Starring: Jim Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern
Director: Mel Gibson
Rated: MA15+
MEL Gibson has responded to comments last year that The Passion of the Christ was too brutal and bloodthirsty for some audiences.
Many potential viewers decided that the reports of the visual violence influenced their decision not to see the film.
So Gibson has recut the film, making it six minutes shorter.
More accurately, he has “trimmed” his film with the hope that it will find the audience who did not see it originally and that it will receive a lower age classification this time, making it accessible to younger audiences.
In fact, it still has retained the MA15+ rating in Australia.
The release and marketing of The Passion Recut was left until the end of Lent, whereas Christian audiences would have considered going to see it during Lent.
From Easter Sunday, the liturgical and spirituality mood of the Churches is that of the Resurrection rather than the Passion.
In fact, the recut version seems very little different from the original cut. The alternate images of Mary during the scourging and the lessening of the loud impact of the whips means that this sequence, though still very strong, does not seem quite so much over the top.
The way of the cross seems unchanged, except for a lessening of the impact of the crow’s attack on the unrepentant thief.
One of the interesting features of re-viewing the film a year and more after the initial controversy is that the film seems stronger.
Sensitive to the criticisms that the film was anti-Semitic, many thought that the appearances, especially of Annas and some of the Sanhedrin, seemed like caricature villains. This does not seem to be the case.
Trying to hear whether the blood curse of Matthew’s Gospel was spoken by the leaders and the crowd, we hear only a murmur, no distinct words.
It is surprising to read the Passion account in Matthew’s Gospel and note how much detail of the screenplay is taken from that text.
Dramatically, many sequences are just as effective – Peter and his protestations, his drawing of his sword, his denials in the jostle of the courtyard and his weeping and confession to Mary; the significance of Judas, his going to the authorities, Gethsemane, his bewilderment in the courtyard, his torment by the children and the rotting corpse of the donkey as he hanged himself; the support of Simon of Cyrene who is taunted as being a Jew.
Jim Caviezel’s screen presence is strong, a well built man who could endure so much suffering. His quiet gentleness, smiles and humour in the flashbacks are a welcome counterbalance to the suffering.
Maia Morgenstern’s performance and presence as Mary made a great impact originally and retain their power, both her strength in grief and the moment when she weeps.
Practically everyone who saw The Passion of the Christ last year felt compelled to mention the scourging and its brutality, whether they admired the film or not.
In retrospect, it seems somewhat strange that so much comment was made on what people saw in those nine minutes and comparatively little on the flashbacks which were so well placed to give a wider perspective on Jesus’ personality as well as his ministry and which, in dramatic terms, relieved the intensity of the torment.
The Passion of the Christ was made principally for American audiences and, by extension, for English-language audiences.
However, since the film was spoken in Aramaic and Latin, it lent itself for subtitling everywhere.
Australia is part of the worldwide cinema complex trends. The Passion had wide release in this country with reviews for and against being published in The Catholic Leader. The debate about Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitism was strong. However, The Passion was number one at the Australian box office for two weeks in succession, echoing the patterns of the American release.
Nobody expected The Passion of the Christ to have the box office success that it did.
In the United States alone, it made almost $400 million in cinemas (a little below such blockbusters as Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King).
In the first few days of its VHS and DVD release in August, it sold at least 9 million copies. Christian groups hired cinemas for special screenings as well as making block bookings.
During 2003, when there were test screenings, especially for Church leaders, the focus of controversy was the potential for anti-Semitism.
Many American Jewish leaders spoke out strongly on the issue, critical of the film and of Gibson himself. However, other Jewish leaders pointed out anti-Semitism is the deliberate and malicious maligning of Jewish people. This was not Gibson’s intention.
However, given the 20th century history of persecution and the reality of the Holocaust, it was thought that Gibson showed himself somewhat insensitive to Jewish feeling. Gibson tried to explain that he was not anti-Semitic. He gave a 30-minute interview (as did Jim Caviezel) to Raymond Arroyo of the US Eternal Word Network while the film was in production, which is a useful source for gauging his intentions before the onrush of criticism.
Last month I was invited to do a series of interviews on The Passion Recut for BBC regional radio. Only one of the interviewers raised the issue of anti-Semitism.
The issue of the violence of the film and the brutality depicted has caused a great deal of media debate and prevented a number of people seeing the film, fearing they would not be able to watch and bear the violence.
Had the film been about any other person but Jesus, would the film have been made like this and allowed to be shown?
