and the explicit language about the Jews in the Gospels, especially that of St John, it is important to realise that the more formal, ‘official’ antagonism between Christians and Jews emerged in the early decades of the second century.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John emerged from Jewish communities.

Luke’s Gospel draws strongly on the Jewish scriptures interweaving biblical references and motifs throughout the text. The clash between Jesus and the religious leaders of his time was a clash within Judaism, a religious controversy about the Messiah (of which there were a number in this period) and Jesus’ claims.

Disciples who became Christians accepted his claims. Many religious leaders among the priests and the pharisees did not.

There were other converts like Paul, who was proud of his Jewish heritage and who took a strong stance about disciples of Jesus not being bound by details of Jewish law.

It has been difficult, given the centuries of antagonism and the experience of repression and persecution of Jews by Christian, and Catholic communities to enter into the context of Jesus’ time and the mentality of the period.

The long traditions of Christians accusing Jews of being ‘Christ-killers’ also played their part in the debate.

The Catholic Church apologised for the persecutions and frequent anti-Semitism of the past in a Vatican II document (1965) and Pope John Paul II visited the Western (Wailing) Wall in 2000 and inserted his own prayer in a crevice, but questions about Jesus’ death as being part of God’s plan and how the Jewish religious leaders of the time and the Romans, with Pontius Pilate, fitted into this plan, continue to be raised.

My attitude towards the film was very positive.

The Passion draws its narrative from each of the four Gospels, for instance, the quake and the rending of the temple from Matthew, the fleeing young man from Mark, the women of Jerusalem (here, Veronica and her daughter) from Luke, the Pilate sequences on truth from John.

This linking of incidents in one narrative is the way in which the Gospel stories were remembered and written down. There is some material drawn from the later legendary stories and apocryphal gospels (Veronica and her veil, Desmes the ‘bad’ thief).

One of the difficulties that films of the life of Jesus encounter, especially from scholars and theologians not versed in the techniques and conventions of cinematic storytelling, is that they sometimes tend to be critiqued and judged as if they were actual Gospels. They are found wanting at this level and dismissed or condemned. This is a danger for The Passion. It needs to be reiterated that this is a film and that the screenplay is a ‘version’ of the Gospel stories with no claim to be a Gospel.

This use of the four Gospels means that there are different perspectives on the Jews of the time in each Gospel. Matthew’s Gospel presupposes detailed knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and sees Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy. Hence the more ‘apocalyptic’ scenes at his death. Mark and Luke look on from the outside, Luke writing for readers familiar with Greek and Roman ways of storytelling. John’s Gospel from the end of the first century echoes the roots of Christianity in Judaism but acknowledges the growing rift.

The screenplay is able to combine Gospel incidents into a coherent narrative of the passion with selected flashbacks to Jesus’ infancy and life in Nazareth (his fall as a child, his making a table in the carpenter’s shop, his relationship with his mother and his playful sprinkling her with water as he washes his hands) which are inventions in the spirit of the Gospels, to Mary Magdalene’s past where she is combined with the woman taken in adultery of John 8, to Peter and his protests of loyalty, to the Last Supper. There is a flashback to the palm welcome of Jesus to Jerusalem during the heckling of the crowd on the way to Calvary. There is dramatic development of characters like Pilate and his wife, Simon of Cyrene, the centurion, the good thief and the thief who reviles Jesus (with retribution seen in the form of a vicious crow attacking him).

As with most Jesus films, much attention is given to Judas. His motivations are not made explicit in the film. It relies on audience knowledge of Judas.

The principal theological issues that concern viewers of Jesus-films are:

1. The humanity and divinity of Jesus,
2. The resurrection of Jesus

The passion of Christ generally follows the approach to the person of Jesus used by the Synoptic Gospels, a ‘low’ Christology, a focus first on the humanity of Jesus and moving towards an awareness of his divinity.

When the film uses John as a source, it reflects that Gospel’s ‘high’ Christology, the presupposition in the narrative that Jesus is divine and expresses this divinity in word and action.

The Synoptic approach is seen in the flashbacks of incidents before the Passion as well as in the main events of the Passion, the agony in Gethsemane, the treatment of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and Herod, the scourging and crowning with thorns, the way of the cross and the crucifixion itself.

The Johannine approach is found in Jesus’ declaration of his being the Son of Man at his trial (which is also in the Synoptics) and the discussions with Pilate about truth and about his kingdom.

This means that, theologically, the film presents the perennial teaching that Jesus, in his person, was both human and divine in nature.

The humanity of Jesus is often presented in a striking manner: Jesus working in Nazareth, the experience of deep human pain in his agony, scourging, falling on the way to Calvary, the nailing and his experience on the cross. It is there in his dignity at his trial, his composure with Pilate and Herod.

The film also highlights Jesus’ human anguish of soul and sense of abandonment in his agony and on the cross, along with his profound surrender to the Father.

While the Jesus of cinema is usually slight and slender in build, Jim Caviezel is a big and strong man, with some girth, a credible carpenter and a solid man. This makes the film’s Jesus more real than usual.

Some commentators criticise a film which focuses on the Passion for its meagre treatment of Jesus’ resurrection (this was a criticism of the musical of Jesus Christ Superstar 30 years ago, too).

Theologically, the Passion makes sense only in the light of the Resurrection.

While Gibson’s film wants to immerse its audience in the experience of the Passion, the final sequence has the stone rolled over the tomb. The stone is rolled away, the cloths wound around Jesus’ body are seen collapsing and the camera tracks to Jesus in profile, sitting in the tomb as a prelude to his risen life.

These are the images with which the audience leaves the theatre. The Resurrection, presented briefly, is still the climax of the Passion.

There are flashbacks to the Last Supper during The Passion, especially to Peter protesting that he would not deny Jesus and to Jesus washing the disciples’ feet.

One of the major theological strengths of the film is the insertion of the Eucharistic scenes of the Last Supper during the nailing and the lifting up of Jesus on the cross.

As Jesus offers the bread as his body, we see the body which is painfully broken and given for us. As he offers the wine as his blood, we are only too conscious of the blood-letting, blood poured out for us. Jesus tells his disciples that there is no greater love than laying down one’s life for friends – and we see it in its fullness. He tells them to celebrate the Eucharist so that his passion and death will be present to them. In this way, the screenplay highlights both aspects of the Eucharist, the celebration of the meal, the communion and the sacrifice of Jesus.

Gibson had indicated his skills in directing with Man Without a Face (1993) and his Oscar-winning Braveheart (1995).

One of the principal intentions of the director and his co-screenwriter, Ben Fitzgerald, is to immerse audiences in the realism of the passion of Jesus.

Actor Jim Caviezel – the only other name performer is Italy’s Monica Bellucci (Mary Magdalene) – was the same age as Jesus when the film was shot. As mentioned earlier, he is a believable human Jesus, a workingman able to stand up to the terrible sufferings of the Passion before he died.

One controversial aspect of the film is the use of only Aramaic and Latin in the dialogue. We needed the subtitles, many of which are quotations from scripture.

There is no distraction in hearing anachronistic American or British voices and accents. Rather the audience hears what conversation was like in those days.

It is helpful to be reminded that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not English!

A useful distinction to be made is that between ‘realism’ and ‘naturalism’. The latter refers to film-making that portrays action as it is, home movies being a popular example, as is footage shot for newscasts.

‘Realism’ is film-making that helps audience have a genuine feel for what is going on on the screen, as if it were real. A number of cinematic devices, such as the style of different compositions for the screen, the types of shots and the pace of the editing can be used to give this impression of realism.

Gibson has opted for much of his film to be ‘naturalistic’. He has plenty of time available and is in no hurry to take us away from the picture of Jesus’ suffering.

A number of people in the audience will find the scourging (in two grim parts) too much to watch. With most of the characters being portrayed in a naturalistic way, the action seems authentic.

However, Gibson is able to use cinematic devices which alter perceptions, helping us realise that we are seeing a particular version of the Passion, as all of us do when we listen to the Passion narratives and use our imaginations. He frequently uses moments of slow-motion filming to make us dwell on a particular moment.

This naturalism is seen in the confrontation in Gethsemane, at Jesus’ trial, with the scourging and the crowning with thorns and, especially, the way of the cross as Jesus struggles with the cross, falls with thudding impact, is nailed and the cross raised.

The Passion of Christ offers a credible, naturalistic Jesus whose sufferings of body and spirit are real. What impact it will have on those who are not believers is very difficult to predict.

For those who believe, there is the challenge of seeing pain and torture which are easier to read about than to see, but there is also the satisfaction of experiencing familiar Gospel stories in a different way.

Fr Peter Malone is president of Signis, the World Catholic Association for Communications and an associate of the Australian Catholic Film Office